First episode
Episodes
Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 1 · 40:11
More episodes
- Ep 2 — Author's IntroductionAuthor's Introduction.
To present Islam as a social school of thought, possessed of coherent and harmonious principles and oriented toward the collective life of human beings, is one of the most urgent necessities of religious thought.
Islamic discussions and studies have, for the most part, until now lacked these two vital characteristics. For this reason, in comparing Islam with the social schools and ideologies of our age, they have not brought researchers and seekers to a fruitful conclusion or a decisive judgment to the degree that one might wish and ought to expect. That is to say, they have proven incapable of presenting—as a whole—the design and blueprint of a unified, cohesive creed whose every part holds together, and of defining its relationship to the other schools and creeds.
In addition, because the discussions have generally been carried out in a mental, abstract manner, far removed from the sphere of practical and concrete—and especially social—impact, they have yielded nothing more than an intellectual, mental sort of knowledge. With respect to the collective life of human beings—and in particular with respect to determining the shape and structure of society—they have offered no commitment, no obligation, and not even a clear and definite theory.
Another point is this: the Qur'an—Islam's decisive and indisputable document—has in most cases been given no share in illuminating the way and opening the path. In its place, quasi-rational subtleties and deep speculations, or conjectural narrations and transmitted reports—sometimes accorded even greater authority—have been treated as the standard-bearers and the responsible authorities. As a result, doctrinal thought has grown and taken shape apart from the Qur'an and in disregard of it. Perhaps it is precisely this disconnection and indifference—or a sense of needing nothing from it, or a despair of the possibility of making sound use of it (each of which, in turn, is the effect of particular causes)—that has caused contemplation of the verses of the Qur'an to give way to a superficial, careless, fruitless recitation and chanting, devoid of worldly benefit and aimed entirely at otherworldly reward and recompense, so that the noble Book of God has become the raw material of vulgar habits and of demagoguery that exploits the common people.
In view of this reality, one may, in brief, regard three important features as necessities in the intellectual discussions and accounts of Islam—necessities that it is unworthy for the aware and responsible thinkers of this age to neglect:
First, that the teachings and intellectual apparatus of Islam should come out of pure abstraction and mentalism and—like all social schools of thought—should be oriented toward practical duties and especially toward social life; and that each of its theoretical topics should be examined, reflected upon, and investigated from this standpoint: what plan it offers for the life of the human being, what purpose it offers for his existence, and what path it offers for reaching that purpose.
Second, that the intellectual questions of Islam should be studied in a connected manner, as the parts of a single whole—each one examined in light of the fact that it is a part of the totality of the religion, an element of this compound, and a pillar in this firm edifice, harmonious with and connected to the other parts and elements (and not separate and unrelated to them)—so that, from a knowledge of these principles taken as a whole, a comprehensive and all-encompassing general design of the religion may be derived, in the form of a complete, unambiguous ideology possessed of dimensions commensurate with the multidimensional life of the human being.
Third, that in deducing and understanding the principles of Islam, the basic documents and texts of the religion should be the source and origin—not personal tastes and opinions, nor the mental and intellectual stockpiles of this person or that—so that the result of the inquiry and investigation may truly be "Islamic," and nothing other than that. To fulfill this aim, the Qur'an is the most complete and most trustworthy document upon which one can rely, that "falsehood cannot reach it from any direction," and in which "there lies the means of clarifying every thing," and this, of course, in the light of the deep, far-reaching contemplation that the Qur'an itself has commanded us to undertake.
What has been gathered in this treatise is a reflection of an effort to fulfill these aims, in the form of an account of Islam delivered through a series of lectures.
In these lectures, the effort was made to seek out the most important intellectual foundations of Islam, in their most constructive and living dimensions, within the eloquent and luminous verses of the Qur'an. Then, while offering an explanatory exposition that would teach the listeners the method of contemplating and pondering deeply over the Qur'an, those foundations were to be identified and shown within these verses; and, where necessary, recourse was to be had to the authentic narrations issued from the Prophet of God and the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them) for clarification and emphasis—so that, while verses of the Qur'an were reflected upon, pondered, and understood, one of the principles of Islam would be expounded—and this from a practical standpoint, generative of commitment and obligation, and as one of the points of Islam's mode of thought and ideology.
…And finally, so that a summary and a distillation of the whole of the material presented might remain in the minds and thoughts of the listeners, and might serve as a starting point for independent and settled thought and reflection, the substance of each lecture's content was recorded on a sheet of paper and placed, day by day, at the disposal of those present…
What is now offered is the collection of those "summaries" (with slight modification), the publication of which is a necessary response to the logical and acceptable request of many of those who heard the lectures, or heard of them… in the hope that it may prove useful and find acceptance.
The third of Aban, 1353Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 2 · 6:51
- Ep 3 — Faith (1)Session 1: Faith (1).
delivered Thursday, 28 Shahrivar 1353 / 2 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat Al 'Imran (3:133-134).
And hasten to a forgiveness from your Lord and to a Garden whose breadth is the heavens and the earth, prepared for the God-conscious — those who spend in prosperity and adversity, who restrain their anger and pardon people; and God loves those who do good.
The monks of Christianity took up monasticism so that the hem of their garment should not be stained by sins; they sought refuge in caves and mountains and desolate corners. The Qur'an says: And the monasticism which they invented — We did not prescribe it for them.
That is: the monasticism which they themselves brought forth, which they established as an innovation — We had not prescribed monasticism for them. But the Muslim scholar has no monasticism, no seclusion, no flight. The Muslim scholar is precisely the one who strives to lay hold of the drowning man. An aware, Muslim individual is exactly like this — and so is every Muslim human being, since being a Muslim and being responsible entail one another. He strives to save the drowning man, the cholera-stricken, the sick. This cannot be accomplished by flight. He makes himself God-conscious (muttaqi), possessed of taqwa — that is, he puts on the necessary equipment, the necessary armor, against the harm of sin, and enters the zone of sin in order to take the sinners by the hand. In short, taqwa is this.
Once this is the meaning of taqwa, is taqwa a prerequisite and a means for victory, or not? You see that, quite easily, it is a means of victory. The one who wishes to overcome this disease, to be victorious in this zone — if he were perpetually afraid that this microbe might take effect in his own body, how could he rescue those struck by the microbe, those struck by cholera? He must have made himself secure; he must be assured about himself, and then enter the zone of the cholera-stricken and rescue the others. It is then that he will also attain victory. It is then that he will also accomplish this task with ease.
And be conscious of God, that perhaps you may be the victorious. And be conscious of the Fire that has been prepared for the disbelievers. And obey God and the Messenger, that perhaps you may be shown mercy.
Now, obedience to God is no different from obedience to the Prophet — so on what account does He say: obey God and obey the Prophet? Is it not redundant to mention both of them together? No. If He were only to say "Obey God" — obey God — and not mention the Prophet as a concrete instance and exemplar, and not call to mind obedience to the Prophet, then those who stand at the opposite pole from the Prophet might also claim: we are obeying God. The scope of claims is wide; anyone can openly profess the cause of religion and faith and taqwa. Anyone can claim to be a servant of God and obedient to Him.
In the time of the Prophet, both the Prophet claimed servitude to God and obedience to Him, and likewise those who, on the front opposing him, fought against him and made trouble — the leaders and lords and monks of Christianity, and the rabbis of the Jews — these too made the claim: And the Jews and the Christians said, 'We are the sons of God.' — even a notch above the Prophet: he said, "I am the servant of God," while these said, "We are the children and the sons of God." They imagined that obedience to God was entirely at their disposal. Or, to put it another way: they themselves do not even really think it; some of those disobedient to God merely pretend in this manner that they are obedient to God. Is that right or not? There are some who, when they sit alone with themselves, find what a black record they have; they understand that what they say is, from head to foot, a lie. Yet before the people they pretend in this way that they are the good servants of God and the obedient ones and the worshippers of the Lord. These must be set apart from the truly truth-worshipping people; they must be distinguished. This is why, here, God the Exalted — in the station of explaining obedience and its necessity for the believers — speaks in this manner: And obey God and the Messenger. If He had not said "the Prophet," the enemies of the Prophet too would have said, "We are obedient to God." Therefore it must be made clear what obedience to God means. Those who consider themselves servants of God, but are not servants of the command of God's law, who do not act upon the law, who are not bound to the requirements of this servitude — how can these say, "We are servants of God"?
Obey God and the Messenger, that perhaps you may be shown mercy.
What does the mercy of God mean? What does it mean to be placed within the mercy of God? Here, make a comparison between the expression of the Qur'an and our popular, vulgar notion. We say: if we are sinners, if we have disobeyed God, if we have not acted upon the obligatory duties and commitments and responsibilities, if we have not drawn our foot back from the forbidden zones of the Lord — we have only one hope. What is it? It is the mercy of God. That God should deal with us by His mercy, that God should have mercy upon us — this is our claim and our talk. That is to say, the customary talk of our society and our people is this. Where do we place the mercy of God? For there where we did not act. Whereas — when we have disobeyed, when we have trampled underfoot the forbidden zone of God, when we have not observed the divine responsibility and commitment — in just such cases we say: we have no deeds, unless God have mercy on us. We regard mercy — the mercy of God, the mercy of the Lord — as the rival of acting and the substitute for acting.
The verse of the Qur'an is the reverse; it says: act, obey, that perhaps you may be placed within the mercy of the Lord. The mercy of God is for that time when a nation acts upon its responsibility. God has mercy upon a people at the time when they obey Him, when they carry out their duties. Should seven hundred million Muslims sit awaiting the cloud of the Lord's mercy to rain down upon their heads — and meanwhile open the roads so that the thieves of honor and the plunderers of religion may come and carry off everything they have — sitting in hope of the mercy of God? Then tell them to keep sitting, for now!
And obey God and the Messenger, that perhaps you may be shown mercy. What does it mean, "Obey God"? In what does obedience to God consist? It consists in this: that we bear upon our shoulders all the duties and divine proofs, and carry out what has been placed in our charge. As the noble verse of the Qur'an says: the believers are those who, when a dispute occurs among them, refer it to you, O Prophet — they have recourse to you — and when you have issued a ruling, then they find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged — the command you have issued leaves not the least speck of resentment upon their spirits and their hearts — "and they submit in full submission."
The true believer is like this. If a nation were like this, an ummah — if a body of people came under the command of God in this manner — then it is that the mercy of the Lord and His infinite grace would encompass them; then it is that an ummah attains lordship; then it is that a nation reaches human maturity; then it is that the captivities and chains are loosed from its hand and foot; then it is that divine mercy encompasses it. And obey God and the Messenger, that perhaps you may be shown mercy.
And hasten to a forgiveness from your Lord — here is the field of contest, the field of taking the lead and of racing. Outstrip one another, take the lead, toward a forgiveness and a Paradise "whose breadth is the heavens and the earth," from the side of your Lord, as wide as the heavens and the earth, made ready for the people of taqwa.
There, one sign of taqwa and one result of taqwa was mentioned; here, the signs of taqwa will be mentioned one after another. O human being who, for a handspan of earth and a measure of water and clay in such-and-such a region of the world, are ready to take the lead, ready to leave others behind, ready to put to work and employ all your strength and powers, so that you may — in the auction of such-and-such a piece of land, in acquiring such-and-such capital, in seizing such-and-such a shop, in taking such-and-such a corner of such-and-such a country, in setting up such-and-such a company in such-and-such a region of the world, in obtaining material privileges as much as possible — for these you are ready to compete, to gather speed, to leave others behind, even though you have trampled honors and virtues underfoot — O human being! They do not tell you: do not gather speed; they do not tell you: sleep at home, do not put your powers to work. The one who, in the name of religion, says this to you, lies and does not know. Religion does not say: leave your powers idle; religion says: gather speed, as much as possible; compete, as much as possible — but toward what? Toward that which is worthy of you, not toward a handspan of water and clay, not toward some trifling sum, not toward the material life of this world which, whatever it may be, is small and slight for you. O great human being! Toward something that befits your grandeur, that accords with your station — for the human being is the loftiest of the creatures of this world, the greatest of the grandeurs of existence after the Lord, lodged within this small and limited frame — O great human being, gather speed, compete, but toward what?
To a forgiveness from your Lord and a Garden. Let your speed be toward the forgiveness of the Lord, toward that supernal divine Paradise before which all the heavens are small, and all the earth is but little against it.
What does this mean? Pay close attention to the Qur'anic expressions so that you may understand well. The Qur'an says: if you wish to set your aspiration upon something — for you, the earth and the heaven are little and trifling; set your aspiration upon something higher than these. O great human being! Forgiveness is what matters for you; higher than everything is forgiveness, and after forgiveness, that thing whose worth and grandeur is higher than the heavens and the earth.
What does forgiveness (maghfirah) mean? We have seen: we said to so-and-so, "Sir, I beg your pardon; I gave you an insult; forgive me." And he too, whether with airs and pride, or with good nature and graciousness — in whatever manner — said, "Very well, we have overlooked it." Somewhere, some unintentional offense was committed; the person goes round the one who holds the right, with pleading and entreaty and "Sir, forgive me, sir, be gracious," and he too says, "Very well, I have forgiven you." In some government and state office, a certain amount of tax was levied upon you — on what reckoning, rightly or wrongly. You went, paid a courtesy, spoke a flattering word, said a couple of sentences, took someone along with you, a letter, a recommendation, a telephone call; they said, "Very well, we have forgiven you a certain amount." Having seen these acts of pardon, we imagined that the divine forgiveness, too, was of the same kind as these pardons. Such-and-such a person has wronged, has committed a crime, has sinned, has bred and stirred up corruption in the land, and deserves the chastisement of God; then, on the Day of Resurrection, on account of a drop of a tear he shed, or some attention and recourse he made, God should say, "Very well, now that it has come to this, We too have overlooked your faults; We have forgiven you." Is the forgiveness of God this?
Hasten to a forgiveness — is this what it is saying? No.
Concerning the meaning of forgiveness (ghufran), too, I have spoken much. The reason I say "I have spoken" is that you brothers, who were mostly present at our discussions, should return to your memory and bring forth, out of the hidden places and recesses of memory, what we have said. Ghufran means the healing and the filling of a void. Your body sustains a wound; this thigh, this arm, sustains a deep wound; here the flesh is torn open. They give you a salve, you apply a medicine, you take a vitamin, you have an injection — until it knits together, until it seeps and breeds, until at last it brings into being, beside itself, its own like, its own kind: that flesh of the body, that muscle of the body. The structures of your body work, this wound is filled, it finds healing. Keep before your eyes this healing of a wound, of an injury, so that I may liken it and draw it as a parable for ghufran; see how ghufran is.
If your soul, in the station of parable, were like a body, then every sin you commit strikes a blow upon the soul and brings about a wound. Why, sir? Why do we say that sin is a blow upon the soul? Because the soul must rise higher, and sin is anything that holds the human soul back one step from its intended exaltation and perfection. In the station of likeness and parable, this is the very wounding, the very bringing-into-being of a gash upon the body of your soul. When that sin was committed, that deficiency took shape. You consumed people's property unlawfully, God forbid; the one who drank wine, the one who took usury, the one who committed fornication, the one who lied, the one who slandered — by each of these acts, a gash entered into his soul, into the body of his soul; this soul was wounded, was rendered deficient, fell far from the perfection which is the utmost of aspirations. Now this sin must find forgiveness.
What does ghufran mean? Ghufran means that this void, this deficiency of the soul, this wound of the soul, this defect that has come into being within his self, should be removed — this is what they call ghufran. How is it removed? How is that defect removed which sin has brought into being in your soul? By making amends. The one who, by some sin, has somewhat debased and cast away his life from the summit of humanity and perfection and the point of human ascent — his falling-behind is made good at the time when he goes up a measure.
Let me give another example. You boarded a car; you are going to the fifty-farsakh mark. If this car halted along the road, what became of you? You fell behind. By what is this falling-behind made good? By going a little faster, by going a little more without interruption, by giving up a little more of your rest, so that at the appointed time you reach the intended point. Otherwise, by sitting there and saying, "O God, I did wrong; an hour ago I lounged here in the coffeehouse and set off late; O God, I erred; O God, I did wrong" — this gets nothing done. Now, after all, the wrong was done; set off sooner, go faster, so that you may make good this one-hour halt and delay. Divine forgiveness is like this.
God the Exalted does not say: because you sinned, now whatever good work you do, We will not at all wipe out that sin — God does not act out of spite. And indeed I am Most Forgiving — We are not spiteful, We are the Forgiver. Those sins that were committed, those errors that came into being — We are ready to overlook them, provided that amends are made. We do not say: because you erred one day, now though you have striven a hundredfold, your striving counts for nothing because of your error. No.
And indeed I am Most Forgiving — We are the Forgiver, We fill up the voids, We heal the wounds — but for whom? For whoever repents and believes and does righteous deeds and then is guided — I am the Forgiver for the one who repents. What does "repents" mean? It means: he turns back. The path of your perfection was from here; you ought to have gone this way. We are ready to forgive you — when? When you go toward perfection, when you return once more to the right path. Tawbah means turning back. Let him strengthen his faith, let him do righteous deeds. Deeds! One must not be heedless of deeds and content oneself with mere speech and self-satisfaction.
Therefore, forgiveness means the filling of those voids which are the wounds of the human soul; by filling them, the human being reaches perfection. This is something for which it is fitting that the human being should strive on its path, should compete, should gather speed. Forgiveness is very important. Forgiveness is not that God the Exalted, without reckoning, out of arbitrary whim, should single out some person for an unmerited grace, without that person himself having made any effort on the path of this divine grace.
And hasten to a forgiveness from your Lord, and a Garden whose breadth is the heavens and the earth, prepared for the God-conscious.
That well-known saying they utter — "Sir, you are of the people of Paradise and will go to Paradise, God willing, if they let you in" — this is a very apt remark. We are all longing for Paradise; we all ask for Paradise in our supplications. Sometimes asking for Paradise alone does not even satisfy us — we bring its particular features, one by one, into our supplication too: its houris and its good food and its bird-meat and so forth, we line up in our supplications. But God Himself says: We have prepared this Paradise for the people of taqwa; We have spread this table for a certain special people; they must come and sit at this table and enter this zone. Who are they? The people of taqwa.
Who is the person of taqwa? Prepared for the God-conscious. (Pay close attention to the translations, for now, when our dear reciter comes here to recite the verses, I have laid stress on every word I emphasized, so that it may be in your mind, so that during the recitation you may immediately return to the meanings of the words.) Made ready for the people of taqwa — who are the people of taqwa?
Those who spend in prosperity and adversity — those who give freely in ease and in hardship. This is one condition of being a person of taqwa: spending (infaq).
Infaq, too, I have explained several times by now. There is no harm in repeating these things, since these are words that, for the most part, reach your ears fresh — the more they are repeated, the more they remain in the heart, and so much the better. Infaq differs from spending. Spending means that a person spends some money. Infaq is spending, but not every kind of spending. Infaq is that spending by which a void is filled, a true need is met. Where are those who spend millions — and apparently spend it on good works too — and yet, in the language of the Qur'an, we must tell them that they are the most wretched of people, because their work is not infaq?
Shall We inform you of the greatest losers in deeds? Those whose effort in the life of this world has gone astray, while they reckon that they are doing good. These monies that are spent, this gold and these ornaments hung upon the starving body of a group of people, these superfluous and false adornments — these are not infaq. Why? Because they fill no void.
Sir! If you give these five rials to someone who has a hundred such five-rial coins and a one-tuman coin in his pocket, and can provide a hundred more, this is not infaq; but if you gave it to that person who is awaiting a single five-rial coin to buy a loaf of sangak bread and fill his stomach, this is infaq. Of course, by this sentence I did not mean to say that the gentlemen should now go and keep handing out five-rial coins to the hungry and the beggars so that they may fill their stomachs — no. Sometimes filling the stomach of a hungry person is not even infaq; under certain conditions it is so. Under those conditions in which poverty and hunger, like a weed, are sprouting up over the lands without reckoning, there filling the stomach of one hungry person is like snipping off the top of a single blade of a weed. In the wilderness, how much value does a weed have? After all, one weed is removed from before the eye, but how fundamental is this work? How worthwhile is this work? Very little and slight. Therefore infaq is that which fills a void, which meets a need. That nation which today has need of a certain thing — like air and water — if you helped that nation with something other than that thing, here you did not perform infaq; you committed an unlawful squandering of money. So infaq is not the work of everyone; infaq is the work of intelligent people — those who understand the voids and the needs, and are ready to fill those voids and needs in their proper place. Infaq is very important.
Those who spend in prosperity and adversity — one of the signs of the people of taqwa is this: they spend in ease and in hardship.
And those who restrain anger — those who swallow down their wrath. What does swallowing down wrath mean? It means: they do not act on the basis of emotion — everywhere, intellect. But sometimes intellect is also accompanied by righteous wrath. Do you not see that the Qur'an says: Harsh against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. When they say "those who restrain anger," its meaning is not what you might imagine — that we mean to say the wrath of a nation, the wrath of a human being, the wrath of a society against those upon whom wrath ought to be vented should be done away with and brought to naught. No. The Qur'an, too, does not say to swallow down these instances of wrath; it says: do not perform an action on the basis of wrath. "And those who restrain anger" — those who suppress, those who swallow it down — not those who forget, but those who swallow down rage and wrath; so that when the wrath has subsided, the human being may, with intellect, with understanding, do what is fitting.
And those who pardon people — those who overlook from people, who forgive people's faults. From people's errors, from people's mistakes, from people's sins, from people's slips, one must overlook, one must let pass. One must not overlook that sin which was not a slip. God too would hardly overlook such a sin. One must not overlook that wrongful deed which was done out of deliberate intent and obstinacy — but the slips, the shortcomings, which abound in the conduct of the common run of people, these are pardonable and to be overlooked.
And those who pardon people; and God loves those who do good.
What else are the signs of the people of taqwa? And those who, when they commit an indecency or wrong themselves, remember God and seek forgiveness for their sins — those who, when they commit some great sin, or wrong their own selves, immediately fall to remembering God. In the valley of heedlessness, beneath the cover of heedlessness, they do not tarry long.
There is a very strange verse in the Qur'an on the theme of remembrance and recollection — and, as it happens, this one too is for the people of taqwa:
Indeed, those who are God-conscious — when a touch of Satan afflicts them, they remember. When a band of satans — with the wide meaning that "satan" has — when a band of satans and the satan-natured ones surround a man to lead him astray, to draw him off the path, to cast him into forgetfulness, the human being immediately falls to remembering God. The remembrance of God is just such a thing. The remembrance of God is a weapon in our hand against the satans; the remembrance of God is a rope at our disposal, for rescue from the chasm which the enemies have brought into being before us, against our awareness. The remembrance of God is a very precious and valuable thing.
They remember God — when they do some wrongful deed or wrong their own selves, they fall to remembering God, and seek forgiveness and pardon for their sins, coming to seek that this sin, this void, may find healing; but even this is not possible without the help of the Lord. And who forgives sins except God? The striving is from you and the movement is from you, and the blessing is from God; the striving and the effort are from us, and the acceptance is from our God. So we have no right to delete the striving from our own record.
And they do not persist knowingly in what they have done — they do not persist in what they know to be a sin.
Those — their reward is forgiveness from their Lord — such people, who do not desist from striving and effort, who seek forgiveness for their sins, who do not persist on the way of error and wrong — and gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding therein eternally; and excellent is the reward of the workers. Here again it says: the reward of the workers. The matter of deeds is one of the very important matters.
(In this series of Islamic teachings, which God willing I intend to set forth and expound in order, in these Qur'anic discussions and these recitations, through to the end of the month of Ramadan, one of them will be devoted to this very matter of deeds.)
In the booklet "The General Outline of Islamic Thought in the Qur'an" (Tarh-i kulli-yi andisha-yi islami dar Qur'an), which the author arranged at the conclusion of the sessions, this section was placed in place of the sessions "Faith 1" and "Faith 2." So that this content should not be overlooked, an image of the pages of that book has been included at the end of this session. The text of the other mimeographed copies corresponds with the text given in the booklet.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 3 · 26:50
- Ep 4 — Faith (2)Session 2: Faith (2).
delivered Friday, 29 Shahrivar 1353 / 3 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Anfal (8:2-4).
The believers are only those who, when God is mentioned, their hearts tremble; and when His signs are recited to them, it increases them in faith; and upon their Lord they rely; those who keep up the prayer and spend out of what We have provided them. Those are the true believers; for them are ranks with their Lord, and forgiveness, and a generous provision.
The chapter opens on the verse just before it: They ask you — O Prophet — about the spoils (al-anfal)… They are asking you, briefly, about the anfal — for whom are the anfal, and to whom do they rightfully belong? The anfal can be translated this way: it means the wealth that belongs to the generality of the Muslims. One example is the income that falls to the Muslims in war — not every income, but specific incomes. Another is the mines, this underground wealth. Another is the forests. Another is these vast plains and grazing lands that lie here and there and upon the mountains. In short, the anfal refers to those forms of wealth that belong to no one particular individual and to no one particular group, but are at the disposal of everyone — belonging to the whole nation. One example of these is, of course — as has been mentioned — the particular spoils that fall to the warriors of the Muslim army in war.
The first time this issue was raised for the Muslims was, it seems, in the Battle of Badr. The Muslims were debating among themselves: to whom do these spoils belong? A disagreement arose among them. They referred the matter to the Holy Prophet, they asked that noble one, and the verse of the Qur'an gave the answer. God inspires His Prophet: Say: the anfal belong to God and the Messenger. The anfal belong to God. What does "belonging to God" mean? It means they are not for any specific, designated group of God's servants — they are the Prophet's. To belong to God means that whatever bears God's name upon it must be expended for divine aims, for divine goals. The "wealth of God," clearly, is not spent for God's own needs; God Almighty has no such interests, no need, no want that His wealth should be expended to meet it. What belongs to God is in reality the wealth of God's servants, and it must be spent in the channels of welfare that God Almighty has appointed. So mal-Allah — the anfal belonging to God — means this.
"And the Messenger" — what does this mean? Does the Messenger stand as a pole opposite God? No. Anyone might think himself entitled to dispose of God's wealth. Everyone might say, "This is God's wealth, and we too are God's servants" — and under this pleasant-looking, fine-seeming name, under this attractive, popular slogan that "this wealth is God's wealth and we too are God's servants," they might expend the public wealth on their own personal expenses. Such a thing is possible. The wealth of God must indeed reach the welfare of the generality of Muslims and the true servants of God. But reaching the generality does not mean a free-for-all — everyone spending whatever his heart desires. There must be a central authority, a powerful hand that is reckoned the representative of God and the guardian (qayyim) of the people's affairs. Who is he? He is the Messenger. The Messenger here is not raised in his capacity as messengership and prophethood, but in his capacity as divine governance. That is, when the Messenger departs from this world, the Imam has full charge of the anfal. The Imam means the divine ruler. In the era when the Infallible Imam is not governing the people, the one who, on God's behalf, can and must govern the people — he has full charge of the anfal and the public wealth.
In any case, this wealth is public. The mines belong to everyone, the forests and reed-beds are for everyone, the grazing lands are for everyone, the spoils obtained from the enemy are for everyone, the royal treasures (sawafi al-muluk) are for everyone, and so with all the like cases and instances cited for the anfal. Yet even though it is for everyone, in the end it must rest at the disposal of a powerful divine authority — none other than the Islamic ruler. Who is that? In the time of the Prophet, the Messenger of God; after him, the Infallible Imam; and if there is no Infallible Imam, the just divine leader — the one in whose hand the reins of the Islamic government must lie. He has authority over the matter of the anfal. This is the first part of the verse, which of course was not the part under our discussion.
After it appoints the use of the anfal, it says: So fear God, and set right the relations between you, and obey God and His Messenger, if you are believers. If you are believers, do these three things. First, the fear of God — "fear God" — so be wary of God. In the necessarily approximate Persian translation we have given on this sheet: "fear God," so be wary of God — this is one. "And set right the relations between you" — set right what is between you. Remove the disputes from among yourselves. In favor of truth, let those who speak something other than the truth give up their words; remove the disputes from among yourselves. "And set right the relations between you" — set right what is between you; do not fall upon each other over trivial things; do not seek pretexts to fall upon one another. The characteristic of a people who delight in quarreling with friends and with enemies alike is precisely this: they go looking for small pretexts to fight, to dispute, and to create discord. The counsel of God and the Messenger to people of this sort is this: instead of seeking pretexts to fight with your friends, do not conceal the pretexts for fighting with your enemies. If you are a person of war, then fight the enemy — but why your brother? Why your friend? "And set right the relations between you."
These two are great counsels. The third counsel is a matter that is general and encompasses all good deeds and abstention from all evil deeds: "and obey God and His Messenger" — and obey, take the command of, God and His Messenger, "if you are believers."
Faith is an inclination of the heart — an intellectual, doctrinal, and psychological attachment to a matter, to a person, to a pole, to a center. But it is not summed up merely in the heart's having this inclination, this leaning, this attachment. Faith truly exists in a person only when he acts in accordance with that faith. A person can claim to be a true believer only when he is bound to the requirements of faith and the commitments of faith. A person can say "I believe in God and am convinced of Him" only when his life, and the very reality of his being, differs from that of one who denies God. The one who today denies God — how does his deed differ from the deeds of those who claim to believe in God? Both commit oppression. Both are drowned up to the throat in materiality. Both, for the sake of these few breaths of life, a few more days of breathing and a couple more morsels to eat and fouling the air, for a couple more days of comfortable living, are ready to trample every virtue underfoot. Except that this one openly says, "I am not convinced of God," while the other claims that he is convinced of God. What kind of faith is this? The verse of the Qur'an here is explicit. Here there is no longer the reckoning of rational arguments that admit of doubt; you must do these deeds, if you are believers. And one of these deeds is obey God and the Messenger. Obey God and the Prophet; set out in the path of following their command.
What is the command of God? Whatever it is, this much is evident: God has appointed obligations, responsibilities, duties, and tasks — concerning a person's wealth, concerning a person's life, concerning a person's lifespan, concerning the relations of a human with other humans, concerning the relations of a human with God, concerning the relations of a human with animals and even with plants. In this too, if you obeyed God, you can say "we are believers." Otherwise faith is of no use. A person's heart and soul may be attached to some pole, but if the radiance of this attachment is not reflected at all in action — in the hand, in the tongue, in the foot, in the other limbs and members — then in the view of Islam the very name of faith does not hold true for him. This is the logic of the Qur'an.
"Fear God" — so be wary of God; "and set right the relations between you" — set right what is between you; "and obey God and His Messenger" — obey God and His Messenger; "if you are believers."
Now, on the occasion of the name "believer" at the end of this verse, the next verse continues the discourse concerning the attributes of the believers and the conditions of faith: The believers are only those who, when God is mentioned, their hearts tremble; and when His signs are recited to them, it increases them in faith; and upon their Lord they rely; those who keep up the prayer and spend out of what We have provided them. Those are the true believers.
For the true believer, five traits are appointed here. It may be that these five traits are not present in the speaker and the listener; but if a person makes some effort and exertion toward bringing these five traits into being within himself, he is still on the path of faith, on the path of the goal of faith, and worthy of the name "believer." The true believer is the one in whom these five traits are present.
First: "The believers are only" (innama al-mu'minun) — exclusively, the believers; "those who" (alladhina) are the ones who, "when God is mentioned" (idha dhukira llah) — when God is remembered, "their hearts tremble" (wa-jilat qulubuhum) — their hearts come into fear. What does "to come into fear" mean? What does fearing God mean? Is it like a sinner before a judge, or is it another and subtler kind? Someone might say, "I have committed no sin, so I do not fear God." Yes, the fearing of a sinner before the judge and the prosecutor — the one who must punish the man — that kind of fear is, of course, ruled out by the absence of sin; but who is the person who can be certain that he has no sin?
But there is another kind of fear, and it arises from knowledge (ma'rifah). In the face of great things, mighty essences, majestic realities, a human inevitably feels awe and bewilderment. This is the property of the human being's existence; the spiritual and bodily composition of the human necessitates it. In the face of anything of grandeur, every human feels a state of awe within himself. This state of awe is not from the standpoint that he fears that being — it may be that he has no fear at all, in the sense of any aggression — the fear here is not the fear that arises from sin; rather this awe and dread arises from the sense of His grandeur and the sense of one's own smallness before Him. Such a fear of God is fitting, is desirable, is necessary, is beneficial. Consider the one who sees himself, before the Lord, as small and deficient and lowly, and beholds God as dominant, all-encompassing, and overpowering (muhaymin, musaytir) over every aspect of his affairs. Such a person strives to travel by no path other than that straight line of conduct which the God of the world has appointed for him, and to move no other way. This is the greatest guarantor of action, movement, and effort in a Muslim person and in a Muslim society.
This that you see — the Commander of the Faithful, in the depths of the night, in the nights of the month of Ramadan, writhing upon himself and shedding tears; this that you see — Imam Sajjad at times crying out; this that you see — the Messenger of God, with all his majesty and grandeur, when the last ten days of the month of Ramadan come, saying, "Roll up my bedding," not spreading any bed for himself — that is, the nights are no longer the time for sleep; they are the time for worship, the time for supplication, the time for humility before the Lord — do not imagine that these are contrived acts being performed. How deficient and unaware is the one who says that the Imam, in the Du'a of Abu Hamzah, wishes to teach the people something and is not speaking of himself. How untutored and uninformed of the spirit of supplication and of the manner of the intimate communion of God's righteous servants with God is the one who imagines that the weeping and lamentation and tears of the Imam, peace be upon him, are for the sake of instruction. That is, did they weep artificially so that you and I would learn? This is a mistake. They truly shed tears. Why did they shed tears? Because their knowledge of God is greater. In the sacred being of the Lord, the Commander of the Faithful sees a grandeur that these near-sighted eyes of yours and mine cannot see. "You are great, and do not show forth in a small mirror." This small mirror of our soul cannot reflect within itself that wondrous grandeur; but what of the mirror of the soul of the Commander of the Faithful? He can; he comprehends this grandeur, he grasps it, he perceives it — and it is for this very reason that he writhes upon himself like that and sheds tears.
When the remembrance of God comes into the midst, a certain state takes hold of the believer's heart: that state of awe, that state of reverent fear (khashyah), that sense of fear and dread, that terror that arises from the sense of one's own smallness before the grandeur of God: "when God is mentioned, their hearts tremble." God ceases, for a person, to be a plaything; the name of God ceases to be a kind of habitual incantation. In a gathering a person sits down and says "ya Allah" as a mere phrase of respect; he yawns and finishes it off with "la ilaha illa Allah," out of weariness. These states are the sign of indifference, of dull perception, of an absence of sensitivity in a person's soul before the remembrance of God and the name of God and the grandeur of God. From all of this the heart of a God-knowing, grandeur-perceiving human departs — one who comprehends and feels the grandeur of the Lord. "The believers are only those who, when God is mentioned, their hearts tremble." The believers are those who, when God is remembered, their hearts come into trembling (wajal) — into fear and dread and terror, into the sense of grandeur in the Lord and of smallness in themselves; their hearts become filled with this sense. This is one.
"And when His signs are recited to them, it increases them in faith." Another sign of the believer is that when the signs (ayat) of God are recited to them — whether they recite them themselves or someone else recites these signs to them — their faith is increased: "it increases them in faith." This faith, like a seed in his heart, in his soul, grows, becomes great, comes up like a plant, becomes — like a tree — sturdy in stem and root, to the point that the possibility of uprooting it disappears. Faith in the form of stagnant water, within the being of a believer, has no meaning. Consider those who learned a single word in childhood, and then, through the doubt of the years of adolescence, watched that one word fall from its firmness and its grandeur in their souls. It grew small, became deficient, became insignificant; a half-faith, a half-truth, remained in their souls. And that too, through the coming of various currents and events, was continually diminished and diminished. Such a faith too will one day be easily taken from a person. A faith held in trust (mustawda'), a borrowed ('ariyat) faith — the believer is not like this. The true believer is the believer who, if a single word of the realities and the religious and divine teachings is in his heart, takes that one word — through reflection, through precision of insight, through thought, through whatever is conducive to that one word — and makes his faith greater, and rescues this faith from vanishing. This is the true believer.
From this verse and from this sentence we derive that, through the recitation of the Qur'an, the believing person's faith must increase. And from this sentence we adopt a proof — pay attention, from this word of God we adopt a proof — and to those who say "do not translate the Qur'an, do not give its meaning, do not interpret it, for our minds do not reach it," we say: if we could not understand the Qur'an, how is it that our faith increases by the reading of the Qur'an? So it is evident: the Qur'an is not a book of code. The Qur'an is a book that must be read with the intent of understanding, and understood with the intent of increasing and growing stronger in the faith of the believer. We adopt this proof; pay attention.
The continuation of the verse: "and upon their Lord they rely." Another sign of the believers is that they rely and depend upon the Lord. "And when His signs are recited to them, it increases them in faith" — this is the second condition, the second trait. "And upon their Lord they rely" — that is, what does it mean that they rely (tawakkul)? Does it mean they fold their hands together and say, "Let God set it right Himself"? No, the meaning of tawakkul is not this. Picture the man who folds his hands together in the face of his obligations and responsibilities, and who, instead of holding his own power responsible, presumes a divine miracle to be responsible. Such a man should know that the Qur'an has rejected this deed — it dealt it a firm blow to the mouth of the Children of Israel, who said to Moses:
You and your Lord go, busy yourselves with the war, do battle with the enemy; we will sit here — in my own expression, by the wall, in the shade — when you have conquered, then inform us too so that we may come. The Qur'an negates this method. This method is the method of the accursed, banished Children of Israel, far from the road of humanity, deprived of the delights of religion and faith; it is for them, not befitting a Muslim. So tawakkul does not mean this. This saying that has become current among the people — I am saying it so that all may hear and all may understand — this thing that is current among the people, when they say, "Sir, God Himself must set things right; nothing can come from God's servant" — this is wrong. If nothing could come from God's servant, if for the removal and uprooting of corruption the will of man and the power of man were of no avail, God would not have mobilized the prophets. He would not have invited the people to follow the prophets. He would not have sent the divine prophets, with their heavy missions, into the arena of battle in this world. This that you see — that God has sent persons for the uprooting of corruption, and those persons are of the human race — so know that human corruption must be uprooted by humans.
So what does tawakkul mean? Tawakkul means that, in every state, your reliance and your hope are upon God. If you examine carefully, you will see that with this expression which I am stating — that in every state your reliance and hope are upon God — with this expression, tawakkul ceases to be a kind of narcotic and manifests itself as a stirring agent, an agent of dynamism.
You have seen what some people do in the hardships of life, in crises, in the place where their hands fall short of all outward means — have you seen? Have you heard? They do one of several things: either he surrenders to the enemy, saying, "When nothing can come from me, what am I to do?" — surrender to the enemy, this is one. Or he surrenders to the ordinary course of life: he does not go and fall prostrate before the enemy, but in practice he takes up some path and routine, leaves behind some movement and effort, and forgets that he has, in reality, surrendered to the ordinary current of life. Such a man too, although outwardly he has not surrendered to the enemy, has inwardly surrendered to the enemy. This too is a kind — a state that the common run of people adopt in such crises. The other way is to put an end to their own life. Take that gentleman who, when he comes to power, is harassed from all around by the gamesmanship of the international powers — every time, every day, they raise some uproar against him from some corner of his country. When he is forced and compelled, when he is wearied, exhausted, made wretched, he puts an end to his own life, he commits suicide.
These are the paths that present themselves to a Godless person at impasses. When you have reached an impasse, when you have reached a place where it seems to you that this is the end of the alley, that there is no path through, for ordinary people several doors open: surrendering to the enemy — that is, in surrender; surrendering to the natural course of life — that is, in surrender; surrendering to events — that is, in surrender; suicide and self-destruction — destroying oneself and being relieved and at times regret. But for the person with God, another door opens at impasses, a door whose opening shuts upon him the other doors, the doors of self-betrayal of honor. What is that door? It is the door of tawakkul upon God. He says, "Here is an impasse." He says, "The God I know breaks through the impasse too. What is an impasse? In God's view we have no impasses. All impasses, by the hand of God's power, are open at the end! There is a way."
Is there an impasse higher than the Battle of Uhud? The small army of Islam, in the midst of being occupied with gathering the spoils, is suddenly attacked from two directions, because of the heedlessness of a few soldiers. One group attacks from the front, another group from behind. These men have laid down their swords, have dismounted from their horses, have set their weapons on the ground; suddenly they see two groups attacking them from two sides — armed, savage, enraged, furious. Well, it is evident what an army without weapons and without equipment does at such times: flight. They fled. Satan, from the throat of the Satan-natured ones, proclaimed that the Prophet too had perished. It is very clear; Satan always does these things. One of Satan's very clear schemes and his exposed hands is this: to proclaim, sooner than its time, the defeat of the divine and merciful front — that, "Yes, you are defeated; the Prophet has passed away." In such a crisis, in such an impasse, what does a believer who relies on God do? Sir, is there an impasse higher than this? The paths of deliverance entirely closed, the weapons fallen on the ground, the enemy equipped, dominant, overpowering — what comes to the aid of a person here is that window which only the God-worshippers possess: reliance upon God. What impasse? Which is the impasse? Suppose the Prophet has passed away — the God of the Prophet has not perished. The duty has not perished. With tawakkul here, the man acts like whom? Like the Commander of the Faithful, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib; like Abu Dujanah; like two or three other soldiers — these were people of tawakkul. Who were the ones without tawakkul? Those who, from Uhud to Medina, did not even look back, but ran all the way to the very gates of the city. Now you have seen what tawakkul means.
The one who pretends that tawakkul is the folding of hands together, sitting without effort in hope of an unknown future, stripping his faith of his own power — the one who pretends that tawakkul means a stroke of cancellation upon man's will and his power — such a man either does not understand tawakkul (Islam does not get into his head; he does not perceive tawakkul), or else he does understand it, but honor does not get into his head; he wants to misinterpret it deliberately, so that people are raised without tawakkul, so that people are raised wrongly. The meaning of tawakkul is this: "and upon their Lord they rely." In my view there are two mighty wings for the flight of man in the efforts of life: one is patience, one is tawakkul. Any ummah that has these two wings will become wholly beyond the range of the earthbound enemies; the wing of patience and the wing of tawakkul: "and upon their Lord they rely." These are three signs for the believer. (The worth of faith; what kind of thing is faith? The characteristics concerning faith — these are very necessary discussions that, God willing, if God grants the success, I shall prepare tomorrow, so that they may again make a duplicate and bring it and place it at the disposal of the gentlemen, and they may also find its Qur'anic verses and recite them for you. For now, what is raised today concerning faith is these signs and commitments of faith.)
Third: "and upon their Lord they rely." Fourth: "those who keep up the prayer" — those who establish the prayer. Gentlemen, pay attention: there is a difference between the expression alladhina yusallun (those who pray) and "those who keep up the prayer" (alladhina yuqimun al-salah). Yusallun means "they perform the prayer." If only the performing of prayer were at issue, if only this getting up and bending down were at issue, there would have been no need to say "those who keep up the prayer" — no need to bring two words and give them length and interpretation. They could simply have said yusallun, alladhina yusallun, those who pray. So it is evident: "those who keep up the prayer" — those who establish the prayer — is something other than reciting prayer; it is something else, a higher and loftier reality. In your view, what is this reality? What does "establishing the prayer" mean?
Several possibilities can be supposed, and it may be that all of these possibilities are correct. One is that we say: the establishment of prayer, the keeping up of prayer, means performing the prayer in a complete form, in an all-around form, in a perfect form: "those who keep up the prayer." And "establishment" (iqamah), in the Arabic language, in Arabic usage, is precisely in these very meanings — that is, carrying out the work in a complete form: So set your face toward the religion, devoted purely (to it).
Turn the whole face, the whole being, toward religion, in a complete form. This is one possibility, and it holds true. If a person establishes the prayer in this sense — performs it in a complete form, with correct pillars, with attention to the teachings and inspirations of the prayer (about which I conducted, in that mosque over the course of several weeks, a relatively detailed discussion) — then success and salvation surely await him. A person who prays well — all his difficulties become easy for him. You have heard that some of the great ones of religion, at the time of facing hardships and calamities, would pray two rak'ahs? You have heard that the Messenger of God, at the time of crises and severities, would turn to Bilal and say, "Comfort us, O Bilal" (arihna ya Bilal) — Bilal, ease us; go give the call to prayer. "Cool us, cool us, O Bilal" (abrid, abrid ya Bilal) — cool our hearts, O Bilal; that is, give the call to prayer. Truly, if a person establishes the prayer — with attention, with humility, with reverence, with presence of heart, with comprehension of what he is doing and what he is saying, and with the intent of taking a result from the prayer — then certainly that which has been promised to the believers will exist for him.
This is one possibility. The other possibility is that "those who keep up the prayer" means: they establish prayer in society, they make society a praying society. Some people are content that they themselves pray — instead of seventeen rak'ahs in a day and night, they pray fifty-one rak'ahs, besides the other recommended prayers. If they are told, "Sir, the people are turning away from religion in droves," they feel no grief over it. As the saying goes: "He carries his own rug off the wave." He says, "Sir, to carry our own rug off is already a great task, a great feat; we cannot get to others." Some are like this. That deed which is the sign of faith is not this deed. For anyone to pray well himself, but pray for himself and have no concern for others — this is not right. It is not right — that is, it is not complete; complete.
What is the sign of faith? The establishment of prayer — keeping up the prayer in society, making everyone a praying people — not in the sense that everyone performs a single act of worship. (I want you to take your mind out of the mold of the words, to think more broadly. I too think in just that way. Words are small and inadequate and deficient.) Not that so-and-so is not a prayer-performer, so let us make him a prayer-performer; rather, a praying society means a society that is always remembering God and on God's path. A society that says: You alone do we worship, and from You alone do we seek help.
A society that worships and serves none but God, and relies upon none but God and seeks help from none but God. A praying society means that society which every day disavows the ringleaders of corruption — that is, those upon whom is wrath (al-maghdubi 'alayhim) — and the followers of corruption — that is, those who go astray (al-dallin). This is their prayer.
If a person strives to make other human beings into prayer-performers in this sense, he has in reality made an effort and exertion on the path of the absolute servitude of God, on the path of uprooting corruption, on the path of doing away with "me" and "us," on the path of bringing about social and human unity among the individuals of the Muslim ummah and the individuals of humanity — an effort on these paths; this is what the establishment of prayer means. That is, you do something so that all the people, every day, five times, and each time several times, say "You alone do we worship, and from You alone do we seek help." O God! Only before You do we bend the neck of servitude and the back of servitude — not before any other than You. Five times every day, and each time several times, from "those upon whom is wrath" and from "those who go astray" — that is, from the ringleaders of corruption and from their followers — we disavow, we declare our innocence; we make such a society. The establishment of prayer may also have this meaning.
"And spend out of what We have provided them" (wa mimma razaqnahum yunfiqun). What is another sign of the believers? It is that they spend (infaq) out of what We have provided them. What does infaq mean? (Yesterday I mentioned it by way of allusion. Up to now I have explained the meaning of infaq perhaps ten times on the occasion of various discussions — this time too, let it be the eleventh.) Infaq means filling voids and needs. That spending which fills a void, which meets a need — this is called infaq. The wall of this mosque has been freshly painted; if you came and gave money and painted it over again, that is not infaq. Why? Because there was no need for this work; there was paint already here. Or if there was no paint, but it was a place that had no need of paint — if you came to the dirt floors of the Imam Hasan Mosque and sprinkled sums of money in paint, and said, "I spent for the Imam Hasan Mosque; we took several boxes and cans of paint to the mosque and used them up — what did you do, sir? Over the clods and the dust and the mud, we painted it all" — yes, this is spending, but it is not infaq. Infaq consists of there being a void and a need in the very fabric of society, and your filling that void and need; infaq means this.
"And spend out of what We have provided them" — what does it mean? It means that the believers are those who, out of what We have provided them — the word "wealth" is not in it; out of the moneys We gave them? No; it makes no difference — out of the money We gave, out of the lifespan We gave, out of the child We gave, out of the reputation We gave, out of the bodily strength We gave, out of the tongue We gave, out of the thought and brain We gave, out of all the resources We gave; He said "what We have provided them" — out of everything We have provided them, what do they do? "They spend." They make infaq. That is, they spend it in its place — not just any spending. This is one of the signs of the believer.
O brother named "believer," O believer-seeming brother, O brother who, if you are called "believer," are pleased — if someone shows the slightest wavering and doubt in your faith, you take offense, and it may even be that you say, "What benefit is there that you count us as irreligious and faithless in your talk?" — O brother named "believer," do you make infaq? I do not say, do you spend or not; yes, you spend a great deal. How much money do you give in these days of the month of Ramadan, you cook delicious food, you spread a colorful spread and invite the well-fed; how much you spend — but do you also make infaq?
O dear speaker, how much you talk, how much breath you spend, how much from your chest and your lungs and your being, from your body and your nerves, you draw upon; how much of the power of your speech you spend — but do you also make infaq out of this power? To speak much is no feat; to say what is needed, that is a feat. That is not infaq; this is infaq. O you who spend out of your reputations, out of your standing — you write a letter to someone, you go to see someone for some affair, you arrange that some deed be carried out, that some job be given to so-and-so, that some fitting respect be paid by such-and-such a person to so-and-so — you are spending your standing, but what of infaq? Do you also make infaq? O you who spend money in various places, in the name of religion and in the name of other than religion — yes, sometimes a person spends money in the name of religion while he has not made infaq — do not take fright at this saying, for it is a reality, and what a bitter reality! How much money is expended and spent in the name of religion, but it is not infaq, because it does not fill a void, because it does not bring a pain to its cure, because it does not remove a need from this needy society. That which is the substance of being a believer, that which is the condition and sign of faith, is infaq: "and spend out of what We have provided them." After this, if you wish to spend time, if you wish to lay down your reputation, if you wish to spend money, think well; see whether, by this expenditure of yourself, you are making infaq, or you are spending pointlessly.
"Those are the true believers" — these are the true believers. "For them are ranks with their Lord." For them are ranks — degrees, ranks, stations — "with their Lord." With their Lord. "And forgiveness (maghfirah)" — and forgiveness too is among these. The very forgiveness that I explained for you yesterday — I hope it has remained completely in your mind and memory and stays there. If God intends to give someone forgiveness, He intends to heal a wound that has arisen in someone's soul from sin; He will heal the wound of sin of such persons. "And forgiveness and a generous provision (rizq karim)" — and an honorable provision, a generous provision, without abasement, without hardship, without disgrace. Such a provision God gives them.
Wherever you find a believing society — I am not speaking of an individual; do not say, "By God's grace, we obtain a morsel of bread, we are comfortable too, we have no grief, we are beholden to no one." If you look carefully through the inner workings of his affairs, you see that it is all wretchedness and obligation. All those who have the most disgraceful occupations do not feel that this deed they have is disgraceful and that this morsel of bread is a morsel of disgrace — I am speaking of a society. A society's morsel of bread is pure, honorable, joined with pride and dignity; it receives a noble and honorable provision only when it is believing and possessed of these attributes. And if it were this way, in a society of faith all those slogans would be realized — the slogans that the political parties of the world raise today, here and there, behind the loudspeakers, rightly or falsely, among the nations of the world. Peace, freedom, welfare, comfort, without war, without bloodshed, with brotherhood, with sincerity, a high level of culture, a high level of literacy, a high level of provision — and all these words and verbiage, some of which have meaning beneath them and some of which have no meaning beneath them — taken all together are realizable in a society of faith. "And a generous provision" — and a generous and magnanimous provision.
(These are the four verses that we have explained. Mr. Rida'i, our dear reciter today, is present — let him now rise and come here and recite these few verses. However, since it is Friday and you gentlemen probably have no work, occupation, or program, and can sit, we may request that he add two or three more verses and recite them. Concerning faith, at the foot of this sheet I have written something — this duplicated sheet that is in the gentlemen's hands; please pay attention, I am still speaking — this mimeographed sheet that we gave to our friends, those who have it: here I have written below it, I have written that concerning faith attention should be paid to these matters, and I mentioned several matters that I will speak about again — from the Qur'an, I will conduct a Qur'anic discussion like today's discussion. Concerning these very matters that we wrote here — the consciousness of faith, its not being fanatical and imitative; let me say, the realities and effects of faith, for example, the practical commitments of faith of the sort that we read today — concerning these, God willing, on another day I think we shall speak about faith and these subjects and these discussions, until afterward, God willing, we reach the discussions that follow upon faith.)Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 4 · 39:34
- Ep 5 — Faith Through AwarenessSession 3: Faith Through Awareness.
delivered Saturday, 30 Shahrivar 1353 / 4 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat Al 'Imran (3:190-191).
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for those endowed with understanding — those who remember God standing and sitting and lying upon their sides, and who reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying:] 'Our Lord, You did not create this in vain. Glory be to You! Protect us, then, from the punishment of the Fire.'
In light of the several verses we are reciting today — those written on that sheet — two or three further truths concerning faith come to hand.
Faith is one of the outstanding traits of God's prophets, of the believers, and of those who follow them: to have faith, to believe, to be convinced of one's own mission. Herein lies the difference between divine leaders and the political leaders of the world. The divine leader, like one who himself treads the road, is sincerely a believer with his whole being — in what he says, in every step he takes, in the path he walks. Whereas the politicians of the world may at times have beautiful words and charming, eloquent speech, yet they do not have the requisite faith — or even any faith at all — in what they say.
Here is a story told of the leaders of one of the greatest countries of the Eastern Bloc — for all their atheistic pretensions, and for all their culture and school of thought that severely condemns every non-materialist idea. After the independence of India, to win the hearts of the millions of the newly independent Indian masses, they made a journey to the land of India. And the Hindus and the Indians generally looked on in utter astonishment: for they saw upon the foreheads of the leaders of this communist country the mark of Tilak. Tilak — or Tilak (Tilak) — was one of the freedom-loving leaders of India who was a clergyman. He was one of the great Hindu holy men, reckoned for a span of time the chief and forerunner of the Indian revolution. It is not amiss for me to mention this to you in the margin of these remarks — though of course it has no bearing on the subject I am discussing, yet it is not bad to know. The Indian movement, which from the day of its blossoming to the day of its fruition lasted a full ninety years, had as its principal leaders, from beginning to end, the clergy. Either Muslim clergy such as Mawlana Shah Mahmud Dihlawi, Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan, Mawlana Abu al-Kalam Azad, Mawlana Muhammad 'Ali, Mawlana Shawkat 'Ali — for Mawlana means Ayatullah; Mawlana, in the usage of the Muslims of India, is something equivalent to the rank of "Hadrat Ayatullah" that we have. Ayatullah Muhammad 'Ali, Ayatullah Shawkat 'Ali, Ayatullah Abu al-Kalam, Ayatullah Mahmud al-Hasan — these "Ayatullahs" were the great leaders of the Indian movement on the part of the Muslims. On the part of the Hindus, Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu holy man, a Jain holy man, attached to the school of Jainism.
Let me say that Tilak was a Hindu holy man of most astonishing greatness. A very remarkable man, this Tilak — who of course died in the midst of the movement, before its outcome was reached; he passed from this world and did not see the freedom of India. Yet thirty, forty years after his death, those whom he had nurtured tasted the sweet and pleasant drink of freedom. And a mark called the mark of Tilak remained behind, in memory of that great freedom-loving man who was a clergyman. This mark is the mark of a holy man; it carries an aspect of spirituality, a metaphysical aspect — because Tilak himself was a person who possessed spiritual stations in the view of the Hindus. They saw that the materialist leaders of the Soviet Union, who had now come to India, in order to attract the attention of the masses of the people, drew the mark of Tilak upon their foreheads — meaning: yes, we too; meaning, we too are in agreement with you in this matter. And yet their own pretensions belied this statement, and their own school of thought belies it.
Such is the standing of a number of leaders who are politicians remote from spiritual responsibilities, from faith, and from the divine. But the prophets of God — no; they have believed in what they have said with their whole being. To what they have summoned the people, they themselves, before all others, have come hastening, eager. It makes no sense for me to recline and sleep at the foot of the mountain, letting my whole being wilt and grow cold, and then say to you, "Gentlemen, up there at the top of the mountain there is delicious water; run, go, hurry, be swift, sari'u (vie with one another), sabiqu (outstrip one another)" — while I myself stir not from here. Everyone would have the right to say: if you were telling the truth, if you really knew of the existence of a refreshing spring, you yourself who are burning with thirst, you poor wretch, would have set out yourself! So you are lying; so you do not believe in what you are saying. The divine leaders, before all others — like the vanguards of a road, banner in hand, foot on the path, firm — were busy moving forward and went on; they themselves were ahead of everyone. Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, says: the first who submitted [in Islam] and yielded before You, O Lord, was I myself; after me came the other people, the rest of God's creation following me. This is the characteristic of divine leaders. The divine leader must be like this, and is like this. The Most Noble Prophet, in the most important and most dangerous events of early Islam, was himself there. It is true that 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud was beaten, it is true that Khabbab was tortured, it is true that 'Ammar Yasir fell under torture — but the torture of the Prophet himself was no less than theirs; it was greater. Compare the situation of the Prophet — that man who staked his all — with the situation of these Muslims around him, and you will see it plainly: the severity exercised against the Messenger of God himself was greater and more grueling than against them. First to step forward, first to advance.
Faith is one of the characteristics found in the prophets of God; and here is acceptance with one's whole being, belief in what one says. Faith means belief, acceptance, and reception with one's whole being — belief in what one says. And the sign of belief is precisely this: that one oneself, ahead of others, takes a step on that road and moves forward. Thus the verse of the Qur'an teaches us in this way; it says: The Messenger has believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and so have the believers. Each one has believed in God, His angels, His scriptures, and His messengers. They say, 'We make no distinction between any of His messengers.' And they say, 'We hear and we obey. Grant us Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the final return.'
Amana al-Rasul bima unzila ilayhi min Rabbihi — the Prophet has believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord. Wa al-mu'minun — and the believers, those who came to faith in him, those outstanding individuals who gathered around him and became the loudspeakers of his summons, are likewise so. Kullun amana billah — each one, or every one of them, believed in God, accepted God, came to believe in Him; wa mala'ikatihi — and the angels of God; wa kutubihi — and the heavenly scriptures from beginning to end, entirely; wa rusulihi — and all His messengers. The faith of the Prophet and his companions is in all of them, for the road is one road — "In this path the prophets are like caravan-guides; they are the guides and signposts of the caravan." All are caravan-guides of a single caravan, the caravan-leaders of a single road, the guides toward a single goal; with the people everywhere, all have been fellow travelers, charging forward toward a single destination. La nufarriqu bayna ahadin min rusulih — this is from the tongue of the believers — we make no distinction between any of His prophets. For us Jesus is honored, just as Moses, just as Abraham, just as Idris, just as Jacob, just as Jirjis (St. George), just as Noah, just as all the prophets from beginning to end. All were envoys of God, envoys of a single goal, heralds of a single felicity and a single paradise, all upon a single line. La nufarriqu bayna ahadin min rusulih — we make no distinction between any of His messengers. (In the discussion I will, God willing, give on other days within this very series concerning the belief in prophethood, in its own time and turn, I may also touch upon this question.)
Wa qalu — pay careful attention to these two or three sentences, for they are a point of evidence for a matter I shall speak of later. So the prophets have faith, our Prophet too has it, and the believers and adherents and those attached to him also — all have faith. Wa qalu — and they say: sami'na — we heard, we understood, we hearkened; sami'na — not that it merely fell upon our ears. Sam', sama', means hearing — the state of hearing, which is other than the ear; the ear, in the sense of that particular bodily organ, is expressed in Arabic by the word udhun. Sam' means hearing. You see this in Persian too: they say of so-and-so that he is "heedful" (literally, "word-heeding"), that so-and-so hears what is said. "Did you hear what I said, or not?" you say to your interlocutor — "Did you hear what I said?" Well, it is obvious; there was no more than half a meter between you, your voice would carry even ten meters; it is obvious that he heard. What you mean is: "Did you understand what I said? Did it sink into your brain? Did it enter your mind or not?" These [believers] say sami'na — we understood with our whole being what God had appointed and sent for us. Wa ata'na — and we obeyed. What does that mean? It means our obedience was not blind; our obedience was out of clarity and awareness and sam' (true hearing). Ghufranaka Rabbana — Your forgiveness, Your pardon, O our Lord. The reward we ask of You, O God, is Your forgiveness and nothing else. Wa ilayka al-masir — and to You is our return. (Here again, concerning the matter of the return to God, there are very interesting things which, God willing, I will explain within this very series in the section on the Resurrection [ma'ad] from the Qur'an — if we are alive and there is life and opportunity.)
What have we understood thus far from these verses? That faith and belief are the characteristic of those attached to the summons of Islam. People who have no faith, no belief, who merely go along because others went — going, as it were, just to be on the safe side — these are not within the domain and realm of Islamic thought; there need be no awkward reticence about it. Faith is necessary. Faith means belief, accepting and receiving the matter in full clarity; it means moving in pursuit of an attraction. If this attraction be not present in the school of religion and the Qur'an, and has not captured your heart — that is, if faith be not in this heart — then this heart is dead; it is not alive with the light of Islam; it cannot be called a Muslim. So faith is necessary. This is the first point.
The second point (which we marked with a "2" on these sheets ) is that faith is of two kinds. One kind of faith is imitative, prejudiced (fanatical): because our fathers and elders had believed, we too believed; because in our book, in the domain of our religion, they say so, we too say so — even if you bring proof, you have brought it in vain; we do not accept what you say. This too is a kind of faith, but it is a faith that is either out of imitation or out of prejudice — it is of two kinds. Either it is out of imitation, like the common run of people: if you ask one of the common folk, "Sir, on what basis did you say that the Prophet of Islam is true?" they know nothing at all — nothing at all! Because their fathers said so, because the teacher at school said so, because the people in the street and bazaar say the Prophet is true, this person too says the Prophet is true. He does have faith, mind you; that is, he truly does believe that the Prophet is true — but this belief was obtained from the tongue of this person and that, out of imitation, with eyes closed.
Like this imitative faith is prejudiced (fanatical) faith — by which some people are prepared, God forbid, to disrespect the other prophets, for the sake of pleasing our own Prophet! They imagine that even in the highest heavens there is contradiction among the prophets: "Moses! Who was Moses, man — our Prophet!" And unfortunately this is not peculiar to the ignorant class. Sometimes among classes from whom one has greater expectations — from whom one expects that they should be more understanding, should have grasped more — errors of this kind are seen, examples of which we have at times noticed here and there, and there is no need to recount them. This is what is called prejudice: because the religion of Islam says so, this is right; and because the other religions say it, it is wrong. Because we Muslims perform such-and-such an act, this is right; because others perform some other act, this is wrong. He has a faith, but this faith does not rest upon proof; it is only out of prejudice. And you know what prejudice means: partisanship without proof, partisanship out of feeling, not out of logic. This is called prejudice. This faith is imitative and prejudiced.
I must say, for your attention, my friends, that the faith which has worth in Islam is not imitative and prejudiced faith; that is, imitative and prejudiced faith has no value. You want proof? Of dozens of proofs let me state one, and that one proof is this: that when faith is out of imitation and prejudice, its loss too is easy. Just as the child, without any effort of its own, and the pupil, without any striving of its own, received a faith for free from its father and mother or from the authorities of its school, in the very same way the thieves of faith take this faith from him for free. And suddenly, when you look, there is a faithless generation, the faiths all plundered, gone, the faiths all become hollow; before the flame of materialism, the faiths have melted like snow in the dead of summer and seeped into the ground. Whom am I speaking of? It would be very ordinary and commonplace for me to say "the young generation," but I must say that I do not say that the faithless generation is the young generation; because if we are still observing here and there the blossoms of faith, as a glimmer, a flash, it is in the young generation that we are observing it — bravo once again to the young generation, who seek a faith that is non-imitative, non-prejudiced, and out of awareness. No indeed; I mean to speak of the generation before the young — this generation before our society's youth, these who hold to certain things in the form of blind faiths. Of course such a one goes to the rawdah-recitation gathering, of course he goes to congregational prayer if the chance arises; but because it is not out of logic, because it is not out of awareness and understanding and perception, he is very readily prepared to set even the mosque on fire, to trample even Imam Husayn underfoot, and to sacrifice all of these for the thing that has real worth in his eyes — just as they do, just as we see them do. And one of our misfortunes today is the confrontation with the generation before today's young. They were deprived of the special awareness and clear-sightedness of today's young Muslim, and deprived too — alas — of that deep, firm faith of two generations back, which remained immune to the ravages of the age. They have neither the one thing nor the other. They do not have that understanding and perception and awareness whereby, in its shade, they could bring into being within themselves a settled faith and cast off the bond of money, rank, fame, popularity, comfort, and ease. Nor do they have a firm strongbox and a strong, sturdy enclosure — such as stood around the men of two centuries ago and one century ago — whereby at least to preserve their faith in a strongroom, even if it be that same imitative faith.
After all, a hundred years ago, there did not exist this multitude of highwaymen of thought, faith, and creed. In those days the hands of the enemy, those treacherous fingers, had not yet found their way so deeply into the body of our society. The schemes had not yet reached the conclusion that the people's authentic religious faith must be taken from them so that any calamity could be visited upon their heads — these things came later. This generation before the young, this generation that today is not young and was the youth of yesterday, is today exposed to a foundation-uprooting flood of faith and creed, and against this flood it does not have even a sturdy faith. Blessed are those who choose their faith out of awareness, out of understanding, out of perception, out of comprehension. The flood comes and carries off the towering trees; but that plant which, though slender and delicate and tender, has roots beneath the ground twice its own size — it remains sound; it survives. That which is rooted from the foundation is not to be effaced by these things.
In any case, this is a truth and a certain point in Islam; brothers! Worthy faith is aware faith. It is faith joined with understanding and perception; it is a faith that has come into being out of insight, with open eyes, without fear of difficulties. As for that faith which a certain Muslim man has — to preserve which we must say: let him not read the newspaper, let him not read such-and-such a book, let him not walk in the street and bazaar, let him not speak with such-and-such a person, let him not suffer cold or heat, let him not see sun or moon, so that it may last — this faith, alas, will not last. What is needed is a faith chosen so consciously that, in the harshest of conditions, that faith is not taken from him.
Concerning 'Ammar Yasir, the verse of the Qur'an says: …except one who is compelled while his heart is at rest in faith… If under torture, in order to turn the enemy away from you for a moment, you said a single word — say it; your faith is not a faith that is effaced from your heart by torture. That faith which Khabbab ibn al-Aratt had — they would heat iron and press it to his neck — this is no joke; they would bring glowing iron near his body and press it to the skin of his body — and because of that deep, aware faith of his, he would not give up. Faith is this.
When faith out of clarity, out of understanding, out of thought, with correct reckonings, has been accomplished, then there is no need for us to place this faith in cloth and in rags and in a strongbox and in a strongroom, lest heat and cold and dust and grime harm it; no harm reaches it. It is these unaware faiths that keep a person constantly anxious, in dread: lest, lest, lest. If we want faiths to be firm, if we want faiths not to be effaced, if we want faith to be aware faith, we must continually give awareness to those whom we want to be believers. Let us not dread their becoming aware; let us not take pleasure in their remaining shut of eye and ear. The way is this: until a good substance of awareness comes into being in the minds and hearts and thoughts, and with that awareness a correct, sturdy faith — a reinforced concrete — is built within the heart; then, even with a shrapnel cannon, as the old young men used to say, it is not to be effaced. Islam says faith must be aware. These verses at the end of Surat Al 'Imran introduce aware faith to us. Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for those endowed with understanding…
Inna fi khalqi al-samawati wa al-ard — these are an introduction — wa ikhtilafi al-layli wa al-nahar — indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of night and day. La'ayat — indeed there are signs — for the dull-witted? For the senseless? For those who do not think? Never! Li-uli al-albab — for those of understanding (the wise). The wise one is the one who possesses intellect and the power to understand — and that is all people, provided they put their thought and intelligence to work. For the wise were not, from the moment of birth, set apart by a special emblem such that we might say "we were not among them and cannot become wise, and the wise are thus and so" — no; "wise" means all of us people, along with the other three billion human beings who are in the world, all are wise, on condition that they put to work, a little, this power of intellect that is within them. Suppose you paid money and bought this machine, set it down in the house, and never opened it up, never put it to use. Go to check on it after a while and you will find it has no efficiency, no functioning — it has rusted; and even if it has not rusted, it does not run smoothly. The fault was not the machine's; the fault was yours, for not putting it to work. Ulu al-albab means those who put the power of thought and reflection and intellect to work until they become wise.
Who are ulu al-albab? Look — here is one of the subtle points of the Qur'an. When it wishes to speak of ulu al-albab, to speak of the wise and to introduce them — if ordinary people wished to introduce [the wise], they would say: the wise one is he who is foremost in all the affairs of his life, who is never duped in any matter, who in business dealings, in politics, in political maneuverings, in disputes and confrontations with rivals — everywhere has the upper hand over his rivals. The Qur'an accepts none of these games. Because it deems the real worth of a human being to be his connection and relation with God, it introduces the wise one quite differently: the wise one, in the view of the Qur'an, is the one who holds these highest values in regard above everything and everyone else. Alladhina yadhkuruna Allah — they are the wise ones who remember God, qiyaman — while standing, wa qu'udan — while sitting, wa 'ala junubihim — while fallen upon their sides. That is, in every state — in every state they are mindful of God. But this being mindful of God does not mean some ecstatic, mystical, dervish-like state in which some people are pleased to think, "Very well, we too are always mindful of God; we are always crying out 'Hu!'" — no; being mindful of God in an active way, a being-mindful-of-God that counts as a deed. How so?
Wa yatafakkaruna fi khalqi al-samawati wa al-ard — and they reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth; they are in a state of contemplation. You see, ulu al-albab, the wise, are those who are in a state of reflection: wa yatafakkaruna fi khalqi al-samawati wa al-ard. Then, when they perform this reflection and contemplation, with the tongue of the heart and the tongue of the outward they say thus: Rabbana — our Lord! Ma khalaqta hadha batilan, subhanak — You did not create this in vain; transcendent are You above this work of creating in vain; that is, the most important and most fundamental point of an ideology.
Of every life-shaping ideology, the fundamental point is this: that I am here for some purpose. If one believes in God, he says, "I was brought here for a purpose"; if one does not believe in God, he says, "In any case I have some task here." You see, the most fundamental points of an intellectual philosophy that is to inspire an individual and social life are precisely this: Rabbana ma khalaqta hadha batilan. He is a believer in the divine; his Lord — therefore he says: our Lord, You did not create this heaven and earth, all this uproar, in vain and in futility. Subhanak — You are too transcendent and pure to do a vain work; so I have a responsibility; so I must tread a road; so I, in the face of this strange and astonishing order, am a point — and for a purpose. In this strange order, I too have a place, and for a purpose; so that if I do not do it rightly and correctly — that act in the very manner You have willed — I have ruined this order. Subhanak, qina 'adhaba al-nar — so guard us and keep us safe from the torment of the Fire; the fire of the Resurrection, which, while it is a reality, is also the symbol of the fire of God's wrath and anger and retribution, and is likewise [part of] the constitution of the world.
You must pay attention: all of these are an introduction — an introduction so that we may rightly grasp aware faith from within these verses. By now you friends yourselves must have noticed how awareness ascends and rises up from these verses; but now pay attention. Rabbana innaka man tudkhili al-nara faqad akhzaytah — our Lord, the one whom You make enter the Fire, You have disgraced and humiliated and abased; wa ma lil-zalimina min ansar — and for the wrongdoers whom You have made enter the Fire there is no helper and no supporter, neither from the constitution [of the world] nor any hand from the Unseen, in no way whatsoever. That is, those who move along the path of injustice and oppression, along the path of unbelief and hypocrisy, along the path of falsehood, are condemned to extinction and nonexistence; nothing in this world supports them.
Well, Rabbana — these wise, intelligent ones, these ulu al-albab, these thinkers upon heaven and earth, these who have understood that they did not come into this world in vain and that this world was not created in vain, continue their speech — we are arriving here at faith — they say: Rabbana — O our Lord — innana sami'na — we heard and understood, with the ear of the body and the ear of the heart; munadiyan — a caller, a crier — who yunadi lil-iman — was calling out for faith, sounding the call of faith; an aminu bi-Rabbikum — saying, "Believe in your Lord"; fa-amanna — and then we believed. What sort of faith did these believe with? Someone said "Believe," and they believed [just like that]? No; these are the very ulu al-albab, the very thinkers. This caller may outwardly be a prophet, but inwardly he is the prophet of their own intellect and insight, who summons them toward reflection and faith in God and calls them. So the caller said to them, "Believe," and they, out of insight, out of understanding, out of perception and complete awareness, believed. This kind of faith is what is desired in Islam: aware faith. Well, that is the second point.
There is also a third point, which I will state very briefly (since unfortunately a portion of the time was taken up by the beginning of our session). The third point is this: that since aware faith is what is desired in Islam, and since God Most High does not accept unaware faith and assigns it no honor or worth — therefore in several places in the Qur'an it severely rebukes the blind, imitative, prejudiced faiths — for often, too, such faiths slam a person to the ground head-first — it severely censures such faiths. We have written one of its verses here, though if I want to find it in the Qur'an it becomes a bit difficult. And when it is said to them, 'Come to what God has sent down and to the Messenger…' The talk is of the unbelievers and the reactionaries — and when it is said to them, "Come toward what God has sent down, and come toward the Prophet." (The way I translated it here: and when it is said to them, "Come, and test and understand what God has sent down and what the Prophet teaches." Well — come close, understand, then; come and listen, see what the Prophet says; does the Prophet have something to say?) What is their answer? Instead of coming, instead of thinking, instead of trying to understand and to choose their road — qalu — they say: hasbuna ma wajadna 'alayhi aba'ana — "the way and custom upon which we found our fathers is enough for us. We do not go after these new words." The unbeliever — in the words of one of the researchers — the unbelievers in the Qur'an are everywhere another name and expression for the reactionaries of the centuries and the ages. Everywhere the Prophet is the enlightened intellectual of his time; he has a new word, he has a new road, he summons toward the new; whereas the unbelievers and opponents are the prejudiced, the imitators, the rigid-minded, and the reactionaries who do not like and do not accept his new road.
Their words too are: "Tread the road just as the [former] travelers trod." We did not see our fathers and mothers this way; we saw our fathers in another way; we want to understand it the same way, to act the same way. Then the Qur'an, in answer, what does it say? A wa law kana aba'uhum la ya'lamuna shay'an wa la yahtadun — these have carried the matter of this imitation of their fathers to such a point that: even though their fathers knew nothing and found no way [aright]. (Unfortunately the translation of this latter passage — this last sentence of the verse — has not been written here, although I had written it on that paper, and it has apparently been forgotten, so that it should be written.) In any case, the Qur'an says to these: even if your fathers understood nothing, found no road, could not rightly distinguish their own good from their own ill — even so, do you imitate them? See how it blames and reproaches imitation.
(Well, now these verses at the end of Surat Al 'Imran, our dear reciter Mr. Fatimi will recite today. After he has finished, I have two matters that I wish to present, and I request that you gentlemen pay full attention; after his recitation, do not rise, until I rise, and I wish to present two matters. Mr. Fatimi, if you please.)Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 5 · 31:40
- Ep 6 — Productive Faith Accompanied by Practical CommitmentsSession 4: Productive Faith Accompanied by Practical Commitments.
delivered Sunday, 31 Shahrivar 1353 / 5 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Hajj (22:77-78).
…And strive for God with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you in religion any hardship — the faith of your father Abraham. It is He who named you Muslims before and in this [Revelation], that the Messenger may be a witness over you and that you may be witnesses over mankind. So establish prayer and give zakat and hold fast to God. He is your Protector — and excellent is the Protector, and excellent is the Helper.
The matter is simply this: faith, according to the undeniable culture of the Qur'an, is not merely an affair of the heart. It is true that faith means belief, and belief is connected to the heart; but the Qur'an does not recognize as valid every belief, every faith and acceptance and assent. Abstract faith, a faith confined to a dry and empty heart — a faith whose radiance is not visible in the limbs and organs of the believer — such faith, in the view of Islam, is of no worth.
The very first to have faith in God was Satan. For years before the boastful servants of the Lord and the proud, pampered children of Adam came to this dusty earth, Iblis used to worship God Almighty, and his heart was a center of the knowledge of God. But at that decisive juncture — at the very point where faith is supposed to come into play, that is, at the moment of choice, at the moment of determining one's final path — this faith was of no use to Iblis; this faith remained right there in the heart. I say that a faith which only remains in the heart will rot and dry up. You may say, "No, it endures." Well, let us grant the objection its full strength: let us say faith remains in the depths of the heart. Yet a faith that stays in the heart and does not reach the hands and feet and eyes and ears and brain, the limbs and organs and life and faculties and energies of a person — that faith, from the standpoint of Qur'anic culture, is of no worth.
We have summarized this point in a single heading, and it is the very heading written at the top of this sheet which is in your hands: productive faith. A faith that, like an overflowing spring, gives birth to action; a faith accompanied by commitment; a faith that places a burden upon the believer's shoulders; a faith that has action alongside it.
I set out to count up in the Qur'an the verses that read inna'lladhina amanu wa 'amilu's-salihat — "those who believed and did righteous deeds." I found that with this very expression, faith joined with righteous action appears in dozens of instances. Faith without commitment — a faith unaccompanied by any sense of responsibility — is good neither for this world nor for the Hereafter. This is the logic of the Qur'an.
(Tomorrow's recitation, too, is roughly on this same theme; we will recite some verses tomorrow as well and reflect upon them, God willing, with deliberation — for they too declare this very meaning explicitly, with utmost clarity, leaving no room for argument.) Those who supposed that faith is something belonging to the region of a person's heart — even if the person is not bound to the requisites and commitments of faith — and that he can still belong to the circle of believers; those who imagined that by being a believer alone, that is, by holding the belief alone, without action, without effort, without striving, God's promises concerning the believers would fall to one's share; those who thought Paradise is granted in exchange for an affair of the heart, and that, without action, government over the earth is granted in exchange for an affair of the heart and not for action; those who imagine, in short, that if we remove action, something of faith still remains — these people ought to reflect carefully upon these verses, and upon the other verses in the coming recitation, and upon the dozens of other instances throughout the entire Qur'an, so that they may see that the faith which has value in the view of Islam is the faith accompanied by action, by responsibility, by duty, by commitment.
If you have felt no commitment, then doubt your own being a believer. A society that does not act upon the commitments of faith should not name itself a believing society.
Consider those who have heard from the Qur'an wa la tahinu wa la tahzanu wa antum al-a'lawna in kuntum mu'minin — "Do not weaken, do not grieve; if you are believers you are the highest of all." They heard this astonishing summons from the Qur'an, and then they look at the realities, and they see that the believers in the Qur'an are not above everyone; rather, they are debtors to everyone. And so they are amazed: where, then, is this promise of the Qur'an? And if, at some time, they do not find any fulfilling of this promise, they sit waiting for the appearance of the Wali of the Age (may the blessings of God be upon him). To these people, too, it must be pointed out: yes, the divine promise is true — both at the time of the appearance of the Promised Mahdi (may the blessings of God be upon him) and wherever faith takes form. But it is the faith that the Qur'an regards as accompanied by action, the faith it does not consider separate from commitment. Faith is not merely an affair of the heart.
If mere assent and acceptance of the truth of the word were enough for faith, then I say the first to have faith in the Prophet was Abu Lahab or al-Walid ibn al-Mughira al-Makhzumi. Those shrewd Arabs understood very well that the Messenger of God did not lie; they understood well that he spoke the truth. Do you want proof? The proof is that they would sit together with their drinking companions and decide to disgrace the Prophet. They would say, "Let us go and listen, let us see what he says, and find fault with him." Then they would go and sit; and the next night they would come back and say, "No, this is not the speech of a human being; this is the word of the God of mankind." So they accepted, they affirmed that he spoke from God. Yet you, after fourteen centuries from that time, do not regard him as a believer. I say: if he is not a believer — on the grounds that this faith of his, this acceptance of his, this assent of his, was not accompanied by the appropriate commitments — then are we believers? — while our own assent, too, is not accompanied by the appropriate commitments. What do you say?
If mere recognition and heart-felt faith and belief were enough, then 'Amr ibn al-'As would have to be the first Shi'a in the world. 'Amr ibn al-'As, who either saw the affair of Ghadir Khumm with his own eyes or heard of it from those who saw it with their own eyes — whereas you and I, after thirteen-odd centuries, merely read of this affair in books. 'Amr ibn al-'As, who composes poetry about Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him); 'Amr ibn al-'As, who at the moment of death, in those most critical hours and moments that present themselves to a human mind, expresses remorse, expresses regret, saying, "I sold my religion for Mu'awiya's world; I fought against 'Ali, whom I knew to be the truth." So 'Amr ibn al-'As, it seems to me, grasped and affirmed the immediate succession (wilayat-i bila-fasl) of the Commander of the Faithful more deeply and more knowledgeably than a Shi'a of the fourteenth century after the Hijra. But is he a Shi'a? You say no. Why is he not a Shi'a? Because belief in the Imamate of the Commander of the Faithful brings certain commitments. Its very first commitment is not to pledge allegiance to Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan. 'Amr ibn al-'As, who becomes complicit with Mu'awiya and fights against this very 'Ali — that is, he does not remain bound to the commitments of Shi'ism, to the responsibilities and duties that this belief directs upon a person — is not a Shi'a.
This statement is correct. And because it is correct, I turn the discourse back upon ourselves once again, and I say: by this very reasoning, can you and I believe and be certain that we are Shi'a? Are we acting upon the commitments of being a Shi'a? Are we bound by them? And the word of the Qur'an on this matter is clear, undoubting, and unambiguous. (This meaning is present both in today's recitation and in tomorrow's.) It explicitly denies faith to those who are utterly unbound by the commitments of their faith. Therefore, the faith that is valid in Islam — and these are among the doctrinal principles of Islam and of Shi'ism — is productive, commitment-creating faith. It is the faith that is accompanied by practical commitments; and if it is not so accompanied, then do not wait for its fruits either, do not wait for victory in this world, do not wait for security in this world.
(This verse and dozens of other verses that bear witness and testify to the point have not come into this writing of ours, because there is no room and no occasion for them.) The Qur'an says: Those who believed and did not clothe their faith in wrongdoing — for them is security, and they are rightly guided. That faith which is accompanied by oppression does not procure security. That faith which has no commitment alongside it does not grant the believer victory; it does not guarantee his triumph; it does not bring him the help of God and the help of the very particles of nature and creation; it does not give him the happiness and salvation of this world — in short, in a word, it does not give him the paradise of this world and the next.
The vain fancies that arise from love of ease whisper to us the very opposite of this. There is a trait in a human being that always seeks the easier course; there is a tendency toward seeking ease, toward taking the path of least resistance, in a person. If you give him the choice between two tasks — whichever is easier, whichever requires less effort and less expense — that is the one a person chooses. This is human nature; usually people are like this. This trait tells us: accept the easier path, the less costly path, the more effortless path. On the other hand, religious faith says: your Paradise is lost. So that the ease-seeking may remain in place and Paradise may not be lost, we are compelled to sit down and devise formulas — formulas that yield the result of sending the idle, lazy man to Paradise. We stand by our formulas, we cling to them stubbornly, and to the very end we never understand; only when we have failed to reach Paradise do we understand that the formulas were wrong. I say: let us now reconsider, let us see whether these formulas are really correct.
The Qur'an is our definitive, flawless text, and there are hundreds of sound, well-attested narrations. The Imam (peace be upon him), in a narration with this purport — (I thought I would search beforehand and prepare several of his narrations to bring here and read, but the truth is I did not find the time; otherwise there are many narrations on this subject) — says that our intercession does not reach [a person], or [a person] does not attain to our intercession, except by means of striving and serious effort. Now, with laziness, with embracing the knee of grief, with eating the grief of the past and the grief of the future in a spineless, listless way — grieving is good, but a grieving that is not accompanied by spinelessness — we, in this negative, base, fruitless state, sit waiting in the hope of intercession. Yet the Imam himself (peace be upon him), according to this narration, says that our intercession reaches those who have serious effort and striving — precisely the opposite of what is in our minds. And narrations of this kind are beyond counting.
Imam al-Sajjad (peace be upon him), in that middle of the night, is engaged in worship in the mosque, engaged in weeping and lamentation. That man who, according to the correct understanding of his life, is wholly an effort in the path of bringing right and truth to power — in the middle of the night, too, is wholly an effort in the path of servitude and humility before God. He sheds tears, he weeps, he supplicates — astonishing supplications, which there is no occasion now for me to relate — in an astonishing state. Then that simple-hearted, good-natured man says: "O son of the Prophet! You? You, with that father, that mother, that grandfather — all of whom are God's chosen servants — leave the weeping to us. You, who are the son of the Prophet, the son of 'Ali, the son of Husayn, the son of Fatima al-Zahra, why do you weep?" At that, Imam al-Sajjad (the blessings of God be upon him), while defending this thesis — the thesis of humility and reverence and weeping and worship and supplication before the Lord, for the polishing of the soul, for becoming ever more resolute, for relying ever more upon God, and not for benumbing oneself — while reinforcing this thesis, also draws this error out of the mind of this ordinary Shi'a. He says: "What are you saying? Da' 'an hadithi abi wa ummi wa jaddi — cast aside the talk of father and mother and grandfather, that you are the son of so-and-so — al-jannatu li'l-muti'in — Paradise belongs to the obedient." This is the Islamic thesis and the Shi'i thesis in the matter of faith and action.
Why do I emphasize this matter? Because for long years — indeed for many centuries — work has been done upon the minds of Muslims to convince them that action is not necessary for being a Muslim, to make them understand that for being a believer a pure heart alone is necessary, not a pure deed. Aiding these treacherous, hireling hands have been our own love of ease, our own ease-seeking, our own pretensions — for we would like God's Paradise to be handed to us in exchange for some small task. And this mistaken understanding has been aided too by the ignorance of those with no ulterior motive; they had no motive other than that they were ignorant.
From after the Prophet, after a short period of time, this idea arose and was promoted. Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan is very interesting. Do you know of anyone more irreligious than Mu'awiya? Do you know of anyone worse than Mu'awiya? Whom else, in that history and at the dawn of Islamic history, could one find worse than these people? One day they saw that Mu'awiya was making a bequest to his intimates: "Yes — when I am dead, there are one or two small bundles; bring them from such-and-such a place and place them in my shroud." They said, "What are these?" He said, "One of them is a piece of the Prophet's garment. One day the Prophet of God was trimming his hair and face, or paring his nails, and I gathered up a few of those particles of hair and the discarded nail-clippings of the Prophet; place these in my shroud, that God may forgive me."
How pure of soul! Mu'awiya too sets out and works in the hope of the Prophet's intercession — but on what path? On the path of acquiring a few strands of the hair of the Prophet's mustache and face and head. Well, bravo! As far as it is easy, as far as it costs nothing, he lends an ear to the Qur'an too, he shows respect to the Qur'an too — but only as far as it is profitable to himself. (If I were to enter into this matter now, there are whole discussions to be had. I think I may speak somewhat on this subject tomorrow.)
In any case, for years — and for long years — they have been working upon minds, so as to say: Islam minus action, faith without action; in the heart, love and faith and belief — and not in action, in movement and effort and effect. For years they have wanted to make us believe this. And the Qur'an, all the while, raises its call, alive and fresh: and those are not the believers.
Those who do not have these works (whose recitation we shall see either today or tomorrow) are not believers; they have no faith. Those are believers, those are with you, those are encompassed by the grace of God and by brotherhood and Muslim fellowship, who move in the path of God, in accordance with faith, in a committed manner — who strive, who work, who labor. This is the logic of the Qur'an.
O you who have believed — bow, prostrate, humble yourselves before God; render servitude and worship to your Lord; do good; that perhaps you may succeed, may be saved.
If you do these works, there is felicity and salvation and success and triumph. But if it were only ya ayyuha'lladhina amanu — "O you who have believed" — and there were no irka'u wa'sjudu wa'budu rabbakum waf'alu'l-khayr — bow, prostrate, worship your Lord, and do good — would there be felicity and salvation? The answer is up to you.
And strive for God with the striving due to Him.
Strive in the path of God in the manner that striving deserves. For a single day's income, from sunrise to sunrise, what do you do, how much do you toil? How much do you strive? In that same proportion, see how much you must strive for God. Everything is in the main text, while the work of God is in the margin. The general state of our lives, the general layout of our lives, is like this: all the works are in the main text — teaching, learning, earning money, toiling, exercising, and so on — all of it is the main text of life; and in those margins, that work of God either is there or is not. But if you look correctly, that effort which must be made for God and in the path of God — its volume, its quality, its depth, its tirelessness and steadfastness — ought to be, in proportion to the greatness and majesty of God Himself, greater than all other efforts, more enduring, more tireless, more indefatigable.
…strive for God with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you.
O community of Islam! What does "He has chosen you" mean? Does it mean He has set you aside as pampered, precious pearls, and said: these are a breed apart; they have sinned too, they have erred too, they have acted contrary to Our command too — yet Paradise is in their name? This is a claim that the Jews too made about themselves. They were mistaken; and any Muslim who thinks this way is mistaken too. Against the Jews — those who imagined that they were the beloved and the friends and the intimates, indeed the children of God — the Qur'an declares, in a tone of severe and stinging reproach, that all this love, this friendship, this guardianship, hinges on this: that you act according to God's command. "We chose you" — that is true; "but We had chosen the Children of Israel before too." God selected the Ummah of Islam; but before Islam He had selected the Children of Israel too. Both selections are of one kind: in the sense of selecting the most prepared individual for the greatest task.
Among ten of you, you look and see that this one's face is more resolute, his body more ready, his complexion more vigorous, his fist stronger, his arms and chest broader and firmer; you say, "Sir, this heavy load — you must lift it; I chose you for this task." And this one steps forward. If he lifts it, if he is able to do this task — that is, if he wills it (the capacity was undoubtedly in him) — if he resolves and lifts this load, then he rises above the level of his peers and becomes a select, distinguished individual. And if he does not lift it? If he does not lift it, he becomes more downtrodden and more wretched than the others. They say to him, "Poor wretch! The others could not, and We did not ask them; but We asked you, and you did not do it." The selection of the Ummah of Islam is of this kind, like the selection of the Ummah of the Children of Israel. The Children of Israel in their time, and the Muslims in their time, were the worthiest of communities and individuals to bear the trust of Islam, the leadership and guidance of mankind; that is why this trust was given to them. Did they bear it or not? If they bore it — if they delivered this trust to its destination — then of course they are the best, the most select, and the worthiest of Muslims; but if not, then what? If they did not bear it, they have the very condition that the Jews acquired as a result of not bearing the trust:
And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them, and they incurred the wrath of God.
This is for their world; ma'wahum jahannam — "their abode is Hell" — and that is for their Hereafter.
He has chosen you.
He has chosen you, He has selected you for the bearing of this load. wa ma ja'ala 'alaykum fi'd-dini min haraj — "and He has not laid upon you in religion any hardship": in religion He has placed upon you no hardship, no pressure, no difficulty; there is no constraint. This load is not so very heavy; bearing it is not so much a torment and torture; it is bearable. wa ma ja'ala 'alaykum fi'd-dini min haraj — He has laid upon you in the matter of religion no constraint, no difficulty, no pressure. millata abikum Ibrahim — this is the very creed of your father Abraham. huwa sammakumu'l-muslimina min qablu wa fi hadha — He has named you, in the past and in this present time, Muslims and submitters, surrendered to God — wa min dhurriyyatina ummatan muslimatan lak (this is in the prayer of Abraham in Surat al-Baqarah, a reference to that) — huwa sammakumu'l-muslimina min qablu wa fi hadha: We gave you this load, We carried out this selection regarding you. For what? So that what may come about? So that you may do what and reach where?
…that the Messenger may be a witness over you and that you may be witnesses over mankind.
Your direct overseer is the Prophet, and you are responsible for all humanity — so that the Prophet may be a witness and guardian and watchman over you, and you may be witnesses and guardians and watchmen over humanity. You are the rulers of mankind, you are the administrators of humanity, you are the watchmen of this caravan. O leaders of the caravan, do not remain asleep!
li-yakuna'r-rasulu shahidan 'alaykum — that the Prophet may be a witness and guardian and watchman over you; wa takunu shuhada'a 'ala'n-nas — and that you may be over the people and over humanity and over the nations and the masses, watchmen and guardians and overseers. Now that it is so, now that your responsibility is heavy, now that you are being dispatched on a difficult mission on behalf of the Lord — fa-aqimu's-salat — then establish prayer. Once again duty, once again commitment — dry and empty faith?! fa-aqimu's-salat — establish the prayer; wa atu'z-zakat — and give the zakat. (aqimu's-salat I explained on one of the past days.)
and hold fast to God.
And cling to God and to the divine creed; take refuge in God, rely upon God; fear no one else, no other power. At the time when the ways are closed before you, do not despair of God's grace and aid and help. huwa mawlakum — God is your master, your guardian, your protector, and the one on your front line. (The meaning of mawla — guardianship (wilayat) and expressions of this sort — I must, God willing, set forth in a detailed and independent discussion. Allahu waliyyu'lladhina amanu — what does it mean? huwa mawlakum — what does it mean? 'Ali is the mawla of the believers — what does it mean? The believers must hold the wilayat of 'Ali — what does it mean? This wilayat, this word, is an astonishingly meaning-laden, pith-filled word. One day, God willing, I will explain it using Qur'anic expressions.) fa-ni'ma'l-mawla wa ni'ma'n-nasir — what an excellent master, what an excellent helper is the Lord.
We have several more verses, from the end of Surat al-Anfal. (Here too, again, there is another section, a small explanation I wrote at the head of it, before these verses of al-Anfal: social commitments.) The commitments of faith of the kind of zakat, of the kind of prayer, of the kind of holding fast to God — that is one kind, which was repeated in those verses, the verses at the end of Surat al-Hajj. Now another kind of the commitments of faith, from another standpoint, from another angle — another kind of commitment — is raised in these verses.
Indeed those who believed — and emigrated.
What does it mean to emigrate? Does it mean, firstly, that they went from Mashhad to Tehran, for example, and stayed? That they migrated from one city to another and that was all? No. Emigration means, all at once, washing one's hands of everything for the sake of a goal — for the sake of joining the Islamic society, for the sake of accepting commitment within the organized structure of the Islamic community. When you rose up and came out of Mecca, your shop full of goods and merchandise no longer existed for you there — that shop with its established goodwill, as today's people would call it, with a loyal clientele and a reputation that earned you honor. To the benefit of the bloodthirsty, marauding plunderers of Mecca, your shop with its two or three bays was confiscated and your property was looted. If you had come from Mecca alone, and your wife had not become a Muslim, then you had to write off all the memories of your past married life to the wind — it was over, you had to tear your heart away. If you came from Mecca to Medina, and your father or your son had stayed behind there, the dearest of your dear ones had turned into your blood-enemy. Emigration means this. Those who emigrated accepted into their souls all these deprivations and failures.
From another angle, emigration means carrying a single brick for the building of the mighty palace of the Islamic society. Consider now: here a building is to be constructed. Suppose that a hundred pieces of timber, or thousands of pieces of brick, are to be placed here one upon another. If every child carries even one and brings it here, then this is built. If every person lays a single stone, a magnificent palace comes into being. The Islamic society that had come into being in Medina was in need of believing, active, hardworking, capable, seasoned, Islam-understanding elements, lovers of and believers in this path, with hearts brimming with faith. The one who emigrated from Mecca passed up familiarity and affection and memory and ease and pleasure and merriment, and came to Medina. From Mecca to Medina, this person had in truth taken a great step in the building of such a society, according to his own share, to his own measure; therefore he had worth, he was decisive. So see what these verses say.
Indeed those who believed — and also emigrated — and strove with their wealth and their lives in the path of God — and those who gave shelter, to these homeless, helpless ones uprooted from their houses — and aided them — all of these: these are some of them the allies of others.
These are bound together and joined together and on one front with each other. These are all one element; these are the bricks and mortar of one wall and one roof. Mathalu'l-mu'mini ka-mathali'l-bunyani yashuddu ba'duhu ba'da — "The likeness of the believer is the likeness of a building: one part of it reinforces another." Have you seen how these bricks are interlocked, in these vaulted ceilings? Each brick is a believer; each believer is a brick, interlocked, and holds in place dozens of other bricks. In a vaulted ceiling, pull out a single brick with effort, and ten bricks around it fall — this one had held those ten in place, just as those ten in turn, each for its part, had held this one in place. ba'duhum awliya'u ba'd — some of them are the allies of others.
and those who believed — pay attention here — but those who believed, who have the heart-faith too, but wa lam yuhajiru — they did not tear themselves away from the comfortable tree-shaded private home and emigrate — (well, even if there was no tree-shaded home there, the houses of that place) — wa lam yuhajiru — they did not emigrate; they believed, but did not act upon this commitment of faith. How are these people? Of them He says: ma lakum min walayatihim min shay'in hatta yuhajiru — you have nothing to do with their guardianship until they emigrate. These are not joined to you, they are not part of you; between you and them there is no guardianship and no joining-together. Until when? hatta yuhajiru — until they act upon the commitment of faith. Dry and empty faith yields no effect even in this world, brother; even in the Islamic society it does not become a source of effect; and in the Hereafter, that goes without saying. Ma lakum min walayatihim min shay'in hatta yuhajiru.
(Well, did I write down the continuation of this verse over there? I did not write it; so this much is enough. As it happens, I myself have grown tired now. Now pay attention. Today our reciter is the esteemed Mr. Ruhani, who is coming, who is doing us the honor of coming here to read these verses. First the verses at the end of Surat al-Hajj — or he may add two or three verses to the verses of Surat al-Hajj — or, by my preference (which now seems to me better this way): first the verses of Surat al-Hajj, those same two or three verses we translated; first he recites those, and you listen well. Once again, when you have heard these verses in that beautiful melody, they will settle more firmly in your mind and in your soul. First he reads the verses at the end of Surat al-Hajj, then he returns to this very verse that I just read, [continuing] to the end of the surah — that is, up to the beginning of bara'atun mina'llah, Surat al-Tawba — these very verses he reads too. Because today, just now, between the two prayers, when I was looking at the Qur'an, I saw that after this verse, two or three verses on,) there is again a sentence there that serves our purpose much better. That sentence is very apt for the testimony of our point; now I will read that very sentence for you. One, two, three verses later He says:
And those who believed and emigrated and strove in the path of God — (which I did not write down on this sheet) — and those who gave shelter and aided — these are the true believers.
The true believer is these; who are those other than these? The false believer. This is the import of the verse. (Therefore, since these verses are apt, they will recite these very verses later.)Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 6 · 32:24
- Ep 7 — Faith and Adherence to CommitmentsSession 5: Faith and Adherence to Commitments.
delivered Monday, 1 Mehr 1353 / 6 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Nur (24:51-52).
The only saying of the believers, when they are called to God and His Messenger so that he may judge between them, is that they say: 'We hear and we obey.' And it is they who are the successful. And whoever obeys God and His Messenger, and fears God and is mindful of Him — it is they who are the triumphant.
Here is another important point within the discussion of faith: the commitments of a believing person are not occasional, not a matter of personal whim. The one who wishes to present himself as a believer cannot be a believer only where his own aggressive personal benefit and gain demand it. That is the picture we must reject — a man who, wherever he can "ride the mount of his desire" in the name of faith and through a show of action, invokes the name of faith and of action, but then, in those cases where faith and action yield him no personal, aggressive, transgressive benefit, turns away from the name of Islam, the name of faith, and from acting upon the commitments of faith. Here we attributed this trait — which the Qur'an exposes in a variety of forms — to the profit-seekers; we said that profit-seekers are like this. All the people of the world are profit-seekers; who is there who desires his own loss? What we mean by "profit-seekers" are those who, for the benefit of their own person, are ready to sacrifice worldly interests — the transgressing profit-seekers.
Their way of life is this: they want and love faith and action only to the extent that it serves their own person, and only insofar as, in the name of faith and through a show of action, they can derive some gain or pleasure. People of this sort are, from the standpoint of Islam, not believers. The verse of the Qur'an explicitly declares that these have no faith. Faith is one of the very first topics that had to be, and was, raised in the chain of the intellectual understanding of Islam. And in discussing it we reached this conclusion: faith is faith only when it is accompanied by commitment. Faith without commitment, without a sense of responsibility, without the carrying out of commitments — without, in the Qur'an's expression, righteous deeds — is not faith. The results of faith do not follow upon a bare, dry, merely mental faith. In addition to this, this further truth must also be kept in view: that commitment is perpetual and universal.
The one who is a believer and wishes to remain a believer and to enjoy the fruits of being a believer must feel committed before all the commandments of God, and must feel committed everywhere. The one who believes that faith in God and faith in the prophetic mission brings a commitment — that commitment is this: that everyone must become a servant of God, and that I, to the extent I am able, must make everyone a servant of God. Faith in the Prophet, and bearing witness that I am one who affirms the messengership of my Prophet, brings this commitment: that I must follow the Prophet and move along his path. Suppose I am affirming and acknowledging in this sense — suppose I accept this commitment. Then one thing no longer makes sense. When I encounter some small phenomenon contrary to the conduct of the Prophet, contrary to the path of God's Prophet, I so fill the veins of my neck, so clench my fists — truly the performance of a Muslim. Yet when I face a larger phenomenon, a more troublesome one, again in opposition to the direction and course of prophethood and messengership, I forget my responsibility.
There is a saying: Asadun 'alayya wa-fi'l-hurubi na'amatun — "A lion against me, but in wars an ostrich." With the weak you are a lion; with the bad people who are only mildly bad you roar like a male lion; but with the great evildoers, with the bad ones who breed evil, you have no fighting spirit at all! Asadun 'alayya wa-fi'l-hurubi na'amatun! This is an Arabic line of verse used as a proverb. It says: when they come up against us they are lions, but in the wars, when they face thick-necked, sword-wielding, armed enemies, they are ostriches. Does an ostrich do battle with anyone? Does an ostrich have claws and fangs?
Commitment is not seasonal; commitment is not occasional. It is not directed at one time and not at another; it is not directed at one person and not at another. Commitment is universal, all-encompassing, and perpetual. The Noble Qur'an names the Jews — those who in one place would say that our brethren — meaning the Jews — must be preserved like dear ones; but in the place where their personal interests came into play, they would kill these very brethren in wars, take them captive, sell them, and consume the price. The Qur'an, in the position of rebuking the Children of Israel, says: Do you believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in part?
Do you have faith in some of the religion, and in those untroublesome, comfortable parts of it you are believers and committed — while in some other parts of the religion you are faithless, without belief? Can such a thing be? Can one make a division between two statements and two commands, both of which have their source from one origin and one point?
Our great Imam, Imam al-Baqir — God's blessings and peace be upon him — in that well-known hadith which is the first hadith in the chapter on enjoining good and forbidding evil in the noble book al-Wafi — of course this hadith is in al-Kafi as well, and in the reliable books of the Shi'a, but al-Wafi is the compendium of our four principal books, by the late Fayd al-Kashani — when you open the book on enjoining good and forbidding evil, its first hadith is this. He points precisely to people of this very kind: these are those who turn toward prayer and fasting, which are untroublesome and undemanding, but toward enjoining good and forbidding evil — which is troublesome and, on the surface, harmful — they show no inclination and pay no heed. Here the Imam, peace be upon him, does not go on to say whether these are believers or not believers; he does not say whether they are corrupt (fasiq) or hypocrites. But the verse of the Qur'an here says explicitly: those who, where their interests are at stake, do not want the religion — these are not believers.
Those who, if the truth is on their side in some affair, submit to the judgment and rule of the Prophet, but where the truth is not on their side and they know that the ruling will go against them, do not submit to the rule and judgment of the Prophet — of these the Qur'an asks: did they fear? Did some doubt arise in them? Did they fall into uncertainty about the rightness and soundness of the religion? Its other half is this: Or do they fear that God and His Messenger will be unjust to them? — something at the level of unbelief: they feared that God and His Messenger would wrong them.
In all affairs, in all matters, in every corner and aspect of life, the believing person is committed — not only where his advantage requires it.
Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, in the place where it became necessary, even raised the Qur'an as pages upon the spear-points — as you have all heard, and you know its story. In the place where advantage required it, he too would speak of the Qur'an, of prayer, and of religion. In the place where he had to win over the heart of one of 'Ali's friends toward himself, he would even speak of the virtues of the Commander of the Faithful; when they would mention 'Ali's virtues, he would even shed crocodile tears. How many times have you heard that Mu'awiya was seated, and 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas was also seated, and others were seated, and then he said: "So, you so-and-so son of so-and-so, what do you know of the virtue of 'Ali?" The man said, "Am I safe?" Mu'awiya said, "Yes, you are safe." Then the man began to speak, and Mu'awiya began to weep loudly, wailing. Where it is necessary, he even speaks of love for 'Ali; where it is necessary, he even presents himself as God's special servant; where, for the sake of ruling over a handful of Muslims, he is forced to preserve their sentiments and not wound their feelings, he speaks of what the people love — namely, the Qur'an and Islam.
These are the places where religion is to his benefit, in accordance with his personal interests and his transgressing desires. But there, where religion and adherence to the commandments of religion is to his detriment — there he no longer recognizes religion. Consider what these other matters are: the reckoning of justice, the observance of social justice, the regard for the oppressed and deprived classes, the placing of relatives and strangers on an equal footing — these belong to religion, these are part of Islam — and the raising of the level of people's thought and reflection, which is the goal of the messages, the prophethoods, and the missions. When these come into play, Mu'awiya knows nothing of religion, feels no commitment before religion. I use Mu'awiya as an example so that there may be a possibility for you and me to bring ourselves into this arena and to test ourselves against this certain standard. Let me give as an example someone whose badness is clear and certain in everyone's view.
I want to say: if it is to be the case that we accept some portion of the religion in a committed way, and we do not accept the other portion, yet regard ourselves as believers — if such a structure is to stand, then let us first regard Mu'awiya as a believer; for Mu'awiya, too, was just like this. With regard to a certain portion of the religion, he expressed intense adherence. Have I not repeatedly said in the discussions that Mu'awiya prayed — he prayed in congregation, he prayed at the first time of prayer, he even acted as prayer-leader? — for the merit of congregational prayer is greater for the prayer-leader than for those who follow. That measure of reward which the prayer-leader has before God is greater than the measure of reward the followers have, according to the narrations that exist on this subject. He would be the prayer-leader.
Well, here religion is a very good religion, a delightful religion, a harmless religion, a religion that attracts affection, draws sentiment, makes the people well-disposed — these are good things. But this religion says that its Prophet was sent for the teaching and the training of the people: Indeed God conferred a favor upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His verses, and purifying them, and teaching them the Book and the wisdom.
God sent the Prophet to humanity so that he might teach them, so that he might advance humanity, so that he might make insight and reason strong and powerful in human beings. Anything that struggles against people's intellect, the religion struggles against it. Anything that blocks the eye, the perception, the reason, and the understanding of the people, the religion blocks its encroachment. Any factor, in whatever form, that does not let people think and understand and perceive — the religion does not let that factor remain alive.
This is religion. That religion which they said is the opiate and narcotic of the nations is something else. In our Qur'an, in the conduct of our Prophet, in the conduct of our leaders, there are no signs of that sort of religion. Islam, which fights against unbelief, fights against that sort of religion too. Our Commander of the Faithful, the great Islamic leader, says: God sent the prophets to stir up and arouse the treasures of intellect and reason within people and human beings — wa-yuthiru lahum dafa'ina'l-'uqul ("and that they might unearth for them the buried treasures of the intellects"). So anything of the opposite kind stands exactly at the opposite point of the philosophy of the mission of the prophets: anything that buries these treasures more deeply, that conceals and hides the power of reason and thought of human beings under mountains of dust, or under mountains of fanaticism, or false notion, or strangulation, or suffocation, or anything else. It makes no difference what it is or in what age it may be.
The prophethoods deal with the thought of the people and with the reason of the people; the more precise this thought and this reason is, the more acceptable the prophethoods are. They strive to raise these thoughts up. So whatever blocks this is against religion, contrary to religion. Take any person, any factor, any power, any motive — whether within the human being himself or outside him — that causes the thought, reason, and intellect of the human being to be held back from growth and development, so that it is given no possibility of activity, so that people cannot, under the light of the torch of their own thought and insight, understand anything, find a path, and freely traverse it. That is the thing religion stands against. And Mu'awiya was of this kind. Here, where the enlightening of people's minds came into play, Mu'awiya understood nothing at all of what Islam is. There, where Islam commands him: take hunger away from the people, remove class differences from within society, do not permit discrimination, do not set conscienceless oppressors over the people, do not choose your advisors and friends and intimates from among the most criminal of the people, do not drive the people toward Hell and do not subject them to the punishment of God and the punishment of this world — there, where these matters came up, where it was said to him, "Lift the pressure off the people, let them understand," there Mu'awiya stood leagues away from religion.
He says to Ibn 'Abbas: "Ibn 'Abbas, do not recite the Qur'an." He said, "How should I not recite the Qur'an?" He said, "Well, recite it, but do not interpret it." He said, "How is it possible, Mu'awiya, that I recite the Qur'an and not interpret it? What are these words you are speaking?" Mu'awiya saw that he had, as it were, said something bad — in those days these words seemed bad to the people, that they should recite the Qur'an and not interpret it — so he said, "Very well, interpret it, but the interpretation that has come down through your own family, through the Commander of the Faithful — do not tell that interpretation to the people." He did not want the people to understand the Qur'an, and fundamentally he did not want the people to understand anything at all. The less the people understood, the more it was to Mu'awiya's benefit.
Therefore, when we turn to Mu'awiya's record — apart from the oppressions, apart from the killings of people, pay attention! — apart from the buryings alive, apart from the rotting-away in prison, apart from the destruction of men like Hujr ibn 'Adi and Rushayd al-Hajari, apart from these vile, contemptible crimes against the likes of Maytham al-Tammar which everyone understands, which even any common person perceives — Mu'awiya has one crime which none but precise eyes can comprehend. That crime is this. Mu'awiya ought to have advanced this newborn child, this Islamic society, forward at least twenty years; this trust that had been placed in his hands, this Islamic society, he ought to have advanced twenty years. He did not advance it twenty years; he did not even keep it in the state it was in — he set it back two hundred years as well. In what respect did he set it back? Did their money decrease? No; would that their money had decreased! Did their territory shrink? Was their country broken apart? Did some of them die for no purpose? Would that these things had happened! In terms of thought, in terms of insight, in terms of morals, he set the people back. This was a crime that was in no way pardonable, and is not. This was a sin whose remedy was not achievable by ten or twenty years of another just government. After the era of Mu'awiya, twenty or thirty years after him, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz came, who is the just one of the Banu Umayya; he was unable to accomplish anything, unable to make amends for Mu'awiya's atrocities, unable to fill in Mu'awiya's pits. Indeed, they did not even give him more than two years' respite to rule; they poisoned him and killed him. He [Mu'awiya] had so arranged the situation that nothing but corruption would grow, nothing but corruption would be accepted. The people, ignorant, senseless, without reflection and precision in matters — eyes open — would see what Mu'awiya's loudspeakers said, and would believe that very thing, would come to hold that very belief.
I have stories of the ignorance of the people of Syria in the time of the Banu Umayya, and often they are amusing stories too; I have related many of them in the discussions, the sermons, and the interpretive talks repeatedly. It would not be bad to tell one of them now, in the form of a "joke," as people say today. See to what point they bring the affair of a nation. In the time of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, Mecca was conquered by Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. Hajjaj is the very powerful and capable commander of the Banu Umayya, and he was against anyone and anything that had the slightest inclination toward Shi'ism — intensely against it. Of course, Mecca was not in the hands of the Shi'a; it was in the hands of 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr was also like Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, except that God did not give him respite. Hajjaj had fallen upon 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr; in the end they took and conquered Mecca, and among other things they took control of Mount Abu Qubays. You know that Mount Abu Qubays is one of the mountains beside Mecca, adjoining Mecca. He [Hajjaj] took up his pen and wrote a letter to Syria, to the caliph 'Abd al-Malik, saying: Praise be to God, we have gained control of Abu Qubays — that is, of the mountain of Abu Qubays — we have gained control. The caliph gave the order that this letter be read out from the pulpit of Damascus. The people had all gathered; it was a Friday; the people were assembled. The preacher took the letter and said: Praise be to God, the caliph's commander, Hajjaj, has gained control of Abu Qubays. At once a cry went up from all the people. They said: No indeed, we do not accept this, we do not accept it; this Abu Qubays the Rafidi must be put in chains and sent to Syria so that we may believe it. In their imagination, Abu Qubays was some Rafidi man in Mecca! This is the level of understanding and comprehension in a nation. And of stories of this kind there are many.
Who has done these things? Upon whose shoulders is the sin of the people's not understanding? You may say it is upon the shoulders of Shurayh the judge, upon the shoulders of Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, upon the shoulders of so-and-so the judge or so-and-so the hired, mercenary jurisconsult. He ought to have made the people aware — and I too accept this. Of course Abu Yusuf the judge, or Shurayh, or Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, or others and others, committed the greatest of crimes, just as we read and saw in the letter of Imam al-Sajjad to Ibn Shihab. But I want to see: whose making and shaping is Muhammad ibn Shihab? That pole which makes the spiritual powers that are against religion and against the Qur'an — who is that pole? Is it not the pole of Mu'awiya? So the sins, in the end, are upon the shoulders of Mu'awiya, upon the shoulders of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, upon the shoulders of all the heads of the tyrants (tawaghit) of the Banu Umayya and the Banu 'Abbas and others besides them. And these people, with all their sins, sometimes even speak of following the Qur'an and the religion!
Here, what is our duty? Did you take note? Faced with a man like Mu'awiya, a man like Shurayh, a man like al-Mughira, a man like Zayd ibn 'Amr of the time of Mu'awiya — it makes no difference, in whatever class — when it comes to judging this human being, how must we judge him? In some places he has accepted the religion and the faith in a committed way; in some places he has left no sign, trace, or token of religion and faith in his life. What shall we say to this man? Shall we regard him as a believer? The Qur'an explicitly states that a man of this kind is not a believer. So the faith that is valid in the Islamic way of thinking is not the faith of men of this sort — whose like in our age are countless, may God preserve us — but rather it is the firm faith of those men who are, everywhere, with everyone, at all times, in every condition, preserved — with their commitment, with their action: Indeed those who believe and do righteous deeds… — and so on to the end.
And the promises that have been given for faith and for the believers are for that faith, not for this faith. If they said the believers are victorious, they said it of those sorts of believers, and they are victorious — certainly! If they said the hand of God is with the believers — that is, it is with that sort of believer. If they have said that nature cooperates and goes along with the believer, they said it of that sort of believer, not of the likes of you and me. So this discussion yields us at least one benefit. If we see that our faith does not possess the effects, properties, and glad tidings of faith — the glad tidings that the Qur'an and God gave to the believers — we will not be surprised; because we understand that the faith for which all those promises were given is not this.
(Tomorrow, on the subject of the promises that have been given for faith, with a Qur'anic survey, we have a discussion which, God willing, we will present.)
Now let me translate these verses; listen. Indeed We have sent down clarifying verses.
We have indeed sent down clarifying verses. These verses of the Qur'an, these are illuminating. Those who do not permit themselves to understand the Qur'an, the wretches, are deprived of this illumination.
And God guides whom He wills to a straight path. What does God's "willing" mean? Does it mean that God wills one person and does not will another? With some He has a special regard, draws them and carries them along, and pushes others away? The matter is not like that. God's will and God's decree — in ordinary cases, of course — manifests itself only in the form of natural and customary causes. If you decided, you resolved, you sat down at the foot of a guiding and illuminating discourse, and you were guided — God had willed that you be guided. This same you: if you were lazy, if you were slack, if you closed the road of understanding upon yourself — God had willed that you not understand. God's willing means that the ordinary means and instruments either came about or did not come about. If, by your will, by your wish, the ordinary means and causes came about for the carrying out of this effect, here God has willed; if you did not will, it is evident that God did not will — not that God's not-willing causes you not to will; no, you are free in your willing. God did not will means that the necessary cause did not follow; this is the meaning of "God did not will."
Well, why do we not say "the necessary cause did not follow," and instead say "God did not will"? Because the bringer-into-existence of the causes and the giver of their properties was God. This fire that is kindled here: I put my hand into the fire, my hand burned — God willed it to burn. If I did not put my hand in and it did not burn — God willed it not to burn. What does this mean? "God willed it to burn" means that the natural cause for burning was provided. What is its natural cause? The presence of the fire, the absence of an obstacle, my willing, the putting in of the hand. When we say "God did not will it to burn" in the second case, it means that the natural cause of burning was not provided: I did not go near the fire, or the hand was wet, or the object was wet, or the fire was little, and the like.
Well, why do we attribute to God that which is connected to the causes? Because God is the creator of the causes — that is the reason. These "whom He wills" (man yasha'u) phrases everywhere in the Qur'an are of this kind, and I have explained this in detail on other occasions, on other appropriate occasions; and now too I have given an indication of it.
They make these claims, which are easy to claim: And they say, 'We believe in God and in the Messenger, and we obey.' But then a group of them turns away after that. When they turn away — the talk is not of unbelievers, the talk is not of apostates who suddenly take umbrage, leave the world of Islam, and depart; no, the talk is of these very ordinary believers within the societies, the Islamic societies — then about them He says: And those are not the believers.
They are not believers. Now, more clearly than this:
And when they are called to God and His Messenger so that he may judge between them, at once a group of them turns away. They are not willing to go and hear the ruling from the Prophet. The verse, on the surface, is about judgment; the expression "rule/governance" (hukuma) in the Qur'an is most often — I do not say always — in the meaning of rendering judgment, the very thing that we call arbitration and adjudication. But the import and content of the verse is general; it is not such that this concerns only those who do not submit to the judgment of the Prophet alone — no, those who also do not submit to the command of the Prophet in matters other than judgment are included in the verse, and this is clear.
But if the right is on their side, they come to him submissively. If the truth is on their side, they come to the Prophet as obedient ones, with acknowledgment. There, where the ruling is to be in their favor, they are submissive before the religion; there, where the ruling is likely to be to their detriment, they do not accept the religion. Here the Qur'an, in truth, calls them to account.
Why is it that, where it is not to the benefit of your person, you do not accept the religion? It is one of three things.
First: Is there a disease in their hearts? The disease of hypocrisy? The disease of caprice and desire? The disease of ignorance and conceit? Are these diseases in their hearts, so that they do not accept the ruling? Or is it higher than this?
Second: Or do they doubt? Have they fallen into doubt about the religion? If you have no doubt about the religion, if you are not in uncertainty, not in misgiving regarding the religion — why is it that, where it is not to your benefit, where it is troublesome for you, you are ready to deny it, to fundamentally reject the religion, that is, to deny that ruling? Or is it even higher than this?
Third: Or do they fear that God and His Messenger will be unjust to them? Perhaps they fear that God and the Prophet will wrong them — which is higher than that doubting; this is the very essence of unbelief. That a person should be so ignorant, and not believe, that God and the Prophet do not wrong a human being in their rulings! The one who has such a fear, who fears that God might do him injustice or the Prophet might do him injustice — it is evident that this man does not know God and the Prophet at all and does not accept them.
Nay, it is they who are the wrongdoers. God does no wrong to anyone; it is they who do wrong to themselves and do wrong to the truth. If they hold a higher position, they wrong themselves and the truth and the people; if their rank is higher over humanity absolutely, these are the wrongdoers and oppressors.
But how are the believers? The believers are not like this. See, the Qur'anic vocabulary is this. The Qur'an has a lexical meaning, and it has a specialized vocabulary. "Believer," in the terminology of the Qur'an, has the meaning that it is expounding here: The only saying of the believers, when they are called to God and His Messenger so that he may judge between them, is that they say: 'We hear and we obey.' Which, as I have said, "we hear" means we have understood — not we heard with the ear; "we hear" means we have given heed. Consider the terminology of "hearing" (sam'): Or gives ear while he is a witness. "Hearing" and "listening" in the Qur'an, in very many of its instances — which, as it happens, while studying the Qur'an, I came across another instance last night, and of course I did not note it down, because they are many — is in the meaning of understanding, not in the meaning of hearing with the ear, with this particular organ and limb, but rather in the meaning of understanding. These say: we have understood; that is, we became believers knowingly. The same discussion we had in the previous session, that faith must be conscious.
We hear and we obey. After we believed knowingly, then we also obeyed. And it is they who are the successful. Falah means success, becoming victorious, and attaining the goal and aim; of course in the meaning of "salvation" — that is, "deliverance" — it has also come in some lexical usages, but most often falah, when it comes for the believers, is more fitting with the very meaning we have stated, which is the ordinary lexical meaning.
And whoever obeys God and His Messenger, and fears God, and is mindful of Him — it is they who are the triumphant. They are those who have attained the purpose and aim. Fawz ("triumph") is also in this very meaning.
The next two verses do not have much bearing on our discussion; I want to get to the verse after them: God has promised those who believe…
This too is a promise of God, again for the believer, and the committed believer. Pay attention: the divine promise in this verse says explicitly: We have promised the believers that the rule over the earth is yours; your idea, your creed, your thought, and your school will pitch its tent over the world; your fear and dread will be turned into safety and security; if throughout history you have suffered torment, borne oppression, after this you will live in comfort, without anxiety, without disquiet, and you will worship God and cast the rivals of God off the earth. This is the divine promise in this verse. If God has given such a promise to the Muslims, this promise pertains to the believers, and to the committed believers.
Some become very scrupulous, they become rigid, they say it is special to the time of the Lord of the Age (Wali al-'Asr) — God's blessings and peace be upon him. We have no doubt that the time of the appearance of the Imam of the Age — God's blessings and peace be upon him — is the complete instance of this verse; in this there is no uncertainty. But where in this verse is it written that it is special to that time? Tell us, let us see! Which narration is there that states it is special to that time? Why do you restrict the verse? Did God not fulfill this promise with the believers of the early days of Islam? It was this very verse that was fulfilled. They came to Medina; they brought that government into being. The Bilals who, out of fear of the unbelievers of Quraysh, did not even dare utter "There is no god but God" with their tongues, called out the takbir aloud upon the minarets and sang "There is no god but God." Those who had been compelled, before three hundred non-human idols and several human idols and an idol of their own ego and their own lusts and their own carnal desires, every day and every night to prostrate and render absolute servitude and obedience — they had set up all these partners for God — these came and settled, busying themselves with life in that safe and secure land of the sublime Islamic society, without having the least anxiety. They set up no partner for God, from small and great, from the inanimate and the animate, from themselves and from others. This verse of ours has been fulfilled once there; it is capable of being fulfilled a thousand other times as well. But what is its condition? Its condition is that these opening clauses of the verse be realized, where it says: God has promised… — to whom? those among you who believe and do righteous deeds; that is, who act in accordance with the commitments of this faith. To these He has promised that He will surely make them successors on the earth.
(This gentleman, the translator of this Qur'an that I have in hand, has very many errors in his Qur'an, among them this error which my eye just now fell upon and saw: he renders "fi'l-ard" ["on the earth"] as "in this land," and this is wrong. "This land" would mean the Arabian Peninsula. Was it some great feat that they should gain control of the Arabian Peninsula? They gained control of forty, fifty regions the size of the Arabian Peninsula. "Fi'l-ard" means upon the earth. I mentioned this because sometimes translations of this sort carry certain mis-teachings with them. We, of course, have no ill thought of anyone, and we do not say that you said "in this land" so as not to include the other lands — that is, that the believers and those who act righteously can gain control only over the land of the Hijaz, but over other lands — Rayy and Rome and Baghdad and Andalusia — no longer. We say, God willing, his intention was not these things.)
even as He made those before them successors. He will make them successors on the earth, even as He made the believers before them — that is, the believers of earlier eras. We imagine that the believers, wherever they were from the beginning of the world, have always been beaten down, always taken a blow. Indeed, the historical knowledge and worldview of the general mass of Muslims is that faith means being inseparable from being beaten; that being a Muslim, being a believer, being on the path of God, is inseparable from suffering torment and being tortured and tasting defeat. This is exactly the opposite point of what the Qur'an wishes to say. We once explained this (we had a class of Qur'anic interpretation in the Mirza Ja'far school, two or three years ago, one or two years ago; there, on some occasion, for two days, three days, I recall, I spoke about this) — how religion, from the very first that it came into being until today, has had nothing but progress, with not one step of retreat. Not one step, in our belief, has religion retreated until now. That which they imagine to be retreat is in fact progress.
In any case, the earth is yours and the rule over it is in your hands, even as it was in the hands of your predecessors — that is, the believers of earlier eras.
And He will surely establish for them their religion — He will firmly establish their religion and creed and school and way, which He has approved for them — the religion and way which He has chosen as pleasing for them, the religion that is worthy of them; that is, this very religion of Islam, which encompasses this world and the hereafter, and the present and the future, and the body and the soul, and in short is all-sided, sufficient for all needs.
And He will surely change their state, after their fear, to security. After their fear and dread and apprehension, He will transform it into safety and security. So that what may happen? Under the shadow of this security, what are they to do? Are they, under the shadow of security, to sit beside the garden in the heat of the summer afternoon, drinking tea with a Chinese teapot and a Warsaw samovar? Is the matter of security for these people? Are they to have security so that they can recline comfortably, loll about, and idle their time away? No. That security is so that, under its shadow, they may draw one step and ten steps nearer to the final destination of the human being — namely, perfection. So that they may be servants of God, so that the servitude to creatures may be lifted from their heads, so that they may be obedient and humble before God, and through this path may become exalted and perfected. Every word of these has a discussion of its own.
They worship Me, not associating anything with Me. They render servitude to Him and associate no partner with Him. Of course, at the end of the verse, it also gives this admonition: that "if, after they have believed, they associate a partner [with God], here they will be corrupt (fasiq)." Fasiq means one who has gone out of the religion, departed from it.
(Today, with the recitation that Mr. Fatimi is performing, in view of these papers that are in your hands, the verses are settling and taking their place ever more pleasingly in the soul. The gentlemen who will be present — I request that all the gentlemen be present, even if it is possible that not one person leave; this is always our recommendation, last year too I made this recommendation, and always some of you gentlemen who got up... I want to joke with you... you showed that, against all true words, there are after all a number of people who do not listen. Well, we say: if you have nothing to do, sit down, sit for a quarter of an hour. Why do the gentlemen get up and leave? Sir, those who have a shop without an apprentice; those who have a school and their school is far and the hour is late — these are within their rights, they can go. Those who have no school, let me say, who have no shop without an apprentice, who have none of these difficulties in their affairs, let them sit ten more minutes, let them benefit — my point was that the gentlemen who will be present should certainly look at these papers during the recitation of the Qur'an.)
O Lord! In what we say and do, make our hearts sincere, and set them all for Yourself alone.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the Family of Muhammad, let us taste the savor of a monotheistic life.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the Family of Muhammad, wipe away polytheism even from the region of our hearts.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the Family of Muhammad, do not withhold Your good from us. Remove conceit and afflictions and miseries and disorders from among the Muslims.
O Lord, occupy the enemies of the Muslims with themselves.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 7 · 40:21
- Ep 8 — Glad Tidings (1)Session 6: Glad Tidings (1).
delivered Tuesday, 2 Mehr 1353 / 7 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Nisa' (4:174-175).
O mankind, a proof has indeed come to you from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light. As for those who believe in God and hold fast to Him, He will admit them into mercy and bounty from Himself, and He will guide them to Himself along a straight path.
The discussion about faith is, in reality, a preliminary one. We need to know the worth of faith and the quality of faith for a definite purpose: so that we may understand religion and know its essential, foundational principles, so that a desire for the doctrinal belief of religion may be kindled within us, and so that we may set out, in a serious way, to grasp religion and to know it. That is why we discussed faith, and to this end.
The two or three matters stated about faith were fundamental and important ones. First: faith must be conscious, not blind. Second: faith must be coupled with commitment and action — it must produce commitment and give birth to action, and not be a dry, empty belief in the heart and the mind. Third: a committed believer is a believer only when his faith is not occasional, not opportunistic, not self-interested — but rather constant, present everywhere, embracing everyone, comprehensive in every dimension. These are the matters that were pointed out in connection with faith, and which it was necessary to know.
Before we enter into the substance of the topics we have in view — that is, the doctrinal teachings of Islam — one more short discussion is necessary. We are obliged to begin it today, and tomorrow it will continue. At first I imagined that we would finish it in a single day; but once I delved into it, I saw that it would inevitably take four or five days to complete. Today we will certainly discuss it, and tomorrow as well — provided we remain alive, it will probably not drag on to a third day. And here is that discussion: to know the value of faith and the result of faith, we must become acquainted with the glad tidings and the promises that God has given to the believers. Let us see what God Almighty pledges in return to the believer — in exchange for his faith, in exchange for his righteous deeds and his fulfillment of his commitments, what He pledges to him in reciprocation.
A human being who has grown accustomed to give-and-take, who has passed his life by way of exchange, likes to see what his exchange with God amounts to. He brings faith, and on the basis of that faith he becomes committed; in return he likes to know what commitment God takes upon Himself in his regard, what glad tiding and what promise He gives him. For the believer — for one who wishes to be firm-footed, steadfast, and unshakeable in the field of faith — this is an interesting, sweet, desirable, and lovable subject, and a source of hope.
We gathered all the verses in the Qur'an that bear on faith and the believer. There are roughly seven hundred verses in the Qur'an concerning the believer and faith and certain other characteristics. We set about looking at these verses to see what, upon faith, God has made to follow. (I am describing the method of the work, so that the friends, the brothers and sisters who are familiar with the Qur'an, may learn how to find subjects in the Qur'an.) We searched through these six or seven hundred verses to see what promises, what glad tidings, what worthy, desirable, and longed-for outcomes God has appointed for the believers. We found that they are very many. In my view, there are perhaps around thirty or forty items that God Almighty, in the Qur'an, has made to follow upon faith. The believer enjoys these thirty or forty great privileges — and all of these privileges are great, all of them are important, all of them are necessary, obligatory, and essential for a human being to become happy. One of these thirty or forty subjects is the otherworldly Paradise; that is one of them. One of these glad tidings is …gardens beneath which rivers flow… — and others of this sort, thirty or forty of them.
(I saw that if we wished to examine all of these, then — just as I mentioned — at minimum four or five days are needed for these glad tidings and good news given to the believers to be examined. We have set out two of them today, in this written handout that is in your hands. One or two more subjects will be examined tomorrow, and the rest is left to you yourselves, to refer to the Qur'an.)
Before we set out these few subjects, some of these subjects that the Qur'an has promised to the believer have been noted here, and I will read them — from this very handout that is now in your possession, and which is also before me — there are ten or eleven of them; I will read them out one by one, briefly, and explain them, so that afterwards we may reach the Qur'anic verses.
Here we have written: in order to benefit from comprehensive and complete happiness, what does a human being need? What does a human being need in order to be happy? Those things that a human being needs in order to be completely and comprehensively happy have, in their entirety, been promised to the believer and made to follow upon faith. These things that we have written here are ten or twelve subjects. See: is it truly the case that if even one of these subjects is lacking, a human being can feel happy? You see that, no, he cannot. Of course, there are other subjects too that play a part in a human being's feeling of happiness. And all of these subjects that are written here, and a great many other subjects besides, exist in the Qur'an in the form of a glad tiding and good news upon faith and to the believer. What conclusion do we draw? We draw the conclusion that faith — belief coupled with action, in the way that the Qur'anic culture defines it — is equivalent to all the conditions of happiness and felicity, as regards the needs and requirements that a human being might imagine for himself.
The matter is not a matter of bias for the sake of a creed or of religiosity. What we have written here as the conditions of becoming happy — for a materialist, too, these very same things are the conditions of becoming happy. Now we will read them one by one and see whether a materialist, if he were to possess these, would feel happy or not. And after it becomes clear that these are the conditions of becoming happy, then we will return to the Qur'an, we will lend our ear to the heart-soothing speech of the Qur'an, and we will see that it has promised all of these to the believer, given the believer glad tidings of all of these, brought all of these as a gift for the believer — …and God has spoken the truth… — God does not give a false promise; though, of course, this part is connected to our particular religious way of thinking, namely that we believe in God.
What does a human being need? One: he needs to know the goal and the destination of happiness. He needs to know where he wants to arrive, for what goal he wants to strive; to see the point of completion and the end of the road from the very beginning, and to know the road to it. Beyond knowing and recognizing and understanding the goal, he needs to know by which road one must travel toward it in order to arrive — to arrive sooner, and to arrive with certainty. Is not the recognition of the goal, the recognition of the end, the recognition of the destination, and the recognition of the road that leads to it, the very first and principal element of a human being's happiness? Here there is no difference between the godly and the materialist; the materialist, too, accepts this, agrees to it, feels it. In parentheses we wrote "guidance" — the first condition. Of course, this "first," and the "second" that we have numbered here, are certainly not meant in the sense of a logical sequence such that you might say this "second" could be placed first and the "first" could be placed second. Well, let it be so; we have now brought them in succession, and it is possible that other things too could be inserted in between these.
Two: that the veils be removed — the veils of ignorance, of conceit, of fancy, and of everything that wraps the jewel of his insight and reason in a dark covering and strips from him the power of seeing and understanding. Many things prevent a human being from understanding. A person's conceit prevents him from understanding; ignorances prevent a human being from seeing and understanding; fancies and superstitions prevent a human being or a nation from grasping and understanding the truth; tyrannical systems prevent human beings from understanding and knowing. Various veils and obstacles, from within and from without, prevent a human being from putting to work the God-given jewel of intellect and reason and from knowing and understanding; they keep him in darkness, they seat the human being in a prison of darknesses, they hold him far from light, from the radiance of correct perception and understanding. One of the pillars of a human being's happiness, one of the elements of his felicity, is that he be delivered from these darknesses, from everything that creates darkness for him; that he find his way to the light and the radiance of truth, and that a beam of the light of truth shine upon his heart. In parentheses we wrote "light." So, first, guidance is necessary, in the sense that has been explained; second, light is necessary, in the sense that has, again, been explained — and these are two distinct things.
Three: that on his long road toward happiness — on this road that he is traversing toward that destination and the end of the road — he be delivered from the inner anxieties and temptations (pay attention) which are more exhausting than the external deterring factors. Sometimes they block your road and say, "Sir, we will not let you pass from here." Experience has shown, and history has told us explicitly, that when someone's road is blocked, the traveler becomes more eager in traversing this road, his enthusiasm increases, the fire of his ardor blazes more fiercely. If they say, "We will not let you go," the human being presses harder to go, to pass through. This is the external deterring factor. This deterring factor is outside the human being's existence. But sometimes it is from within that they rot the human being. They create doubt within him; they do not block the road — the road is open — but they strip from the human being the power to go, the will to go, the resolve to move, the possibility of striving; and this is worse. "Why are you going? What benefit does it have? Perhaps you will not arrive; perhaps a thief will reach you on the road; perhaps a wolf will come; on what warrant are you going? You need not go." Very coolly, sympathetically, in the manner of a wise old man, in the manner of a master — and the road is also open. This obstacle, this temptation, this anxiety, is by far more exhausting than that stick they place in the middle of the road, saying, "We will not let you go."
This anxiety has existed for most travelers, most wayfarers of the roads of happiness throughout history. How much they pleaded with Moses, saying, "We fear that you have said something false, that a false promise has been given to you." In the Qur'an it says that the pressure and poverty were so great that even the elite would waver, asking: …When will the help of God come?… — So when? So where is it? What happened? You see, these doubts and waverings and inner anxieties make even the elite slip.
If a human being wishes to be happy and to reach the destination and the end of the road of happiness, one of his conditions, too, is that he be delivered from this anxiety, from this agitation, from this spiritual insecurity, from this lack of calm and this absence of assurance — that he be able to overcome this anxiety and agitation and inner temptation. This, too, is one of the things that brings a human being to happiness: that on his long road toward happiness he be delivered from the anxieties, the temptations, and the inner temptations that are more exhausting than the external deterring factors. Inside the parentheses we wrote "assurance and security." You may put "safety" in place of "security"; it makes no difference. We chose "security" because it was the very Qur'anic expression. It would not be amiss for me to mention this sentence here — perhaps I have said it several other times as well: in the Du'a' Kumayl we recite, "Ya Rabbi, ya Rabbi, ya Rabbi" — O my Lord! O my Lord! O my Lord! "Qawwi 'ala khidmatika jawarihi" — strengthen my limbs and members in Your service; "wa ashdud 'ala al-'azimati jawanihi" — make my heart firm upon resolve. May I be able to resolve, may I be able to overcome weaknesses, doubts, uncertainties, temptations, and anxieties — for this is what halts a human being on the road, seats him long upon the road, and bars him from traversing the road.
Four: that he reckon his striving to be fruitful, that he be hopeful that this striving will reach somewhere. Those who are not hopeful that their striving and movement will lead to some result will assuredly not reach the destination of happiness and salvation. He should be assured that his striving is fruitful, should know that every act he performs leaves behind a positive effect, should know that every step he takes brings him one step closer to the goal. In a wilderness, if you know that the lodging is in this direction, you know where you are going; even though it has grown late, even though you have been left alone, you have fallen behind the caravan — steadfastly, firmly, with striving, with fervor, you move, you walk, you go forward. But if you have lost the road, you do not know whether to go this way or that way; in whatever direction you set off, you take a step, you see that you are sluggish — why? Because you do not know whether this striving will be fruitful. You reckon it possible that this very step, this one step, takes you farther from the lodging; and so you turn back from this way, you go again that way, you go again that way. Thus one condition for a human being to reach happiness — for that wayfaring person, that striving person, that exerting person — is that he reckon his striving and exertion to be fruitful.
Five: that his slips and errors be reparable and subject to pardon. This, too, is very important. In the course of his life and movement a human being has mistakes, has errors. If every error he commits were to remain as an unhealable wound, were to remain as an irreparable act, the human being would always be in anxiety lest he commit yet another error, and this further error throw him still farther from the goal and cast him aside from the road. He is always despairing of the past and always pessimistic about the future. But if he knows that his errors — on the condition that he himself sets about repairing them — are reparable; that his mistakes, conditioned upon his being himself remorseful of those mistakes, are subject to being overlooked — if he knows these things, his desire, his hope, his vigor, and his fervor will multiply several-fold. Inside the parentheses we wrote "forgiveness and mercy."
Six: that in every state he enjoy a trustworthy support to hold onto. He should know that everywhere, in all circumstances, there is a helper of whom he can avail himself — exactly like a person who has placed the complete map of the road in his pocket, set out upon the road, and is going along these roadways; he does not make mistakes, of course, but he also has no anxiety. He knows that if, perchance, at some time, at some place, he loses the road by mistake and goes astray, this map is at his side; he takes it out, looks at it, and avails himself of this map. Everywhere there is a handhold and a refuge that he can grasp and avail himself of.
Seven: that in confronting enemies and hostilities he enjoy the help and aid of God. This, too, is another condition of happiness, felicity, and success. Of course, the materialist does not believe in God; but with the materialist we do not bring up the name of God. We say, "Sir, in this material striving of yours, in this social striving of yours, in this jihad you are carrying out — if you knew that there were a power, suppose, beyond the power of matter and nature, and that this power is with you and accompanies you, how would that be? Were you to have such a thing, were you to suppose for yourself such a help and aid and support, how would that be?" You see the spark fly from his eyes; he says, "That would be very good." How interesting it is for a human being to have a power beyond the power of matter and material things as his backer, so that when he faces enemies and their hostilities, their plots, their intrigues, their executioners' cruelties, he believes and knows that that power beyond matter is his helper and protector. Except that the materialist does not know the name of God, has no belief in God — although he also has no certainty that God does not exist. But the godly person, who has certainty in the existence of such a dominant and overpowering might, beyond all these phenomena and relying upon it — see how much more swiftly and admirably he moves along the road of happiness.
Eight: that he have superiority and preponderance over the opposing fronts and ranks; that he know that, in the end, superiority and preponderance and preferability belong to him. This, too, in itself, has a remarkable effect on enabling a human being to traverse this road with greater ease.
Nine: that he be victorious over the enemies of his road and his goal, who are the obstructers and neutralizers of his striving. Should a person make all these efforts and then, in the end, be defeated?! That does not bring him to happiness. So one of the most important elements of a human being's happiness is that in the end he be victorious — is it otherwise? Do not the world's schools of thought strive for victory? So one of the elements and factors of human happiness — individual, social, and collective — is that in confronting enemies he be, in the end, victorious over them.
Ten: that in the end he be released from all the hardships and pressures and bonds and barriers, and attain his object and aim, reaching that destination. Inside the parentheses we wrote "triumph and prosperity" — these very Qur'anic expressions.
Eleven: that in every state, on the road and at the lodging — both on the road to the goal and at the destination of the goal itself — he benefit from and enjoy the stores that have been made ready for the human being in this world. That the blessings of heaven and earth rain down upon him: the wheat of the earth, the drop of rain from heaven, the stores of the seas, the stores of the forests and the mines of the mountains, and all the vital materials and the non-vital materials necessary for the human being — and, above all, the source and mine of intelligence and perception and reason and aptitude and ingenuity of the human being — that all of these be opened up to him, and that he avail himself of all of them. This, too, is one of the things that has a part in a human being's happiness. And other things of this sort, which a human being might reckon to play a part in his own becoming happy.
And finally, after all these — which come to pass during the span of a human being's life and striving and wakefulness — afterward, when he dies, when this lamp is extinguished, when he becomes, to all appearance, the equal of an inanimate thing: then, far from ending, may the very thread of his benefit not come to an end. May his rest only then begin; may his receiving of reward and recompense only then begin; may it be reckoned the first point and the first step of his ease and enjoyment. A materialist, after he dies, holds that all his strivings have only a worldly result; beyond the world he has no hope of anywhere. To that very one we say, "Sir, after you have died and gone — granting the impossible, which here is not impossible — supposing that the very moment of your death becomes, freshly, the first moment of your ease, how would that be?" You see that this is the greatest pillar of happiness. And finally, that after the passing of the span of life and the ending of all strivings, he find himself met by a worthy reward, and repose in the Paradise of bounty and good pleasure.
These are the conditions of happiness. For a human being to be happy, for a human being or a society to become fortunate, these are necessary. Now lend your ear to the speech of the Qur'an, which promises all of this to the possessor of faith — a faith that is committed and coupled with action. How is it? The Qur'an gives the believing people glad tidings of all those things that are reckoned to be the elements and constructive factors of happiness and felicity — these, and dozens of things besides these. It says these are for you. It promises guidance, it promises light, it promises safety and assurance and tranquility and repose of the spirit. It promises the fruitfulness and non-waste of strivings. And all of this — if we look at history and the past with a clear eye — we will observe in historical and human realities. And the way of God is also always one and the same.
Now give attention and care to today's verses, with regard to this introduction that was read out and partly explained. The first verse pertains to Surat Yunus. Today's verses are scattered; they are not from one place, they are from several places. Indeed those who believe and do righteous deeds — their Lord guides them by their faith…
Those who have brought faith and have done righteous deed — we explained "righteous deed," in parentheses, with a particular expression: righteous deed means the commitment commensurate with that faith. A human being's faith places a commitment upon his shoulders; the fulfillment of that commitment, the taking of that commitment upon one's shoulder, is the righteous deed. Those who bring faith, who attain that belief, and then also act in accordance with its commitments — "yahdihim rabbuhum bi-imanihim" — their Lord will guide them on account of their faith. Faith itself causes them to find the road. To which road do they find it? Both to the goal and to the roads, to the means. Some people say, "Sir, how can we reach that desired destination?" When you probe this remark, you see that the faith of the first step is not in his heart; or if there is faith, action does not accompany it. If he acts, illumination and guidance will fall to his lot; he will also find the second step. "Set foot upon the road, and ask nothing at all; the road itself will tell you how one must go." When a human being brings faith in the goal and the road, and moves in pursuit of this faith, the road, of itself, shows itself. "Yahdihim rabbuhum bi-imanihim" — by means of faith their Lord will guide them, will open the road before them.
At the first step, none of the leaders and great ones and wayfarers and followers knew what the tenth step was. I sometimes give an example. I say: in a wilderness which, suppose, is tens of kilometers or more in length and breadth, on a dark and pitch-black night — no moon, no star — your honored self is going along the road alone, and a single small flashlight, a small bulb of the fifth size, a small candle, is also in your hand. They say to you, "Sir, with this candle you must go to the very end of that wilderness." You take a look and say, "Sir, this candle of mine illuminates no more than a radius of one meter; am I to traverse all these ten kilometers with this single candle? This candle of mine illuminates only one meter — am I to go ten kilometers?" This is a logic that an uninformed, inexperienced, unfamiliar person might have. What is its answer? What, in your view, is the answer to this blind logic? Is not the answer to this remark this: "Respected sir, is one meter around you lit, or not? Take one step forward — one more meter will be lit. If it is not, do not go. Go this one meter that is lit; take this one step that you can take and where you know you are placing your foot. If one more step is not lit before you, do not go; if it is, then go again. You will see that, gradually, to the very end of the wilderness it will become lit, and you will traverse this road and reach the lodging." Is it otherwise? Is it otherwise? "Yahdihim rabbuhum bi-imanihim" — God, by their faith, will guide them; faith itself is the cause of a human being finding the roads.
In several other verses of the Qur'an, too, there is a reference to this matter. In one place, in a verse — which we have not written here — He says that when a sura or a verse is sent down, the unbelievers and opponents and hypocrites and the ill-willed and the diseased of heart say: …Which of you has this increased in faith?… — Whose faith is increased by this verse? Then the Qur'an replies, saying: Say that those who are believers, those who have truly given their adherence, are increased in faith by this verse and this sign. That very faith of theirs, in their hearts, is what causes them to take guidance from this source of guidance. (These parentheses that we have opened — we wrote inside them, in the form of explanation, that thing — pay attention to these.)
The next verse: O mankind, a proof has come to you from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light.
Behold, O people, from your Lord a proof has come for you — a decisive and clear argument, a firm and establishing demonstration; "wa anzalna ilaykum nuran mubinan" — and We have sent down to you a manifest light. What is meant by this proof and light is the Qur'an and the Qur'anic truths. The evidence for our claim is in its following verse: As for those who believe in God and hold fast to Him, He will admit them into mercy and bounty from Himself, and guide them to Himself along a straight path.
So those who bring faith in God and become attached to and reliant upon Him — for faith in the heart alone is also not enough; one must grasp God, the skirt of God, that is, the skirt of God's religion and the godly road, become attached to it. "Fa-amma alladhina amanu bi-llahi wa-'tasamu bihi" — they clung, they became attached; if it is thus, "fa-sa-yudkhiluhum fi rahmatin minhu wa fadlin" — God will admit them into His mercy and bounty. After it: "wa yahdihim ilayhi siratan mustaqiman" — He guides them toward Himself, leads them; and He guides by a straight and near road. This guidance is special to the believers. If you do not have faith — or if you have faith but do not have holding-fast, do not act upon your commitments before God — you will not find the road to God; the illumination of that guidance will not cast its radiance in your heart. This is special to the believers. Surat al-Nisa', verse 175.
Another verse: And those who strive for Us — We will surely guide them to Our roads; and indeed God is with the doers of good.
This is a well-known verse that is much upon people's tongues. "Wa-lladhina jahadu fina…" — those who, on Our road — God says it, and what is God's road? — and for the sake of the divine goals, the divine aims, any goal that God has in this world, strive… What are God's goals? It is justice, it is security, it is the servitude of the servants before Him, it is the servants of God reaching maturity and perfection, it is the flourishing of the face of the earth, it is the flourishing of human hearts, it is the rendering-prosperous of this world and the next world of human beings, it is all beings falling onto the track and rail of perfection — these are God's wishes. It is the absence of conjecture, the absence of polytheism, the absence of unbelief, the absence of insecurity, the absence of bestiality and brutality, the absence of rebellion and tyranny — these are God's wishes. "Wa-lladhina jahadu fina" — those who strive on the road of Our goals and wishes, the divine wishes; "la-nahdiyannahum subulana" — without doubt and without question, We will show them Our roads; We do not leave them bewildered, We do not leave them astray. That poem I recited is fitting here: "Set foot upon the road, and ask nothing at all; / the road itself will tell you how one must go."
"Wa-lladhina jahadu fina la-nahdiyannahum subulana." In every field it is thus. In the field of understanding religion, in the field of grasping religion, in the field of researching religious matters, in social matters, in world matters, in every field — whoever entered upon the divine goals, set foot, every step he advanced, the next step is lit for him. Those who strive on Our road and for the sake of the divine goals — to their own roads, which are the roads of the happiness and perfection of the human being, We lead them. "Wa inna Allaha la-ma'a al-muhsinin" — and without doubt God is with the doers of good. Surat al-'Ankabut, verse 69.
These were the verses that exist in the Qur'an in connection with guidance, that first subject. And there are abundant other verses, such that if I had wished to gather all the verses, to write them here and read them, I would have had to speak about guidance alone for at least three or four days.
We said that light is one of the things necessary for a human being to become happy, with that explanation that we gave about light on that previous page. To the believers, light has been promised: God is the wali of those who believe; He brings them out of the darknesses into the light…
God is the guardian and the comrade-in-the-same-front of the believers. I render wali as comrade-in-the-same-front, joined, on the same level, and I prefer it over "guardian" and "friend" and "helper" and these things that are customary. Because wilayah means connectedness — two things that are bound and joined to each other: to this they say wilayah. God is the wali of the believers, that is, He is joined with the believers. What does it mean that He is joined with the believers? It means that God and the believers are in one rank. The enemies of God are in another rank, facing the believers and facing God. But wherever it may be — "Wa-llahu waliyyu al-mu'minin" — "And God is the wali of the believers," or …awliya'u… — the expressions that exist in the Qur'an are in this sense; keep this in mind.
"Yukhrijuhum mina al-zulumati ila al-nur" — He delivers them from the darknesses and brings them to the light. "Allahu waliyyu alladhina amanu" — God is the guardian and comrade-in-the-same-front of the believers. Here we gave an explanation, and this explanation is also not amiss for understanding the meaning of "the darknesses." He delivers them from the darknesses — the darknesses of ignorance, superstition, conceit, domineering and anti-human systems, all those things that, for humankind and for the jewel of human insight, are reckoned a prison and a dungeon — He delivers them from these darknesses and brings them to light. What light? The light of knowledge, learning, and human values. God does this for the believer. He never brings the non-believer, the faithless one, the doubting and uncertain one, the ungrateful unbeliever to light. Therefore the polytheist is always agitated, the polytheist always has anxiety, the polytheist's life is always a life coupled with agitation; for him there is no luminosity, there is no true knowledge, there is no correct recognition, wherever he reaches. "Wa-lladhina kafaru…" — but what of the unbelievers? "Unbelievers" means those who were ungrateful for religious belief and the school of religion, who rejected this gift and present of God with ingratitude — the ungrateful of blessing. Pay attention to these Persian expressions that I am presenting; these show where the root of the word is and how it came to be that this word was used in this meaning. The unbeliever (kafir) is not the one who did not accept religion; kafir means the coverer of blessing, the ingrate of blessing. Why is such a one called kafir? Well, this person did not accept this religion — why "unbeliever"? For the reason that this religion was a gift of God, this was a present from God for the happiness of him and of all human beings; he rejected this — this ingrate, this thankless one, this ungrateful-of-blessing — and so they call him kafir. "Wa-lladhina kafaru" — those who practiced unbelief and denial; "awliya'uhumu al-taghut" — their guardians and comrades-in-the-same-front are the false idols and the transgressors. And those who practiced unbelief and denial — their guardians and masters are the false idols and the rebellious and the transgressors. "Yukhrijunahum mina al-nuri ila al-zulumat" — they cast them out from the light of knowledge, drawing them into the prison of darknesses and obscurities. "Ula'ika ashabu al-nari hum fiha khalidun" — they are all the companions of the Fire, and in it they abide forever. Surat al-Baqara, verse 257.
(One more verse — that is, one more passage of the Qur'an — remains for me to read. I have both grown tired, and the time is passing. And afterward our dear reciter, the honorable Mr. Rida'i, recites these very verses today; he reads them too from the handout. It had been arranged that he would collate them with the Qur'an; doubtless he has collated them and reads them from the handout. These verses, with these meanings and translations that have been written here and that I have explained, then, with his charming and affecting voice that you will hear — you will see that it becomes much more pleasing to the mind.)
O you who have believed, remember God with much remembrance; and morning and evening, extol Him with purity and sanctity. It is He who sends blessing upon you, and His angels also.
O you who have believed, remember God with much remembrance; and morning and evening, praise Him with cleanliness and purity. What has happened? It is He who sends blessing upon you, and His angels too. Why? "Li-yukhrijakum mina al-zulumati ila al-nur" — that He may deliver you from the darknesses and lead you to light and illumination. This is the Qur'an, and this is the glad tiding of the Qur'an. Of these glad tidings there is also another number that, God willing, I will present tomorrow. And if I wished to state all of these Qur'anic glad tidings, and to enumerate one by one all that the Qur'an promises us, it would certainly take more than ten days and twelve days for me to be able to state the glad tidings and good news that are upon faith and for the believer. Therefore we will discuss only tomorrow; if it becomes necessary, if we are compelled, we will speak the day after tomorrow as well — and if not, we will conclude it tomorrow.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 8 · 37:11
- Ep 9 — Glad Tidings (2)Session 7: Glad Tidings (2).
delivered Wednesday, 3 Mehr 1353 / 8 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Ra'd (13:28-29).
…those who believe and whose hearts find rest in the remembrance of God. Verily, in the remembrance of God do hearts find rest. Those who believe and do righteous deeds — blessedness is theirs, and a goodly return.
We have stated that God the Exalted, in the Qur'an, gives the believers the glad tidings and the promise of every element of felicity. At the level of thought and conception, we identify certain things as the elements of felicity — ten or twelve of which we set out in the previous written note and the previous recitation. The Qur'an gives all of these to the believers in the form of decisive promises. Two of those promises — guidance and light — we observed yesterday in the course of the noble verses of the Qur'an; they were recited, and we benefited from them. Two more we shall raise today, reading their verses briefly. The rest we leave to you, my friends: follow the very order which I arranged in the previous note, and take up the subjects one by one. When you study the Qur'an and recite it, try to find those subjects — those of you who know Arabic, from the text of the Qur'an itself; those who do not know Arabic, with attention to a translation of the Qur'an.
For example, one of those subjects is the reward of the Hereafter — one of those promises. Keep your eye on the Qur'an yourselves; see in how many places, and in which places, the Qur'an gives the believers — those who possess faith and righteous deeds — the promise of the reward of the Hereafter. Or, for example, one of them is superiority over and victory over the enemy. See whether there is a place in the Qur'an where God the Exalted has told the believers that you will gain the upper hand over your enemies. Right now, do you know of a place where the Qur'an has promised the believers that you are higher and superior to your enemies, to the ranks of your opponents — provided that you have faith and act upon the commitments of faith? Or that has said that you will ultimately triumph over your enemies, provided that you strive in the path of your thought? Is there such a verse in the Qur'an or not? Can the gentlemen answer whether there is such a verse in the Qur'an or not? And if anyone remembers the verse, he can recite it now.
(One of those present: wa antum al-a'lawna in kuntum mu'minin.) Very well, that was one verse — wa la tahinu wa la tahzanu wa antum al-a'lawna in kuntum mu'minin — Do not lose heart and do not grieve, for you are the higher ones, if you are believers.
Yes, here is a verse for it: if indeed you are believers, you are superior; the upper hand, the stronger hand, is at your disposal in relation to your enemies. There are numerous other verses that give the promise and the glad tidings to the believers that they gain a decisive victory over the enemies and the opposing ranks:
God has decreed: 'I shall surely prevail, I and My messengers.' And verily Our host — they shall be the victors.
Verses of this kind are abundant. Keep these in mind. When you look at the Qur'an, when you study it, instead of making your aim to finish a juz' or to finish a surah, let your aim be to understand the Qur'an. As it is reported from the Imam, peace be upon him, or from the Prophet of God, may God's blessings be upon him and his family, that during the recitation of the Qur'an your concern should not be to finish the surah or to finish the juz'. Whether it is finished or not, recite a single verse — with reflection, with care. See whether, in this verse, there is something of these promises which we have mentioned — the pillars and elements that are necessary and effective for attaining felicity — whether you find that the Qur'an has promised the believers something of these elements. Has the glad tidings and the promise been given, or not? By this means I want you yourselves to refer to the Qur'an.
Until the end of the month of Ramadan, if I succeed, I will translate and explain very many of the Qur'an's verses for you. Say, for example, I explain fifty verses, or I explain another fifty verses, or another sixty verses. The Qur'an is roughly six thousand — more than six thousand — verses; you yourselves must develop an intimacy with the Qur'an. Those who know Arabic, let them try to make firm this intimacy of theirs and this companionship of theirs with the Qur'an. Those who do not know Arabic should try to learn Arabic and to become familiar with the language of the Qur'an. But let them not put off the reading and understanding of the Qur'an until after they have learned Arabic; let them read the Qur'an now too — only, find good translations of the Qur'an. Some of the translations, in my view, are good and to my liking. When you read the Qur'an, pay attention to those translations and exercise care and reflection upon the meanings of the verses; see which of these promises that we mentioned here you can find in the Qur'an. Therefore, today I will mention two further subjects that are of interest among these promises which have come in the Qur'an. The rest of it I leave to you yourselves, and I hope that you, too, will not put it off until after the month of Ramadan, or until a time of idleness and leisure. This very night, this very day, at the first opportunity, in the first moment of leisure, when you open the Qur'an, read the Qur'an with this very intention, and teach yourselves familiarity with, intimacy with, and benefiting from the Qur'an. The Qur'an is, after all, the inexhaustible source of our knowledge. Whatever we have, we draw from the Qur'an, and whatever can be the means of our felicity and good fortune must, too, come out of the Qur'an. This clear, definite text is at our disposal; it is incumbent upon us to make use of it.
Of course, when I say "the Qur'an," I do not wish to confine it to the Qur'an — not that Nahj al-Balaghah, no; or the authentic traditions from the rightly-guiding Imams, peace be upon them, no — why? We should make use of Nahj al-Balaghah too, alongside the Qur'an; we should make use of the hadith too, alongside the Qur'an — the authentic and sound hadith. Of course, the Qur'an is a text that is at everyone's disposal, and everyone can have its correct, sound, and complete copy even in his pocket; access to hadith is not this easy, nor is access to Nahj al-Balaghah.
In any case, above this we wrote "assurance, repose, and security," which we considered close in horizon — we considered them as one. Let us now state what we mean by these three words, and then return to the verses of the Qur'an to see what they teach us about assurance, repose, and security.
Assurance means the state of tranquility of the heart. The state of calm of the spirit and the heart. What does "calm" mean? In what sense is "calm" intended by us here? Is it in the sense that our spirit should have no movement and no striving? Calm in the sense that it is in a state of half-sleep and half-unconsciousness in our heart? No — rather, calm as opposed to anxiety and agitation; calm and assurance as opposed to disquiet.
Picture two persons; both are due to be present in the examination session. One has studied these lessons well, has reviewed them ten times, has discussed them with his friends; all the problems of this book on which he is to be examined are present and clear in his mind. The other has not studied this book, or has studied a portion of it, or does not place much trust in his own memory. Both are due to be present in the examination session. Do these two have the same spiritual state? Look: when that first person enters this session, his spirit has calm; it has no turbulence, no agitation, no anxiety, no disquiet. He says, "From wherever they ask, I know it." But that other one is constantly in turbulence, like a skiff, like a small boat that has fallen onto a turbulent ocean, into a tumultuous sea — sometimes to this side, sometimes to that side; sometimes by this route, sometimes by that route; the winds carry him this way and that. The spirit of that unprepared person has just such a state.
In facing a judge, you can reckon these same two states of spirit. In involvement in social activities and in the great struggles of history, you can consider these very same two states and two dispositions in an individual or in a society.
Two soldiers enter the field of battle, possessing two kinds of disposition. One has confidence in the quality of his military equipment, in the leadership over him, in the planning and competence of his chiefs and leaders, in the weakness of the enemy's force, in the efficacy of himself and his friends and comrades-in-arms. In addition, he knows that the reinforcement forces are over there, behind the front, waiting to come onto the field at the necessary moment, at a single signal, and to help. This one enters the field of battle in one manner. That man who has no confidence whatsoever in his own military equipment, in the effectiveness of his friends, in the use of his weapon, sees himself as small and the enemy as great; sees himself as naked and the enemy as encased in armor and weapons up to below the eye and to the teeth — this one enters the field of battle in another manner.
These are some examples of assurance. I want it to become clear and correct for you what it means — what assurance of the self means, what it means for the self to be assured, what it means for the heart to possess calm, in what sense. That first soldier possesses assurance; his heart is at peace. To have a peaceful heart does not mean that, on the field of battle, he puts his shoes under his head and stretches out and sleeps and his snoring rises to the sky — no, assurance does not mean that. Assurance does not mean that in the middle of the field of battle he says, "Let us now have a cigarette, let us look at the scenery for a little while" — no, certainly not. It does not mean that the slightest movement of the enemy is hidden from his sight. Assurance means that he is not agitated, he is not disquieted; the future is clear to him, he knows that he will prevail, and so he does not fear. This heart and this spirit is at peace — like a ship that, with great weight, with much equipment, is moving on a calm sea: this is what they call assurance. And the unassured one is like that small boat, like that broken plank that is moving on a turbulent ocean, on a turbulent river; constantly agitated, constantly going back and forth by this route, by that route. These are two kinds of disposition.
Let me give another example of assurance. We must gradually draw near to that disposition of assurance that is intended in the Qur'an. We begin from the examination of a student, then a defendant before a court, then a soldier on the field of battle. Another instance: a person who has set out upon a road and is moving, going toward a purpose and a destination. Dozens of motives may hold him back from traversing this road and pursuing this goal. Fear is one of these motives — dread, alarm, terror. Out of fear he may fail to continue this road. Fear of what? Fear of hunger along the way, fear of the thief on the road, fear of the ravening wolf that lies in ambush on the way, fear of the toils and the sleepless nights of this road, and finally fear of not arriving. This is one category of the things that prevent this traveler from pursuing his road and going forward.
Greed is another. Greed for what? Greed for a comfortable life — that if I do not traverse this road, do not set out and go after this purpose, I will sleep in the warm, soft bed of my own home, I will pass my time beside my children and my beloved wife. This is something that, for an ordinary person, for a small person, for a weak spirit, is an ideal, is beloved, is desirable; it draws him to itself, so it is clear that he is not willing to give it up easily. Greed for a comfortable life; greed for the one who says, "If you do not go on this road, this purse of money is yours"; greed for attaining the positions which, if you do not accept this wandering exile, those positions await you. Greed! These are the motives that hold a person back from traversing this road — the fears and the greeds. If we dissect the fears, dozens of categories emerge; if we dissect the greeds, dozens of other categories emerge: love of ease, love of well-being, opportunism, self-interest, and the like.
Well, now picture a traveler who has finally taken the risk, as people today put it, has set foot on this road, is moving and going — but have these motives come to an end? This person who is moving on this road — those obstacles that would not let him enter this road, have they vanished? No, they have not vanished. Pay close attention! These obstacles, at first too, would not let him enter this long and far road; now, too, that he has entered this road, they will not let him traverse it in tranquility and peace. With every step he takes, like a thorn, like a hook, like a chain — they catch his foot, the hem of his garment, his hand, and they pull and drag and hold him back from traversing the road. He keeps falling to this side, keeps falling to that side; this thorn keeps catching his hem, that chain keeps dragging his foot, the love of his child keeps drawing him toward itself, the recollection of a comfortable life keeps pulling him toward itself. From this side and from that side, the various motives carry this person off in different directions. This person becomes unstable, like that very skiff, like that very boat — sometimes to this side, sometimes to that side. This is the unassured person.
There is also a person who, when he has entered, when he has reached this road, creates for himself a motive, a factor of attention, that makes him heedless of all these small motives. An attraction and a pull draws his heart, such that these small attractions — the attraction of the child, the attraction of the wife, the attraction of life, the attraction of money, the attraction of position, the attraction of one's very life — in the face of that greater attraction are empty, are nothing, are annihilated, have no effect. Dozens of magnets attract a small object this way and that, but when a stronger magnet appears, its attraction draws this small piece of iron, this filing, toward itself in such a way that the other magnets have absolutely no effect — their effect is neutralized.
When this person, with this strong attraction, with this strong disposition, has entered a road and become occupied with traversing that road, then the attraction of wife and child and the other things — the beauties and the comforts and the pleasures and the delights and the merrymaking — no longer have any effect on him. Who is this person? This is the assured person:
O soul at peace! Return to your Lord, well-pleased and pleasing.
The one who is assured — in whom there is the state of assurance and repose — is the one who can traverse the road of God to the end, and attain the resting-place and the intended purpose and destination. This is what assurance means: an attraction draws him; the attraction of faith, the attraction of love for God, the attraction of love for the goal, captivates him so and draws him toward itself so that all the other attractions appear to him empty and absurd — empty and absurd. The meaning is not that the earth, with this immensity, whose gravity draws every body toward itself — that this should not exist. But suppose then that some body, some mountain — even Mount Himalaya, even the greatest mountains of the world — should also display itself; a stone that you fling, should Mount Himalaya draw it toward itself? No. Mount Himalaya has gravity, but in the face of the earth's gravity, its gravity is zero, it is neutralized, it does not act. Mount Himalaya, and any body of that magnitude, exerts its effect and draws smaller objects toward itself only where there is no greater body, like the earth, beside it. When the earth's gravity is present, the gravity of Mount Himalaya is nothing.
When faith in God acts in the spirit of a person like a strong attraction, it draws him toward the goals of faith in such a way that the small attractions — these attractions that loom large for the faithless, but in the face of faith are small — these attractions no longer have any effect on him. It keeps tempting the heart of a person to bring up here the abundant historical evidences that exist in the early period of Islam — but I see that time is passing; you yourselves should search out the evidences and find them. Those astonishing attractions that drew certain individuals…
I only want to explain these two or three words. Assurance — so what does assurance mean? The gist of the matter came to this: that assurance means the tranquility of a person's spirit, the calm of a person's heart — that the heart be at peace. What does it mean to be at peace? Not that it be motionless, not that it not go forward and not have progress — rather, that the various attractions not draw him to this side and that side, not become the cause of his trouble. Loves and affections and passions and caprices — none of them should rule over him; rather, under the weight of the burden of faith, at peace and assured, yet with the utmost possible speed, he moves toward the purpose of humanity, the purpose of creation. This is the meaning of assurance.
Next, the second word is sukun (repose). Sukun, too, has this very meaning.
Then God sent down His sakinah (tranquility) upon His Messenger…
God sent down sakinah upon the Prophet. In five or six places of the Qur'an this expression occurs, one of which is among these very verses that I think we shall now read. Of those verses that pertain to the sakinah of the self — it seems that, unfortunately, I have brought nothing here. (Because, since time is so short and space is so short and our resources, too, are truly meager, I keep thinking that if I bring two more verses, these two pages will become three pages — how are we to mimeograph this? You understand! Our resources in these matters are this scant and weak. I say this so that you know that if the print of this has come out faint, you should know that, had it not come out faint, it would not have come out at all! Suppose, for example, that our situation is now like this: we cannot easily and conveniently provide even two ordinary sheets of paper. Otherwise, I gathered all these verses pertaining to security and assurance and sakinah; I took pains to gather them, it is much trouble too — searching and finding them is very difficult; at the least a person must search and work for one or two hours just to find the verses, let alone drawing the conclusions. Even though I gathered the verses, I was always troubled by this: that if we were to bring two more verses, this one and a half pages would become two and a half or three pages, and mimeographing that would be a difficult task. See our resources — I want you to bear this in mind, that our resources are this degree of weak.)
In any case: there are five or six verses in the Qur'an that concern sakinah at critical moments. For example, one is in the Battle of Hunayn. In the Battle of Hunayn, the Prophet's troops fell into an unwarranted pride; they became conceited about their own force and thought that today no one would gain victory over them. And it is the way of God that a conceited person must fall flat on his face, that every conceited group must become heedless and take a blow. Constant alertness and sensitivity are necessary for every person and every community and every nation. So much so that the Commander of the Faithful, may God's blessings be upon him, said, "I am not like that dazed, dumb animal that is put to sleep with a lullaby, in Nahj al-Balaghah: wa-Allahi la akunu kal-dib'i tanamu 'ala tul al-ladm — with lullabies, like the hyena: they go to its den and sing it lullabies; this makes it fall asleep, then they catch it. He says: I am not the sort to be put to sleep with a lullaby and become heedless — I am constantly alert, and it is the way of God that a person who is not constantly alert is bound to see and take the blow." These people became heedless on the field of battle, and they had reason to:
…when your great numbers pleased you, but they availed you nothing.
They were many, and this being-many of the host brought them to wonder, brought them to amazement. Wonder! Are we all this multitude? "But it availed you nothing" — this very pride of yours caused you to be heedless in the war and to be defeated. After they were defeated by the enemy — yet not a decisive and final defeat, a partial breaking — they immediately came to themselves. A number of good soldiers, a number of steadfast, seriously believing commanders — the Commander of the Faithful and a few others — with every effort and exertion, finally turned back the troops, who were being routed. Then, there, the Lord says:
Then God sent down His sakinah upon His Messenger.
God returned to you the peace and the sakinah of the spirit — peace, sakinah.
One instance is at the time when, beneath that tree, the Muslims renewed their allegiance to the Prophet. One instance is for the time when the Prophet had fled from Mecca toward Medina, with the aim of forming the Islamic society, with the plan of dangerous decisions for the unbelievers and the enemies, with a thousand resolves and powerful determinations, with a thousand thoughts. The Prophet has come out, and he must convey himself to Medina; the condition for the realization of all those aims and those thoughts, those plans of the Prophet, is that the Prophet arrive safely in Medina. Otherwise, if the unbelievers were able to kill him on the road, to destroy him, none of those visions would take the form of occurrence. The Prophet has taken refuge in a cave, and there too God says:
…so God sent down His sakinah upon him.
God sent down His sakinah and peace upon the heart of the Prophet in that critical situation. And there are several other instances. The believer possesses sakinah; sakinah means this. So sakinah, peace, repose of the self — again, it does not mean the absence of movement and falling asleep and becoming heedless.
And the last phrase and the last word — security. Of course, it is evident that here the meaning is spiritual security, not social security. Social security, of course, means that all individuals enjoy a certain peace in society, so that each one can take his own right. And silence — enforced silences are something other than security. Security consists in all the people being able, with complete safety, to attain their rights and their legitimate wants. This security that we are speaking of here is other than that security which is raised in the context of social matters and social security. This security means spiritual security — the absence of instability, the absence of agitation, the absence of fear, not being afraid and fearful — these three phrases. Now, in the verses of the Qur'an, see what is stated regarding the believers in the context of these three attributes. (While I read the verses, I request that you look at these sheets, that you pay attention to the translations and also correct the verses themselves. Today it came out very poorly.)
The verse of Surat al-Ra'd, verses 28 and 29 — two short verses:
…those who believe, and whose hearts find rest in the remembrance of God.
Of course, the verse is perhaps a continuation of the previous verses, but mentioning the previous verses would take a little long. "Those who believe, and whose hearts find rest" — those who brought faith and whose hearts found peace — "in the remembrance of God" — in the remembrance of God. See, this remembrance of God is that very strong attraction. That same strong attraction that I said erases the small attractions, neutralizes their effect — this is precisely dhikr Allah (the remembrance of God). Why did they place such great emphasis on the prayer (salat)? Why did they say that if the prayer is not accepted, the other deeds are not accepted? Why have they said that Mecca [the pilgrimage] is once in a lifetime, fasting once a year, zakat for a specific case, khums likewise, and the rest of the acts of worship likewise — but the prayer they have said is every day, and that five times a day, and if you do more, it is better? Why have they said this? Because the prayer — I have spoken about the prayer in detail over several sessions; some of the honored attendees may remember — the prayer is a capsule of the remembrance of God. The prayer, from head to foot, is dhikr Allah. That is why the Qur'an itself, after it says:
Surely the prayer restrains from indecency and wrongdoing…
— that the prayer forbids and restrains from indecency and wrongdoings — follows it with: "and the remembrance of God is greater" (wa la-dhikru Allahi akbar). The remembrance of God is higher. This aspect and this dimension of the prayer is more important — that it is the remembrance of God; this is higher; the greatest property of the prayer is this. And the property of dhikr Allah is this: the remembrance of God, attention to God, ever seeing God, knowing Him, considering Him present with oneself — one of its important properties is this: that it keeps this heart away from agitations, from temptations, from anxieties, from the various attractions, in every undertaking, on every road. This heart finds peace. Like a weight placed upon a boat of that sort, which makes it a little heavier, reduces a little of its movement and agitation. This is dhikr Allah.
"Those who believe" — those who… (allow me to read the translation from this very note, so that there is again opportunity for you to correct it) — those who brought faith, and whose hearts attained steadiness and assurance through the remembrance of God — I deliberately brought in here the word "steadiness," that is, that state of calm — are guided toward God. This "are guided toward God" I wrote in parentheses; why? Because, as I stated, the verse is connected to what precedes, and in the previous verse it was said that they are guided toward God: "and He guides to Himself whoever turns" — those who believe — to the end of the verse. Therefore the "are guided" that we wrote in parentheses — "are guided toward God" — this translation is with attention and regard to the previous verse, where the guidance of this group is derived from the previous verse.
Surely, by the remembrance of God do hearts find rest.
— indeed, by means of the remembrance of God, hearts take on tranquility and steadiness. The remembrance of God has this astonishing property, and you see how effective tranquility and repose and steadiness are for the success of a person. The believer has this distinction; he enjoys this astonishing spiritual capacity. Its continuation:
Those who believe and do righteous deeds — blessedness is theirs, and a goodly return.
— those who brought faith and did good works, "blessedness is theirs, and a goodly return." (Of course, here again is a translation that I myself brought in this sheet; allow me to read it.) Those who brought faith and did righteous deeds — righteous deed meaning that they carried out the necessary commitments commensurate with faith — blessed be their today, and goodly be their morrow. This is a conclusion that I drew from "blessedness is theirs, and a goodly return"; its translation differs a little from this sentence that I have written, but in summary and as a drawn conclusion it is this: their today good, their tomorrow too good; their world goodly, their Hereafter too goodly. And the reality, too, is just this. The believing society — and that, a believer who acts upon the commitments of faith — its world too is flourishing, its Hereafter too is flourishing; its world too is paradise, its Hereafter too is paradise. This is one verse.
Then we wrote a short commentary here, all of which I no longer wish to read now. The discussion is the disputation of Abraham with his people. Abraham, the Friend of the Merciful and the herald of monotheism in olden and ancient times, used to dispute and argue with his own people and his own folk. They would argue with him, and he would argue with them and give answers to their words. The Qur'an narrates and recalls this disputation. It says, And his people disputed with him — and his people, the people of Abraham, took to disputing with him, took to arguing with him. The Qur'an does not say what they said, how they argued with him, what their words were; but from the answer that Abraham gave them, which the Qur'an narrates, one guesses what their words were. I will first read the answer; then you yourselves guess what they were saying to Abraham.
He said: Do you dispute with me concerning God…
When they took to disputing and arguing with Abraham, "He said: Do you dispute with me concerning God?" — do you argue with me about God? — "while He has guided me" — whereas God has guided me; that is, I am clear, I have no doubt in my own road, that you might wish to exploit that doubt of mine and, with argument and dispute, turn me back from my road. "And He has guided me" — I have been guided; I have found the way, I am clear, I know what I am doing — "and I do not fear what you associate with Him, except that my Lord should will something" — and from what you have set up as partners to God, I have no fear at all, save that God should will something concerning me; that is, in truth, I fear God. From the events that God may place on my road, and from the future that God may intend for me, I am apprehensive, and that is all; but of those things which you have set up as partners to God, I have no apprehension. From here a little becomes evident, and later more becomes evident; from this answer it is derived that they were saying to Abraham: Abraham, fear these partners that we have set up for God, fear them. These will wither you, these will torment you, will blacken your world, will embitter your days — no doubt that is so! Abraham, in answer, says: I do not fear them, I have no apprehension of them at all. From the continuation of the verse and Abraham's speech, this point becomes clearer and more manifest.
My Lord encompasses all things in knowledge.
— my Lord's knowledge is extended over everything. wasi'a — is extended; rabbi — my Lord; kulla shay'in — over everything; 'ilman — in respect of knowledge. The fluent and simple Persian rendering of which becomes just what we wrote here: my Lord's knowledge is extended over everything. "Will you not then take heed?" a-fa-la tatadhakkarun — with all this, do you not come to yourselves? tatadhakkarun — that is, do you not become aware? Do you not become attentive? Do you not find the state of coming to yourselves? Do you not call to mind? These all mean one thing; so that in the Persian translation that I wrote here, it comes to just what I stated: a-fa-la tatadhakkarun — that is, with all this, do you not come to yourselves? Well, Abraham's speech with his people still continues. This was one portion of it. (Today our work has become a little difficult on account of the situation of the mimeographing of this paper. Nonetheless, we have a responsibility to read this, and to read it correctly; this too — let us read it, and you correct it, and let us also at times compare with one another, at any rate.)
Following this matter, Abraham says: (here it has come out very poorly in my copy; gentlemen, correct it.)
And how should I fear what you associate, while you do not fear that you have associated with God that for which He has sent down upon you no authority?
Here it becomes well clarified what argument and disputation they had with Abraham. Abraham says: How is it that I should fear?! It is you who should fear. Should I fear those whom you, without reason, have set up as partners to God and rivals to God in dominion and rule and command and creation and direction — whereas God has guided me, the matter is clear to me — and you do not fear that you have set up, without reason, without logic, without cause, with no rational warrant whatsoever, partners and rivals and peers to the Lord of the worlds? You should fear, not I. From here it becomes evident that they, in their argument with Abraham, were saying: Fear! Fear! Now, fear whom? Fear what? Whether the inanimate partners of God, or the living partners of God, or both — this is no longer evident. Which partners they said one must fear is not clear.
In summary, they set up all sorts and kinds of partners for God the Exalted. The calf-worshipers set up the calf, the stone- and wood-worshipers the stone and the wood, the Pharaoh- and Nimrod-worshipers Pharaoh and Nimrod. And from what we discussed concerning tawhid, it becomes evident that that calf and that stone and that Pharaoh and that Nimrod are all kindling for one fire, are all filth of one valley, and have no difference among them. At any rate, these people were saying that one must fear the partners of God. Now the partners of God — whether the human partners, the partners among the jinn, the living partners, the inanimate partners, and the like — this, again, is not evident.
And how should I fear what you have associated…
— how should I fear what you have set up as partners to God — "while you do not fear that you have associated with God…" — and you do not fear that you have set up partners to God? "…that for which He has sent down upon you no authority" — something for which you have no proof or argument at all. The translation we wrote here is this: How should I fear what you have set up as partners to God, while you do not fear that you have associated partners with Him — even though you have no proof or demonstration whatsoever in this?
Then its continuation:
…So which of the two parties has more right to security, if you but knew?
— we or you? — I am more deserving and more fitting to be spiritually secure, to have spiritual security, to have no disquiet and anxiety; or you? I, whose heart is attached to God — Abraham says — I, who am the object of God's guidance, am I more free of disquiet, or you, wretched one, who in the road and the work you have taken up have no proof or argument, while to me the matter is clear? "So which of the two parties has more right to security, if you but knew?" — which of the two of us, I, Abraham, or you idol-worshipers, is more deserving of security? Abraham was saying. Then in parentheses I have explained: I, who have known God and have found the way to Him with insight and awareness, or you, who have no proof at all for your vain conjecture. "If you but knew!" — that is, it is evident what the result is, it is evident what the answer is, it is evident who is condemned to disquiet and fear and dread, and who is not condemned to these miseries and is assured.
And at the end He says:
Those who believe and do not clothe their faith with wrongdoing — for them is security, and they are the rightly guided.
Those who have brought faith and have not stained their faith with injustice and oppression — to them alone belongs security, and they are the rightly guided ones. This is concerning security.
Then we wrote: "4 — Being fruitful." What does this mean? The fourth promise is this: being fruitful. Whether this traveler considers his work fruitful or not is one of the things that decide his journey. If he has it, he can move better, and there is greater likelihood of his arriving; if he does not have it, he moves more slowly, and the likelihood of his not arriving is also great. If he considered this road, his movement and his work and his step, fruitful — if he felt that this does not go to waste, his deed is not ruined, that upon this movement, upon this step, some effect follows, that each movement of his creates a wave that brings him nearer to the resting-place — if he believed this, he goes forward faster, works better, his fatigue is less, he moves more easily. If he did not believe this — alas! The believer is of this sort: the believer considers his own work fruitful, and the Qur'an has taught him this. The Qur'an, of course, has abundant instances:
Indeed God does not let the reward of those who do good go to waste. …the reward of one who does good work [We do not let go to waste\.]
— from the beginning to the end of the Qur'an, beyond count. I have brought one instance of it from the beginning of the Qur'an, which was ready to hand, from Surat al-Baqarah. Ten instances, fifteen more instances — you yourselves find them too. (It is from Surat al-Baqarah; of course, we did not write its address here, but its address is Surat al-Baqarah, verse 147 or 8 — pardon me, 143 or 4 — because these verse numbers in this Qur'an are written very small and poorly.)
The verse is about the qibla. Let me first state the history of the qibla in a few words. When the Muslims were in Mecca, they used to pray facing the House of the Ka'ba. Before the migration, for prayer, for worship, facing the House of the Ka'ba. When they came to Medina — at the first entry into Medina — they used to pray facing Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis); by the command of the Lord, of course. The very thing the Jews too were doing. At that same time, the Jews of Medina too used to worship facing Jerusalem, and the Muslims likewise. Some time passed, and a verse was revealed:
…so turn your face toward the Sacred Mosque.
— turn toward the House of God, toward the Ka'ba, the Sacred Mosque. And again the Muslims took to praying toward that direction. The episode of the qibla has come in detail at the beginning of Surat al-Baqarah — numerous verses; perhaps seven, eight, ten verses about the qibla are at the beginning of Surat al-Baqarah, which explain the various dimensions of this episode. It is itself lengthy, and for now there is no need that we expound it.
One of these verses is this; it says to the believers, says to the Prophet: We set your qibla toward Jerusalem — when you had come from Mecca, at the first entry into Medina — for one reason. We wanted a test to be carried out upon you. You, before you became Muslims, when you were in Mecca, even before becoming Muslims, held respect for the House of the Ka'ba, held a sanctity for it; and then, when you became Muslims, your prayer in Mecca was toward the House of the Ka'ba. Now that you have come to Medina, We wished to take from you, all at once and temporarily, an ancestral, forefathers' custom — to see how ready you are, for the sake of God, to trample customs underfoot. This is very important; this itself is a point. It is not connected to our discussion, but it is a very important point. You who are believers — are you ready, for the sake of God, to suddenly trample underfoot an ancestral, forefathers' custom, something to which you became attached, in which you took interest, for which you hold respect, or not? Not that you should imagine that the prayers which, during the time you were in Medina, at first you prayed facing Jerusalem — that We count these prayers as nothing, do not accept them, that the qibla of Jerusalem was a false qibla — no, certainly not. The things you did, all of them, in all their degrees, are accepted. Your efforts and your endeavors, O believers, both in the matter of the qibla and in general, are the object of God's confirmation and affirmation and the object of His reward and thanks. But this interval that took place was for this: that We might test. The verse is on this category. Now see from which part of the verse we wish to draw our point.
And We did not appoint the qibla which you were upon…
— We did not appoint, O Prophet, that qibla which you were upon, that is, Jerusalem. So when was the verse revealed? At the time when they had turned back from Jerusalem to the Ka'ba; they were praying toward the Ka'ba. God says: that qibla which you formerly used to face — that is, Jerusalem — for what did We appoint it? "And We did not appoint the qibla which you were upon" — We did not appoint, did not ordain, the qibla which you were formerly upon — "except" — "that We might know" — except that it might become known — "who follows the Messenger from him who turns back on his heels" — those who follow the Prophet, distinct and separate from those who incline and lean toward their predecessors and turn back to the past, so that they become evident. So this is a test that He carried out upon you. The translation we made of the verse in this sheet is like this: We had not appointed your former qibla, Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis or Bayt al-Maqdas), in parentheses, except that the true followers of the Prophet might become known and distinguished from the followers of pagan customs. "And it was indeed grievous, except for those whom God has guided" — though it appeared exceedingly great and important, except for those whom God has guided. Those whose hearts had been guided — this matter was for them ordinary, was usual; they could digest it. The unguided, no.
Then the next phrase: "And God was never to let your faith go to waste" — this phrase is the object of our argument and citation. And God would never let your faith go to waste. It was not so that your faith and your deed and your work would remain wasted and void and without effect, that for a span of time you would mark time or not go forward. No! Each step of yours, every movement of yours, every footstep of yours has brought you one step, one footstep nearer to the goal. And by that same measure we advanced on the road of perfection and drew near to the goal. So your faith is not wasted.
Indeed God is, toward the people, most kind, merciful.
— indeed God is, toward the people, compassionate and possessed of mercy. Well, take note: both this verse, and several or many other verses in the Qur'an, give the believers the promise of this matter: that your works, your faith, your belief, your deed do not go to waste, are not without effect, are not neutralized; that is to say what? They are fruitful. And if indeed this state comes to exist in the believers, it is very clear and inevitable that the traversing of the road of perfection becomes easier and simpler for him.
Tomorrow our discussion is about tawhid.
Chapter Two:.
Tawhid.
Tawhid in the worldview of Islam. Tawhid in the ideology of Islam. The exclusive worship and obedience of God. The spirit of tawhid: the negation of servitude to other than God. Tawhid and the negation of social classes. The psychological effects of tawhid.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 9 · 45:43
- Ep 10 — Tawhid in the Islamic WorldviewSession 8: Tawhid in the Islamic Worldview.
delivered Thursday, 4 Mehr 1353 / 9 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Baqarah (2:255).
God — there is no deity but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting. Neither drowsiness nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is there that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what lies before them and what lies behind them, and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He wills. His Throne extends over the heavens and the earth, and the guarding of them does not weary Him. He is the Most High, the Most Great.
In brief, here is what we are setting out to do. We will single out the verses about tawhid in the Qur'an and translate them here for you, so that you yourselves may deduce two things: first, what tawhid means from the Qur'an's standpoint; and second, what commitment, what practical conduct in life, it implies.
And of course you have not forgotten — and must not forget — our earlier discussions. There we laid down two things faith must be. First, faith in any idea, in any religious principle, must be conscious: it must rest upon understanding, awareness, and insight, not be blind. Second, faith must be accompanied by commitment. Whatever we are to believe in inevitably lays a commitment upon our shoulders, in our lives and in our conduct — whether individual conduct or social conduct, whether it concerns our own person, or our own community, or humanity at large, or the future of history. Inevitably, it places a commitment upon our shoulders.
With this introduction in mind, when we enter the discussion of tawhid, this discussion will naturally be, for us, a discussion that imposes commitment. We will examine tawhid in such a way that, first, we may arrive at tawhid consciously; and second, that we may see what commitments tawhid places upon our shoulders. Is tawhid merely a kind of irresponsible, commitment-free understanding — a knowing of some truth without that knowing imposing any obligation upon us? Or is it otherwise? Is tawhid a form of awareness and knowledge such that, following upon this knowing, duties, obligations, and responsibilities devolve upon the human being? When we turn to the Qur'an, we will find the answer to this question.
Therefore, the verses we have in view today concern tawhid from one particular standpoint. Tomorrow, the verses will again concern tawhid, but from a different standpoint; and on the coming days, again there will be verses about tawhid, each from a standpoint of its own. And I do not claim that, with a discussion lasting a few days about tawhid, drawing upon the verses of the Qur'an, I will be able to set forth all the dimensions of Quranic and Islamic tawhid. Certainly, if some people, with a more precise eye, with greater clarity of vision, and with a more leisurely study, were to turn to the Qur'an, they would find a boundless ocean in the field of tawhid. I will speak only to the measure that our gathering's time allows. For even all that we ourselves know about tawhid cannot be set forth in summary form in this gathering — so I will speak to the extent that the capacity of our time and the scope of our assembly permit.
(There is one point I should mention beforehand: the discussion of tawhid, within the Quranic verses and in the style in which we will present it, may perhaps seem a bit heavy. It may perhaps seem like a lesson rather than a lecture. But I have always thought, and still think, to myself: what necessity is there that our public gatherings should not have the character of a lesson, and that a lecture should be something other than a lesson? What objection is there to it, that in a public gathering, with a large crowd, the minds present in the assembly should be ready to listen — ready to hear difficult things that require reflection and thought, just as in a classroom? What necessity is there that — especially during the days of the month of Ramadan, since it is the month of Ramadan and mouths are fasting — the speaker should see himself obliged and compelled to present the material in a more entertaining, more pleasant manner, mixed with more diversionary matters? Why? Until when must we, in our public gatherings and assemblies, give up the hope of thinking better, higher, and deeper? Why should we give it up?
Therefore, you brothers and sisters who are present in this gathering, and who will be present on the coming days — I do not know whether the material will seem heavy to you or not; it may seem heavy, it may seem quite ordinary — but if the material seems weighty and heavy to you, treat it as something that, in the end, must be understood: think about it, study it. Mobilize all the power of your mind in order to understand the material. Keep the words in your mind, hold onto them; if it is difficult, then later raise it with your friends and companions. If the discussion is one that seems unfamiliar to your mind, do not try to push it away from your mind immediately on the grounds that this discussion is heavy and weighty — no indeed; try, rather, to make your mind familiar with it.
And of course, as we have said in many of our discussions, lectures, and lessons: we never expect, even from a single person, that he should accept what we say one hundred percent and as a certainty — no. On the contrary, we expect of our friends, brothers, and sisters, at whatever level you are: that which is given to you as nourishment and intellectual substance — even if you are not like this elsewhere, here be like this — that which is given to you, place under the laboratory of your own perception, understanding, discernment, and independent judgment, and make yourselves an instance of this noble verse of the Qur'an, which says: So give good news to My servants — those who listen to the word and follow the best of it.)
In any case, we have considered tawhid from two standpoints — though, in the course of arranging the material, other branches may perhaps come up that need to be mentioned.
First, we consider tawhid within the worldview of Islam. There is, most certainly, tawhid within the worldview of Islam. What is tawhid in the worldview of Islam, and what does it mean? And how does the verse of the Qur'an, the eloquent and articulate language of the Qur'an, expound the tawhid that figures within the worldview of Islam? Second, we consider tawhid in the ideology of Islam. Of course, I will give a brief explanation of the term "worldview" for those who do not know it, and of the term "ideology" for those who do not know it; for tawhid is part both of the worldview of Islam and of the life-constructing ideology of Islam.
Beyond these, tawhid manifests and shows itself in every one of the subsidiary ordinances of Islam. And wherever you observe a ruling, a law, or a command put forward in the name of religion, in which tawhid limps — in which there is something anti-tawhid, and tawhid is absent — know that this is not from Islam. For tawhid is like a spirit within the body of all the ordinances of Islam. It is like a fine, subtle air present in all the parts of this edifice and frame whose name is Islam. It is like pure, clean, clear, fresh blood throughout this body and frame whose name is Islam and religion — it is even present in all the capillaries. You cannot find a single ruling in Islam that does not bear some color and trace of tawhid. Therefore today's discussion is about tawhid in the worldview of Islam.
What does the worldview of Islam mean? When you, as a human being, turn to your own thought, to your own perception, concerning the universe, the human being, and the world, you arrive at certain conceptions. It may be that you have not given thought to this; but the one who does give thought to it — when he thinks about the world, thinks about the human being, thinks about the relationship between the world and the human being, thinks about something beyond nature and beyond the human being and the world — arrives at a chain of conceptions and ideas. This is what is called a worldview. Every school of thought has a particular vision, a particular standpoint, a particular conception, a particular understanding of the world; this particular conception of the world, this special understanding of the universe, this manner of seeing the universe — its name is worldview. It is among the terms that have only in the last several years come to be seen and noticed in Persian expression. "Worldview" does not mean breadth of outlook, in the sense commonly used in colloquial expression — "so-and-so is a person of worldview," meaning he is broad-minded — no; worldview does not mean this.
In brief, worldview can be defined thus: worldview means a human being's conception of the world, a human being's apprehension of the world, a human being's understanding of the world or of the human being. We said "a human being's conception"; but you may, in place of "a human being," put "a school," "a creed," "a religion," "a social practice" — it has a conception of the world, and this conception is what is called its worldview. Islam has a worldview; Islam has a conception of the world. Islam's conception of the world, to the extent that it bears upon our discussion of tawhid, I will set forth briefly.
Islam holds that the whole of this aggregate whose name is "the world" is a servant — a thrall, a creature, dependent upon an exceedingly mighty power. From top to bottom, from the most insignificant and lowly beings to the great and conspicuous beings; from the basest living or lifeless thing to the noblest and most powerful of living beings possessed of intellect, that is, the human being — all of it, every part of it, every corner of this universe, is dependent upon that power. Beyond this surface that you and I see, beyond what the keen-sighted spectacles of empirical science can reach, beyond all the phenomena that can be sensed and touched, there is a truth higher than all truths, more exalted, nobler, dearer; and all these phenomena of the universe are made, fashioned, and brought into being by the hand of His power. To that higher power we give a name; its name is "God," its name is "Allah."
So the world is a truth that has no independence in itself; it did not bring itself into existence; it did not well up from within and from inside itself. Rather, a powerful hand created and brought into being these various phenomena — which, with every passing day that knowledge advances, show themselves more and more. It is a powerful hand that created that tumult in the heart of the atom. And it is that same hand that brought into being the highest unknown worlds — the galaxies, and what lies beyond the galaxies, where it may be that there are things to be discovered billions of times greater than all we have discovered to this day. This factory has a maker; this apparatus has an originator; it is not a matter of chance, it is not self-existent. Islam regards the world as just such a thing.
These are the materials of the Islamic worldview in the field of tawhid, which I am stating in just this way, little by little, briefly. (Commit them to your minds, so that, God willing, if tomorrow's written text is ready, in the writing too we shall set down something in brief.) Consider that God who is higher than the world and the worldly, that hand of power that turns all the beings of the universe. He made them, and moment by moment He has kept them enduring. And this powerful hand — whose name is Allah, whose name is God — is characterized, in an original and essential manner, with all the good and goodness-creating attributes: that is, He possesses knowledge, He possesses power, He possesses life, He possesses will and resolve, and all that springs and derives from these attributes. His life was not taken from anyone; His knowledge was not acquired or obtained from anywhere; and so on.
He is the Sovereign of the universe. Who are the inhabitants of the universe? What are the particles of the universe in relation to Him? Once the particles of the universe have been made and fashioned by Him, did they then become separate — like a child that separates from its mother and is thereafter independent? No; the matter is not at all like that. At every moment, for their remaining and their being, they are in need of Him — in need of His power and His will; and all are His servants. All beings are His servants, His thralls, His artifacts, His creatures. He can dispose over all of them; He created all of them with a particular order, brought all of them into being with regular and precise norms and laws. Today, science is discovering these laws — though, of course, my discussion is not in this field. That is, the argument for the existence of God and the proof of the Maker is not part of my discussion; there are abundant books in this field — go and read them.
Nevertheless, it would not be amiss to recall this one statement, on the authority of several scholars of the empirical sciences — not philosophers, but scholars whose work has to do precisely with the laboratory, with industry, with construction, and with such things. It comes from a book the work of several non-Iranian scholars and authors, which two or three accomplished Iranian translators have rendered into Persian, titled The Proof of the Existence of God (it is a good book, it would not be amiss to consult it). In it, several scholars of today's empirical sciences say that, with the advance of knowledge, with penetration into the inmost nature of creatures and beings and the discovery of regular laws, we come to understand that the world has an originator. From the sheer extent to which we see that order exists, the sheer extent to which orderliness and discipline are at work in the affairs of the universe, we understand that the world has a Creator and a Maker. Well, then: all the beings of the universe are His servants, His originated ones, all under His authority and within the grip of His power — and the human being too, like the rest of the other beings.
In the worldview of Islam, tawhid is just such a thing; tawhid means that the world has an Originator and a Maker, and, in a manner of speaking, has a pure and subtle spirit. The world has an originator, and all the parts of this universe are reckoned as servants, thralls, and beings under the authority of that God and that Originator. Tawhid in the worldview of Islam is this; that is, when a Muslim looks upon this universe from the standpoint of Islam, he does not see this universe as an independent being, but rather sees a being dependent upon a higher power. What effect does this have? What benefit does it have? It has a remarkable effect; in the subsequent discussions that we hold about tawhid, it will then become clear what effect this vision, this particular worldview, this perception and conception of the universe, this apprehension of the world and the worldly, has upon the building of life.
We turn to the verses of the Qur'an, and we see that the Lord of the universe has mentioned precisely this same matter in the Quranic verses. From two places in the Qur'an we have selected verses to be recited and translated today. The first is from Surat al-Baqarah, the verse famous as Ayat al-Kursi. The first part of Ayat al-Kursi is in this field, which we will now recite, translate, and reflect upon. It is verse 255.
In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. God — there is no deity but He.
"Allah" — this is a name for which an equivalent, by way of exposition and elucidation, cannot be found. What is "Allah"? It is God. And who is God? He is that being of whom it is said: La ilaha illa Huwa — there is no deity but He. Understand ilah as "object of worship." Ilah means any being before whom the human being submits in the manner of sanctification, of veneration and reverence — hands over his own free will to him, entrusts the reins of his life to him, sets him up as one given a free hand and unrestrained over his own life. This, in Quranic terminology, is called ilah. Those who make the desire of the self the holder of the reins of their lives — their ilah is the desire of their self. Those who give a free hand to a rebellious, transgressing human being in the affairs of their lives — their ilah is that very Satan. Those who submit, unconditionally and unreservedly, to hollow customs and beliefs — their ilah is that very hollow custom and belief. Whatever, in the human being's existence and in the human being's life, has a free hand unconditionally, and rules and dominates — that is an ilah.
Here it says: La ilaha illa Huwa — there is no ilah, no object of worship, but He. What does "there is not" mean? Does it mean there is none in the world? There were thousands of objects of worship in the world; three hundred and sixty of them were hung and set up within the House of the Ka'ba itself — three hundred and sixty idols. And just as many living idols, too, were ruling in the world. How then is there no ilah! So this that says La ilaha illa Huwa — "there is no ilah but He" — means there is no real ilah, no rightful ilah, no true ilah but Him; that is, anyone other than Allah whom you have accepted in divinity — in that sense of worship-worthiness which I described — you have committed a sin, you have performed an act contrary to right. For other than Allah, no one is worthy of being an object of worship and of divinity.
Allahu la ilaha illa Huwa — what is the distinctive quality of this Allah, this unique and single ilah? He enumerates some of His qualities: al-Hayy — He is the Living. All the others are dead; the others are dead beings and corpses; He is the Living. The lifeless ones — that is plain; but the living ones too are dead. A living thing that on one day did not exist and on another day will not exist; a living creature whose very life is constantly under threat; a living being whose life, with the movement of a single hair, with the stirring of the brain, is sometimes threatened with annihilation and destruction — what kind of life is this? The everlasting Living, the original Living, the true Living, is the one to whom life truly belongs, and which is His gift, His bestowal, His grant to all living things — and He is God. Al-Hayy — the Living. Al-Qayyum — the Enduring and Sustaining; the one whose life is permanent, eternal, and perpetual; the one by whose life the living are alive, and if He were not, if He did not will, if He did not so resolve, not a single living thing and not a single manifestation of life would remain in the world. Al-Qayyum.
La ta'khudhuhu sinatun wa-la nawm — neither drowsiness nor sleep takes hold of Him; light sleep — let alone heavy sleep. It does not seize Him away from Himself. What does this mean? It means that a moment of heedlessness, a moment of inattention, has no way into His being and into His life. The other beings, the false lords, are heedless — of themselves, of the people under their authority, of the world that is in their grip; they are heedless from head to foot, constantly in heedlessness; and even where they claim awareness and knowledge, their awareness and knowledge is false. What prevails over them is heedlessness and ignorance.
Have you not seen those who exchanged the blessing of God for ingratitude, and brought their people down into the abode of ruin — Hell, which they will enter; and an evil place of settlement it is. It was this verse of the Qur'an that Musa ibn Ja'far (peace be upon him) recited to Harun al-Rashid. Musa ibn Ja'far (peace be upon him) was saying to Harun, "You are among them." Well, if Harun is not heedless, why would he drag himself and his people into the Fire? So the other gods are heedless from head to foot.
The One whom heedlessness does not seize is the real ruler of this world; that is, Allah. La ta'khudhuhu sinatun wa-la nawm. Do not imagine that sina, meaning drowsiness — light sleep — and nawm, meaning ordinary or heavy sleep, being removed from God and negated of Him, served no purpose here. They did. In the subsequent discussions we will see why. For every allusion in tawhid, every fine point in tawhid, is an allusion to the negation of the divinity of other-than-God, and an allusion to the deficiencies of other-than-God. Everything that is affirmed of God is precisely those things that are negated of the claimants to divinity. What is said in tawhid is precisely those things that must be reflected in the practical life of the monotheists and the worshippers of God. All the qualities and fine details of tawhid must have their instances in the lives of the monotheist people — which comes up in the subsequent discussions and recitations. Therefore, la ta'khudhuhu sinatun wa-la nawm is an allusion to the heedlessness, the slumbers, the lapses of the false lords and lordlings.
La ta'khudhuhu sinatun wa-la nawm; lahu ma fi al-samawati wa-ma fi al-ard — His is whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth; it belongs to Him, it is His servant. Man dha alladhi yashfa'u 'indahu illa bi-idhnih — who is there that can intercede before Him, mediate, except by His permission? We know of no other power that, even to the measure of the power of a single intercessor, could stand up before God. If anyone intercedes for others, he still does so by the permission of God. The prophets who intercede; the saints, the Imams, the righteous, the believers, and the martyrs who intercede before God — they do not do so except by the permission of God. Therefore they too are not powers set up against the power of God, not shops set up against God. It is not that they too are a separate establishment and apparatus set up against the establishment and apparatus of God — no; they are servants of God, only servants who are objects of God's grace and love.
Man dha alladhi yashfa'u 'indahu illa bi-idhnih — who is it that can intercede before Him except by His permission and leave? Ya'lamu ma bayna aydihim wa-ma khalfahum — whatever is before them and behind them, He knows; that is, He encompasses the whole life of human beings and of all beings. Wa-la yuhituna bi-shay'in min 'ilmihi illa bi-ma sha' — they do not encompass, their knowledge does not extend to anything of the knowledge of the Lord, except what He Himself wills.
See how He divides the whole of the universe into two ranks. One rank: the rank of God; the other rank: the rank of the other beings. In this other rank, all the particles of the universe are servants of God in a single degree. I mean to say that, with respect to servanthood to God, there is no distinction between any two beings in the universe. In this respect — that they are servants of God, that they are under the power and within the grip of God — they are all alike, all of them! Even the greatest being of the universe, the dearest and most precious human being of history — that is, the sacred person of the Noble Prophet (God's blessings be upon him and his household) — with respect to being a servant of God, being under the authority of God, being a slave of God, is like all the other particles of existence. To the same degree that they are under the authority of God, to that same degree the Prophet too is under the authority of God. It is not that a certain prophet, a certain station, a certain great human being, because he is great, because he is select, because he is beloved of God, because he is dear to God, should have some store of power set up against God — no; they are bound-handed servants, submitted to the Lord, and their very greatness lies in just this.
In the tashahhud of the prayer you recite: Ashhadu anna Muhammadan 'abduhu wa-rasuluh — you bring being a servant of God forward first; I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant — His slave — and His Messenger. You first mention being a servant.
Wasi'a kursiyyuhu al-samawati wa-l-ard — His throne of power has spread wide over the heavens and the earth. Wa-la ya'uduhu hifzuhuma — the safeguarding of the heavens and the earth is not heavy or burdensome upon Him. Wa-Huwa al-'Aliyyu al-'Azim — He is the Most High and Most Honored in rank; He is the Great and Majestic.
From these verses, what do you understand from the whole? Set aside the fine details that are in the verse, the subtleties and intricacies that are in every single sentence. Of these you may grasp some part, or I may grasp some part, and there are tens or hundreds of other subtleties and fine points that no one understands except the chosen servants of God. From the phrase Allahu la ilaha illa Huwa, Imam al-Sajjad understands subtleties and fine points that you and I do not understand. So set aside these fine points, set aside these subtleties, set aside the social or doctrinal matters that are present here — from the whole of it, what do you understand?
From the whole, you grasp well the vision of Islam concerning God. And what is it? Throughout the entire domain of existence there is one power, named God; one center of power, one focus of knowledge, life, and force, named God. And on the opposite side, all the phenomena, facing that mighty and majestic power in a state of destitution, in a state of servitude, in a state of servanthood — all of them, all of them. And there is no difference, either, among the phenomena of the universe with respect to servitude before that center of power. From a tiny particle to a mighty galaxy, from a believing human being to a disbelieving one, from a worthless being to a worthy human being — all, before that being, are bound-handed, submitted, slaves, servants, thralls; whatever expression you wish to use.
Of course, understanding this subject has effects in the recognition of the ideology of Islam, in the recognition of the practical programs of Islam for society. Let me give an example — I point it out now so that a flash of lightning may strike in your minds, that you may know we do not wish to engage in philosophical hairsplitting. Once we have understood that all human beings are, in sum, equal before this power and this center of force, then it no longer makes sense for the emperor of Rome — Valerian, for instance — in a state of pride and arrogance, to have his statue built there with a slave, a bondsman, fallen at his feet. We ask: why? On what grounds? Has this exalted-stationed emperor found, apart from the rank of the servants of God, some other rank? And has this human being who has now fallen at the emperor's feet, who is prostrating himself before him, who is bowing and abasing himself before him — has he found, apart from the rank of servants, some lower, baser rank? Are not the two of them both attached to one and the same rank? Then why this situation?
Look: were it not for this worldview, this vision, this conception of the world, the tyrants would be free to claim a separate rank for themselves. The emperors of the universe, the bullies of history, the great landowners and the wealthy and the great aristocrats who existed throughout history — those who had thousands and millions of servants, thralls, and captives of power, obedient to their command and order — these could say, "Sir, I am a thing apart, woven from a different cloth; I am other than that one; he must fall at my feet, I must set my foot upon his head; I was created to give commands, he was created to obey; I was created to live as a lord, he was made to be wretched; I am the servant of a god whose power is greater, he is the servant of a god whose power is less." It is like the thing the Children of Israel used to say. The Children of Israel used to say that our God, the God of the universe, is Yahweh, and Yahweh's favor toward the Children of Israel is greater. The idol-worshipping polytheists of India used to say that society is divided into four classes, each class having a particular god of its own, and that each was created from a particular place. But the pure tawhidi Islamic vision says that all possible existents and beings were created, made, and fashioned from one place, from one origin, from one hand of power; all are servants and thralls before Him; all are captives of His power before Him; all must obey His command. No one has the right to lay his head at the feet of another, just as no one has the right to set his foot upon the head of another. Just as you have no right to set your foot upon someone's head, you have no right to lay your head at someone's feet. For what reason? For the reason that, in either case, you have acted contrary to right and truth. The one who is mounted upon a horse, with servants and thralls writhing beneath the hooves of his horse, is no different from those servants and thralls.
Man dha alladhi yashfa'u 'indahu illa bi-idhnih — who is closer to Him? Who has, before Him, any power? Who can have, before Him, any sense of self-importance? Yes — illa bi-idhnih: some can intercede, but by His own permission. He never grants the permission of intercession to tyrants; He grants the permission of intercession to the Imams. He never grants to the corrupt the permission of nearness and the leave of intercession. To the prophets, to the saints, to the righteous, to the martyrs, to the high-stationed humble ones — those servants for whom worldly life passed bitterly and poisonously, yet whose spirits grew strong; who moved along the path of duty, who were hard and severe upon themselves so that they might draw one step nearer toward duty — they can; they can intercede before God. And even they — the reason they are able to intercede is this: that they performed the servanthood of God more fully; for they placed themselves more fully under the power of God. No one performed the servanthood of God in the time of the Prophet as the Prophet of God did; no one performed the servanthood of God in the time of the Commander of the Faithful as the Commander of the Faithful did; no one performed the servanthood of God in the time of Imam al-Sajjad as Imam al-Sajjad did. This that the Prophet is the highest of people, that 'Ali is the highest of people, that Imam al-Sajjad is the highest of people — it is not on account of, say, supposing a man of Shushtar against a man of Dezful; it is because they performed the servanthood of God more fully that their station is higher, that their station is more honored.
From the overall situation of this verse — which is Ayat al-Kursi — this meaning emerges: that the Lord of the universe is that absolute power, and that before Him all beings, all created things, the whole universe, are servants, obedient, bound-handed, and submitted; and whoever wishes to draw nearer to Him must be more fully His servant. This is one verse.
The other verse is in Surat Maryam; we have selected from Surat Maryam, verse 88 onward: And they said, 'The Most Merciful has taken a son.'
They said that the Merciful God has chosen a son for Himself. The disbelievers have voiced this claim in various forms: the Christians in one way, the Jews in another, the polytheists of Quraysh and the polytheists of Arabia in another, the polytheists of other places in yet another. Some said God has a daughter; some said He has a son; some said He has a daughter and a son; some said He has one; some said He has an infinite number — He has a household! In any case, they said: Ittakhadha al-Rahmanu walada — God has a child. From what angle did they say "He has a child"? Note this point carefully: that God having a child — which was claimed by a group of polytheists, or Christians, or Jews — meant that among the creatures of the universe, among the beings, there is one individual whose relation to God is not the relation of being a servant — note this carefully — but the relation of being a child. He is a young lord's son, not a bondsman; though he is not the lord himself. The Jews, who used to say 'Uzayr ibn Allah — that is, the prophet 'Uzayr is the son of God — wanted to say that, even if all the beings of the universe are servants and thralls of God, 'Uzayr is outside this category; he is no longer a servant of God, he is the young lord's son of God, the light of the eye of God. The Christians, too, who voiced this claim concerning the Messiah; and the disbelievers, too, who said concerning al-Lat, Manat, and al-'Uzza that these are the daughters of God; and the polytheists of Greece and Rome, who likewise held that God had numerous god-sons and lordly sons — all of them held this same view. That is, in reality, these two ranks that we have considered — one the rank of God, and one the rank of all the servants and beings, all of whom are humbled before God — these two ranks they were turning into three ranks. They said: God; the servants; and the elite [a class in between] — a child, a young lord's son, a god-son, something. The verses of Surat Maryam negate this matter. Pay close attention to the verses through to the end.
And they said, 'The Most Merciful has taken a son.' Surely you have brought forth a monstrous, grievous thing. The heavens are nearly torn apart by it, and the earth split asunder, and the mountains brought down in collapse — that they should ascribe a son to the Most Merciful.
Wa-qalu ittakhadha al-Rahmanu walada — they said that the Merciful God has chosen and taken a son; laqad ji'tum shay'an idda — you have indeed brought forth an awful and weighty saying. See what God's expression is: a weighty saying, an awful saying, a very dangerous belief you have advanced. Laqad ji'tum shay'an idda — truly a heavy and awful saying you have brought forth. Takadu al-samawatu yatafattarna minhu wa-tanshaqqu al-ardu wa-takhirru al-jibalu hadda — the heavens were near to bursting apart from one another, to splitting open, and the earth to rending asunder, and the mountains to crumbling down in ruin. An da'aw li-l-Rahmani walada — that they called upon the Merciful a son and held a son for Him.
It is plain that the matter is very grave. God is not such that some obscenity, some bad word, would offend Him; the Lord of the universe is not subject to feelings. That which He gives to the people as a belief is that which has a part in securing the divine aims. And that which He negates as a corrupt belief is that which, believing in it, has a part in securing the corruption of society. The negation of a corrupt belief means the negation of a vein of corruption in human society. And the belief that God has offspring — that He has a god-son and a lordly son, has a child, that there is an intermediary between God and humankind, a separating link — this belief has corrupting effects in society. Those corruptions, of course, will become clear gradually in the course of the tawhidi discussions. This is, in reality, a pretext for the servants, besides becoming the servant of God, to become the servant of yet another as well.
And it does not befit the Most Merciful that He should take a son. There is none in the heavens and the earth but that he comes to the Most Merciful as a servant. He has indeed counted them and numbered them, numbering.
Wa-ma yanbaghi li-l-Rahmani an yattakhidha walada — it does not befit the Merciful that He should take a son. In kullu man fi al-samawati wa-l-ardi illa ati al-Rahmani 'abda — all who are in the heavens and the earth are nothing but ones who come before God in servitude and servanthood; all are servants of God, all are God's servants. Laqad ahsahum wa-'addahum 'adda — He has enumerated them, He has taken them in His grip and counted them, a thorough counting. This too is the other verse that was in Surat Maryam.
Well, then: in brief, the discussion we had today amounted to this — what does tawhid in the worldview of Islam mean, and what is it? The examination of tawhid as one of the materials of the principles of the worldview. Tomorrow, God willing, we will come to the examination of tawhid as one of the materials of the principles of the ideology of Islam. See, these two differ from each other; this is the introduction to the other, this is the ground for the other. The Islamic vision is this; it sees the world, the universe, the realm of existence, in this way. Well, now — what does this vision inspire in us? What course, what plan, what design for life does it set forth? What is that? What role does tawhid play there? "Tawhid in the ideology of Islam."Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 10 · 39:15
- Ep 11 — Tawhid in Islamic IdeologySession 9: Tawhid in Islamic Ideology.
delivered Friday, 5 Mehr 1353 / 10 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Baqarah (2:165).
And among mankind are some who take, besides God, rivals [whom] they love as they should love God. But those who believe are stronger in love for God. If only those who do wrong could see — when they behold the punishment — that all power belongs to God, and that God is severe in punishment.
The theist says that beyond what we see, there is a reality higher and more magnificent than what we observe, and that were it not for that reality, these phenomena would never have taken form. The materialist says: no; we cannot believe in, or commit ourselves to, anything other than what we see. In our laboratories and experiments, however much we have searched, we have found no sign and no trace of this being you speak of. Let the dispute between the materialist and the theist remain for the books and discussions devoted specifically to that subject.
Here is our belief about the materialists of our age. (We are not concerned with Democritus of history, that other materialist atheist of ten centuries ago, Democritus or some such scholar who lived twenty centuries, thirty centuries ago. We have no quarrel with him; he died, and even his bones have turned to dust.) The materialist of our time, if he says there is no God, if he believes that beyond this world no other reality exists, in truth says it because he has suffered an intellectual and spiritual disillusionment with the school of theism. Because he believes that the building of today's world, the administration of human beings, the establishment of justice, and the removal of discrimination are impossible except in the shadow of a materialist, materialistic mode of thought — for this reason he turns his back on the school of the theists. If we look carefully at the intellectual condition of those who, over the last fifty or sixty years, have embraced some of the "isms" of our time, if we study it properly, we will find that the matter is exactly as we have said. It is not that they bear some obstinate grudge against God, nor that they reject or refuse to accept God because they lack a convincing rational argument for His existence. Most often there is no rational argument on the other side of the question either; there is no argument for negating God — none at all, neither now nor in the past.
You will not find a single person who says, "I say there is no God for this reason" — not one! Among all the materialists of the world, from the first day until now, there is not one who says, "I prove there is no God by this argument." Anyone who has something to say on this matter says, "It has not been proven to me that He exists; I did not understand, I did not accept the argument for His existence." And the Qur'an points to precisely this fact: They are following nothing but conjecture. They merely chase after fancy and guesswork; otherwise they cannot negate God with any proof.
So it is not on account of not having a rationally satisfying philosophy, nor is there a rationally satisfying philosophy on the materialist side either. In the case of the materialist of our age — and this is a subtle point — what draws him toward what he calls the materialist school is that he imagines this school can better administer the world today. He says it can better eliminate oppression, better destroy discrimination and inequality, better uproot, dissolve, and annihilate tyranny and despotism. He says religion cannot do these things. Why does he say so? Because of religion — of the common, prevalent notion of religion — he knows nothing except what he has observed in the hands of the people of the street and bazaar, in its traditional and imitative form. In short, he has no knowledge of religion, no information about it. If you ask him what religion is, he names a series of outward manifestations and says, "This is religion." And then comes his verdict: these are an opiate, these are the brother and equal of oppression and the oppressor, these cannot loosen a single knot in the people's tangled affairs, therefore — abandon it.
When a person is faced with such a logic, the best and most correct answer is plain. Yes — if you have found a religion that colludes with the oppressor, that cooperates with the despot, that does not stand for one moment alongside the oppressed, that does not untie one knot in the people's tangled affairs, that has not the worth of a poppy seed, of a mustard's atom, for the people's today and tomorrow — then on our behalf you are authorized: wherever you found such a religion, reject it, do not accept it for a single moment. Because if a religion is from God, it is not like this.
A religion that God sends is not just anything; it has a sign, it has a distinguishing mark, it bears a standard seal. If this standard seal matches a given religion, we accept it; if it does not match, we do not accept it. (When I speak about prophethood and the Prophet — God willing, in the series of Quranic discussions — perhaps I will convey this meaning there in greater detail.)
The Qur'an says: We have certainly sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance, so that the people may uphold justice.
"We sent Our messengers with clear proofs" — We sent forth Our prophets with luminous proofs, "and We sent down with them" a body of thought and the practical instruments — instruments by which they could judge and adjudicate among the people in their disputes — toward the people. Why did We do these things? "We sent" — not just one prophet, not just Moses, not just the Seal of the Prophets, not just Jesus; "We sent Our messengers" — all the prophets were sent with this one purpose and this one aim. What is that aim? "So that the people may uphold justice" — so that human beings may live on the basis of equity, justice, and fairness. This is religion. If you have seen a religion moving in the opposite direction to the philosophy of the religions, know that it is either not divine or it has been corrupted. If you have seen it moving contrary to the philosophy and the line of march of the divine prophets and the divine messengers, know with certainty that it is not the offspring of the Lord's revelation and of the prophets. This is quite clear.
So, O materialist! — the address is to them — O materialist! O you who say, "I have seen religion to be incapable of administering human societies" — we ask: which religion? The religion of Islam? True Islam? The Muhammadan revelation? The sovereign Alawid way of life? Have you seen these to be incompatible with the administration of human affairs? Come, prove it; where is the incompatibility? An Islam that comes and removes discrimination, that negates class division in the very heat of the world's class division, that pours together the wealth that has been unjustly distributed and redistributes it per capita, that gives human beings equal opportunities and means, that takes governance out of the hands of human tyrants and entrusts it to the just law of God; that honors the base human being, the human being who is slapped about, the enslaver and the enslaved, the human being who — for the sake of a single word, for the sake of a single bravo, for the sake of a single worthless coin — would commit the basest of crimes; that elevates this base, abject, despised human being, raises him up, makes him noble, adorns him with moral and human virtues — and secures all of this in the shadow of a just and firmly grounded order.
Nor is the prophet's training a matter of individual cultivation — taking each person one by one by the hand and seating him in a corner of a private chamber, whispering incantations into his ear so that he may become upright, so that he may become a true human being; it is not like that either. Nor is it preaching, with the prophet sitting and preaching to the people — "people, this is bad, do it that way." It is a social order. The prophet, in the ignorant atmosphere of that day, cast the foundation of Islamic society as firm as steel, in a determinate shape and mold. Then he brought human beings into this mold, brought human beings into this path and this channel. And bringing them into this path was itself their becoming true human beings; the two were one. So if you say that the Islamic religion — which is the truly Islamic religion, with these characteristics — if you say it this way, that it is not on a par with human progress, with justice, with the establishment of security, and with the meeting of human needs — no; we do not accept this, this is unfairness, this is unfairness.
If a scholar who grew up in the hollow milieu of Christianity, who has seen of religious manifestations nothing but the false intercessions of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, and the selling of deeds of paradise for money — if he gave himself the right to say this about religion, you, who live a hundred years, eighty years, fifty years after him, and who live in an era in which Islam is more or less showing itself, and has displayed and is displaying the sweetest and most precious human manifestations on the horizon of the world — you have no right to say this. If this is your meaning — no, this is not correct. But if you say: the hollow religions, the false religions, the fair-faced and foul-hearted religions, the religions
that everywhere drag the people into lethargies and submissions to oppression and pessimisms and divisions and fratricides; the religion that says to the poor, "If you have no wealth, if you have no money, you need not strive in the way of money," and says to the rich, "In return for what you have, give a portion to the church or to some other religious institution, and it will be the atonement for all the oppressions you committed in the course of acquiring this money" — if you mean this religion, in this we too are of one voice with you, and both of us are followers of the Qur'an: O you who believe, indeed many of the rabbis and monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them\ from the way of God.] O you who have believed, many of the Jewish and Christian scholars and ascetics devour the wealth of people without entitlement — "they devour" — and they do not even content themselves with that; "and they avert [them] from the way of God" — they also bar the people's path toward perfection and elevation. Would that they took their money and devoured it but left their path open! He devours their money and he severs their path. This the Qur'an says. We too are of one voice with you: a religion that is like that is not religion. A religion that is like that — any irreligion is better than it; because the irreligions may at least sometimes not become accomplices to oppressions and injustices, whereas such a religion may possibly become a means, a staff, a weapon in their hands.
Well, in summary, this was a set of generalities about the belief in Tawhid — taken as a vision, as the answer to a single question: is there a God or is there not? Is there anything beyond this material world? Is there a hand of power or not? In answering it I said that the theist speaks this way and the materialist speaks that way. Set aside the war of theist and materialist and leave it for the books; what little of it pertained to us, we have said in a word or two.
Now, a very important point. (If today I am unable to say everything I have written here, that is no obstacle, because this discussion will be continued — God willing, we will be with you tomorrow as well, if God wills. These matters which, as a preliminary and as the generalities of the subject, everyone must know — those I must state. Because it is Friday, some of you gentlemen may have been able to come today and may not be able to come tomorrow.) There are certain matters that are necessary for everyone in the domain of Islamic thought; everyone must know these, everyone must understand them. One of them is this: I say, gentlemen, when you raise the question of Tawhid, do not raise it as a dry, simple answer to a scientific and cerebral question; rather, raise it as a matter whose knowing or not-knowing is vital, decisive — raise it that way. Now I will explain.
Suppose at one time you are going along some road; with a friend, with a fellow-traveler and companion, you are moving and going along a road, and a discussion arises between you. You say, "Sir, the lands on both sides of this road are, in my view, salt-marsh; no crop at all can be obtained here." He says, "No, sir, the lands on both sides of this road are, in fact, perfectly suited for the cultivation of such-and-such." You say something, he says something; you offer a proof, he offers a proof. Well, how important is this discussion? You are going on, after all. The gentlemen's automobile is passing along this road at a hundred and twenty. You are not now going to sit down and test its soil, nor are you going to buy a piece of these lands so as to come back later and grow beets, nor are you going to answer some testimony or inquiry made about these lands; this question and answer has no effect for you whatsoever. Just this much: it is an answer to a question, a reply in the face of some matter that has been raised, and nothing more — nothing else at all. Whether you said and proved that this soil is barren and yields nothing, or he proved that no, on the contrary, excellent and remarkable beets come up and grow green here — whichever of you proves his claim, your road, your work, your present motion undergoes no change. It is not that, if it is proven to be barren, you say, "Well, now that it is barren, let us turn back"; no — you had no business with this place. Or
if it is proven that this place is fertile, you say, "Very well, now that it is fertile, come, let us pray two units of prayer at the foot of this fertile land"; no — it has no effect at all. Whether you prevail and prove your claim, or he prevails and proves his claim, it has no kind of effect on your motion, on this journey you are making, on your future, on your companionship — on anything. This is one kind of discussion, one kind of question, one kind of answer to a question.
At another time it happens that the two of you are seated in the car, this same car at this same speed is moving along this same road, and suddenly your friend says, "In my view, this road we are traveling reaches the north — whereas your destination is the south." You say, "No, sir, this road we are traveling reaches the south." He says no, you say no; this discussion flares up between the two of you. If he proves his claim, the head of the car must be turned around, you must go from the other direction — you had no business this way. If you prove your claim, with the very same course, the very same method, only a bit faster, you must take your road and go forward. Right now this hesitation that has arisen between you, and the two opinions that have appeared — its first effect is that the driver's foot goes to the brake, easing off a little: "Let us see now where we are going; in the end will we reach the destination or not?" This is called a question-and-answer and a discussion whose answer and whose result are decisive. The discussion of Tawhid is like this.
The way ordinary, common people, or the socially idle and the irresponsible and uncommitted, raise the question of Tawhid is different from the way a committed person ought to have the question of Tawhid raised for him. An uncommitted, irresponsible person raises Tawhid this way: is there a God or is there not? Well, now if there is, what shall we do? If there is not, what shall we do? What effect does it have on the condition of life, what change or alteration does it create in the social order? If there were a God, what would happen to the capitalist system of such-and-such a great power or such-and-such a superpower? A president who comes to power in a certain country — if he believed there is a God, how would he act? If he believed there is no God, how would he act? Does it make any difference at all? A knowledge of God and a worship of God in which the acceptance of one side leaves no difference and no effect upon the fate of cartels and trusts and capitalisms and discriminations — that worship of God, that belief in Tawhid, is like the belief in the fertility of this land we are passing by; it has no benefit, no effect, for us. What benefit is it that some political leader of a certain country believes in God, while for him the worship of God is merely an answer to a
dry, cerebral question and nothing higher? Being a worshiper of God, being a monotheist — then is it important, effective, beneficial, necessary, vital for a political leader, for an ordinary person, for a society, for a nation, for a community and a group — when Tawhid is raised, understood, and grasped for the sake of its effects, for the sake of what follows from it, for the sake of the order it proposes, for the sake of the form of life it presents — for the sake of these things of it. In our view this is a very important matter.
It comes into our imagination that Tawhid is something we need only clarify in our heads, establish as settled; and that when we come to life, this Tawhid no longer has any effect in life; and if it does have an effect, it is in personal life, not in social life. "Even if I am a monotheist, I will have the same capital and the same automobile and the same company and the same factory and the same condition of relationship with the worker and the same condition of relationship with the land as I would have had if I were not a monotheist." Look at the capitalist countries of the world, at these enormous powers whose name and fame have filled East and West: take two capitalists, two great merchants, two great factory-owners, two of these "sultans of industry," as they call themselves; suppose one believes in God and one is a materialist — what difference is there in their conduct? Now, if the one who believes in God went to church on Sunday
and gave a few coppers to the monk there to forgive him some of his sins, to smooth and level out a few kilometers of the road to paradise for him — but what is its effect in his life? In the condition of his factory? In his relations with the worker? In his relations with the people? In the manner of his wealth-accumulation, in his spending of wealth, in his amassing of wealth, what effect does it have? This Tawhid is not much different from polytheism.
The Tawhid to which Islam summons is a Tawhid higher than the level of an answer to a question, to an inquiry. So what is it? Islamic Tawhid is an inspiration in the domain of governance, in the domain of social relations, in the domain of the course of society, in the domain of the aims of society, in the domain of the people's duties, in the domain of the responsibilities that human beings bear before God, before one another, before society, and before the other phenomena of the world. This is Tawhid. Islamic Tawhid is that same "alif" after which come "be" and "pe" and "che," all the way to "ye." It is not that you say, "God is one and not two," and the matter is finished. "God is one and not two" means that, in the entire region of your own existence — you individually and your society as a whole — no one but God has the right to rule. "God is one and not two" means that all the wealth you possess — you and all other human beings — belongs to God; you are no more than borrowers
and trustees. Who now is ready to become a monotheist? You hold the money in trust and that is all; you are a borrower. If, sir, some money of your friend's were deposited in your hand as a trust, what would you do? You wait for him to give the order. "Sir, give ten tomans of this money to that child, to that old man, to that stranger, to that relative; throw ten tomans of this money into such-and-such a fund; burn ten tomans of it altogether" — you wait for the handwriting of the owner of the money, do you not? Is it other than this? Do you regard yourself as having any right, any ownership, in this money held in trust and deposit? "Wealth is the wealth of God; He has placed it as deposits among the people." — God has entrusted wealth as a deposit and trust into the hands of human beings. This is the corollary of Tawhid.
If you hold to Tawhid, then class division and discrimination in society have no meaning — no meaning at all. The society that has a top and a bottom, that has an upper and a lower, that society is not a Tawhidi society. Tawhid says, "All of you are from Adam, and Adam is from dust" — all are the children of Adam, and Adam is from dust. Your nearness to God and your superiority lie in piety, and nothing else; whoever is more mindful of God's command, he is the higher. Otherwise, in a society in which there exist a thousand grounds for discrimination — you say, "Sir, so-and-so is like this," and the reply comes, "Well, so-and-so is among the nobility, he has a different reckoning" — in a society that has nobles and non-nobles, in a society in which
the people's enjoyments differ severely from one another and the privileged one regards it as his right; in a society in which the servants of God are not all on one level and some are still servants of others — in this society there is no Tawhid. When Tawhid comes to a society, all the servants are placed on one level. Meaning what? Meaning that all become servants of God — as I said yesterday. (On this sheet which relates to yesterday, we wrote this sentence.) The beings of the world, human and otherwise, are His subjugated servants, and in servitude to Him all are partners and equals. This I explained in detail yesterday — that no one and no thing, under the heading of sonship, spousehood, or peerage, is outside the circle of servitude to God. Within the domain of servitude, it no longer has any meaning that one group of servants should again bind a chain around the necks of another group; that has no meaning at all. Servitude to God means freedom from servitude to other-than-God; the two simply do not go together. It has no meaning that someone should be a servant of God and also a servant of other-than-God. Servitude to God means freedom from servitude to, and from the worship of, whatever is other-than-God and whoever is other-than-God.
The envoy of the armies of Islam came and entered the powerful palace of the Sasanians. A ragged-clothed Arab — an Arab whose whole attire, if you reckon it up, was perhaps not worth one of our tomans — entered the palace of the man who, on the day he was fleeing while the valiant Muslim warriors pursued him, had brought along with him a thousand singing slave-girls
only, apart from other things. His minstrels and singers numbered a thousand. If this is how it is at home, what must it be on a journey — and a journey of flight at that, a journey on which he is fleeing in fear of his life? Wretch! Where are you taking singers? Take a sword with you. One fears they too were under the colonialism of the Jews! (Laughter from the audience.) — It is among the characteristics of the sinister, vile Zionist policies that they keep the people occupied with these very dilly-dallyings and song-singings and song-listenings, under various names — this ragged-clothed man entered the court of such an enormous political power. Do you think he was afraid? Do you think he was overawed? Do you think he came with thoughts of disputation? Never. After all, when a paltry, small person presents himself before a powerful and exalted personage, his whole effort is to attach himself even a particle to that great power, to draw himself a little closer — even by flattery, by fawning, by displaying fear, by displaying servitude and submission. Do you think it was like that? Never. When he went forward and reached before the throne, it seems he even set his foot upon Yazdgird's throne, because he saw that Yazdgird would not come to take the paper from him. He had brought a paper, brought a message; others came to take it, and he said, "I will not give it to you; I must give it to him himself." And since the latter would not rise from his place to come and take the paper from this Arab, this one was forced to go forward. He went, and when he reached upon his throne
he gave him the paper, so to speak. He said, "For what have you come?" He spoke three sentences — three sentences that ought to be written in radiant letters and pounded onto a tablet over the gateway of the great palace of humanity, so that all may know what the slogan of Islam and the idea of Islam is. He said, "Why have you come?" He said, "We have come" — within the course of his speech, of course; these three sentences of his are what concern us. "We have come to bring the people out" —
A saying is related: "Li-nukhrija al-nasa min 'ibadat al-'ibadi ila 'ibadat Allah" — "We have come to bring human beings out from the servitude of [created] servants to the servitude of God Most High."
What is the servitude of [created] servants? Take an example. In one of the campaigns between Iran and Rome, one of the past kings of Iran — before the Sasanians, from the Achaemenids — gives the order for all to come. An old man comes and says, "Sir, my three sons are coming, they are with you in the field; let this one son of mine stay beside me, for I am old, I am decrepit; allow this one to remain and not come with you." In the assembly they say nothing to him; they drive him out of the assembly. Then the next day, when the troops are moving in columns of four, the horses and soldiers behind one another, as they reach the gateway, those three brothers suddenly see their fourth brother cut into two pieces, one piece installed on this side of the gate and one piece on that side of the gate — so that old men will no longer say, "Let our young men not come, and let them not fight for the power of Darius," and will not throw themselves into water and fire. This is the servitude of man. When human beings in a society did not even have the right to want what they want — I do not say to say it; when human beings in a community had no right
to be partisans and seekers of justice, to be enemies of discrimination; when human beings had no right to love and want freedom for themselves, but accepted suffocation and strangulation as the natural condition and set their seal of approval upon it — when human beings lived in such a society, this is the highest and ugliest and bitterest of the kinds of servitude. This is the worst of the kinds of servitude. Why? Because it is fraudulent. Those who used to go and seize a handful of innocent human beings in some place, shave their heads, and sell them in other lands — they performed an open and overt act; but to play with human beings in this way, to disregard a human being's thought and want and will and decision in this way, to trample him — this was it.
He said, "We have come to free you from the worship of [created] servants" — that is, to free the people from the worship of you, O Yazdgird! to free others from the worship of your governors, your village-heads, your commanders, here and there — "min 'ibadat al-'ibad." Then where shall we take them? They were not your servants, so what shall they be? Loose and lawless? No — they shall be servants of God. To be a servant of God means to be free, to be a master, to move toward perfection, to use and benefit from the means of perfection to whatever extent you wish — just as it was in the Islamic society. In the Islamic society, the people were servants of God, not servants of powers. Even
at the time when the course of the Islamic society had deviated and was not a hundred percent Islam, it was so. Even in those very years when the conquest of Iran was taking place, the effect of the prophetic and Quranic upbringing was present in the people. A political ruler says from the pulpit, "If I become crooked, set me straight," and a desert Arab rises from the foot of the pulpit and says, "If you do not become straight and you become crooked, with this sword we will set you straight." Did the soldiers and police fall upon his head? Did they throw him into prison as one creating disorder in the situation, did they do away with him, destroy him? Never. He had said something true, he had said something logical. Freedom not in the sense of unbridled license, but freedom in the sense of obedience to a sound human law — so that, in the spirit of man, in that order and in that society, a human being does not carry anyone's burden on his shoulders, not even the ruler's burden. If the ruler spoke from God, spoke by the inspiration of God, he is an Islamic ruler, and his word is accepted. If he did not speak by divine inspiration, his word too is rejected.
A saying is related: "Li-nukhrija al-nasa min 'ibadat al-'ibad ila 'ibadat Allah, wa min diq al-dunya ila sa'at al-dunya wa al-akhirah" — The second sentence. He said, "We have come to bring the people, the servants of God, out from the limited and narrow enclosure of the world into the breadth of the world and the hereafter."
The limited and narrow enclosure of the world! In a society in which the people do not live with a sound vision, from whichever side they look, before their gaze there is nothing but the world and its worldly gains; from whichever side the people look, nothing is at issue for them except worldly pleasures and the self-conceits of the world; whatever he looks at, he sees his own small and worthless
animal endeavors and his small, base, paltry, fleeting, and momentary interests. In a society over which Yazdgird ruled, it was not that all the people were content with Yazdgird; there were also many discontented. But because the eyes of these discontented were near-sighted, because the horizon of their vision was narrow and small, they saw that if they showed the slightest discontent and displeasure with Yazdgird, this very meager, base life would also be taken from them — these two extra mouthfuls of food, these two extra days of repose, these two extra kicks in the alley and the street, this would be taken from him; and because he set great store by this, because he loved this very meagerness so much, he was not ready to undertake any action for freedom, for human honor and authenticity and virtue. What was the cause? His horizon of vision was small, narrow, and limited — the narrowness of the world.
But when a human being became a Muslim, everything is for him a preliminary, a means. For what? A means to what? A means of reaching a vast world — I do not mean the world after death — the world of man's own thought, vision, and sight, which is as wide and expansive as God. Everything is a means for man, so that man may be able to gain the pleasure of God. The life of the world, the money of the world, the comfort of the world, the affections of the world have no value and authenticity for him. It acquires value for him only
A saying is related: "fi sabil Allah" — when it is in the way of God. But if this affection, this wealth, this rank, this life, this child, this honor, this dignity were not, and were not placed, in the way of God and in the way of duty, then it has no price and no value for him. The world and the hereafter are sewn together in the Islamic mode of thought; and for a Muslim, the world has no end. In the view of that person who is the servant of servants and the slave of deficient beings, the world is limited; but for this one, the world is vast. Death is a small window: when you look from this window, on the other side are gardens and orchards and worlds and universes and realms; therefore he sees that the most that can happen is that he reaches this window, passes through this window — it does not matter; death is no problem for him.
These are some glimmers and corners of Tawhid. Of course, about Tawhid one must speak much more systematically and under a more definite heading, and we will speak — God willing — in the days ahead. Today I only wanted to have stated some generalities in this regard. (What has been written on the first page — which, of course, I will not repeat — is in fine handwriting and the gentlemen can read it.) This in truth presents a new vision in the domain of Tawhid. It states a correct vision in the domain of Tawhid. Of course there are further aspects and angles that have not come into this, and which — God willing — I hope we can arrange in due order in the writings of the coming days. But in any case, what has been written here is one dimension of Tawhid that reflects and states precisely what is intended in the domain of Tawhid, what is intended by the religions and the Qur'an in particular.
And now, the verses we have selected. (Of course, today — well, it is Friday and you have not much to do; after I have read these verses here, our dear reciter, apparently Mr. Rezaei or Mr. Fatemi — the gentlemen themselves know better, in any case — are responsible for today's recitation; they will come and read the verses, both these verses and yesterday's verses, that is, especially Ayat al-Kursi.) The repetition of Ayat al-Kursi as a slogan of Tawhid is very interesting. I conjecture that the reason it has been so strongly emphasized that Ayat al-Kursi be recited repeatedly in various instances is that this slogan of Tawhid should always be living and enduring in a person's mind, ever-alive and self-subsisting — this memory in a person's mind. These verses written here today are from Surat al-Baqarah. It is the description of a scene at the Resurrection, which, of course, has a complete and total connection to the matter of Tawhid; and in the course of the recitation of the verse it becomes entirely clear. Surat al-Baqarah, verses 165 and 166. And among mankind are some who take, besides God, rivals… Among the people are some who choose, besides God, rivals and competitors; that is, they choose for God a partner of the human kind or of other than the human kind. "Yuhibbunahum ka-hubb Allah" — they love them like the love and affection one ought to have for God.
Right here the verse opens a parenthesis; for it was not speaking about love, but since the love of these toward God was mentioned, it opens a parenthesis, as if —
A saying is related: "Wa alladhina amanu ashaddu hubban li-Llah" — But those who have believed, the true and real believers — their love and affection toward God is far more intense than all these outward manifestations, than all the poles that draw the human heart toward themselves like amber, than all the false gods, than the god of the self and lust; and so on, take it all the way up to those gods who have seated themselves, and are seated, and are given a seat, at the head and summit of societies — than all of these, God is more beloved to the believer.
A saying is related: "Wa alladhina amanu ashaddu hubban li-Llah, wa law yara alladhina zalamu idh yarawna al-'adhab…"
Suddenly it transfers the discourse to a scene of the Resurrection. It describes that moment when the creatures have been gathered, mustered together at the Resurrection — the disbelievers and the evildoers and the servants of other-than-God and the servants of God and all the existing phenomena of the Resurrection, those that have been described to us and those that have not — all are gathered. The instruments of God's punishment and the instruments of God's mercy and grace are there too; though as to the quality of these instruments, you and I cannot yet rightly grasp or imagine — in this world it cannot rightly be understood what news there is there. In general we know only this much: that the means that are to be foreseen there for torment, for punishment, for wretchedness are all present and prepared. The good servants of God and the bad servants of God are there; then the tyrants and the oppressors suddenly see that all power at the Resurrection belongs to God. It is a very strange thing. Now, in this world, look:
everyone has some power, everyone does something. Those who sit on high have more power, but those who sit below also have power, after all. Everyone prides himself on his own power; everyone has some measure and substance of capacity and force within him; something does come from him, after all — especially that tyrant, that oppressor, whose deed is greater, whose power too is greater. And even that oppressor who performed the worship of an oppressor — for he too is an oppressor, he too is a tyrant — he too, in his own imagination, enjoys some power; because he has connected himself with a higher power, like a fox that has tied its tail to a camel's tail. In the world it is like this. But at the Resurrection, when they gather, whatever they look at, whoever refers back to himself, he sees that there is no power, no capacity, no competence in him; power is entirely in the hand of God.
"Li-man al-mulku al-yawm? Li-Llah al-wahid al-qahhar" — Whose is the sovereignty this day? It belongs to God, the One, the Subduer.
He takes this scene into view: that tyrant, that oppressor, says — whatever oppressor who oppressed others, whatever oppressor
who oppressed himself and had made himself the servant of that first oppressor — when they look, when they see, "Strange! Here all those words and claims and airs and pomps and palaces and lives are all nothing and void; nothing at all comes from anyone's hand."
Then the scene there is a strange scene. Take two groups into view: one group
worshiped the other group — that is, obeyed them, with unconditional obedience. These two groups stand face to face on the Day of Resurrection; they have war and dispute and quarrel with one another.
A saying is related: "Wa law yara alladhina zalamu idh yarawna al-'adhab" — If only those who have done wrong could see — in the parenthesis we explained, we specified this wrongdoing as surrendering oneself to other-than-God. In this explanation we followed some of the old Shi'i commentators. — If only those who have done wrong by surrendering themselves to other-than-God could see, when they behold the punishment — what would they see?
A saying is related: "Anna al-quwwata li-Llahi jami'an" — that all force and power are entirely from God; "wa anna Allaha shadid al-'adhab" — and that God's chastisement is severe and terrible. If they could see, what would happen? The answer is decreed. In the parenthesis we mentioned its answer in Persian: they would, without doubt, regret their own conduct. They would regret that in the world they had clutched at such a thing — they went and became the servants and slaves of tyrants who are now, at the Resurrection, so incapable, from whose hands so little comes. If they had looked with the eye of admonition, they would have seen that in the world too they were just as incapable.
"Idh tabarra'a alladhina uttubi'u min alladhina ittaba'u wa ra'awu al-'adhab" — At that time when the leaders and chiefs disavow the followers and adherents, and they behold the punishment of God. Then Yazdgird, for example, says, "O Lord! O my Sustainer! These ones whom you saw worshiping me in my time — I disavow these ones, do not imagine that I have any attachment to them for setting me up as your partner; they did wrong to set me as your partner, I disavow them." Now see how much the subjects of Yazdgird's day burn within: "We gave him our world and our hereafter, this scoundrel, and now at the Resurrection he disavows us." Now what does this verse of the Qur'an say?
"Idh tabarra'a alladhina uttubi'u min alladhina ittaba'u wa ra'awu al-'adhab" — At that time when the leaders and chiefs disavow the followers and adherents and behold the punishment of God; "wa taqatta'at bihim al-asbab" — and the ties and bonds between them are severed; "wa qala alladhina ittaba'u" — and the followers and adherents say, "law anna lana karratan fa-natabarra'a minhum kama tabarra'u minna" — "Would that we had a return to the world, so that we might disavow them just as they disavowed us" — that is, today, the Day of Resurrection. "Kadhalika yurihimu Allahu a'malahum hasaratin 'alayhim" — Thus does God show them their deeds as a cause of regret upon them; "wa ma hum bi-kharijina min al-nar" — and they will never be those who come out of the Fire.
Here is what the verse intends. Those people there are receiving blows — they receive the blows of servitude to other-than-God; they receive the blow of having become the servants and slaves of other-than-God; that is, of something other than Tawhid and against Tawhid. And the Qur'an's own expression for them is "ittaba'u," the adherents, the followers.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 11 · 43:33
- Ep 12 — Exclusive Worship and Obedience of GodSession 10: Exclusive Worship and Obedience of God.
delivered Saturday, 6 Mehr 1353 / 11 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat Yunus (10:30-31).
There every soul will be tried for what it sent ahead, and they will be returned to God, their true Master, and there will vanish from them all that they used to fabricate. Say: Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth? Or who possesses hearing and sight? And who brings forth the living from the dead and brings forth the dead from the living? And who governs the affair? They will say: 'God.' So say: Will you not then be wary of Him?
As we have already said, the discussion of Tawhid in the Qur'an is a very long and detailed discussion. It may be said that the longest and most detailed discussion carried out across the whole of the Qur'an is the discussion of Tawhid. That is to say, even the discussion of Prophethood — with all its length, with all the stories and accounts of the prophets that are recounted in certain places as object lessons — still rests upon Tawhid and upon the question of the existence of God, and especially upon the question of negating shirk (associating partners with God), which is carried out in various forms. In this the Qur'an is utterly without parallel and without peer — both in the tenor of its language and in the number of its verses. Of course, as the discussion expands, the issues within the field of Tawhid become more numerous and more varied. Here we can raise only a few of these issues, supporting them with verses — not all the issues that can be raised and discussed concerning Tawhid or in the vicinity of Tawhid.
It appears to us that if we accept and acknowledge that Tawhid — beyond being a vision and a reading of reality — is, further, a knowledge that produces action and shapes life (these are formulations that were to some extent clarified and proven in the past days); if we accept that Tawhid is a belief that entails a commitment and a responsibility — then we must search out that commitment, those responsibilities that are folded and embedded within the heart of Tawhid. We must find these, and item by item, sentence by sentence, chapter by chapter, set each one down as a heading, and then trace and pursue it in the Qur'an or in the totality of the Islamic sources — that is, in the Qur'an and the Hadith. I ask the brothers and sisters who already have some mental background regarding this discussion — and I think perhaps all the brothers and sisters, or the majority, are like this — to pay attention to the words and formulations that I use. I try to make my formulations deliberate and considered; try to fix them correctly in your minds, and let your reflection, contemplation, and pondering rest precisely upon what is intended.
Here is the point. If it is established that Tawhid is a belief that brings in its wake a commitment, a responsibility, and an obligation for the one who holds this belief, then we must understand and know, after all, what this responsibility, this commitment, and these obligations are. Is this commitment summed up merely in our accepting this belief with our tongue, or in our heart and our thought? That is to say, is belief itself the responsibility? Or does the scope and the domain of this responsibility extend beyond the region of thought and heart — but still within personal acts? For example, a monotheist (muwahhid) has upon his shoulders a series of obligations entailed by Tawhid. Among them, that he pray; among them, that he invoke the name of God at the beginning and end of every undertaking; among them, suppose, that he slaughter the sheep, the sacrificial animal, only in the name of God, and so forth. Is it summed up merely at this level? Or rather, is the commitment that Tawhid gives to the monotheist individual, or to the monotheist society, higher than the level of personal commands and individual obligations? The commitment that Tawhid gives to a monotheist society encompasses the most important, the most general, the greatest, the most primary, and the most fundamental issues of a society. Such as what? Such as government, such as the economy, such as international relations, such as the relations of individuals with one another — for these are the most important fundamental rights for the administration and the life of a society. We believe that the commitment of Tawhid, and the responsibility that comes to rest upon the shoulder of the monotheist, is a responsibility at the level of the fundamental obligations and the fundamental rights of a society.
Let me state the matter in a single phrase, so that afterwards we may turn to its finer and more subordinate points, or its more specific and detailed ones. In a word, the countenance and the body of a monotheist society differ from the countenance and body of a non-monotheist society. It is not the case that if a certain law is enforced in a monotheist society, and that law — or ten laws like it — is also enforced in a non-monotheist society, then that society too becomes monotheist. No. A monotheist society is utterly different from a society that is not of this kind — different in its frame, in the way its parts are arranged, in the whole social body that is built upon Tawhid, upon the worship of the One, upon orientation toward the One. In a word, it is what they call today the social system. The social order, the social system, and the social form of a monotheist society are something entirely contrary and divergent — and at times opposed and contradictory — to a non-monotheist society. In a single sentence, the matter is this. If you dissect this phrase, within the heart of the social order, the social frame, and the social organs there are discussions and debates that can be understood and grasped by drawing on the new and modern cultures current in the world — and still more by drawing on the Qur'an and the sources of Hadith. This is the general gist of the matter.
But let me state it in a more particular, more specific, and more concrete way. We present Tawhid in the form of a resolution that has articles, and we shall set out the articles of this resolution one by one. What articles does the Tawhidic resolution have? Just as, after various negotiations between two groups, two fronts, two persons, the binding agreements are issued in the form of a resolution, so too the monotheists of the world, on the part of their Lord, on the part of the God of Tawhid, are bound to put this resolution into practice and to carry it out. The first article of this resolution must become clear in today's recitation. On the principle of Tawhid, human beings have no right to render servitude and obedience to anyone or anything except God. This is the first article of the Tawhidic resolution. Of course, when we said "anyone and anything," its scope is very wide. See where servitude and obedience apply: Did I not take a covenant from you, O children of Adam, that you should not worship Satan?
Did I not take a covenant from you, and make a pact with you, O children of Adam, that you should not render servitude to Satan? Concerning Satan, we have at times given explanation in the course of various discussions. Satan does not consist of his lordship Iblis alone, nor of some hidden, concealed thing that does not come into view and cannot be touched by hand, that may be found everywhere in a person's life — it is not only this. Satan is something vast; it is a general concept. Satan means the evil-stirring forces, the evil-producing power external to the human being. The evil-producing forces, but outside the bounds of a person's own existence — this becomes Satan. Just as the soul (nafs) — which is Satan's companion, Satan's servant, Satan's instrument and tool of action — if we wish to define it, we can define it thus: the evil-stirring and evil-producing forces within the human being. The soul and Satan: the commanding soul (al-nafs al-ammarah) and Satan; the one from within, the other from without. These two are forces that produce corruption, forces that produce evil, forces that produce deviation and degradation. Satan means anything whatsoever that is outside your existence and obstructs you on your path, produces evil, ignites flames, becomes a thorn in the road, becomes the wolf and the robber of the road — or brings the wolf and the robber of the road into being. This is Satan. We will arrive at this verse in the discussion concerning prophethood and the prophetic mission, in this very series of recitation and pondering over the verses of the noble Qur'an, and I shall, God willing, translate it for you there: every one of the prophets who was sent by the Lord had enemies from among the satans of jinn and men. Of course, we will later specify who these enemies were, what kind of people they were, from which groups and classes they came, and why they showed enmity. Satan is this general concept.
"That you should not worship Satan" — what does it mean? It means: do not render servitude, do not become surrendered and obedient to those evil-producing forces. And Tawhid means this. When I say "Tawhid means this," I do not mean that the whole of Tawhid is this — no. The subtleties and fine points of Tawhid have their own place; the other aspects and bodies of Tawhid — some of which we ourselves may perhaps discuss in the future — also have their own place. But this too is one body, one aspect, one face of the pillar of Tawhid: not obeying, not rendering servitude, not submitting to impositions.
There is a hadith that I have perhaps read repeatedly on various occasions; now too is the place to read this very hadith, which is narrated on the authority of the Imam (peace be upon him) in our authoritative books, among them the noble al-Kafi, Usul al-Kafi — that the Imam (peace be upon him) narrates it as a sacred tradition (hadith qudsi), in a few sentences, in a few phrases. What has remained with me, and is the closest and most detailed of the wordings, is this: By My might, I shall surely torment every subject community in Islam that gave its allegiance to the wilayah of a tyrannical leader (imam ja'ir) who is not from God — even if that community is righteous and pious in its own deeds; and I shall surely pardon every subject community in Islam that gave its allegiance to the wilayah of a just leader (imam 'adil) from God — even if that community is wronging and ill-doing in its own deeds. The translation of the hadith — or, better, let me state the overall meaning of the hadith: obedience to that power which is not from God and from the representative of God, obedience to that center which has not taken its inspiration from the center of the Lord's power — this is at the level of shirk, or is shirk itself. For even though the people who do this and who are afflicted with this pain, this calamity, this great social disorder, may be orderly and well-arranged people in their own personal affairs — righteous and pious (barratan taqiyyatan), wary, God-fearing, watchful — this great calamity causes God Almighty to withdraw His regard of grace and mercy from this ummah, and to render them tormented, punished, and afflicted with His chastisement. This is the hadith.
Why? Because obeying other than God, rendering servitude to other than God, is contrary to the purpose for which God created the human being; it is contrary to the perfection and the elevation of the human being; it is contrary to the freedom and emancipation of the human being. That freedom and emancipation which is the prelude to the human being's ascent — for if those freedoms are absent, and bondages instead of freedoms take hold of and cling to the human being, then the human being cannot attain that intended flight, cannot reach that summit which God has appointed for him, cannot grow, cannot reach perfection. Like a plant over which a lid has been placed. Like a plant to the base of whose stem a strong wire has been tied. Like a plant around which dozens of means of preventing growth have been created. This plant cannot grow; and when it does not grow, it bears no fruit; and when it bears no fruit, what benefit is there in its existence, what effect is there in its coming? So why did it come? Why did it appear? Was it not only because it was meant to bear fruit? Obeying other than God and rendering servitude to other than God is just such a blight for the human being. In any case, in this field, throughout the Qur'an, there are abundant verses.
Now, without having investigated very much — that is, with only a brief search — these verses occurred to me as ones to mention here. Now allow us to begin the main programme: to translate the verses; this is the basic aim. We must become somewhat acquainted with the melody of Tawhid in the Qur'an. We have fallen badly away from the Qur'an in the field of knowing the Islamic teachings, or we have busied ourselves with a series of vulgar and feeble fancies that, in their emptiness, baselessness, and groundlessness, are emptier than any emptiness — coupled with superstitions, coupled with false fancies. And it was precisely this — this alluring exterior and empty interior — that could not withstand the waves of materialism, and we saw how it perished. Either we busied ourselves with these fancies, or, at the opposite pole, we busied ourselves with dry, lifeless, ineffective argumentations in the field of Tawhid. What philosophical discussions — ineffective and dry! See how much the theologians (mutakallimun) discussed Tawhid, and how ineffective these discussions were in forming and bringing into being a monotheist society. If a matter that is connected to life is discussed for a hundred years, is it possible that after a hundred years it would have no effect in life? For hundreds of years they discussed it in a dry form, in a form alluring in appearance and brainless in substance, in an abstract form, detached and free from connections with the world of reality and the external world. But now that we wish to draw aid from Tawhid for the building of a new life, when we look at those discussions, we see that they have no connection at all — as we ourselves would say, "like a stone beside the human being." All those discussions, that circularity and infinite regress, those words — well, now we wish to make use of this Tawhid for the external world: what do we have? Whereas if we had returned to the Qur'an, if we had sought Tawhid from the Qur'an, we would have found it there — for across hundreds of verses, with the finest expression and the most eloquent methods, the Qur'an has set out the dimensions, the aspects, and the various organs of this body, this frame, this edifice of Tawhid. Then it becomes clear what the monotheist life is, and who the monotheist human being is.
Now, in any case: this is one portion of these verses, which one must look at more closely, with pondering, the verses of Tawhid. Now I shall only explain these few verses for you.
And on the Day We shall gather them all together… — the talk is of the Resurrection; that Day when We gather all creatures, the whole of them. "Then We shall say to those who associated partners with God" — then We shall say to those who committed shirk, who set up partners for God — "'Stay in your place, you and your partners'" — you and your partners, in a tone full of mastery, in a voice full of rebuke: "Stay in your place, you and your imagined partners — those whom you reckoned to be the rivals, the contenders, and the consorts of God." "We shall separate them" — between them and the imagined partners whom they had supposed for God, We shall cast separation. Here, with even a very ordinary and superficial glance, you understand that on the Resurrection these partners — those who had been chosen as partners of God — are other than that lifeless Hubal of carnelian, which has no resurrection. It is not, as the common and customary saying goes, brought along and told, "Stand in your place — stand up!" — nor is Manat, nor Lat (for Manat is a particular idol, the statue, let us say, of a girl, or of an angel, say; and Lat is another angel; Hubal is the same; and 'Uzza is the same). It is not these that are spoken of. The talk is not of such-and-such a statue in such-and-such an idol-temple of Rome or Greece; it is not of the calf in the land of Hinduism; it is of that human being who was chosen as a partner and rival of God. To them it is said that they should halt in their place: Stop!
The first rebuking address that, on the Resurrection, makes clear the negation of the power of the gods other than God is just this: "In your place!" See — what effect will this have on the Resurrection? It is saying this to me and to you; it is saying that the rival whom one had imagined for God — that polytheist Arab, or that polytheist non-Arab, whether his Persian one, his Roman one, his Abyssinian one, his Indian one, his Egyptian one — that rival whom one had imagined for God and had chosen for rivalry and partnership with God, on the Resurrection his situation is this: he and his followers, with the divine, forcible Halt, stand off to one side, with God's rebuking address and God's compelling, wrathful Halt.
"We shall separate them" — between them We cast separation — "and their partners will say, 'It was not us that you used to worship.'" And the partners, the imagined rivals, with the utmost ingratitude turn to their followers and say: "You did not worship us in the world." Like an accused person who, out of helplessness, in order to lift the guilt from his own neck, clutches at any means, at any word. Just as in yesterday's discussion, in that dialogue whose verses I think we read yesterday, and just as in other dialogues that are in the Qur'an — "Those who were oppressed will say to those who were arrogant, 'Rather, it was the plotting of night and day…'" to the end. Those groups whose misguidances were mutual fall upon one another on the Resurrection; they line up against each other. The one who committed shirk for God and took a partner wants to seize that partner by the collar and dash him to the ground, to say: "I had accepted you in place of God, and now I have been afflicted with this calamity." And the one who, in the world, was the object of servitude and worship — he too, to acquit himself, is ready, with the utmost ingratitude, to reject the lovers, followers, and adherents of his own world, to seek disavowal and disownment of them. "It was not us that you used to worship" — you were not worshipping us. "God suffices as a witness between us and you" — this is from the tongue of the partners: between us and you, God suffices as witness. "Indeed, of your worship we were unaware" — we were heedless of your worship; we were not at all aware that you held a view of servitude and bondage toward us, for your own selves.
"There every soul will be tried for what it sent ahead" — this is where every soul, every human being, is tested as to what it has accomplished beforehand. The deeds that were performed in the world — there, the human being himself becomes the object of testing and trial. "There every soul will be tried for what it sent ahead" — there it tries every soul as to what it has done beforehand. "And they will be returned to God, their true Master" — they will all be brought back to God, who is their Master, their Guardian, and their true Lord. "And there will vanish from them all that they used to fabricate" — what they used to say and attach by way of slander and calumny will be lost and vanish from them. All those things that were a motive in the heart of the human being for obeying other than God will be forgotten. All those things that were in the heart of the human being as a pretext and excuse for rendering servitude to other than God, and which a person thought would be a weapon in his hand on the Resurrection, will be taken from the human being's hand. The human being sometimes, in order to fashion a pretext and contrive an excuse for his shirk, makes up thoughts, imaginings, and fancies, and finds pretexts for himself. He fabricates justifiable, ostensibly legitimate (shar'i) excuses. On the Day of Resurrection, which is the Day of the tribunal, as soon as the human being comes and has arrayed these excuses — first, second, third, fourth, fifth — and starts to count them, he sees that none of it remains; all of it is void, all of it ruined, all of it false. "And there will vanish from them all that they used to fabricate." And there is another possibility in the meaning of the verse: in the world the human being supposes for himself supports, props — those very ones whom he worships, those very ones whom he obeys and renders servitude to, those upon whom his heart is warm and reliant. But on the Day of Resurrection all this warmth of heart and reliance, all these protectors and supporters, cannot lift a burden from his shoulder. Wretched one! "And there will vanish from them all that they used to fabricate."
Take note: the Qur'an's argumentations are like this. From one side, from one corner of the matter, it establishes the point. Sometimes it does not argue very head-on; rather, the Qur'an sometimes prepares for the human being the ground for an argument from within the very brain of the human being himself. Here God Almighty, in these verses, wishes to prove that one must render obedience and servitude only before God; He enters by this route. "Say: Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth?" — Say: Who gives you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? From the heaven, the life-bestowing and life-giving rain; from the earth, the vital materials. "Or who possesses hearing and sight?" — Or who is it that owns hearing and the faculties of sight? Do not confuse sam' (hearing) with the ear. The name of this particular organ that in Persian we call gush (ear) is, in Arabic, udhun. Sam' is the state of hearing, the power of hearing; and if it is also applied to the ear, that is by way of that relation. Of someone whose ear, say, has been cut off, they do not say "his sam' was cut off"; they say "his udhun was cut off." The name of this particular organ is not sam'. Likewise basar. Basar does not mean this specific, particular member that we call the eye; it means seeing, sight — that is spirit, and this member is body. If they do also call this member basar, it is by way of that very possession of the eye. For example, they do not call a blind eye basar. "Or who possesses hearing and sight?" — Or who is it in whose ownership and in the grasp of whose sovereign authority lie the faculty of hearing and the faculties of sight? Who is it that has given you this perception, this understanding, and this power? Who is it that can take it away from you? In reality this verse is pointing to the possession of insight, to the possession of the power of understanding and reason — that, O human being who is now meant to think and give us the answer to this question, you are a possessor of hearing (sam') and a possessor of sight (basar).
"And who brings forth the living from the dead?" — And who is it that brings out the living from the dead. The apparently living from the apparently dead: for example, a woman dies while she is pregnant, and afterwards her child is alive; they bring it out from a dead mother. Another possibility: from the dead sperm-drop, from the dead body, from a thing in which there is no life, We bring out the living. From this dead earth, from a soil that, although it is the treasury of thousands of life-bestowing and life-increasing materials, is itself dead — from its very heart We brought you out, and even now We are bringing human beings out. As for human beings, what is their original substance and primary root, other than these very vital and nutritive materials that come from the ground and from the earth?! So "He brings forth the living from the dead," with several possibilities, all of which possibilities are acceptable. "And He brings forth the dead from the living" — and who is it that brings out, draws forth, the dead from the living? That is, the dead child from the living mother's womb; that is, the evil human being with a dead spirit from the good human being possessing a living spirit; and so forth — such expressions and possibilities as come to the human being's mind. In any case, it is a sign of the perfection of the Lord's power: to bring a living thing out of a dead thing, to draw a dead thing out of a living thing — this is the sign of the perfection of God's might and the powerful grasp of God's power.
"And who governs the affair?" — Who is it that directs the creational affair of the universe? Who is it that places this force of gravity in the earth so that the human being can live upon it? Who is it that deposits the capacities of life in the earth, the sea, and the mountain as a trust? Who is it that gives the human being the power of extraction? Who is it that, with astonishing order and arrangement, brings into being this sun, moon, and stars, and the far, far, and yet more distant worlds? Who is it that sets that moon at a defined distance from the earth — for if He had set it at more than that, human life on the earth would not have been possible, because the seawater would have overspread the whole surface of the earth; and if it had been farther, again life would not have been possible, because the water would not have remained on the surface of the earth but would have sunk into the earth's depths? Who is it that makes the sun, sets it at a defined distance from the earth — such that if it were nearer to the earth than that limit, the earth from heat, and if it were less near to the earth, the earth from cold, would be uninhabitable — and so forth?
Now, what shall we say about the artistry and power of the Lord! These books issued and written by the hands of the scholars of the empirical sciences of the world in this century of ours, in the twentieth century, are so abundant in content that for a speaker like me to come and stand here would require several days only to recount them — and I, moreover, am not very much in favour of such things. "Who governs the affair?" — this question, while it was addressed to the polytheists of the time when the revelation was sent down, is also addressed to me and to you in the twentieth century. "Who governs the affair?" — Who is it that is directing the whole universe? From the heart of the atoms to the depths of the most distant worlds, He is turning it with the hand of power. "Who governs the affair?" — Who is it? Without bias, without prejudice, think knowingly, so that you may find the real answer. "They will say: 'God.'" They will say "God." Some, without thinking, say "God" — for their belief, even at that time, was this. I think a little, I reflect — "They will say: 'God'" — I say: it is God. This wondrous orderliness of the world of creation is from God, and from Him alone. It is the hand of His power that is turning this wheel. What we see and observe with the natural eye and the non-natural eye, and what we do not see today but will see dozens of years hence through the advance of knowledge, are nothing but the offspring and products of God's power. "They will say: 'God.'"
Well, now that it is God — "So" — seize them right here, O our Prophet — "Say" — to the human being, the addressee of our call, O human being, the one responsible for the perfection of the human being — "Say: Will you not then be wary of Him?" Do you not have piety (taqwa) and wariness? What does it mean? It means: do you not fear this great God, this God who produces greatness, that you should set up another beside Him as a partner in obedience and in servitude? See — if the creational governance of the universe is in His hand, why should the legislative governance of the universe not be in His hand? I once, in that mosque, was explaining the Surah of Tabarak — do you remember? "Blessed is He in whose hand is the dominion (al-mulk), and He has power over all things; who created death and life that He might try you as to which of you is best in deed." Then I entered into a statement of the manner of the creation of the universe, of the heavens and the earths, and such things. But what is its beginning? "Blessed is He in whose hand is the dominion (al-mulk)." Mulk means government, means that power is in His control. Which power? The power of creation is His; the power of legislation is also His. He who adorns the creation of the universe — why should He give the field to another in the legislation of the universe? And that other, moreover, is one who is himself made and fashioned by Him. He who has brought into being and created the natural laws and norms (sunan) in the world and in the human being — why should He give the making and the legislating of civil and penal laws and so on and so forth into the hands of weak individuals, deficient intellects, limited knowledge, and feeble wills, the likes of the human being and the ordinary human being? Why? Why should He not Himself administer society? Why should He not Himself lay down the law? Why should He not Himself appoint the power that guards and keeps watch over the law, and support it? Imamate, wilayah — why should He not? Why should He not appoint an imam? Why should He not appoint a guardian (wali) from God's side? Should He leave it to the deficient intellects of the people — why? "That is God, your Lord — the Truth (al-Haqq); and what is there after the Truth except misguidance? Then how are you turned away?" I said that we did not include two or three verses here, which were not what we had in view.
After this it reaches the fourth verse. Of course, these verses that we have not translated will be recited in the recitation by our dear reciter today — so listen, and you will make use of these translations that are also in these Qur'ans. "Say: Are there any of your partners who guide to the Truth?" O our Prophet! Again, addressing them by way of guidance, by way of teaching and instruction, speak; say: "Are there any of your partners who guide to the Truth?" Among these imagined partners whom you appointed and imagined for God, do you know of anyone who guides human beings toward the Truth? Do you have anyone? It is certain — and when I say "certain," I mean with assurance, with strong probability — that the intent here, again, is not the idols, and that stone and wood, and such things. No one would deem it probable concerning them that they would guide people — that these would guide people. Well, how do they guide? It is evident that the intent here is the living idols: those in whose grasp there has been some authority among the authorities, some power among the powers, whether religious or worldly — which we have written on the following page. That is, like Pharaoh; like, suppose, Shurayh the Judge in his time, or anyone else in that field, in this vein.
"Say: Are there any of your partners who guide to the Truth?" Among these whom you have set up as rival, partner, and contender of God, is there anyone who would guide people toward the Truth? Here, what is the answer of these polytheists? It is possible that these would say in answer: "Yes; these whom we have chosen — not only do they guide; they are the very embodiment of the Truth." Guidance? That is nothing — they do even more than guide. That is why their answer is not recounted. They are wrong; they are wrong to deem the partners of God to be guides. You yourself, in answer to them, say: "Say: God guides to the Truth." Say: it is God who guides and leads human beings and intellects toward the Truth. Why? Because God created the Truth. God knows the fine points of the Truth, and God calls people to the Truth. One who was opposed to God necessarily calls to something opposed to the Truth; so it is God alone who summons to the Truth.
Well, now that it has become clear that God calls toward the Truth and that the imagined rivals do not do so — "Is He then who guides to the Truth…" — this is an inference that one must and can make and use with the human being's God-given intellect and wit and discernment: "Is He, then, who guides to the Truth more worthy to be followed?" — is the one who leads toward the Truth more deserving to be followed? — "or he who does not find the way unless he is guided?" — or the one who himself does not find the way unless someone takes his hand and leads him? After all, whom must one follow? Whom must one go after? After God, who is Himself the Creator of the Truth, the Guide toward the Truth, and the Director to the Truth? Or after the one who, if he wishes to reach the Truth, must himself have his hand taken and be led? "A blind man leading another blind man." Does he wish to guide us? He himself is compelled to be guided; someone must guide him. Now here, in your view, of whom is the talk? This partner who can or cannot guide people — who, if he wishes to be guided, must have his hand taken and be led — what sort of person can this partner be? What sort of being can he be? Is the intended one the cow of the Hindus and the cow-worshippers? Or is the intended one the statue that the Qurashi polytheist and the non-Qurashi worshipped? Or is the intended one the sacred fire of the Mazdeans? Of the Zoroastrians? Or is the intended one the statues inside the synagogues of the Jews, or in the idol-temples of Rome and Greece? Certainly none of these is meant. The one of whom it can be said that he guides or does not guide — who, if he wishes to find the way, must have his hand taken and be led — he is a human being who claims leadership, who claims that he brings society to felicity. The Qur'an wishes to say: God brings the human being to felicity, God brings the human being to the wellspring of reality, God brings the human being to the Truth. Those who themselves possess nothing of themselves cannot. "Or he who does not find the way unless he is guided? What is the matter with you?" — what is the matter with you? That is, O people who do not reflect and do not understand — "How do you judge?" How do you judge? How do you grant a field and an opening to other than God? This is one word concerning Tawhid.
(Of course, the discussion that we shall have tomorrow, God willing, is again in this same field, with some recitation. There was one more thing down at the bottom; let me set this passage out and read it, for now I no longer have the time to speak much about it.) The negation of the servitude of the god-pretenders (khuda-nama): the god-pretender, those who pose as God, who give themselves a godlike air — beings that have been the living idols of mankind throughout history. The negation of the servitude of the god-pretenders, whether in the garb of religious powers — in parentheses: the Ahbar and the Ruhban (the rabbis and the monks) — or in the garb of worldly powers — in parentheses: the Taghut, the Mala', and the Mutrafin.
In the proposal of Islam to the People of the Book — for Islam once made a certain proposal to the People of the Book, and that proposal is in the Qur'an — the negation of obedience to non-divine powers has come in that verse in this form: Say: O People of the Book! Come to a word common between us and you: that we worship none but God, and that we associate nothing with Him, and that none of us take others as lords besides God. But if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are submitted to God.
"Say: O People of the Book! Come to a word that is equal between us and you" — which you yourselves will look at.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 12 · 37:34
- Ep 13 — The Spirit of Tawhid: Negating Servitude to Other Than GodSession 11: The Spirit of Tawhid: Negating Servitude to Other Than God.
Sunday, 7 Mehr 1353 / 12 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-An'am (6:114-116).
…Shall I then seek a judge other than God, when it is He who has sent down to you the Book, set out in detail? And those to whom We gave the Book know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth — so do not be among the doubters. And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice; there is none who can change His words, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.
However much we reflect, it turns out that Tawhid is not something one can pass over so easily. First, it is the foundation of belief. Second, it is the principal practical reality of the individual and of society. Third, the believing, monotheist Muslim community knows very little about it — indeed, one could say that they know nothing of it. In the old maktab schools children were taught that God is one and not two — yet for the most part the monotheists know nothing properly about the various dimensions of Tawhid, right up to the years near their departure from this world. A subject this important, about which our people know so little, is one a person does well to speak about at greater length.
As it happens, the verses of the Qur'an too, in keeping with this very importance, have spoken about Tawhid in many places and in various tones. And even if I were to go on speaking about this important principle of belief and practice for several more days, the noble verses of the Qur'an would still yield testimonies and examples to clarify the point we have in view. Now, what we are reading today again draws attention to a fresh aspect of Tawhid, one that was alluded to yesterday as well, and which today will be addressed in fuller detail.
That reading closes with they follow nothing but conjecture, and they do nothing but guess. These are from several verses, which of course we have translated here and at the end will explain — briefly. And: And do not eat of that over which the name of God has not been mentioned; that is indeed a transgression. And truly the satans inspire their friends to dispute with you; and if you obey them, you are surely idolaters (mushrikun).
The gist of the matter, with respect to today's point of view, is this: at one time, people worship someone in the sense that they regard him as sacred and as possessing powers above the natural world — as, for instance, certain idols, or certain "saints" (qiddisin) have been worshipped by peoples throughout history. From the word "worship," what initially comes to mind is just this. When we say that worshipping God is obligatory, what comes to our minds is this same sanctification, this same state of spiritual and heartfelt reverence — as, for example, Christians ascribe a kind of sanctity to Jesus (peace be upon him) or to his pure and immaculate mother Mary (the blessings of God upon her): before an imagined statue of Christ or Mary they kneel, they weep, they worship him. This is one common, widespread sense of worship.
Beyond this sense, there is another meaning — or call it another corner of this same concept — which can also be called worship, and the Qur'an uses "worship" in this sense too. Suppose someone is worshipped in this second manner, which we will now explain; suppose some people worship a being, a human being, in the very manner we will now describe. This too is a kind of worship of other than God. The upshot is that worship is not only that a person, before some being, bends and straightens, prostrates, bows, prays to him, praises him, stretches out his hands toward him in humility, in the form of sanctification, of heartfelt respect, of regarding him as higher. That is not the whole of worship. There are other acts as well that can be called worship — and when we say "can be called," we are not inventing this from ourselves.
(Sir! Draw those curtains so you are not sitting in the sun. Sir! I am talking to you — draw the curtains; why are you sitting in the sun? It has gotten worse! Fix it. Please pay attention — that was a parenthetical sentence; we did not want it to take so long and require explanation.) There is another act — I am still continuing that same point; it is not a third matter — which we also call worship. It is not we who say so; the Qur'an says it is worship. So in the culture of the Qur'an there exists a broader sense of "worship," and we must discover that broader sense. Then, if we wish to worship God and not worship other than God — that is, if we wish to be monotheists and followers of the principle of Tawhid — we can take care not to unknowingly perform the second type of worship before something other than the Lord of the worlds. This is precisely the trap most of the world's monotheists fell into. In their own estimation and to all appearances, they were performing no sanctification before other than God, and prostrating before no person or object other than God. Yet in practice, in thought, in heart, in spirit, they have been performing the worship of other than God in this second sense.
What is the second meaning of worship? The second meaning of worship is very simple. There is a word for it in Persian; this word is current and on everyone's tongue, and it is "obedience" (ita'at). To obey anyone in an absolute and unconditional manner is to worship him. Take a person who obeys someone — a human being, or a human society — unconditionally, making that one's command the thing to be followed (muttaba') in his own life, in his body and soul, in his deeds. He has worshipped him. From where do we say this? We say it on the authority of the verses of the Qur'an. It is the Qur'an that interprets "worship" for us as "obedience."
Consider 'Adi ibn Hatim al-Ta'i — the son of the famous Hatim, though the rank of this 'Adi himself is far higher and more honored than that of his father Hatim. When he entered Medina, the Noble Messenger saw a cross-cord (zunnar) hung around his neck, and on that account began reciting this verse to him: They took their rabbis and their monks as lords besides God, and also the Messiah, son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship none but One God.
The meaning of the verse is that the Christians and Jews took their rabbis and their monks — their scholars and their ascetics — and the Messiah son of Mary, as their lords and gods, whereas God Most High had commanded them to worship none but the One God. When this verse reached the ears of 'Adi ibn Hatim, he turned and said: O Prophet of God, this is not correct! When did we ever take our rabbis and monks as God and lord for ourselves? When did we ever worship them? He objected to the Prophet and to the verse of the Qur'an. Why? Because in his mind, "worship" had the very meaning that is now in your minds: the gentlemen are performing worship — meaning supplication, meaning a state coupled with sanctification, whether of the heart, or of the heart and tongue, or of the heart and tongue and body, as in performing the ritual prayer. So when 'Adi ibn Hatim, holding worship in that sense, saw the verse of the Qur'an say these people worshipped their scholars and ascetics, chose and adopted them as their lord and master, it seemed to him objectionable. He said: No, this is not correct. When did we Christians ever worship our rabbis and monks?
In answer to this notion of 'Adi ibn Hatim, the Noble Prophet replied: Yes — you did not prostrate before them (I am conveying the substance of the Prophet's words), but whatever they said, you accepted unconditionally.
A saying is related: "But they made lawful for you what was forbidden, and forbade you what was lawful."
They made God's forbidden things appear lawful in your eyes, and made God's lawful things appear forbidden, and you — without any concern to grasp the reality of the matter — obeyed unconditionally whatever they said. This is worship; this is what it means to take a being as one's lord and master. And indeed, on this same theme, there is also a narration from Imam al-Sadiq (the blessings and peace of God upon him); those who wish may consult Nur al-Thaqalayn under this very verse.
According to the culture of the Qur'an, worship of a being other than God is to obey that being. That being may be a political power. It may be a religious power. It may be an inner factor, such as the human soul (nafs) with its carnal and lustful inclinations. It may even be a being outside the human, yet not a power centralized politically or religiously — a woman, a single human for whom one holds an unwarranted reverence, a friend. To obey any of these is to worship them. Anyone who obeys someone or something has worshipped it.
Let me read here a narration, so that it may become clear how widespread this Qur'anic culture is throughout the Islamic sources, and especially the Shi'i sources — both Qur'an and Hadith. The narration is from Imam al-Jawad (the blessings and peace of God upon him), who says:
A saying is related: "Whoever lends an ear to a speaker has worshipped him."
The sphere of worship is far broader; not only obedience, but even giving one's full attention — all six senses — to someone is to worship him. Well, you will say: Then are we not to listen even to correct words? So, continuing the hadith, he says: "And if the speaker speaks on behalf of God, Mighty and Majestic, then he has worshipped God." Suppose the one who speaks, and who has drawn your full attention and faculties toward himself, speaks from the tongue of God. Then you — while you have given your heart to him, given your mind to him, entrusted your thought and spirit to him — are worshipping God. "And if the speaker speaks from the tongue of Iblis, then he has worshipped Iblis." But suppose that speaker is speaking from the tongue of Satan, talking from the tongue of Iblis — arguing and speaking contrary to the logic and the philosophy of divine thought — and you are listening submissively and assentingly. Then in that very state you are engaged in satanic worship and obedience; that is, he himself is Satan, absolutely. The very one who is speaking in that manner is Satan. We do not mean to say he is the representative of Satan or the loudspeaker of Satan — no; he himself is Satan, in the sense in which we defined Satan, which is also the Qur'anic meaning of Satan.
To obey a being who is of this sort — who is not even a political power, not even a religious power — to obey him unconditionally, is to worship him. So if someone wishes to worship only God and not to have worshipped other than God — that is, to be a monotheist, a worshipper of the One, oriented to the One — he must reserve his absolute obedience for the Lord of the worlds, the great God. Among the things which, if you follow them, you have worshipped, is the law. Among the things which, if you follow them, you have worshipped, is the social order. Among the things which, if you obey them, you have worshipped, are customs and traditions. So which law are we to act by? Are we not to act by any law? Are we not to act by customs and traditions? Are we not to follow some order and system? Indeed we are — but try to make all this divine, so that you, while obeying, while following, are servants of God and engaged in the worship of God.
See how broad a person's horizon becomes. See how the events of history become interpretable for a person. The prophets, when they came, all came with the idea of Tawhid. In the discussion concerning the prophets and specifically prophethood, we will expound this from the Qur'an. All the great divine prophets came to make people monotheists. To make them monotheists — what does that mean? It means to unfasten the chains of obedience to other than God from their hands and necks. And the Qur'an itself explicitly states this meaning in one place: …that He may lift from them their burden and the shackles that were upon them.
And when Tawhid is viewed from this perspective — when you look at Tawhid from this standpoint — you see that it is a thought, a principle, fundamentally for living: connected to the social order, connected to the orientation of human beings in every circumstance, connected to the quality of life of human societies. See how greatly this Tawhid differs from the dry, brainless, lifeless, ignorant "God is one and not two." Tawhid means this.
Now, I have found many instances of this in the verses of the Qur'an. Had I wanted to bring here all the places where this meaning is clearly to be derived from the Qur'an, I would have needed to prepare for you at least five or six pages of paper. I have brought two of them — two examples of those places that make two things clear: that obedience to other than God is the worship of it, and that pure Tawhid — the spirit of religion, the foundation of religion — consists in a person obeying God exclusively, and obeying the divine program, the divine order, the divine organization. Just two examples, from which this point is derived, are mentioned here, and you can, with this idea, refer to the Qur'an to find this subject.
Refer to the Qur'an. Try to become acquainted with the Qur'an; try not to be dependent on my coming and explaining the verses to you. Bring yourselves near to this boundless treasure, this shoreless sea. I have repeatedly given this counsel, and whenever I do not give this counsel I feel that a burden is upon my shoulders. First, I feel it my duty to tell you that you must refer to the Qur'an. This vast sea, this shoreless ocean, is such that "It is the sea — from whatever side you come to it"; this was a line of poetry, one hemistich from a poem. From whichever side you approach, you derive some benefit. Whoever keeps company with the Qur'an derives some benefit. In whatever way, in whatever style — have some foundation, so that you can understand this language at least a little, and you will gain a share; and the more you refer to it, the more illumined and aware you become. The Commander of the Faithful (the blessings and peace of God upon him), with a phrasing similar to this, is reported in the Nahj al-Balagha to have said: "No one has ever sat in the company of this Qur'an without rising from it with an increase or a decrease — an increase in guidance or a decrease in blindness." This is the word of the Commander of the Faithful. He says: No one ever sat in the company and companionship of the Qur'an without, when he rose from beside the Qur'an, an increase appearing in him and a decrease — a gain appearing in him, an increase occurring, and a loss, a diminution occurring. "An increase in guidance" — that increase was in guidance; his way-finding and his guidance increased somewhat, certainly. "A decrease in blindness" — that hard-heartedness, that blindness of his spirit and understanding and inner self, decreased a little and was diminished.
See how the sentence of the Commander of the Faithful begins: "No one has ever sat in the company of this Qur'an…" No one — it is general, isn't it? It is absolute. I have said this as a reminder — though it was within parentheses and was a marginal note — in order to draw the attention of you all, all the brothers and sisters, to it.
Why have I given this reminder about the Qur'an? So that you may know, you brothers and sisters, that many traps, endless devices, have been prepared over the course of time to keep people away from the Qur'an. And one of these pretexts and traps and devices, which still exists today — still a group of ignorant or ill-intentioned people repeat this claim — is this: "Sir! No one understands the Qur'an except the Infallible Imams (the blessings of God upon them); it is the Infallible Imams who understand the Qur'an." About this statement I can say only one word — the very thing the Commander of the Faithful (the blessings of God upon him) said about the slogan of the Kharijites of Nahrawan, when he declared: "A word of truth by which falsehood is intended." This is a correct statement, but the intent of the one who utters it is a base and malicious intent. Yes! The Imams of guidance have mastery over the Qur'an, such that nothing higher than that is conceivable. They are those lofty, great spirits and minds and thoughts who hold the Qur'an in their grasp; they themselves are each a Qur'an, each one of them a Qur'an — there is no dispute in this. But that the Imam (peace be upon him) knows the Qur'an very well does not mean that I and you, sir, do not understand even a single word of it, cannot understand even a husk of the Qur'an. This statement is correct — that the Imams of guidance (the blessings and peace of God upon them) are the knowers and the learned with respect to the Qur'an. But the intent of the speaker is not to exalt the Imam; the intent of the one who says this is for you to remain far from the Qur'an. He is like that poor fellow whom they told to pray, and he said: O sir, if prayer is what my master 'Ali performed, then why should I pray at all? As it is said:
If prayer were what that wronged one performed, then he has deprived others of this act.
This logic is the very same logic. If they understand the Qur'an, then why should we and you any longer open the Qur'an? O wretched one! O deprived one! O you deprived of the teachings of the Qur'an — woe to you! Woe to you! Woe to you who do not understand the Qur'an — but greater woe to you if, not understanding it yourself, you also prevent the people from understanding it; if you do not permit the thirsty people, too, to draw from this overflowing, gushing spring. Woe to you! Woe to those who keep people away from the Qur'an, who frighten people off from the Qur'an, who — on various pretexts and excuses — do not let people open the Qur'an with the aim of understanding. Woe to them! And you must know, brothers and sisters, that today we are dealing with the Qur'an, just as the Prophet of God has said: "When tribulations beset you like pieces of the dark night, then keep to the Qur'an." On the day when tribulations cast their shadow over your life like pieces of a black night, hold fast to the Qur'an. When is that day? Do we not see the dark, night-like tribulations? Do we not behold the wrong roads before our blind and short-sighted eyes? Do not the seeing eyes behold the thieves and ogres and highwaymen from every side and in every shape? So when must one turn to the Qur'an? For when is it? For the time when the Imam of the Age (the blessings of God upon him) comes? But he himself is the speaking Qur'an. Today is the day when we must refer to the Qur'an. The first condition of this is that we understand the Qur'an.
I have found two portions of the verses related to today's discussion; you search and find ten more portions. I counsel the brothers — those who are able to understand the Qur'an, that is, the outward sense of the Qur'an's sentences, the Arabic-to-Persian translations — to be sure to pay attention; those who cannot, let them create in themselves this possibility, this ability. Study Arabic, learn the Qur'an, take lessons in the Qur'an, make yourselves intimate with the Qur'an, become friends with the Qur'an. Every day and every hour that passes without intimacy with the Qur'an is a cause for regret.
The first portion is from Surat al-An'am. Of course, one must attend to the tone of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is not like ordinary books that say, "Chapter so-and-so, on the meaning of obedience and worship" — it is not like that. The level of expression and content of the Qur'an, and the Speaker of the Qur'an, is far above these ordinary levels. For the Lord of the worlds, all created things and all beings are on a single level; that is why, in the manner that the occasion of revelation required, a verse came down regarding a given matter. From the verse's allusions, from the expressions and sentences within the verse, from the manner of its construction (siyaq), you find the point you have in view. Shall I then seek a judge (hakam) other than God? Shall I accept and seek anyone other than God as judge? "Hakam," the commentators have said, means both arbiter and ruler. The one from whom a person seeks judgment — that is, from whom he seeks command, or from whom he seeks arbitration — both are called "hakam." And God Most High is both the best arbiter and the best ruler. The command, too, must be given by God: Surely His are the creation and the command. Know that creation and command belong to God. He Himself has created, and He Himself also commands. "Shall I then seek a judge other than God?" — Shall I seek any ruler, commander, or arbiter other than God? "When it is He who has sent down to you the Book, set out in detail" — whereas it is God who has sent down this collection, the Qur'an, to you in detail, with elucidation, without admixture or commingling.
"Set out in detail" (mufassalan) — meaning without any confusion in its discussions, without its matters being jumbled, without the speech of other than God being mixed into it. "Set out in detail" — that is, made clear (mubayyanan), with complete and perfect clarification.
"And those to whom We gave the Book" — those to whom We have given the Book — "know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth" — they know that this Qur'an has been sent down from your Lord, in truth; it has truly been sent down from God, has come from God. "So do not be among the doubters." So do not be of the doubters and the wavering ones — the address is to the Prophet — do not be hesitant! Do not be shaken and of two hearts! You who know that this Book has come from your Lord, that God gave the Book to you and you are aware, you are certain — do not be hesitant; be resolute.
"And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice." It is complete, sealed, irreversible — the command of your Lord, founded upon truth and upon firmness. The command of your Lord was this: that the chain of prophethoods should come, raising the people gradually and step by step to the ultimate degree; then the final prophethood should come, placing human beings before a vast horizon, before a limitless field; bestowing on them the means of journeying, the means of running, the means of ever-greater perfection, so that human beings might travel in this field unto the infinite — "and to Him we shall return" — unto God. This command of the Lord, this measure of the Lord, this word of the Lord, was complete, sealed, irreversible. "There is none who can change His words" — there is no one who can alter or transform His words and commands. "And He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing" — and He is the Hearer and the Knower: hearer of the melody of your inner needs, and knower of the way and the manner necessary for you. He is able to design and lay out a program for you.
"And if you obey most of those on earth…" — see how it prepares the listener's mind. In the first sentence, in the first verse, the issue is the rule and judgment of God, who is most worthy of all to rule and judge. In the second verse, the issue is the irreversibility of God's religion and command: let the enemy and the disbeliever and the obstinate adversary do whatever wrong they will — God's command is ratified and complete. In the third verse, the point is that one must not obey desires and whims and caprices; one must obey God. "And if you obey most of those on earth, they will lead you astray from the path of God." And if you follow and obey most of the people on earth, the majority, "they will lead you astray from the path of God." "They follow nothing but conjecture" — they follow nothing but supposition, "and they do nothing but guess" — and they are only guessing. With illusion, with estimation, with conjecture, the people act. Those who fabricate and propose ways and methods and systems for people's lives — are they certain of the correctness of these ways? If, out of naivete, they are certain, then one ought to wish them forty or fifty more years in this world, so they may see how their solid blueprints turned out ruined, see how their forecasts turned out wrong. But they are not even certain; "they do nothing but guess." With estimation, with conjecture, with hypothesis and theory, they want to govern the people of the world, the human societies — with theory. But God does not govern anyone by theory; with the very text of reality, with real knowledge and science, He guides human beings to the straight path. "Surely your Lord — He knows best who strays from His path" — surely it is your Lord who knows best the state of those who go astray from His path — "and He knows best the rightly guided" — and He knows best those who are guided and rightly led.
"Eat of that over which the name of God has been mentioned, if you are believers in His signs." Here, at first, a person reads it with utter astonishment. These verses have just laid down general matters: that one must not obey the majority of people, that one must not follow conjecture and supposition and theory and hypothesis, that the command of the Lord regarding the final prophethood and regarding religion is complete and unalterable. Then suddenly, after these general statements, He says: eat of that over which the name of God has been pronounced; a sheep slaughtered with the name of God — you have the right to eat of this; a secondary matter! It seems very astonishing to a person — what connection do these have with one another? Of course, whatever I say by way of connection are things I say from my own conception; there is no decisive proof of it. The field is open for understandings and thoughts and perceptions; let people study, find its relevance — but to us, too, some things occur.
First: in the sight of the Lord, who is above this world and stands at a level and horizon beyond human conception, as we said, all matters are on a single level. For God, the general matters relating to humankind are no different from the particular matters; it is all one. For God everything is one. For the Lord of the worlds, whatever is a means to a human being's felicity is set forth as a command; it makes no difference whether this command is particular, secondary, relating to one person, or whether it is general, universal, relating to all of humankind — that is the first point.
Second: let us properly dissect the matter of slaughter and ritual purification (tadhkiyah). What does it mean that the name of God must be pronounced at the time of slaughtering an animal that a person intends to eat? You know that the polytheists, and the tribes and nations and communities who were deprived of Tawhid, used to invoke the name of their object of worship on every occasion, in every situation, for every act. "In the name of the Messiah," for example, as it is reported regarding the Christians. And we know that worldly idols, worldly powers, too, always try to set their own name at the opening and the outset and the preface of every act. Any act begun in the name of other than God necessarily has a non-divine orientation. Begin a task for the sake of money, for the sake of carnal desire, for the sake of such matters — with that name, with that remembrance — and necessarily its direction too becomes the direction of that very thing, the thing whose name and remembrance you brought upon your tongue or into your mind at the start of the task. A task done with the remembrance of money, and for money, is oriented toward making money. To the very end it proceeds in such a way that money comes out of it. The act, in its orientation, moves in such a way that nothing other than money is of any concern to it. But a task begun in the name of God, with the remembrance of God, has a divine orientation as well; its orientation, too, is in accord with the command of God and in keeping with the order of the Lord. They tell us that even the slaughtered animal, when you slaughter it, slaughter it with the name of God. That is, your most essential, most primary need, which is your food, must be with the name of God, must be for God. Even when you fill your stomach, you must fill it for God. The result of this is that filling the stomach is not the principle — God is the principle. If at some point you sense that, in wishing to fill your stomach, you will fall far from God, then abandon this, do not fill it, let it remain hungry, let it die of hunger, and let no movement issue from you contrary to the divine orientation. Why? Because the stomach, though it is a genuine need, is nevertheless not the principle in your life; in your life the principle is God and the orientation toward God. This is what "Bismillah" — uttered while slaughtering the sheep — teaches us; "Bismillah," uttered while taking a morsel and eating food, teaches us this.
Begin with "Bismillah," even eating. Begin with "Bismillah," even the act of mating. Begin with "Bismillah" — even entering, going, coming out, going into the house, the door of the shop — every act. What does this mean? It means that all the orientations of your life, for the meeting of any need, even the primary needs, must be in accord with God's command and in the direction of the path of God (sabil Allah).
Indeed my prayer, my rites of devotion, my living and my dying are for God, the Lord of the worlds. My prayer, my worship, my life, my death — yes, even my death — Abraham says: "for God, the Lord of the worlds," for God, that Disposer and Lord of the affairs of all the worlds. "He has no partner" — He has no partner whatsoever. The Lord of the worlds has no partner in any single domain of my life, even in my eating. Not only in my praying — in my movements, in my efforts, in my exertions, I admit no partner alongside God. This realm of my being is wholly at God's disposal and within the domain of His power and command. So when you slaughter the animal, slaughter it in this way.
But the Qurayshi disbeliever in one way, and the non-Qurayshi disbeliever in another way, when he slaughters the animal, when he kills the sheep, when he eats food, when he lives, when he opens his shop — not only is it not in the name of God, not with the remembrance of God, but it is in the name of other than God and with the remembrance of other than God. Take this slaughtered animal as a symbol; take the name of God at the time of slaughtering the sheep as a symbol. It is itself a ruling, a juristic ruling — and of course the name of God must definitely be pronounced — yet take it as a symbol too, a symbol of the essential and genuine needs of a human being: the slaughtering of the sheep. This must be with the name of God; what does this mean? It means that even your most essential, most fundamental, most primary, most genuine needs you must regard as for the sake of God, and seek for the sake of God. Even the morsel of bread you eat to relieve your hunger, eat it for the sake of God; for the sake of God relieve your hunger and breathe strength into your body. Well, it is evident that the strength which has come to a person's body for the sake of God must also be expended for the sake of God. This is the logical conclusion, plain as two and two make four. See how precise it is.
Eat of that over which the name of God has been mentioned, if you are believers in His signs. "And why should you not eat of that over which the name of God has been mentioned?" — what is the matter with you, that is, for what reason, why "should you not eat" — "of that over which the name of God has been mentioned"? "When He has set out in detail for you what He has forbidden you, except that to which you are compelled" — whereas God has, in detail, by way of explanation, set forth for you what is forbidden to you, except in the state of necessity; apart from that, everything is lawful for you. "And surely many lead astray by their desires, without knowledge" — many lead people astray by their own whims, without any knowledge, without any insight. By the sheer caprice of their own whims and desires they draw people into deviation and error. "Surely your Lord — He knows best the transgressors" — your Lord indeed knows best the transgressors and the aggressors. These who draw people into deviation and error without possessing knowledge and learning are, according to the indication of this verse, transgressors (mu'tadin), aggressors, those committing aggression and enmity.
And forsake the outward and inward of sin. Set aside that whose sin is outward and that whose sin is hidden and inward. There are some acts whose flaws, whose evil consequences, are outward: that the killing of a soul is an evil deed is plain; to take the life of a living being, without warrant, is plainly a wrongful act; its being a sin is outward. And there are some acts whose being a sin is not properly evident, manifest, and visible. There are many things a person does not realize how great they are: speaking without knowledge, following other than knowledge, treating the name and remembrance of God lightly and as trivial, obeying other than God, hearing and heeding the command of other than God — these are things a person does not imagine could have such great harms and evil consequences; their being a sin is hidden, concealed. Yet, even so, one must set aside both. Whatever is sin, whether overt or hidden, must be forsaken. "And forsake the outward and inward of sin" — set aside and abandon those things which are outwardly sinful, whose being a sin is outward, and those that are inwardly sinful, whose being a sin is inward and concealed. "Surely those who commit sin will be requited for what they used to perpetrate" — those who make sin their acquisition and earning will be requited for the deeds they used to commit. "And do not eat of that over which the name of God has not been mentioned" — do not eat of that over which the name of God has not been pronounced — "for that is indeed a transgression (fisq)" — this is fisq, a going out from religion. Here He places emphasis on the importance of the remembrance of God and the name of God.
"And truly the satans inspire…" — most of our emphasis is on this segment. Of course, from the beginning of these verses we have recited up to here, there were step by step indications useful to us for the point we have set forth here. And of course, the more you ponder, the clearer it becomes. But the principal portion of our argument and citation is this final segment of the verse: And truly the satans inspire their friends to dispute with you — the satans and the poles of wickedness inspire their friends and confederates and allies to dispute with you. The satans and the poles of corruption and decay fill up their agents, their friends, their confederates and adherents, so that they may come and argue with you, contend with you, and dispute with you. What is your duty before these friends of Satan? "And truly the satans inspire their friends to dispute with you" — but as for you — "and if you obey them, you are surely idolaters (mushrikun)" — if you obey them, follow them, you are idolaters. See — an idolater, very plainly. So obedience to Satan — that is, the pole of wickedness, set over against the All-Merciful; Satan over against the All-Merciful; Satan over against God — obedience to Satan, that is, the pole of wickedness, or obedience to the friends of Satan, that is, his hirelings, his instruments, his friends, his confederates, his servants: obedience to these causes you to become an idolater. "And if you obey them" — and if you obey them — "you are surely" — you indeed — "idolaters" — you are certainly idolaters.
That is one chapter. The second portion is from Surat al-Shu'ara', which we now do not have much time to translate in full detail; I will give a very brief translation so that we may conclude. The most striking and penetrating expressions on many themes, whether in the Qur'an or in Hadith, are set forth for people in the form of images and scene-settings of the Resurrection. When they wish to vividly portray a matter for the listener — and it is the same in the hadiths — to make it clear so that it may penetrate to the depths of his soul, they depict for him a scene of the Resurrection; that affair is reflected there, and the present passage is of this kind.
And Paradise will be brought near for the God-fearing.
Paradise was brought near and within reach for the pious. He is speaking of the Day of Resurrection, but He speaks of it in the past tense. The certain-to-occur future, in the Arabic language, can be expressed with the past tense. "The Hour drew near, and the moon was split" — meaning, it will be. "And Paradise will be brought near for the God-fearing" — and Paradise was brought near and within reach, accessible, for the pious. "And the Blazing Fire will be made manifest to those who went astray" — and Hellfire was shown and made apparent to the astray and the deceived. "Ghiwayah" means going astray; "We led them astray" means We deceived them. "Ghawin" means the astray, the deceived, the deluded — these are called "ghawin." "And it will be said to them: Where is that which you used to worship besides God?" — it will be said to them, to these deceived and astray ones: "Where is that which you used to worship besides God?" Where are those things and persons whom you used to worship in place of God? Where are they? Those poles to whom you were attached in life and whose worship you performed — where are they? Here, take note of the word "worship": "that which you used to worship" — you used to worship them. But let us see what they were, those whom these people worshipped, so that the meaning of worship may become clear. "Can they help you, or help themselves?" — can those objects of your worship help you, or are they themselves helped from somewhere? "Or help themselves" — meaning, are they themselves helped? It becomes clear that these objects of worship are ones in need of being helped — evidently they are human beings. These objects of worship were of the human kind, not of the kind of stone and wood and lifeless idols. "Then they will be flung headlong into it — they and those who strayed, and the hosts of Iblis, all together." So they are flung face-down into Hellfire — they, those objects of worship and the deluded and astray and deceived, the followers of corruption — "and the hosts of Iblis, all together." And the hosts of Iblis all together: everyone who in some way did a deed for Iblis, rendered a service to Iblis, took a step on the path of leading God's creatures astray, in whatever manner — in the Resurrection the abode of them all is Hell; their appointment is there. "They will say, while disputing with one another therein…" — then, in the throes of contention with one another, they fall upon each other: these against those, those against these; these cast the blame upon those leaders, and the leaders cast the blame upon these. These say: It was you scoundrels who put the rope around our necks and dragged us behind you, by force, by compulsion; those say: It was you who followed behind us. Each delivers and brings forth a blow, a weapon, against the other group. "They will say" — they say or said — "while disputing with one another therein" — while in Hellfire engaged in contention and combat; they were in dispute and strife. "By God" — they swear by God — "surely we were in manifest error." We were in a manifest error, in a vast error, in an obvious error. Despite its obviousness, we did not realize we were astray, even though if we had come to ourselves even a little, we would have understood what a wrong road, what an evil road, what a dangerous path, and what a deadly, destructive end it was. Even though, if we had thought a little, these things would have become clear — yet, even so, we remained in that error.
"By God, surely we were in manifest error" — by God, we were in manifest error. In what way was our deed an error? In this deed of ours: "when we made you equal with the Lord of the worlds" — when we set you on a par with the Lord of the worlds. We ought to have feared God; we feared you. We ought to have been attentive to the command of God; we were attentive to your command. We ought to have striven toward God and for nearness to God; we strove for nearness to you. We ought to have sought our sustenance from God; we sought it from you. "When we made you equal with the Lord of the worlds" — when we set you equal and on a par with the Lord of the worlds. "And none led us astray but the criminals" — none led us astray but the criminals and sinners. "So now we have no intercessors" — today we have no intercessor — "nor any loving friend" — and we have no compassionate friend. "If only we had a return, that we might be among the believers!" — would that there were for us a return to the world, so that we might become believers. "Surely in that there is a sign" — in this affair and scene there is a sign; take heed. "Surely in that there is a sign" — in this saying there is a sign and a token. "But most of them are not believers" — most of them are not believers, not possessed of faith.
See here, in these verses, that the discourse was about persons whom the people had worshipped; then, when we look carefully at the words, we see that their worship had this meaning: that they had fallen in behind them, had regarded them as equal to God, had sought from them what should be sought from God, and had observed their regard in matters where, for the sake of God, one ought not to act.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 13 · 43:39
- Ep 14 — Tawhid and the Negation of Social ClassesSession 12: Tawhid and the Negation of Social Classes.
Monday, 8 Mehr 1353 / 13 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Mu'minun (23:91-92).
God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god alongside Him — for then each god would have taken off with what he created, and some of them would have lorded it over others. Glory be to God, far above what they describe.
Dear brothers, with your attention please. We said that if Tawhid is a belief that gives rise to action and imposes commitment, then this belief inevitably lays upon our shoulders a whole series of obligations and commitments. And we said that we must understand these obligations and commitments. These commitments are not confined to the individual life of human beings. The greater weight of them falls upon social life — upon the social order and the form of society. That is, when Tawhid enters a society, the first thing it does is to construct that society in a form that befits this belief. Only once that work is done does the turn come to ask what duties a person who professes Tawhid has as an individual.
In any case, these commitments must be recognized and known. We have given the name "the resolution of Tawhid" to the whole set of these commitments. We said that Tawhid hands us a kind of resolution — it places into our hands a set of contracts and obligations. In order that we may, God willing, live as believers in divine unity, it is necessary that we treat these commitments as active and binding. The first of these commitments was this: that servitude and obedience belong exclusively to God; this is the first commitment of Tawhid. We explained this point in the course of one or two — or two or three — recitations.
Today we come to the second commitment that Tawhid places upon the shoulders of the believer in unity — upon the monotheistic believer, the monotheistic society, the monotheistic world. This can be designated under the heading that we have written here: Tawhid and the negation of social classes. (In these written notes you have in hand, it is good that you put the number "2" at the top of the page. Because on that note concerning exclusive servitude and obedience, the number "1" had been written; here too you should put a "2" so that the sequence of the topics is clear. We will, God willing, present the third one later, and the fourth, and if there are more, then more.)
The negation of social classes. In a brief phrase, whose details we shall present later: the monotheistic society, according to the terminology now familiar to your ears, is a classless society. It is a society in which the various groups of human beings are not separated from one another in rights and privileges. All human beings live under a single roof of rights. Everyone lives and moves along a single course, with one kind of opportunity and one kind of rights. This is the society that Tawhid sets before the eye of our mind and our imagination, where social stratification is concerned.
When we turn back to history, we see that class division is among the chronic afflictions of every society. Not only in the backward tribal societies, not only in the lands remote from civilization — but in those very countries that are the mother and cradle of human civilization. There, in those very places, class division shows itself from between the pages of history in its ugliest face, its most repugnant form. Truly, among the great injustices of history, the great stains of shame upon it, is this very thing: class division.
What does "class division" mean? It means that the human beings who live in this society are not all alike. One group is condemned to suffer deprivation, to bear hardship, to serve the other groups — and must not even voice any complaint about this deprivation and hardship. Another group, by contrast, is to be well-provided, to be favored; the pleasure and enjoyment of life is to be theirs, they are able to make use of all the privileges, and there is to be no problem in this.
Take India, for example — as an example, the best place one can cite is India. You know that India is the cradle of Aryan civilization. The Aryan race was in this very India from the very beginning of urban settlement, from the moment it first formed a nation and an organized community. They say the Aryan race came from the northern lands, from Siberia, and on entering split into two branches: one group went toward India, the other toward Iran. And the people who were in India reached civilization sooner than those who came into Iran and settled into their lives.
India is the cradle of human civilization, or one of its cradles — and there class division is in full uproar. They held that there were four principal classes, ranked one beneath the others, with hundreds of sub-classes in between. You can search out the details in the books on the history of religions. Those who have a taste and an interest for it, let them search; let them reflect a little, with deliberation, on Tawhid and the Qur'an, and make the comparison.
They divided the people into four classes. The first was the Brahmins, the religious and clerical men, who stood highest of all. The second was the warriors and the princes. Between these two classes there were abundant disputes and conflicts. Formerly the princes were the upper class and the clerics the second; but later, through certain factors that arose and the struggles that took place, the clerics and Brahmins managed to seize the scholarly upper rank for themselves and to push the warriors and princes and chieftains down into second place.
Beyond the second class came the class of farmers and laborers, the craftsmen. The two upper classes did no work for society. What did the Brahmin do, except recite a few incantations and litanies and wave his hands about? What did the chieftain and prince do, except arrange for himself a little more land, a little more wealth, a somewhat broader domain of lordship? But the craftsmen and the farmers — they performed all the work of this vast land. They were the third class. The fourth class was the common people: ordinary folk, tradesmen, those engaged in the small and manual tasks of society. And beneath these four classes there was yet another, which they said was not of the Aryan race at all. The four classes were all Aryan; the rest, they said, fell outside the Aryan race and were therefore impure — the class of untouchables.
Of course, what I am now describing pertains to history — but a history that extended onward and onward and onward, right up to the twentieth century. What I have just described to you remained in India in full force and full authority until only a few years ago. Perhaps the gentlemen who have studied the affairs of India know that the class of untouchables and the defiled was abolished by Gandhi, the late leader of India, who said: "What is this 'untouchable'?!" The former prime minister of India himself — that is, Nehru — and now his daughter is the head of state — they themselves are among the Brahmins. Nehru himself was among the Brahmins, in the upper class. His father, Pandit Nehru, was among the Brahmins. Of course, since he was anti-religious and irreligious, he disliked being called "Brahmin" and "Pandit" — the special title of the Brahmins.
In any case, I mean to say that these are not really things belonging only to ancient history. Even after some fourteen centuries — or thirteen-and-some centuries — had passed since the rising of the sun of Qur'anic Tawhid, still in India, in that place which is the birthplace of human civilization, this class division existed.
Well, now my aim is to lay out class division. They had four classes; and between them, as we said — according to the account of John Noss, who wrote a history of religions — there were tens, indeed hundreds, of subsidiary classes. And two persons from two classes had no right to marry one another, to speak with one another, to shake hands, to sit side by side, to walk together, to be friends — wa qis 'alayhi, fa'allala wa tafa'ala (and so on and so forth). They were utterly separated from one another by a wall of steel.
Why should they be separated? What does the Brahmin have that I, the farmer, do not have? Or that I, the ordinary tradesman, do not have? Or what natural privilege does some great warrior enjoy that I, the ordinary commoner, do not enjoy? If this question were asked, do you know what they would say in answer? They would say: "Mind your own business!" Because in the very root of creation, in the very root of your coming-into-being, you were created as two groups, of two kinds. It has nothing to do with law and contract and the convention of Zayd and 'Amr — you were created of two kinds. For when Brahma, the great god, wished to bring forth creatures and fashion the human being, he created the Brahmins from his own head, the chieftains and soldiers and princes from his own hands, the farmers from his own arms, and the laboring class from his own feet. And the impure classes are not of Brahma at all — not of that pure root, not of this race.
When the fourth class was created from Brahma's foot, what right has it to consider itself the equal and peer of the Brahmin, who was created from Brahma's head? You are not at all equal in creation. One group was created from a nobler origin; they are worthy of greater respect, and their being-favored is innate — just as the deprivation of the lower classes is innate. This was the logic.
Do you imagine that in such a society it is at all possible for class division ever to be overthrown? Is such a thing possible? Why would it be possible? Who do you imagine could possibly abolish class division in a class-divided society? Is it the favored class? Does the well-provided class come forward and say, "For God's sake, I have relinquished my rights"? That is a vain fancy. Surely, if class division is to be overthrown in a society, it is the deprived class that must demand its own right, must claim the prosperity that belongs to it, must protest against the excessive privileges of the upper classes. The lower class must protest. But in such a society as I have depicted, the lower class cannot be made to protest. Why? Because it believes it was created this way by its very essence — that this is simply the natural state, not subject to change or alteration, that nothing can be done about it. They were made this way, they were created this way.
Once a person believes that nature and the divine creation within him have made him in a particular form, he can no longer expect any other form for himself, nor hope to enjoy privileges and rights that do not fit the structure of his constitution and his nature. He says: "This is my lot. The threadbare carpet of one whose fortune was woven black cannot be set right. From the first we were woven in black cloth, from the first we were spun of an inferior sort; nothing more can be done." Take some black object to the edge of a stream, to the shore of an ocean, and wash it and wash it — when it is black by its very essence, when from the beginning its natural color has been black, can that color ever disappear? Rather, its dust and dirt will be cleaned off, and its blackness will only come out clearer; it will turn even blacker. So, as you have observed, this great injustice existed throughout history in these societies, and there was no means of remedying it.
Of course, reformers would appear and change people's thinking. Pay attention to the point I am about to make — I will not state this meaning explicitly, but it is a sign of something peculiar to the religions. Reformers would come; first they changed the thought, first they transformed the culture, first they said that this philosophy is wrong — and on the strength of that wrongness they convinced the people that this state of affairs is tyrannical. This is the correct understanding of historical transformations. It is not correct for us to say that the situation changed first, that the social form was transformed first and only then the philosophies and ideas — no. Reformers would come. This is our history, the history of the Orient. Those who thought and assumed otherwise had, in our view, not read the history of the Orient — they had read the history of Europe. But this is India, this is China, this is Iran, this is Egypt. The reformers who arose, the religious reformers, first changed the ideas and transformed the philosophies; and only once the ideas and the philosophies had changed did the ground become ready for the social condition and the corrupt social order to be transformed as well. At any rate, throughout history it was this way.
You observed: here it was India; Iran too was like this, Egypt too was like this, China too was like this. Wherever you have any trace of a civilization, the situation followed this same pattern. What does that mean? It means they said: since human beings were created of two kinds, from two natures and two dispositions — or more — their social rights too must not be equal. They must not be alike; and if anyone said they ought to be alike, he had spoken wrongly. This is the way they used to put it.
Islam came and proclaimed that there are no "gods" — many gods are false; there is one God. Those who imagined that two gods had created two groups of human beings, with two kinds of distinctions and characteristics, have erred. There is one God, and He created the whole of the cosmos. The governance of the world and of its inhabitants lies entirely in the grip of His power, and He created all alike. He fashioned all from one root, one disposition, one nature, one material source. The verses of the Qur'an on this theme are abundant: O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those who were before you.
Now, the verses that we mentioned today in this note and in today's recitation, we shall read. He said that all human beings are of one root, one source, one stem. All human beings came into the world with one kind of equipment. All human beings are fit for the soaring and the ascent toward infinite perfection. All human beings can become great, and great, and ever greater. This capacity exists in everyone. Of course, take note: the beings and the human beings who are perceptibly above the level of the ordinary human being — that is, the prophets and the imams — they are not included in this general statement of mine.
When we said that every human being can soar and reach to infinity, we did not mean that a human being can also become a prophet or an imam through his own striving and struggle; that is another discussion. How a prophet becomes a prophet, or an imam an imam — that is a subsequent matter. In another talk, in another discussion, if we are able, we may make a brief reference to it. In summary: the prophets and the imams — God's blessings be upon them — they enjoy greater capacities, they have certain peculiarities that do not exist in the ordinary human being. Of course, you know that their number is small, they are exceptional, and the discussion is about the individuals of human societies in general. Yet even those same prophets and imams, in their root and in their material origin, are no different at all from ordinary human beings — "their father is Adam and the mother is Eve."
This is an Islamic teaching. In the shade of Tawhid it was taught to human beings and set down as a matter of record: in the very fabric of society there is no class division. The society that Islam brings into being is not group-by-group, not class-by-class; it is impossible for some people to enjoy rights that others do not. In that society it is not said that people were created from two roots, two sources, two stems, or more. In that society it is not said that one person was created from clay and that other one — let us suppose — was created from light. From the material standpoint, the material origin of all is one and the same thing.
Tawhid, then, is the guarantor of the negation of social classes — Tawhid in the sense of holding that there is one God, and that the creation and governance and administration of the world all proceed from that one God.
There is a point to make here, though: social classes have not always taken the form I described and expounded regarding India. A philosophy of that sort is not found everywhere. It may well be that in certain societies, among certain communities and nations, the philosophy and claims and outlooks put forward among the people place everyone on a single level — yet in practice class division exists, just as it exists in our world today.
Today, look at the world — especially the capitalist world, especially those countries that have risen to a greater height in terms of capitalism: there, class division is conspicuously visible. Of course, there they have never said that the laborers and the employers were created from two origins, two roots of creation and formation — no. They do not say that the gentleman who owns some great company, some cartel, and the laborer in some mine are of two stems, of two roots — no. But the practice they carry out together, the regulations they lay down for these two groups, the conduct they establish between these two kinds of human being, differs little from that of the people who believed these were created from two roots and two origins. For one group, infinite opportunities; for the larger group, zero. One group exploits the wealth of the whole world to its own benefit; the other is not even permitted to eat, alone, the fruit of its own toil.
Class division in this sense too holds true, and it exists in the world today. Indeed, I want to say even more: this class division is more base and more insidious than the class division of that earlier day. Those people said outright: "Yes, we are different from one another." These people say: "We are brothers, we are all on a single scale, we are the very protectors of your rights" — yet in practice it is not so; those same distinctions exist. Sometimes, in administering legal regulations, certain equalities are observed — So-and-so likewise committed such-and-such a sin and was subjected to such-and-such a penalty, even though he is of the upper class. But look closer, and the root of the matter is something else. Again those same class divisions, again those same social distinctions, remain in full force. In reality the favors are confined to one particular group, and the majority are deprived; and the first thing they are deprived of is a sound understanding and perception, a full and correct development.
Islam has negated all of this. When I gave thought to the verses of the Qur'an on the theme of the negation of social classes — across the whole of this precious Book — I saw that there is a great deal of it, and I have written down a few here. A corner of these teachings, whose mark is manifest in the verses below, is as follows:
The Creator and the Worshipped One and the Director of the affairs of all is God. This is an Islamic statement. The Creator of all is one — He is God. You may say, "What difference does it make?" It makes a great deal of difference. Suppose we hold that the Creator is two — a hypothetical case, not the scholastic debate, which I do not wish to enter into. The first effect that philosophy of two gods produces is this: two groups come into being in society. To believe in one God, by contrast, means that the people of society are all of one rank, one group, one class, brothers standing side by side with one another.
I am concerned with the implication of this statement, not with the implications of that obsolete, ancient philosophy. I want you to take note of what it means to believe that God is one. God is one and not two — that is, the servants of God are on a single scale, not on two. This is one of the meanings of "God is one and not two," though not its entire meaning: the servants of God are not in two classes; they are in one class. Why? Because their God is one, their Creator is one.
Did God have greater love for one group of them when He created them? And the Jews and the Christians said: 'We are the sons of God and His beloved ones.'
The Jews said: "We are the children of God and His friends." God the Exalted, in another place, throws one of their crimes in their faces. He both answers them and reproaches them: Then why did you kill the prophets?
If you are so very friendly and close and kindred with God, then why did you kill His prophets? Why did you kill His chosen servants? The Jews used to say: "We are the children of God and the intimates of God; we have a special privilege." No indeed — Islam says this is a false claim. In another place He says: Say: 'O you who are Jews, if you claim that you are the friends of God to the exclusion of [other\ people, then wish for death, if you are truthful.']
If you say that you are so very friendly and close with God — then, if you are speaking the truth, wish for death! Escape from this hollow life, reach the beloved God who stands on the same front as your kinsfolk; since for you that place is your own home, then wish for death. And He says: But they will never wish for it.
It is impossible for these people to wish for death. A Jew, and to wish for death?!
So the Creator and the Worshipped One and the Director of the affairs of all is God. This is a very important matter: once the Creator and the Worshipped One are one, then human beings inevitably stand on one class, one scale. All were created from a single material root and stem. We dwell on this word "material" and lay a special emphasis upon it: from the material aspect, from the aspect of the bodily structure, all human beings were created from one root and one stem.
No one, in creation, is endowed with a privilege that would be the source of legal rights and prerogatives. Take note of this too: it is not that no one is endowed with any privilege at all. On the contrary, some human beings, owing to certain conditions, acquire a particular aptitude — and that is a privilege. One person may, by the conditions of his creation, have come into being a genius. Another may have been born of a gifted father and mother. One is less gifted, one is more powerful, one is weaker and thinner, one is more beautiful, one is uglier — so these differences exist. But these differences are not the source of a difference in rights. It is not the case that the one who is endowed with greater bodily strength is thereby endowed with greater social rights — never! It is not the case that the one who has come into the world in an aristocratic and influential household is thereby endowed with greater opportunities. Never!
If Islam opens a school, it opens it for all children; if it provides education and upbringing, it provides it for all children; if it gives human beings the opportunity for trade and work and effort and striving in life, it gives it to all; if it gives work, it gives it to all. In an Islamic society, under the shadow of Islamic regulations, with an Islamic government, it is not the case that anyone needs connections in order to study, to work, to understand things, to earn money, to obtain employment, to be employed — even up to the highest positions. An Islamic society is like this: a vast field, with millions of roads laid open before millions of human beings. Let them go, let all make use of it, let all run in this field toward their material and spiritual aims. There is no problem whatever; the road lies open before everyone — contrary to the non-monotheistic systems, the systems of jahiliyyah (ignorance), which pave the road for some and choke it for others with thorns and stones and obstacles. As Sa'di put it: "They tie up the stone and let the dog loose." In an Islamic society it is not like this.
In an Islamic society everyone can reach the highest positions. Well, you see — Bilal the Abyssinian reached the rank of muezzin (don't look at the muezzin of today, where the muezzin of the Imam Hasan Mosque, Mash Ishaq, feels a sense of inferiority, and at the proper hour often does not come — as if he is not here to hear this — some days he comes, some days he does not come). The rank of muezzin is a very great and splendid rank in Islam, a most honorable rank; not everyone became a muezzin. Bilal, the black Abyssinian, of a low social origin by the standards of the jahiliyyah of that time — he reaches the rank of muezzin, one of the highest of ranks. Salman the Persian, by the standards of that day, was of a lower origin, because the Arabs considered themselves superior and every other human being inferior. Salman was a Persian, after all — he was from Isfahan. A Persian, a foreigner, come from a distant land, who had perhaps learned the Arabic language poorly and surely did not even speak it well — yet he reaches the governorship and rule of a vast region. And many, many more of this same kind.
So no one, in creation, is endowed with a privilege that would be the source of legal rights — even though he is endowed with certain privileges. All the privileges are at the disposal of all, and bound up with one's own continuous effort and striving and struggle. Every position is open — except those special positions divinely appointed for the guidance and leadership of mankind, which I am not now speaking of. The whole world is His; it belongs to God, and human beings are all paupers at His threshold. All must ask from Him, all must take from Him, all must stretch out the hand of need toward Him; and here all are equal.
Even Imam Sajjad — God's blessings be upon him — son of the Prophet, son of the Commander of the Faithful, son of Fatimah al-Zahra and of Husayn ibn 'Ali, peace be upon them all — even he must lament, must wail, must shed tears; and he does this very thing. A pure man not belonging to this household must, in the face of God, likewise wail. For earning a livelihood and the affairs of this world, Imam Baqir — God's blessings be upon him — and Imam Sadiq too go and wield the spade. An ordinary man too wields the spade. Let me not cite Imam Sadiq as the example — the Commander of the Faithful, peace and blessings be upon him, too works; works in the era of his power, in the era of his lordship. In the time of the Prophet, one of the greatest commanders of the Prophet's army, in most of the battles and in all the battles, is the Commander of the Faithful. He goes and wields the spade, he goes and tends gardens, he goes and does the irrigation, and so on. You see — if you want to obtain money, you must work; if you want knowledge, you must study; if you want a political position, you must make the necessary effort. And the road of effort lies open before all; everyone, whoever has made the effort, attains.
This is the logic of Islam, and of course this logic can be clearly found throughout the Qur'an, in various verses, in abundance. Here too, again, I refer you to the Qur'an and to the text of the Qur'an. Go, open the Qur'an, look at the Qur'an with deliberation, so that we may not be included in this verse: Do they not then ponder the Qur'an, or are there locks upon [their\ hearts?]
Let there be no locks upon our hearts; let us ponder the Qur'an. Now attend to these verses of the first portion, relating to Surat al-Mu'minun, verses 84 to 91: Say: 'To whom belongs the earth and whoever is in it, if you know?'
O Prophet, say: the earth and whatever is in it, whose is it? — if you know. Say to the polytheists, to those polytheists who used to divide up and demarcate the spheres of influence of their own gods — say: the earth and whatever is in it, to whom does it belong? They will say: 'To God.'
They will say: it is God's. Well, the polytheists of Mecca believed in Allah, and they regarded the idols as intercessors who would intercede for them before Allah. Say: 'Will you not then take heed?'
Say: then why do you not come to your senses? Say: 'Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the Great Throne?'
Say: who is the Director of the seven heavens and the Director of the great Throne? What is the meaning of "Throne"? Which are the seven heavens? Some of it we gave a brief explanation of in certain discussions in the past, and some of it we did not explain — now is not the place for it; there are things to be said, but at any rate, when there is some occasion, some opportunity, I shall present them. In summary, it is not very important either — They will say: 'To God.'
They will say: those too are God's. The power and dominion of the Lord is spread over the heavens and the earth. Say: 'Will you not then be God-fearing?'
Say: then why do you not have fear of this God? Why do you not order your deeds and your thoughts according to His word and His command? Say: 'In whose hand is the dominion of all things, and He grants protection while none can be protected against Him?'
Say: who is it in whose hand lies the absolute dominion and sovereignty of all things? Those who have power at their disposal — the utmost of it is mastery over the outer surface of some physical thing. You own your house: you move a brick from one place to another, and your mastery reaches only that far. You pick up a piece of iron and set it down elsewhere, you weld two pieces together or pull them apart — and your mastery over a piece of iron reaches only that far. But the One who has mastery over all the atoms and parts of this being — the motion of its atoms is at His disposal and command; in plants the growth and development, in animals and human beings all the inner motions of their being and all their affairs are in the grip of His power. He is God. "Say: 'In whose hand is the dominion of all things'" — say: in whose hand is the dominion and sovereignty and power of all things — "and He grants protection" — and He grants protection, "while none can be protected against Him" — against Him, no one is granted protection; that is, were you to flee from God and take refuge with someone else against God, "none can be protected against Him" — this is its meaning. Suppose the Christians disobey God, flee into the embrace of Jesus, and Jesus grants them protection and defends them against God — such a thing is not possible. "And He grants protection" — He grants protection to every being, to every human being — "while none can be protected against Him" — against Him, in opposition to Him, no one is granted protection — "if you know." They will say: 'To God.'
— if you know. Who is it that is so? "They will say: 'To God.'" They will say: the dominion of all things is in God's hand, and it is God who grants protection, and against Him no one is granted protection. Say: 'Then how are you bewitched [deluded\?',nofn]
Say: then how are you deceived?
And it is subtle that the Qur'an lays such emphasis on being deceived — on being deceived, on remaining heedless. Constantly it wants the people not to remain heedless, not to be deceived, but to open their eyes. The Qur'an is confident that if the people open their eyes, its purpose is secured — and that is indeed correct. We too today say this very thing. We say: if the world today would open its eyes, this Qur'an of ours would establish a world government. But ignorance and arrogance do not allow it, and on the other side treacherous hands will not let eyes be opened. Rather, We have brought them the truth, and indeed they are liars.
Rather, We have placed the truth at their disposal, and truly they are liars. We have made the matter clear to them, We have placed the truth at their disposal; with this attitude they have adopted, intellectually and practically, they fabricate excuses, they fabricate lying excuses. God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god alongside Him.
God has not taken to Himself any son — "nor is there any god alongside Him" — no worshipped being has existed beside Him and with Him.
Note also that the point of reliance and citation lies more in this part — although the earlier verses too had some bearing on what was intended. …for then each god would have taken off with what he created.
Were there gods, each god would have carried off its own creature and creation in some direction — meaning division, class division among human beings, the removal of cohesion and unity from the creation of the world and of the human being. Whoever holds that there is a god of light and a god of darkness, a human god, a god of the upper class and of the lower class, regards this creation as a patchwork of separate scraps. But in the view of Tawhid, creation is a single, cohesive piece. The human being and the animal and the mountain and the sphere and the earth are connected and joined; and the beings, all of them together, have connection and bond with one another, all have unity with one another. "For then each god would have taken off with what he created" — were there several gods and worshipped beings, each god, each worshipped being, would have carried its own creature and creation in some direction — …and some of them would have lorded it over others.
And some of them would have gained supremacy over others. Glory be to God, far above what they describe.
Pure and exalted and free is God from what they describe.
(This was one portion of today's recitation. The other portion — allow me to read it from this very paper, for if I wish to read from the text of the Qur'an, I would have to keep searching to find it. Does any of the gentlemen have a Qur'an in hand?) The next portion is from Surat al-Baqarah, verses 21 and 22: O mankind!
Behold, O people, O human beings — addressed to whom? It is not addressed to the upper and lower classes. It is not addressed to black or white human beings. It is not addressed to one group of humanity; it is addressed to all of humanity. Our emphasis is on this word: "O mankind," behold, O human beings — "worship your Lord," render worship and servitude to your Lord, who is one — "who created you," the One who created you — "and those who were before you," and all those who came before you — "that you may be God-fearing," so that you may take up taqwa (God-consciousness). That is, this worship, this servitude, is a cause of taqwa. The servitude of God is one of the things that brings taqwa into being — that fine, attractive state I have expounded for you, that state of immunity from sin within the soul, within the human being. Hence, in a society where all the people are servants of God, where the society itself takes the form of servitude to God, taqwa is as abundant as you wish. There is no famine of taqwa as in our age! [He\ who made the earth a couch [a resting-place] for you.]
See, everything is for all. The One who appointed for you — and "you" means whom? Human beings, all of them. "The earth a couch" — He spread out the earth, "and the sky a structure [an edifice]," and the heaven a firm-built edifice, "and sent down from the sky water," and from the sky He sent down rain water, "and brought forth thereby fruits as a provision for you" — He brought forth, by means of this rain, fruits as a provision for you; not a provision for a particular class, of whose charity you might eat — no; for all. Now that it is so: …so do not set up rivals to God while you know.
So do not become believers in two gods. By positing two gods, by supposing a rival and a competitor for God, do not divide human beings into two groups and three groups and ten groups — all are one group. "So do not set up rivals to God while you know" — you who know, do not suppose for God partners and competitors.
Next, Surat al-Hujurat, this famous verse that is very current and in circulation on tongues, verse 13: O mankind, We created you from a male and a female.
O human beings — again the address is to all — We created you from a male and a female. All of you, from a single man and a single woman — the very thing that, in the Diwan attributed to the Commander of the Faithful, peace and blessings be upon him, is expressed thus, and its content is this same verse: "People, with respect to their composition, are equals; their father is Adam and the mother is Eve."
All are alike and equal with respect to the origin and root of creation. "And We made you into peoples and tribes that you may know one another" — the being-made into branch upon branch and tribe upon tribe is for mutual acquaintance and recognition. (This too, of course, needs a brief explanation, but since the time has passed, I leave it for another time, if it should be necessary.) "Indeed, the most honored of you in the sight of God is the most God-fearing among you" — this is the decisive Islamic ruling on the negation of social classes: the most honored of you in the sight of God is the one with the most taqwa. That is, belonging to a certain class, a certain family, a certain lineage and clan, is no cause of greater honor.
And here is a yet more interesting and subtle point: those who possess taqwa, who stand higher than others, are still not endowed with greater rights. People of taqwa do not receive a little more money, a few more rights, more and better social privileges — no, no indeed; it is not so. Rather, "Indeed, the most honored of you in the sight of God" — they are dearer in the sight of God. Of course, taqwa is the source of certain social effects, up to a certain limit, but not very much; there are certain occupations and posts whose condition is the possession of taqwa — only to this extent. "Indeed, God is All-Knowing, All-Aware" — indeed, God is Knowing and Informed.
Again, another portion: there is a verse relating to Surat al-Isra', verse 70: And We have certainly honored the children of Adam, and carried them on land and sea, and provided them with good things, and favored them above many of those We created with a marked favor.
Certainly We honored the children of Adam — "and carried them on land and sea," We bore them, We carried them, on the dry land and on the sea, We provided the means of their travel — "and provided them" — that this "and carried them on land and sea" may also, incidentally, allude to the relations that exist among human beings; for if human beings could not move from one point to another, if this capacity did not exist in them, then a human society might well, on a certain supposition, fall into fragmentation — "and provided them with good things," and We endowed them with good things, "and favored them above many of those We created with a marked favor," and We gave them superiority over many of Our creatures. Whom? Of whom is the talk? Whom did We honor? To whom did We give provision of good things? And whom did We favor above many of Our creatures? — Human beings, not a particular class or clan.
(My presentation has come to its end; and it seems the time too has somewhat passed. Today's recitation of the Qur'an will be performed by one of our dear reciters. I request that he come forward.)
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, make the Qur'an our support in this world and the hereafter. By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, O Lord! Do not withhold from us Your good through the teaching of the Qur'an.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 14 · 42:19
- Ep 15 — The Psychological Effects of TawhidSession 13: The Psychological Effects of Tawhid.
delivered Tuesday, 9 Mehr 1353 / 14 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat Al 'Imran (3:172-173).
Those who responded to God and the Messenger after the wound had befallen them — for those of them who did good and were mindful of God there is a great reward. Those to whom people said, 'The people have gathered against you, so fear them,' yet it only increased them in faith, and they said, 'God is sufficient for us, and how excellent a Guardian He is.'
We have taken up a number of discussions about the effects that tawhid produces within the fabric of society — the shape it gives to human community and to a monotheistic community. There are, of course, still other discussions on this subject, but for various reasons we are setting aside continuing with them. Here is the most important reason. Take the effect of tawhid and of the monotheistic outlook upon the financial affairs of a tawhid-based society — one of the important planks of the tawhid "resolution." That topic, of course, requires a great deal of discussion. But to derive this matter from the verses of the Qur'an is a somewhat exacting and delicate task, and it is not a subject suited to public sessions and general gatherings. True, the Qur'an does show the monotheistic outlook on worldly wealth, in the expression and give them of the wealth of God which He has given you — that is, give of the wealth of God, the wealth that God has given you and which is God's wealth; meaning give it to the needy and to cases of need and want. These points do exist. But to take the totality of the verses dealing with wealth and, in light of the monotheistic outlook, draw inferences and make use of them, is a task that belongs to more scholarly settings. It is delicate, it is exacting, and it is not really suitable for us to write out on these mimeographed pages, hand them to people, and then sit here for an hour and debate it. So we set those discussions aside.
The other reason was this: we have more pressing discussions to undertake regarding the doctrinal and ideological foundations of Islam. We still have material to cover, and it is necessary that — if life and opportunity permit — we bring these discussions to a conclusion by the end of the month of Ramadan, or at least bring them to some point of completion. And it is obvious that if we wished to proceed in this manner and discuss every chapter and every issue, we would not reach the destination that is intended. So that is the second reason. All in all, these were the reasons that we set aside continuing with the discussion of the social effects of tawhid.
Today our discussion is about tawhid, but it bears a relationship to our earliest topics — the ones we discussed concerning faith, the effects of faith, and the glad tidings given to the believers. Faith, as we said back then, means precisely that state of action-producing, commitment-creating belief. Action-producing belief — and of course we said that it must arise out of awareness, that it must not be blind, bare, and divorced from righteous action. These were the discussions we conducted earlier. Belief in tawhid is a kind of faith. It is a conscious faith for the aware monotheist; it is an action-producing, commitment-engendering faith. The commitment that tawhid places upon the shoulders of the monotheist is the greatest of commitments, the heaviest of commitments, the most consequential of commitments among all Islamic and religious beliefs. The commitment of tawhid, on the part of a monotheist, is in truth summed up in the commitment to build a monotheistic world. The commitment of tawhid, from the standpoint of the monotheist and for the monotheist, consists in the commitment to wipe away all the traces of polytheism. These are the commitments of tawhid.
Let me here point out something to the friends and brothers who have a little familiarity with the Arabic language. The word tawhid belongs to the taf'il form (the causative/intensive verbal pattern). Ask any seminary student what tawhid means, what its literal meaning is, and he will say: "to make one." Tawhid comes from wahdat (oneness), from the root of oneness, from the stem of unity — that is, to be one. Tawhid, in its taf'il form — as we seminary students put it — means "to make one." Tawhid means to make one, to render unified, to make into a single thing. What does that mean? It means turning a multiplicity of gods into one single God; turning a non-monotheistic society into a monotheistic one; making the polytheist's mind and the polytheist's heart into a monotheist's mind and a monotheist's heart. Tawhid — making-one — is entirely commitment. There is doing in it, there is work in it; the very word tawhid demands and entails this. And this is a point such that attention to it causes a special clear-sightedness regarding tawhid to come into being within a person.
Well then: belief in tawhid is a faith of this magnitude and grandeur, a commitment of this weight, this decisiveness, this determinativeness. Whichever of the other beliefs you consider — Islamic, religious, or any of the non-Islamic social beliefs — its commitment is not of this weight and this grandeur. Removing poverty from society, for instance, is a kind of commitment; or moderating wealth in any society is a kind of commitment that a given school of thought may have undertaken. Abolishing war is a commitment that a given school may have placed upon its own shoulders, and a people, by inclining toward that school, by adhering to that school, may have transferred that commitment to themselves. All this is correct. But take tawhid in its proper meaning, its Islamic meaning — not in its superstitious, lazy-minded sense, but in its true and correct sense. If we conceive of tawhid as making God one, bringing into being divine governance, a divine society, divine law, a divine order, then it encompasses all of those commitments that I mentioned, which one school and another may possess, and beyond them other commitments as well. See how heavy the commitment of tawhid is.
Well then: so this is a faith; it is conscious; it is accompanied by commitment; its commitment is heavier than the commitment of all foundations of belief, religious and non-religious, and it is more decisive, more comprehensive, and more all-embracing. This is tawhid. If tawhid carries this meaning and is a sound, real faith, then it is fitting that we examine and see what the effect of this faith, the effect of this action-producing belief, will be upon the psyche of the believer, and what it ought to be. This is an independent question. Consider the one who has come to believe in tawhid — who has come to believe that God is one in every corner and nook and in the various domains of human life, just as God is one in all the corners of the world of creation. When a person attains this belief, what sorts of effects come into being in his spirit?
The benefit of this discussion is twofold. One is that we will become a little more acquainted with tawhid. We will understand what kind of spiritual and psychological instruction tawhid means. If at some point someone draws a numbing, sedative inference from tawhid, we can say: Sir, this is wrong; the effect of tawhid is not what you say; what I say — that is what it is. So we come to know tawhid: this is the first benefit. The second benefit is that we come to know ourselves — whether we are monotheists or not monotheists. It is a touchstone for recognizing the substance of tawhid within one's own heart. How am I to know that I am a monotheist? How am I to know that this faith has, within my spirit, in the depths of my being, taken effect and penetrated? Once I have learned what the psychological effect of tawhid is like — once I have understood what definite effects this medicine produces in one's being — then I can put it to the test. I look and see whether these effects are present or absent. From that I will know whether I took the medicine correctly or took the wrong one; whether they gave me the genuine one or the counterfeit. If I see that those intended effects do not exist in me, I will understand that the bottle of medicine they had given us was a bottle of counterfeit medicine, that it was not the genuine one — for if it had been genuine, it would have produced other effects. As for me, if I wished to speak about the psychological effects of tawhid as well, the discussion would drag on and grow long. So I want to finish this today too, so that tomorrow, God willing, we may turn to the discussion of prophethood.
The psychological effect of tawhid can be summed up in a few sentences. One effect the monotheist's spirit derives through tawhid is a breadth of horizon in his vision. The monotheist is free and at ease from narrow-mindedness, from shortsightedness, from near-sightedness. The monotheist does not say, "I was defeated in this arena," or "our front retreated in this matter and the affair ended to our loss." He is not so shortsighted. He knows that monotheistic thought has a domain as long as the lifespan of mankind. Measured against the lifespan of humanity, ten years, twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years are no more than a single instant, a single minute. To put it another way, and from another vantage point: the monotheist's horizon of vision is not confined to, does not come to a halt at, material concerns and base, paltry needs. When the monotheist looks before himself, alongside his material needs he sees dozens of needs, hundreds of needs, among the most immense and most precious of human needs. His entire mind and thought and attention are not arrested at base, paltry, petty needs. He has not imprisoned himself within them — in the way that human beings who are inwardly material, even if outwardly divine, outwardly spiritual, have incarcerated themselves. When the monotheist looks, he sees the future before himself as infinitely vast. As I mentioned on one of the past days, the monotheist does not regard the world as having an end — because he sees the end of this world as connected to the Hereafter. He regards the Hereafter and this world as the two ends of a single scroll. He does not regard death as the wall of life; he does not suppose it to be the end of this road; rather he regards it as an opening and a passage and a thoroughfare toward a vaster world. These are the properties of tawhid.
A non-monotheist, however self-sacrificing, however captivated by noble and humane ideals, finds that everything for him comes to an end at the moment of death. Whereas for the monotheist, death is the beginning of a vaster life and a more interesting, more pleasing environment. A materialist, even if he were very self-sacrificing, is prepared to cast himself into that place, into that zone, which in his view is nothingness and non-existence. But a monotheist, even if he is very self-sacrificing — like a moth, like a candle — nothing is expected of him except self-immolation, except not giving a thought to his own personal interests. And even if he were not so self-sacrificing, even if he did not rise to it, even if he did not want to sacrifice himself so much, still, for him, falling into that zone which the materialist saw as non-existence is easier — for the reason that he does not see that place as non-existence. He knows and recognizes that place too as another environment, another station, another zone of this vast zone of human life.
Among the effects of tawhid upon the spirit of a monotheist is this: it dries up the root of fear within him — and this is very important. In the Qur'an, in several places — and in today's recitations one or two instances will reach the hearing of the gentlemen and will be reflected upon — the believers are addressed with: "…so do not fear them, but fear Me…" — dry up the root of fearing others within your heart, and fear Me. And whoever fears God fears no one else. Whoever was a monotheist, whoever had belief in the power of the Lord, fear vanishes within him. And I, when I look, when I reflect, when I calculate, I see that it is fear — dread and terror — that strips this world and the Hereafter from those who possess them. Fear of poverty causes a person not to give in charity. Fear of being afflicted and beset by hardships causes a person to submit to crimes and catastrophes and humiliations and degradations. Fear of not being able to live in this world for even two more days — and what a life! what a kind of life! — fear of losing this very base life, which is not even certain to last two days or three days. No official deed was issued guaranteeing that you will be alive until such-and-such a year, until such-and-such a date. Fear of losing such a worthless life causes a person to put an end to other lives, to embitter or destroy social life. Greed traces back to fear, and fears are the root of the miseries in human lives. Look across the whole of history and you will see what things caused the supporters of truth to find themselves in the minority — there, where they found themselves in the minority. What things caused a people who had recognized the truth not to follow the truth — there, where truth-recognizing people did not follow the truth. What things caused a people to stain themselves with great crimes — there, where you see a people staining themselves with crimes. Most often, when a person pursues, investigates, and studies, he finds that the source of all of this is fear. Fear!
As all of you know, the course of the Islamic society fell into deviation and decline. True Islam was a gift and present that God had given and delivered to the Muslims free of charge — the second generation had received it free of charge; the sacrifices had been made for the first generation. This gift was placed at their disposal at no cost. What, then, caused them to be unable to keep it for themselves, to preserve it? What but fear? Who did not know Mu'awiya among the people who were around the Commander of the Faithful and within range of that great man's teachings and instructions and discourses — who? In the Hijaz, who did not know Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan? Who did not know Yazid ibn Mu'awiya? Who did not know 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan? The dynasty of the Umayyads — who were the ones who did not know them, did not recognize them, had not tested them, had no historical experience of them, had not understood — had not felt — the word of the Qur'an and the word of the Prophet and the condemnatory historical reality concerning them? Everyone knew. What but fear? The reason they went and submitted, the reason they collaborated, the reason they became hirelings, the reason that in their station of hireling-service they also engaged in flattery and danced attendance — this was nothing but fear. And this fear, from the lowest classes of the people up to the elite classes, up to the famous figures, up to those in whom the people had placed their hopes — it had taken hold of them all.
'Abdullah ibn 'Umar was a symbol of incapacity, of weakness of soul, and of refusal to accept the truth. His refusal to accept truth was paired with incapacity — as I have said, otherwise 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr too was a refuser of truth. When a person looks, he finds, on the whole, the figure of 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr — that executioner-henchman opposed to 'Ali — more acceptable than the figure of a man like 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar. 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar is a man who, after 'Uthman was killed, did not pledge allegiance to the Commander of the Faithful. Why did he not pledge allegiance? He said: "The matter is not clear to me." He exercised caution; he did not pledge allegiance to 'Ali, peace be upon him. Out of utmost caution for the sake of religion, he did not pledge allegiance to the Commander of the Faithful. For he saw that — by his own reckoning and in his own imagination — not all the Muslims were in consensus on this question. Well, if you had no personal interest, if you were not gripped by ulterior motives and diseases of the heart, consider this sentence you had heard from the Commander of the Faithful: "Do not feel desolate on the path of guidance because of the fewness of those upon it". Had its very import — from the Prophet, from the Noble Qur'an — not sunk into your very flesh, become a part of you? Had you not known that on the path of God, on the right path, on the path of guidance, whether the travelers be few or many, a person ought not to change his path and alter his resolve, but must see whether the path of guidance exists or not? There is an important Islamic principle effective in life: not paying attention to what others say, not heeding how the ignorance-enslaved or motive-driven majorities act. Because this principle was not at his disposal, was not in his hand, was not operative, he withdrew from the Commander of the Faithful and did not pledge allegiance, out of caution.
Years passed after this episode. The Commander of the Faithful — God's blessings be upon him — was martyred, and Mu'awiya ruled for years. By then this same 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar had come to know Mu'awiya thoroughly and from close up; and even if it had not been clear to him that day, it had become clear to him afterward. Then too the era of Yazid — those three disgraceful years in the history of Islam — had passed; Marwan ibn al-Hakam was Yazid's successor and the father of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, and he too spent his brief period of rule; then 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan came to power. And throughout all this period 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar had been in Medina, in the heart of affairs and events, in the very midst of historical incidents and occurrences. He had not been uninformed; he had not been unaware of what had passed and had come upon the Islamic society; individuals had not remained unknown to him; he had come to know the Umayyads well. Even so, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi, the notorious executioner-henchman of the Umayyads, came on behalf of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to conquer Mecca, which was in the possession of 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr was resisting there and fighting fiercely against the forces of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan that had come from Syria. They saw that they must bring this disturbance to an end and finish it. Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was the most ruthless executioner of them all; they sent him. And he came, set up catapults atop the mountains surrounding Mecca, and rained stones upon the House of God; he killed a great number of the people; then they killed 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr too, and crucified the corpse of his slain body.
Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was sitting in his tent, occupied with writing a letter and reporting the conquest to Syria, the center of the caliphate. 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar too was among the people of Mecca. The people began coming group after group and pledging allegiance to Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. It was not that these people did not know Hajjaj — they knew him. It was not that they were well aware of his Islam, his piety, his godliness, and his competence — everyone knew what a vile, base creature Hajjaj was, and on behalf of what even baser and viler creature he was an agent here. They knew these things too. But nevertheless, because he was the conqueror, because the power was in his hands, because if the people did not pledge allegiance to him he would set the sword loose upon them — out of fear, group after group they came and pledged allegiance to Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar, in the midst of thousands of other people, came near the tents of Hajjaj, which had been pitched outside the city. He said: "Tell him 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar has come" — imagining that they would honor him, would receive him with open arms, would warmly welcome him. He did not know that power, by its very nature, is heedlessness and shamelessness. He imagined that because he had once helped Mu'awiya and had given no help to the household of the Prophet, they would now appreciate his worth. He did not know that these people eat the salt and then break the saltcellar. He came; he said, "I am 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar." They told Hajjaj, "It is 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar." He said, "Tell him to come in." He came in. Hajjaj did not stir for him, did not pay him respect, did not even lift his head up from the paper to look at him and offer him a welcome. He said, "Commander, give me your hand so that I may pledge allegiance to you." Who is saying this? 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar. To whom? To Hajjaj. The same 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar who did not say to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, "Give me your hand so that I may pledge allegiance," who exercised caution there — caution in religion — says to Hajjaj, "Commander, give me your hand so that I may pledge allegiance to you." What did Hajjaj say in reply? Hajjaj said, "My hand is occupied with writing the letter; pledge allegiance to my foot." He stretched out his foot and said, "Pledge allegiance to my foot." And the man pledged allegiance to the foot of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. A base and abject person who, for the sake of two more days of living — and a living so wretched at that, a living in which there is neither the sweetness of this world nor the sweetness of the Hereafter, a living that holds within it nothing but the making-forbidden of a few kilos of food and nothing more, a living that does not bring a person closer to God; and brings him closer to Satan — for the sake of two more days of living of this sort, a man should come and pledge allegiance to Hajjaj, and to the foot of Hajjaj? What is its source? Its source is nothing but fear.
Therefore the narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt — peace and blessings be upon them — and the supplications that have come down to us give much special attention to these psychological matters, to what pertains to the human spirit. This is true above all in the month of Ramadan. And I have a most emphatic recommendation to everyone: recite the supplications, attend to the supplications transmitted from the Imams. In one of the supplications of Imam al-Sajjad — God's blessings be upon him — see how Imam al-Sajjad's teachings are — he says: "O God, grant me long life" (Allahumma 'ammirni). This is one sentence of supplication that I am explaining for you, for two reasons. First, so that those who recite supplications and those who love supplications may understand why supplication has been so emphasized — so that they may not take it lightly, may not recite it thoughtlessly and ignorantly, but recite it with a little attention. Second, so that those who are against supplications may know what things they are setting themselves against. Of course, we do not have a "supplication" in the sense of an anti-supplication; let those who categorically reject supplication know and understand what things lie within the teachings hidden in supplications.
"O God, grant me life — long life — so long as my life is expended in obedience to You" (Allahumma 'ammirni ma kana 'umri bidhlatan fi ta'atik): O God, grant me life, grant me living — but I do not want it unconditionally. I do not want a long life and a hundred years and a hundred-and-twenty years in vain. "…so long as my life is freely poured out in obedience to You" — so long as my life is poured out without stint upon the path of Your obedience and on the path of servitude to You, grant me life. The long life that makes my servitude to You longer — that is what I want. The long life that is expended in work, expended in action — that is what I want. I do not want a long life that is purposeless and pointless and idle. "O God, grant me life so long as my life is expended in obedience to You; and when…" — fa-idha kana 'umri marta'an li-l-shaytan fa-qbidni ilayk — "O God, whenever You see that my life has become a pasture-ground for Satan…" Satan — pay close attention; bring well into your mind the meaning of Satan, the meaning of Satan that we gave and that the speaking Qur'an gives: the forces that engender evil, anyone who drags the human being and humanity toward the way of error and the way of sin and the way of corruption — Satan means that — "…whenever You see that my life is the pasture-ground of satans, You see that it is a means by which the satans make use of me, You see that my life is the substance and the ground by which the fronts opposed to God profit from it, make use of me as propaganda, make use of my ignorance, make use of me as a weapon and an instrument, make use of my conceit, make use of my arrogance; whenever You see that I have become a means for the success of the wicked and for the failure of the good and virtuous; whenever You see that I have, in practice — even without my own knowing it — become a slave of Satan, become a pasture-ground of Satan — fa-qbidni ilayk — then take me unto Yourself. I do not want this life." This is the supplication.
I implore you by God: a person who says these words with his spirit, who says these words truthfully, who says these words out of attention to their meaning — what state does he come to find in his life? This is one supplication. This is how the Imams of guidance — peace and blessings be upon them — instruct us: those lives that are a means by which the enemies of God attain their desires — death is far better than those lives.
Well, then why fear death, you wretch! 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar! Why? Well, let yourself not stay alive. What would Hajjaj have done to you? As for your life — about which you did not even know whether you would be alive ten minutes after that shameful pledge of allegiance, or whether you would be alive ten years, and if alive, what kind of alive — let Hajjaj put an end to that life; let him put an end to it. Did you not see with what wretchedness 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas departed from this world? The 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas who left 'Ali alone in one place, who left al-Hasan alone in one place, who left al-Husayn alone in one place — from his fate, O 'Abdullah — 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar — you should have taken a lesson.
'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas did not live very long. His heart was full of blood. He had seated his son — 'Ali ibn 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas — beside himself and was pouring out his sorrows to him. They had slaughtered a cow, or apparently a calf, whose liver was diseased — what condition it was in, all torn to pieces — and he showed it to his son and said: "Look, your father's liver is more torn to pieces than the liver of this sheep or cow or calf that we slaughtered. I have been utterly worn down by this life." And what had happened, after all? That very city of Mecca, which had been 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas's refuge from the wrath of the Commander of the Faithful and his place of comfort in the face of the responsibility that the Commander of the Faithful would assign to him — that same city of Mecca had become the hell of 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas. I say that 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas does not have a sound tawhid; 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar does not have a sound tawhid. Had they been monotheists —
A monotheist — whether Indian sword be set upon his head, or showers of gold be poured before his feet — has neither hope nor dread of anyone: this and this alone is the meaning of tawhid.
He speaks truly — he speaks truly. The most important psychological effect of tawhid upon the spirit of a human being is this: that on the path of God, on the path of duty, on the path of what he discerns to be the purpose of his own existence, he does not dread the enemies of this path. I do not say that he should have no nervous weakness, that his heart should never sometimes feel a tremor of anxiety — no; he should have no active fear, no active dread. The fear and dread that would hold him back from treading the path of God — that should not exist within his being. These fears, these dreads, these terrors that obstruct virtues, that are a very good ground for the growth of unmanliness, the growth of crimes and catastrophes — these fears and dreads he should cast aside.
Now, in any case, this passage that we have selected today from the Noble Qur'an to recite for you consists of two parts: one is from Surat Al 'Imran — as we said, we will first recite that — and then there are a few verses from Surat al-Ra'd. Those of you who have a Qur'an with you, open it and find this portion that I mentioned. And the gentlemen who do not have a Qur'an, pay attention and concentrate.
(I am afraid I will forget this matter. Gentlemen, tonight — on the occasion that it is the night of the middle of the month of Ramadan and the birth of Imam al-Mujtaba, God's blessings be upon him — we are holding a ceremony in this mosque, in this very half-built mosque; that is, we have in fact arranged a celebration, an ordinary celebration, you understand. Last year too there was, of course, a celebration gathering here, and this year there is one as well. We have tried to make it from seven until nine — of course seven is the start of the session, but it may run from nine to nine-thirty, for instance; as for the end of it, we have nothing definite. In any case, we have arranged a youthful program, a fresh and delicate new program, to be carried out and performed here. A passage of the Qur'an will be recited, a poem will be recited, a short address will be given — in brief, it may be a very friendly gathering. Whichever of you gentlemen has the time may come. I forgot to mention it yesterday and today too I was afraid it would slip my mind, so I have mentioned it now.)
Which verse did we say? 172. Yes! Verse 172. Surat Al 'Imran, verse 172: Those who responded to God and the Messenger after the wound had befallen them — for those of them who did good and were mindful of God there is a great reward.
Of course, the preamble to the verse is lengthy; even this portion that I have selected — it is two or three verses of it that I have in view. So that you may have hold of the thread of the discussion, I will read two or three verses before it. "Those who responded to God and the Messenger" — those who gave answer to God and the Prophet. What does "gave answer" mean? It means they accepted the call of the Prophet and the divine call; they accepted it actively. Not just to say in their hearts, "Well, sir, we accept what you say" — no; they set out after the Prophet of God. And when? In the most severe and most difficult of circumstances they accepted the call of God and the Prophet. And when was that? It was at the time when they had been wounded on the battlefield. "After the wound had befallen them" — min ba'di ma asabahum al-qarh — after the qarh, that is, the wound, had reached them. "For those of them who did good and were mindful of God there is a great reward" — for those who did good and acted with virtue and adopted godfearing piety, those who gave answer to the call of God, a great reward, an immense recompense, is in store for them.
This verse relates to the Battle of Uhud. You know that at the Battle of Uhud a group had fled, and the Prophet of God was calling out to them; some were afraid and did not come, and some, even though they were wounded, came. The Commander of the Faithful on that day sustained seventy-one wounds — seventy-one, perhaps fewer, perhaps more; I do not exactly recall right now — he sustained many wounds, and a number of the other companions of the Prophet likewise, a little fewer. Some responded and accepted the call of God and the Messenger, and some did not accept and fled. This verse declares the recompense and reward of that group who did not flee but accepted and responded.
Those to whom people said… Alladhina qala lahum al-nasu — pay attention to the general aspects of these verses; let us not imprison ourselves in the Battle of Uhud, let us not confine the Qur'anic ideas to the events of early Islam and to what occasioned the revelation of these verses. What matters to us is the idea of the verse. What does the verse mean to say?
And this is a point in the Qur'an that I have perhaps noted on suitable occasions. Sometimes, in the course of a story, by the utterance of a single sentence connected to that story, a general Islamic principle is stated. Pay attention to this. For example, take the story of the Prophet Noah, at the point where Noah the Prophet has boarded the ark. He has brought his family and household aboard, and the believers and adherents and those on his front as well, while the rest of the creatures were placed under the threat of the divine fury of the Flood. A flood is coming, the water is welling up, the death-dealing waves are drowning the people on all sides. And there is a son of Noah who is not among the believers in him, who has not come to board. This is a story, an ordinary story being told, but full of subtleties and allusions.
Noah the Prophet — an old man, white-bearded, very advanced in years — and this, his young son, his beloved son, he says to him: "Come, board; come, board; you will drown." He says: "No indeed, I will not board, nor will I drown; I will go up the mountain, and I have no need of you either." In the midst of these very exchanges and conversations, a wave comes between them as a barrier, and the father no longer sees the son, and the son drowns. The matter comes to its end. Noah's heart, from its human side, is somewhat troubled — well, his son perished in this event. He lays his trouble before the Lord of the worlds, saying: "My Lord, You had promised that You would save my family, that You would save my household; well, my son too, who was of my household — would that he had been saved." Then, from the Lord of the worlds, an address comes: Indeed he is not of your family; indeed it is an unrighteous deed.
"Innahu laysa min ahlika" — he is not of your family; "innahu 'amalun ghayru salih" — he is an unrighteous deed. "…an unrighteous deed" — that act is unrighteous. We do not have to dwell on the whole story — though of course I am now leaning on a single word of it, otherwise there are abundant points to lean upon in these stories and in the story of Noah — "innahu laysa min ahlika": it presents to us and teaches us a general Islamic principle. It says: two brothers who do not think alike are strangers to one another, and two strangers who think alike are brothers to one another. If father and son did not think alike — this one a believer in God, that one a denier of God; this one on the front of God, that one on the front of Satan — then father and son have no kinship or relation with one another; they are not of one family. Kinship by lineage and by marriage, kinship related to blood, is, from the standpoint of Islam, of the second degree; kinship of thought is of the first degree. See — this is an Islamic principle.
Again, when a person looks into the narrations as well, he finds abundant indications and many pieces of evidence for this principle. I have seen a narration from the Imam, peace be upon him, who says: "The believer is the brother of the believer through his father and his mother" (al-mu'minu akhu al-mu'mini li-abihi wa-ummih) — the believer is a brother through father and mother; that is, you may be as distant from your full brother — your brother through father and mother — as the East is from the West, but with a believer on the other side of the world you may be a brother through father and mother; with one who thinks like you, with one on your front, with one whose faith matches your faith. This is an Islamic principle. In these Qur'anic accounts, pay attention to these points; see what it means to say, what principle, what idea, what historical reality — which may perhaps be repeated in a hundred other places — it is stating. Now pay attention to this verse.
Those to whom people said… "Alladhina qala lahum al-nasu" — these recipients of our reward and recompense are the ones to whom they said, "the people"; a group said to them. What did they say? They said: "Inna al-nasa qad jama'u lakum fa-khshawhum" — they said to them, "The creatures have gathered against you, they have plotted, they have joined hands, they want to wipe you out; so fear them." This is what the well-wishers and the prudence-minded said to this group of believers. The believer whose reward and recompense we mentioned in the previous verse is the kind of believer who, when the well-wishers and prudence-minded said such a thing to them, in answer — what did they say? "Fa-zadahum imanan" — first, their faith was increased by this matter. That the enemy's plot should increase the believer's faith is most remarkable. First, their faith was increased; then what did they say? "Wa-qalu hasbuna Allahu wa-ni'ma al-wakil" — they said: "God is enough for us, and how excellent a Guardian is God." A good one is He to whom a person can entrust his affair.
"Hasbuna Allahu wa-ni'ma al-wakil" — God is enough for us. What does "God is enough for us" mean? "God is enough for us" has several meanings, all of them correct. God is enough for us, and He aids us with His own help. God is enough for us — He has set, and sets, the forces of nature in the direction of our course, which is the direction of the truth. God is enough for us — meaning, even if we do not attain the sweetness of this world, may God be pleased with us; God is enough for us. And each of these meanings, and the other meanings that you may take from "hasbuna Allahu wa-ni'ma al-wakil," is correct. "Fa-zadahum imanan" — when it was said to them, "fa-khshawhum," "fear the people, fear the enemies," their faith was increased, "wa-qalu" — and they said: "hasbuna Allahu wa-ni'ma al-wakil" — God is enough for us, and He is the best guardian and support.
So they returned with a blessing from God and bounty; no evil touched them, and they followed the good pleasure of God; and God is the possessor of great bounty. "Fa-nqalabu bi-ni'matin mina Allahi wa-fadlin lam yamsashum su'" — "lam yamsashum su'," no evil touched them; they returned with a blessing from God and bounty and increase. First, these very people — their abode became the blessing of God, and no evil, distress, or harm touched them, and they became happy and glad. How did they become happy and glad? The Qur'an does not say what became of them; it makes no difference; however it may have come about, whether they were martyred on that battlefield or returned safe and free to their homes, made their way back to the city of Medina — it is all one ('ala al-sawa'). If they returned to their home and life, they came as victors and triumphant ones, and no distress touched them — because the wound of the battlefield, in the warm environment of family and with contentment from triumph and victory, heals quickly. "Fa-nqalabu bi-ni'matin mina Allahi wa-fadl" — and if they fell upon the dust of the battlefield and were martyred, then here, all the more — "fa-nqalabu bi-ni'matin mina Allahi wa-fadl" — there they returned toward the blessing of God: blessing without decline, bounty without end, a bounty in which there is no evil whatsoever, an ease in which there is not the least trace of distress or harm. "Lam yamsashum su'" — no evil touched them.
"Innama dhalikum al-shaytanu yukhawwifu awliya'ah" — remember this verse, keep it in mind, recite it often and learn it. "Innama dhalikum al-shaytanu yukhawwifu awliya'ah" — it is nothing but that these speakers are Satan. It is Satan who frightens his own friends. He says: "Sir, they have laid a plot for you, they have hatched a conspiracy against you, the enemies have gathered an army, the hypocrites have joined hands with the Quraysh unbelievers, the hypocrite has fastened a sword beneath his cloak, he is about to strike you, he is about to kill you, he is about to do such-and-such." The one who frightens you — that is Satan.
It is only Satan who frightens his friends; so do not fear them, but fear Me, if you are believers. "Innama dhalikum al-shaytan" — the one who frightens you of the enemy of God is Satan, and Satan frightens. But — you? Do you take fright at Satan's word? Are you made afraid? It depends on who you are. He succeeds in frightening his own friends. If you were his friend, you would be afraid; if you were not his friend, you would not be afraid. See how short the verse is and at the same time how pithy and full of meaning. "Innama dhalikum al-shaytan" — indeed this is Satan; "yukhawwifu awliya'ah" — who frightens his friends — the time is short; I want to translate quickly — "fa-la takhafuhum" — so do not fear them; "wa-khafun" — but fear Me, observe My command, fear My chastisement and My wrath; "in kuntum mu'minin" — if you are believers.
The next verse: And let not those who race toward unbelief grieve you; they will not harm God in the least. God wants to assign them no portion in the Hereafter, and for them is a great chastisement. "Wa-la yahzunka alladhina yusari'una fi al-kufri" — let them not grieve you and sadden you, O Prophet — those who hasten and rush ahead in the valley of unbelief — "innahum lan yadurru Allaha shay'a" — they will not harm God in the least. "Yuridu Allahu alla yaj'ala lahum hazzan fi al-akhirati wa-lahum 'adhabun 'azim" — for them is a great chastisement; God wills that they have no share or portion on the Day of Resurrection. Of course, I think the subsequent verses are no longer the ones we have in view; it was just these two or three verses, in which the question of the fear of God and of Satan was contained.
Peace be upon you, and the mercy of God and His blessings.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 15 · 44:22
- Ep 16 — The Philosophy of ProphethoodSession 14: The Philosophy of Prophethood.
delivered Wednesday, 10 Mehr 1353 / 15 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Jumu'ah (62:2-3).
He it is who raised up among the unlettered a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses, purifies them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom — though before that they had been in manifest error — and [He raised him] also for others among them who have not yet joined them. He is the Mighty, the Wise.
Today, God willing, we take up from the Qur'an a discussion about prophethood. As you can see in these notes that are in your hands, and as you will see — or have already seen — in the text, we have set before ourselves several topics in the field of prophethood, so that, relying upon and seeking help from the blessed verses of the Qur'an, we may, God willing, come to understand these several discussions. The brothers of course know that prophethood is one of the principles of all religions. If it can be called a principle among the principles of religion — indeed, one must say something higher than that. When I said "if it can be called a principle among the principles of religion," I did not mean that anyone would deny its being a principle. No; it is something higher than a principle: religion has no meaning at all without belief in prophethood. Religion means that program, that path, that school, that creed which has come by way of a messenger from God the Exalted. So the coming of a messenger, and a coming from the side of God, is among the essential elements of religion; the very subsistence of religion rests upon it. That is why prophethood deserves our discussion as one of the important and fundamental matters of religion.
Of course, in the field of prophethood there is a series of discussions that are common and customary. Pick up any book that has been written about prophethood and look at it: you will see these discussions in it. Out of all those discussions usually raised in the books about prophethood, we have taken up just one — only one of them — and that too with a particular taste, in this series of our discussions about prophethood. And that is precisely our discussion today, which is the subject of today's recitation. The rest of the discussions conducted in the field of prophethood, about prophethood, around prophethood, in the various books of theology (kalam), are in their own place correct points — indeed necessary points. But being correct does not mean that I too must be compelled, at this time, under these circumstances, with these needs, to raise that correct point here. Many of the points scholars make are correct. And here, for a few words, what I am saying is a general teaching regarding all our intellectual and research work: among the correct things, we must see which is necessary; among the necessary things, which is more necessary; among the more necessary, which is urgent; among the urgent, which is pressing and vital. We should take up that first; once we are free of it, we move on to the later discussions in this same order, until at the end of the work we come to discussions that, although correct, do not feel necessary or urgent to that same degree.
Concerning the discussion of prophethood: it is true that the question of how much divine knowledge or human knowledge a prophet possesses is itself a discussion; or the question of knowing whether our Prophet — who did not write and did not read, as the speaking Qur'an states: And you did not write any book with your right hand, otherwise the falsifiers would surely have fallen into doubt.
The Prophet neither wrote nor read. Was it that he did not write and did not read because he was unable to? That is, in the ordinary expression of today, was he entirely illiterate? Or rather, was he able, and yet did not write and did not read? Well, it is a discussion, after all. Or the question of which religion, which creed, among the religions and creeds of the world, the Prophet of Islam believed in and practiced before his prophethood and his Bi'thah — of course it is a discussion, but how necessary is this discussion for us? How necessary for us is the discussion before it? How necessary for us is the discussion before that one? It is not necessary at all.
Of course, once a person has learned everything related to prophethood and to religion, there is no harm in his coming, at the end of the work, to understand which religion the Prophet adhered to before the Bi'thah. But we are still in the bend of a single alley. Our society still does not know the meaning of prophethood, the meaning of the Bi'thah, the aim of the Bi'thah, the outcome and conclusion of the Bi'thah, the path of the Bi'thah, and the watchword of prophethood; it does not even know that it is afflicted with this condition. The Muslim does not know the aim of the Muhammadan Bi'thah — that is why his affairs are the way they are. If he knew the aim of his Prophet's Bi'thah, he would go after that aim. We are still in the first matters, the preliminary matters, the fundamental matters in the field of prophethood. And are we to grasp at the secondary matters, those of the fourth and fifth degree? That is why, in our discussion of prophethood, we do not raise any of those discussions which the theologians have conducted and continue to conduct in their books. Here are you, and here are those books that the theologians wrote — go and read them. We have no doubt about the necessity of those discussions, nor about their goodness. But we have just as little doubt that their necessity is by far less than the necessity of many other discussions that ought to be raised today. That is why we do not discuss them.
The first matter that we discuss concerning prophethood is the philosophy of prophethood. Why must there be a prophet? Why must someone, from the side of the Lord, gird himself to guide humankind? Can man himself not do it? Are human knowledge and human thought not sufficient? Why a prophet? Why a messenger between the unseen (ghayb) and the witnessed (shuhud)? This is a question that we must know. If we do not know the philosophy of prophethood, the rest of the discussions about prophethood will be left almost suspended in mid-air. So first we must know: prophethood for what? This is our first discussion today. In these notes that I wrote, which are in the gentlemen's hands, we have set this question down briefly, in a few sentences, very concisely, and the verses we recite today bear upon it.
Concerning the philosophy of prophethood we will not speak much; it comes down to one word: the senses of man, the instincts of man, and the intellect of man all fall short of guiding man and taking him by the hand. One word. A series of creatures can be managed by their senses. Some animals we perhaps know to be of this sort, that they draw only upon their own senses — the outward senses. Most kinds of animals draw on their instincts in order to be guided; that is, the honeybee's instinct tells it: go and alight upon the flower, upon the fragrant flower, and suck from its perfume and its essence; then go to the house, the hive; build the houses in that six-cornered, hexagonal form; and there, with certain arrangements, enter the houses and exit; and have a queen and helpers and guards — in short, a bee civilization. If you imagine that one day the bees sat down together and a great conference of the chiefs of the bees of the hives or regions was convened, and they said, "How is it better for us to build the house?" — one said octagonal, one said square, one said hexagonal; then they studied it and saw, no, the hexagonal is more suitable — if you imagine it happened this way, I must say you have made a mistake. No such situation occurred. And your Lord revealed to the honeybee: Take houses for yourselves in the mountains, and in the trees, and in what they build as trellises. Then eat of all the fruits, and tread the paths of your Lord, in humble obedience.
This is divine revelation (wahy) to the bee. The divine revelation to the bee does not mean that the bee sits down and Gabriel descends upon it; the bee's structure is like this, the bee's instinct is like this — there is an instinctual pull that draws the bee, compels it; it cannot do otherwise. Naturally and instinctually the bee is compelled, it is fashioned to build the house, to build it in this form, to find flower and plant from such-and-such a place and suck from them. If a bee were to deviate — if instead of flower and plant it were to smell and suck foul-smelling and rotten plants — they would behead it right there at the entrance of the hive. All this is their nature (fitrah) and their instinct.
Instinct suffices for the bee. This gentleman Maurice Maeterlinck sat for years and reflected on the life of bees and ants and termites; he sat and studied it. This very termite about which you complain so much — it has a certain arrangement inside those ceilings of yours; in your usurped house it has built an organized structure. You are not content for it to settle on the beam of your house and build a house there — it is usurped — but in this usurped house it does its work. It builds a house, in a particular shape, in a particular order. And here is the strange thing. Suppose you could find one of the houses of the termites, or a hive of the honeybees, from the time of Noah's flood, for example, or ten centuries before Noah's flood, and place it beside one of the hives in one of the pleasant, fine-aired highlands of the Mashhad of this present time. You would see that, to the breadth of a needle's point, this hive does not differ from that hive in its arrangements. Evolution, advancement, progress — these do not exist in the work of the honeybee, nor in the work of any other animal. What does exist is the revelation of nature, the revelation of the instincts, and the guidance of the quality of its creation and formation, which draws it, moves it, shows it the way, points out the obstacles to it, until it is able to do its own work. There is nothing other than instinct.
Man too uses instinct, but little. When you first came into the world, your state — with all due distinction — was the state of one of these very animals. It was by instinct, by the pull of nature (fitrah) and disposition, that you were able to find the store of your food in your mother's breast, and when they placed it in your mouth, to suck. No one had taught you to suck; you had not learned its practical, auditory, and visual instructions somewhere — this was your instinct. As you rose from the stage of childhood, gradually this tool, this eyeglass, this weapon whose name is instinct grew weak, became ineffective, became of little use. In its place came something more effective, stronger, more powerful — the reason and intellect ('aql wa khirad) of man — and you became a reasoning being. You no longer work by instinct now; it is not instinct that tells you, "Sir, go and open your shop, or close it at such-and-such an hour, or answer the customer this way, or study the lesson this way, or teach in that manner" — these are not instinct, these are instructions that you took up from thought and from knowledge, learned, and found your way of life.
But does this intellect, this human thought, suffice to guide you and bring you to the destination of felicity? Is human reason adequate to guide him? Reason itself, if it is open, if it thinks, if it does not become bigoted, if it wishes to judge without ulterior motive, will say no — like a court that gives its own verdict that it has no jurisdiction over itself, a court that rules, "I have no competence to judge in this case." Sound human reason, free of ulterior motive, judges that "I am not competent to guide humanity independently." You want proof? We have two kinds of proof. One proof is that human reason is limited, not infinite, whereas the needs of human beings are infinite. How can a single intellect understand all the needs, so that, in the face of those needs, it might supply what would fill the place of those needs, or might enact a law? Human reason cannot do this work; it is too weak, too incapable, too inadequate to recognize all the pains and to provide the appropriate remedy for all of them.
For the other proof, look at the historical and scientific realities. See, were the intellects able? Were intellects such as the intellect of Aristotle and Plato and Socrates able to manage humankind? Plato the thinker sits and thinks, consults, studies, researches, and sketches an ideal city (a utopia). Yet this ideal city is good only for the mind and the inner strongbox of the honorable Plato himself, because not for a single moment, anywhere in the world, was it ever put into practice. And if you look today at Plato's ideal city, with the arrangements of the world of the present time, it appears to you as something unacceptable and ridiculous.
Look at the rational and philosophical schools, how they array themselves one against the other. See that humanity, unless it is connected to a source and a point higher, loftier, and deeper than human reason, cannot reach the way to guidance and felicity. This is the meaning of prophethood: man needs a force higher, a guidance stronger and deeper than the guidance of the senses, than the guidance of instinct, than the guidance of reason. This guidance comes — and what does it do? Does it come to compete with your senses? Does it come to oppose your instinct? Does it come to dash the head of reason against a stone? Never. It comes to guide reason, to nurture reason, to bring the buried reason out from beneath the tons of dust.
Our Commander of the Faithful, may God's blessings and peace be upon him — I misspoke — the Commander of the Faithful of all humanity (let us not confine the Commander of the Faithful to ourselves); he is the teacher of humanity, the Commander of the Faithful is the great one of humanity. According to what is in the Nahj al-Balaghah, he says that God sent the prophets so that they might urge human beings to remain faithful to the covenant and pledge of their nature (fitrah), and might bring to their remembrance the forgotten blessings, and then "they might unearth for them the buried treasures of the intellects" (wa yuthiru lahum dafa'in al-'uqul). The prophets come to bring out these buried treasures, to stir up these buried intellects: the intellects, the reasons, the understandings, the consciousnesses of the human societies that had been buried by the Pharaohs and the Nimrods and the great ones and the powerful. Pharaoh does not like the people to possess intellect; he does not like human beings to understand — because if they understand, his existence will become void and a fable, which we will see explained in the later discussions of prophethood, God willing. Pharaoh does not like the people to employ the force of intellect; because this is so, he buries the force of intellect. How he buries it is a matter for the later discussions, God willing. The prophets come to extract these buried treasures, these hoards, these hidden and concealed treasures; they refine them, and they place them in the people's hands.
So the prophets, with the force of revelation that they have, do not go to war against reason. The one who imagines that religion is at variance with reason either does not know religion or has no reason. By contrast, one who possesses reason — one who has tested and tried reason and also knows religion — knows well that religion cannot, and does not, have any variance whatsoever with human knowledge and human reason. None at all. What religion says, sound intellects understand and approve. Those ignorant people who, in the name of defending religion, sometimes say, "Sir, you must not seek the rationale of religion; you must not seek argumentation in religion; you must not seek philosophy in the matter of religion" — they imagine that this saying (seeking philosophy, asking for philosophy) diminishes the worth of religion. They must know that this is not the case at all. Sound religion, when it is presented before the complete intellect, has no variance and no conflict with it whatsoever. Today the great intellects of humanity understand the tawhid of religion, the prophethood of religion, the prayer of religion, the fasting of religion, the zakat of religion, the secondary rulings of religion.
When the human intellect and the experience of human knowledge recognizes alcohol, knows the harms of alcohol, understands its blow and injury to the body, to the nerves, to the spirit, and to the general condition of society — why should I not be able and not have the courage to recite the verse of the Qur'an with power? Indeed, wine, gambling, idols, and divining-arrows are an abomination from the work of Satan, so avoid it.
Why should I not raise the verse of the Qur'an? Why should I not appeal to what human knowledge has understood in this field? Why should I not say that it is from the work of Satan — that is, it is the satans who give this to you, and it is the satans who profit from the drinking of that wretched drinker? Why should we not say this?
That which you have heard that Imam al-Sajjad, may God's blessings and peace be upon him, said — "The religion of God is not attained by the intellects" (din Allah la yusabu bi-l-'uqul) — its meaning is something else. That is, the divine creed cannot be discovered by reason. What does "cannot be discovered" mean? It means that if you have no narration (riwayah) telling you that the noon prayer is four cycles, you cannot understand by reason that the noon prayer is four cycles — and this is a very correct point too. If the Qur'an itself does not state the time of prayer: Establish the prayer from the declining of the sun until the darkness of the night, and the Qur'an of dawn (the dawn prayer and its supererogatory prayer).
If the Qur'an does not state this, you cannot understand by way of reason and thought and ordinary intellect when the time of prayer is. The Qur'an must state this; the hadith must state this; revelation must state this to us. This is what Imam al-Sajjad means; the outward of his statement too is just this — "The religion of God is not attained by the intellects." Its meaning is not that we cannot see the rulings of religion and the teachings of religion with the vision of reason and with the eyeglass of reason and human intellect — such that a group of ignorant people, in the name of defending religion, with fervor, with heat, cry out, "Sir, do not set forth a philosophy for religion!" Why should we not? Why should we not set it forth? Of course we always say, we repeat, we confess, that what we understand is not a thousandth of the deep teachings of religion; what we can apply and explain is far less than what may in reality be done and exist — there is no doubt in this. But I say one word, the next person says one word, the person after him says one word. Along the lengthwise line of human history, when you reckon, after two hundred years, five hundred years, you see that humanity, humankind, is far more believing, more confessing, more acknowledging of the depth of religion than in the age when these thoughts and these reflections and these applications had not yet come to it.
Therefore religion, when it comes, does not come to crush reason, does not come to abrogate reason and drive reason out of life. So for what does religion come? It comes to guide reason, to take the hand of reason. Reason exists, but when caprice is beside it, it cannot judge correctly. Reason exists, but when greed is shoulder to shoulder with it, it cannot see correctly. When ulterior motive is beside it, it cannot understand correctly. Religion comes to take away from reason the caprices, the whims, the greeds, the fears, the ulterior motives; it strengthens the sound, complete reason, confirms it, so that it may understand well. And when you turn to Islam, you see that Islam, from beginning to end, is full of the manifestations of reason. In the Qur'an how much we have: "Will you not reason?" (a-fa-la ta'qilun); how much we have: "Will you not reflect?" (a-fa-la tatafakkarun); how much we have — so that you may understand, so that you may know — how much we have: "Indeed in that are signs for those endowed with understanding" (inna fi dhalika la-ayatin li-uli l-albab) — for the people of reason. In the narrations how much we have: "Indeed God has two proofs over the people" (inna li-Llahi 'ala l-nasi hujjatayn) — God has two proofs over the people: one the prophet and one the reason. And again reason. About reason we will not speak more than this now.
In sum, keep this one word in mind. Without the guidance of revelation, without revelation coming to him and coming to his aid, man cannot bring himself to the destination of felicity. And when revelation comes, it does not suppress reason, just as it does not suppress instinct, just as it does not destroy the outward senses. No; it comes to strengthen the outward senses, the human and mortal instincts, and the force of the intellect and thought of man; it refines them, purifies them, takes their hand, teaches them. This is the task of revelation. This, then, is the philosophy of prophethood.
Because it is so — because we are deficient, because human knowledge and insight are not sufficient for our guidance — a hand must come out from the unseen and guide us. The place for a hand to come out from the unseen is here, not there where, when I have gone a little hungry, I do not go after a morsel of bread but wait for a hand to come out from the unseen. No — it is not for the place where, when I am confronted with a sin, I content myself with regret and sorrow and grief and wait for a hand to come out from the unseen for me; no — it is not for the place where I do not perform my divine duty, do not enjoin good, do not forbid evil, do not tread the path of God, and wait for a hand to come out from the unseen and do something — contrary to the verse of the Qur'an: Have you seen the one who denies the Religion? That is the one who drives away the orphan and does not urge the feeding of the needy. Of such deniers it is said: We were not among those who prayed, nor did we feed the needy. And we used to deny the Day of Judgment.
The verse of the Qur'an counts among the deniers of religion those who do not incite the feeding of the destitute. They do not stir up and rouse the people to feeding the destitute and — with a broader, deeper view, and an interpretation closer to the very text of Islam — to uprooting poverty and hunger. That person who does not conform himself to this verse takes not a single step on the path of eliminating hungers, advances not a single pace on the path of destroying the root of poverty, and sits waiting for a hand to come out from the unseen and do something. Such people must know that if a hand were to come out from the unseen, it would first strike upon their own brains, to throw these spoiled and void existences away, to bring them down. There is such a thing as a hand coming out from the unseen and doing something — and this is exactly the point I made. For the guidance of man, it is necessary that a hand should come from the unseen, and that is the hand of the prophet, the hand of prophethood. That is the skill of the messengership, which comes and guides human beings in just the manner we have stated: to rouse the force of reason within them.
Then several other matters arise here, several other matters are present here, of which I have briefly written down a list of some.
One is this. What concept does prophethood have? What is its relation to the Bi'thah and being raised up (bar-angikhtagi)? We say the prophet was sent (mab'uth), was raised up; what does "raised up" mean? Is there a stirring (angizish) in prophethood? Is there a movement? This too is a discussion. In the discussions related to prophethood we do not encounter this discussion.
What is the starting point of the work of the prophets? From where do they begin reform and aid to human beings? How is the conclusion of their endeavor? Where do their works arrive? Just this — that they laid him against a tree and sawed him, and it was finished and over? They cut off the head of Yahya before that tyrant (taghi), and it was finished and over? Is the end of the work of prophethood just this? No — another conclusion, another ending for this beginning is conceived and envisaged. It is alluded to in the Qur'an, and there are matters here which we will of course raise gradually, one by one, in the coming days, and set forth. Concerning the philosophy of prophethood, just this much that I have stated is, in my own view, sufficient. Of course, this was the briefest expression that could be set forth in this field. (You dear brothers listened well to this, God willing — for I see that you listen well — God willing the matter has been well grasped too. If anything in this field has not become clear to someone, here or there, he can ask me, or ask his neighbor at his side, so that this matter may become clear: what fundamentally is the philosophy of prophethood?)
The verses that exist in this field are very pithy and very meaningful verses. My first thought was to explain in detail today this very verse that I am now reciting. Then I saw two obstacles. If I were to explain it, the matter about prophethood that I wished to say would remain unsaid, put off to tomorrow or the day after; and even then I cannot fully explain the meaning of this verse in this one hour. It is very interesting; of course I refer the good minds and thought of the friends to be sure to consult and look at this verse in the light of the Qur'an, for there is a relatively good discussion in that field there. I will content myself with only a brief translation. Mankind was one community (ummah).
The people were all one ummah and one group. About this the commentators have an extensive discussion among themselves. Were they one ummah — a good ummah? Or were they one ummah — a bad ummah? On either supposition, the parties to the dispute raise an objection. Some say that "Mankind was one community" alludes to the primitive and initial communalism (ishtirakiyyat) of the prehistoric eras. I say that there is no evidence for this meaning, except that the name of the communalist and primitive era is on people's tongues, and we feel it a pity that our Qur'an too should have no share of that cloak — only that. Otherwise, "Mankind was one community" alludes to an era when human beings lived with the primitive and original communalism, as the gentlemen say, like — let me put it this way — animals, naked and bare and in herds, going about in the deserts and performing feats of strength, scraping stone with their claws and catching animals, eating them, and sometimes eating one another too. Should we take such a being, or ourselves, to be the referent in this verse "Mankind was one community"? No, no! We never attempt to attach something to our Qur'an from elsewhere. No; what we understand from our Qur'an, that is enough for us. If we understand it, we have done a great feat. Our Qur'an has no need that we should give it some marginal note or appendix from the sayings of others and the cultures of others, and exalt it thereby. No; the Qur'an does not want this kind of exaltation.
"Mankind was one community" can be given several meanings. Two of its meanings are present in In the Light of the Qur'an, which you will now consult and observe; and a third meaning occurs to me, the one I alluded to in this translation. "Mankind was one community" means that human beings and people were all in an equal and identical state, in respect of needs and in respect of capacities. All human beings were of one kind of need, and all human beings had one measure of capacity — and the social reality is always like this. All human beings have reason, have thought, have intelligence, have a sixth sense, have outward senses, have inward senses. All human beings have hunger, have thirst, have sexual desire, want a house, want clothing, and the like. The needs are all equal, almost of one kind, and the capacities are similar. If one human being has been raised in a better upbringing, his capacity having blossomed, that is another matter. If some young nobleman has been born in an aristocratic house, with a private tutor at home teaching him at six or seven years of age to speak Indian and Chinese like a nightingale, while the child of some laborer in the kilns does not know even Persian properly at seven or eight years of age — that is another matter. This is no proof that this one's capacity was greater than that one's; no, this one's capacity was extracted, and the capacity of that poor one remained and was not extracted. The oil deposits that exist in regions — let us suppose northern, southern, in such-and-such a country — it is not certain that they are richer and more abundant than the oil deposits of some other point that has not been extracted. The oil of this one has been extracted; it comes into the lamps, its gasoline comes into the automobiles; everyone knows it too, its name is famous too. The oil of that one, poor thing, has not yet been extracted — it may even be richer.
So human beings, naturally and ordinarily, were one community (ummah wahidah), with identical needs, with equal and similar capacities, which we have specified in the translation. So God sent the prophets (fa-ba'atha Llahu l-nabiyyin).
Among these human beings of equal capacities, God the Exalted raised up the prophets. Among these of the same level, the Lord of the worlds singled out one human being — higher, stronger, deeper, more ardent, and of greater capacity — and raised him up. To do what? "as bearers of glad tidings" (mubashshirin) — bringers of good news — "and warners" (wa mundhirin) — and givers of warning. Of what do the prophets give glad tidings? They give the glad tidings of Paradise, they give the glad tidings of the felicity of this world, they give the glad tidings of the ideal city, they give the glad tidings of the establishment of security and peace and welfare, they give the glad tidings of the disappearance of poverty and despair and fear and insecurity and ignorance; they are bringers of glad tidings; and at last they give human beings the glad tidings of the establishment of a virtuous government and a righteous city, and after that the glad tidings of going to Paradise and connection to the good pleasure (ridwan) of the Lord — they give glad tidings. And they are warners; they frighten — they frighten of the fire of Hell too, they frighten of the narrowness of the bridge of Sirat too, they frighten of the wretchedness of this world too, they frighten of the domination of the demon of ignorance and poverty too, they frighten of the fall into the valley and the slope of corruption too, they frighten of the destruction of the human capacities too; they are bringers of warning, they are warners. So God sent the prophets as bearers of glad tidings and warners, and He sent down with them the Book with the truth (wa anzala ma'ahum al-kitaba bi-l-haqq).
It is not all just that they should say "People, fear" and "People, glad tidings be to you." What do you have with you? A book from the side of the Lord. He sent down with them a book by the truth, in accordance with the truth. I have explained "the truth" (haqq) several times (now I can no longer explain it; I think that if I wished to explain "the truth" again, I would have to speak about that point alone for some ten or twelve minutes). In sum, that which conforms with the nature (fitrah) of the world, that which accompanies the natural course of the world — that is the truth. That which conforms with the nature of man and the disposition of the universe — that they call the truth. The book of the prophets too is the truth; it drives man forward on his natural path, on his innate course, on his ordinary bed and evolutionary course; it advances him, aids him. The book of the prophets carries the truth with it. He sent down with them the Book with the truth, that it might judge among the people concerning that wherein they differed (li-yahkuma bayna l-nasi fima ikhtalafu fihi).
Until that book — "that it might judge" (li-yahkuma); that is, until the book judges among the people, in those things about which they differ with one another. After all, people are not free of difference; differences among human beings are a custom (sunnah), and their existence is necessary, and their absence is harmful. Know this: the existence of difference is good, because difference is a cause of evolution. But that other thing I said — that the absence of difference is harmful — on this I must reconsider; I do not know whether it is harmful or not. At any rate, I would have to elaborate and interpret. Its existence is beneficial; as for "its absence is harmful," I do not know — I take that statement back. The book comes to judge among the people, to render judgment, to rule, concerning the things about which they have differed. What do we understand here? We understand that the government which the prophets bring into being is not the government of the individual prophet, the government of a person, the government of despotism; rather, it is the government of law, the government of the Book. When the prophet comes, he makes a society in which the ruler in that society, in meaning and in reality, is that very book — that is, the law. that it might judge among the people concerning that wherein they differed. And none differed concerning it except those who were given it (wa ma ikhtalafa fihi illa lladhina utuhu).
Concerning this book no difference arose; they did not differ — "except those who were given it," except those people to whom the book had been given, those people for whom this very heavenly book came; they themselves differed concerning the heavenly book. What does this show us? It shows the existence of distortion (tahrif) in the heavenly religions, among the sayings of the prophets. When the prophets came, they brought the book, the law, the school; then those very people to whom this book and law and school had been given differed about it. They differed — meaning what? Meaning that one type spoke the truth, and one type spoke contrary to fact. So therefore there are those who are followers of a religion and who speak the word of religion, but speak contrary to fact — an allusion to the existence of abrogation (naskh) and distortion (tahrif) in the religions. after the clear proofs had come to them, out of mutual envy (min ba'di ma ja'athumu l-bayyinatu baghyan baynahum).
Out of enmity and transgression with one another. Then God guided those who believed to the truth concerning that wherein they differed, by His leave (fa-hada Llahu lladhina amanu lima ikhtalafu fihi mina l-haqqi bi-idhnih).
Those people who are believers, who have inclined to the true religion — God guided them to the answer to that wherein they had differed, by His leave and permission. And God guides whom He wills to a straight path (wa Llahu yahdi man yasha'u ila siratin mustaqim).
And God guides whomever He wills to the straight path. (This is one portion of today's recitation, about which it seems it was necessary that I should speak more, in these last words of it — except that I now feel I have grown very tired, such that I will content myself with the verses of Surat al-Jumu'ah too in just the translation that is in your hands, and will not explain them further.)
Let those who have a Qur'an with them bring Surat al-Jumu'ah, in the twenty-eighth part (juz'): In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth glorifies God, the Sovereign, the Holy, the Mighty, the Wise.
This is Surat al-Jumu'ah, up to "and God is the possessor of mighty bounty" (wa Llahu dhu l-fadli l-'azim). (Of course, I have explained this surah several times up to now, both here and in that mosque, on various occasions. On Thursday nights we usually recite it in the maghrib prayer, so that the believers and friends who participate in that prayer may know its meaning — and on this account I have given a brief commentary on Surat al-Jumu'ah more than once. It may well be that many of you gentlemen present here have heard that commentary from me. Besides that, I am now tired. And as for the translation, I have done it: in these very papers that are in your hands the translation has been written — this much, in our view, is sufficient for now.)
So what have we understood up to now? We have understood the philosophy of prophethood, and that this is a principle in all religions — indeed, the mother principle. Without it, religion can have no correct meaning or concept, because religion is that thing which comes from the side of the Lord, by way of a messenger, a bearer of revelation.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 16 · 39:28
- Ep 17 — The Mission (Bi'that) in ProphethoodSession 15: The Mission (Bi'that) in Prophethood.
Thursday, 11 Mehr 1353 / 16 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-'Alaq (96:1-8).
Read in the name of your Lord who created — created man from a clinging clot. Read, and your Lord is the most generous — who taught by the pen, taught man what he did not know. No indeed! Truly man transgresses when he sees himself self-sufficient. Truly, to your Lord is the return.
Here is the subject of our talk today. The moment the burden of messengership (risalat) and prophethood (nubuwwat) is placed upon the prophet's shoulders, after he receives the message of God — what state, what condition, comes into being within him and in the world around him? We are not, of course, greatly concerned with the inner qualities and conditions of the prophet himself. If we raise the matter here, it is to draw a subtle, precise benefit from an ordinary, common word that is present in the Qur'an and in the usage of the religiously learned — a word that, incidentally, illuminates for us one dimension of the question of prophethood.
You know that in the Qur'an, whenever there is talk of a prophet's coming, generally the talk is of his bi'that — his being commissioned and sent forth. As the verse says: We raised up a messenger in every nation.
We commissioned Moses, Abraham, and the other prophets. Bi'that — what does this bi'that mean? And what is the relationship between bi'that and prophethood? You will notice that the title of today's discussion, written on those papers in the possession of you brothers and sisters, reads: "The Bi'that in Prophethood." Within prophethood there is a bi'that. What does bi'that mean? What is this bi'that? If within prophethood there is a bi'that, to whom does this bi'that belong, what is it, what is its benefit, and so on?
Bi'that means a being-roused, a being-stirred-up. What does being-roused mean? It means motion, movement after lethargy, slackness, and stagnation. A dead person who has lain for years in some graveyard, whose bodily parts have become dust, when by the power of the Lord he rises up on the Day of Resurrection — they say he has been raised up. As the verse says: This is the Day of the Raising-up.
It is the day of being-roused. Picture a human being who had been asleep in his house, or who in the ordinary course of social life merely moved along — in whom there was no fervor, no striving, no activity, nothing contrary to the customary state of society. He was in reality like a plank of wood, like a lifeless plant, like a wisp of straw cast upon the ordinary flood of society, which carried him this way and that. Then he comes to himself. He emerges from this state of indifference. He senses that this path, this natural current, this ordinary stream, need not necessarily be one hundred percent reassuring and convincing to him; that perhaps another current can be sought out which will bring that human being to the destination of felicity. And when, as a result of these thoughts, the human being awakens, becomes alert, finds striving, finds movement — this human being, they say, has been raised up. In smaller, more particular examples: when you awaken from sleep and rise, you say "he was roused." When you come out of slackness and laziness and listlessness and lethargy and busy yourself with movement, they say "he was roused." This is the meaning of being-roused; ba'th means this.
The Day of Resurrection, as you know, is called "Yawm al-Ba'th," the day of being-roused, or in another expression, the Day of Rising. The Rising — that day of standing up, that day of coming out of slackness and listlessness, that day of movement, the day on which human beings, from the moment they emerge from the grave until the moment their final destiny is determined, are continually in striving, in agitation, in movement; this is what they call Yawm al-Ba'th, the Rising. In prophethood there exists exactly such a state.
I want your vision regarding prophethood to become a fundamentally new vision. Some imagine prophethood in this way: as though a preacher enters a city to expound for the people of that town a few matters of religion or of something other than religion; or, let us suppose, a teacher of religious rulings rises up among a people and stands to tell them a few subsidiary legal questions; or some orator, some speaker — let us suppose a rabble-rouser — enters a gathering to stir up a bit of clamor and hold a rally. They usually imagine the prophet to be a person of this sort — like a learned, clerical, well-bred man among a group of people. Except that these people, too, sometimes recognize his worth — these are good folk, and they are called believers; and sometimes they do not recognize his worth — these become unbelievers, and they are called polytheists. We have imagined that the prophet is something of this kind.
In prophethood there is a transformation and an upheaval — I should say two transformations and upheavals. The first is in the very being of the prophet himself. The bi'that, the rising, the revolution, the transformation, first comes into being within the inner depths and the essence of the prophet himself, within the prophet's own inner self. First he is changed; first he emerges from the state of stagnation and lethargy. A resurrection is set up within his spirit, within his inner self. A rising comes into being within the essence and the soul of the prophet. All the abundant, brimming reserves deposited by God within the prophet are awakened — like a spring from which, at every instant, billions of streams of water are drawn forth and pour out, whereas before this instant all these waters were hidden, concealed within it. In short, the prophet himself becomes a Muslim; he himself comes under the influence of the transformation of divine revelation. Then this very spring, this very transformation, this very fervor, this very revolution, this very rising, pours out from this overflowing, surging fountain that is the spirit and inner self of the prophet into society; it is transmitted into the very text of human society. After a transformation has come into being within him, a transformation comes into being in society. After a mighty rising has been set up within his inner self, a still mightier rising is set up within the text of society. After a revolution has come into being within his heart, by his hand a revolution comes into being in society, and the bi'that in its true sense is realized. So you see that in prophethood, whatever there is, is fervor and transformation and upheaval and rousing and being-roused.
What is the prophet's condition before prophethood? Two points concerning the life of every prophet, before prophethood, exist in a manner that seems contradictory. Of course, when I say "contradictory," I do not mean that there is a real contradiction; it may merely appear contradictory. The first is that the prophet, even though he has not yet been commissioned, possesses very strong and deep human reserves — more than the rest of the people. His capacity for understanding, his capacity for movement, his capacity for outburst, is not comparable to that of other people, other human beings. His capacity for the worship and servitude of God, his readiness to be a servant of God, is to a degree that is inconceivable for other human beings. All the reserves that draw a human being out of the abasement of being mere dust and raise him to the summit of Truly we belong to God, and truly to Him we return — that is, of being a true servant of God and being adorned with the character-traits of God — all these reserves are present in the prophet more than in others.
Now, why are they more than in others? Did God commit some injustice here, some discrimination here? That is another matter, and in answer to it we can offer a brief, summary reply, in this way: namely, that in the end, in order to bear the burden of the responsibility of prophethood, a heavier, stouter frame and a more powerful reserve was required. The burden of messengership is no penny-trifle of a task. The burden of prophethood, conveying God's message to the people and transforming a society from one of ignorance (jahili) into one of monotheism (tawhidi) — this is a task of enormous magnitude and a very heavy burden, and in the end it is necessary that some group bear this burden. Who will bear it? Ordinary human beings? Or a human being who, by virtue of the conditions and characteristics of his environment, family, climate, and kin, possesses greater capacities and greater possibility? Because God sees the greater possibilities in this being, He helps him, grants him grace, bestows favor upon him, places at his disposal whatever is a means of nurturing, so that these two hundred maunds of burden may rest upon a hundred maunds of the prophet's bone — He makes of him a person ready for this work. In the end, if the Messenger of God had not taken up this heavy burden, this heavy burden would have remained on the ground; it was not the work of you and me to lift it. It was not the work of Gandhi and Lumumba to lift it; it was not the work of Socrates and Plato and Aristotle. A frame more powerful than all these frames is necessary to be able to lift this heavy burden — which is named messengership and prophethood and bi'that — and the detail of this is, of course, very extensive. The prophet is among the people with such reserves as these. This is one point, and this was the summary of the first point: that the reserves which exist in the prophet, in the messenger, are more brimming, richer, deeper, and more usable than the reserves of ordinary people.
The second point is this: that the prophet, before the bi'that and before prophethood, is, in the ordinary course of life, a companion and partner of the people; they are moving along in one and the same current. From the beginning he is not preoccupied with thinking, "What shall I do to overturn this society?" It is possible that he is discontented — and indeed he is discontented. An intelligent human being is, of course, discontented with the state of class division of his time, with the state of ignorance of his time, with the poverty of his time, with the oppression of his time, with the foolishness of his time, and — to put it in Islamic terms — with the jahiliyya (state of ignorance) of his time; he is of course discontented. But this discontent is only at the level of discontent; it is not at the level of bringing about a transformation, a revolution, of creating a path counter to the ordinary social path.
You see Moses son of 'Imran — peace and blessings upon him — living in Pharaoh's house. As one of the elders of a few years back put it, he was eating Pharaoh's pilaf and roast, even playing the young nobleman; in the marketplace, out of zeal for being of the lineage of the Children of Israel and for those who believed in his idea, he even kills a man. Later, when he is commissioned to prophethood and messengership — while returning from the presence of Shu'ayb and from Midian (after he returns from Shu'ayb and Midian, he is commissioned to messengership there) — concerning that killing of his on that day he says: …and I was among those who go astray.
What does "I was astray" mean? It means: I had not yet found this path that runs precisely counter to the ordinary path of the Pharaonic society of that age. Not that killing one of the Pharaonic individuals is a sin — no, not at all; rather, he means to say: on that day when I killed him, I was not a person who, with a definite idea, was pursuing a correct revolutionary orientation. I was a man among other men; I was a walker among other walkers; I was striving, mixed in with the strivings of others; I was moving, alongside the movements of others. Today my path has changed; today I condemn that general movement and that collective course of society. That is, today I have become a person who sets up a rising in society. When? After the bi'that.
Or the Noble Prophet himself — God's blessings be upon him and his Family — the verse of the Sura "By the Forenoon" makes the matter quite clear. (It is in these writings; and I will now explain it.) The commentators have said various things here, and there are also narrations beneath the Sura, which I examined: the narrations are interpretation (ta'wil), not exegesis (tafsir). What the narration beneath the noble Sura "By the Forenoon" says — like ninety percent of the narrations beneath the verses of the Qur'an — is not exegesis of the apparent wording. The apparent wording gives its own meaning, which we will now explain and which we wrote there. The narration is ta'wil, the addition of a point to the points of this verse; otherwise the verse itself is clear. The Imam — peace and blessings upon him — does not wish to construe the apparent wording of the verse contrary to its apparent sense; rather, the apparent sense of the verse remains preserved in its place, and they wish to add something. What you and I do not understand in an ordinary glance at the verse, the Imam — peace be upon him — teaches us as well; this is what is called ta'wil. Incidentally, a portion of this very discussion of today's is precisely that our recitation today is "By the Forenoon." By the forenoon.
By the brightness of the mid-morning. Al-duha means before noon. Notice, this oath itself is meaningful; this very swearing by that time is meaningful. Perhaps there is an allusion in it, and it is clear that, since the discourse is about the bi'that and messengership of the Prophet, therefore this "forenoon" is an allusion to that light which, through the bi'that of the Prophet of Islam and the prophethood of Islam, encompassed all the horizons of the world.
By the forenoon, and by the night when it grows still. And by the night, when its darkness covers all the horizons.
Your Lord has not forsaken you, nor does He despise you.
It seems that after revelation had begun, when a period had passed, the revelation was cut off. The Prophet — after that being-roused had come into being within him, after that fervor and excitement had arisen in him, after he had grown intimate with the bearer of God's revelation, Gabriel — suddenly sees that the revelation has been cut off; he was intensely grieved. How long did the period of fatra (interval) last? They call it the period of fatra. Some have said forty days, others have said more — up to two or three years. Then the Sura "By the Forenoon" is the first glad-tidings Sura that addresses the Noble Prophet, saying: Your Lord has not forsaken you, nor does He despise you. Your Lord did not abandon you, did not cast you off, and did not grow angry with you. "Nor does He despise you" — He did not grow angry with you.
And surely the Hereafter is better for you than the former [life\.] The Hereafter, the future, is better for you than the beginning, than the past; the end of your affair is better than the beginning of your affair.
And surely your Lord will give to you, and you will be satisfied. And your Lord will give to you, as much as will make you well-pleased. Of course, there is a narration beneath it that what is meant is intercession (shafa'at) — and that is correct, too. Intercession is one of the things given to the Prophet of God, and it is given to such a degree that he becomes well-pleased. But in this very world, too, so much was given to the Prophet of Islam that he became well-pleased: the guidance of human beings, the establishment of the virtuous city (madina fadila), conquest and victory over bloodthirsty, obstinate enemies, the conquest of lands, the setting of the evolving course of Islamic society onto its track — these were all blessings of God to the Prophet of Islam.
In sum: Did He not find you an orphan and give shelter? Did God not find you an orphan and give you refuge? God Most High found you an orphan, without kin, without refuge, and gave you shelter. You had no father — before your birth your father had departed this world; your mother too departed this world a short while later; your grandfather too, after a few brief years, departed this world; you remained, alone, you and you alone, under the guardianship of your uncle Abu Talib. And we sheltered you, the orphan — who were an orphan from the very beginning — at every moment; we kept you in the embrace of our affection and love, O our Prophet. This is giving hope; it means to say: God's shelter is always with you; it was there from childhood, and now too, when a burden of messengership this heavy is upon your shoulder and in your hands. Do not fear, do not be apprehensive, never imagine that God has abandoned you — never; God will not abandon you, when on that day He gave you shelter.
And He found you lost (astray), and guided you. And He found you lost and guided you. Here there are several narrations — though some of these narrations are also weak — and several are sayings of the commentators that have become mixed in with the narrations. It says: "And He found you lost, and guided you." What is meant is not intellectual or spiritual lostness; rather, what is meant is that once the Prophet, in his childhood, had become lost in the mountains of Mecca, and then God guided his grandfather, who was able to find him; or in another episode he had become lost, and a certain woman came and found him; or "you were unknown among the people of Mecca, no one recognized you, and God guided the people of Mecca to you." They construed it in these senses. We do not deny these senses — pay close attention, grasp the point of the words. These senses may indeed be the case; if a sound narration in accordance with any one of these senses should come, then with all respect, very well. The existing narrations may, at the root, be weak, or they may be sound. And if sound narrations in this regard should come for any one of these meanings, of course it is acceptable, and one can accept it. But even granting any one of these meanings on the strength of a sound narration, the apparent meaning of the verse is still other than this. Accepting a narration that gives us this meaning does not conflict with accepting the apparent meaning of the verse.
The apparent meaning of the verse is something else; the apparent meaning of the verse, plain and explicit, in plain Persian, is saying: "You were astray, you were lost; we guided you." What does "you were astray" mean? Does it mean you were an idolater? Never! Does it mean you were a deviant person? Never! Does it mean you were a sinner? Never! Then what? It means: this straight path that was presented to you through the bi'that and prophethood was not at your disposal. Is it not so? Those bodies of knowledge, those laws, those thoughts, those ideas, that became clear and manifest to his holy heart with the coming of revelation upon the Prophet — did they exist for that great one before prophethood and before the bi'that? Certainly not. "You were lost" means this, and this is the apparent meaning of the verse. And there is no problem at all in our construing the noble verse — whose apparent sense is this — from the standpoint of the ta'wil meaning, as referring to "having been lost among the people of Mecca," "getting lost in the mountains around Mecca," "getting lost while herding certain sheep along a path," for example — just as is found in some of the narrations and reports. Did you grasp it?
Well: And He found you lost, and guided you. And He found you in want, with dependents, and made you free of need. He found you needy, with a family to support, and made you free of need. What, then, was the purpose of this verse and of laying out this Sura in this writing? It was this: that the Noble Prophet — just as is the apparent purport of the verse — was lost; he was moving among ordinary people, walking and journeying among society. Although he was distressed by the conditions, although he suffered from the fact that the young nobles of Quraysh would seize the slave-girl of some destitute man and forcibly take possession of her — and he founded the Hilf al-Fudul, the pact of the chivalrous; although he did not for an instant associate any partner with God, nor pay homage and humble himself before these idols; although he did not for an instant make peace with the bullies and the men of brute force, and lived in that society like a chivalrous human being — yet, with all these conditions, what the Prophet did was within the ordinary course of the life of that society; it was within the ordinary course of the life of that society.
(To the one at the door — gentlemen, I request that you come a little further this way, so that the ladies who are coming and going may be able to come and go. If there is room in front, please leave the area by the door open enough for one person to pass. If there is room in front, let them come forward; otherwise let them sit outside, but be sure the doorway is kept open enough for one person — both now and always.)
The Prophet lives along the ordinary course of the collective life of that society — and suddenly the divine revelation arrives. A deep transformation comes into being within his being and within his inner self. So strange is this transformation, so intense is it, that it even affects the body of the Prophet, even affects the nerves of the Prophet. When the Noble Prophet, on the Mountain of Light (Jabal al-Nur), was struck by the first flame of revelation upon his soul, he caught fire; he saw that the bearer of God's message was saying: Read!
The Prophet, since he did not know how to read, said: "But I cannot read" — what shall I read? Or, I do not read, I cannot read — that is, "ma" being either negating "ma" or interrogative "ma" — "and what shall I read?": Read in the name of your Lord who created — created man from a clinging clot. Read, and your Lord is the most generous — who taught by the pen, taught man what he did not know.
Fire is set to the Prophet's soul; it brings about a transformation. Suddenly, within this thinking, upright, ready human being, it produces a revolution, a rising. He is no longer the same person at all; he is not the person of a moment before. Muhammad was not the Muhammad of an instant before; he was not the human being of an hour before; he was something else entirely, another element, another essence. First the bi'that came into being within his being, the revolution and transformation within his inner self, and then this very revolution became the source by which he was able to draw a whole world into transformation. If he himself had not changed, he could not have changed the world — and this is a lesson for the followers of the Prophet, that they may know: until they themselves change, they cannot change the world. Let them know that:
An essence that has not received from the Bestower of being — how can it become a bestower of being?
You, who have not carried away a portion and a share of being for yourself, who have not taken any benefit for yourself from this divine fervor and from this glow of the Lord's grace and the blessing of His light, who have carried away no reserve — what do you wish to give to the people? First become fire yourself, become molten, become aflame, so that you may be able to kindle and set alight the coals, the cold ones, the black ones.
The Prophet — first fire was set to his own soul, first his own heart was transformed and overturned, first the fervor of resurrection came into being within his own inner self — by which he was able to draw the world into the fervor of resurrection. He was able to fashion a human being who would give up his life but would not give up his thought. Is it a trifle? Is it a trifle that they would come and throw down dark-skinned Bilal the Abyssinian and beat him — not the kind of beating that is a mere trifle, an iota or two; but those beatings — and how they beat him! Then, right there beneath the lash, right there beneath the torture — not one minute later, not one hour later — he would cry out, "Ahad! Ahad! One! One!" If we wished to render this into Persian expression, to find a sentence equivalent to it, it would mean: "Death to you, death to you, death to you" — this is the meaning of Bilal's "Ahad! Ahad!" The Prophet cannot, just like that, fashion an Abu Dharr; he cannot, for nothing, fashion a Bilal, or fashion a Miqdad, or fashion an 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, in the early days of Islam and the bi'that — first he himself was transformed. Now let us see what this melody of the first revelation has done with the Prophet, and what matters it contains.
For another of the portions of today's recitation is the Sura "Read." In the name of God, the All-Merciful, the Ever-Merciful. Read in the name of your Lord who created.
Read in the name of your Lord, the One who created. Notice, it begins an orderly sequence. For a God-worshipping human being like our Prophet — who even before the bi'that was a God-worshipper, not a polytheist — the first thing that can rouse his attention toward God and draw his heart to God is the simplest subject of all: the subject of creation. "Read in the name of your Lord who created." Creation belongs to Him; all these vast manifestations of creation are from Him.
When this matter settles in the mind, it goes up one step, it establishes something higher than creation: Created man from a clinging clot.
He created man — and man, moreover, from a clinging clot. How great is the difference between man and the other creatures? A person does not at first notice this. As you walk down the street, a car passes by, a human being passes by; when you are riding in a car, ten people pass by your side, ten trees pass by the side of your car — by a kind of error in the perception that man has. A person pays no attention; when one looks closely at the difference between man and non-man, one does not give it much thought. Well, man too is a being — of course a more precious being, a better, higher being; but those too are beings of a sort. The tyrannical, self-willed people of the world do not, even to the very end, understand the difference between man and non-man — for the reason that thousands of human beings are not worth, in their eyes, as much as thousands of ants. A person destroys thousands of ants with two pennies' worth of kerosene; these people destroy thousands of human beings with a single decree, a single order, with a single bomb. Let us leave that aside.
Man, in the first instance, does not understand the importance of man and the astounding difference that exists between man and the other creatures; but when he looks closely, then what? He sees: "Oh, it is astonishing!" The chasm that exists between man and the other creatures is a very deep chasm. A chasm of what? What distinguishing mark, what differentiating feature, does man possess that sets him so far apart from the other creatures? The power of intellect, reason, the cognition of universals, the deriving of conclusions from particulars. A work that neither the tree does, nor the stone does, nor the animal does: innovation, novelty. For if there were no innovation and novelty in man, man would always remain at one level, like the other creatures — as I gave the example of the honeybee yesterday. The power of will and decision, free choice — he does whatever he wishes, contrary to the other creatures, which are compelled to follow their own instinct. Whatever its instinct dictates, it does; there is no question of willing. Man is able to act precisely against his own instinct. Man's instinct is to eat food; man's instinct is to be able to satisfy his sexual appetite — these are instinct, are they not? Yet you see a human being who, throughout his entire lifetime, does not satisfy his sexual instinct even once; this is against instinct, this is ascetic discipline. A human being lives for days on end on a single almond; only man is capable of this — man can act against his own instinct.
In short, the power of thought and the power of free choice and the power of will and the power of innovation in man — these are things that have set man apart from the rest of the creatures. Man is altogether something else compared with them. Of course, the materialist scholars too, more or less, in recent times have arrived at this point, saying that man is an astounding species. Although they make no distinction, still — an astounding species. And all these distinctions that exist in man are by virtue of the outpouring of God's spirit in him; the manifestation of God's spirit in man, as in the verse: And I breathed into him of My spirit.
In sum, suddenly God draws the Prophet's attention to something higher than dry, bare creation: the creation of man, the creation of reason, the creation of the power of understanding and perception — and that, from what? From a clinging clot. From clotted, congealed blood — from where to where? "What is dust and what is the Lord of lords!" How is it that something which has no soul, no power of movement, no power of understanding, is transformed into an Einstein! Transformed into a great human being, transformed into a Socrates, into a thinker, into a philosopher, into a prophet — how does this happen? Is it anything other than the mighty handiwork of the Lord in the world?
Created man from a clinging clot. In the beginning of revelation, they drew our Prophet's attention to this very important point. Notice, it wishes a transformation to come into being within him; it wishes to put a shoe of steel upon his foot, to place a staff of steel in his hand, so that he may go — to such a degree that fatigue no longer has any meaning for him. From the very start they fashion him with these words.
Created man from a clinging clot — from clotted, congealed blood.
Read… and your Lord is the most generous. Read; God is higher than even this. "And your Lord is the most generous" — He is greater and more noble and more bounteous than even this. "Read, and your Lord is the most generous" — read, and your Lord is the most generous of all.
Who taught by the pen. The One who taught by means of the pen. Once again He raises for the Prophet the matter of teaching in man. And this you know: that if there were no pen, if there were no writing, mankind would not have progressed, even so. That which lays the advancement of one generation before the next generation — so that the next generation may use it like a staircase, set its foot upon the experience of the previous generation, and itself construct yet another experience — that is nothing other than the pen. If the scientific discoveries, the scholarly research of the previous generation, were not placed at the disposal of the next generation, the next generation could not add anything to it — know this. If the book of Aristotle had not been at the disposal of Avicenna (Bu 'Ali Sina), Avicenna would not have become Avicenna — who is higher than Aristotle, for example. If the jurisprudential book of Shaykh Tusi, for example, or 'Allama Hilli, had not been at the disposal of Shaykh Ansari and Mirza Shirazi — who are more accomplished and more learned than those forebears, more learned than the scholars of a thousand years before themselves — then had those scholars' books and the product of their research not been at their disposal, certainly these latter ones would not have reached that level; it is quite clear. The first person has five tomans; he gives it to the second person; with his own five tomans, the second makes it ten tomans; he gives it to the third person, who also has five tomans, and it becomes fifteen tomans. The third person is now wealthier than the first person — he has fifteen tomans. But where does this fifteen tomans come from? If the first person had not existed, would he have this fifteen tomans? If the second person too had not existed, would he still have fifteen tomans? Never — he would have had even that five tomans only by force. It is the product of the past experiences and discoveries of man that reaches later generations — and by what means? By means of the pen, by means of writing and inscription.
Who taught by the pen, taught man what he did not know. So, higher than the very principle of creation and bringing-into-being, there is something in God.
Read, and your Lord is the most generous.
Who taught by the pen — taught man what he did not know. Who gave instruction by means of the pen. "Taught man what he did not know" — He taught man the things he did not know. These are blessings of God concerning man. Well, then man ought to give thanks for these blessings. When God has taught man, when God has shown man the way, has given man the pen, has made man rational and given him instruction — then man ought to go toward the loftiest summit; then man ought not to have a single instant of decline. Man ought no longer to have any backsliding and misery — is it so? The next verse answers; it is as though it confronts an imagining of this kind: that if God creates and nurtures humanity in this way, and gives it the pen, and shows it grace, and treats it with such generosity — if it is so, then mankind ought to have no misery and waywardness and corruption and error and the like — has it turned out so?
No indeed! No, it is not so as you suppose and as you speak. The state of mankind — how is it? No; rather:
No indeed! Truly man transgresses when he sees himself self-sufficient. The transgression of mankind, the rebellions and the arrogance of feeble human beings and of the tyrants (taghuts) against the merciful ones, their drawing up of battle-lines — these made mankind wretched. These transgressions did not let mankind reach guidance. These transgressions and arrogances and rebellions did not let mankind make the fullest use of the Lordly reserves, and be nurtured and reared as God had wished, and become what God had willed for him. The transgressors did not allow it. When they saw themselves free of need, they transgressed, they rebelled, they departed from the path of God. Notice — once again the Prophet is being fashioned. Attention to the grace of God, attention to the nobility of God, attention to the teaching of God, attention to the fact that God is the Creator, attention to the fact that God is the Teacher, attention to the fact that God is the Most Generous, and attention to the fact that humanity has not reached where it ought to reach — it has not reached, as conveyed by "No indeed!" — and attention to the fact that the fault is the transgressors'.
And transgression arises from the sense of being free of need. Self-sufficiency, wealth, the amassing of riches, the heaping up of treasures and fortunes, raises up necks; and once the necks are raised, once un-divine powers come into being and take shape, mankind no longer reaches that destination. Notice — these are the inspirations of God at the outset of the rousing; these are that very flame which set the Prophet of God ablaze, set him afire.
No indeed! No, it is not as you suppose. You imagine and expect that mankind has reached a state of being set in order? No!
Truly man transgresses — man assuredly transgresses and is arrogant.
When he sees himself self-sufficient. — that he sees himself as free of need.
Truly, to your Lord is the return. Will these transgressors ultimately be successful? No! Again, the return is to your Lord; the end belongs to God; the conclusion of the affair is in favor of God and the divine front. That very path which the Lord of the world has appointed — in the end, mankind will, upon that very path, reach the destination, there is no doubt: Truly, to your Lord is the return.
And then there are other matters in this noble Sura. In sum, notice with what truths these matters bring about, in our Prophet, the revolution and transformation — and it is this very transformation that is reflected in the very text of society.
Again, in the Sura "By the Star," of which we cited a portion of its verses here, there is an allusion to this very inner transformation of the Prophet — and there are, of course, many other verses, which I did not see the need to cite all of here. But the discussion is a very precise, subtle, and sweet one, and in the discussions I had studied I myself had not come across this point being attended to with precision. So I wished to explain it a little more — for knowing it is useful for acting as well.
In the name of God, the All-Merciful, the Ever-Merciful. By the star when it sets. By the star, at the time it sets.
Your companion has not gone astray nor erred. Your companion and comrade has not gone astray, nor inclined toward falsehood. This pertains to the matter of the Mi'raj (the Ascension), as it is found in many of the commentaries. Although it alludes to the inner transformation of the Prophet and to the state of receiving revelation, the occasion of the Sura "By the Star" is this: when the Prophet would recount the episodes of the night journey, the journey of the Ascension, these people would not listen. The verse is speaking in that context.
Nor does he speak from caprice. He does not speak out of whim.
It is naught but a revelation revealed. It is nothing but a revelation that has reached him from the side of the Lord.
Taught to him by one mighty in power. He has been taught by that one of surpassing power, that one possessing great strength. (I do not know what I chose in this translation that I made here, for "one mighty in power" (shadid al-quwa). "Shadid al-quwa" means the one who is very powerful. Hand me one of these papers, please. Yes — "that one of great might has taught him.")
"One mighty in power" means surpassingly powerful.
Possessor of sagacity (dhu mirra). That sagacious, wise one — yes; "mirra" meaning sagacity and wisdom and judgment — which the commentators have said is an allusion to Gabriel: that what he (the Prophet) reports, he reports on the authority of Gabriel, and God taught him these things by means of Gabriel.
…so he stood upright. This divine revelation came to him, and he stood erect upon his own feet.
And he was on the highest horizon. And he was on the loftier and higher horizon. "Highest" means the most lofty; the horizon, too, is clear. The Prophet stands upon a loftier horizon.
Then he drew near and came down. Perhaps it can be construed in this way: "And he was on the highest horizon" means the Prophet stood upon a higher level, by which he was able to become a prophet. As we said, the Prophet, before prophethood, lived with reserves more brimming than the ordinary, among ordinary people. "Then he drew near" — then he approached; "and came down" — then he drew nearer. On the supposition that the one meant is the Prophet: that is, the Prophet drew near to God, and nearer — through acts of worship, through ascetic disciplines, through reflections and ponderings, and through the special graces that God had bestowed upon him, his spirit drew near and nearer to God and became ready to receive revelation. Some have said that what is meant by "he drew near" is that Gabriel drew near to the Prophet, and "came down" — and hung over him; that is, he brought himself to the Prophet in order to convey the revelation to him. In any case it makes no difference; but the first meaning seems to us nearer and more apparent. That second meaning too I wrote, "or he drew near and hung down," in parentheses, so that it may allude to the second meaning. The first meaning I myself prefer more.
Until he was at the distance of two bows' lengths, or nearer. The Prophet drew near to God, and so he reached the distance of two bows' lengths, or less. Do not say, "What does 'two bows' lengths' mean, what special significance does it have?" — at the measure of two bows, taking each bow to be one meter, at a distance of two meters from God. Where was God, that the Noble Prophet reached within two meters of Him? No — these are figurative, metaphorical expressions. He drew near to Him, not in respect of place; "two bows' lengths" means he drew very near, very near; the holy spirit of the Prophet drew so near to God, drew so near, that nearer than that is inconceivable for any human being — the very nearest of the near.
Then he drew near and came down, until he was at the distance of two bows' lengths or nearer, and He revealed to His servant what He revealed. So God revealed to His servant what He revealed.
The heart did not lie about what it saw. What are the observations of the Prophet's heart — it did not lie to the Prophet, it saw correctly, it did not see in error.
Will you then dispute with him about what he saw?
These, in any case, are verses from the noble Sura "By the Star." At the bottom here, too, we have written a sentence that is the subject of tomorrow's discussion. In sum, then, it is after this inner and innermost rousing that the path of the prophet changes and his striving takes on another color, and with continual effort and struggle he strives. He strives that what may come about? That in society and in the very text of human beings' lives, a rising and a transformation may, from the foundation up, be brought into being. After a transformation has come into being within himself, he endeavors to create a transformation in society — and this is precisely the responsibility of messengership, and the Prophet exists for this work.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 17 · 44:37
- Ep 18 — The Social Resurgence of ProphethoodSession 16: The Social Resurgence of Prophethood.
delivered Friday, 12 Mehr 1353 / 17 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394 (1974)
Today's recitation is drawn from two places: one from the blessed Surat al-Qasas, and the other from the blessed Surat al-Saff. So that some of the brothers who have not yet found a place in the prayer hall may be able to find somewhere, look at these verses on the printed sheets while I read the Arabic text once.
Surat al-Qasas (28:1-6).
In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. Ta Sin Mim. These are the verses of the clear Book. We recite to you something of the account of Moses and Pharaoh, in truth, for a people who believe. Indeed Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and divided its people into factions, oppressing a group among them: slaughtering their sons and sparing their women. Indeed he was of the corrupters. And We desired to show favor to those who had been oppressed in the land, and to make them leaders, and to make them the heirs, and to establish them firmly in the land, and to show Pharaoh and Haman and their hosts, through them, the very thing they were dreading.
Drawing upon these verses and the verses of Surat al-Saff, we have in mind to discuss one matter — and the best title and heading for it is exactly the one we wrote on these sheets: the social resurgence of prophethood.
Our task, of course, is to explain what the social resurgence of prophethood is. You heard some of the preliminaries to this discussion on previous days, when we said that the Bi'thah — the commissioning, the arising, the coming into being of a fervor, an effort, and a stirring within the inner being of the Prophet — begins, with the onset of revelation, in the heart of the Prophet. This servant is God's chosen one, and God — in view of the deep and abundant capacities he possesses — has appointed him for a mission, a responsibility, a commitment of such magnitude and weight. After divine revelation took place upon such a servant, a surging and a stirring comes into being in his spirit and in his inner being; a revolution is created within the very spirit of the Prophet. In his ordinary life, in his comings and goings, in his social orientation — in short, throughout his entire being — a resurgence rises up, a revolution comes into being. The man after revelation is not that man of yesterday or of two hours before.
Some writers who do not believe in the Prophet of Islam — among these orientalists, some of whom may even be impartial, though some are certainly biased — write, regarding the life of the Prophet, that throughout his life before his Bi'thah the Prophet was studying, thinking, reflecting, and that it was these reflections which brought him to the revolution he created. This claim, with its apparent shape, is false and a lie — unless they mean something else.
The Prophet did not arrive at the Islamic revolution and call through reflections and meditations at all. After this call, this revelation, this arising came into being in him, he became another being, he became another human, he took on another state. And not only that Prophet — all the prophets. Moses, while he had taken his wife and child and was heading out on an ordinary journey, in the middle of the desert, at that critical moment, when divine revelation descended upon him — Moses forgot everything else. Moses, at the moment he senses the mission, is a human being other than the human of a moment before; within him another fervor, another surging, another stirring comes into being. The one who makes this claim is someone who has no belief in prophethood, the Bi'thah, revelation, and connection to the unseen world in the case of the prophets. It is a claim that the unbelieving or biased orientalist writes and makes, and the ill-informed, uninvestigating, non-biased writer repeats it too in his book, in his writing, in his speech.
In any case, the Bi'thah thus means a stirring, a revolution, a transformation, a change, an upheaval, a resurgence — whatever expression you wish to line up — in the being of the chosen Prophet. After this revolution came into being in him, in the Prophet, then it is time for this very revolution to be carried out in the external environment.
That same transformation which was created in the spirit of the Prophet must, in some form, in some particular way, be carried out in the very fabric of the reality of society — and this is exactly the matter we have named the social resurgence of prophethood. Of course, after we explain this transformation today, God willing, then it will be time for other discussions concerning prophethood. Again, one of those discussions — which happens to pertain to tomorrow, and perhaps the day after — is a very important one: the goal of the mission and prophethood — for what aim, with what purpose, for what work this social resurgence is carried out. That will be undertaken over the course of one or two discussions. And this, of course, in turn entails other matters, which, if life and opportunity are granted, I will present to the brothers and sisters in the days to come.
Now, regarding this resurgence that we conceive and imagine for the Prophet, what can be said? Today in the world the word "revolution," with the meaning it carries in the new and modern cultures, is a meaningful word, a clear and significant word. Of course, it is quite clear that what is meant by the word "revolution" is a transformation and a deep, fundamental change from the root in a society. The word "revolution" does not, by definite necessity, contain conflict; the word "revolution" does not, by definite necessity, contain bloodshed and killing; it does not, by definite necessity, contain dispute and clash. A dispute may arise, a clash may come into being — but the word "revolution" does not carry the meaning of dispute and clash.
The meaning of revolution is this — if we want to explain it to you brothers through a very small, simple, and tangible example: suppose that this mosque, in its condition, its building, its walls, its structure, is of a particular form. They made the foundations and footings and bases here according to, suppose, a rectangular building bounded on the east at such-and-such a limit, on the west at such-and-such a limit — the hall of the mosque's prayer chamber, without internal partitions. That laying of the foundations and footings beneath these walls and bases was made for the sake of these things. If, instead of a mosque hall and prayer chamber, this were meant to become, suppose, a residential building, then certainly the foundation of this building would have been poured differently, the footings of the building would have been laid differently. If partitions were to be made here, inside this prayer hall, with five, ten, twenty rooms appearing in it — as an inn, for example — then surely the foundation and footings here would have had to be laid differently. Now, because it has been readied for this work, because it has been built entirely for the purpose of a gathering, the footings and foundation and the rubble-grouting and the wall and base are of a particular form.
If it were decided to demolish a building that has been built and finished and completed — suppose, for instance, a hotel — or to convert it into a mosque; suppose they wanted to convert a bank building into a lecture hall; or wanted to convert a residential house into a center that is not for family residence — what would they have to do? They would have to change all the foundations and substructures and bases and underpinnings. They cannot say: we will give it a coat of paint, take it out of the form of being a house, and make it a mosque. No! Such a thing cannot be done. They cannot say: we will gather up these middle walls, suppose, so that the National Bank becomes such-and-such mosque, for the gathering of Muslims and prayer and worship. Such a thing cannot be done. Why? Because the manner of laying the building's foundation was not made for a mosque. For this building to be made into a mosque requires that a special grouting, a special foundation-laying, a special walling, a special partitioning, a special roofing be carried out. If they want to convert a building that was built for one purpose into a building built for another purpose entirely contrary to that first purpose — to convert this first building into the second building — they inevitably have to carry out a revolution. What does revolution mean? It means that they change the bases, substructures, foundations, main sections, frames, and essential underpinnings of this structure into other frames, other underpinnings, other walls, other bodies, other limbs. This is what is called revolution.
For example, suppose a society — that is, fifty thousand people, five hundred thousand people, fifty million population, it makes no difference — a society means that number of people who live together with one course, with one general program; although it has a top and a bottom, the path is altogether one path and is bound together in one social direction. This is called a society, a unit. This society, which consists of fifty thousand, five hundred thousand, five million, fifty million people, can be built in two ways — pay close attention. When I say two ways, in general there are two ways it can be built, though there are also various kinds and sorts within these two.
In general there are two ways a population can be built, a social form can come into being. One way is that among the fifty thousand, or the fifty million population who live in a certain place, a class of people, a minority of people, are the rulers and commanders and dominators and controllers and masters of all the affairs of the rest of the people. They determine the people's path, they lay down the people's laws; if the people act contrary to their wishes, they take severe revenge upon them; if the people say to them, "You have an eyebrow above your eye" [i.e., dare to object], they discipline them severely; if some event arises within this society, they turn that event to their own benefit, even if it be to the detriment of the rest of the people; if it is decreed that this community, this population, should be struck by some calamity, they make the people their shield against the calamity and sit themselves off to one side. This is one kind of society. What lies at the foundation and structure of any society is precisely this question: whether or not it has class difference.
Suppose now a society that has class difference. The term sounds pompous to some people's ears, but class difference is exactly what I just said; it was very simple, you saw how easy its meaning is. In such a society the people are not all equal in terms of rights, not all on one level in terms of the possibilities and advantages of life: a group are able to take more, take better, speak better and bully and do exactly what they want; and a larger group are forced to keep their eyes on the hands of those people, to be at their command, to stand before them with hands folded at the waist, to prostrate in the dust before them. If a society came into existence in this form, this is called a class society. In this society, the economy too is a class economy; in this society, the government too is to the benefit of the upper classes, is class-based; in this society, basic rights too are to the benefit of the upper classes — that is, they are class-based. This is one kind of society.
The society of a number of people, from five thousand to fifty million, is sometimes in this form, and sometimes it is not in this form. So how is it? Among these fifty million people who are living in this society, no one has the right to bully anyone else; not only is there no class higher than the rest of the people — no, no one at all! You cannot find even a single person in this entire society of whom, if you said, "Sir, why did you do such-and-such a thing?" he would say, "I felt like it." "I felt like it" does not exist in this society. No one has domination, mastery, bullying, brutishness, usurpation of rights, theft, and slapping-on-the-head over anyone else; and in turn, no one experiences, before anyone else, abasement, smallness, weakness, submission to force, being wronged — these have no meaning for him. All the people in that society, from five thousand to fifty and five hundred million, are obedient to the command of one power, and that power is higher than the power of humans and of man. Who is it? It is God. This too is one kind.
We have two kinds of social structure. There is one kind of social structure in which the people, all of them or the majority of them, are slaves and captives before other humans; and we have one kind of social structure and edifice in which the people, all of them, are free from captivity to other powers. In the first kind, when you reckon it up, the economy is to the benefit of that same upper class, the government is in the hands of that same upper class, and the basic rights and advantages of society are exclusive to that upper class or to whoever is close to them. The second society is the reverse. In this classless society, where no one bullies, imposes upon, or dominates anyone, the economy is communal, and the government in the sense of governance is communal and is in the hands of all. Basic rights are communal, are for all; in short, whatever is good is for all, whatever is bad concerns all. If discomfort arises, all share in it; if a good thing comes about, all share in it — and the world is a paradise.
Two kinds of society can be conceived. These two kinds of society that we have described and explained for you, we have had both kinds throughout history. (I must keep the points short and brief, because this discussion is one of those richly clamorous and content-laden social and religious discussions, and if a speaker were to set it forth in detail and explanation — especially in a gathering and assembly like this one, where the level of thinking varies greatly, and one wished everyone or the majority to understand — it would require several hours of discussion. I am constantly trying to lower my hand, to bring down the level of the matter, so that the majority might at least grasp something of it.)
These two kinds of society: one kind, the class society in which there is oppression, there is injustice, there is class difference, there is exploitation, there is domineering, there is brutishness, there is discrimination; and one kind, the classless society in which there is justice, there is humanity, there is freedom — I lean especially on freedom for a reason: some of the classless societies named in the world have, by their own claim, everything minus freedom. A classless society in which there is welfare, and especially freedom; in which no one is anyone's servant, in which no one is anyone's slave, in which no one is subject to anyone else's word. Both these kinds of society have existed in history, both.
The societies of the first type, in which there is discrimination, are the societies that the Qayasirah and the Akasirah of the world and the tyrants of history brought into being. And the societies of the second type — the prosperous, free, non-discriminatory, humane societies — are the very societies that the great divine prophets brought into being throughout history. You say: did the prophets really form societies? In reply we say: yes, the prophets formed societies. In the Qur'an the signs of the societies that the prophets formed are abundant: the affair of Solomon, the affair of Saul (Talut), the affair of Moses and his coming to the Holy Land, the affair of Moses and his demand to bring out the Children of Israel — where did he want to take them? He wanted to take them so as to form a society and a virtuous city. These are the subject of discussions that I may touch on tomorrow and the day after; for now I wanted only this much to be a brief reference.
We have two kinds of society, and both kinds have existed in history. The bad type — the one that reason deems bad and that humanity condemns — the anti-religious political powers of the world and history have always had; the good type, the divine and spiritual powers of history have always had — that is, the prophets. When the prophets come into a society, for what do they come? They come to convert that first type into the second type. This is the spirit of the substance of our discussion today.
Most often the conception of the prophets is a different conception. People imagine that the prophets, when they appear in a society, are like a wise, learned, eminent sage — a mountain of knowledge — who comes into society, takes a house, sits in a corner so that the people may come in groups to benefit from the harvest of his grace and his knowledge. They imagine the Prophet to be such a person, such a being. The Prophet, for example — suppose he enters a society — Abraham the Friend of God (Khalil Allah), say, or Moses the Interlocutor of God (Kalim Allah), enters a society and takes a house, now whether dignified or small or large, and sits there, and has set aside an hour for meeting believers and non-believers, and whoever comes to him he enjoins to good and forbids from evil: "People, fear God; people, God exists." He argues with them, debates with them; he reforms a number of people, and then departs from the world. They imagine the Prophet to be such a thing.
The Prophet is not of this sort. When the Prophet is commissioned in a society — that is, is made to arise — and, as I explained, a resurgence comes into being in his inner being and in his spirit, then he enters society a man who knows not his head from his foot, a man who has no rest and no repose, a human being who has been turned into a blazing, searing whirling torch. He casts a glance at the condition of society, he sees, and — ah! — this structure is a wrong structure, this edifice was badly built, was wrongly founded; its walls and its footings and its grouting were laid incorrectly and contrary to the architectural method of human nature (fitrah). He understands that this must be changed; he understands that this edifice must be converted into a good edifice. Meaning what? Meaning he understands that this society, this class society, this society in which there is discrimination, there is oppression, there is disorder, there is inhumanity, must be changed and converted into a tawhidi (monotheistic) society.
What is a tawhidi society, sir? We spoke of it in the discussion of Tawhid. We pointed out that Tawhid is the negation of classes. Divine Tawhid means the power and government of God; divine Tawhid means that everything — law, custom, regulations, manners, culture — must be inspired from the side of God. Divine Tawhid means that all people are servants of God and that alone, and are not the servant of anyone else; that the servants are free from the servitude of other servants. When the Prophet enters society, he enters with this idea, with this aim, with this thought: to transform that class society, to demolish it, to break it apart, and to bring into being a tawhidi, classless, non-discriminatory, non-oppressive society under the government of the Lord of the worlds. The Prophet comes for this work.
If I wanted to give examples of the famous figures and personalities other than the Prophet, I would surely have to cite these same famous figures whom those who study know more or less; only I do not like to insert non-religious names into religious discussions, and to want to define their limits, some time might pass. He comes into society to transform it — I do not say he comes for bloodshed, never; I do not say he comes for slaughter, never; I do not say he comes to set people at one another's throats, never. It is not so. As I said, the word "revolution," the word "transformation," the word "change," does not even contain the flowing of blood from one person's nose. In all the ordinary affairs of life, bloodshed may possibly occur, and it is also possible that it may not. For what did the First World War come about? A small assassination against one gentleman, one master, in one corner of the world, dragged the whole world into the maw of death and war and fire — was it not so? The crown prince of Austria and I-don't-know-what. A small assassination may set a whole world on fire. Of course, in a revolution too there may be bloodshed, and it is also possible that there may not be. The word "revolution" does not contain bloodshed, killing, division, or setting people at one another's throats.
If the Prophet, when he entered society, when he uttered his revolutionary speech — that is, when he said to Pharaoh that you must not sit there and must not put the Children of Israel under so much pressure and must not build different social classes — when he said this to Pharaoh, if Pharaoh had said, "Certainly, I am ready, I hear your command, I will come down from there," then the Prophet would begin, with his own powerful, skilled hand, to build society, and not a ripple of water would be stirred. The reason conflict and clash arise in the revolutions of the prophets — as God says in the Qur'an, And how many a prophet there was alongside whom many devoted servants of God fought. — or jihad is legislated in Islam, the reason is that that affluent class, that class toward whom the sharp edge of the revolution is directed and from whom privileges are being taken away, is not willing to accept this revolution. Otherwise the Prophet would in no way be compelled to resort to slaughter and conflict and such things. If that class became reformed, if it truly understood the truth — like many of the great political, economic, and financial figures of history who suddenly, under a beautiful and good transformation in their spirits, turned into ordinary human beings — if all those who stood against the prophets and against the call of the prophets had submitted and had come down from that summit, there would be no compulsion at all.
So the Prophet, when he comes into a society, comes for this transformation. The Prophet comes to create change. Meaning, to do what? Meaning, for example, in the Arabia of the Prophet's time, to say: why must the sources of wealth in this society, the springs of surging riches, be in the hands of a minority of aristocrats? Why? Why must slaves and bondsmen be those who toil under the whims of the masters? Why must the weak be the burden-bearers and beasts of burden of the inclinations of the Walid ibn Mughirahs and the Abu Jahls and the Abu Lahabs? Why? Why should these not all be on one level?
al-nasu sawasiyatun ka-asnani l-musht — take a comb in your hand: from the first tooth of the comb to the last tooth of the comb, do you see one of these teeth of the comb enjoying any greater privilege? All at one limit, all at one level, all of one size, all of one shape, equal — and how beautiful! Humanity is precisely this. al-nasu sawasiyatun — humans are equal — ka-asnani l-musht — like the teeth of a comb. This is the call of the Prophet: kullukum min Adam, wa Adamu min turab — humans are all the children of Adam. That gentleman who has raised a palace in some corner of Mecca must eat well, drink well, have trade reserved for him, have others be his slaves and camel-drivers, take the profit himself, and chart the destiny of Mecca himself. That gentleman, with these traits, is no different at all from that lowly servant in his house; they have no difference at all, in terms of human element and essence they are equal, they have no difference whatsoever. Why must the field for that man's benefits be so wide, while this wretch cannot even flap a single wing in this cage? Why? The field must be open before all equally.
You see, these are the claims of the Prophet. In all the societies in which a prophet appeared, he appeared with this claim; that is, he came to convert society from a wrong form, an unbalanced form, a form coupled with oppression and injustice and tyranny, into a balanced form, a beautiful form, a just form. This is one matter. The resurgence of prophethood is this. Every prophet who was commissioned and appeared in any society appeared with this aim — know this. In general, there has never been a prophet who came merely to expound for the people a number of secondary matters and minor details of life.
Of course, the great prophets, whom we call the prophets of firm resolve (ulu al-'azm) and by which title we know them, these were the poles of the divine revolutions; and the other prophets — some came to take up the continuation of their revolution, some came to complete their work, some came to bring their work to fruition, some came to turn back the regressions that came about after the fruition of their revolutions, and to bring about a new revolution once again. This is the same work that the executors (awsiya') of our Prophet performed after the passing of our Prophet: the work of the Commander of the Faithful (Amir al-Mu'minin), the work of Imam Husayn, the work of the other Imams, the work of the scholars of the Ummah of Islam, and finally the work of the Lord of the Age (Sahib al-Zaman), the Master of the Era (Wali al-'Asr) — God's blessings and peace be upon him.
(Salawat in unison. We are not usually in the habit of having the gentlemen send aloud salawat in the middle of our speech without our requesting it ourselves. Now that a murmur has arisen — at last, without our permission, the gentlemen have sent salawat — let them send one salawat at my request too. Salawat in unison.)
Another matter regarding this resurgence that they should pay attention to (which we wrote on this paper, on these sheets and printed copies): We ask, sir, what is the problem with the order of ignorance (jahili) remaining established? With this just order not being established? This Prophet who comes, who suffers so much, who throws himself into water and fire to convert this wrong condition into a beautiful and good condition — what would be the harm if he did not do this work? What would be the harm if he let it remain in that same form? Why is that condition bad? Why is that condition wrong? What right is there here that you take as your measure? "al-haqqu li-man ghalab" — right belongs to whoever prevails; whoever became dominant, whoever obtained power, may it be sweet and wholesome to him; the one who gets slapped on the head, to hell with him, he had only to refuse, he had only not to be there; now that he is there, let them carry out whatever plundering raids they wish — why does the Prophet throw himself into water and fire? Why?
It is another question. You may say, sir, no one asks this question. Yes — by tongue no one asks this question, but in the inner being and the spirit of most people who, faced with disorders, do not have the prophetic stance, this question exists, and an answer has not been given to this question. The reason is this: the Prophet does not move without cause, the Prophet does not throw himself into water and fire without reason. What he sees of the existing condition of his time is a false condition, contrary to human and universal nature (fitrah); what he wants to carry out is the condition of right (haqq) — that is, in accordance with universal and human nature.
Right (haqq) and falsehood (batil): you encounter these two words very often throughout the Qur'an. They are embodied and specified in dozens of its verses — in the instances that are named, the drawing up of battle lines between right and falsehood. What does right and falsehood mean? We mentioned a point here that is the explanation of right and falsehood. We said, sir: the human being — this being who, with this form, with this stature, is walking about in the world — was made and built with certain characteristics. The human being has certain characteristics, has certain possibilities, has certain needs; in short, he is a being who came into existence with a certain measure of his own special characteristics and possibilities. Keep this in mind here. This world too, in which the human being lives, was again structured with certain conditions, with certain characteristics, possessing a certain movement and toward a certain direction. This world that you look at and see with your eyes — each of its things seems to have fallen into some separate corner: its sun is millions of leagues away from such-and-such a planet; its human, its plant, its animal apparently have no connection with one another. In the view of a God-worshipping, God-knowing person, this is an indivisible unity. This entire world is one thing; the parts of this world are the parts of one body. Just as in one body there is a similar movement among all its parts, so too in this world it is the same.
In a human being, the stomach does one task, the eye does one task, the liver does one task, the brain and nerves do one task — but the sum total of all these tasks is one single, shared thing, and what is that? It is the staying alive of this human being, the moving of this human being, the striving of this human being, the continuing of the life of this human being. The sum total of all the movements that you observe in this world too — from above and below and this sphere and the other spheres — their sum total comes out as one single thing, comes out as one single movement. (A little attention is needed; I said that day too: do not always expect, in these discussions, to drink something down like running water and benefit from it; consider these matters somewhat in need of digestion, in need of activity; reflect and think on them a little.) All the other non-human beings, because they have no consciousness, because they have no will and choice, are willy-nilly advancing along this path, along this general movement; it is the human being who possesses choice, it is the human being who can be obstinate and withdraw himself from this caravan of the world's things and move in the opposite direction. It is only the human being who can fail to follow this caravan, this caravan of the world which we said has one single direction — fail to set out and fail to advance; only the human being. The rest of the beings, even if at some time they go out of their natural course, it is the human who takes them out of it. If they split the uranium and, instead of using it to cure thousands of ailments, make an atom bomb and drop it and kill millions of humans — the human does this too; the uranium itself never transgresses or oversteps this natural course of the world; it moves along this ordinary path. If this substance LSD, which ought to be used for the healing of ailments, is turned into a narcotic substance and given into the mouth of some youth, making him dizzy and oblivious for hours to what is going on around him — this is the fault of the human, not the fault of that plant itself, not the fault of that substance itself, not the fault of that thing itself.
In this caravan that we have depicted for you — this caravan in which the sun is one of the parts of this caravan, the earth is one of the parts of this caravan, the galaxies and the small and great beings of this vast world are each elements and parts of this vast caravan — they are all going their way with heads bowed, all are going; it is only this being, the human, who is a mobile and active being, this being who possesses choice, who sometimes bends his own path crooked, turns back in the opposite direction, goes left and right. Sometimes too he drags along the hand of other speechless beings and takes them with him: he takes uranium with him, he takes LSD with him, he takes morphine with him. Morphine, which ought to come out to the benefit of man, comes out to the detriment of man; that so-called plant which ought to give life to man gives death to man. It is not the thing itself that does this — this too is done by the same human who has turned back from the path and gone out of the course; the human possesses this characteristic.
Because the human possesses this characteristic — he has choice, he has will, he can change his own path — because it is so, therefore it is necessary that a law be set for him, that a line of travel be specified for him, that he be told, "Sir, you must move along this line of travel so that you have set out behind this caravan. If you transgress this line of travel, if you go out of this map that we draw for you, know that you have gone out of the course of this caravan." Meaning what? Meaning a law is necessary for this human being. This law that is in accordance with the line of travel of the collective movement of the beings of the world — what is the name of this law? If you guessed it? Right (haqq). Right means that law which is conformable with the nature of the world; and because it is conformable with the nature of the world and the universe, it is also conformable with the nature of the human — for the human too is one of the parts of this world, a part of the parts of this great body. And because this law is conformable with the nature of the human and the universe, it also comes out to his good and welfare.
What is falsehood (batil)? Falsehood is that course, that law, that way and custom which is laid down, fabricated, and carried out contrary to the nature of the universe and the nature of the human. Falsehood is what the brutes and the satans and those who want to deviate from this course make. The prophets always bring right so that falsehood may be removed. That society which Pharaoh makes, dividing people into several classes, putting pressure on one class of them, or keeping one class affluent and oppressing the others — that condition and that order and those regulations and that social form is the form of falsehood. The prophets come to overturn that form of falsehood. They come to dismantle it, to do away with it, to give its place to right. So when the Prophet throws himself into water and fire, it is for the sake of right; because right is the thing that he says and that he wants. It is for the sake of right that he places himself in such discomfort and exposes himself to hardship. It is for the sake of substituting right in place of falsehood that the prophets do not for a moment set down their striving, do not forget it, are not for one moment idle and do not take their ease. The matter is the substitution of right in place of falsehood; this is the interpretation and analysis of the work of the prophets.
We sum up the matter. The prophets want to convert the jahili order into a divine order, into a tawhidi social mold; they want to convert it such that society becomes the domain of the government of God, not the domain of the government of caprices and lusts. (For all these negative traits taken together — the being-class-based, the being-oppressive, the being-exploitative, the being-inhumane, and points of this sort — the best word is the word "jahili"; jahiliyyah means the unjust, un-natural (ghayr-fitri), inhumane order.) This is the outcome of the work of the prophets. The prophets come to convert a wrong social order into a correct social order; their slogan of Tawhid too is for this very reason, their struggles against the false deities (tawaghit) too are for this same purpose. The struggles of the false deities against them too are for this same purpose. This too is a chapter of this continuous discourse; one day, God willing, it may be that we will set forth who the classes opposed to the prophets were, and what were the motives of their opposition and resistance.
The verses that I chose from Surat al-Qasas to be recited describe this very condition — the jahili condition, the condition of the Pharaonic government and the Pharaonic society — and the condition which Moses wanted to establish in place of the Pharaonic condition. Along with these two conditions being specified in contrast to one another, a glad tiding is also given to those who move in the direction of the Mosaic condition. The glad tiding is given that ultimately the will of the Lord has settled upon one outcome: the Mosaic ones of the world — that is, the tawhidi ones of the world and the divine ones of the world — shall be successful and victorious. Its reason too is clear. This too is again the subject of another discussion among those titles that we have in mind to set forth in turn: the outcome of prophethood — what is the final end of the work of prophethood? Conquest and victory. And why? Because it is in accordance with the nature and disposition of the universe and the human.
In summary, in these few verses that we recite here it is mentioned, and these are what is intended, so now we present their translation to the gentlemen. (I beg you to look at these sheets, and whoever has a Qur'an in his hand, let him look at the Qur'an.) In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. Ta Sin Mim.
This cipher at the opening of the surah is, of course, among the very minor discussions that may be raised concerning some of the verses of the Qur'an — namely, what these ciphers are, as the commentators have said. We have no business with that.
These are the verses of the clear Book. — these are the verses of the clear, clarifying Book.
We recite to you something of the account of Moses and Pharaoh, in truth. We recite to you a portion of the important story of Moses and Pharaoh. A portion of that important affair is to be set forth. The method of the Qur'an is this: in each section where it narrates the affair of a prophet, it has a particular purpose, whatever dimension it looks at the story from, and it selects a special portion of the story to narrate in keeping with that same purpose. Here it mentions a very short portion; this is because it has a particular purpose, and that is the matter of the victory of right over falsehood. Of course, we will not bring those portions of its story into this discussion today, and we did not bring them.
We recite to you a portion of the important story of Moses and Pharaoh — "in truth," in accordance with right, in accordance with reality, far from fable and legend — "for a people who believe." That which we set forth and recite to you is not useless and of little effect; rather, for the believers who have inclined toward you, it is extremely effective, beneficial, and profitable. When they hear this story with this insight and understand the divine custom (sunnah) in this regard, they specify and determine their path.
The gist of the matter is this: "Indeed Pharaoh exalted himself in the land." Pharaoh sought superiority in the land, sought greatness for himself, took on loftiness ('uluww). What does it mean that he took loftiness? At this level — equal with other humans — he suddenly rose up, sat upon that ledge, took himself to be higher than others. All were equal, all were on the same level; he took superiority over the other servants. "Indeed Pharaoh exalted himself in the land" — on the face of the earth he attached superiority and greatness to himself and chose it for himself, "and divided its people into factions." He placed himself in the upper degree and also partitioned the land, classified it, made it into groups: one group nearer to himself — the class of Haman and classes resembling his; one class lower, one class lower; he made classes in his Pharaonic society and on the face of God's earth. "Oppressing a group among them" — in addition to making society class-based and possessing various groups, he especially increased the pressure on one class. "Oppressing" — he made a group of them oppressed (mustad'af). Here, for "oppressing," a Persian equivalent occurred to me which I wrote: he took one class under tyranny and in the grip of weakness and incapacity — istid'af. Istid'af cannot be rendered as "making wronged" — though I did write "subjected to tyranny"; because the mustad'afin are usually interpreted to mean those counted as wronged. He kept these in the grip of weakness; within society he took away the possibilities from them, took the powers from them, made them weak and kept them in weakness. "Oppressing a group among them" — a group of the people of society, and one class of them, he kept severely in the grip of weakness and incapacity, casting them into the maw of weakness, into the maw of incapacity. "Oppressing" — he counted them as weak, took them as contemptible, in various expressions; the upshot is that within society he deprived them of all possibilities of growth and progress, of all possibilities. And you, if you are familiar with social issues and social books, see and grasp this matter fully in the world — especially in these Third-World countries. All the possibilities of growth and progress fall into the monopoly of a special few; others cannot grow, cannot breathe, and even if they do grow, their growth is in the service and exploitation of that chosen class. "Oppressing a group among them" — he took a group of them severely under pressure, in weakness and incapacity.
And his pressure was this, that "slaughtering their sons" — he killed their young men. He did not let the young generation of theirs come up; he sensed that among them there was a movement and a ferment, and he knew that the one who could bring this movement and ferment to its conclusion was the young generation. And because in that era and in the social conditions of that age the women perhaps had no involvement in these and social matters, and the burden was on the shoulders of the sons, for this reason the pressure was greater on the sons. Of course, you know this from outside the verse; in the accounts and narrations that have come down on this subject, we have heard and have word that he knew that among these very youths a Moses was to come forth, and it is that Moses who in the end would transform and overturn the world upon him. Either he knew it specifically — as is apparent from the narrations — that a soothsayer had said: "A son with these traits will be born whose name is Moses." Or he did not know it specifically, but he was a clear-sighted man; he understood, he understood that ultimately, among this young generation that is in the Pharaonic society among the Children of Israel, with much fervor and idea and uproar, ultimately a Moses, a great human being, a self-sacrificing man would appear among them — and he feared this; therefore he killed the young men.
and sparing their women. And he kept their women alive — either in order to corrupt them, or in order to drag their lineage into vice, or in order to destroy the soundness of their stock (nasab); that is, the daughters of the Children of Israel apparently did not marry the sons of the Israelites. He wanted there to be no young men, only daughters, so that the lineage would become mixed and the Children of Israel would be absorbed into the Pharaonic society, would be absorbed into Egyptian society, would dissolve, would disappear, would be wiped out. Because — as I once said, on an appropriate occasion, in the opening verses of Surat al-Baqarah — for four hundred years the Children of Israel had held firm within that disordered, unbalanced Pharaonic society and had preserved their own noble ideals.
Well, this drawing-up of lines between these two groups: on one side Pharaoh has such a condition, which at the end of the verse says: "Indeed he was of the corrupters." Truly and certainly he was of the corrupters and the fomenters of corruption. He created corruption in nature (fitrah), created corruption in society, created corruption in the world — as in that other verse, in Surat al-Baqarah: And when he turns away (or gains authority), he strives to spread corruption in the land and to destroy crops and offspring; and God does not love corruption.
The characteristic of the likes of Pharaoh is that they create corruption in the land, they bring about ruin; they prevent — in all kinds and sorts of ways — the maturing and bringing to fruition of the spiritual reserves of this world, or if they do bring them to fruition, they bring them to fruition in a wrong and incorrect form. And Pharaoh too was of this sort.
Now, in contrast, what is right? Upon what has the will of God settled, and in which direction has the divine custom (sunnah) been set? "And We desired" — and We desire — that is, it is Our creative custom and will. "And We desired to show favor to those who had been oppressed in the land." He does not say "We had desired" (wa aradna), so that this will was made concerning the Children of Israel only — no, it is for always, for all of history. We have desired and We desire to bestow favor upon those same oppressed, upon that same class which has been in the grip of subjugation and captive to the claw of weakness and incapacity; upon them We want to bestow favor and to deliver them from that lowliness, to bring them out of oppression. "And We desired to show favor to those who had been oppressed in the land" — that We bestow favor upon the oppressed of the earth. "And to make them leaders" — that We bring them up from the rear of society, from being followers, to leadership and governance and being followed; that We bring up the oppressed of the earth, that We give them mastery over the Akasirah and Qayasirah of the world, over the bullying powerful ones. "And to make them the heirs" — and that We make them the heirs and inheritors of the good things of the earth; this too is Our will. "And to establish them firmly in the land" — that We make them settled and established in the land. "And to show Pharaoh and Haman and their hosts" — and that We show to Pharaoh, to Haman. These are the representatives of two classes. Pharaoh is the exemplar of a privileged class — he belongs to the high class, indeed he is its eminent person — a class under whose authority and exploitation even Haman falls. And Haman is the symbol and representative of another class, a class that puts all its possibilities and forces into the service of Pharaoh — those who in Quranic expressions are apparently referred to as the mala', of whom we will speak in the future, God willing. "And their hosts" — and their armies, those who strive on their behalf without seeing any good from them, but who are nonetheless in their service. That We show to them, "through them" — through these oppressed — "the very thing they were dreading." That same thing which Pharaoh feared, We bring down upon his head; that same thing from which Haman fled and shrank, We bring down upon his head. That is, We take these powers away from them and place them in the hands of the oppressed, place them in the hands of the dust-dwellers, place them in the hands of the destitute — who, of course, always constitute the majority of any society. This too is the will of the Lord.
Then, of course, it goes on to other matters: "And We revealed to the mother of Moses: 'Suckle him,'" which shows the power of the Lord. In that other verse too which we chose for you gentlemen from Surat al-Saff, there the matter is that reference is again made to the victory of the divine order over the jahili order — though with the aspect of its victory we have no concern in today's discussion. We are concerned with this aspect: that in contrast to the existing jahili order, when the Prophet comes, he presents a divine and tawhidi order of right and strives in the establishment of that order and in the settling of that order of right. (We have written the translation of these verses here too. As for me, my time is over, and my energy too is almost spent. I beg Mr. Rida'i now to come forward and prepare for the recitation of the Qur'an, and the gentlemen too, after our notice, if they are willing, to sit for a quarter of an hour, ten minutes, a quarter of an hour, and listen to the recitation of the Qur'an.)
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, do not place us as followers of the false deities (tawaghit). O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, keep us alive as Muslims and make us die as Muslims. Cast no separation between us and the Qur'an. Grant us the grace to act upon the Qur'an. Sever and uproot the hands and elements opposed to the Qur'an. Make the enemies of Islam, in whatever spot of the world they are, abased and abject. Make the helpers of Your religion, the supporters of Your Qur'an, in whatever spot they are, victorious and triumphant and exalted. Set the end and outcome of the matter to our benefit.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 18 · 52:12
- Ep 19 — The Goals of ProphethoodSession 17: The Goals of Prophethood.
delivered Saturday, 13 Mehr 1353 / 18 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
The verse of Surat al-Hadid is this:
Surat al-Hadid (57:25).
We have indeed sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and sent down with them the Book and the Balance, so that people may uphold justice; and We sent down iron, in which is great force and benefits for mankind, and so that God may know who helps Him and His messengers in the unseen. Indeed, God is Strong, Mighty.
And as for the second verse, which is in the blessed Surat al-A'raf, verses 156 and 157:
…And ordain for us good in this world and in the Hereafter; indeed, we have turned to You. He said: My punishment — I strike with it whomever I will, and My mercy encompasses all things; I shall ordain it for those who are God-fearing and give the alms-due, and for those who believe in Our signs — those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel; he enjoins upon them the good and forbids them the evil, makes the wholesome things lawful for them and forbids them the foul things, and relieves them of their burden and the shackles that were upon them. So those who believe in him, honor him, support him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him — those are the ones who prosper.
These two verses, and several other verses in the Noble Qur'an, set forth the goal of the great prophets of God.
Our discussion of prophethood reached this point: the prophet — that one roused up by God — does for society what he first does within himself. Just as he brings about a kind of resurrection within his own inner self, he brings about a resurrection within society as well. He creates a change and a transformation in the very fabric of the community. Today we want to understand this transformation: what is its purpose and aim, and the aim of all the activities of the divine prophets in general? Knowing this is useful for us in several respects — indeed, necessary. What goal does the prophet pursue? After what aim and what object does he run?
The prophet has one principal, primary goal. On the way toward it, other goals also come up for him, and among these one is more important than all the rest and more attractive to him. But the primary goal of the divine prophets can be summed up in a few words: the prophets come into this world to bring the human being to the destination of his exaltation, and to the perfection that has been ordained for him. The human being, as a being who possesses talents and faculties and abundant energies, can become something higher, loftier, more precious, and more noble than what he now is.
Fundamentally, the human being, from the first moment of his birth, from the beginning of his formation, in his own little world, is always in the process of becoming complete; he is always in the state of advancing and of attaining greater perfection. In the condition of the body and the outward frame of the human being, you observe this matter very well. The newborn infant lacks many of the characteristics of a complete human being. He lacks teeth, he lacks a strong hand, he lacks a powerful jaw, he lacks legs that can run, he lacks the internal apparatus — the digestion and so on — that would enable him, like an ordinary grown person, to carry his life forward; he lacks a powerful brain and a powerful nervous system and organization. Then, after a while, all of this comes into being for him. It is certain that they do not give him anything from outside; it is that same little jaw of his that becomes strong and powerful, it is that same weak hand of his that becomes powerful and large and strong, it is those same little, delicate feet that become firm, steady steps, it is those same weak nerves that later become powerful, it is that same feeble brain that later becomes the discoverer of the most important and most complicated problems of life. They give him nothing from outside; it is he himself, it is his own talents, it is the latent, hidden capacities within him, that gradually, with the passage of time, with his being placed in particular conditions, blossom in him, flower, and come into the stage of manifestation and emergence. Within him there was the talent of speech, which later makes him a speaker. Within him there was the talent of understanding things, of becoming a thinker, of becoming a scholar, which later all comes about. So the human being is always in the state of becoming complete: things which he was not, and which he later becomes — he was not powerful, then he becomes powerful; he did not have intellect, then he comes to have intellect; he did not have experience, then he comes to possess it, and so forth.
In matters relating to the outward frame of the human being — as all of you have now noticed and affirm — you see that the human being is always in the state of becoming complete; that is, in the state of acquiring and coming to possess things that were not previously prepared for him and that he did not possess. In spiritual matters, in the realm of the soul and the human virtues, the matter is exactly the same. A whole world of talent is latent within the human being. The human being can be likened to a very strong, deep, and abundant mine, such that when you extract from this mine you find within it many things; but until you have extracted from it, it is a mere existent — a dry, barren plot of land, without any beautiful display of life.
Let me give an example — I usually, in such cases, liken the human being to those mosaic tiles that they pour at the edge of a pool, at the threshold behind a door. Have you noticed? They pour the mosaic. When they first pour this mosaic, they set the mold and spread this material there and it dries; and when you look at it, you see in it no sign of beauty or delicacy. There is a dark, grimy, lustreless, charmless mass there. Then the turn comes for them to rub it, to grind it, under special machines or by hand; they begin to grind and rub these. When a certain amount of this grinding has passed, you suddenly see that this dark mass has become translucent through being ground — which is a natural thing; many things that are dark, when you grind them, become translucent. But that is not all. You find something in it you were unaware of: now that you have ground it, you understand that beautiful stones, of many colors, with various patterns, with interesting and pleasing hues, existed within the belly and depths of this dark mass — things you could not have seen, could not have benefited from for their beauty, could not have used to fashion something ornamental. Now that it has been ground, all these stones have come out. When you place before yourself a fine, ground piece of mosaic, you see it is a beautiful design, it is lovely indeed — whereas before the grinding there was nothing. Liken the inner talents of the human being to those very same glittering, interesting, beautiful particles that exist within the depths of the belly of this dark mosaic.
This human being whom you see, this unhewn, unpolished creature whom you see in the market, in the street, this little child who cannot yet speak, who has not a particle of refinement for anyone except his father and mother — this very one at whom you look is a rich and abundant mine; in him are materials of grace, in him are displays of beauty, and these are the talents of the human being. It is the very thing of which they said, in the old poetic tongue: "You have seen the flight of the bird — you, from the fetter of lust: / Come out, that you may see the flight of humanity."
It is the very thing that, again in various tongues — poetic and non-poetic, mystical and others — they have told us from of old, and it is right and it is true. They said that the human displays raise the human being higher than the angel and the celestial spirit; they make the human being a gushing wellspring of goodnesses, beauties, manifested talents, and interesting, attractive powers; that is, they make him the complete human being, the upright human being, the perfected and exalted human being. The true goal of the prophets is to make human beings into this — the very thing which, in the Qur'anic expressions that we have written here, is named "purification" (tazkiyah) and "instruction" (ta'lim). They purify human beings of bad traits, draw them away from caprices, and rescue them from the displays of a brutish, animal way of life. He said: "O you who have torn the cloak of the Josephs: / you shall rise from this heavy sleep a wolf."
Those who, with a human exterior, do the work of a wolf; those who, with a beautiful, adorned human face on the outside, do the work of beasts of prey, dogs, savages, and ogres — these cannot be called human. That human being for whom bloodshed is pleasurable, that human being for whom the destruction of the lives of other human beings is a means of amusement, that human being for whom the spectacle of others' sufferings is not distressing, that human being who sees the sorrow of others and feels no sorrow — this human being is not a human being, whatever his exterior may be. Is he very learned? Is he very wealthy? Is he very powerful? Is he very tidy and well-pressed in appearance? Even if he is all of these, none of them is humanity. It is tidiness, it is being learned, it is being powerful; being a human being is something else.
The prophets come to purify human beings. In the environment of the prophets' call you see no trace of brutishness; in the environment of prophethood's life you observe no sign, no trace of the displays and manifestations of an animal, savage way of life. There, whatever there is is the light of purity and humanity, and this is the art and the great miracle of prophethood. People look for the miracle of prophethood in extraordinary deeds — deeds that ordinarily do not occur in the natural order: the splitting of such-and-such a wall, or such-and-such a body, or the coming-forth of a tree. Very well, let those things be too — there is no objection. But the great miracle of prophethoods consists in the making of good human beings, adorned with virtues; this is the greatest miracle of the prophethoods — it is no joke.
When a person looks, he sees that people in whom there is every disposition to crime and corruption, when they come under the grindstone of the call of Islam, when that grinding apparatus that the prophet sets in motion falls upon them — the human being suddenly sees that the very savage of yesterday, the very criminal of yesterday, that same unhewn, unpolished man of yesterday upon whom you placed no reliance whatsoever, becomes a human being of immense grandeur.
Who was Abu Dharr? Was Abu Dharr anything other than a rough, desert-wandering man, indifferent to humanity, unaware of humanity? Abu Dharr was a man of whom, if you saw ten thousand of his like before you, it would not matter to you if all ten thousand of them perished and were annihilated in a single earthquake. A man who neither understands nor wishes to understand, in whom there is not a particle of the sign of human grace, in whom there is not a particle of the trace of interest in becoming good — barefoot, dirty, rough, grown up in the desert: were such a man set before you — not you, but any great reformer, any human being of grandeur — how much would the heart burn for such a man? The so-called great reformers of the world, those who consider themselves reformers and great reformers, complain even of men more substantial than themselves, that "they did not appreciate our worth, they did not recognize us, they did not understand us." Their desire is that human beings circle around them like moths, around their heads, that they sacrifice themselves for them — and to what end? Whether they have carried out a portion of their commitment or their human mission, or not — there is even doubt about that. Faced with such persons, when those kinds of people are set before them, they assign them no value whatsoever.
The prophet takes this very creature, this very black stone, this very unhewn, unpolished boulder, whose name is Abu Dharr, and brings it under the grindstone of revelation and the call, and from him fashions a human being such that there is no human virtue of which there is not a sign in him; this is the great miracle of the prophet. From him he fashions a human being whose whole self has been absorbed, dissolved, sacrificed, offered up on the way of the goal — that whole self, this "I," this "I" which for ordinary people is the axis of all activity, every aspect of it. Can you find such a man? We want everything for ourselves, or for what is connected to ourselves: for our shop, for our title, for our children, for our good name — in the end it comes back to ourselves. Abu Dharr sacrifices everything that comes back to himself for God, for the goal, for that direction in whose path he is moving. A human being of that kind is transformed into a human being of this kind. What is it that does this? The revelation of prophethood, the call of prophethood; out of black, dark stones it fashions clear, bright mirrors, and this is the goal of prophethood: the making of an upright human being.
It is true that the formation of a sound system is a very interesting thing — and I am coming to this point; in deciding whether to accept a statement or to reject it, do not be hasty until we finish the statement. It is true that the formation of a prosperous system, a free and flourishing system, is a very interesting thing. But here is what I want to see. Suppose a flourishing, free, prosperous system, accompanied by equality and social justice and the absence of class, has been formed, and human beings in that new, lofty, interesting society have busied themselves with living — to what end? And after that? The materialist schools — for the human being, for humanity, after the era of reaching the ideal society — what goal have they envisaged? What is the goal of humanity? Human beings should make sacrifices, perform acts of self-denial, strive, struggle, to build a flourishing home out of this world; now we have built the flourishing home — and after that what? In this flourishing home, what do we wish to do?
Well, we toil and build this mosque; then, when the mosque is finished, we must have a purpose. The purpose is that people should come here and, for example, pray, or listen to a lecture, or whatever. It makes no sense for us to say that we want to build a mosque — hue and cry, noise and clamor — we built the mosque, we raised it up; once it is finished, now what do we want to do? Nothing — after that we have no goal at all. This is absurd; this is breaking one's leg halfway down the road. The materialist schools have all broken their leg halfway down the road — all of them.
The materialist schools say: let us make the world flourish, let us abolish poverty, let us abolish ignorance, let us build a lofty society, let us build a human society, a society in which there is no oppression, no classes, no exploitation, no discrimination. Very well — we have built it; now, what does the human being wish to do in this society? They have no answer. In this society, where does humanity wish to arrive? They have no answer. Does it wish to eat and sleep? Does it wish to live comfortably — is that all? Does the human being exist only for a comfortable life — that is, comfortably acquiring, comfortably consuming, and comfortably excreting? Is it for this that he must struggle, and is this to be his goal? It is here that the materialist schools' mount goes lame.
The divine schools say: No, the goal is beyond this. The lofty goal is the refining of the human being; the lofty goal is that the children of Adam should become human. The children of Adam are not the same as the human being. "Children of Adam" is this very creature that walks on two legs — with all this pretension, this is a child of Adam; but to become human means that all these virtues and wellsprings of talent within his being should come into flow. You say: and after that what? We say: there is no "after that." The human being is unlimited; to the extent that God's power is unlimited, there is no "after that." "Indeed, we belong to God, and indeed, to Him we return." When the human being has fallen into the course of perfection, there is no longer any end; this is the idea of those who worship God, the thought of the monotheists of the world and the religions of the world. It is always advancing, always progressing, always ascending, always perfecting and exalting — it has no end and no terminus, and the prophets come for this.
The prophets come to purify human beings of evils, of basenesses, of ignorances, of moral vices, of the keeping-hidden of inner talents; to deliver them; to fashion them into the complete and exalted human being — this is the primary goal of the prophets. Hence in the Qur'an it has come in several places; of course, I did not cite its verses here today, because previously one of its verses had passed.
God has indeed shown favor upon the believers when He raised up among them a messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His signs and purifies them, and teaches them. The refining, the adorning, the cleansing of vices, the adorning of the human being with virtues — this is the goal of the prophets.
Hence you see that our Prophet says:
A saying is related: "I was raised up to perfect the noble traits of character". I was sent to complete the noble traits of character, the beautiful traits, the good traits. This is the first statement.
But the more important statement is the second statement. The first statement is one that is uttered a great deal; some people are also very fond of having it repeated. The reason is that if the whole matter were merely refining — only purification (tahdhib) and tazkiyah — then someone says: "Sir, we have found the way, we have understood where to go. Set aside the tumult of society, and 'excuse the war of the seventy-two nations, all of them'; we will go to the corner of a hermitage, busy ourselves with monasticism, and there busy ourselves with the purification and refinement of the soul, and save ourselves, our own selves. If we are able — if someone comes who has the capacity for it — we will say a word in his ear too, and we will draw him out of himself, and make him too into a real human being."
This statement is repeated a great deal precisely because it can serve as a pretext — a pretext for laziness, for shortcomings, for self-preservation, for comfort-seeking, for the love of ease. Both the people are fond of it, and the leaders are fond of it. Those upon whose shoulders rest the responsibilities of guidance and instruction are fond of this saying. To refine people is a trouble-free task, a flawless task, a task that does nothing to harm or injure the cattle and sheep of a person. One gathers a group of people, croons a lover's lullaby in their ears, draws them out of themselves, refines them, purifies them. And for the people too it is easy; that is, it appears easy — though of course it is not actually easy.
So up to this point of the statement it is well-known; from this point of the statement onward, it is not well-known; from this point of the statement onward it is not said. What is it from this point of the statement onward? This is the question: by what means did the prophets refine and adorn the people? What did they do? Did they come to the people and, one by one, take the ear of each individual, take the hand of each individual, lead them alone into the seclusion of a house, a chamber, a school, a maktab, and begin to instruct and educate them? Did the prophets, like the ascetics and mystics of the world, sit in their own monasteries so that the people might come, observe their spiritual state, and become of one belief, fellow-travelers, and in step with them? Did the prophets, like the philosophers of the world, open a school, hang up a sign, and also issue an invitation: "Whoever wishes to learn doctrine from us, let him come here to us and learn doctrine" — were they like this? Or rather, the prophets do not believe in individual education, the prophets do not believe in fashioning human beings one by one, the prophets do not believe in tidy, neat tasks — that you should imagine that, like Socrates and Plato, Abraham the Friend of the Merciful, or Moses, or Jesus, or our Prophet, would sit in a school and the people would go and benefit from him. They are not like this.
And of course the saints (awliya') are like the prophets — for in the matter of the Imamate I will say that our Imam al-Sadiq too is of that kind. It is an error if someone imagines that Imam al-Sadiq sat upon a pulpit and four thousand students sat at the foot of his pulpit — as some heedless persons interpret it. It came about this way: Ibn 'Uqdah, a renowned scholar of biographical traditions of old, counted four thousand persons among the students and the transmitters of the hadith of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, peace be upon him. From this, a group imagined that these four thousand persons used to come and sit — imagine, for example, in an enclosure twice the size of this enclosure, four thousand persons would sit, and his Lordship Imam al-Sadiq, the blessings of God be upon him, would, upon the pulpit, recite hadith, expound rulings, deliver admonitions. They imagine it was like this.
No — neither Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, nor his grandfather the Prophet of Islam, nor all the prophets of the world, had this as their method. School-playing, admonition-mongering, and individual education are not the work of the prophets. The prophets have only one answer to this question: how can human beings be fashioned? How can human beings be educated according to the correct divine models? Their one answer is this: in order to fashion the human being, one must build a suitable environment, a sound environment, an environment that can nurture him within itself — that, and nothing else. The prophets say: you cannot cast them in molds one by one; you must build a factory. The prophets say: if we wished to fashion human beings one by one, night would fall and a whole lifetime would pass. A society is needed, a system is needed; human beings must be fashioned into the desired shape in the press of a system — that, and nothing else; it is only this and nothing else.
The prophets say that the human being is like a tree, like a sapling. Consider a sapling, a date palm; consider an orange sapling. This has certain conditions, certain characteristics, and these characteristics require that it be in warm air, in suitable air. Plant a date palm in southern Iran, in the southern regions of Iran, or in Tabas, or in some of the Arab countries, and see what delicious, excellent dates it gives — it is an interesting thing, isn't it? Why? Because this sapling needs air of a certain number of degrees, humidity of a certain percentage of the air, soil of a certain kind, and other conditions — dozens of other conditions; and these conditions are gathered together in Tabas, these conditions are gathered together in Khuzestan, these conditions are not gathered together in Mashhad. What can be done about it? Go, take thousands of date-palm saplings, dig them up, bring them here, plant them in the ground, water them too, give them air too — is it possible?
You can only do one thing; only one thing can be done, and that is this: that you bring one date-palm tree here into the garden of your house, or take an orange into a room, toil, take care, give it fertilizer, give it water, work upon it so much that after a while — "O 'Ali, help!" — it gives one or two dates. You say, "Yes, we too brought a date-palm sapling to Mashhad and got two, three dates." Well, why should we do this? Why should we do this? If we could establish a date-ripening, date-nurturing environment, build it, there would be no need for all this care, no need for all this heartache, no need for all this fastidiousness; and moreover, it would not give just two dates — it would give hundredweights, tons of dates. Is it not more reasonable for the human being, instead of attending to a single date-palm tree one by one in an unsuitable environment, if he is able, to build a suitable environment — if he is able, to build an environment that itself nurtures dates?
Of course, it is clear that the toil and the heartache that a person must bear for the building of a suitable environment is far greater than the toil that a person bears for a single date-palm, a single date-palm sapling. That toil is far greater than this; but reckon its benefit, reckon its yield. Here you toil over one individual, you fashion one single human being; there you fashion a whole society, you build a whole system, you make millions of human beings, generations of humanity. This was the work of the prophets.
This point that I have made is among the statements upon which we have taken our stand, among the statements upon which we insist, and we believe that the followers of the prophethoods must understand this statement. This is a matter upon which you must reflect deeply; do not pass over it easily. Refer to the verses of the Qur'an, refer to the history of the prophets, refer to the narrations that exist concerning the prophethoods, scrutinize, reflect; neither accept it quickly nor reject it quickly. The matter is very important. All the difficulties arise from precisely this point. A certain group cannot understand that the prophets wished to build a suitable, favorable environment; they imagine that the prophets wished to fashion human beings one by one — whereas fashioning human beings one by one is far beneath the station of the prophets.
What we understand from the Qur'an is the prophets' answer to this question — "How can human beings be fashioned?" that is, refined and adorned. The answer is that one must build a divine society, a monotheistic (tawhidi) society, a suitable environment, so that the human being may be fashioned in this suitable environment — not one of him, not ten of him, not a thousand of him, but in groups upon groups — fashioned of themselves, by the natural warmth of the radiant light of the teachings of Islam.
When the help of God and the victory come, and you see the people entering into the religion of God in throngs. In the pagan environment of Mecca, when the prophet wishes to fashion a human being, he is compelled to fashion them one by one; because, in order to bring about such a system, a number of select persons are needed, a number of cornerstones and a foundation are needed, and these are first fashioned one by one. This does not contradict the prophets' overall plan. The prophet, in order to fashion and hew the cornerstones of the civic society, is compelled in Mecca to engage in individual person-making: one Abu Dharr; one 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud; another, and another, and so on — at most he fashions a hundred persons, two hundred persons.
These become the building stones for the formation of the future civic society — that is, the monotheistic and Islamic society. The prophet there, in that way, fashions human beings one by one — with what toil, with what hardship, with what heartache! Fathers prevent their sons from understanding anything; the sons set their hearts on the world, they do not come to follow the prophet to learn doctrine; everyone who develops a little inclination — there is toil and hardship and heartache. All these tasks are carried out. But when the turn comes for Medina — when that divine and Islamic society is formed in Medina, and the prophet is at the head of that society and ruling by the ordinances and commands of God — there, then, God Almighty speaks in this way:
When the help of God comes, and the conquest, and you see the people entering into the religion of God in throngs. This is the upshot of the matter concerning the goals of the prophets.
Let me summarize the matter — and of course we have written the summary here too. The summary of the matter is this: the prophets have two goals, two important goals. One is the fundamental goal: the fashioning of the human being, the purifying of the human being from evils, the adorning of the human being with goodnesses and virtues and excellences — in short, making the human being human. This is the higher goal. But the other goal that the prophets have, which lies halfway along the road to this goal, is this: the formation of a monotheistic society, the formation of a divine system, the formation of the government of God, the formation of an organization administered by divine laws and ordinances. This is the goal of all the prophets. If someone imagines that the great divine prophets did not have this goal, he must study more in the Qur'an, in the hadith, in history.
Now, we have brought here two verses — though of course there are many verses in the mighty Book of the Lord from which this matter may be derived. We have cited only two verses here; only, it is necessary to reflect on these two verses, it is necessary to scrutinize and ponder a little.
The first verse, as we mentioned, is from Surat al-Hadid. I shall merely translate the verse and give a brief explanation.
We have indeed sent Our messengers with the clear proofs.
The statement of the prophets, the arguments of the prophets, are clear arguments; they are not something that an intelligent, thinking person fails to understand. They understand; everyone understands the statement of the prophets.
And We sent down with them the Book.
What is the Book? We have said it repeatedly: "the Book" means the collection of teachings and ordinances from which the very essence of religion is constituted — the religious instructions and teachings; this is the Book, the comprehensive ideology of the religion. In brief, with a slight looseness of expression, we can equate the Book with what is today called, in the terminology of the modern schools, "ideology" — that is, the constructive principles and teachings, the intellectual principles that have a tangible, constructive effect in practical domains.
The Book is one thing; then, with them, We also sent down the Balance.
The Balance means a scale. What does this mean? Does it mean that every prophet who came had a scale under his arm — large or small? No. "The Balance" means the apparatus for creating social equilibrium and balance — this is the meaning of "the Balance." The Balance means the instrument by which one can bring about social equilibrium and balance. Here, incidentally, it becomes clear that the regard is to society; for if the prophet were not meant to be at the head of a society and to form a society, what would he need the Balance for? What would he need that by which social equilibrium and balance can be established? An instrument has been sent with the prophet by which social equilibrium and balance can be created. What is that instrument? The divine judicial apparatuses — this is one; judicial ordinances — this is one; the executor of the law, the guarantor of enforcement — the Balance can also be applied to this. There exist ordinances, and a guarantor of enforcement, and an overseer of the enforcement of ordinances. It is the very thing that today, in the terminology of the democratic countries, they call the "executive power," which consists of the government, so to speak. In countries where there is a government, a parliament, legislation, and an executor, the executive power is that which has supervision and oversight over the enforcement of ordinances in society; the executive power may be this "Balance."
And in studying the narrations that have come in commentary on this verse, I saw one of the interpretations they gave of the Balance: it says, "The Balance is the Imam." And I saw that it is entirely correct, it applies; we take inspiration from this hadith. The Balance is the Imam. The Imam is the one who, in society, must separate truth from falsehood; it is he who must distinguish the ranks; it is he who must establish social equilibrium and balance. Why? Because he is the ruler of society. Of course, some persons may also have mistaken, vulgar interpretations of this phrase and of that hadith; we have nothing to do with those interpretations — we believe just as we ourselves say. The Imam is the Balance, is the measure; evils and goodnesses are weighed by him, paths are gauged against him; moreover, it is he who is the overseer in society, watching that people do not depart from balance and equilibrium; and he supervises the ordinances. The narration too confirms this. So the Balance means that instrument by which social equilibrium and balance are established; this too We sent with the prophet.
Why did We do these things? What was the Book to accomplish for the prophet? Indeed, what was the prophet himself needed for? What was the Balance to accomplish? The reason is this: so that people may uphold justice.
"Li-yaquma 'l-nasu bi-'l-qist" can, in terms of Persian phrasing and translation, be rendered in two ways — both of which, of course, have one meaning. We have chosen one of them and rendered it here, and I will also mention its other meaning. "Li-yaquma 'l-nasu bi-'l-qist": so that human beings may establish a just life — in parentheses we have written: and an environment of justice and equality. Human beings should establish a just life; this is one meaning. The other meaning is this: so that human beings may stand upright upon the basis of justice (qist), may live upon the basis of equality. I said there are two meanings; if one scrutinizes, these two meanings differ from each other in terms of Arabic parsing and construction — except that the import of the two meanings is one. I wanted to explain this so that no one finds any objection or difficulty in some of its "kana-yakun" (grammatical niceties).
"Li-yaquma 'l-nasu bi-'l-qist" — the upshot of its meaning is that human beings should live in a just environment, should live in a just society and system. The prophet came for this in the first place. So what did the prophet come for? For the formation of a just system and environment. He came to make the world just; he came to bring a just society and system into being; it is precisely for this that the prophet came — and of course it is in a just system that human beings find the opportunity to attain perfection and exaltation. "Li-yaquma 'l-nasu bi-'l-qist."
Then, following it, He says: And We sent down iron.
Yes! We brought iron too. By mere talking, by mere preaching — "People, come, build a just system" — is that sufficient? Suppose they did build a just system: do the devils and wolves and thieves and beasts of prey allow this just system to remain? Hence We sent iron too. Why did We send it? So that the authentic values might be defended by means of iron. Here too we referred to the books of hadith, and we see that, when the Imam, peace be upon him, interprets the verse and reaches this point — "And We sent down iron" — he says: "Weaponry (al-silah)"; the sword, the spear, the weapon, which is made of iron. God Almighty, alongside the call of prophethood, mentions weaponry. Alongside the preaching that is incumbent upon the prophets, alongside the idea of forming a monotheistic and divine system, the Lord of the worlds mentions weaponry and coercive force. "And We sent down iron" — and We sent iron, and, as the Imam, peace be upon him, says, weaponry and the weapon.
In which is great force and benefits for mankind, and so that God may know who helps Him and His messengers in the unseen.
The expression "so that God may know" — although God does know — means that it may be made distinct, made manifest, become determined in the external world. "Who helps Him and His messengers in the unseen" — those who help God and His prophets in the unseen, with faith in the unseen, possessing faith in the unseen, or unseen: God they did not see, and some did not see even the prophet; they bring faith in him and help him.
Indeed, God is Strong, Mighty.
Incidentally, notice: these conclusions of the verses are very meaningful. These that you see at the end of every verse — "Indeed God is Strong, Mighty," "Indeed God is Hearing, Knowing," "Indeed God is Forgiving, Merciful" — these are not just there by chance, so that a person might find at the end of a line of poetry some rhyme to stick on. It is not like that. Every one of these phrases that has come at the end of a verse carries, in keeping with the content of the verse, a certain meaning and a certain point — did you notice? Therefore, in this noble verse too, the matter is just the same. "Indeed, God is Strong": do not imagine that the prophets came and are unable to bring into being this society that we have sketched and to establish the people upon justice. No — God, who is the One who sends them, is Strong. Do not fear that they will struggle and contend against the prophets of God — let them. "Mighty ('aziz)" — God is invincible. I render 'aziz as "invincible." What has come in the meaning of 'aziz in the lexicon is "the Overcomer who is not overcome" (al-ghalibu 'lladhi la yughlab). 'Aziz means the one who prevails, but no one prevails over him. The Persian expression we found for this is the word "invincible" (shekast-napazir), which is both beautiful and concise. God is Strong and invincible. This is one verse.
And now the verse of Surat al-A'raf. In the preceding verses the discourse is about Moses, peace be upon him. We have nothing to do with the preliminaries of the episode that this verse follows, because it was this verse that we wished to interpret; we have brought one verse from before it as well, so that the matter may be clear.
The discourse is of a believer, or believers, who are speaking with God. What do they say? Now pay attention; listen to the verse, until we reach the points in question. They say:
And ordain for us good in this world and in the Hereafter; indeed, we have turned to You. He said: My punishment — I strike with it whomever I will — I bring My punishment upon whomever I will and intend.
Of course, God's will is not haphazard and arbitrary either — that He should wish to punish one and not wish to punish another. No; the Lord's will too follows criteria and standards that He Himself has laid down. It is the bad, evil-doing person whom God Almighty wishes to punish. "I strike with it whomever I will" — I bring harm; not "harm" exactly — it is "usibu"; no, "usibu" means "I make to be struck," only in the Persian expression we have brought the word "harm." I bring harm by means of this punishment of Mine upon whomever I will.
And My mercy encompasses all things. I shall ordain it for those who are God-fearing and give the alms-due, and for those who believe in Our signs.
Which ones? "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet (alladhina yattabi'una 'l-rasula 'l-nabiyya 'l-ummi)" — those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered (ummi) Prophet. We have translated ummi in its very form ummi, because there is disagreement over the meaning of ummi. Some say ummi means illiterate; some say ummi means "of the common folk," "of the masses" — that which pertains to the common mass of people, related only to the mother, not influenced by the cultures around him; some say ummi means "of the Mother of Cities (Umm al-Qura)," pertaining to Umm al-Qura, that is, Mecca. Because there were these disagreements, I did not wish to present a piece of research on this subject, so we rendered ummi by the very word "ummi." "The unlettered (al-ummi)" — that unlettered Prophet — "whom they find (alladhi yajidunahu)" — whom they find — "written down with them (maktuban 'indahum)" — written down in their own possession — "in the Torah and the Gospel (fi 'l-tawrati wa-'l-injil)" — in the book of the Torah and the book of the Gospel; for these two books gave glad tidings of the coming of the Prophet.
What is the characteristic of this Prophet? From here on, pay attention. "He enjoins upon them the good (ya'muruhum bi-'l-ma'ruf)" — he commands them to do goodnesses, the virtues recognized by the intellect and by the human primordial nature (fitrah). "And forbids them the evil (wa yanhahum 'ani 'l-munkar)" — he forbids them from wrongdoings, the things unrecognized by the human intellect and nature. "And makes the wholesome things lawful for them (wa yuhillu lahumu 'l-tayyibat)" — he makes lawful, makes possible, makes permissible for them the wholesome things and the good things — every good thing that there is in the religion. "And forbids them the foul things (wa yuharrimu 'alayhimu 'l-khaba'ith)" — and he makes the foul things forbidden to them; that is, he keeps them away from them, holds their hand back from bad things. And the Islamic society is like this.
In the Islamic society, all the things that are good for the human being — for his mind, for his heart, for his soul, for his body — are within the reach and disposal of all. Knowledge, literacy, godfearing-ness, money — whatever is good and beneficial for the human being is at the disposal of all. Whatever is bad for the human being is at the disposal of no one. "And forbids them the foul things" — either they are not within easy reach, or, by way of binding laws, they have been removed from their reach.
And relieves them of their burden.
Among the characteristics of the prophet is this: that he lifts the heavy load — the heavy load of ignorances, the heavy load of false traditions, the heavy load of foul, inhuman systems, the heavy load of dictatorships and despotisms and tyrannies and exploitations. Every heavy load he lifts from their shoulders.
And the shackles that were upon them.
What fetters and chains were there, then? Was it that, when the prophet was raised up, a chain had been bound to the feet of every one of the people of Mecca, each one of them? Had a shackle been placed on their necks? Were they all imprisoned? Well, it is clear that the shackles and chains were not of iron. They were shackles and chains — but what kind of shackles and chains? Think for yourself and find out. What kind of shackles and chains were there upon the hands and feet and necks of these people? The shackles and chains of bondages, the shackles and chains of submission to coercion, the shackles and chains of human-made traditions, ordinances, and impositions; the prophet comes and undoes these. What are these but the formation of a human, monotheistic system?
So those who believe in him, honor him, support him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him — those are the ones who prosper. The light and radiance of illumination that has been sent down with him — that is, this Qur'an; they follow after it. They are the victorious, the ones who partake of felicity (falah) and who have reached the goal and destination.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 19 · 46:24
- Ep 20 — The First Melodies of the CallSession 18: The First Melodies of the Call.
delivered Sunday, 14 Mehr 1353 / 19 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Nahl (16:36).
And We did indeed raise up in every nation a messenger, [proclaiming]: 'Worship God and shun the Taghut.' Then among them were some whom God guided, and among them were some upon whom error became deserved. So journey through the earth and behold how was the end of those who cried lies.
In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.
First, attend, so that we may recite the verses appointed for today's recitation. The first verse is from Surat al-Nahl, which is the sixteenth sura, in the fourteenth part [juz']; it is verse thirty-six. It says:
And We did indeed raise up in every nation a messenger, [saying\: 'Worship God and shun the Taghut.' Among them were some whom God guided, and among them were some upon whom error became deserved. So journey through the earth and behold how was the end of those who cried lies.]
The second portion is from the blessed Surat al-A'raf — a very extensive passage from that sura, the part of it relevant to our discussion. We could not quote the verses at that full length, though; they were very long. So of those verses I have in view, I cited only a portion, and that is the portion I shall translate for you. It is an account of the conversation of one of God's noble prophets — the prophet Hud — with his people. Before it, too, there is a verse concerning the prophet Noah, and if you attend carefully, our purpose in quoting these two verses will be served. The first portion is this:
Indeed We sent Noah to his people, [and he said\: 'O my people, worship God; you have no deity other than Him. Truly I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous day.']
From this point I again did not cite the subsequent verses, so that we might reach the story of the prophet Hud and the people of 'Ad. Two or three verses here I did not bring into this paper, because they were not the place of our argument; but the verses after them were once again what we needed. Therefore the verse we cited is this:
And to 'Ad [We sent\ their brother Hud. He said: 'O my people, worship God; you have no deity other than Him. Will you not then guard yourselves [against evil]?' The chiefs of his people who disbelieved said: 'Indeed we see you in foolishness, and indeed we reckon you among the liars.' He said: 'O my people, there is no foolishness in me; rather, I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds. I convey to you the messages of my Lord, and I am to you a faithful, trustworthy counselor'] — to the end of the verses.
Today our purpose is to set forth one point: what was the first melody of the prophets' call? In the light of the discussions of these past few days, for those who have paid attention and given thought, it has become clear what the prophets are about in this world — for what purpose they have come, how they continue their work, and by what road they secure their aim. These matters should have become clear in the course of the past discussions. And if you find that — God forbid — they have not, you must refer once more to those written notes. If even then some ambiguity remained and it was not made clear, then the fault is mine, for having written the notes either deficiently or obscurely. Otherwise, the following points ought to emerge from these notes: for what work the prophets come, what the benefit of that work is, and how they secure it. These were discussions that have already passed.
Today's discussion is this. God's mighty prophets wish to accomplish a great work — the founding of a government, a society, and a monotheistic order, the overthrow of the order of ignorance and polytheism, and a tremendous resurrection within the fabric of society. These tasks are the aims of the prophets (peace be upon them); but where do they begin them? The question of the point of beginning is exceedingly important. Think of all the activities that present themselves to a human being, or to a group, or to a society — that we should perform such-and-such an act, implement such-and-such a plan, carry out such-and-such a program. Sometimes this matter arises for a group, sometimes for a handful of human beings attached to a certain idea or a certain creed, sometimes for a nation, sometimes for an individual. Among all these ideas and important undertakings, this question too is one of the most important: from where shall we begin this work? The point of beginning is exceedingly important.
If the point of beginning is chosen correctly and aptly, there is much hope for this work, this plan, and this program reaching its result; but if the point of beginning is chosen badly, it is not that the load will never reach its destination and the work will not be set in order — no; it is possible that it will, it is possible that the load will reach its destination, but it will arrive with difficulty. The point of beginning is most important in this respect: that to a large extent, with a high percentage, it underwrites and guarantees the success of the work that is to begin from this point.
In the case of the prophets' work, knowing their point of beginning matters first because the appraisal of their work requires it. For a complete knowledge of the prophets' work to come into our hands, how good it is that we should know this matter too — namely, from where they used to begin. Beyond this, it is instructive for us. If we have seen that the prophets all acted in a particular style and by a defined method, this can be a lesson for us, since we are followers of the prophets and successors of their schools and their way. From several standpoints, therefore, it is worth our while to pursue this question.
God's mighty prophets — as we wrote for you in this paper — their point of beginning consisted of the declaration of the kernel, the marrow, the foundation, and the spirit of their school. At the outset of the social and doctrinal revolution and resurrection, the prophets never flattered the people. It was never the case that for a period of time they kept the people confused with some other talk, with some other slogans, and that after attaining some measure of success they would then put forward the real slogan — no. From the very first, with sincerity, with uprightness and truthfulness, they declared their real and ultimate aim. And what was that? That aim consisted of Tawhid.
As we explained in the past days, Tawhid is the whole of the school of the prophets (peace be upon them). Tawhid and the knowledge of God serve two ends. On the one hand, they are the means of the perfection and exaltation of the human spirit — which is the lofty, ultimate aim of the prophets. On the other hand, the plan of Tawhid means bringing about a divine environment: a divine society and order, a just order, a classless order, an order without exploitation, an order without oppression. It means the formation of just such an order. And this is the very fitting environment of which we were speaking yesterday — the environment necessary and indispensable for the nurturing of the human being.
Tawhid is the whole of the school of the prophets. Belief in Tawhid, in the existence of God and the oneness of God, both secures the final and ultimate aim of the prophets, and also [provides] that environment which they hold to be necessary for the making of human beings, for the operation of the factory of man-making. Tawhid is the best and most eloquent slogan; for the reason that a monotheistic society is a society in which God alone is master and lord. No one other than God acts as lord in it. No being in a monotheistic society imposes upon, lays obligations upon, or legislates for others. No other being in a monotheistic society calls the people to obey itself — not even the Prophet; not even the Prophet, who is the representative of God.
And [recall\ when God said: 'O Jesus son of Mary, did you say to the people: take me and my mother as two gods besides God?']
God Most High addresses Jesus: did you teach the people such a thing, did you instruct them to regard you and your mother as God and as objects of worship?
He said: 'Glory be to You! It is not for me to say that to which I have no right.' "Glory be to You, my Lord" — Transcendent are You, my Lord; I would never give such a false teaching, such a bad instruction — never. I take refuge in You from saying to the people that which is not the truth and is not right.
If I had said it, You would surely have known it; You know what is within my soul, and I do not know what is within Your soul.
— to the end of the verse.
There is another verse in this connection which is, of course, more fitting than this one — that no prophet has the right to tell the people, "Be servants to me." The content of the verse is this — if you wish to find it in the Kashf al-Ayat [Quranic concordance], the phrase "Be servants to me" is in the verse; you can find this clause in the Kashf al-Ayat. No prophet has the right to say to the people: O people, be slaves and bondsmen to me. Of course no prophet says this explicitly — "O people, be my slaves and my chattels." What is meant is that no prophet has the right even to call the people to his own command unconditionally; that is the exclusive right of God. And if even the Prophet was like this — if the chosen servant of God has no right to take any liberty within the domain of God's rule and dominion, if the bearer of the Lord's revelation cannot summon the people to obey himself in disregard of God — then the case of everyone else is evident. The political powers, the tyrants of history, the bullies who throughout the long span of human life imposed [their will] upon the people, laid obligations upon them, loaded burdens upon their shoulders — all of these performed an act contrary to Tawhid. Tawhid negates all of this; this is the meaning of Tawhid. And if someone does not grasp this from Tawhid, then on this question he certainly either has not studied or has not had the requisite understanding. This is among the self-evident matters of Quranic Tawhid: Tawhid in worship, Tawhid in obedience — to which, of course, I alluded briefly in the discussion of Tawhid. When the prophets enter a society, as soon as they say La ilaha illa Allah [there is no god but God], the thumbs of friend and foe alike are alerted as to what is afoot. Do you follow? This is a very important matter.
The importance of the matter lies here: that the sensitivity and perception of the people in the time of the prophets, and the absence of this perception in the people of later times — like you and me — what is this the effect of? As soon as the prophets came, from the very first step they took, their friends and their enemies became distinct. Our Prophet, from the very first day he descended from the Mountain of Light and the Cave of Hira', and began, in that barren land barren of virtues, to build a cemetery of virtues, and to raise up the melody of Tawhid — from the very first they began to oppose him; except that the forms of opposition were various. From the first his enemies became distinct; from the first those who were bound to crush the Prophet understood that they must crush him — it was hidden from no one. Likewise, everyone from that class who were bound to accept — whose perception, awareness, understanding, and divine favor was greater — he too understood, from the first and as soon as possible, what the Prophet was saying and to what he was calling. So from the very moment our Prophet was commissioned, both groups understood his message and what he wished to say: his friends and supporters, those whom he protected and for whom he existed, and his enemies, those whom the Prophet was to strike upon the head. A message that you and I have still not properly understood. We must sit down — and I here must labor and cry out — to set forth for you the self-evident truths of Islam, matters that are, I will not say new for the first time, but at any rate fresh, more unprecedented, somewhat less precedented than many other matters. This matter, over which we must stand here and speak with you in order to prove it, argue it, and clarify it, is one that the desert Arab or townsman of the era of the Prophet's commissioning understood in the very first sentence.
Today we must speak with you and say that the spirit of Tawhid consists of the negation of every power other than the power of the Lord. Abu Lahab understood this very point at the very, very first. Walid ibn al-Mughira al-Makhzumi, the lord of Quraysh; Abu Jahl, another lord of Quraysh; and likewise Umayya ibn So-and-so, and others and others, the lords of Quraysh — they were the first to understand this matter. They understood that this one who says La ilaha illa Allah, this one who says there is no lord, no object of worship, except God, is not calling [people] merely to a doctrinal matter, but is also calling [them] to a social matter; and that is the abolition of Umayya ibn Khalaf, the abolition of Walid ibn al-Mughira, the abolition of 'As ibn Wa'il, the abolition of So-and-so, So-and-so, So-and-so, the abolition of the lords of Quraysh. This they understood first; and because they understood, they opposed it.
Do you imagine that the cause of the opposition of the disbelievers of Quraysh, the ringleaders of disbelief and error, to the Prophet, was anything other than precisely this matter — that they saw their own rank and their own social position in danger? Were their hearts aching for the idols? Were they that devout? We have never seen, among the upper classes of society, at any time, that there were people who were truly believing, devotedly self-sacrificing for religion, for the sacred — any religion and any sacred thing. Whoever throughout time has claimed this, has spoken vainly; experience has shown that he is lying. In a class such as the class of 'As ibn So-and-so and Umayya ibn So-and-so and Walid ibn So-and-so — in that class it makes no sense at all that there should be people so attached and devoted to their religion that now, because the Prophet has shown insolence to their idols, they should, say, tear the Prophet to pieces, oppose him, contend with him. There does not exist in them, and cannot exist, so strong a faith of that kind. Of course, there was a little belief, there was bigotry — but the social considerations were above all else.
They saw that Tawhid would destroy the palace of their mastery and chieftainship. They saw that the negation of the false gods, the negation of the lords — that is, the founding of a monotheistic society — and the founding of a monotheistic society means the exclusive sovereignty of God and exclusive obedience to God. They saw that Tawhid means the equality of human beings before the Lord of the worlds. They understood that if a person, a society, and an order is based on Tawhid, in that order there is no discrimination, no class difference, no oppression. These things they understood; and because they understood and were unwilling to come to terms with such an order, they opposed it. Their like is Pharaoh; their like is Nimrod; their like is the chiefs of the Children of Israel in the time of Jesus; their like is the affair of 'Ad and Thamud; their like is all the prophets whom the Quran has mentioned by way of a firm and solid testimony. When the Prophet enters society, he says that there is no god but God — his first word is this word — and as soon as he says this word, they begin to draw up their ranks against it, to oppose it, to set themselves against it, even to destroy him; in some cases the matter even led to his destruction.
The first melody of the prophets' call and the point of beginning of their work is the proclamation of Tawhid; they utter the last word first. The schools and political parties in the world — those that have no connection with God and religion — have no message that would justify keeping the people for a long time chasing after "black chickpeas" [i.e., a fool's errand], warming their heads for a long time with hollow, empty slogans, and gladdening them for long years with vain hopes; only for us to see at last that the object and aim was never these things from the start, that the quarrel was over Mullah Nasr al-Din's quilt. They have no [real] message. The prophets — no; straightforwardly and squarely, honestly and plainly, they declare the matter from the first. From the first they tell the people what their purpose is; they tell both the higher classes and the lower classes. From the first they say: we wish to bring those at the top down, to bring those at the bottom up, to make them all equal — from the very first they say this.
What is the benefit of speaking this way, sir? What harm is there in the prophets' first putting the people off with delay? Stringing the people along for a time, talking hollow talk for a time, making out to the people for a time that they want what in fact they do not want, and then at the end securing their aim — what obstacle is there in that? The obstacle is that religion is accompanied by awareness and insight. Religious faith, if it is blind and unaware, is of no benefit. Religion wants everyone who embraces it, everyone who enters its region and environment, to know from the start where he is going and what work he is pursuing. Even that desert Arab who is uninformed about everything, when he comes to the Prophet and becomes a Muslim, knows from that first hour what he wants; he is not pursuing an absolute unknown; he understands what he wants. It is for this very reason that he endures so, and is patient. It is for this very reason that he bears the endurance of all that suffering and torture and hardship — because he knows what he is doing. And always — in struggles, in clashes and conflicts, throughout the whole of history and everywhere in the world — the person who takes action will grow weary in those first moments if he is not aware, if he does not know what he wants, if he does not know what aim and what beloved he is running after. And this is quite natural.
A group of people are running with great fervor and ardor; and your honorable self is idle, walking along the street; you see them running, and you run. Well, after going a few paces, you have the right to say to yourself, and you will certainly say: well, why am I running? Where am I going, after all? Now we have run, we have panted for an hour as well — what then in the end? Well, this thought breeds slackness in you. But they know where they are running. They are, suppose, travelers whose vehicle is about to depart, and they are running to catch the vehicle. They are running to reach such-and-such goods in such-and-such a shop; the goal is clear to them. Until they reach there, they do not grow weary; and even if they grow weary, they drag themselves there with effort, in proportion to how much that goal is worth to them. But you, who do not know why they were running, do not know what their goal was, just aimlessly fell in behind them and walked along, ran for a while too, of course — but at once you reflect to yourself, and even if you do not reflect, they put it into your thought, into your mind, this thought: "Sir, why? For what? For the sake of whose heart?" There a person grows cold — unless he is aware, unless he has set out from insight.
Consider why a young man, comfortable and at ease, would kick aside everything that has value and importance for a human being, everything that was a means of his comfort and ease, and not regret it. Yasir and Sumayya, that woman and that man, that father and mother, those two exemplary Muslims, kicked aside all the beauties of life and gave up their lives — the father and mother of 'Ammar — how glorious these lives are! The cause of it was that it sprang from insight.
I read a Persian writing a while ago — I think one, two, or three years back — about 'Ammar and Yasir; it is by an Egyptian writer. I found one or two mistakes in it, but it is a very interesting book. Right now I cannot recall its name — (whoever recalls it now, say it aloud so that everyone may hear). It is a book on the biography of 'Ammar Yasir and his father and mother, Yasir and Sumayya; I think it is by Taha Husayn, or by one of these same Egyptian writers; Mr. Ahmad Aram has translated it into Persian — and a very interesting translation it is too. Of course, as I mentioned, I found one or two mistakes in the book, but on the whole it is very interesting. Sir, read this book; see how, from insight, from perception, from awareness — (one of the audience: Va'da-yi Rast ["The True Promise"];) that is right, the book is Va'da-yi Rast — how, from perception and awareness and insight, this faith had penetrated their hearts; how interestingly it explains the state of Yasir's faith — how this Yasir came to believe; and 'Ammar, and their striving. First the wife believes, then she brings her husband to faith; it is an uproar, it is an affair. Well, without insight, they would not have endured.
The religions, from the first, declare and state the final word — from the first they say for what we have come, and do not conceal it — for this reason: so that the persons who embrace religion and become attached to it should enter it out of awareness, out of insight, without warming their own heads [with illusions]. This is exactly the opposite of what is customary today in the world of religion. In the world of religion, insight and awareness are a crime — a crime. The religious person and the anti-religious person — and the strange thing is that these two groups, both the religious and the anti-religious, arrive at one and the same conclusion on certain religious questions. The religious person and the anti-religious person have both, as it were, come to believe that religion means not understanding, that religion means not thinking at all, closing the eyes and ears. In appearance we say, and the religious say, that the principles of religion are demonstrative — that in the principles of religion no one should imitate anyone. But just dare not to imitate; dare to step a hair's breadth away from imitation in some corner of the principles of religion, and see how at once you will be technically knocked out. We have all come to believe that religion means going along a road without insight, without awareness, without perception, with eyes closed and in servile blindness. Because we have heard and know that in the branches of religion [furu'] one must refer to a specialist, recognize the specialist, and follow him, we have imagined that religion is everywhere like this — whereas it is exactly the reverse, exactly the reverse; these two differ by a hundred and eighty degrees from each other.
Religion is fundamentally [a matter] of awareness and insight. It does not tell anyone: now you accept it for the time being, and later you will go and investigate — never; in the world of religion there is no such talk. Even if you suppose that you accept it, as long as your heart has not accepted it and it has not been out of awareness, you have not truly accepted it. And even if you have accepted religion, religion has not accepted you, so long as it is not from insight and awareness. For religion sets a value on awareness, sets a worth on insight, sets a higher and loftier station for the person of insight. For it wishes that all, from the beginning of their attention to God, should attend consciously. It is for these purposes that the prophets, from the first, declare their own purpose and their final aim.
There is another point we can deduce and infer in this connection, and from which we can draw a conclusion. What we conclude in this discussion is two or three matters. One of them was the very thing I just stated — that religion regards awareness and insight as fundamental and does not accept the unaware Muslim. The second point is this. Consider the followers of the prophets, those who regard themselves as the inheritors of the prophethoods — and not only the scholars. Of course the scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, but all the divinely-oriented people of the world are, in a sense, reckoned among them: everyone who walks in the path of Tawhid and accepts Tawhid as a [binding] resolution is a follower of Abraham, a follower of Moses, a follower of Jesus, and a follower of all the other dear and noble prophets of God. By what road do these followers of the prophets wish to enter? From where do they wish to begin, [in a way] better, more decisive, and more fruitful than the point from which the prophets began?
Why, today, when religion is spoken of, do we not first put forward Tawhid? Why? This is a question that must be asked — is it not so? There, where there is talk of religion, what percentage of the talk is of Tawhid? Why, in order to make our own people religious — our own society, our own world — do we not begin from where the prophets began? We wish to make the people of the world believe in the religion of Islam; [yet] we enter by a road other than the road by which the prophets entered. We must put forward Tawhid — the very Tawhid that the prophets put forward. If we cannot bring about that resurrection on the world horizon, on the international level — and of course we cannot do so easily — at least we can, on the international level and on the world horizon, tell the people that the aim and goal of the prophets is to bring about such a resurrection; this much we can say. Why do we not put this forward?
Why do religious speakers, instead of beginning from Tawhid — both in thought and in practice — busy themselves with secondary, second- and third-rank matters? This is a very noteworthy and important question. Often it is said to us: "Sir! If you have an objection to some of the religious propaganda, why do you not take it up with the propagandists themselves?" The answer is this: where are we to find the propagandists? Those whose manner of delivery and exposition we have a criticism of — where are we to find them? How much enforceable guarantee does our friendly, well-meaning advice have?
Let me say this to you, however: the gentlemen who are here, you mostly know me; you are mostly familiar with my thoughts, with my discussions. It may be that there is a small number of you for whom this gathering of ours has novelty; otherwise, most of you who are here have been [attending] our discussions for a long time — in that mosque, in this mosque. I firmly believe in the authenticity of religious propaganda, and in the authenticity and necessity of the standard-bearers of religion — that is, the august clergy of the Shi'a. I love the clergy very much, and I believe in the necessity of the cleric. By "clergy" — though, of course, the word "clergy" [ruhaniyyat] is a mistaken one; since it is common and current, I use it — I mean the scholarly and religious community of the Shi'a, this very [body] that our dear clerics today belong to, in this guild, in this class, in this stratum. And I believe that if this did not exist, if the scholarly and religious community of the Shi'a did not exist today in the world of Islam, the affairs of the Muslims would become even more pitiable than they are. And, in short, it is necessary that a group be girded for understanding and expounding the teachings of Islam, and that is precisely this scholarly and religious community. A certain young man, a certain tradesman, a certain person who has not made this work his special field — of course he may sometimes think, investigate, and even express it or write it down, and may God confirm and preserve those who render these services to Islam — but he is not a permanent [worker]; he is an amateur at this work. A professional is needed. It is necessary that there be someone whose profession is this, whose specialty is this, whose work is this — and that is the scholarly and religious community of the Shi'a, that is, the clerics.
Therefore the existence of these people, the authenticity of these people, the necessity of these people — for you gentlemen who are here, my young friends, who know that I do not speak out of bigotry but speak out of realism — let there be no room for doubt. The existence of an entity called the clergy is necessary; it is among the most necessary of necessities. But we also have this right, and we grant it to ourselves, to say this matter to those who today stand in this path, in this garb. We acknowledge that a number of them act exactly as we would wish — a number of the clerics and propagandists truly act as they should, and perhaps as they do. Yet there are also some who simply do not attend, in any way, to the fact that today their point of beginning is not the point of beginning of the prophets' work. Matters of the tenth rank, of the eighth rank, of the fifth rank, have, for them, more value and worth than the question of Tawhid — than the exposition of the Quran, than the principles of religion, than the lofty teachings of Islam.
He is ready to discuss for hours how Nakir and Munkar [the two angels of the grave] come when they come into the grave: do they stand on a person's right side, or on his left side, or facing him, or what are these [things]? Yet knowing or not knowing this has not a particle of effect on a person's being a Muslim, not the slightest effect on action and on the fulfillment of our Islamic commitments. And of this sort of question there are very many. These they bring into the reckoning of the necessities of religion as well; like the first-rank matters of religion, they put these forward, but they are never ready to give thought to this question: that Tawhid — Tawhid's proposal for the form of society, for the social order, what is it? Does it have a proposal or not? Our message is that these tasks must be placed in the first rank.
The lesson we take from the work of the prophets and from the point of beginning of the prophets' call is, among others, this: that we too must make our own point of beginning the very point of beginning of the prophets. If we cannot accomplish the prophets' resurrection, at least we can say that the prophets' resurrection is this, that the aim of the prophets is this, that their road is this; we can explain it — this work we can indeed do. If there is a discussion about the Prophet of the End of Time, preference is given to matters of the fourth and fifth rank in the life of that great one — for example, the question of the Messenger of God's casting no shadow [is taken up]. There is a narration in the Khisal of Saduq that the Messenger of God (may God's blessings be upon him and his family), when he walked, used to see from behind him. But, of course, the late Saduq himself says in the footnote what is meant: that the Messenger of God was so alert, so intelligent and watchful, like a person who continually sees what is around him. There are some who walk along the street dazed and stupefied; someone behind them makes faces and mimicry, and you could walk behind him for an hour and he would not notice. With some people, these things are difficult [to do] behind their backs. He is an intelligent person, he is attentive, he is watchful of everything around him; the slightest gesture, the slightest movement, around him, near him, behind him, draws him to it. He [Saduq] says: the Prophet was an intelligent person, a discerning man.
This is Saduq's statement, mind you — the statement of Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn Babawayh al-Qummi, a traditionist [muhaddith] of eleven hundred years ago, and one of the greatest scholars of the Shi'a, a man whose books, from a thousand years ago until now, have always been at the height of fame. This very 'Uyun Akhbar al-Rida, Ikmal al-Din, Man La Yahduruhu [al-Faqih], and so on and so on, Khisal, Amali — dozens of books by this great one are now printed, are extant, which are among the high source-texts of the Shi'a. This man's opinion is this. Now, I am not concerned with whether the opinion is correct or not. But they are ready to put it forward and discuss it — with its opinion, with its criticism, with so-and-so traditionist's view about it, with another's view. Yet as to what the noble Prophet had come for at all — what his proposal was concerning the form of society, what the Prophet said concerning government, what his view was concerning the manner of human upbringing: did he consider individual upbringing sufficient, or did he hold social upbringing to be necessary? — these things are not raised at all. This is exactly it.
Today is not a day on which the world of Islam can bear delay in these matters. Today we do not have that abundance of time; today we do not have that opportunity; today our patient is in his death-throes — in his death-throes, his hour is late. Today we must put forward, ahead of all else, whatever is most necessary; that whose necessity is a hair's breadth less than this, a hair's breadth behind. The breath and the hour of today are, for us, of great account and abundant and important.
Yes — those detailed, extensive theological discussions concerning the particulars of the second- and third- and fourth-rank teachings of Islam, leave for that day when we have no other work to do, when we have at least solved these first tasks. The final word is this: that if you do not accept this advice from us, at least do not take offense at our having advised you; this is yet another matter. The best of people is the one who does not take offense at receiving advice.
Therefore, the point of beginning of the prophets' call is Tawhid. The witness that we cited for you from the Quran for this meaning — since I do not wish to go into detail — one [of them] is Surat al-Nahl, and its verse is this:
And We did indeed raise up in every nation a messenger — and indeed We raised up in every nation a prophet.
What was the message of this prophet and messenger? His message, his proclamation, was this: Worship God and shun the Taghut. This is the first word of the prophets.
As soon as they come, before they have even rested from the dust of the road, their message is this: "Worship God and shun the Taghut."
The Taghut is the rival of God. The Taghut is that which stands horn to horn, opposite God and the command of God — whoever it is. Sometimes this Taghut is your own self;
A saying is related: Your most hostile enemy is your own self, which is between your two sides.
Sometimes the Taghut is that very babbling heart of yours. Sometimes the Taghut is the caprice that drives you day and night. Sometimes a person's love of mastery is his Taghut; the arrogance of a human being is his Taghut. And sometimes [the Taghut] is the powers outside the human being's existence — powers that thus expand in widening circles, expand and rise up. In any case, when the prophets came, they said God, not Taghut. The first sentence they uttered was this: that you should worship and serve God, and avoid, keep away from, and disregard the Taghut.
Then among them were some whom God guided — some of them God guided; and among them were some upon whom error became deserved — some of them were those upon whom error and misguidance were laid.
So journey through the earth and behold how was the end of those who cried lies. See what became of those upon whom error was laid, who cried the Prophet a liar and did not accept his guidance. Behold the fallen civilizations; behold the ruined countries and cities; behold Babylon and Assyria and Chaldea, destroyed, of which nothing remained but a name in the column of history. Behold the power of the Pharaohs of Egypt, [how] Egyptian society was rolled up like a scroll. These are what the Quran speaks of; behold the nations and countries that did not lend ear to the word of the prophet — what their end became: they are doomed to extinction. The talk is not even of a miracle. Of course, in the earliest age, miracles used to come, because the doomed had to disappear quickly: it could not be allowed that, with the passage of ages and days, the people of 'Ad, for instance, should be brought to perdition [only over time]. So there they would send down chastisement upon them — the blowing of a wind, an earthquake, a flood, something — and remove them from existence.
But, generally speaking, until the end of the world this is so: any society, any nation that does not move along the course of religion and does not move in accordance with religion will be destroyed. Not that its people will all die — no; the destruction of a nation means the destruction of its national organization. They are absorbed, they are digested, they become part of other nations, their nationhood vanishes entirely. Today, you determine where the nationhood of Chaldea is; determine where the nationhood of Assyria is; determine where the nationhood of Babylon is. These great civilizations of history, the first human civilizations, are these — where are they? Where are they? Is there any trace of them at all?
Behold how was the end of those who cried lies.
This was in Surat al-Nahl; now Surat al-A'raf.
In Surat al-Nahl it says, generally: "And We did indeed raise up in every nation a messenger" — in all the nations We sent a prophet. But in Surat al-A'raf, it mentions the prophets one by one. First it begins with Noah, saying:
Indeed We sent Noah to his people — We sent Noah to his people; He said: O my people, worship God.
See — his first word is this; he said, O my people! "Worship God" — serve God. "You have no deity other than Him" — there is no object of worship for you besides Him; that is, the true object of worship. "Truly I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous day" — I fear for you the chastisement of a great day. Then his people answered him, saying that we do not accept, and so on and so on, and the affair of the Flood; but those parts were not the place of our discussion, until again the turn reaches 'Ad.
And to 'Ad [We sent\ their brother Hud] — We sent to the people of 'Ad their brother Hud.
Now the people of 'Ad are among those ancient and antique peoples — perhaps prehistoric — for it has not been correctly discovered or made clear who they were and in what era; [they are] after the Flood of Noah, [belonging] to the very, very ancient.
And you skillfully hew out houses from the mountains.
This is about this people of 'Ad, apparently — that they built houses within the mountains; one does not deem it far-fetched that this might be for that late Stone Age, which some materialist scholars have mentioned and depicted. At any rate, they belong to the very ancient. They had a prophet named Hud, who likewise said to them this same thing:
He said: O my people, worship God; you have no deity other than Him — he said: O people, worship and serve God, for you have no god besides Him.
Incidentally, see how, by this statement, the theory of those who say that Tawhid and religion in general arose from the natural condition of human beings and out of the ignorance and foolishness of human beings — and that religion gradually arrived at Tawhid — becomes utterly wrong and false. They say that at first the peoples were polytheists — some of these sociologists who speak by rote. It is very bad for a person to speak by rote — like someone who wishes, say, to describe the Mosque of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba, to describe this building, without ever having even come near it. He sets about describing: yes, I see the Mosque of Imam Hasan thus — these marble stones have covered all its wainscot, the chandeliers are attached in such a manner, these walls they have decorated with such beauty. But he has not seen it. He has heard that the Mosque of Imam Hasan draws a large crowd, for example, and on conjecture imagined it must be like this — whereas the moment he entered, you would see: no indeed, it has neither roof nor wall! (Laughter of the audience.)
In matters of sociology, if someone speaks without study and by rote, it comes out just like this: a cause for laughter and ridicule. They speak about the interpretation of history without having studied an important part of history; they speak about the phenomena of religion and creed and these things without paying attention to the religions of history. Well, this is a religion that existed perhaps tens of thousands of years ago. Or, if we take that famous date found among the narrations as correct and reliable — that seven or eight thousand years have passed since the descent of Adam — then suppose this was perhaps six or seven thousand years ago. And these people carry the chronicle along with ceremony, [saying] that at first there was polytheism, and then Tawhid appeared. But no: we see that from ancient times, from antiquity, there was Tawhid.
Will you not then guard yourselves [against evil\?,nofn]
— O my people, will you not show piety? He wished to make Tawhid acceptable to them and to make them understand it. Now here I have cited the conversation and discourse of his people with the prophet Hud. I read it from the Quran and give a brief translation:
The chiefs of his people who disbelieved said: — those notables and dignitaries of his people who were disbelievers said to him thus: Indeed we see you in foolishness — we see you in foolishness and folly; and indeed we reckon you among the liars — and we deem you to be among the liars.
This is among the accusations and false notions that, throughout all time, have been directed against those who call to the truth. One of my discussions concerning prophethood is precisely this — perhaps it will be the last chapter — [namely] of what sort the slanders that were cast at the prophets were, and what those things were; it is, of course, a side and marginal discussion. They say: you are a foolish man; they accuse him of ignorance.
He said: O my people, there is no foolishness in me — he said: O my people, there is no folly in me; rather, I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds — rather, I am a prophet from the Lord of the worlds.
In the face of their accusation, their improper speech, he repeated his own true statement.
I convey to you the messages of my Lord — for I deliver to you the messages of my Lord; and I am to you a faithful, trustworthy counselor — I am to you a trustworthy well-wisher.
I desire your good, I desire your growth, I desire your progress — for I call you to God and Tawhid.
Do you marvel that a reminder from your Lord has come to you by means of a man from among yourselves, that he may warn you?
Do you marvel that a reminder from your Lord came to you, by means of a man from your very selves, to warn you? That is, do you find it astonishing that an ordinary human being, in this same garb of yours, in this same dress of yours, should attain the station of prophethood and messengership?
Then he directs them to a historical matter: And remember when He made you successors after the people of Noah — that sinful people — and increased you abundantly in stature — in creation, in physique and frame, He gave you greater strength and power — so remember the bounties of God, that perhaps you may prosper — that perhaps you may reach success and victory and felicity.
They said: Have you come to us — see, the enemy too at once understands what the exclusive worship of God means. They said: Have you come to us that we should worship God alone? — have you come to us that we should worship and serve God alone? And forsake what our fathers used to worship? — and that we should set aside what our fathers used to worship — of inanimate idols and animate idols, both? Then bring upon us that with which you threaten us — bring us that with which you threaten and warn us; if you are among the truthful — if you are speaking the truth.
He said: There has [already\ befallen you defilement and wrath from your Lord.]
He said: assuredly there has befallen you defilement and wrath — defilement and wrath: a defilement within your own beings, and a wrath from the side of your Lord has overtaken you; you are wretched.
Do you dispute with me concerning names that you have named, you and your fathers? Do you argue with me concerning hollow, marrowless names that you yourselves and your fathers placed upon them, that you fabricated and coined these names — for the sake of this being that you yourselves made and to which you granted power; for the sake of it do you dispute with me?
for which God has sent down no authority [sultan\,nofn] — concerning which God has sent down no sultan, that is, no power — or no proof.
We have written both [meanings]: hujja means a proof and argument; and sultan comes both in the sense of power and in the sense of hujja, that is, proof and argument; here both meanings can hold. One is this sense — that we say God Most High has sent you no proof or argument for the correctness, truth, and soundness of these gods of yours and these lords of yours. The other interpretation is that we say: no, God has given them no power at all; and these abject, helpless, powerless beings, to which God has given no power whatsoever, you place at God's side.
Then wait; indeed I am with you among those who wait. He said these things; then the chastisement of the Lord came down.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 20 · 48:45
- Ep 21 — The Opposing GroupsSession 19: The Opposing Groups.
delivered Monday, 15 Mehr 1353 / 20 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-An'am (6:112-113).
And thus We have appointed for every prophet an enemy — devils from among mankind and the jinn, inspiring one another with embellished speech in delusion. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it; so leave them and what they fabricate. And [it is] so that the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter may incline toward it, and be pleased with it, and so that they may commit what they are committing.
(We have started a little late today — by some ten minutes — and on the other hand we intend, God willing, to keep our time disciplined; that is, to finish in an hour and a half. So we will not recite the rest of the verses.) We said that prophethood is a social resurrection, and we said that one of the principles of this resurrection consists of the negation of social classes — meaning that in the environment which is the making and the handiwork of the Prophet of God, there does not exist, on one side, a class of the weak and the enslaved and the destitute and the deprived, and on the other side, a class of the powerful and the bullies and the privileged.
As we know from our own Islam — and indeed all the heavenly religions are essentially of the same character — Islam has never posited, never even imagined, a situation in which one person, because he is weak, because he is powerless, would be unable to obtain his own rightful due. Such a supposition has no place among the suppositions of an Islamic government and of a monotheistic, divine order. This is why He says: No community will be sanctified in which the weak one cannot take his right without stammering — meaning this: suppose in some society you see that a human being is weak — that is, he is not at the head of some power, he does not hold one of the political and social posts — and such a person, an ordinary human being, cannot take his right without a stammer of the tongue. Then know that such a society is not a saved, successful, victorious society. And even if the weak one took his right but took it with a stammer of the tongue — went and stood there, and his tongue stuck a little, and his face flushed a little — this too is of no use. Does a person who is a child of his own house, a child of this household, when he goes toward the kitchen and toward the food and the storehouse and the source of food to take his own food — which is a right he has assumed for himself — feel any shame, any sense of humiliation, any sense of being a burden? Certainly not.
In a society shaped the way Islam teaches and instructs us, and the way it wishes us actually to act, the situation is like this: all are children of one environment and members of one body, without any difference or distinction whatsoever. This means that the Islamic ruler — even one like the Commander of the Faithful (may God's blessings be upon him) — has, in the Islamic society, exactly as much right and exactly the same rights as any one of the individuals of the common people, and only that much right.
In the Islamic society, the very highest authorities cannot use force, bullying, or even harsh speech against an ordinary human being. Consider how far this went, even in a period when the course of the Islamic society had changed and, according to our belief, had drifted away from the axis of divine and authentic vicegerency — that is, away from the axis of the imamate of the Commander of the Faithful (may God's blessings and peace be upon him). Even in that very period, a governor, a powerful man, ruled some region far from the Islamic capital; his son — not he himself — struck a single lash against an Arab. At that, a high-spirited Arab gets up and traverses this long road, crosses this distance, comes to Medina to seek justice and to file his complaint. The caliph writes to the governor that both the governor and his son must come; he does not say "Send your son alone" so that the governor might excuse himself in reply and say "I am unwell at the moment" — no, the governor himself must come too. The governor and his son both come. When the caliph asks them why he harmed this Arab and struck him with a whip, the son of the governor says: "O Commander of the Faithful, O caliph! Tell him to bring a witness." He turned and said: "His witness is precisely this — that with such hardship he rose up from Egypt and came all the way to Medina. In the desert, where would he bring a witness from? Should he find four upright witnesses to attest that you struck him in the desert?! If you struck him in the lonely desert, what is he to do? Had you not struck him, this motive would not have arisen in him to rise up all that distance from Egypt and come on foot to Medina to complain to me. Lay him down." They stretched the governor's son out in the mosque and began to flog him. When the son rose up, [the caliph] said, "Lay the father down too." The clamor and outcry of 'Amr ibn al-'As went up — the governor was 'Amr ibn al-'As — "Me, why? You say my son struck him; why are you striking me?" He said: "For the reason that your son struck him relying on you, struck him relying on your power. Had you not been his father, had you not held power, had you not been his protector and supporter, he would have struck his own head against a stone before striking this Arab in the desert. Lay him down." For whose time was this? This was for the time when Islam had separated from the God-willed course. It was for the time when our Commander of the Faithful was not in office; those who were in office — we do not grant them the right of vicegerency — and yet, even so, it was like this.
Well, this is the Islamic society. The things I have said, I said them with a purpose: I wished that, from the discussion we are having today, I should not draw the conclusion myself — rather that you yourselves should draw it. What I am about to say and will say in this discussion, you yourselves, before I say it, should arrive at the very same conclusion.
This is the society that Islam wants — and all the monotheistic religions of the world want the same — a society in which there is no force, no bullying, no accumulation of wealth alongside the deprivations and destitution of the destitute classes. This very school and this very religion say: I never saw a heaped-up fortune except that beside it I saw a right that had been wasted. If wealth were to be distributed per capita, this much would not reach Mr. Rockefeller. The reason you see this much has reached him is that he has piled his own share together with the share of ten million other human beings, twenty million other human beings, and it has become this much. A ten-millionth is his, a hundred-thousandth is his. I never saw a heaped-up fortune except that beside it I saw a right that had been wasted.
The Islamic society, the ideal society from the standpoint of the logic of the monotheistic religions, is such a society: in it there is no force, in it there is no bully, no one uses force; and if anyone should wish to use force, they will not let him. If anyone should wish to spread class difference in a society built upon the Islamic order, they will not let him do so. Why? Because the order was an order that the Prophet had built. You have seen these skilled tailors — when they fashion a garment, you see that this garment has become torn and tattered, all the parts of the garment have become full of holes; yet its seams have not come undone, the cut of the garment has not been lost. The Islamic society they had punctured with holes again and again, yet the cut of the society had not been lost. Its tailor is the Prophet; its architect and its craftsman is the capable hand of the Messenger of God. The God-willed, God-made, Prophet-made order is an order of this kind. In it there is no force, no bullying, no exploitation, no despotism, no absolute rule of one human being or a group of human beings over other human beings. In such a society — which God wants and says human beings must be gathered together in this form — there is no ignorance, no unawareness, no superstition-worship. In this community the people are obliged, are bound, all to think. It is necessary for all to find their own path; and when they have found it, it is necessary that they tread that path.
In that society all are duty-bound to defend the rights of the weak and the deprived and the oppressed. In that society no one has the right to say, "My own interests are enough for me, my own troubles are enough for me, my own affairs are enough for me; I have no time to attend to others' affairs" — for the reason that all are together, all are parts and members of one body and the limbs of one body. Can they speak in this way? In that society there is no laziness; in that society there is no division and discord; in that society there is no blind submission and moving sightlessly after Zayd and 'Amr and Bakr. Such a society the Prophet wishes to build. Pay careful attention, keep in mind the characteristics of that society which the Prophet wishes to build with his powerful hand and with the teaching and inspiration of God's revelation. This society — its great characteristics, its main outlines — are: the existence of knowledge and awareness, the existence of justice and equity, a single class, the negation of social classes, the negation of exploitation, the negation of the accumulation of wealth, the negation of despotism and absolute rule, the negation of taking the side of falsehood, and the obligation and compulsion of taking the side of right and truth. These are the features of this society.
The main point of my words is here, and it connects to today's discussion.
If a prophet should come into an ignorant society and also state his own message, also declare his own aim, and say what kind of society and world he wants to build, say how he wants to arrange the social order — if a prophet should speak these words, who will struggle against him in this ignorant community?
I said what kind of society the Prophet wants to build. It is very clear who will oppose and struggle against the Prophet. The first people to struggle against the Prophet are those who live off class difference. They are alive for the reason that they are able to milk a group of people, able to wrongfully use the energies of a group of innocent human beings. If it should come to pass that they were placed in the same rank, in the same class, as those human beings, then off whom would they live? After this, whom would they milk? These become opponents.
Another group who will oppose the call of this prophet and the establishment of such a society and order are the wealth-hoarders, the wealth-amassers. They are eager to pull money out of this one's pocket, that one's pocket, out of the knotted handkerchief of some deprived old woman, from the bottom of the cash-box of some grocer, from the meager till of some street vendor, and to pour it into their own enormous, infinite purses. They are eager — by founding usurious institutions, by establishing a system of usury and taking interest on money — to turn every business that exists, and all the trades, and all economic activities, in the end to their own profit. Is it not so? Sir, what is your occupation? You are a tradesman in this bazaar; whatever business you do — if you tell me, so many percent of it is for you, so many percent of it is for such-and-such bank and so-and-so and so-and-so. See how much credit you have used, see how much interest you are paying, and then see for whom you are running.
When the system was a usurious system, when it came to pass that in a society everyone pays interest and a group take interest and devour it, then consequently all the businesses are to the profit of the usurious institutions. If, in such a society — where wealth and wealth-hoarding are the noble, legitimate occupation of a group of human beings who consume and lord it over others — a prophet should come, a reformer should come, and say, "Sir, wealth-hoarding is forbidden!" — well, it is obvious that this one will oppose that prophet; it is quite natural. So this too is one group.
One group are the wealth-hoarders who will struggle against this prophet. One group are the despotic rulers who will struggle against this prophetic call and divine mission — for the reason that as soon as there is no god but God enters a society in its true form, its meaning is that Pharaoh has risen up out of that society, has departed; either he has gone, or he has become one of the ordinary individuals of the people. This is the meaning of there is no god but God, after all. If there is no god but God should come to be, in its true form, the source of the building of a society, then in that society which is formed on the basis of there is no god but God, at the apex of its pyramid stands God, not Pharaoh. God is placed there, not Pharaoh and Haman, not Nimrod, not Shaddad, not Mu'awiyah. So it is very clear that Pharaoh and Nimrod and the other despotic powers of history will vehemently struggle against the call of the prophets to establish such a society. This too is one class of the strugglers and opponents of the prophethoods.
Yet another class are the rabbis and the monks — those who deal with people's minds. The rabbis and monks of history try to keep the people in unawareness, and they do so in order to preserve the social standing they derive from the teaching they give the people. For if this teaching were a correct teaching — a life-building, awakening, enlightening teaching — then the survival of that lordship, that spiritual leadership, those material and prestige privileges would not be possible for this class either. Jesus son of Mary — his struggle was with the rabbis and monks before it ever reached the Roman emperor; for in his own time it had not reached [the emperor]. Those who did not want the Jesusine, the Messianic call to take root in the corrupt Jewish society of that time — who were they? They were the rabbis of the Jews, the scholars of the Jews — even though they knew Jesus well.
In the era of the rise of Islam, those who did not want the prophetic movement, the Muhammadan movement and the Islamic mission, to take root and strike down roots — who were they? Those for whom, if the Prophet came, if those correct teachings came, that pure, delicious, thirst-quenching wellspring of Islam came and filled the minds to overflowing, opened the eyes, lifted away the ambiguities and the ignorances — for whom there would no longer be any scope for lordship and [comfortable] life. It is clear: where Islam is, the fabrications of Ka'b al-Ahbar and 'Abd Allah ibn Salam have no color and no luster. It is obvious that when the sun of truth shines upon the precinct of human minds and thoughts, their superstitions and their darknesses dissolve and vanish of themselves. Therefore, as soon as the prophet comes — the prophetic society which is based on awareness, based on information and knowledge and clear-sightedness and free thought and enlightenment, the divine, monotheistic society — as soon as the tune of such a society begins to be played, among the first groups who sense danger are the rabbis and the monks. The people's awareness is to their detriment; the people's awareness is to the detriment of themselves and to the detriment of the powers allied with them. Both they themselves suffer harm, and the powers that are allied with them — even if they are not religious powers, but rather political powers — they too suffer harm; these too sense danger.
I read this in that letter of the Fourth Imam (may God's blessings be upon him) to Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. In it the Imam (peace be upon him) draws for Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri a picture so vivid that only today do we newly understand the very thing he explained that day — today, when we, in the twentieth century, turn back to history and observe the coalition of religious and political forces for crushing nations and destroying growths and talents and trampling the rights of the masses of the people. And know that the least thing you have concealed and the lightest burden you have borne is that you befriended the desolation of the oppressor [grew familiar with him and kept him company] and smoothed for him the path of error by your drawing near to him when you drew near, and by your answering him when you were called. This is a letter which is in Tuhaf al-'Uqul; the exposition and interpretation of this letter would take long. (Moreover, some months ago I read out and explained this letter in detail. Those gentlemen who are interested — in the noble book Tuhaf al-'Uqul, among the words of Imam al-Sajjad (may God's blessings be upon him), "his letter, peace be upon him, to Muhammad ibn Muslim al-Zuhri" — and Muhammad ibn Muslim and Muhammad ibn Shihab are one and the same person; he is named after his father, Muslim, and after his father's grandfather, Shihab; Muhammad ibn Muslim and Muhammad ibn Shihab — find this. As it happens, this book has also been translated; Tuhaf al-'Uqul has been translated two or three times by now; consult it, and find this, God willing, and those who are interested may read it.)
In short, then, one of the groups whom the coming of the prophet alarms and terrifies is this very group of the masters of religion — but of the non-real religion, the superstitious religion. These too were among those who, in the face of the prophets' missions, in the face of the liberating calls, opposed and struggled vehemently. We have an example of this in the case of the call of Islam itself; we have it also in the affair of Abraham, the Friend of the Merciful — that all the attendants of the idol-temples, when they saw that the idols had been broken, said, "Who has done this to them?" and set up an uproar and clamor and outcry; and it was those very people who incited Nimrod to cast Abraham into the fire. The ordinary people had no knowledge of the idol-temple; the idol-temple has a priest, it has attendants. It was those very people who, in the affair of the appearance of Moses son of 'Imran in the Pharaonic society, reassured Pharaoh and emboldened him, saying, "We, by our own magic, by our own soothsaying, will nullify his magic." It was those very people who, in the call of Jesus (peace be upon him), formed the greatest opponents and the front against Jesus and prevented the call of Jesus. Look — this ordinary Gospel, these very Gospels that are in hand — look, with all the distortions, these things are there; these historical portions of it can be a teller, for us, of the historical realities of that time. And again, it was these very people who, in the call of Islam — these many stories you have heard — kept coming to pose questions, to test, to set people upon the Prophet; to set up the affair of the mubahalah (the mutual imprecation) with the Christians of Najran, and the like, and the like; to reassure the people and bind them to the rotten and ancient stuff they possessed.
When a new idea is raised in a society, and the course of human thought is bound to move toward greater comprehension and consciousness and awareness, the nature of the matter — the nature of the human being — is this: that human beings, old and young, must set out after this new current of thought, and they do set out. Human beings want the new word more; that which is more acceptable to their minds, they accept more. Moreover, "the lamp of falsehood has no radiance." Superstitions are falsehood; religious distortions and substitutions are falsehood. If some clear statement, some rational mind, should prove the emptiness of these superstitions, their nonsensical and baseless nature, the people would readily accept it.
But it is this very class of rabbis and monks who, throughout history, despite the clarity of the prophets' speech, did not let the people believe in the prophets. Consider how the prophets came: with manifest authority, with a clear proof, everywhere carrying light with them, everywhere enlightening human beings. They never spoke obscurely, they never delivered pseudo-philosophical jargon to the people, they did not philosophize for the people; they spoke clean and straight and frankly with the people. Given all this, the people ought to have accepted very quickly, ought very quickly to have grasped the soundness and firmness of the speech of the prophets of God. What is the cause that so much obstinacy and bigotry and stubbornness was expended, and the call of the prophets was not accepted quickly and easily? Why? It is these very soothsayers and rabbis and monks, and that very class which the Qur'an names "the rabbis and the monks" — these were the obstacle. They summoned the people to greater and greater adherence to the wrong intellectual traditions and the inherited superstitious notions. These too were alarmed at the coming of the prophet, because they knew that if the prophet came, if the prophet was commissioned, if that society came into being — the society in which there is awareness, in which there is light, in which there is intellectual growth, in which all the people are either learned or learners — there would no longer be any arena for the illiterate and the self-satisfied and the falsely revered and the people who wish human beings to remain in unawareness and superstition; there would no longer be any place for these in that society. This is why these too struggled, with all possible vehemence, against the prophets, against the divine calls, against the historical missions.
That makes four classes. Up to this point in my talk, I have not cited anything from the Qur'an; I have only explained this much: what kind of world the prophets come to build. I described that world for you — what kind of world it is, what kind of society it is. Then I said: who fears such a society? It is obvious — of a society in which the accumulation of wealth is forbidden, the wealth-hoarders are afraid. Of a community and order in which class difference is a sin, is forbidden, is abolished, the upper classes are afraid. The one who has grown accustomed to living among the upper classes — if he sees that an order is going to come into power which will bring him down, which will level him with the dust-dwelling people, or level the dust-dwelling people up to him — it makes no difference, for him it is the same — he can remain a lord only if there are slaves; otherwise, if all are also lords, then he again is no lord. The lordship of the lords lies in this: that they alone are lords and the others are slaves; otherwise, if the slaves became lords, then lords become many, lords become cheap. The costliness of the lords is on account of their fewness. This society that comes into being either brings him down and sets him at the level of the slaves, or raises the slaves up and places them at his level; lords become many — so he falls from being falsely revered. So he too opposes.
That absolute despotic power, too, will not be on very happy terms with the call of the prophets and the rule of the prophet — and the reason is plain: he knows that if the prophet comes, the first one to be struck is he. This is the one whose heart desires to be — in the expression of the late Mirza-yi Na'ini (may God's mercy and exaltation be upon him) in the introduction to Tanbih al-Ummah — the doer of whatever he wills and the ruler by whatever he wishes; the one who wishes to be, in the Qur'an's expression, He is not questioned about what He does — who does whatever he does, says whatever he says, goes wherever he goes, and no one may ask "why." This too is one class — and the class of rabbis and monks we have also explained.
These four classes, which we have determined and specified for you by mental analysis, are — as it happens — named in the Qur'an. Except that the people who are in the class of the chiefs and heads and khans and ringleaders of the powers and orders, those who hold these posts, are referred to in the Qur'an as the mala', and are alluded to. The chiefs of his people who disbelieved said — the mala', those people who fill the eyes; yamla'una al-'ayn, those persons of pomp and majesty, those who, when they walk, their glitter and pomp, their "clear the way, get back" outriders, make every human being submissive and small before them. The mala', those eye-fillers — one class of the opponents of the prophets are these. Like whom? In the ignorant, Pharaonic order, like Haman. And Pharaoh said: O Haman, build me a lofty tower; the fixer and the lackey of Mr. Pharaoh, and at the price of this fixing, at the price of this servitude and lackeyship for Pharaoh, he is the lord of all the non-Pharaohs, of all but Pharaoh. As it was said: "A fly that you set flying is a falcon." Haman is that very fly that Pharaoh has set flying, and it does the work of a falcon. He is weak, he is wretched, he is a lone man — to deal with him is within the power of any single man; but, relying on Pharaoh, he is all-in-all. Thus, when he walks in the street, if you look, you see that, as it were, the light around him casts such a curtain that a human being is utterly unable to bear to look at him. "Clear the way, get back, go, come — who is it? Haman is coming."
Or, in the ignorant order of Mu'awiyah — for example, it is al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, it is Ziyad ibn Abihi — these are the same mala'. They keep the surroundings of Mu'awiyah's throne so firm and steady that whatever Mu'awiyah looks at, he sees a friend, he sees a companion-counselor, he sees a well-wisher. In the Qur'an this class is expressed as the mala'; the aristocratic class is expressed as the mutrafin, those who are afflicted with taraf — aristocratic indulgence, the great fortunes that are the source of miseries and crimes and trampling of rights; taraf. The verse that we have now written here for you and will recite says this very thing; it says: in every community, when We sent a prophet, its mutrafin, its aristocrats, were the first ones to oppose; they were the first ones to strike up the tune of opposition. This too is yet another class.
That class of intellectual ringleaders the Qur'an names with this very name, "rabbis and monks": Indeed, many of the rabbis and the monks…, whose verse we will now explain for you. And that class of despotic powers — and here I am speaking by way of conjecture, this part I say as a probability — I think the Qur'an refers to them by the expression taghut. Although taghut is a general word; as I said the day before yesterday, taghut means that rebellious power in opposition to God. It may be that your own carnal soul is the taghut — for I read this hadith too: Your most hostile enemy is your own soul that lies between your two sides — your own soul, your own self, your own caprices and lusts, your own child, your own wife, your own beloved friend, may be your taghut; and it is also possible that the great powers are the taghut. Taghut, then, has a general meaning. But since we see that in the Qur'an the taghut is everywhere set in opposition to Allah, and is portrayed as possessing very important roles and stations, we understand that the taghut is the highest stations of an ignorant order.
In one place He says: Those who believe fight in the way of God, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the taghut — the believer fights in the way of God, the unbeliever in the way of the taghut; the taghut is in opposition to God. In another place He says: God is the Guardian of those who believe; He brings them out of the darknesses into the light. And those who disbelieve, their guardians are the taghut; they bring them out of the light into the darknesses. From the beginning of the Qur'an to its end, in about eight places I think the word taghut is used; in seven places of the Qur'an the word taghut is used, and the style of the expressions is such that when a human being looks, it appears that what is meant by taghut is those same upper despotic powers at the apex.
In short, these four classes are the opponents of the prophets — not only in the time of Moses, not only in the time of the Prophet, not only in the time of Abraham, but in every age of history. Wherever a word of truth appeared, wherever a claim and a tune calling for following the prophets of God and the heavenly books came into being, these four classes lined up — either simultaneously, or one after another. This is the general rule. And here lies the instructive point of these noble verses. Allow me to read the verses; our time is running out.
First, in the first verse, in the first portion, He says: And thus We appointed, thus — meaning "thus." Thus, meaning what? Meaning "like you." Just as in your own case, O Prophet, you see, likewise We appointed for every prophet — an enemy, an adversary — devils from among mankind and the jinn. These enemies are the devils of mankind and the jinn. I have explained the meaning of "devil"; this too confirms it. "Devil" means the evil-creating powers that are outside the human being. One kind is this very Iblis who did not prostrate to Adam (peace be upon him), Adam the father of mankind. That devil is the most ill-famed of the devils of the world; the ill-fame of the other devils too is laid to his account, poor wretch. Every corruption, every wrong that any devil — whether of mankind or of the jinn — works in the world, the people write its ill-fame, its curse, to the account of that Iblis and reckon it from him, whereas some of these devils are the masters of that devil.
— these devils who are the enemies of the prophet, some of them inspire others, teach others. Sometimes the class of rabbis and monks teaches the class of the mala'; sometimes the class of the mala' teaches the rabbis and monks; sometimes the mutrafin instruct both classes; and most often all three classes take their inspiration from the taghut. — some of these enemies give inspiration and instruction to others. — with beautiful, adorned, fair-seeming words, with fair-seeming speech. I will, in a future chapter among the chapters relating to prophethood, expound on this fair-seeming speech. So fair-seeming — Pharaoh says: Let me kill this Moses. Well, why? Why kill him? Indeed, I fear that he may change your religion — he says, "I fear that Moses will ruin your religion." This is the word of Pharaoh. Pharaoh fears that Moses will come and ruin the people's religion. Such fair-seeming words —, fair-seeming speech —, out of creating delusion and ignorance; they delude the people and one another.
And had your Lord willed, they would not have done it — if God had willed and decreed, these people would not have done this deed, would not have found the means. If God had willed to turn all these opposing classes to ashes in a single instant and scatter them to the wind, He could; but, well, the divine custom (sunnah) is not so, God's law is not so. The divine law is this: that they should carry out their enmities so that the believer may be distinguished from the non-believer. The road should be a little uneven so that the people whose thighs, whose shanks, are strong — who can run, who can go — may be recognized, may be made evident. On an asphalted road, where everyone can walk these few steps, [there is no test]. And had your Lord willed, they would not have done it — had your God willed, had your Lord decreed, these people would not have been able to carry out these enmities; but God Most High never decrees a decree contrary to the custom He Himself has placed in the world.
So leave them and what they fabricate — leave them with whatever they slander and lie about. What does "leave them" mean? It means: do not grieve and be distressed at their words, do not weaken, do not lose your path.
— the result of these words is this: this fair-seeming, deceiving, delusory speech has as its result that the hearts which do not believe in the Hereafter fall under the influence of this false propaganda, this fair-seeming propaganda. That propaganda which is made against the call of the prophets, the propaganda which is made against the word of truth and the true tune of monotheism — this false propaganda, this deceiving and fair-seeming propaganda, deceives certain hearts, draws them to itself. But the hearts of whom? — the hearts of those who have no faith and no belief in the Hereafter. Therefore the one who believes in the Hereafter does not so quickly become the captive and the dupe of false propaganda. — so that the hearts of those who do not bring faith in the Hereafter may incline toward it; and that they may be pleased with it — so that these hearts may be pleased with these words; and that they may commit what they are committing — so that they may perform, may commit, what they are committing. See: in this verse He has alluded, in summary, that all the prophets have enemies — enemies of jinn and mankind, open and hidden — and these enemies give inspiration to one another, teach one another, instruct one another. In these verses there is only this much. After these verses, [there are] verses from Surat al-Mu'min which I will not now find from the Qur'an itself — if I were to look for them, it would take long, the time is ending — so I read them from this very written page.
And indeed We sent Moses with Our signs — truly We sent Moses together with Our signs, Our marks; and with a manifest authority — with a manifest proof or power. What was that manifest power, that manifest proof, that manifest argument? His strong logic, his word of truth, the staff in his hand, his white hand. With these matters, by which every human being, ordinary and extraordinary, must accept his word, We sent Moses. Toward whom did We send him? To war against whom did We send him? Who was on the other side of Moses in this society? If we read the verses with a little reflection, see how clearly the matter comes out; social matters of this importance, in the firm verses, in the outward sense of the verses, with this clarity. To war against whom? Toward whom? To Pharaoh — toward Pharaoh. Who else? and Haman — toward Haman, the minister of Pharaoh, of the heads of Pharaoh's kingdom, of the eye-filling aristocrats, the same mala'. Who else? and Qarun — who is Qarun? Qarun is a wealthy man, Qarun is a moneyed man; Qarun is not the chief, Qarun was not the sovereign of the society, was not Pharaoh — indeed Qarun even came for a later period — yet nonetheless He says that We sent [Moses] toward him too, sent him to war against him too. That is, for Moses, Pharaoh and Qarun are one and the same: just as he fights Pharaoh, just as he fights Haman, he fights Qarun too.
Even though Qarun's crime is this: that he has treasured up wealth, gathered the people's possessions for himself. At a tablecloth upon which they have set food enough for fifty persons, fifty persons eat of it, become full, and much is even left over; this gentleman has sat cross-legged, or spread out his legs, and put the food of forty-nine persons in front of himself. Well, it is obvious that one man does not eat the food of forty-nine persons — but he does not let the others eat either. Forty-nine other persons' food — one person eats it; this one person has imprisoned the food of forty-nine other persons — would that he had eaten poison! — he has imprisoned it; Qarun is of this trade. Qarun has imprisoned the public wealth; that is why Moses comes to war against him too.
The strange thing is that, although Pharaoh is at the head of the government, he is one class; Haman is beside him, he is another class; Qarun has no connection with them at all, he is wealthy, he is a treasure-hoarder, he is another class; and despite there being three classes, their answer is one answer. All three take one stance in the face of Moses (peace be upon him), say one word. What do they say? So they said: a sorcerer, a liar — they said, "He is a lying, falsehood-fabricating sorcerer." And when he brought them the truth from Us — when Moses stated and brought the truth, from Us, to these opponents, what did they say? Did they sit silent? Did they sit waiting for Moses to come and cut down the root and stem of their existence and the rotten tree of their life? Never. Just as Moses, with the order he proposed, was clawing at their life, they too clawed at the head and face of Moses. What did they say? They said: Kill the sons of those who have believed with him — kill the young sons of those who believed and gave their faith to Moses. Those who believed in the thought of this newly arrived prophet, this new and luminous and life-building thought — kill their sons. Kill them so that they may not be there, so that they may not threaten us tomorrow; kill them so that they may not be there, so that no spark may strike from their being; kill their young men.
and keep their women alive — and keep their women alive. Now why keep the women alive? There is an explanation for that. So that their lineage may be mixed; so that they may be drawn into shamelessness; so that they may be made to gorge upon the instincts; so that they may become cowed. There are several aspects to this.
But then He says: And the plot of the disbelievers is only in error — they drew up these schemes and plots, but the plots of the disbelievers are in error; that is, they are astray, they do not reach a result. It is like an arrow that you shoot toward some enemy, some person, some target — and a wind comes and makes the arrow lose its way from this course. They shoot the arrow, but the winds of God's custom come and carry these arrows away from this aim and target. Let them lay schemes and plots for Moses. Here too you noticed: in this verse, three classes are named — the class of Pharaoh, the class of Haman, the class of Qarun; here these three classes have been named together.
In another verse that exists, again the mutrafin are named, especially the class of Qarun. He says: And We did not send a warner into any town — We did not send into any town a warner, a forewarner — meaning a prophet — but that its affluent ones said — except that the mutrafin of it, the aristocrats and the wealthy and the treasure-hoarders of that town said: Indeed, in that with which you have been sent, we are disbelievers — "We disbelieve in what you have brought, we do not accept it." And what was their reason for not accepting? And they said: We are greater in wealth and children — "We have more money than you, we have more children than you," they said to the prophet. On what grounds? See how low the level of his thinking is. And we will not be punished — "We will not be of those who are tormented."
And as for the last verse, which is from Surat al-Tawbah, it concerns the class of the rabbis and the monks. O you who have believed — O you who have believed; Indeed, many of the rabbis and the monks — truly many of the scholars and ascetics; surely consume the wealth of the people wrongfully — without doubt they devour the people's wealth without entitlement; and bar [them] from the way of God — they devour their money, and they also turn them away from the path of God. And again He speaks of the class of the mutrafin, the money-gatherers, the treasure-hoarders: And those who… hoard up gold and silver — those who treasure up gold and silver; and do not spend it in the way of God — they do not spend it in the way of God; then give them tidings of a painful punishment — give them the tidings of a grievous, painful torment.
We, therefore, in these few verses and in dozens of other verses of the Qur'an, see the mark of these four classes and recognize their enmities.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 21 · 41:48
- Ep 22 — The Outcome of Prophethood (1)Session 20: The Outcome of Prophethood (1).
delivered Tuesday, 16 Mehr 1353 / 21 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Ra'd (13:16-18).
Say: God is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the All-Subduing. He sent down water from the sky, and the riverbeds flowed each according to its measure, and the flood carried a swelling froth. And from that which they heat in the fire, seeking to make ornaments or utensils, there rises a froth like it. Thus does God strike [the parable of] the true and the false. As for the froth, it goes away as scum; but as for that which benefits people, it remains in the earth. Thus does God set forth the parables. For those who respond to their Lord is the most beautiful reward. But as for those who do not respond to Him — even if they possessed all that is on earth and the like of it besides, they would offer it as ransom. Theirs is a terrible reckoning; their abode is Hell, and what an evil resting place!
(To the gentlemen who have a Qur'an with them, and to those who have these mimeographed sheets — please look at these sheets. I will recite the verses. Some of the vowel-marks on the verses are incorrect; correct them with your pens.
I also have a request to make of the friends: if you sense that there is no room inside the prayer hall, do not come in from outside into the hall, because then space becomes cramped and continuing the talk becomes a little difficult. If the friends and brothers who are inside the hall, and those who are outside, are ready for us to begin our talk, let them all send a collective salawat [blessing on the Prophet and his family].)
Now, gentlemen, I ask you to look at those sheets of yours — those who have them. Some of the vowel-marks on the verses have minor errors. I will recite, and if you see any mistake, correct it.
The next verses pertain to Surat al-Saffat. Those who have a Qur'an, find Surat al-Saffat: Our word has already gone forth to Our servants, the messengers: that they will surely be the ones helped, and that Our hosts will surely be the victors. So turn away from them for a while, and watch them — for soon they too shall see. Do they then seek to hasten Our punishment? When it descends upon their courtyard, evil will be the morning of those who were warned. So turn away from them for a while, and watch — for soon they too shall see. Glory be to your Lord, the Lord of Might, above what they ascribe.
The prophets were commissioned and set foot in their societies carrying that very lofty, progressive aim that we explained on the previous days. It is the most progressive of all aims — even by the cultural standards of the age of light and human awareness, that is, the twentieth century. It is the aim of bringing humankind into one class, of leveling human beings, and of casting out ignorance and poverty and oppression and exploitation and class division. With this most precious, progressive, and lofty aim they set out.
A continuous chain of activity and striving and struggle is the harvest of the lives of God's prophets. From the very beginning of the mission, never again to sleep in comfort, never again to slumber on the bed of ease, never again to taste pleasure and rest, but to struggle unceasingly — this is the summary of the story of the divine prophets. At the end of their lives, too — as we have learned from the religious sources — some had their heads severed from their bodies by the tyrants and despots of the age and carried off as a trophy; some were placed within a tree and sawn from head to foot, cut in two; some passed from this world in exile and in distress. None of them amassed any wealth, however little; none of them, at the end of their lives, left behind a palace, an apparatus, and vast riches, as the rulers of this world and the worldly leaders do. This is the summary of the lives of the prophets and the envoys and the deputed ones and the messengers of God; these things we have come to know.
A question now arises. As it stands in our minds, and as we read in the history of the prophetic missions, the prophets all passed their lives in struggle and striving, and many of them drank the draught of martyrdom. So was their work, then, a fruitless and useless work? Did the prophets meet defeat in history? Is it as the simple-minded of the world still imagine it to be — and as the anti-prophetic powers, too, are not displeased to have lodged in the minds of the common people — that the prophets gained no fruitful result from their striving, and that across the whole of history, oppression and tyranny and inhumanity and rebellion and unbelief have held sway? Is it so?
We believe that it is not so. Consider these dear deputies of God — whose chain began with Adam and Noah and Abraham, and in whose chain the choicest of creation came one after another. These men not only were not defeated, not only did not fail, not only did not see what they said and what they wanted in the world, in history, in society meet with defeat. Rather, among all of humanity, among all those who have ever run after some aim and goal and striven for it, no one has had the chance of success that the prophets had. This is our belief. We believe that the outcome of prophethood and the end of the prophets' work, throughout all history, in the time that is past, has ended according to what was desired — and so it will be in the future too. And we shall prove this.
There are two matters and two topics here. (I ask the brothers who have heard this series of discussions from the previous days to pay careful attention, so that the important part of this chapter may be connected to the earlier discussions; and the brothers who, it seems, were not here on the other days and have come today — let them attend well to this very topic again, for in itself it is a topic that must be grasped and known. But you must pay attention.)
We have two matters here. The first concerns the chain known by the name of prophethood and messengership — that is, the caravan of the prophets from Adam to the Seal [of the Prophets]. What did they do? What did the totality of them accomplish? Did they push things forward, or did they go bankrupt? That is one matter. The second concerns each of the great divine prophets, in his own time: did he succeed, or did he meet defeat? These are two questions, and I would like to finish both of them today, God willing. By your own measure, if you reflect, you will find that you would like to understand this matter. This is something the knowing of which is beneficial to us — by the very criterion I have always placed in your hands.
It is beneficial in the sense that it not only increases our information — for there are many words that increase a person's information but are of no benefit to him. There is no harm at all in all of you, this whole gathering, now being aware of how the tiny particles of the rocks in the volcanic mountains of the moon are composed. To know it — is that bad? But is it beneficial? No. Much of the information that we run after, or that they make us run after, is of this sort. After we have sat and listened and spoken and studied and researched and put pen to paper and brought our life to its end, then when we look, we see a heap of empty information, useless information, that did not bring us a single step closer to Paradise and to the good pleasure of God, nor a single step closer to the sound, authentic Islamic society in this world; it did nothing at all. Yes, it had only this benefit: that we could pride ourselves, could believe that we are very learned, very knowledgeable, and could close upon ourselves the window of receptivity and learn nothing more from anyone; this was its only benefit.
This matter that I am presenting is beneficial in the true sense; it brings not only awareness but awareness and commitment. It is of that kind of faith that I was explaining and speaking of to you here on the third and fourth and fifth of the month. Now the first question: this chain whose members are called the prophets — from first to last, what flower did they pin upon the head of humanity? The prophets came and took a being who could not even, at the level of an animal, distinguish the road from the pit — a being in whom even instinct was not so capable and path-opening. And they brought this being up to the level of a being from whom even the angels of heaven must come and learn something. They brought humankind from the lowest depth of savagery and ignorance up to the level of a civilized human being, such that if he wishes to act according to their teachings, the loftiest, the most beautiful, the most eloquent manifestations of creation will appear in his life.
The prophets treated human beings like a schoolchild — I am trying to bring the matter down to a very low level — who knows nothing, not even the alphabet. For one year they labored over him, and he came to the second grade; but the teacher of the first grade, in the very midst of this, when the child had reached the second grade, had laid down his own life over this work. They labored for another period, and he came to the third grade; but the teacher who had brought him from the second to the third grade lost his own life on this path. They labored for another period, and he came to the fourth grade; and again that compassionate teacher, that kind father, that aware guide — over the course of this time during which he was raising the pupil to a higher grade, to a higher rank — lost his own life, departed from this world, and passed his life in hardship. Grade by grade, step by step, stage by stage, they kept bringing this little child up, and up, and up. Now, when you look, you see that the level of his culture, his knowledge, his insight, his sensitivity is far higher than in that time which was two periods before the present, and he is at the peak of progress and elevation and comprehension and understanding and thought.
You look, and the teachers are not there. Where are the teachers? One, in the midst of the first grade, while he was bringing this slow-witted pupil up — let us say — gave up his life. Another, while these very pupils were learning something from him, at the end of the year, over some disagreement, over some matter, gathered together, rose up against him, and killed him. The teacher of the third grade in another way, the teacher of the fourth grade in another way. The teachers are not there; each teacher carried out his mission and, to outward appearance, died in failure and perished. But did he really fail? Think well; see whether that teacher really failed. What, after all, was the teacher's aim? Did not this compassionate teacher want exactly this? He wanted this pupil to rise from the black dust to the summit of the peak of culture and knowledge and understanding — and has this not now come to pass?
So the teachers did not die as failures. It is true that they died, it is true that they did not attain the affluent, comfortable life of this world, it is true that they did not see with their own eyes this sapling come to fruit — but did they fail? No, they did not fail. Their aim was precisely this: that this human being should traverse the first and second grade; that this ignorant, unaware student should go up this road with difficulty, with hardship, with toil, until he reached that summit of the peak — and now he has reached it.
The prophets were just like this: Adam, Noah, Lot, Hud, Salih, Shu'ayb, Abraham, Ishmael, Moses, Jesus, and thousands of other prophets throughout history — their work was this: to bring this human being up, to teach him knowledge and understanding, to prepare him for ordering the life to come, to give him the necessary substance. And this work was accomplished — although, along the way, a number of these prophets were killed in a horrible manner, in a pitiable form, and departed from this world without seeing this end. And still humanity is moving forward.
Today the world, more than it was a thousand years ago, is prepared to hear the true word of Islam. Today humanity is more ready to accept the divine government than it was a thousand years ago, than it was twelve or thirteen hundred years ago — and a thousand years from now it will be more ready than today. On the day that our Imam of the Age — may God hasten his noble relief — went into occultation from sight, humankind was not yet ready to accept a revolutionary reforming Imam with sword in hand. This is why an Imam who must spread out the carpet [of justice] among the people does not spread it out. And if that noble one had wanted to rise up and make a revolution and overturn society, he certainly could not, given the unfavorable conditions of that time, have built a society such as he desired.
The experience of the noble Imams of the Prophet's household had reached its limit. This society had become so corrupted — the oppressive, tyrannical hands of the despotic powers, of the Umayyads and the Abbasids, had so worked this field for the worse and poisoned it and corrupted it — that no sound plant could any longer be grown in it. And so the Imam, peace be upon him, was hidden from sight. The day he comes — how will it be? The day he will appear — and we do not know whether it is ten years away or ten thousand years away, nothing is known at all — on that day, when the Imam appears, humanity will have reached readiness; it will be ready to hear and to accept the true word of Islam. It will be ready to carry the elevated and lofty Islamic society upon its own shoulders. On that day humanity will be ready for the Qur'an to be put into practice. But in the time of the Imam of the Age it was not ready — and who has done this work? The teachings of the prophets have done it, and the Imams are the followers of the prophets.
In the discussion of the Imamate, when I expound the philosophy of the Imamate, I will explain what the philosophy of the Imam's existence is; I will make this clear. So the prophets were not unsuccessful in history, and we see that every day humanity has moved forward and added to its own age, it has come one step closer to the peak of progress and perfection and elevation. What more do we want than this? What do the prophets want? The Lord of the worlds wants to bring this unripe, raw substance, by a natural movement, toward its natural and innate destination — that is, perfection and elevation. This the Lord of the worlds has willed, and humanity will certainly reach that point of ultimate perfection. And this is the determinism of history; the determinism of history means just this, and in this form he [who used the phrase] spoke correctly.
These are precise discussions; I ask you to pay attention, to the very words and expressions. The course of humankind is toward elevation and perfection, and toward the promised paradise of this world; that is, humanity will see a day for itself in which, on that day, there will be no oppression, no evil, no ugliness — everything will be according to the desire of humanity. The creation of the human being is like this, and the creation of the world; that this being, in its own course, will at last arrive at such a destination — it must arrive. In that era humanity will have ready all that is necessary for its perfection. Then it will enter the channel of progress and perfection and elevation, and with the utmost speed it will move toward God — that is, toward absolute perfection. And the more we have come forward from the beginning of human history up to this time of ours, the closer we have drawn toward that destination; this is the determinism of history. The creation of the human being is like this, and the creation of the world; God has so created that human beings move toward progress and elevation, willy-nilly. As for the "willy-nilly," you must of course derive its meaning in the course of these discussions — what "willy-nilly" means — for later, when we tie it to the subsequent discussion, it will become clear what it means. Of course the will of human beings is intensely involved, and it is the wanting of human beings that brings human beings to progress, and this wanting will be there.
This is one of the Islamic principles, and in the Islamic worldview it ranks among the certainties: that the end of humankind is in accordance with goodness. Why? Because God Most High created the earth and the heavens in accordance with truth, and He created the human being too with a truth-seeking innate nature. Since the human being possesses will, he must move along the path that accords with his innate nature, in order to reach that destination. And who can present this path to him and tell him: if you do such-and-such, you have acted in accordance with your innate nature? The prophets — the prophets come for this. They come to show humankind the path of innate nature; that is, to hasten and ease his course toward a good end. Therefore human beings are moving forward; humanity is drawing day by day closer to felicity and to the destination of goodness, and this is because of the movement that the prophets gave it. The prophets set it in motion; if some delay has occurred in the middle of history, and in each segment and stage of the stages of history, it is because of a relative distancing from the teachings of the prophets — but in the end they had this course. This is one matter in general.
In the first question, we draw this conclusion: we say that the great divine prophets, although each one of them individually met with deprivations and failures, yet in the aggregate, the course of humanity has been toward progress and elevation, and its agent was the prophets. It was the prophets who pushed the human being toward that intended destination and toward the kneaded-in human end, set him in motion, helped him in traversing this road; this is the first question.
But now the second question — the one that is of greater interest to many, the one I shall make clear for you. When a prophet brings about a movement in the world, raises up a revolution and an uprising, can it be said that this revolution has a good outcome, or not? Can one hope that the end of this work is good? Or can one not hope? What is the general rule here?
Some say: however much we look, we see that wherever a true word issued from a tongue, wherever the melody of truth reached the ear from some quarter, in the end it did not reach result and fruit, and it was choked off. From this they have constructed an "experience"; they say: the experience of human history has always shown us that the prophets failed. Now, even granting that you say overall they succeeded — fine — but in the end the revolution they brought about, they were unable to bring it to fruit. Not in a single place were they able to bring truth to power and destroy falsehood. So then, what should we do? Should we too, after this, not raise a hand, not draw it from our sleeve, not follow the path of the prophets? Since the great divine prophets themselves, in their own time, were unable to accomplish anything, and in the end falsehood has always — even if seasonally and by stages — gained the upper hand over truth, then let the truth-seekers and the truth-speakers of the world sheathe their swords, go and lie down to sleep, and know that it is of no use — unless some hand should come out of some sleeve, a hand of power, an unseen hand should come forth and do something.
This is the logic of many people, and this is the very logic that I mentioned: the tyrants of history take great pleasure in this logic. This is the very logic that the bullies of the age have always loved the people to hold as their belief — that is, that the people should believe that, sir, no striving, no activity, no struggle in the path of truth will ever reach a result. This the tyrants of the world have always wanted.
The political bluffs of the heads of the states of the world, which you read so much of in the newspapers that carry world news, are for precisely this purpose. Take that certain man who has only a few hours or a few days left before the throne of his rule collapses and he comes down from the peak of the presidency to become an ordinary man. Even a few days before, that very man is bluffing: "We will crush our enemies, we will wipe out our opponents, we will continue to rule." You yourselves saw this quite recently, on a very vast global scale — saw it with your own eyes, read it, were informed of it. A power of such magnitude suddenly comes down and turns into an ordinary man; yet a little before this transfer and transformation he says, "They cannot, they cannot, they cannot touch us, our position will not be lost" — and then we see that it was lost. These bluffs are for precisely this purpose. They always wish to make the people understand in this way: that nothing can come from your hands, because our power is a power that you cannot even imagine. All means and resources are at our disposal, and you have none.
Do you imagine that these things have arisen in the world only today? No; they have existed at all times in history. This is a very interesting and amusing affair in history that, whenever I recall it, I am amazed at the cunning of al-Mansur the Abbasid. Al-Mansur the Abbasid was, as you know, the greatest and most powerful caliph of the Abbasids, and the second Abbasid caliph. As it happened, in al-Mansur's time, opposition had begun from the margins of the religious community of that day. Among those who had placed al-Mansur under severe pressure were Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah and Ibrahim ibn 'Abdullah, the two sons of 'Abdullah al-Mahd. These two men struggled fiercely against al-Mansur. Al-Mansur had been rendered helpless. Although everything was at al-Mansur's disposal and these two self-sacrificing brothers had nothing at their disposal but faith and a handful of believers, nevertheless, in the face of their relentless striving and activity and struggle, al-Mansur had lost his footing. Many rumors, concerning the power and might of al-Mansur's apparatus, were being spread among the people, with the sole aim of preventing the true believers and the genuine Shi'a from joining these two brothers. Among them was this: al-Mansur had spread the rumor that he had a mirror, and that when he looked into this mirror he could tell where Ibrahim ibn 'Abdullah was — and woe to the man into whose house al-Mansur, looking into the mirror, should see that Ibrahim was, or with whom he was fleeing. This is the very story of the mirror that those tyrant kings of history fashioned a thousand, two thousand years before al-Mansur — Jamshid and this one and that one — in the form of the world-revealing cup. No doubt this too was for the same purpose: that the enemies should know and imagine that they could never carry out any deed outside the sight of these powers. They had even resorted to such things.
Therefore the tyrants of the world ask of the God of the two worlds — a God in whom they do not believe — that the people should imagine that the prophetic missions and the great divine prophets and the envoys of truth and reality have always been doomed to defeat. They ask of God that the people should imagine and suppose that no truth-worshipping melody will ever receive a favorable and positive response from the nature of this world. They ask of God that the people should despair of any movement ever growing and reaching fruit against falsehood without being defeated. But is the reality of the matter really like this? A number of minds, uninformed and under the sway of these powers, have imagined it so; the people have supposed that the prophets and the followers of the prophets and the Imams have always been defeated, and that every movement in the world will be defeated. Are we too, then, obliged to accept it? Should we set aside the Qur'an? Should we not hear correctly the word of the Qur'an, which recounts to us the opposite of this logic, and instead hear the word of false fancies? No; we will not do this. We turn to the Qur'an; we take a lesson from the Qur'an as to what the outcome of the prophetic missions is, and what effect the revolutionary movement of the prophets and their followers can have. Let us learn this from the Qur'an, then we return to the text of history, and we see that history too bears witness to this matter.
The Qur'an strikes a parable in these very verses that I recited, and which I now recite again and translate; it tells us: No! In the world there is a truth and there is a falsehood; the truth remains, the falsehood is annihilated. From the mountains, in the rivers, water flows and streams; froth appears on the surface of the water; the froth dies, the waters remain. Falsehood is that very froth that will die; the water is that very truth that will remain.
Up to here, as the Qur'an teaches us and historical reality also confirms it, each of the prophetic missions that has appeared in this world, from first to last — besides having, in the chain of the prophetic missions of history, performed a deed, having moved humankind one step forward — each of them in itself also possessed the possibility of success. It is not as al-Mansur the Abbasid kept pouring into the people's ears, saying, "It is not possible, people; it is not possible for you to carry anything forward against my power." That is not how the matter is. It is not as the powers of history, over the course of time, made the people understand and instilled in them — that against the worldly powers who are upon falsehood, truth will have no room even to draw breath. No, it is not so; rather it is the opposite of this. The prophets have everywhere had the possibility of success, and the followers of the prophets too everywhere have this same possibility, and they will surely succeed — but on two conditions (here is where I said that the human will is involved in the building of the future of history). If these two conditions exist, then all the movements grounded in religion, in Qur'anic and Islamic thought, that have been carried out and will be carried out throughout history, will succeed forever and will be victorious; there is no need for a miracle either. It is not necessary that a miracle must certainly take place for the adherents of religion to succeed and be victorious — no; without any hand coming forth from the unseen, if these two conditions exist, Islam and the Qur'an and religion and Qur'anic thought will have the essential possibility of success. What are those two conditions?
One of those two conditions is faith — a belief grounded in awareness, a conviction accompanied by the acceptance of commitment, an assent accompanied by striving and movement; this is the first condition. The second condition is patience [sabr]. What does patience mean? It means resistance, not fleeing the field, not abandoning the work at the sensitive and dangerous moment.
Wherever you see, throughout the history of the prophetic missions, a prophet defeated by the tyrant of his time, it has been because his followers, those around him, did not have sufficient faith or sufficient patience. Every time you see that truth has advanced, it is because they possessed brimming faith and the necessary patience. Is there any witness from the Qur'an to this matter? Yes; there are several witnesses in the Qur'an. The verses I recite today are the intellectual foundation, and there are many other verses too that state the matter. I will read two of its verses for you.
One verse is this: Do not be faint, and do not grieve; for you are the higher, if you are believers.
Here it is a verse of the Qur'an — this is not a narration that someone might cast doubt on, saying perhaps its chain of transmission is weak; nor is it an ambiguous [mutashabih] verse either, that some might cast doubt on, saying we do not understand its meaning — no; clear, plain. "Do not be faint" means: O Muslims, do not become weak. "And do not grieve": and do not be sorrowful. "For you are the higher": you are the higher, your hand is the upper one, you will be the victorious, you will overcome the enemy, your thought will at last be seated upon the throne of the world's governance. What is its condition? "If you are believers" — if you are believers, if you have faith, if faith exists, this is so.
You say: "Sir, I have seen Imam al-Sadiq — the blessings of God be upon him — struggle so much against the tyrant of his time and yet was unable to seize the government." Yes; but that was because those around him, many of his friends, many of the claimants to his Shi'ism, were like you and me, were like us — impatient, weak in faith. Did you want Imam al-Sadiq to be able to reach power against the established custom of the Lord in history? This very thing is itself proof that no miracle and no unseen hand is meant to appear in the field of conquests and victories. If a miracle were meant to occur, then a miracle would have occurred so that Imam al-Sadiq might reach power. Imam al-Sadiq was, in the end, killed at the hand of the tyrant of his own time; and Musa ibn Ja'far likewise. This was because his friends and followers did not have, to the necessary degree, as much patience as is needed; faith and conviction together with commitment had not been stored up in their souls to the degree they should have been. If today, too, it is like that, the result is defeat — the defeat of Islam, the defeat of the Qur'an, the condemnation of the Muslims. But if today we became like the time of the Prophet! The Muslim of the Prophet's time — his faith was a certain and indubitable faith. His patience was that very patience before which the angels of heaven were small; a patience that, on a day of the month of Ramadan, in the heat of the Hijaz, with a fasting mouth, fights the enemy and digs a trench — this is the patience of that Muslim.
Seek help through patience and prayer. By means of the weapon of patience, conquer your enemies; by means of patience, carry your aims forward. This is the miracle that belongs to patience. That hand which must come out of the sleeve and do something — it is the hand of human patience; patience.
We even misconstrue patience. We have imagined that patience means that we should now sit and watch how things will turn out. I tell you how things will turn out: it does not mean that we should sit and watch. If you sit without activity, without striving, without throbbing effort, the end is wretchedness, it is abasement, it is disgrace, it is irreligion and worldly ruin.
the loss of this world and the hereafter — that is the manifest loss. But if you go forward with patience, the end is both religion and this world.
This is the end that the Qur'an tells us of. These verses are from Surat al-A'raf — which, if I wanted to write out, would become lengthy; you must go and look, reflect over it. What I am saying — my heart wishes that you would act on it as a religious mode of thought. Truly pay attention; if you see that it accords with the Islamic standards, accept it as a mode of thought. This is the Qur'an, in Surat al-A'raf, from verse 120 onward — indeed even before these — the verse I have in mind is verses 126 and 127. The matter is raised through the affair of Pharaoh and Moses: Moses comes and states the divine call, Pharaoh does not accept it, does not assent to it, and not only does he not accept it, but he even threatens Moses. After all these words, the sorcerers of Pharaoh come; their sorcery accomplishes nothing against the Mosaic miracle, and in the end they themselves come to faith. Pharaoh threatens them, saying, "I will kill you. Why did you believe in Moses?" All this passes, and after the affair of Pharaoh's magicians and their defeat by Moses, then it is like this:
And the chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: … The chiefs — the leaders and commanders and notables of Pharaoh's people said to Pharaoh: "Will you leave Moses and his people to spread corruption in the land…?" — "Are you releasing, letting go of Moses and his people, the believers in him, his party, his throng, that they should make corruption in the land? That they should cause disorder? You are letting them go? …and abandon you and your gods?" — and that they should set aside you and your gods? Is it like this?
"He said…" — Pharaoh, in the face of this speech and this casting of doubt, said: No; I will destroy Moses. He prepared a harsh assault against Moses, devised a new scheme for crushing the party of the Moseans in Egypt. What was it?
He said: We will slay their sons and let their women live. Pharaoh said: I will not leave Moses be; I will not permit what he wants to do; rather I will kill their young men and keep their women alive. This is a new plan. Pharaoh, after he had struggled against Moses in every way and had thought that Moses would be destroyed, has now reached the conclusion that — no, even his sorcerers and magicians are coming to faith in him, and the sorcery will not stand up against the miracle — he falls to thinking of carrying out a severe measure. The plan becomes a plan of severity; he says we must resort to severity. What shall we do? All the young men who have inclined toward Moses — these we will kill. All their women we will keep alive. "and let their women live" — taking the women alive, keeping the women alive — no doubt for debauchery, or to ruin their lineage, or for something of this sort.
Well, the matter became hard now; the party of Moses found themselves facing the severe-measures plan of the Pharaonic apparatus. This is the place where the bones of the elephant tremble; this is the place where firm and sturdy hearts are shaken — is it a joke? Someone like Pharaoh saying, "I will make them suffer terribly; I have a plan for them, to leave them not a single young man." "We will slay their sons" — I will kill their young men. This is the place where the Moseans must be charged up; in this very sensitive and dangerous moment they must not feel defeat.
A sentence came to my mind from one of the great men of our own history — from about a hundred years ago, fifty or sixty years ago. They used to quote a sentence from him in these constitutional struggles and the like; his name is much on people's tongues. They say he used to tell his companions, his friends: "Fight, struggle. At the very moment when you see that the work is hard, struggle still. Until you see that you will certainly be defeated, keep on; reach the point where you see that now you will certainly be defeated; and when you reach the point where you see that you will surely be defeated, struggle still — then you will be victorious." And this is a correct saying. A nation, a community, an individual who wants to strive for his own welfare and salvation, at one moment is hopeful that this striving will bear fruit; when the severity increases, his hope too diminishes. If he lets go of the striving, then assuredly his striving will no longer reach a result; but if he carries on his striving in that very place, continues it so far, goes forward so far, until he sees that it is certainly futile — if at the very moment he sees that this striving of his is futile, he strives still, that striving is successful.
Moses is using this scheme to mobilize the Children of Israel. When the Children of Israel see that they will certainly be defeated — because Pharaoh is resolved to kill all their young men — against the new Pharaonic scheme, Moses too presents his own new scheme. What does he say? When they find themselves facing this situation, Pharaoh speaks thus; Moses, in turn, in the face of this Pharaonic proclamation:
Moses said to his people: … Moses says: "Seek help from God and be patient." Ask aid of God and be patient. Continue, resist, do not leave your striving half-finished — hope breathes within this — why? "Indeed, the earth belongs to God" — the earth is God's; "He gives it as inheritance to whom He wills among His servants" — He gives it and grants it to whomever of His servants He wills. That is, we are the servants of God; Moses tells the Children of Israel: you are the servants of God; the servants of Pharaoh — their work will reach no result. The earth is for the servants of God. "And the [good] end belongs to the God-fearing" — the outcome of the work, the end of the affair, belongs to the people of piety.
This is the Qur'an, and historical reality too conveys and shows us the very same thing. The very Abraham whom one day they cast into the fire — one day we see that in Mecca and at the House of God he forms a monotheistic society, and for centuries after himself that society endures. Moses, who one day has such a conflict with Pharaoh and the Children of Israel are under pressure — another day we see that the command to enter the holy land is given to him: "O my people, enter the holy land…" — go there, and there form the divine, monotheistic society. Take Jesus son of Mary, whose striving and activity during the short period of his sojourn upon the earth and among human beings reached no outward fruit. After he ascends from the surface of the earth and departs from among the people, within one or two centuries the greatest powers of that day fall under the sway of the thought of the Messiah. That is, the Roman Empire, the vast Roman Empire, falls under the sway of Christian thought, and the emperor himself becomes a Christian, a believer in the religion of the Messiah.
Our Prophet, who in Mecca was so much under pressure — for thirteen years they arranged for him the most severe tortures and conditions — then comes to Medina, forms a government there, brings a society into being, establishes an order, drives human beings toward perfection, and crushes his foundational enemies, casts them to the ground. But under the shadow of what? Under the shadow of faith and patience. Whenever there was faith and there was patience,
Yes, if you are patient and God-fearing… — if faith together with deeds and patience existed, if piety together with faith was present, then victory comes. And this is one of the customs of the world, the custom of the Lord in history. Yesterday it was like this, today it is like this, tomorrow too it will be like this. All the religious powers, if they have been able to become a power or to remain in being, it has been under the shadow of faith and patience.
Today too, those who love the Qur'an, Islam, Tawhid, prophethood, the sacred Islamic principles — those who wish that these could take into hand the reins and governance of people's lives in the world, those who wish to see God sovereign in the world — let them strengthen within themselves two substances: the substance of faith and the substance of patience. If the substance of faith and the substance of patience grow strong within us,
Indeed, the earth belongs to God; He gives it as inheritance to whom He wills among His servants, and the [good\ end belongs to the God-fearing,nofn] — but without faith and without patience it cannot be.
This is the answer that we give to these two questions. The first question was: did the divine prophets, in the aggregate, succeed or fail? We say: in the aggregate they succeeded, all the prophets — for the reason that they wanted to bring humankind up, and they brought it up. Of course, in the various gatherings and assemblies in which — in lessons, in Qur'anic exegesis, in the discussions after the prayer — I have raised this matter, each time I would give an example; if I wanted to give all those examples it would take long. I gave you one of its examples: the schoolchild.
The prophets in the aggregate succeeded and were triumphant; they did not fail. But now, each single one of the prophets — that is, each single one of the divine and monotheistic revolutionary movements — did they succeed or not? Here we say there is a general rule. The general rule is this: each one that possessed sufficient faith and patience succeeded; each one that did not possess sufficient faith and patience did not succeed.
Now pay attention while I read these verses of the Qur'an. Today's verses are from two places: one from Surat al-Ra'd, and the other from Surat al-Saffat.
(Allow me to mention this matter first, because I am afraid I will forget it, and I also become tired and may not be able to say it. Gentlemen, this recommendation has been made to me on behalf of the friends attached to this mosque — and I myself, of course, was not unwilling to say it — concerning help to this mosque, which in the previous sessions, at the beginning of the month, we once mentioned. With the situation that has arisen regarding that back courtyard and a place for the ladies and a passageway for the ladies' coming and going, and likewise concerning the electrical arrangements here — you have observed how disordered our electricity situation is, suddenly leaving us in the middle of our work — it needs a great deal of help. Of course, of the tasks that are very hard for me and that I do not really know how to do well, this is one: to take money from people for the mosque and the like. This is one of the tasks that is very difficult for me and that, truth be told, I really do not know how to do — you see that my present conduct shows that I do not know how. But I wanted to say it in summary: let the gentlemen who have financial means make an effort, take pains, and finish this work as soon as possible. Here, these friends who have shops beside the mosque are ready to accept the gentlemen's cash contributions. Please refer your cash help or your pledges to them, and refer to me as well, and let the friends apply themselves. This is money that, for such a work, is very little — though in itself, of course, it is a large sum. Let this work be carried out. This is something I wanted to say at the end of the talk, and in the middle of the talk it was perhaps a little out of place; but since I saw that there is a great likelihood that I would forget, and I would certainly have forgotten, and just now it suddenly came to my mind, I said: now that it has come to mind, let me say it. Well, now send a salawat so that I may read the verses. [The audience sends salawat.])
"Say: God is the Creator of all things." Say: God is the Creator of everything. Since He created, He can say what its outcome will be. Because afterward He wants to speak about the outcome of truth and falsehood, He first says: We created this world, We know the customs and laws of history, hear them from Us. "Say: God is the Creator of all things" — say: God is the Creator of everything. "And He is the One" — He is the sole and unique; "the All-Subduing" — the powerful and mighty.
"He sent down water from the sky" — He is striking a parable for you. This verse is so beautiful in respect of its Arabic phrasing — unfortunately, those who are not familiar with the Arabic language cannot properly grasp this beauty either. He does not say beforehand, "I am striking a parable"; you who are listening do not realize that this is a likeness and to what it applies, you do not catch it; at the end you understand what the matter is — He is striking a parable. "He sent down water from the sky" — from the sky He sent down water, a rain.
"and the riverbeds flowed each according to its measure" — rivers and streams of various sizes flowed; small rivers, large rivers flowed from the rainwater. "and the flood carried a swelling froth" — this flood that flowed in the rivers carried upon its shoulders a swollen, prominent froth. When you stand beside a river that the flood-water is bringing along, what you see is not the water; it is froth. The water is beneath the froth. These froths, prominent and surging upon this water that flows in the river, the flood-water, are showing themselves off. You see froth; beneath the froth is water.
Let us go to another place — the other example is this: "And from that which they heat in the fire" — those things that they heat in the fire, like mineral substances and like iron, which they place in the fire; "seeking [to make] ornament or utensil" — in order to make some adornment, they place gold in the fire so as to make jewelry; they place iron in the fire so as to make objects; they place copper in the fire so as to make things. These things that they place in the fire so as to make from them an ornament and adornment and finery and goods and wares — in these too there is "a froth like it" — a froth there is, like the froth of the river-water. There too, when they melt this iron, they see that upon it there is froth; it too has a froth. When they melt gold, it too has a particular froth. There the froth was upon the water — what was the essence? What was the life-giving substance? The water or the froth? The water. But what met the eye outwardly? What was making a display? What showed itself more? The froth.
Here, is the desired means the iron or the froth, in the melting of iron? The gold or the froth, in the melting of gold? Of course the gold, of course the iron. What is the froth? A parasitic thing, a superfluous thing. But which comes more to the eye? That froth — not that gold and not that iron. Once these are set up, immediately He says: "Thus does God strike [the parable of] the true and the false" — God shows you truth and falsehood in this way; the parable of truth and falsehood God strikes for you in this way. "As for the froth" — that is, the thing that you saw to be visible, that very froth, that is the false. The thing that is hidden beneath the froth — that is, the water, that is, the gold, that is, the iron — that is the truth.
Now that you have learned this much of the parable, hear from God the continuation of the parable — what its outcome will be. "As for the froth, it goes away as scum" — but those froths will go to vanity and waste and emptiness, will be annihilated. The froth on the river is not permanent; it is there one instant, gone the next. When you open the water onto your field, what remains for you from the river is the water, not the froth; its froth perishes. "As for the froth, it goes away as scum" — but that froth goes to annihilation and emptiness; "and as for that which benefits people" — but that which benefits people, that is, that water, that iron, that gold, it tarries "and remains in the earth", it is not annihilated. "Thus does God set forth the parables" — God strikes the parable for you in this way. He means to say: the truth remains. The call of the prophets is truth, the movement of the prophets is truth, and it remains. The falsehoods that puff out their chests against the prophets, show themselves off, rebel, run riot — they are froth, they are bubbles upon the water, they are doomed to perish. This is the parable that God strikes.
The continuation of the verse applies this same parable to the field of the social struggles of the Muslims. He says: "For those who respond to their Lord is the most beautiful" — for those who answer their Lord are the most beautiful of outcomes and rewards; the good end is for them. The end of the work is for those who respond to the movement of the prophets. "But those who do not respond to Him" — but those who do not respond and step onto the path of falsehood, they — "even if they had all that is in the earth" — if all the surface of the earth were theirs, "and the like of it with it" — and they had as much again in addition and overflowing, "they would offer it as ransom" — they are ready to give it as ransom and rescue themselves from the predicament. Did you not see this in history? Did you not see the conflicts of truth and falsehood — how the leaders and chiefs of falsehood were rolled up like a scroll; and then, if they could, they were ready to give the whole world, and themselves, their lives, their position, to hold on? "For them is the evil of the reckoning" — for them is the worst of reckonings; "and their refuge is Hell" — their abode is Hell; "and what an evil resting place!" — and what an evil place it is. These are the verses of Surat al-Ra'd.
The verses of Surat al-Saffat too we have rendered in these writings; they too say this very same thing. "And Our word has already gone forth to Our servants, the messengers" — already Our command for Our deputed servants, that is, the prophets, has passed and been concluded; beforehand We took the requisite and necessary decision concerning them. What is that decision? "that they will surely be the ones helped" — they are the ones helped; they are helped by Us alone. "And that Our hosts will surely be the victors" — it is Our soldiers who become victorious.
I told you its condition is that very faith and patience. In the battlefields of the Prophet, the Messenger of God called the people to patience. In the battlefields of the Commander of the Faithful, the Commander of the Faithful called the people to patience. They always used to say: be patient. What does patience on the field of battle mean? What does patience in the state of struggle mean? It means not growing weak in the struggle, it means not finishing the striving, not leaving it half-done; this is the meaning of patience. If the Muslims of the world, on the path of cultural advances and economic advances and political advances, take up these two factors today too — the factor of faith and the factor of patience — the Islamic community, culturally and politically and economically, will gain the upper hand over the unbelievers and the enemies of religion.
Let the Muslims not imagine that a stamp of nullity — of ill-repute, of backwardness, of poverty, of abasement — has been struck upon their foreheads; no. Let them not imagine that the enemies who are against religion and against Islam in the various parts of the world, who are these very hostile global powers, must always ride upon the backs of the Muslims and lord it over them and exploit them; no, never is it so. If the Muslims of the world, if the Islamic countries, if the Muslim masses and nations — in short, if the great Islamic ummah, who today number six hundred, seven hundred million in population — if they acquire faith, if they also store up patience for themselves, they will be victorious over the whole world. And this is the Qur'an's counsel to all Muslims in all times. This is the harvest of our discussion today. I wanted you to know that the outcome of the prophetic missions is good. I wanted you to know, from the Qur'an, this matter: that the prophetic missions and their uprisings will in the end be victorious, and that we today are the followers of the prophets. Why should the Islamic nations feel weak? Why? Why should you feel inferior? Why do you imagine that the enemies of religion can always be victorious over the Islamic nations and countries? Why? No; it is not so; rather it is exactly the opposite — provided that we have faith and patience. So from today's session let us at least take this benefit in practice: let us know the meaning of patience, and let us also strive to perfect our faith within ourselves.
Our discussion today has ended. I ask you to pay attention: the major and important part of our program is from now on. Let me give one reminder here. Before the recitation of the Qur'an by our dear reciters begins, I translate these verses for you, I set the ground, so that when they recite the Qur'an you may understand its meaning. Let our dear reciter, our dear Qari, Mr. Fatemi, come today, please come forward; if they have come, let them come forward.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, make us among the followers of the prophets.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, bring into being within us a strong and rich substance of faith and patience.
O Lord! Make us partake of the fruits of faith and patience.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, make the Muslim nations and the Muslims of the whole world victorious over their enemies.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, those who, in any spot of the world, in any form, carry on striving and activity to weaken the Muslims, to humiliate the Muslims, to hold the Muslims back — annihilate and destroy them.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, in any spot of the world, each of those people and human beings who pursue some striving and activity for the benefit of the Muslims and for the benefit of Islam and for the benefit of the lofty Islamic ideas — make them successful and aided.
O Lord! Cut short and sever the hand of the enemies of religion from the Islamic countries and from the Islamic nations.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, cut short and sever from the head of humanity the hand of the stubborn, obstinate enemies of religion and of the Muslims and of all humankind — namely the Jews.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, make us the true followers and adherents of Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.
O Lord! Make every day of our life more aware, more learned, more earnest, more believing, and more patient than the day before.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, take under Your protection all the oppressed and the wronged of the world.
Annihilate and crush and humble all the oppressors and tyrants of the world;
Guide our hearts toward Yourself;
Make our souls flourishing and inhabited with Your remembrance and recollection;
Make our intention and purpose in this speaking and listening and sitting and rising sincere for Yourself alone;
Keep polytheism and hypocrisy and ostentation far from us.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, grant deliverance, very soon, to the innocent prisoners in every spot of the world that they may be.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, fulfill all the sound and reasonable and logical desires and wishes of the community of Muslims.
And remove all the personal and individual afflictions from among the Muslims.
(One of the matters I wanted to mention is this very subject of the mosque, which I wanted to repeat and to say: that we have not wished to make use of the ordinary kinds of help that are sometimes used in mosques.)Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 22 · 57:36
- Ep 23 — The Outcome of Prophethood (2)Session 21: The Outcome of Prophethood (2).
delivered Wednesday, 17 Mehr 1353 / 22 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat Ghafir (40:51-54).
Indeed, We will surely help Our messengers and those who believe, in the life of this world and on the Day when the witnesses arise — the Day when their excuses will be of no benefit to the wrongdoers; and theirs is the curse, and theirs is the evil abode. And We had certainly given Moses guidance, and We bequeathed to the Children of Israel the Book — a guidance and a remembrance for those endowed with understanding.
Yesterday we said that God's promise to the prophets and messengers — His promise concerning their mission among the people — is a promise full of hope and glad tidings. That is to say, God the Exalted has promised to grant His prophets, and those who bear the trust of the prophetic mission, and likewise everyone who calls toward religion, truth, and reality — victory over their enemies both in this world, and in the next world a recompense, a reward, and a return. And the whole of what can be said about the victory of the prophets, peace be upon them, I summarized into two points.
The first point is this. When we examine the chain of the prophethoods of history from first to last, we see that, taken as a whole, these teachers of mankind succeeded and triumphed. True, some of them, in the course of their call — or even up to its very end — met with certain failures and with the people's ingratitude. But reckon the matter as a whole, and we see that the dear prophets, from the first of them to the last, accomplished the very work they had set out to accomplish.
I compared the prophets to teachers who wish to educate a student from beginning to end, one after another. Six teachers, ten teachers, fifteen teachers — from the lower grades up to the higher grades — they want to keep passing this child along, hand to hand, so that he may rise from the depths of ignorance to the summit of knowledge. Now, what is our judgment regarding the success or failure of that first-grade teacher? He lays before the feet of this child only a small portion of the road and helps him traverse it; he does not live to see this student reach the peak of his perfection, and passes away before that. Do we say he failed — because he could not bring this child all the way to the final stage, because he could not see this student reach the final rank? No. He did his own work; he handed the trust to the next person only after he had fulfilled his own share of the responsibility.
Another example we have always given in this regard runs like this. A very heavy, exhausting load is to be carried from here to the far end of the mosque. No single person can lift it onto his shoulders and carry it by himself, without anyone else's help, all the way there. Nor is it possible for all the people together to lift this load at once and carry it to the end. One way remains. One of these several strong men gathered here, ready to lift the load, picks it up and carries it forward one meter; then a second person takes the load from the one-meter mark and carries it to the two-meter mark; the third does the same; the fourth the same; the twenty-seventh, the twenty-eighth, the thirtieth, the thirty-somethingth — and this load will reach the far end of the hall. For instance, from where I am now standing to over there is a distance of about thirty-three or thirty-four meters, say. This much distance, this road, was traversed; this load was carried. But each of these men who lifted this load could advance it only one meter — and for that single meter of advance, it may even be that he gave up his very life. So heavy is this load that to push it forward even a single meter, a person is compelled to sacrifice his own life on this path — and indeed he did sacrifice it. Yet the sum total we have here amounts to this: one precious life given as a ransom for one stage of the road being traversed, for one stage of the load being brought nearer to its destination.
The prophets are those very robust, powerful men, each of whom carried this load forward by one meter. Noah, peace be upon him, came and pushed this load — the load of guiding mankind and bringing the human race to the summit of culture and virtue — forward by one meter. Even though in that single meter he endured torments, even though he preached for nine hundred and fifty years and had only just advanced a little, even though in the end he gave his life over this work — did he, in the end, fulfill his duty or not? Did he bring this load one meter nearer to its destination, or not? You see that he did. After Noah, the prophet who comes after him takes this load from him and likewise advances it one meter. A third comes, and he too advances it one meter. The Seal of the Prophets, may God's blessings be upon him and his household, graces us with his presence and is commissioned to his mission. He takes this load — which had reached a certain appointed limit — and sets it upon a road where it rolls along on its rails and moves forward: humanity has reached maturity. So the prophets, from the first to the last, succeeded.
And then, too, at the conclusion of the work — the last divine emissary, of whom we also wrote in these papers — the matter of the appearance of the Awaited One (the Wali of the Age), may God's blessings be upon him, is itself a glad tiding to all the godly and to all the "national-minded" of the world in this regard. The last appointee of God — whom we hold to be our own Imam of the Age, and whom all the "national-minded" of the world await — will come and bring this load all the way to its final point. Whose work is the Imam of the Age continuing? He is continuing the work of Noah, the work of Abraham, the work of Moses, the work of Jesus, the work of our own Prophet, and the work of the pure Imams from the household of the Prophet. Had this load not reached its end, Noah would have failed. But because this load will reach its end — because he too had a share in bringing this load to its end — Noah is not a failure; Abraham is not a failure; Zachariah, whose body was sawn in two, is not a failure; that prophet whom they threw into the well is not a failure. It is true that he fell into the well; it is true that in this world he did not see what he longed to see; it is true that Yahya (John), peace be upon him, had his head severed for the tyrant of his age and was sent as a gift. All of this is true — but none of these men were defeated. Why? Because they bore these calamities and afflictions at the price of pushing forward the load of the trust and bringing that load nearer to its destination. This was one point that I made yesterday.
The other point I also touched upon yesterday is this. In the final outcome, in the overall end of the work, we saw that defeat never awaits the prophets; in the end, all of them triumphed and succeeded, in the sense I have explained. But some of the prophets, besides that final triumph of bringing the load one meter nearer to its destination, attained certain successes in this world as well. Those successes consisted in their being able to bring into existence a society based upon monotheistic thought and upon the school they proposed. The clearest instance is our own Prophet, who — upon the foundation of Islamic thought, the Qur'anic mode of thought, and the inspiration of God — brought into being a society, a polity (madinah), a community, and an order. And of the same type as the Prophet were many of the past prophets, as I also mentioned yesterday. The conversion of the Roman Empire came after the departure of Jesus; the formation of the virtuous society of the Children of Israel came after the passing of Moses. Abraham, during his own lifetime, established the divine society — of this the Qur'an speaks. Solomon spread divine rule throughout the entire world. The Israelite prophet named Solomon, son of David, gathered the whole world into the form of a single monotheistic, divine society, around one another and around a single axis. So some of the prophets did attain certain successes and triumphs even during their own lifetimes, and these triumphs were summed up in what? In the establishment of a divine, monotheistic order and society.
Some of the prophets did not have this opportunity. Like whom? Like Zachariah, whom I gave as an example; like Yahya, whom I gave as an example — they failed in their lifetimes; in the end they were killed; and like certain others among the prophets before Zachariah and before Yahya. What is this? How is this matter to be analyzed and explained? Why do some of the prophets succeed and others fail? Why can they not all establish the divine and monotheistic society? And why do only some attain this possibility and this success? The answer lies in a single short sentence. Everywhere the divine men, leaders, and great ones won their successes, those successes hung upon faith and patience. And everywhere the great divine leaders and the callers to truth were defeated, it was the result of not having a sufficient measure of faith or of patience — without exception. Everywhere it has been just so. Wherever the companions of the prophet and the believers in him exercised patience in the struggle against the enemies, the opponents, and the adversaries of the prophet's call, they pushed forward.
The requisite for victory and progress is present in the call of the prophets — because the prophets speak in accordance with truth, they act in accordance with truth, and truth is victorious. Truth is in accordance with the nature and disposition of the world, and therefore it is successful and victorious. The prophets too are speaking in accordance with the disposition of the world; therefore the substance and the requisite of success in the movement of the prophets, in the revolution of the prophets, is completely present. If you see that some prophet in history was defeated, do not take this as proof that the word of truth must be defeated — no, the word of truth must be victorious, the order of truth must prevail, the hand of truth must strike falsehood upon the head and shatter it to pieces. So why, then, does a prophet sometimes meet defeat? Because the followers of the prophet either do not have sufficient faith or sufficient patience; they do not exert patience. Otherwise, the verse of the Qur'an — that very verse we recited yesterday — says: And Our word has already gone forth to Our servants, the messengers: that it is they who will be helped, and that it is Our host that will surely be the victors.
Our host, Our army, Our people are the ones who prevail — this word of God admits no default. If somewhere you saw that those who utter the word of truth were defeated, know that they were not the host of God; the conditions for being the host of God were not present in them. And those others who arranged that victory, who arranged that defeat and prepared its ground — they too were not the host of God. The Islamic society: on the day that it is the host of God, it pushes forward; on the day that it falls behind, it is not the host of God, it is not the army of God, it is not the troops of God.
The upshot comes down to two words — the cause of defeats on the one hand, the cause of victories on the other. Wherever the followers of the prophet brought about within themselves complete faith and complete certainty, and stood firm upon the word of truth, they assuredly succeeded and pushed forward; defeat had no place in their affair. Yesterday I related something, on the authority of one of the great ones of our own near-contemporary history, who used to say to his friends: "When you are able, struggle. When you see that you are being defeated, struggle still — until you reach that moment when you become certain that, yes, you will surely be defeated — even then, struggle on. When, at the very moment that you are certain you will be defeated, you still continue your effort, your striving, and your struggle, then victory and triumph will be granted to you." A verse of the Qur'an says almost this same thing — or, indeed, says it definitively. It says: …until, when the messengers despaired and thought that they had been denied, Our help came to them…
It reached a point where the pressures, the blows, and the strikes of the opposing front against the prophets were so severe that the prophets themselves grew hopeless. It reached a point where the prophets and the people with them had their hearts shaken. Not as regards faith — their faith did not vanish, they did not lose their belief in God. But because they had believed they would be victorious, their certainty in that victory fell into decline, and they imagined they had misunderstood. They had been certain that God had told them, "You will surely be victorious." The matter would reach a point where they began to think that perhaps they had misunderstood, that God had not in fact made them such a promise. Wa zannu annahum qad kudhibu — "and they thought that they had been denied" — ja'ahum nasruna — "Our help came to them": in that very moment when, from the intensity of the pressure and the severity of the enemy's blows and strikes, the front of truth and the front of religion felt that, yes, it was now surely being destroyed, it was perishing, the enemy was gaining the upper hand, the roads were closed upon it — in that very moment, because it still persevered, because it still strove, the help and succor of God arrived. This is the verse of the Qur'an.
We imagine that if, throughout history, some of the movements calling toward truth were defeated — if Zayd ibn 'Ali was struck in the forehead by an arrow in the mosque of Kufa and fell; if Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah, the one called "the Pure Soul" (al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah), was defeated in his struggle against Mansur; if Husayn ibn 'Ali al-Hasani, the martyr of Fakhkh, was killed near Medina together with all his companions; if Ibrahim ibn 'Abdullah was slain in Kufa or Basra — then this ought to produce in us a general lesson, that we say: wherever a movement of truth rose up against falsehood, it is condemned to defeat. A group of ignorant people, unaware of the logic of the Qur'an, hold this very notion. I said that this notion settles, like sweet water, into the hearts of the powerful and the tyrants of history. They ask of the God of both worlds that the people should assume and imagine things in this way. And of course it is evident that they themselves also promote this mode of thought. But this mode of thought is contrary to reality.
If Zayd ibn 'Ali is martyred there, in that defeated state, this is no proof that truth is condemned to extinction and defeat; rather, it is proof that truth, even though it is truth, has need of work, effort, and striving. Let us not suppose that, because our word is truth, it is therefore unnecessary to strive on its behalf. Let us not think that, because our cause is the Qur'an, God Himself will therefore push the Qur'an forward — no! The word of truth, true, is truth; true, the world is destined and certain to accept it in the future — but it requires effort, it requires activity, a group must exercise patience for its sake, a group must eat the blood of their own hearts to enthrone it. The episode of Zayd ibn 'Ali gives us this lesson; it does not give us the lesson that truth is condemned to extinction. Why do they err? Zayd ibn 'Ali's word was true; Imam al-Sadiq, peace be upon him, had also endorsed Zayd ibn 'Ali's struggle against the apparatus of Hisham ibn 'Abd al-Malik — they had permitted him that wondrous struggle, and history speaks to this meaning. This noble man set out; he arranged matters well, too — only, a group of people: ignorant and unaware, or fault-seeking, or under the influence of the evil propaganda of a vigilant enemy — at the necessary moment forsook him and left him alone. This is the lesson we learn from that episode: that even if a word is true, even with the rightfulness of Zayd ibn 'Ali's word, still, if his followers and supporters left him alone, if they did not exert effort and struggle on his path and at his side, they are defeated; and if they did struggle, they push forward. All the affairs of the world are just so.
How many people in the world do you know of — how many ideas, how many schools of thought — whose followers and friends, through their effort and struggle, enthroned that school of thought? How is it that false words, untrue words, words contrary to the way of the world and the nature of man, are enthroned through effort and struggle, yet the word of truth is not enthroned through struggle? What kind of talk is this? Yet some people do indeed say this very absurd, false thing.
The Commander of the Faithful (Amir al-Mu'minin), may God's blessings be upon him, makes this matter entirely clear in one of the sermons of the Nahj al-Balaghah — a short one. I did not intend today to go into great detail, and I will not; I would rather explain these verses. But for now I will recount this sermon for you as well. It is a sermon I have read a number of times until now, in various gatherings, for the brothers who were present. The Commander of the Faithful describes the advances of the soldiers of Islam in the time of the Prophet. He says:
A saying is related: Wa laqad kunna ma'a rasuli'llahi naqtulu aba'ana wa abna'ana wa ikhwanana wa a'mamana — "We were with the Messenger of God, slaying our fathers, our sons, our brothers, and our uncles…"
He says: when we were beside the Prophet and in the Prophet's ranks, this is how we would act. When we went onto the battlefield, we would slay our own fathers, our own sons, our own brothers, our own uncles who were in the front of unbelief and polytheism. If our uncle, our father, our son, our brother came under the banner of unbelief to war against the Prophet, we — who had gone forth with the Prophet — would not say, "This is my brother, let me spare him; this is my son, let me spare him." Without hesitation we mowed them all down in the way of God. And afterward, when we had killed them and were returning, our hearts were not shaken within us so as to cry out, "Alas, woe! Look what we have done! For the sake of this new religion, this new thought, we have killed our own beloved child!" — no. Our faith, as a result of this sharp and decisive deed, did not lessen; it increased. Ma yaziduna dhalika illa imanan wa tasliman — "that only increased us in faith and submission" — this struggle of ours only added to our faith and our submission. Wa mudiyyan 'ala al-haqqi wa sabran 'ala madadi al-alam — this struggle of ours caused us to press on more decisively upon the truth in difficult matters, and to exercise more patience over the pains and torments of the struggle.
Well, then the Commander of the Faithful proceeds to describe the battlefields there in brief. He said: Wa jiddan fi jihadi al-'aduwwi. Wa laqad kana al-rajulu minna wa al-akharu min 'aduwwina yatasawalani tasawula al-fahlayni yatakhalasani anfusahuma: ayyuhuma yasqi sahibahu ka'sa al-manun — which I do not wish to expound — namely, how our soldier in battle would leap upon the enemy, how he would grapple and lock with him, how our soldiers and the brave warriors and champions of Islam would race one another toward death — these I will leave aside. Then, at the very end of this same sermon — which is also short — he says:
A saying is related: Fa-lamma ra'a'llahu sidqana anzala bi-'aduwwina al-kabta wa anzala 'alayna al-nasr — "So when God saw our truthfulness, He sent down humiliation upon our enemy and sent down victory upon us."
We struggled to such an extent that God saw that we were speaking truthfully, saw that we were truly Muslims, saw that we were truly believers — that we demonstrated our deep faith by our deeds; and when we acted in this way, then the crushing of our enemies, and victory and triumph for us, descended upon us from God. He utters one, two, three further sentences, and then he says:
A saying is related: Wa la-'amri law kunna na'ti ma ataytum ma qama li-l-dini 'amudun wa la-khdarra li-l-imani 'udun — "And by my life, had we done what you are doing, not a single pillar of the religion would have stood, and not a single branch of faith would have grown green."
The Commander of the Faithful says this during the time of his caliphate, when he was confronting a handful of lazy, comfort-seeking men who, when he said, "Come, let us go to the war against Mu'awiyah," would make excuses; who, when it was time to go to the war against Talhah and Zubayr, would fabricate a thousand kinds of religious justification for their own staying behind. In short, comfort-seeking, life-seeking, ease-seeking people, far from divine knowledge — it was with such men that he was dealing. Weak, base, slack, abject, surrendered to humiliation, accustomed to comfort — with such men the Commander of the Faithful was contending. He says to them, Wa la-'amri — "by my own life I swear" — law kunna na'ti ma ataytum — "had we, in that day with the Prophet, done the very thing you are doing today," O Muslims, ma qama li-l-dini 'amudun wa la-khdarra li-l-imani 'udun — not one pillar among the pillars of the religion would have stood erect, not one branch among the branches of faith would have grown green.
What do you understand from this sermon? The word of the Commander of the Faithful — which is nothing other than the word of the Prophet, for the path that 'Ali trod is the very path that his brother the Prophet trod — why, in that day, did the Prophet of God advance so, and why, in the time of the Commander of the Faithful, did affairs come to such a standstill? Why? The Commander of the Faithful is stating its secret. He says: because in that day we exercised patience on the battlefields; in that day we exercised patience over the burning of pain; in that day we were ready to come out of our beds onto the battlefield; in that day we were ready to forgo our material interests and our livelihoods for the sake of God — but today you are not ready. In that day we advanced; today we fall behind. A very simple, clear matter; two times two is four. This is the social analysis of the Commander of the Faithful.
At any rate, here is the summary of the matter. In the chain of prophethoods their work is accompanied by victory, and at the conclusion of the work the eternal and final triumph belongs to them. But more than that: even in this very world the prophets are certain to attain victory and to achieve their own aims and the aims of their school. The condition is this — that their followers, their companions, bring faith, exert real faith, render aid, and exercise patience on the fields of struggle and jihad. On condition of faith and patience: that is the upshot of the discourse.
Now let us return to the verses of the Qur'an. Today I have chosen verses from several places in the Noble Qur'an — the written text of which will, of course, reach your hands tomorrow — and I saw that there are even more verses of glad tiding in the Qur'an than these. One is in Surat al-Mu'min (Ghafir), where He says — and there is no need for me to read those verses here now: Indeed, We will surely help Our messengers and those who believe, in the life of this world and on the Day when the witnesses arise.
Allow me to read them, there is no harm in it; I would regret not explaining these verses today, since tomorrow too I will not have time to explain them. Surat al-Mu'min, verse 51, according to this Qur'an. Inna la-nansuru rusulana wa alladhina amanu — "Indeed, We will surely help Our messengers and those who believe." The lam in la-nansuru is for certainty, verification, and emphasis; and inna too is in this same sense of verification and emphasis. That is to say: We, definitively and without any doubt, help — rusulana, "Our messengers." Only the messengers? No — wa alladhina amanu, "and those who believe," the believers as well. The believer who moves along the path of the prophet — this promise is for him too. The pure-natured human beings who set out following the call of the prophets — this promise is for them too: wa alladhina amanu. Where do We help them? Fi al-hayati al-dunya — "in the life of this world": right here, in this very worldly life, We help them; We do not leave it for later. Wa yawma yaqumu al-ashhad — "and on the Day when the witnesses arise." This — that the witnesses arise — is in some commentaries interpreted as the Day of Resurrection.
There is a tradition concerning this noble verse in which the Imam, peace be upon him, said to Jamil ibn Darraj — according to that tradition — that what is meant by God's help to the prophets is their being helped in the world of the Return (raj'ah). That is to say: the Wali of the Age, may God's blessings be upon him, comes; that all-encompassing divine government comes into being in this world; the banner of the Qur'an and Islam is planted across the entire world; all the people move toward religion, God, and monotheism; the single divine government comes into being. After that, God the Exalted brings back to life the prophets, the messengers, the executors of the prophets (awsiya'), the martyrs, and the righteous among the believers — in accordance with verses of the Qur'an interpreted to this meaning, and traditions that are explicit on it. I will not now go into the discussion of the Return. In this narration the Imam says that this is for the Return — this verse is connected to the Return, and the help is for the Return. I myself imagine that the Imam, peace be upon him, does not wish to interpret this phrase — fi al-hayati al-dunya — as referring to the Return. The Imam does not wish to say that what God has stated — that We help them in the life of this world — means "in the Return within the life of this world." I think that yawma yaqumu al-ashhad is being interpreted as the Return, and not as the Resurrection — for what helping is there in the Resurrection? In the era of the Return, God the Exalted helps the prophets. This I offer as a probability, and I draw this inference from this narration only as a probability. At any rate, even if we set aside this benefit altogether, the phrase fi al-hayati al-dunya itself, on its apparent meaning, and by the indication of the verses that come afterward as well, shows that God the Exalted gives an explicit promise to the prophets and to the believers that, in this very worldly life, We will help you.
The verse goes on: The Day when their excuse will not benefit the wrongdoers; and theirs is the curse, and theirs is the evil abode. Yawma yaqumu al-ashhad — who is it that arises? When do the witnesses arise? At that time when the apology of the wrongdoers will be of no benefit to them. There is another verse in the Qur'an: …the Day when a sign of your Lord comes, no soul will benefit from its faith if it did not believe before…
This too is interpreted as the era of the coming of the Wali of the Age — it is possible this is the same. Wa lahumu al-la'nah — the curse is upon the wrongdoers. Wa lahum su'u al-dar — theirs is a most ill-omened, evil abode.
Then, to bring a witness to the fact that We help the prophets, He cites the episode of Moses. Since, before this verse, from the early part of Surat al-Mu'min, the discourse is mostly about Moses and his struggles against Pharaoh, here too — where He gives the promise of help to all the prophets — He says, as one type, one instance, one example: And We had certainly given Moses guidance, and We bequeathed to the Children of Israel the Book — a guidance and a remembrance for those endowed with understanding.
Wa laqad atayna Musa al-huda — "We gave Moses guidance and right-guidedness." Wa awrathna Bani Isra'ila al-kitab — "and We bequeathed the Book to the Children of Israel as an inheritance." The Children of Israel remained possessors of the Book, possessors of the collection of divine knowledge and ordinances — and this shows that they succeeded; otherwise, had the unbelievers and tyrants of the age prevailed over the Children of Israel, they would not have allowed them to act according to their own heavenly Book; they would have destroyed the Book from among them. Hudan wa dhikra li-uli al-albab — that this Book is guidance, is right-guidance, and is awareness for those endowed with intellect and reason.
Fa-sbir — then, when this matter is concluded, He addresses the Seal of the Prophets, saying: Fa-sbir — "so be patient, persevere, resist the impulses that bring about decline." Inna wa'da'llahi haqq — without doubt, God's promise is true. This promise that God has given — that He has said you will be victorious; that promise which was in Surat al-Saffat: Wa laqad sabaqat kalimatuna li-'ibadina al-mursalin, innahum lahumu al-mansurun — and likewise the other promises that are in the Qur'an — these are true, these are correct. You will surely be victorious, O Prophet, in accordance with the divine promise; but the condition for it is patience. Fa-sbir — you must be patient, you must resist and persevere, you must not turn back from the sacred contest you have undertaken. So be patient — indeed, the promise of God is true — and seek forgiveness for your sin, and glorify your Lord with praise in the evening and the morning.
Fa-sbir inna wa'da'llahi haqq, wa-staghfir li-dhanbik — "and seek forgiveness for your sin." Of course, the Prophet's sin, the sin in the Prophet's category, is not of the type of our sins. The Prophet is infallible — this is certain. By the explicit text of the Qur'anic verses and by the judgment of reason, the Prophet does not sin. This "sin" is of the kind of sins and lapses that, for a human being of that station, count as a lapse — even though, if you and I were to do the very same thing, it would be no lapse at all. It is those sins He speaks of, those lapses He speaks of. Wa-staghfir li-dhanbik — ask pardon, seek forgiveness, and seek to make amends for your small lapses of the past. Wa sabbih bi-hamdi rabbika bi-l-'ashiyyi wa-l-ibkar — "and glorify, and praise your Lord, in every evening and every morning." This verse teaches us very clearly that the outcome of the prophets' work is the help of God.
And now as for the verses of Surat al-Anbiya' — that too, again, in the same way, I will read briefly. Surat al-Anbiya' is in the seventeenth juz', after Surat Ta Ha. The verses of Surat al-Anbiya' are excellent. I recommend to those friends who have intimacy with the Qur'an to read Surat al-Anbiya' carefully. From the beginning of the sura, God the Exalted is constantly saying that the prophets will be victorious, the enemies of the prophets will be crushed, and in this world too — before the next world — they will be punished; this He keeps saying, constantly, from the start of the sura. Then, after repeating these matters somewhat, He turns to history. He recounts the story of Moses — the victory of Moses and the defeat of the power opposing Moses; He recounts the story of Abraham — the victory and success of Abraham and the defeat of the powers opposing Abraham; the story of Noah, the story of Solomon, and other stories. All the episodes recounted in this sura are in this form: the prophet advances, succeeds, is victorious; and the anti-prophet, the counter-revolution against the prophet, the opposition to the prophet's new word — that is, the reaction that opposes prophethood — is overcome, is subdued, is defeated. And this is the way (sunnah) of history.
He says: And We did not send before you any but men to whom We revealed… — these are the verses at the beginning of the sura — He says: before you, We sent prophets and gave them revelation. Wa ma ja'alnahum jasadan la ya'kuluna al-ta'am (21:8) — "We did not make them bodies that did not eat food": We did not make them into angels having no body, who require no food. Wa ma kanu khalidin — khalidin: nor were they immortal, eternal, everlasting. They too died at some point. But — thumma sadaqnahumu al-wa'd (21:9) — "then We fulfilled for them the promise": We made Our promise to them come true, the promise of victory. Fa-anjaynahum wa man nasha' — "We saved them and whomever We willed": We saved them, and whomever We willed We saved along with them. Wa ahlakna al-musrifin — "and We destroyed the transgressors": We destroyed the transgressors. Laqad anzalna ilaykum kitaban fihi dhikrukum, a-fa-la ta'qilun (21:10) — "We have sent down to you a Book in which is your remembrance": now to you too, O believers, We have sent down a Book, a Qur'an, in which is the remembrance, the awareness, and the reminder of you. A-fa-la ta'qilun — "do you not, then, use reason? Do you not reflect?"
Then He arrives at verse eleven, and He says: And how many a town that was wrongdoing have We shattered…
Wa kam qasamna min qaryatin — this is truly a hymn of the victory of the prophets, a stirring anthem of how greatly the Lord of the world granted the prophets success through His divine, unseen aids. And these are not unseen aids of the sort the common people wish for and love, that a hand should come from the unseen and strike the chest of the enemy. No — they are unseen aids concealed within the very womb of this world, in keeping with the disposition of the world and the nature of man and the cosmos. With these unseen aids, how greatly did the Lord of the world grant the prophets success. Wa kam qasamna min qaryatin — how many, and how often, did We shatter — did We shatter the settlement and society that kanat zalimah, that was wrongdoing. The wrongdoing society, the wrongdoing order, the wrongdoing civilization — that society in whose very construction injustice has been employed, in which class divisions have arisen, in which exploitation has been established, in which the exploitation of man by man has been set up; this is "the wrongdoing town," this is "the wrongdoing society," in whose foundation tyranny has been employed — how many of these did We shatter! Wa kam qasamna — that is, "how many did We shatter, We crushed." Wa qasamna means "We shattered, We pulverized." Min qaryatin kanat zalimatan wa ansh'ana ba'daha qawman akharin — "and after them We raised up another people": and after them We brought into being and made manifest another people, another group, another class, and set them to the work.
He goes on: Then, when they perceived Our might, at once they fled from it. [It was said:\ Do not flee, but return to the luxury you were given and to your dwellings, that you might be questioned. They said: Woe to us, indeed we were wrongdoers! And that did not cease to be their cry until We made them stubble, extinguished.,nofn] Fa-lamma ahassu ba'sana — a description of the misery of the wrongdoers at the moment they behold the punishment of God. Fa-lamma ahassu ba'sana — the very moment those wrongdoers sensed Our wrath and anger — whether, for instance, suppose a heavenly punishment descended, or whether they saw that the believers, alongside their prophet, had charged upon them and were about to bring down the sword of God's wrath upon their heads — the moment they sensed Our wrath, idha hum minha yarkudun — suddenly, from those settlements, from that civilization, from that society, they took to flight, they set to fleeing and running away. La tarkudu — "do not flee"; wa-rji'u ila ma utriftum fihi — "and return to the luxury you were given": return to your places of luxurious ease, return to those palaces in which you lived in luxury, return into the midst of the society and city in which you lorded over others and boasted — where are you fleeing to? Wa-rji'u ila ma utriftum fihi wa masakinikum — "and to your dwellings." Return to your dwellings; la'allakum tus'alun — "that you might be questioned": perhaps they wish to interrogate you, perhaps they wish to question you — where are you going? Qalu ya waylana inna kunna zalimin — they said, "Woe to us! Woe to us, for we were oppressors and wrongdoers." Fa-ma zalat tilka da'wahum — this remained their cry, their speech; hatta ja'alnahum hasidan khamidin — "and they kept on speaking in this way until We made them all prey to death and annihilation."
Pay attention. There are two or three more verses; let me read these. These following verses, in truth, state the intellectual foundation of this historical reality. Why did things become this way? Why must the wrongdoers be destroyed and the oppressed take their place? Why must the call of the prophet surely advance and his opponents be crushed — why? The cause is this: And We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them in play. Had We wished to take a diversion, We would have taken it from within Ourselves — if We were to do so.
Wa ma khalaqna al-sama'a wa-l-arda wa ma baynahuma la'ibin — We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them in vain. Law aradna an nattakhidha lahwan la-attakhadhnahu min ladunna in kunna fa'ilin — had We wished to do a frivolous thing, We would certainly have done it; We would have done it of Our own self — if We were the doers of such a thing — but We never do. The Lord of the world does not do a vain thing, does not act in accordance with falsehood, does not act in futility. What does this mean? It means that this heaven and earth, and what is between them — if We created them, We created them according to a purpose; We created them for the attainment of an aim and a goal. Truth (haqq) means the line of progression of this heaven and earth, and of whatever is in this heaven and earth, toward that goal — that is, truth. That path which brings the heaven and the earth and their creatures to that destination, that aim and goal for which they were created — that line of progression is truth. Any means that brings human beings to that destination — that means is truth. These things are not stated outright in the Qur'anic verse; rather, this is its import — reflect upon the verse, and it is quite clear. And this is the foundation of the Qur'an: many of the things that are understood and clear, that the human intellect arrives at on its own, it does not bother to make explicit.
Then He continues, saying: Rather, We hurl the truth against falsehood, and it crushes it, and at once it vanishes. And woe to you for what you describe.
Bal naqdhifu bi-l-haqqi 'ala al-batili — rather, We strike falsehood with the means of truth. This path of truth, this correct way, this innate and natural way of man and the world, will in the end be victorious over falsehood; rather, We make the truth prevail over falsehood. Fa-yadmaghuhu — so this truth utterly effaces and annihilates falsehood. Fa-idha huwa zahiq — then you see falsehood as it perishes, heading toward annihilation. Wa lakumu al-waylu mimma tasifun — then for you, O wrongdoers, O oppressors, O followers of falsehood and deniers of truth, is woe; for you is wretchedness and ruin. Wa lakumu al-waylu mimma tasifun — woe to you for what you have described and asserted.
Then, of course, He continues in a most interesting and beautiful Qur'anic style — and to grasp these subtleties correctly, a person must become intimate with the Qur'an. Mostly, those who do not perceive these delicacies, these fine points and refinements of the Qur'an, have no intimacy with the Qur'an. If a person becomes intimate with the Qur'an, the tone of the Qur'an's speech becomes familiar to his ear, and he understands how the Qur'an is speaking — He discusses and speaks about this matter: the coming of truth, the going of falsehood, the victory of truth, the defeat of falsehood. Then, regarding the creation of the heaven and the earth, He once again takes hold of the point that the Lord of the world is the owner of the heaven, the owner of the earth, the ruler over all the regions of the world of existence. Therefore, in the life of human beings too, He must hold sway; in the system of human life too, He must give the law, He must administer, He must govern. Therefore, those who, in opposition to the prophets, laid claim to government, power, and dominion, were upon falsehood and are condemned to annihilation. I ask you, gentlemen, please remain seated.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the household of Muhammad, make us true followers of Muhammad and the household of Muhammad.
O Lord! By Muhammad and the household of Muhammad, do not separate us from them in this world, in life, and in the Hereafter.
By Muhammad and the household of Muhammad, draw their kindness and their love toward us.
O Lord! Make us followers and adherents of the Qur'an, and those who act upon the Qur'an.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 23 · 43:43
- Ep 24 — The Commitment of Faith in ProphethoodSession 22: The Commitment of Faith in Prophethood.
Thursday, 18 Mehr 1353 / 23 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Anfal (8:72).
Indeed, those who believed and emigrated and struggled with their wealth and their lives in the way of God, and those who gave shelter and aid — those are allies of one another. But those who believed yet did not emigrate — you owe them no guardianship at all until they emigrate. And if they seek your help in religion, then upon you is to help, except against a people between whom and you there is a treaty. And God is Seeing of what you do.
This issue must absolutely be raised within the discussions of Prophethood. If we fail to understand it and do not grasp it, then much of what has been discussed on the subject of Prophethood will have almost no practical effect for us. This last discussion is what guarantees that the previous discussions are put into practice and enter into our lives.
What is this final discussion? It is this: we who say "Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah" — "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God" — I announce, in my call to prayer, in my ritual prayer, in the act of pronouncing the two testimonies (the shahadatayn), everywhere, that I am of the Prophet's Ummah, and I accept, I am convinced, I have faith in his prophethood — this testimony that I give, what commitment does it place upon my shoulders? Does this belief, this testimony, this profession, create any commitment for me at all, or not?
There is one kind of testimony: you say, "I bear witness and accept that — suppose — the narcissus flower is more fragrant than the Muhammadan rose." That is one matter. Some people do not even know this; some believe the opposite. You, sir, whether rightly or wrongly, have become convinced that this flower's scent is more pleasing to the nose and better than that flower. Well, now that you have given this testimony — thumma madha, as we seminary students say, "and then what?" Nothing. You see that if a person testifies and accepts that this flower is better than that flower, or, conversely, accepts that that flower is better than this flower, it has no effect on our life, it creates no commitment in our life.
Let me give another example. In the Christian world, one person stands at the head of the religious hierarchy, called the Pope. As you know, this Pope is in reality merely a kind of statue that people must respect. He does not put forth any new theory in Christian beliefs, nor does he issue any new ruling among Christian laws that differs from previous rulings; his being or not being is just like the presence or absence of a beautiful statue in your reception room — if it is there, the room's decor is complete; if it is not there, then in the eyes of luxury-loving people the room is deficient. The existence of the Pope and his absence have no greater effect than this on the Christian world from the standpoint of Christian thought. Now, in this very year in which we are living, if an informed Christian were to be aware that the present Pope has passed away and so-and-so has taken his place, or were not to believe it, it would have no effect whatsoever on his life. If a Christian were to say, "I bear witness that the existing Pope of my time is Mr. So-and-so," this testimony brings him no commitment. That is to say, the state of this Christian and the state of that broken-down old man sitting in a corner of some village — who has no news that this former Pope has died and that someone has come in his place — the state of this one is the same as the state of that uninformed man cast off in his corner. Just as the latter's life situation underwent no change after the death of the former Pope, so too in the life situation of this gentleman who knows the Pope died and another has taken his seat, no change of any kind comes about. "I bear witness that today the Pope is so-and-so" — this testimony creates no commitment.
Now: when I say in the tashahhud of my prayer, "Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah," when it is proclaimed from the minaret of my city and province as a general slogan, as a portrayer of the overall countenance of this society, "Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah" — this testimony to prophethood, this faith in prophethood and the proclaiming of this faith, does it or does it not place a commitment upon my shoulders as the one professing it, upon the shoulders of that society for which this profession is uttered as its slogan? This is the question.
The answer is this: yes, it does. What commitment does it place upon the shoulder of the follower of the Prophet and the acceptor of his call? Let me put it in a single phrase. The commitment that a person who believes in the prophethood of the Prophet takes upon his shoulder is to follow the path of the Prophet and to accept the responsibility of carrying the Prophet's burden home. These words are uttered very easily, but their responsibility is very heavy; and fundamentally, to be of the Prophet's Ummah and to be a witness to his prophethood is precisely this.
A group of people imagine that if they have said "We accept that so-and-so is a prophet" — that as soon as they have proclaimed with the tongue the acceptance of his prophethood that is in their heart — their work is done, and they have brought themselves across the border of Hell into the border of Heaven. Listen carefully; see whether this belief I am describing exists in your mind too, or not. I have no concern with who holds this belief and who does not. Some imagine that human beings were burning in the fire of God's wrath and fury, and then the matter of the prophethood of the Seal of the Prophets was raised; a number of these people who were in the region of torment and the precinct of God's wrath said "Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah" — "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Prophet of God" — and by uttering this phrase they came out of the region of God's torment, they were pulled out, and they fell into the region of mercy. Now, if they prayed, they come a little closer, within the region of mercy, to the wellspring of mercy; if they fasted, they come a little closer; if they paid khums and zakat, they come a little closer; if they also enjoined good and forbade evil, they come a little bit closer; if they performed other deeds too, then they reach the wellspring of mercy; and even if they did not perform them, in the end they are still within the region of mercy. Did you grasp it? Some imagine it this way.
The result of this way of thinking is that if today a person were to write in his identity document "Muslim, follower of the Prophet of Islam" — back when they used to write it in identity documents, though now they do not — or, in a question and answer put to him, when they ask, "Sir, what is your creed and religion?" and he said "Islam"; merely because he has specified Islam and not specified Christianity, not specified materialism, not specified Judaism, not specified some other religion — merely because, among these various things and items presented to him under the name of religion, he has put his finger on Islam, they say: "Very well; since you have specified Islam, go to Heaven. Now, if you also prayed, all the better; if you also fasted, all the better; if you also did other deeds, all the better; and even if you did not do them, your place is in God's Heaven — except that before you reach the Resurrection, they will squeeze you hard." This is a saying and a thought that is current in people's minds.
We say this saying is not correct. Faith in the Prophet is necessary, but faith in the Prophet brings commitments along with it; if those commitments are fulfilled, then to whatever extent those commitments are fulfilled, to that same extent a person's faith is sound. If a person held a faith on his tongue, or even in his heart — a faith — but did not commit himself to any of the commitments that this faith specifies for a person, did not accept any of the responsibilities that acceptance of the Prophet's prophethood places upon a person's shoulder, then this person, although outwardly a believer, is not a true believer. What will God do with him at the Resurrection? I do not know, nor do I have any concern to know; but by the measures of this world, as a matter of judgment, as a basis on which we can pass a verdict on the faith or lack of faith of a human being, we do not regard this man as a person of faith.
Of course, let me also add this. The utterance of this phrase and the outward declaration of belief does preserve a person's life and property, as the saying goes — though there is a bit of loose usage in that expression — that is, it brings a person inside the Islamic sphere. But the discussion is not about whether a person's life and property are protected or not. We want to see whether he is a believer or not a believer. On the basis of the Quranic criteria, whose verses I will now explain for you, we say: that human being who is not bound to the commitments of faith is not a believer. A believer is one who is bound to the commitments and responsibilities that faith in prophethood brings for a person.
What is this commitment? This commitment is that I should see what the Prophet wanted to do in this world. The Prophet wanted to lift a tremendous burden, the Prophet wanted to uproot a tremendous boulder, the Prophet wanted to erect a tremendous edifice. And I too, in my own time, should look and see: has that burden which the Prophet wanted to lift been completely lifted? Has that stone which the Prophet wanted to uproot from the ground and completely tear out been completely torn out? Has that edifice which the Prophet wanted to demolish and to build been built? If I saw that the answer is negative — that is, that burden is still on the ground, that stone has not been torn out, that edifice has not been built — let me strive to do that work which he wanted to do. Let me strive to lift this burden myself. If my bones were weak, if my strength did not suffice, then to the extent that I can, let me strain at it, and let me also find ten other people so that we lift this burden together; let me find yet another group so that we build this edifice together. If I could not finish the building, can I not at least bring ten bricks and stack them there? Can I not dig out even a portion of its foundation and footing? Can I not at least prepare the preliminaries of the work? If I say I cannot, it is a lie.
He must be bound to this commitment; otherwise, if he were not bound to this commitment, it is a lie for him to say, "I bear witness that he is the Prophet of God." This is a superficial testimony. "I bear witness that he is a prophet, but I cannot bear witness that I believe in his prophethood" — like the hypocrites:
When the hypocrites come to you, they say, 'We bear witness that you are indeed the Messenger of God.' And God knows that you are indeed His Messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites are surely liars.
They would come and say, "O Messenger of God, we bear witness that you are the Prophet of God." God says: yes, We Ourselves know that you are Our prophet; this matter is clear to Us, in Our view certain — the statement is, in itself, true. But We bear witness that they, in this testimony of theirs, were liars; in their hearts they do not accept this matter, while with their tongues they are saying it.
The commitment of the messengership is the building of a world in the form that Islam has stated. The Messenger, when he comes, comes in order to build a world to the dimensions that Islam proposes. The Prophet is commissioned for this — so that he may set right the form of life and the order of life of human beings in the manner that God states. If you, in your own time, saw that humanity is not living by the God-ordained form, saw that mankind is deprived of having a divine society, saw that various schools are pulling humanity this way and that and that Islam has remained confined to a corner of people's minds and a corner of their hearts and no more — then your duty and your commitment, on the basis of the testimony you give to the messengership of the Prophet, is to strive to bring the world into the form ordained by Islam. This is the responsibility and the commitment of prophethood.
Just as has been written in these papers, which you have studied or are studying: Islam brings a new thought; on the basis of this new thought, a new front-formation comes into being, a new lining-up comes into being. And we have repeatedly arrived at this conclusion, through the study of the verses of the Quran, that religion, in essence, means the creation of a new front-formation and lining-up.
When human beings are living in an ignorant (jahili) society, they are all obedient and tamed, all facing one direction and one way. The Prophet, when he comes into this society, divides them into two groups: one group he rescues from this misguidance, this straying, this bewilderment, he changes their path, and so they become two groups. In the sense I have described, the prophets are an agent of division; in this sense, the prophets are an agent of duality. Remember the sense in which I said this, so that if you wish to recount it somewhere, you do not say "So-and-so says that the Prophet is an agent of division." In this sense the Prophet is an agent of division; in which sense? In this way: everyone is going, like the cars of a single train, toward the downward slope of ruin; the Prophet comes and takes hold of these cars from behind. Some of the cars detach themselves from the Prophet's hand and go toward the downward slope of ruin; a number welcome this holding-back of the Prophet's; division falls among the cars.
This caravan is going toward the bandits, is going toward the place of death, is going toward the earthquake-zone; the Prophet comes and says, "Do not go." A number listen to his word and do not go; a number do not listen and go. So they become two fronts — division. In this sense, the prophets, when they come, create division and duality among societies — except that it is a duality within a society that was uniformly misguided. They come and say, "Turn back toward God"; among those uniform masses division falls; some turn back, some do not turn back.
So a new front, a new lining-up, a new mutual positioning comes into being in society with the coming of the Prophet. The Prophet on one side, in one rank; the enemies and opponents and the obstinate adversaries of the Prophet on the other side, in another rank. Pay close attention to these two ranks that I am sketching. The Prophet was at first all alone; everyone was in that opposing rank. The Prophet has exerted effort, has striven, one by one, two by two, until at last he has been able to form a rank facing that misguided and hellbound rank; to bring into being a rank facing the rank of error. They are two ranks facing each other: one rank is the rank of the Prophet; one rank is the rank of the Prophet's enemies.
What did the Prophet want to do? He wanted to take the people to Heaven — the Heaven of this world and the Heaven after death, both. Because he wants to take the people to Heaven, the people must come with him; if they did not come with him, they do not reach Heaven. Is this matter correct? The Prophet wants to take human beings to the destination of felicity; if they do not come with him, if they do not become his companions and fellow travelers, they do not reach the destination of felicity. Remember this well. Now, between these two ranks there is a person; he looks at the Prophet, he sees that he speaks true words; however much he listens, he sees that the Prophet's word is a good word. On the other hand, he sees that if he comes into the Prophet's rank, he will be compelled to contend, together with that opposing rank, against one another. He has no heart to go into the opposing rank, because he sees that they are going toward Hell; he has no heart to come into the Prophet's rank, because he sees that the Prophet's rank has trouble. What does he do? He comes between these two ranks and chooses a safe, secure, peaceful spot; he pitches a tent there and sits down. What sort of person is this? You tell me.
This man who has sat down in the middle, slumbering between the two ranks on a comfortable bed — will this man reach Heaven or not? It is obvious that he will not; because the Prophet wants to go to Heaven, and those go who set out together with him, while this one has not set out with the Prophet. Whoever is between the two ranks is not with the Prophet; whoever has not joined the Prophet is against the Prophet; whoever is not with Ali is against Ali; whoever is not with the truth is against the truth. The Quran tells us this too, but the eloquent, clear tongue of the Imam (peace be upon him) — which is much closer to comprehension — states it for us. He says, "Al-sakitu akhu al-radi" — learn this hadith; the reference for the hadith is Bihar al-Anwar, the volume of admonitions (mawa'iz) — "Al-sakitu akhu al-radi, wa man lam yakun ma'ana kana 'alayna." The one who is silent in the face of a false situation is the brother of the one who is content with that situation. They do not even go on to say what the one who is content is; that is obvious — man radiya bi-'amali qawmin fa-huwa minhum: whoever is content with the deed of a community, content with the life of a people, is one of them; they too will take him and tie him to the same manger to which they tie those people. This one who is silent — even though in his heart he is discontented, yet he does not proclaim this discontent — he too is the brother of the one who is content. Then it continues: "wa man lam yakun ma'ana kana 'alayna" — whoever is not with us is against us. Between these two ranks, Islam has not supposed any place.
Those who, like the companions of 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud — among them this very gentleman Rabi' ibn Khuthaym (if this grave in Khurasan is indeed his) — said at the Battle of Siffin, "We are not prepared to accompany the Commander of the Faithful, because he is going to shed the blood of Muslims," and came in a comfort-seeking manner and requested of him that he send them to the frontiers to do frontier-guarding — these people read it blind. They imagined that the war between Yazdgerd the Third and — I do not know — Heraclius the umpteenth of Rome was such that, if either of them prevailed, it would be of no benefit at all to a person's religion and worldly life! So let a person, seeking ease, conclude a pact of non-aggression, conclude an agreement of non-intervention in the war, and go and sit in some corner. They imagined it was an international war in which several nations are fighting one another over power and government; whichever country can keep itself aside has won. They did not understand that the war between truth and falsehood is an unavoidable war. They did not know that in the war between truth and falsehood, if you were not with the truth, you are with falsehood. To be with falsehood does not necessarily mean that you definitely fight against the truth; rather, even that case in which you do not fight for the truth is also included in the concept of being with falsehood. This they did not understand. Prophethood comes and makes the ranks distinct; it says, "Let those who are with us come."
He said: O company, whoever has not love for us, let him take to the road and depart from our Karbala.
Let him go; he is no longer with us. That one whom Husayn ibn 'Ali, on the road, summons — "Come, help us" — and who says, "O son of the Messenger of God, shall I offer this horse of mine to your service, or this sword of mine?" — it is clear that he is no longer with Husayn; he is against Husayn, not with Husayn. And so you see that our traditionists write and say: that unfortunate one — truly unfortunate. And they speak the truth too. And woe to those wretched people who, like him, are unfortunate throughout time; O unfortunate one! The prophets come and make the road clear; they say, "This is it. If you are a man, if you are a seeker of truth, if you are for God's sake, if you bear witness to our prophethood — then come, by God, our road is this. But if you have sat down there, and you saw our road, you saw the wayfarers of our road, and because it was difficult you did not come, because it was difficult you did not help, because it was difficult you even turned your face the other way — that is, 'I did not see' — but at that very moment you took up a rosary in your hand and said, 'I bear witness that you are prophets, I bear witness that you are prophets, I bear witness that you are prophets,' and you also told off one round of the rosary — this is of no use. Say nothing, and come; do not bring this remembrance to your tongue, do not act:
O you who have believed, why do you say that which you do not do? Great is the hatred in the sight of God that you say what you do not do.
Why do you not act upon that which you say with your tongue, "I believe in it"? Woe unto me — I am describing my own condition. It is a great sin for a person to say something with the tongue, to declare a belief, but not act upon it. Why should I say I am a follower of the Prophet of God, while I am a follower of Abu Jahl? Why should I say I am after Islam, while I am after polytheism? Why should I say I am an 'Alawi (a follower of Ali), while I am of Mu'awiya and of Abu Jahl?
What was the difference between Ali and Mu'awiya? By God, today you sketch out Ali and Mu'awiya in your society. Picture one person of whom everything he says is against ease and indulgence and personal comfort, everything he says lays a burden of responsibility on the shoulder, everything he wants is effort. He is repelled by lying; he is made uneasy by a bribe; he is made uneasy by a gift that gives off the smell of a bribe. On the path of God and for God's sake he is fierce. He has a strange leopard-temper on the path of God. On the path of God and the ruling of God he shows mercy to no one; even his own brother, when he comes and asks him for money from the public treasury (bayt al-mal), he places red-hot iron toward his fist. One such person in society — strict, precise, cautious in the execution of the divine and Islamic rulings and prescribed limits — this is one man. And one man is his exact opposite; he is willing for a person to make merry, willing for a person to live in comfort, willing — whatever you want from him — to give it to you, and he sets only one condition before a person in return, and that condition is that he says, "Do not help Ali, help me; and the help I want from you is not much help either — sometimes praise me, and that is enough." Well, by God, of these two persons, after which one do you go? Which one do you accept in this time and in this segment of history? Are you willing to go with him, to be with him, to act upon his command — the one who has trouble, responsibility, movement, effort — to be with him? Are you willing to pass over the one who has money for a person, has rank, has comfort, has title, has influence, has a powerful hand — to pass over him for the sake of this? If you are willing, blessed are you; if you had been alive in Ali's time too, you would have been a Shia of Ali. But if you see that your heart takes flight toward comforts, indulgences, pleasures, monies, ranks, prestige, preening and boasting before this person and that — even if it be outside the path of God — then know that if you had been there, you would have been one of those who, if you were very calculating, would by night, secretly, without having bid farewell to the neighbors, mount your horse, even telling your wife and children, "I await you in Sham (Syria); ya 'Ali madad!" — you would go off toward Sham, you would leave Ali alone, just as many of the respected figures of that time left him.
'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, the cousin of the Commander of the Faithful and cousin of the Prophet, the narrator of so much hadith, the commentator of the Quran, a figure respected among Shia and Sunni — did this very thing to Ali, so that the Commander of the Faithful, in Nahj al-Balagha, has two letters and two addresses to 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas. And who was 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, after all? Merely because they narrated some four hadiths from him, on the authority of the Prophet, both Shia and Sunni accept him, all accept him. He was not even a Companion of the Prophet, yet all accept him — and this is a point worth noting. If he had been a Companion of the Prophet and Shia and Sunni accepted him, it would not matter — like Salman, like Abu Dharr, like 'Ammar, whom all accept. But he is one of the Successors (tabi'in); he did not properly perceive the time of the Prophet; he was a child when the Prophet passed away. I was studying a bit of history, and I saw that this gentleman 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas was among the companions and entourage of the second Caliph; he was very fond of him too — this one also was mostly in the train of Mr. 'Umar. For a man to be one of the Successors, not to have perceived the time of the Prophet, and yet for both Shia and Sunni to accept him — ya lal-'ajab! (how astonishing!) — this must be a very strange man. What is the name for this in Islamic convention — that two hostile groups should both accept one person? This man, while he was the governor and ruler (ustandar) of Basra, took the monies of the public treasury and made his getaway! Where to? Mecca — into the safe and secure sanctuary of the Lord. No doubt he took the monies there and gave them in charity! He gave them to the poor — yes, he gave them to the poor slave-girl dealers; he bought a few slave-girls, beautiful slave-girls, with whom he might be at ease and busy himself in pleasure-seeking.
Now, if 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas were here today, what do you suppose he would say about the Commander of the Faithful? He would narrate all the first-hand hadiths on the merit of Ali; he would shed tears at the remembrance of Ali; from having been with Ali he would recount memories. But would you and I — clever and shrewd as we are — accept that he is a Shia? We would say: "Sir, go set this snare for some other bird, go; if you were a Shia, you ought to have shown yourself at the time of the test." "'Inda al-imtihan yukramu al-rajulu aw yuhan" — at the time of the test a man is either honored or disgraced. "Fi taqallub al-ahwal 'ulima jawahir al-rijal" — in the vicissitudes of circumstances the substances of men become known. If you had been a Shia of Ali, you would not have given Ali so much heart's blood; by your fleeing you would not have wrung out the moaning of Ali so much, such that Ali moaned that way over the departure of 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas: "You were closer to me than all my kinsmen; I had hope in you; I relied upon you. You left your cousin alone in these conditions and went away?!" It is a letter that Ali has in Nahj al-Balagha, addressed to 'Abdullah — except that the late Radi (may God's pleasure be upon him), in Nahj al-Balagha, because he was living in the time of the Banu al-'Abbas, either out of fear or out of embarrassment at writing "From a letter of his to 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas," wrote instead, "From a letter of his to one of his administrators" — he wrote that the Imam (peace be upon him) wrote to one of his agents, his governors, but did not write who this governor was. When you read this letter, well, it is obvious that it was 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas; and moreover, apart from Nahj al-Balagha, in other places they have narrated that it pertains to 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas — that "you left your cousin alone, you did such and such and such and such."
In any case, the commitment of accepting and embracing prophethood is this: walking behind the Prophet, accepting his assignment, acting in the very manner that he wants. My time has now grown short for me to explain all the verses; let me explain just this brief portion of the verses for you, so that you may see what the commitment of Islam is.
"Inna alladhina amanu wa hajaru…" — "Indeed, those who believed and emigrated." Those who believed and emigrated and struggled with their wealth and their lives. This is in regard to the time of the Prophet — not that I mean to say it is not for other times; no, this is a general ruling. It is being stated in regard to the time of the Prophet, when the matter of emigration (hijra) was also at issue there — emigration to the Islamic society. In those days a number of people would become Muslim, would accept the thought of the Prophet, but were not prepared to come out of Mecca. They would say, "Well, why should I go out? In Mecca I have a shop with two or three doorways, I have an excellent round telephone number, I have known and recognized customers, I have kinsmen and relatives and friends and drinking companions — should I leave all these and go off to the side of the Prophet? Well, why? Is faith required? I have faith — I will say it a hundred times, in my heart, on my tongue, softly of course so that no one hears: God is One, and the Prophet too is in the right. The Prophet wants prayer from me — I pray; he wants fasting — instead of thirty days I will fast sixty days; why should I go to Medina?" Some thought this way. Emigration was required there. The Islamic society was newly founded; they had to go, they had to strengthen it, and they had to make that society invulnerable against its enemies; therefore emigration was a decisive condition of the acceptance of faith.
"Inna alladhina amanu" — those who believed and adhered; "wa hajaru" — and emigrated to Medina; "wa jahadu bi-amwalihim wa anfusihim" — and with their wealth and their lives, both, exerted struggle in the way of God; and likewise, from the other side; "wa alladhina awaw" — those who gave shelter to these people, who were without protector and without home, in Medina; "wa nasaru" — and aided them; "ula'ika ba'duhum awliya'u ba'd" — these are allies of one another.
These are some who are joined to and on the same front as the others. These are those same believers who are like bricks interlocked into one another. Look at a building, look at this edifice: the bricks have gone into one another, the timbers have gone into one another, the parts of a building are interlaced and knotted together with the other parts; the believers in the Islamic society are just like this — all joined and welded and knotted to one another. Awliya' means this, wilayat means this: complete joining, complete cleaving and adhesion — this is wilayat.
"Wa alladhina amanu…" — "ula'ika ba'duhum awliya'u ba'd" — they are some the allies of the others.
But now — listen here — those who believed, who in their hearts believed that you are a prophet, but "wa lam yuhajiru" — but did not emigrate, did not take the commitment of faith upon their shoulder — "ma lakum min walayatihim min shay'in hatta yuhajiru" — you have no joining or connection with these people at all, until they emigrate. As long as they have not emigrated and they remain there, they are strangers to you. There is no Islamic bond or brotherhood-tie between you.
Except that there is another ruling alongside it: those very ones who are there — if they happen to fall into war with another group and seek your help, you, of course, must go and aid them, because they are of one mind with you and because they are in a state of war. If a Muslim were engaged in war with a group of unbelievers, it is obligatory upon you — even though that Muslim is not beside you, is not in your homeland, has not emigrated to you — it is obligatory upon you to go and help him. Yes? Except in one case, and that is this: that the one with whom that Muslim is fighting has concluded a peace treaty with you; in that case, helping that Muslim is no longer obligatory. What does this verse make us understand here? First, it makes us understand that helping a Muslim, wherever in the world they may be, is obligatory, even if they have not emigrated. Second, it sets a limit on this. Take the Muslim who has not emigrated, who has not migrated to the Islamic society — although of course today, in the world, we do not have an Islamic society in this sense — who has remained in the abode of unbelief (dar al-kufr). Suppose this man fell into war with one or a group of unbelievers, and you have a peace treaty and non-aggression pact with that unbeliever. Then you have no right to go to the aid of your Muslim brother. Why? Because he has not emigrated, because he is not your brother, because he has not migrated toward you.
"Wa in istansarukum fi al-din fa-'alaykumu al-nasr illa 'ala qawmin" — except against a people; against the harm of a people — "baynakum wa baynahum mithaq" — between whom and you there is a commitment and a treaty. "Wa Allahu bima ta'maluna basir" — and God is Seeing of what you do.
And those who disbelieve are allies of one another.
"Wa alladhina kafaru ba'duhum awliya'u ba'd" — those who are unbelievers, some are on the same front as and joined to the others. Do not look at the fact that they are in two camps; in enmity toward you, they are of one camp and one front.
"Illa taf'aluhu takun fitnatun fi al-ardi wa fasadun kabir" — if you do not do this, there will be a discord (fitna) in the earth and a great corruption.
Perhaps the meaning is that if you do not observe this front-formation and this lining-up — if you do not know, and have not known, that your rank, facing the rank of the enemies of God, is a distinct and separate rank, and if you do not know that whoever is between the two ranks is of the rank of the enemies and opponents, not of this rank — if you do not know these things and do not act in accordance with their requirements, there will be discord in the earth, there will be corruption. The fitna is the discord of distance from religion; the fasad, probably, is the corruption of the non-existence of God's ruling in the midst of society.
"Wa alladhina amanu" — those who have believed; "wa hajaru" — and migrated —
— pay attention to this verse too, for the verse is an interesting witness to these matters we have set forth —
And those who believed and emigrated and struggled in the way of God, and those who gave shelter and aid — those are the true believers; for them is forgiveness and a noble provision. "Wa alladhina amanu" — those who have believed; "wa hajaru" — they emigrated; "wa jahadu fi sabil Allah" — they struggled in the way of God; "wa alladhina awaw wa nasaru" — those who gave shelter and aid; "ula'ika humu al-mu'minuna haqqa" — these are the true believers.
Did you understand correctly? The true believer is this. But the one who has believed and from whom emigration, struggle, sheltering, and aiding have not issued — what is he? Hum al-mu'minuna ghayra haqq: false believers, lying believers. This is the import of the verse — to the end of the verses.
Let me also set forth one word from those verses of Surat Al 'Imran, because it is necessary that I expound it briefly, since otherwise our meaning is not understood:
And when God took the covenant of the prophets… "Wa idh akhadha Allahu mithaqa al-nabiyyin…"
In this verse, whose translation I rendered there and will not translate again, this is the matter it wishes to express: that We took a commitment even from the past prophets; We said to them, to the past prophet — for example to Moses — We said: that which We have given you, if after you a prophet came who confirmed and ratified what We have now given you, it is required of you to have faith in that prophet and to aid him. That is to say, Moses regarding the prophets after himself, Jesus regarding the prophets after himself — every prophet who comes after another prophet and ratifies the word of the previous prophet — it is required of the previous prophet, who acknowledges him, to believe in that prophet who comes after him; and in addition to this, to aid him too. "La-tu'minunna bihi wa la-tansurunnah" — he must aid him.
Then it says: now, what is the aid of the prophet? The aid of the prophet is this — Moses, for example, how does he aid our Prophet? In that he enjoins upon his Ummah, his friends, his companions: beware, beware, beware — if this prophet came with these signs, do not oppose him. Well, that is aid. "Qala a-aqrartum…" — God said to these prophets: Did you acknowledge? Did you accept this commitment of Mine? This covenant that I am taking from you, that you must believe in the prophets after yourselves, on this condition: "a-aqrartum wa akhadhtum 'ala dhalikum isri" — did you acknowledge, and did you take My burden (covenant) upon yourselves? Likewise, did you take this very covenant from your Ummah too, until the Day of Resurrection? That is to say, the Jews of the world are, right now, on the part of Moses son of 'Imran, being held to account for this covenant; right now Moses son of 'Imran, by the tongue of his state and his word, is as though saying to them: "O you ignoble ones! Did I not take a covenant from you that, forever, whoever has faith in Moses — Moses himself has faith in the Seal of the Prophets — must believe in the Seal of the Prophets and aid him, help him?"
Chapter Four:
Wilayat
The Bonds of the Islamic Ummah. The Heaven of Wilayat. Concerning Wilayat (1). Concerning Wilayat (2). Concerning Wilayat (3) — (Emigration).Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 24 · 39:48
- Ep 25 — WilayatSession 23: Wilayat.
delivered Friday, 19 Mehr 1353 / 24 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Mumtahanah (60:1).
O you who have believed, do not take My enemy and your enemy as allies, extending to them affection while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth, having driven out the Messenger and yourselves because you believe in God, your Lord. If you have gone out for striving in My cause and seeking My pleasure [do not take them as allies], confiding to them affection — while I am most knowing of what you have concealed and what you have declared. And whoever of you does it has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way.
The matter we are raising here today is a matter called Wilayat.
The matter of Wilayat, in the form in which we raise it and derive it from the Qur'an, is most often given little attention. Of course, the word "Wilayat" itself is familiar to a Shia ear. In our supplications, in our requests from God, in our narrations, in our common and widespread thoughts, there is a matter called Wilayat — bound up with complete sanctity and reverence, and with the longing to secure something called Wilayat. As Shia, we always consider ourselves to possess Wilayat; and if a Shia is somewhat scrupulous, precise, and careful, he always asks God, he yearns, that God keep him alive with Wilayat and cause him to die with Wilayat, and make Wilayat understood to him. So a word called "Wilayat" is familiar to the ear.
Ultimately, I want to speak about this word and the concept of Wilayat very much from its roots. We will arrive at the Wilayat of Ali ibn Abi Talib (upon him be blessings and peace); but for now I want to speak about the stages that come before that. We will draw Wilayat out of the noble verses of the Qur'an — we will derive and extract it. And you will see what a modern, advanced, fascinating principle the principle of Wilayat is. You will see how a nation, a community, the followers of one thought and one creed, if they do not possess Wilayat, are aimlessly abandoned and left idle. You will grasp this and you will feel it.
In the light of this discussion it can be well understood why someone who does not have Wilayat — his prayer is not prayer, his fasting is not fasting, and his acts of worship are not worship. With this discussion it can be well understood why a society and an Ummah that does not have Wilayat — even if it spends its whole life in prayer and fasting and in giving away all its wealth in charity — is still not worthy of God's forgiveness and grace. And in short, in the light of this discussion, the meaning of the narrations concerning Wilayat can be understood — among them this well-known hadith that has come from several of the Imams (peace be upon them), some of whose sentences and words I will repeat here: If a man were to stand in prayer through his nights, and fast through his days, and give all his wealth in charity, and perform Hajj every year of his life, yet did not recognize the Wilayat of the friend (wali) of God so as to take him as his guardian and have all his deeds be by that one's guidance... — if someone fasts his whole life, not only the month of Ramadan; if he stays awake all his nights until morning; if he gives away all his wealth in the way of God; yet does not have Wilayat with the friend (wali) of God — pay attention to this expression — does not have Wilayat with the friend of God, or does not possess the Wilayat of the friend of God — such a person, all that he has done is vain, fruitless, and null.
The matter of Wilayat is a continuation of the discussion of Prophethood; it is not something separate from the discussion of Prophethood. The matter of Wilayat is, in truth, the completion, the appendix, and the conclusion of the discussion of Prophethood. Now we will see that if there is no Wilayat, Prophethood too remains incomplete. Therefore we are obliged to briefly repeat the past discussions regarding Prophethood — let me state its broad outlines for you so that we may arrive, little by little, entering from the margins into the body of the matter of Wilayat. Of course, let me also say this: raising this matter is very difficult, and expounding it is even more difficult. The reason is that so many weak, flimsy, and illogical ideas about Wilayat have become entrenched in the minds of ordinary people. So when you want to say the correct thing about Wilayat — the thing that conforms to the text of the Qur'an and the text of the hadith — one of two problems arises. Either it is confused with those very things that are already in people's minds, or a feeling of estrangement arises toward what is being said as "Wilayat." This happens in two groups; therefore this discussion is very difficult and troublesome. But I seek aid from the grace of the Most Exalted Lord, and I will try to complete this discussion within two or three days, God willing. And you brothers too, pay attention, take heed, do not grow weary from the monotony of the discussion, so that I can follow the discussion through completely.
For what does the Prophet of God come? We said that the Prophet comes to bring human beings to perfection; he comes to imbue human beings with the character of God (akhlaq Allah); he comes to complete and bring to fullness the noble traits of character. What I said is the substance of the narrations: I was sent to bring the noble traits of character to completion. The Prophet comes to build human beings; he comes to bring to firmness this substance whose name is "the human being."
By what path and by what means does the Prophet work to build the human being? How does the Prophet build human beings? Does he set up a school? Does he set up a philosophical doctrine? Does the Prophet set up a monastery and a place of worship? We said: no. The Prophet, in order to build the human being, sets up a human-building factory. The Prophet prefers to succeed ten years later, twenty years later; but what he builds should not be one human being and two human beings and twenty human beings — rather, he should set up a human-building factory that automatically delivers complete human beings, the kind of human beings the Prophet desires. So the Prophet, in order to build human beings and bring the human substance to firmness, makes use of a human-building factory.
What is the human-building factory, sir? The human-building factory is the Islamic society and order. Here is the crux, the point on which the essential attention and emphasis of the discussion rests. Everyone says the Prophet wants to build human beings; everyone says the Prophet comes for teaching and training, and everyone understands this. What must be understood — what must be understood with precision — is that the Prophet does not take human beings one by one to some secluded corner to whisper the love of God into their ears. The Prophets do not form a scientific and philosophical school in order to produce a handful of students whom they then send out to guide people across the regions of the world. The Prophet's work is firmer and more steadfast than that, sturdier and more deeply rooted. What does he do? He builds a factory from which nothing comes out but human beings — and that factory is the Islamic society.
What is the Islamic society? What sort of element and nature is it? These are other discussions. Still, let me clarify this corner of the matter briefly — though, in the course of our discussion, it is not very relevant. The Islamic society means that society, that civilization, at the head of which God governs; the laws of that society are God's laws; the divine bounds are carried out in that society; the appointing and dismissing is done by God. In the social cone — if we suppose and draw it in the shape of a cone, as is customary and common among a number of sociologists — at the apex of the cone is God, and beneath God, all of humanity and all human beings. The structure is brought into being by the religion of God; the law of peace and war is established by divine ordinances; social relations, the economy, government, rights — all and all and all of them are determined by the religion of God, and the religion of God carries them out, and the religion of God stands behind this law. This is the Islamic society.
Like where, sir? Like Medina. Just as the Prophet came to Medina and formed a society. Well, they were in Mecca too; they could have scattered to the regions of the lands and worshipped God there as well — no, that was not enough. They came to Medina and formed a society, at the head of which God governed. The vicegerent of God who governed there — who, in practice, was he? The Prophet. Who established the ordinances? Who legislated them? Who enacted them? The Prophet. Who carried out the laws? Who compelled the people to carry them out? The Prophet.
In such a society — where everything is from God — the congregational prayer, and the sermon after the congregational prayer, are one and the same as the war-song of the battlefield. In that very mosque where the Prophet of God would stand and lead the congregational prayer, and ascend the pulpit for the people and speak and teach and purify and instruct — in that very mosque the banner of jihad would be brought, and the Prophet would bind it and place it in the hand of Usama ibn Zayd, place it in the hand of so-and-so, [saying] "Go forth!" Set out in the name of God! — Move in the name of God, corner the enemy at such-and-such place, do such-and-such. In that very mosque, the Prophet of God would carry out the prescribed punishments (hadd). In that very mosque, the Prophet's judiciary was convened. In that very mosque, the Prophet's administration of labor and economy was convened. In that very mosque, the zakat was collected and distributed. There was teaching, there was prayer and supplication, there was the war-song of the battlefield, there was wealth and economy — and in short, everything, both this world and the hereafter, was unified and gathered into one, under the leadership of the Prophet, in the house of God. This is the Islamic society. The Prophets come to set up such a society. In this society, whoever comes becomes a human being. Even if he does not become a complete human being, he is compelled to move according to the conduct of human beings. Whoever wishes to be good can be good in the Prophet's society; in non-divine societies it is not like this.
In non-Islamic and non-divine societies, people want to be good but cannot. You want to be religious, but you cannot. You want not to give or take usury, but you find that it cannot be done. A woman wants not to step outside Islamic chastity, but the environment pressures her. All the factors and motives drive a person away from the remembrance of God. Pictures and shows and excessive entertainments and comings and goings and dealings and conversations — all of them drive a person away from God and estrange the remembrance of God from a person's heart. In the Islamic society, the matter is the reverse. In the Islamic society, its marketplace, its mosque, its seat of government, its friend, its kinsman, the father of the household, the youth of the household — all and all of them turn a person toward the remembrance of God, draw him toward God, reconcile him with God, establish a relationship for him with God, make of him a servant of God, and keep him away from servitude to other than God.
If the Islamic society of the Prophet's time had continued for fifty years; if the same leadership had remained at work; or if, after the Prophet, Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) had sat in the Prophet's place with the very leadership that the Prophet had appointed — rest assured of this: after fifty years, all those hypocrites would have been transformed into true believers. If they had allowed the Prophetic government and the Alid government to continue, one after the other, that human-building society would, of necessity, have made all the adulterated people pure of adulteration, made all the hypocritical hearts believing, and made all those whose spirits were not acquainted with faith likewise acquainted with God and with faith. This is the natural character of the matter pertaining to the Islamic society. The Prophets come to set up such a thing. When this is set up, like a human-building factory, people become Muslims — not one by one, not ten by ten, not a hundred by a hundred, but group by group, host by host: both outwardly Muslim, in the outward conduct of Islamic matters, and inwardly Muslim and believing, truly and inwardly. Is this clear? So the Prophet comes for such a work.
I said we want to discuss Wilayat from its roots. At the very beginning, when the Prophet brings the Islamic thought; at the very beginning, when the Prophet's call commences — can the Prophet, single-handedly, administer a society? Does a society not need an organization? Does it not need a group of people to administer this organization? Does it not need a soldiery to defend this society and put the enemies of this society in their place? Are people who would assist the Prophet and spread the call of the Prophet not necessary? We see that, yes [they are]. Every task must be done through ordinary means. The Prophets too, in most of their activities, made use of ordinary means. When the Prophet comes, to form the intended society — which is that very human-building factory — he needs a bonded, unified group. They must possess firm faith, drawn from the depths of the hearts of those who believe in and are committed to this doctrine; they must move with steadfast steps, dynamic and seeking that goal. The Prophet needs such a group at the beginning of the work. Therefore the Prophet begins to gather and form this group. With the verses of the Qur'an, with goodly exhortations — Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good admonition — with goodly exhortations, with the verses of the Qur'an, with the penetrating power of the Prophetic word, he brings into being, around himself at the beginning of the work, the hearts of certain Muslims. These constitute a community. So the Prophet, at the beginning of the work, when he raises his call, brings into being a community, brings into being a rank, creates a front against the front of unbelief. This front is composed of whom? Of steadfast Muslims, of believers committed and penetrating of heart — of those of whom [it is said] no blame of any blamer turns them back: no censure of any blamer turns them away from the path of God. These are the Muslims of the first step.
(I am speaking very briefly and in compressed form, for minds that are willing to grasp. I feel it does not need much explanation and elaboration; moreover, if I were to explain a great deal, we would stray entirely from the thread of the discourse, and the main point would be lost. If on other days I see that there is a need, it is possible I will explain more. For now, let me state the main matter.)
A group and a front are brought into being by the Prophet. In the midst of what society are these living? In the midst of the society of ignorance (jahiliyya). For example, the Muslims of early Islam are living there in the midst of the ignorant society of Mecca. If this thin current — which has come into being under the name of Islam and the Muslims — is to remain in the midst of that conflict-ridden and troublesome ignorant society; if this very community, this very rank, this very front is not to be annihilated, not to perish, not to be digested, not to be dissolved — then this group of Muslims must be welded to one another like tempered steel. These Muslims must be so connected and bound to one another that no factor can separate them from each other. In the words of today's people and today's cultures, a very intense and hard party discipline must be established among these Muslim individuals. They must be stuck together more and more, welded and knotted together more and more, and kept further and further from other fronts, from other currents, from opposing motives; because these are in the minority. A community that is in the minority — it is possible that its thought may be overshadowed by the thought of the majority. Its deeds, its dignity, its character may be lost amid the dignities and characters and deeds of the rest of the people, who at times are opposed to them; [it may] be annihilated, be digested, perish. So that these are not digested, so that these are not annihilated, so that they can remain as a single group — so that in the future the Islamic society may be built and administered and continued by the hands of these steadfast ones, and so that they may be helpers of the Prophet, and so that they can endure — they are connected to one another more and more, and separated from the other fronts more and more.
Like what? Like a group of mountaineers passing along a difficult, treacherous mountain path. Ten people in the midst of the snows, staves in hand, must traverse this narrow, danger-filled path — these twists and turns, this mountain pass, this defile — to reach the mountain's summit. They are told: stick together, tie your belts to one another, do not move separately and one by one — for if you are left alone, there is the danger of slipping. They are firmly welded to one another. Besides welding them to one another, it is said: do not take much baggage with you, do not look this way and that, keep your attention only on your own path and your mind on your own work. They also bind them firmly to one another — their waists and hands — so that if one of them falls, if two fall, the rest can hold him up. The intense interconnection of the mountaineers is the indicator and exhibitor of the state of interconnection and welded-togetherness of the Muslims at the beginning of the work. Does this intense interconnection have a name or not? This bondedness of the Muslims of the front at the beginning of the religion — who have been welded to one another, knotted to one another, who are inseparable from one another, who are completely cut off from the other fronts, who are ever more hand-in-hand and clasping one another — does it have a name in the Qur'an and hadith or not? Yes; this name is Wilayat — Wilayat.
There is still a long way to go before we reach the Wilayat of Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him), and the [hadith] And the Wilayat of Ali ibn Abi Talib is my fortress. We will reach that after an hour or two of speaking. We have not yet reached those points; you must listen.
So, what does Wilayat mean in its first Qur'anic sense? In its first Qur'anic sense, Wilayat means the interconnection, the shared-frontedness, and the intense bonding of a group of human beings who possess a single thought and seek a single goal, who are stepping forward on one path, who are striving and moving toward one objective, who have accepted one thought and one creed. The individuals of this front must be connected to one another more and more, and must separate and hold themselves apart from the other fronts, the other poles, the other sections. Why? So that they do not perish, do not get digested. This is what is called Wilayat in the Qur'an.
The Prophet brings into being the Muslim community of the beginning of the work with this bondedness and welded-togetherness; he connects them to one another, makes them brothers of one another, turns them into a single body, and by means of them forms the Islamic Ummah and brings the Islamic society into being. And he prevents these from bonding with the enemies, with the opponents, with the hostile, with the other fronts — which, God willing, you will see in the verses tomorrow. Between them and the other fronts he creates separation; he restrains them from joining the front of the Jews, from joining the front of the Christians, from joining the front of the polytheists, and more and more he strives to make their ranks compact and welded together. For what? Because if they are not in this state, if they do not have Wilayat, if they are not one hundred percent interconnected, discord will arise among them, and they will be incapable of bearing the burden of the trust that is upon their shoulders. They will not be able to carry this burden to its destination.
Of course, later, when the Islamic society is transformed into a great Ummah, Wilayat is still needed. How Wilayat is needed within an Ummah, and why it is needed — this I will expand upon. At this very point in the matter, let us come and pay attention to the Wilayat of which the Shia speak. We said: a small group, in the midst of a dark world, in the midst of an ignorant world, must be connected and bound to one another in order to be able to remain. If they are not stuck and welded together, their remaining and the continuation of their life is not possible. We gave the example of the Muslim community at the beginning of Islam, in the midst of the ignorant society of Mecca, or in the early period when they had come to Medina.
Is there another example as well, or not? Yes. When? The small group of Shi'ism, during the anti-Shia and anti-Islamic caliphates in history. Do you imagine that the Shia could easily remain? Do you imagine that the propaganda weapons on one side, suffocation and strangulation on another, the prisons and tortures and killings on another — could possibly have allowed a group to remain? An intellectual group like the Shia, which was so contending with the powers of its own time and such a cause of trouble for them — how did it come to remain? It remained on account of Wilayat. A strange interconnection and shared-frontedness had been created among the Shia of the time of the nominal caliphates by the Imams (peace be upon them), so that in the light of this Wilayat this Shi'i current could remain protected amid the various other currents.
Imagine a vast river, into which water enters from several directions. The waters are moving with swift currents. The surface of the river is uneven; whirlpools form; the waters tumble over one another; various kinds of opposing currents are sinking into one another in this river, in this bed; they neutralize one another, strike against one another's heads — this water is moving forward. Amid these currents, in the midst of these turbid, dusty, muddy waters, a current of sweet, clean, pure, clear water is continuing along its way; and in this riverbed of flood and torrent, this remarkable channel moves forward. This thin current — it happens, in some seas and rivers, perhaps some have seen it: two colors of water, two kinds of water moving side by side, owing to natural factors that exist, which I do not wish to explain. In the midst of this remarkable channel where swift currents are moving, one thin current of water is going forward amid these swift currents, and it remains sound and goes on. The astonishing thing is this: it never mixes in, its color is never ruined, it never takes on the taste of the other salty and bitter waters, but continues and preserves the same sweet taste, the same clear color, the same purity and limpidity and undisturbedness, and moves forward.
Liken the world of Islam in the time of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs to this very river, in which various kinds of intellectual, political, and practical currents were running and moving against one another. When you look from beginning to end, you see the current of Shi'ism. You see that it is a thin stream of water. Amid this remarkable tempest it appears insignificant and small and comes to the eye [as such], but it has held itself together, has never become turbid, its taste has never been ruined, it has never lost its purity, has never taken on the color and taste and smell of the other waters; it has remained and gone on. What has held this together? What has been able to become the factor of the survival of this Shi'i current? The existence of that wali who counsels Wilayat among the people and among his own followers, who binds them to one another, makes them affectionate toward one another, promotes Wilayat — and this too is in the very same sense as the Wilayat of the Prophet's time. The Shi'i Wilayat, that Wilayat upon which so much emphasis has been placed — this is one of its dimensions; it has other dimensions too, which I will also state. What I have said is not yet the whole matter; this is one dimension and one side of the matter. Wilayat means interconnection.
The Qur'an considers the believers to be the allies (awliya') of one another. Those who possess true faith are the shared-fronted and bonded ones of one another — and they call this "Shia." In the narrations, the Shia is referred to as "believer" (mu'min). If you look in the words of the earliest jurists, and in many of the narrations, in some Islamic offices they mention certain conditions — among them they say "Islam," and after Islam, "faith (iman)." One says: Sir, what does faith mean? What is meant by "faith" is possessing the particular mode of thought of the Shia — that is, seeing Islam from the perspective from which the Shia sees it, and establishing it by the logic with which the Shia establishes it: this is the meaning of "faith." We see that in the time of the Imams (peace be upon them) they made the Shia cohesive, interconnected, brotherly, and bonded with one another in this way, so that they could preserve the Shi'i current in history; otherwise the Shia would have perished a thousand times over; a thousand times over its ideas would have been digested — just as some other sects became this way, lost their color, perished, and were annihilated.
In any case, this is one of the dimensions of Wilayat, and tomorrow, God willing, I will present another of its dimensions, which is perhaps from one aspect of even greater importance — and because, after this dimension, it must certainly be expounded, I will mention it, and that is the Wilayat of the friend of God (wali Allah). The Wilayat of the Shia with one another has become clear; what does the Wilayat of the friend of God mean? What does the Wilayat of Ali ibn Abi Talib mean? What does the Wilayat of Imam al-Sadiq mean? This [matter] that you and I must today have the Wilayat of the Imams — what does it mean? For a number of people imagine that the Wilayat of the Imams means only that we love the Imams; and how greatly they err; how greatly they err! It is not merely loving; otherwise — is there anyone to be found in the world of Islam who does not love the Imams, the infallible ones of the Prophet's household? So does everyone have Wilayat? Is there anyone who is an enemy of these [Imams]? Were even those who fought against them in early Islam all their enemies? Many of them loved these [Imams]; but for the sake of the world they were prepared to fight against them. Many of them knew what stations and ranks these [Imams] possessed. When they brought the news of the passing of Imam al-Sadiq to Mansur, Mansur began to weep. Was he pretending? In front of whom? Did he want to pretend in front of his own servants? In front of Rabi the chamberlain, did he want to pretend? It was not pretense; his heart truly ached, he truly grieved that Imam al-Sadiq should die. But who killed him? He himself! He himself had given the order that Imam al-Sadiq be poisoned; yet when the news arrived that the deed was done, Mansur's heart was shaken. So did Mansur too have Wilayat?!
Of this same kind is the error of those who say that Ma'mun the Abbasid was a Shia. What does "Shia" mean? Does "Shia" mean someone who knows that the truth is with Imam al-Rida? Only this? If this is so, then Ma'mun the Abbasid, and likewise Harun al-Rashid, Mansur, Mu'awiya, Yazid, were more Shi'i than everyone. Did the rivals of the Commander of the Faithful at the Saqifa not know that the truth was with Ali? They all knew — so were they Shia? Did those who clashed with the Commander of the Faithful not have love for him? Yes, often they had love — so were they Shia? So did they have Wilayat? No, sir, Wilayat is other than these things. Wilayat is higher than these. If we have understood what the Wilayat of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Wilayat of the Imams is, then we have the right to turn back upon ourselves and see whether we have Wilayat or not. Then, if we see that we do not, we should ask God for it and strive to attain the Wilayat of the Imams.
A number of people are pleased to fool themselves. Merely because they have love for the Imams, they imagine that they truly possess the Wilayat of the Imams; merely because they have belief in the Imams, they imagine that Wilayat means just this. This is not Wilayat; Wilayat is higher than this — which, of course, I will explain tomorrow: what Wilayat with the rightly-guiding Imams (peace be upon them) means; how it is that we can consider the Imams (peace be upon them) our wali and possess their Wilayat. Then we will understand how many of the claims to Wilayat are made unknowingly and contrary to reality.
Always, in the days of the Eid of Ghadir, it is customary; people recite this: Praise be to God, who has made us among those who cling to the Wilayat of Ali ibn Abi Talib (upon him be peace). I most often say it this way; I say: do not say "Praise be to God, who has made us..." — I fear it may be a lie — say: "O God, make us among those who cling to the Wilayat of Ali ibn Abi Talib (upon him be peace)." O God, place us among those who hold fast to Wilayat. Let us see whether we are or not. Then we will arrive at this matter. That too is another of the dimensions of Wilayat.
What I have said today is summarized in these words. The Wilayat of the Muslim Ummah, and the Wilayat of that front which strives in the way of God and for God, consists in this: that among the individuals of this front there should come into being more and more connection and interconnection. That their hearts should be knotted together and drawn close more and more, and that they should separate, more and more, from the opposing poles, from those who think against them and act against them. This is the meaning of Wilayat.
I think the Surat al-Mumtahanah could, in this sense, be named the Sura of "Wilayat." The verses of the Surat al-Mumtahanah make this meaning well clear. Now pay attention so that I may interpret for you these very verses that I recited.
In the name of God, the Most Merciful. O you who have believed — do not take My enemy and your enemy as allies — O you who have brought faith. Do not take My enemy and your own enemy as allies (awliya'), as guardians. Here, of course, in the [usual Persian] translation it is not rendered badly: "You should not take the unbelievers, who are the enemy of Me and of you, as your supporters." It is not bad; this expression accords with that meaning which is in our minds. Some translate it as: "Do not take My enemy and your enemy as your friend." This is not a complete meaning. It is not merely a matter of friendship and affection; it is higher than these. "Do not take them as your wali" means: do not consider them your shared-front; do not place yourselves in their ranks; do not, in your heart, suppose yourselves and them to be in a single rank; the one who is the enemy of God and your enemy — do not count him as beside you; rather, see him as facing you, as an enemy and opponent against you.
Extending to them affection — Do not consider them your shared-front and shared-rank, such that you would send them a message of friendship.
While they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth — While you know that these have disbelieved in what of truth and reality the Lord has sent down to you.
Having driven out the Messenger and yourselves — They drive the Messenger and you out of your city and homeland.
Because you believe in God, your Lord — Because you bring faith in your Lord, in God, who is your Lord. Do not take My enemy and your own enemy as your shared-front, helper, and supporter.
If you have gone out for striving in My cause and seeking My pleasure — If you have gone forth in the path of jihad and striving and effort for Me, and to attain My pleasure — if you truly speak the truth, if you truly strive and struggle in My path, you have no right to make the one who is My enemy and your enemy your shared-front, helper, and bonded ally.
Of course, this Sura is a very fascinating and important Sura. On another page of these very verses that we are reciting, God makes clear which unbelievers He means. He does not say: do not lay down a plan of friendship with all unbelievers; He does not say: cut off, absolutely, your relations with the unbelievers — no; afterward He says with which group of the unbelievers. He divides the groups of unbelievers — and if we get to it, it is possible I will also interpret that verse for you tomorrow.
Confiding to them affection — In secret and concealment, you deliver your love and affection to them.
While I am most knowing of what you have concealed and what you have declared.
And whoever of you does it — whoever of you does this thing, lays down a plan of friendship and support with the enemies of God, and considers himself and shows himself to be their shared-front, whoever does this thing — has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way. He has lost the middle path. He has strayed from the middle path.
After that, in order that the Muslims may also be convinced intellectually as to why they must sever relations with the unbelievers, He identifies these [unbelievers]. Of course, it is not amiss for me to give this reminder: the occasion of revelation of these verses is concerning Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a. Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a was a Muslim of slightly weak faith. When the noble Prophet wanted to go to war with the unbelievers of Quraysh, this man thought that it was possible the Prophet might be defeated in this war and his relatives, who were among the unbelievers, might come to harm — and he was one of the Prophet's soldiers. Here he wanted to make use of cleverness; he resorted to the trick of a shrewd, cunning man (rindi). [He thought:] "Now that we are beside the Prophet, in the company of the Prophet — and we are even performing jihad, and even gaining the reward of those who strive in the way of God — let us, as a precaution, also write a letter to the unbelievers; let us here also declare our friendship and loyalty toward them. What harm is there? If we face them on the battlefield, of course we will not help them. But for now, what objection is there to my writing a letter and — as he imagined — duping the unbelievers and laying down a plan of friendship with them as well? What harm is there? Let us have both God — in the common saying of children — and the dates." A master and a village headman were quarreling; one said, "Which of them speaks the truth?" He replied, "Both the master speaks the truth and the village headman!" Let us have both sides.
He took up a letter and wrote to the chiefs of Quraysh, and signed his name at the bottom of it. He also introduced himself well, so that they would know that this man was good and friendly and kind toward them. He gave the letter to a woman, and this woman placed it among her hair, or amid her clothing, and set off toward Mecca.
The dear and noble Prophet, by the revelation of God, became aware of the affair. He sent the Commander of the Faithful, and one or two others; along the way they found that woman, threatened her, and took the letter from her. Afterward, when [Hatib] came, the Prophet said: "Well, why did you do this thing, man? Why do you reveal military and war secrets to the enemy?" He said: "O Messenger of God, I have friends there, I have relatives; I fear they may come to trouble. I wanted to write this letter so that perhaps their hearts might soften a little toward me." The verse, in reply, says: Do not be mistaken; their hearts will not soften toward you. Those who are against you intellectually, those to whom your religion, your faith, is a detriment, and who have set their resolve upon the destruction of your religion and faith — these will never be kind and friendly toward you. This next verse states this matter, saying:
If they gain dominance over you — if they get the upper hand over you — they will be enemies to you. They will be your enemies. O foolish Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a! Do not imagine that if you now render them some help here, tomorrow they will keep [it] in return for your help — no, by God. If you help them, they will gain greater mastery over you. If you help them, they will open further the hand of oppression and tyranny upon you.
They will be enemies to you, and will extend against you their hands and their tongues with evil — They open their hands and their tongues against you with evil. They open their hands; they place you under greater pressure. They open their tongues against you with evil; they degrade you, they strip you of dignity and honor, they do not recognize you as a worthy human being. Now you are helping them — do not imagine that these helps will be of any use to you.
And they wish that you would disbelieve — Tomorrow, if they gain mastery over you, they will not even let you keep this little bit of heartfelt belief; they would love for you to turn unbeliever. Do not imagine that they would leave you free and at ease to remain Muslim and act upon your Islamic duties.
Then a verse — a decisive sentence — concerning the kinfolk and relatives of Mr. Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a, and the kinfolk and relatives of all the Hatib ibn Abi Balta'as of history. For the sake of your children, for the sake of your kin and relatives, for the sake of your dear sons, for the sake of the comfort of your loved ones — are you prepared to make peace with the enemy of God? To draw the friendship of God's weak servants, and to draw the profit of yourselves and your loved ones, are you prepared to disregard the command of God, to befriend the enemy of God? Just how useful are these kin and offspring to a person? This youth — for the sake of whose job, for the sake of whose scholarship, for the sake of whose livelihood you are prepared to make peace with the unbelievers of Quraysh in the midst of the unbelievers of Quraysh — how useful will he be to you, you poor wretch? How much will he save you from the chastisement of God? O you foolish one!
Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a goes and conspires with the unbelievers, with the enemies of the Prophet, for the sake that his relatives, his kin, his offspring there should not come to harm! Just how useful are these kin and offspring to a person, that a person should, for their sake, draw upon himself the chastisement of the Lord and the divine wrath?
Never will your relatives or your children benefit you — your kin and relatives and your children will not profit you — on the Day of Resurrection He will judge between you. On the Day of Resurrection He casts separation between you and them. Or let us read and interpret it this way: "Never will your relatives or your children benefit you" — on the Day of Resurrection your kin and offspring will not profit you — "He will judge between you" — God separates between you,
On the Day a man will flee from his brother, and his mother and his father, and his wife and his children. On that Day of Resurrection. The day a person flees from his own brother, flees from his own father and mother, from his kind wife and his children and the light of his own dear eyes. This very child, whose grief you so consume yourself with today — know that on the Day of Resurrection you will flee from him and he from you, and both of you from all the other creatures; everyone flees from one another, they have no time, no opportunity to reach one another, to inquire after one another's state.
For every man, that Day, will be a matter occupying him. Everyone, on that Day, has some affair, some preoccupation, some trouble — a trouble that is enough to occupy him entirely. On the Day of Resurrection a person is so caught up in himself that he does not get to the trouble of others, even his own child. A thorn pricks the hand of your child — are you prepared to sacrifice your this-world and your hereafter for him? Poor wretch! On the Day of Resurrection you will flee from him. If we understand the logic of the Qur'an in this regard — if those who, for the sake of the comfort and ease of their children, are prepared to turn their backs on the felicity of this world and the hereafter and are prepared to turn toward misfortunes and wretchedness and dark days — if they understood this logic of the Qur'an, perhaps they would be shaken. This child of a person, this daughter of a person, this son of a person, this dear one who draws you toward Hell — and you who are not prepared to let the slightest harm come to yourself yet for his sake endure the greatest harms — how much is he with you? How much is he for you? How much benefit does he give you? Where, on the Day of Resurrection, is he ready to place upon his own shoulders any of your heavy burdens — where?
Never will your relatives or your children benefit you. On the Day of Resurrection He will judge between you. And God, of what you do, is Seeing.
There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him. These verses are the climactic part of these verses that I recited. He says to the believers: Believers, in the conduct of Abraham and the followers of Abraham there is a goodly example for you. See what Abraham and his followers, his companions, did; you do that very thing too. What did they do? They turned, plainly and frankly, to the misguided people of their own time, to the servants and worshippers of the Taghut and the false deities of the age, and said: We are quit of you and your lords; we have disbelieved in you; we have turned away from you; between us and you, for all of time, are hatred and enmity, hostility and wrath and rancor. There is only one way to reconciliation, and that is — "until you believe in God alone" — come, enter the logic of our thought, become believers. He says frankly: Believers, you too act as Abraham did.
There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those who were with him — his companions.
When they said to their people.
Indeed, we are disassociated from you, and from whatever you worship other than God.
We have disbelieved in you, and there has appeared between us and you enmity and hatred forever.
Until you believe in God alone.
The Qur'an says: "There has already been for you" believers "in Abraham and those with him an excellent pattern" — for you believers, in Abraham and his companions there is a goodly example — for anyone who hopes in God and the Last Day.
And whoever turns away — then indeed, God is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy — Whoever turns his back and turns away from this command and shuns it — God the Exalted is Free of need, praised and well-pleasing, and upon the skirt of His majesty no dust may settle. If you make peace with His enemies, the skirt of your humanity and honor will be stained, and God suffers no loss. Keep this saying of Abraham in mind: Abraham and his companions said to the unbelievers and deviants of their own time:
Indeed, we are disassociated from you.
The deviant people of their own time spoke in this same way. Imam al-Sajjad and his companions spoke this way with the deviant people of their time. In the Bihar al-Anwar there is a hadith which says: Yahya ibn Umm Tawil, the disciple of the Fourth Imam, used to come to the mosque of Medina and stand facing the people. The very people among whom Imam al-Husayn and Imam al-Hasan had lived for twenty years; the very people who were neither Umayyad nor affiliated with the Banu Umayya — so what were they? They were cowards who, in the matter of Ashura and Karbala, out of fear of the suffocation that the Banu Umayya had brought about, had left the side of the family of Muhammad empty; yet they were people of [some] belief.
Yahya ibn Umm Tawil would stand before these very people and repeat this very Qur'anic word: He would say: We have disbelieved in you, and there has appeared between us and you enmity and hatred. We have disbelieved in you, and between us and you wrath and rancor have become manifest — that is, the very saying that Abraham would say to the unbelievers of his own time and to the polytheists and deviants and misguided ones of his own age. See that Wilayat is the very same Wilayat. Abraham too possesses Wilayat; the Shia of Imam al-Sajjad too, in their own time, possess Wilayat. They must have one another and be separate from the enemies. If a Shia of the Shia of Imam al-Sajjad, in the time of Imam al-Sajjad, out of fear or greed, went after the enemy's front, he is outside the Wilayat of Imam al-Sajjad and is not connected to the front of Imam al-Sajjad. Therefore the close student of Imam al-Sajjad says to them: We have disbelieved in you, and there has appeared between us and you enmity and hatred; and Yahya ibn Umm Tawil was among the very good and choice companions of Imam al-Sajjad.
The end of the affair of this choice Muslim was this: Hajjaj ibn Yusuf seized him, cut off his right hand, cut off his left hand, cut off his right foot, cut off his left foot; yet he still began to speak with his tongue, so they cut out his tongue too, until he departed this world. And this was while he had set the Shia in order and had provided and made firm the essential pillars of the edifice of Shi'ism after Imam al-Sajjad.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 25 · 48:31
- Ep 26 — The Bonds of the Islamic UmmahSession 24: The Bonds of the Islamic Ummah.
delivered Saturday, 20 Mehr 1353 / 25 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Ma'idah (5:51).
O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies (awliya'). Some of them are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you — then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, God does not guide the wrongdoing people.
So you see those in whose hearts is disease hastening into [allegiance with\ them, saying, 'We fear lest a turn of fortune strike us.' But perhaps God will bring [you] victory, or a decision from Him, and they will become, over what they had concealed within themselves, regretful.]
(First, before we begin our discussion, I want to mention to our friends and brothers a tradition from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace. In that tradition the Messenger of God is reported to have said: rahima-llahu imra'an 'amila 'amalan fa-atqanahu — that is, may God have mercy on a person who, whatever he does, does it firmly and soundly. Let him do his work solidly; meaning, let him also take account of the possibilities in his work. The possibility that the electricity may go out, the possibility that the microphone may fail, the possibility of dozens of other such incidents. Today's incident became a lesson for us. How good it is for us to think in advance about the things that might happen.
Our master, the Commander of the Faithful — God's blessings and peace be upon him — expresses this very point in a sermon of the Nahj al-Balagha. He says: I am not like that stunned, dazed animal that sleeps in its lair until the hunter comes and seizes it; rather, from the events — from what has befallen me and occurred to me — I make use of them for understanding subsequent matters; I gather experience. And this is a lesson for us, that in all the affairs of life we should gather experiences from what has passed for what remains, and take account of the possibilities and the events that may occur.)
Permit me to speak in summary, although the discussion requires elaboration. Of course I too will elaborate it to the extent I deem necessary for it to continue; I will carry it on for another day or two, until the matter becomes clear. In brief, here is what needs to be presented as the discussion of Wilayat continues. Take an Islamic society, a community formed as the Islamic Ummah — meaning a community administered by divine regulations, by a divine mode of thought, and by legislation and the execution of law through divine power. If this Islamic Ummah wishes to possess Wilayat in that Qur'anic sense which I spoke of yesterday — little by little we arrive at that meaning of Wilayat held in the minds of the elite. That Wilayat which is in the minds of the common people, we are not concerned with now; that Wilayat which is in the minds of the elite — that is, the scholars and the learned and the men of knowledge who are versed in Islamic and Shi'i sciences — we will come to that now.
But for now the discussion is about Qur'anic Wilayat. If they wish to attain that Qur'anic Wilayat — that Wilayat which is raised in the Qur'an — if the Islamic Ummah wishes to secure it for itself, it must observe two directions. One direction is the direction of internal relations, within the Islamic society; one direction is the direction of external relations — that is, the relation of the Islamic world and the Islamic Ummah and the Islamic society with other communities.
In the sphere of internal relations, the Islamic Ummah possesses Wilayat in the Qur'anic sense only when it secures within itself the utmost solidarity, connection, relationship, and unity of ranks, and the greatest possible cohesion of its various individuals and factions. Let there be no kind of division or disagreement throughout the great Islamic Ummah. Let no separate ranks be formed within this Ummah.
Suppose two units within the Islamic Ummah rise up against one another in war — say, a group in the east of the Islamic lands and a group in the northeast set out to fight and do battle with one another. The rule, the Qur'anic command, is that the rest of the Muslims should strive as much as they can to reconcile those two hostile and mutually hostile parties. But suppose they see that of these two adversaries one is willing to reconcile while the other is not, or that the word of the one is a word of coercion while the word of the other is a word of truth — and the man who backs coercion will not submit to the word of truth or incline toward the just word. In such a situation, the whole Islamic world must become as one, must join hands, must go after that aggressor and silence him. They must contend with him until they set him back in his place.
It is a verse of the Qur'an: And if two factions among the believers fight, then make reconciliation between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the command of God.
"And if two factions among the believers fight" — if two parties, two groups among the Muslim groups, fight one another; "then make reconciliation between the two" — reconcile between these two Muslim groups. "But if one of them oppresses the other" — if among these two groups one wrongs the other, commits transgression and aggression and excess, speaks the language of coercion and seeks to play the bully; "then fight against the one that oppresses" — against the one that speaks coercion, fight; "until it returns to the command of God" — until it is forced to return to God's command, until it is compelled to accept God's command. This is the command of God in the sphere of preserving unity within the Islamic society.
As for the sphere of external relations: here the Islamic world must strive — the Islamic Ummah must strive — to so order its relations with the non-Muslim world and with those outside this Ummah that it does not fall in the slightest under their command, does not come in the slightest under the influence of their thinking, and does not let its independent politics lose even a fraction of their independence under the influence of theirs. Sharing a front and joining together with them is altogether forbidden — that is, when this joining together causes the Muslim Ummah to come under their influence.
There is a famous account here, whose details I will not now relate. It is a narration mentioned in most of the reliable books of the Shi'a. It pertains to the time of Imam al-Baqir — God's blessings be upon him — when the coinage of the Islamic world was being brought from the land of Rome (Byzantium), and the Byzantine ruler made a threat, and they were left helpless and at a loss. Then the Imam, peace be upon him, guided the apparatus of the caliphate. It is very strange! This is the only point — one or two exceptional cases — in which I see that the Imams of guidance, peace be upon them, showed a slight favorable face to the apparatus of the caliphate. One of them is here. The Imam guided the apparatus of the caliphate and instructed them that you should mint the coin in this way. They did not know how to mint coinage; they did not know the measure of the silver, where to obtain it and how to provide it — the measure of a dirham and a half-dirham and those things upon which the coin had to be struck. The Imam guided them.
Therefore, from the standpoint of external relations, the slightest receptivity to influence from anti-Islamic or non-Islamic factions — and especially the anti-Islamic — is forbidden. The Islamic society and the Islamic Ummah have no right to establish their bond with the world outside Islam except as the upper hand, the superior. Take an exploitative relationship between the Islamic Ummah and a non-Muslim Ummah — of the kind of the Tobacco affair and the Regie company, which you gentlemen know and have heard about. The Islamic world has no right to enter into this relationship. Or take those Mughal sultans and rulers of India who permitted foreign governments to come and establish companies there: they performed an act contrary to the Wilayat of the Islamic world. This act of letting a company come was not permissible — because they knew, or if they did not know, they should have known, they must know, what the company would do. The East India Company, for example — when it entered that region, when it entered that land, what calamity it would bring upon the lives of those people, and how it would spread the cancer of colonialism into the very veins and sinews of that vast subcontinent. They should have understood these things; they did not understand. And the Islamic world and the Islamic Ummah never permit relations of this kind.
Take note. When we say that relations are cut off with non-Muslim governments and with non-Muslim nations, this does not mean that the Islamic world and the Islamic Ummah will live in political isolation. No; the issue is not the issue of political isolation, such that you might imagine that the Islamic world has no commercial relation with anyone, no political relation, no diplomatic relations, neither sends an ambassador nor receives an ambassador — no, it is not like that; it has ordinary relations. It has no Wilayat with them, no attachment with them. It has no essential and substantial bond with them. It will not be such that, if they wish, they can place the Islamic world under their own influence.
So Wilayat has two facets — Qur'anic Wilayat. One facet is that within the Islamic society all elements must step toward one goal, toward one direction, by one path, with one footstep. Outside the Islamic society, the Islamic Ummah must sever its bonds with all the blocs and the anti-Islamic factions.
Here there exists a precise point which shows that Wilayat in this sense, which has come in the Qur'an, is in the very same sense of the Wilayat that we, the Shi'a, hold. Pay attention so that I may express this point, so that you all may understand how Wilayat in Shi'ism connects with Qur'anic Wilayat. It is possible that four persons may be present who, out of devotional acceptance, or [as] the past generation may have been present and, out of devotional acceptance, heard certain things about Wilayat and accepted them — but this young person who wishes to understand and is connected with the Qur'an must pay attention to where Shi'i Wilayat comes from.
This [fact] that we have considered the connection with the Imam to be so important, this [fact] that we have considered the command of the Imam to be in force in all the affairs of the life of the society — what is this for? From where does it come? Here the Qur'an speaks to us — and that point is the very thing I am saying. Suppose a society and an Ummah wishes to possess Qur'anic Wilayat in this sense: it wishes all its internal forces to set out in one direction, toward one goal, along one line, and it wishes all its internal forces to be mobilized against the anti-Islamic powers abroad. Then it needs a point of concentrated power at the heart of the Islamic society. It needs a point to which all the internal forces are joined, from which all draw inspiration, and to whom all listen and obey, and who knows all aspects of the interests and harms, so that — like a strong, powerful-handed, keen-eyed watchman — he may assign each person on the battlefront to his own particular task. There must exist a leadership, a command, a concentrated power in the Islamic society, which knows what can be expected of you, what can be expected of me, what can be expected of other human beings, so that to each it may assign the task that is required of him, saying: act.
For example, by way of analogy — if I want to make an analogy: have you seen these carpet-weaving workshops? A number of people are seated weaving a carpet; each is working — every child or grown person seated there is weaving thread so that by dusk he may receive two or three tomans. Each is expending some enthusiasm and labor here. If these works are not coordinated, if there is no higher thought and eye and power that continually reads out that pattern of the carpet according to those particular instructions, so that they may know which thread to use, and how to strike it, and how to cut it — if such a concentrated power does not exist, how will this carpet come out?! You will see that its right side tells of the East, and its left side tells of the West! One part speaks of a Kurdish carpet, another part speaks of a Turkmen carpet! The patterns disordered, it comes out something altogether absurd.
The orderliness of the carpet — this [feature] that you see, that a flower has appeared on this side, [and] like that flower, without any addition or subtraction, on this side too one has grown, has appeared, and both have reached that medallion (toranj) in the center, and just like these two, on that side of the carpet also there are two more, and all things are orderly and everything is in its place — what is this for? It is because, first, the instruction is determined, and one person too is seated, calling out in a loud voice — I don't know — "Bring two of those down from above, strike that thread from that side, cut that one from that side." Which I have never heard and do not know how to do; the carpet-sellers know it. The carpet-sellers too do not know it; the carpet-weavers know it. Did you notice?
A society needs a concentrated power if it wants all its forces put to work, and all working in one direction, and none of them wasted, and all the forces of the society brought to bear — in the form of one concentrated power — upon the collective interests of humanity, and the society able to stand like a single fist in the face of the opposing factions and ranks and powers. To have these, it needs a concentrated power. It needs a heart; this society, this general body of the Islamic Ummah, needs a heart. And that heart has its conditions. He must be very aware, must know very much, must be very resolute, his eye must possess a different kind of vision, he must fear nothing on the path of God, he must, when necessary, sacrifice even himself. What do we name such a being? The Imam.
The Imam means that ruler and leader who is appointed in the society on the part of the Lord. This that I say, "on the part of God," what does it mean? It means either that God appoints [him] by name and designation — as He appointed the Commander of the Faithful, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn, and the rest of the Imams; the Prophet himself too is an Imam; the Prophet himself too is an Imam: Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people.
God the Exalted says to Abraham: I have made you an Imam. The Imam means that leader and ruler and guide in a society.
At one time God appoints this Imam by name and designation, saying: after the Prophet it must be 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, for example. At another time God the Exalted does not appoint the Imam by name; He appoints [him] by a mark (sign). Like what? Like the statement of the Imam, peace be upon him: fa-amma man kana mina al-fuqaha'i sa'inan li-nafsihi hafizan li-dinihi mukhalifan 'ala hawahu muti'an li-amri mawlahu fa-li-l-'awammi an yuqalliduhu — the Imam has appointed [him], you see; this too is a designated Imam (imam mansus), he is himself an Imam, he is an Imam. That jurist (faqih) who is the successor [of the Imam] — but he is an Imam who has not been appointed by name; he has been appointed by a mark. Whoever this mark applies to, he becomes the Imam. I wished to explain for you the word "Imam." The Imam means leader, means ruler, means the one who holds the reins, means the one whom — wherever he goes — human beings follow; who must be on the part of God, must be just, must be fair, must be religious, must be resolute, and the like of these statements which exist concerning the Imamate, which we are not now in a position [to discuss].
So the principle of Qur'anic Wilayat necessitated — what thing? The existence of the Imam. The discussion is not yet finished; pay attention. If this great body, whose name is the Islamic Ummah, wishes to remain alive, to remain successful, to be ever enduring, what must it do? Its connection with this center, with this moving and impassioned heart, must always — all of it, ever — be firm, powerful, established. So what does Wilayat mean? Let all pay close attention: the other dimension of Wilayat — what does it mean? It means the firm and powerful connection of each of the individuals of the Islamic Ummah, in every state, with that heart of the Ummah. Connection of what? Intellectual connection and practical connection. That is, taking one's pattern truly from him, truly following him in thoughts and visions, and truly following him in deeds and conduct and activities and movements.
So what does the Wilayat of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib mean? It means that in your thoughts you be a follower of 'Ali; in your deeds you be a follower of 'Ali; that a powerful, firm, unbreakable bond has tied you to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, so that you do not become separated from 'Ali. This is the meaning of Wilayat. Have you understood well what Wilayat is? It is here that we understand the meaning of this tradition: wilayatu 'ali ibn abi talibin hisni — the Wilayat of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is my fortress and stronghold — [said] on the part of God — fa-man dakhala hisni amina min 'adhabi — whoever enters this stronghold will remain safe and secure from the punishment of God. It is a very interesting statement. What does it mean? It means that the Muslims, the followers of the Qur'an — if both from the standpoint of thought and reflection and from the standpoint of deed and effort and activity they are connected to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib — they are safe and protected from God's punishment. Is it other than this? Is it anything but this? If 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is recognized today, [and] after he is recognized, you and I act like him, then we attain Wilayat; Wilayat means this.
Take a servant of God who deems the Qur'an incapable of being understood — and let me be clear: of course I myself do understand it; God forbid that I should deem the Qur'an incapable of being understood; I mean the one who does not. How can such a servant say "I have the Wilayat of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and I am connected with 'Ali from the standpoint of thought," while 'Ali ibn Abi Talib says in a sermon of the Nahj al-Balagha: wa-a'lamu anna hadha al-qur'ana huwa al-nasihu alladhi la yaghushshu wa-l-hadi alladhi la yudillu wa-l-muhaddithu alladhi la yakdhibu wa-ma jalasa hadha al-qur'ana ahadun illa qama 'anhu bi-ziyadatin aw nuqsanin: ziyadatin fi hudan aw nuqsanin min 'aman? The Commander of the Faithful is in this manner referring people to the Qur'an, in this manner driving people toward the Qur'an. So that servant of God who says "the Qur'an cannot be understood" — does he have the Wilayat of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib? Never. 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is willing, for the sake of God, to give up his entire being; the conduct of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is this. This fellow is not willing to give up a single mithqal of his money, of his life, of his social standing, of his comfort, of his lordliness, for the sake of God — does he have the Wilayat of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib? The Wilayat of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is possessed by the one who is joined to 'Ali with an unbreakable bond — both from the standpoint of thought and reflection, and from the standpoint of deed.
If you reflect well, brothers, this meaning which I have given of Wilayat is the most precise and most subtle meaning that can be expounded, that can be expressed, concerning Wilayat; and this too emerges from the Qur'an. Now listen so that I may read the verses of the Qur'an for you, for in these verses of the Qur'an from Surat al-Ma'idah, eloquent allusions have been made to all these things: to the positive aspect of Wilayat — that is, the internal bond; to the negative aspect of Wilayat — that is, the severing of external bonds; and to that other dimension of Wilayat — that is, the connection and link with the wali (the wali meaning that pole, meaning that heart, meaning that ruler and Imam). Now pay attention so that the matter may be grasped.
"O you who have believed" — O you who have believed; "do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies (awliya')" — do not take the Jews and the Christians, the Jewish and Christian peoples, as your awliya'. Awliya' is the plural of wali; wali is from wilayat; wilayat means attachment, wali means one who is attached and bonded. Do not take the Jews and the Christians as those bonded and attached to yourselves; do not choose them. "Some of them are allies of one another (ba'duhum awliya'u ba'd)" — they are awliya' of one another, sharers of a front and attached to one another. Do not look at the fact that their blocs are separate from each other; in meaning, for the sake of enmity against your authenticities, they are all one front. "Ba'duhum awliya'u ba'd" — some are of the same front as others. "And whoever is an ally to them among you (wa-man yatawallahum minkum)" — whoever takes them as his wali — tawalli means accepting Wilayat, of the form tafa'ul — whoever sets foot in the valley of their Wilayat and bonds himself with them, connects himself with them, establishes a relationship; "then indeed, he is one of them (fa-innahu minhum)" — without doubt he himself is one of them. "Indeed, God does not guide the wrongdoing people (inna-llaha la yahdi al-qawma al-zalimin)" — and God will not guide the wrongdoing people.
"So you see those in whose hearts is disease (fa-tara alladhina fi qulubihim marad)" — those in whose hearts there is disease, which we have translated "the sick of heart"; "fa-tara alladhina fi qulubihim marad" — those who in their heart have disease and sickness, do you see them? "Hastening into [allegiance with] them (yusari'una fihim)" — they hasten amid the front of the enemies of religion; they are not content merely to go toward them, but they hasten; they are not content merely to go up beside them — they go all the way into the depths of their front. If you ask, "Sir, why do you make so [much] friendship with the enemy of religion? With someone whom you know to be against religion, why do you not only not oppose him at all, but even expend friendship?" If you ask this of him, he answers you thus: "Saying, 'We fear lest a turn of fortune strike us (yaquluna nakhsha an tusibana da'irah)'" — they say: we fear that some harm may reach us; if I do not befriend [them], I fear they will inflict some harm on me, or [someone] will inflict it. How familiar these words are to one's ear! "Nakhsha an tusibana da'irah" — we fear that some trouble will be made for us, we fear that some occasion of distress will be made for us. See what familiar words these are — it is the very same: "nakhsha an tusibana da'irah."
What does God say in answer to these [people]? He says: "But perhaps God will bring victory, or a decision from Him (fa-'asa-llahu an ya'tiya bi-l-fathi aw amrin min 'indihi)" — it is hoped that God will grant victory to the front of the believers, or will bring about, on His own [initiative], some event in their favor. After this happens, then: "and they will become, over what they had concealed within themselves, regretful (fa-yusbihu 'ala ma asarru fi anfusihim nadimin)" — so that these wretches who had aligned with them may become regretful, may be put to shame, may say: "Did you see what a blunder we made; if we had known that the front of the believers would be so victorious and powerful, we would not have aligned with the enemy of religion, with the enemy of God; we would not have disgraced ourselves."
And those who believed will say, 'Are these the ones who swore by God their strongest oaths that indeed they were with you?' Their deeds have become worthless, and they have become losers. "And those who believed will say (wa-yaqulu alladhina amanu)" — after they [the hypocrites] have disgraced themselves and aligned with the enemies, what do the believers say? Those who believed say: "Are these (a-ha'ula'i alladhina aqsamu bi-llahi jahda aymanihim innahum la-ma'akum)" — the believers, the poor ones, sink into astonishment and bewilderment: "Eh! These were the very ones! These fair-faced, respectable countenances, who used to swear, with stern and weighty oaths, that they were with us." Whenever we spoke with them, whenever we said anything to them, they would say: yes, we too are of the same belief as you, we too have no disagreement with you, we too say the very thing you say. In their manner of expression, they used to speak with one in this way; later it became clear that the hearts of these [people] had been diseased, and despite their good outward appearance, they had filthy, black, hypocritical hearts. The believers, on that day, say: "Amazing! Look what an oath these [people] used to swear. Are these really them?" "A-ha'ula'i alladhina aqsamu bi-llahi jahda aymanihim" — are these the very ones, those who used to swear by God with hard and stern oaths? "Innahum la-ma'akum" — that they were with you, of the same belief and same mind as you. "Their deeds have become worthless (habitat a'maluhum)" — the works they had done became void and useless and destroyed; "and they have become losers (fa-asbahu khasirin)" — they became losers — the true losers.
Well, this was concerning external relations. Now, concerning internal relations, pay attention:
O you who have believed, whoever of you reverts from his religion — God will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him, humble toward the believers, mighty against the disbelievers; they strive in the way of God and do not fear the blame of any blamer. That is the favor of God; He gives it to whom He wills. And God is all-Encompassing, all-Knowing. "O you who have believed (ya ayyuha alladhina amanu)" — O you who have believed; "whoever of you reverts from his religion (man yartadda minkum 'an dinih)" — if you turn back from your religion, if you set down from your shoulders onto the ground this burden of the mission and responsibility which you had accepted with faith in God, and do not deliver it to its destination — do not imagine that this burden will fail to reach its destination; this imagining would be a false notion. No, this burden of God will reach its destination; only, someone else will carry its felicity, another community will be granted this honor — to carry this burden to its destination. "Man yartadda minkum 'an dinih" — whoever of you turns back from his religion and apostatizes; "God will bring a people (fa-sawfa ya'ti-llahu bi-qawm)" — God will bring a people. This people is that very ideal Islamic people. That ideal Islamic society, in terms of internal and external bonds and relations, is as has come in this verse. "God will bring a people whom He loves (fa-sawfa ya'ti-llahu bi-qawmin yuhibbuhum)" — God the Exalted will bring forth a community whom God Himself loves; "and who love Him (wa-yuhibbunahu)" — and they too love God. Do we too love God? No! This little bit of love that you sometimes [express], saying "O God, may I be sacrificed for You" — though God has no need at all of such "sacrifice"-saying or sacrificing — and on top of that we are lying, for we are by no means willing to go and be sacrificed for God — this is not love. The love of God: Say, if you love God, then follow me, [and\ God will love you,nofn] is [the standard]. This is the Qur'an. If you love God, follow me, who am the Prophet, so that God too may love you. So "yuhibbuhum wa-yuhibbunahu" — meaning these [people] were one hundred percent submitted to the command of God, [and] thus were the object of God's love.
Well, this is one property and attribute: that affection and love between them and God is mutual. "Humble toward the believers (adhillatin 'ala al-mu'minin)" — they are humble before the believers; this is the sign of the perfection of intimate relation and bond. Before the believers, before this mass of Muslims who have filled the body of the Islamic society, there exists in them no kind of arrogance, no kind of pride, no kind of excessive expectation, no kind of vain and empty pretension. That is, when they stand before the people, they are part of the people, they are with the people, they are on the path of the people, they are for the people; they do not pull themselves out from among the people, they do not entrench themselves in an ivory tower so as to view the people from afar and occasionally show some pity for the people. They are among the people. "Humble toward the believers (adhillatin 'ala al-mu'minin)" — they make themselves humble and small before those who believe in God. "Mighty against the disbelievers (a'izzatin 'ala al-kafirin)" — the opposite point — before the disbelievers and the enemies of religion and the opponents of the Qur'an, they are "a'izzah" (mighty); that is, immune to influence, that is, lofty-headed, that is, having wrapped and drawn around themselves a fortress of Islamic thought, so that they accept no infiltration from them.
"They strive in the way of God (yujahiduna fi sabili-llah)" — another property of theirs is that they wage jihad and struggle in the way of God, relentlessly, unconditionally, just as in the verse it occurs: "And they do not fear the blame of any blamer (wa-la yakhafuna lawmata la'im)" — they do not fear or dread the blame of any blamer. As to what sort of blamer now — think for yourselves; I can no longer explain, I am tired. "That is the favor of God; He gives it to whom He wills (dhalika fadlu-llahi yu'tihi man yasha')" — this is the bounty and grace and favor of God, which He gives to whomever He wills. "And God is all-Encompassing, all-Knowing (wa-llahu wasi'un 'alim)" — God is open-handed, generous-handed, and Knowing.
Then, concerning the connection and bond of the parts of the Islamic society with that heart, with that power, with that Imam, with that leader, the next verse comes following the previous verses. See how fitting and beautiful it is. See how much pondering (tadabbur) in the Qur'an enlightens a person regarding these matters which he had thought were not Qur'anic — how eloquently the Qur'an speaks. It spoke of external relations, it spoke of internal bonds; now it states the heart of the internal bonds — that is, the leader, the guide, the Imam.
Your wali is only God and His Messenger and those who have believed — those who establish prayer and give zakat while they are bowing (in ruku'). It says: "Innama waliyyukumu-llah" — your wali, and the one who upholds the command, the one to whom all the energies and activities of the society and the Islamic Ummah must return and from whom they must draw inspiration, is God. Well, but God does not become embodied to come and sit among the people and command and forbid — so who else? "And His Messenger (wa-rasuluh)" — it is evident that between the Messenger and God there is never any rivalry or contention or mutual aversion; the Messenger is His Messenger after all. [It is] God and His Messenger. Well, but the Messenger does not always remain: Indeed, you will die, and indeed, they will die.
After the Messenger, what? After the Messenger too we have [a wali]: "And those who have believed (wa-alladhina amanu)" — those believers. Which believers? Is it enough that anyone simply believes? No, there is a sign. "Those who establish prayer (alladhina yuqimuna al-salah)" — they establish the prayer; "and give zakat (wa-yu'tuna al-zakah)" — they give the zakat; "while they are bowing (wa-hum raki'un)" — the exegetes took the waw as the waw of state (haliyya): while they are in ruku', in the state of bowing they give zakat. Meaning whom? Meaning the Commander of the Faithful, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, who is appointed as wali.
Now, you may at one time derive this from the verse, taking the waw as the waw of state — very good indeed. If, supposing, you raise a doubt even about this, saying "no, it means the absolute [body of] believers who possess this characteristic" — I ask: who can be the symbol and emblem of such a totality in the Islamic society? We know of no one other than 'Ali ibn Abi Talib. In that Islamic society, the one who could be the symbol of such a firm and solid faithful faction is 'Ali ibn Abi Talib — even if we suppose that the verse does not have his Eminence in view (although, by reason of the historical reality that has been narrated, it does have [him] in view).
Of course, let the attention of the gentlemen be [noted]; I found it necessary to give this reminder regarding yesterday's discussion or today's discussion: if our discussion is in the matter of the Imamate or Wilayat or the emphasis upon Shi'ism, the positive aspect of the matter is what we have in view, not the negative aspect of the matter. As we have repeatedly said, we deem it necessary that the Shi'a should know himself, should know his own thought, should make his own faith as firm and effective as possible — this we believe.
We who are conducting this discussion wish to establish Shi'ism; we do not wish to negate others. We do not wish to needlessly create disagreement of opinion and taste again — no. But it is necessary for you to understand how you comprehend Shi'ism. When I say "Shi'ism," do not say to yourself, "Sir, first establish Islam, [and] let Shi'ism be afterward" — no; that Shi'ism which I speak of is nothing other than Islam, [and] Islam is nothing other than Shi'ism. The viewers see Islam in ten ways; one way of seeing — that is the seeing which Shi'ism sees — true Islam is that very [thing]. The understanding which the Shi'a has of Islam and the Qur'an, that understanding is the correct and logical and just and rational understanding. Do you note? Therefore, we are stating the Islamic principles; in our own opinion and to our own view, these things we are discussing and expounding are the ideological principles of Islam. And I do not think that you too, if you reflect, would have a view contrary to this. Therefore, the positive matters and the positive aspects of the matter are what we have in view.
We are expounding Islam just as we understand and know it in the school of Shi'ism. We are not concerned now with other factions who may know and understand it in another way; we do not even debate with them; for now, we have neither quarrel nor conflict nor opposition with them — we are brothers, we even extend the hand of friendship. Why? Because we have an enemy, because outside the house an enemy stands. We two brothers have no right, right now, to beat each other about the head and face. This too is our way, which I wanted to mention so that you gentlemen may know: the discussion concerning Shi'ism and the Shi'a is for the sake of the authenticity of Shi'ism, for the sake of the fact that we believe in Shi'ism, for the sake of the fact that we see Islam from the viewpoint of Shi'ism — not for the sake of wishing to create disagreement between Shi'a and Sunni; never. We deem this disagreement forbidden too.
Your wali is only God and His Messenger and those who have believed — those who establish prayer and give zakat while they are bowing.
Well, now, if we observe Wilayat, what comes of it? Does it have an effect for us too? Up to now Wilayat has had three dimensions, which we have expounded: first, the preservation of internal bonds; second, the severing of bond and dependence upon the opposing external poles; and third, the preservation of a permanent and deep connection with the heart of the body of Islam and the heart of the Islamic Ummah — that is, the Imam and leader. Now, if we observe these three dimensions, how will it be? The verse of the Qur'an answers us: And whoever takes God and His Messenger and those who have believed as allies — then indeed, the party of God — they are the victorious.
"And whoever takes God and His Messenger as his wali (wa-man yatawalla-llaha wa-rasulah)" — the one who accepts Wilayat with God and with His Messenger and with those who have believed, [and] observes and preserves this bond with the believers and does not sever it — these are the dominant ones, the victorious ones. Of all, these very ones are the most victorious, and it is they who will have the upper hand over all the other factions.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 26 · 39:20
- Ep 27 — The Paradise of WilayatSession 25: The Paradise of Wilayat.
delivered Sunday, 21 Mehr 1353 / 26 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Hajj (22:41).
[They are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish the prayer and pay the alms-due and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and to God belongs the final outcome of all affairs.
Following the previous discussions, two things in the matter of wilayah are worth noting: first, a brief introduction to the society possessing wilayah and to the individual possessing wilayah; and second, the role — a panoramic view — of a society in which wilayah exists. Over the past day or two, as we discussed this theme, something came into our hands from reflection upon the verses of the Qur'an. That reflection, of course, was aided by our connection with the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt in the matter of wilayah, which already existed in our minds, and it reached its conclusions on that basis; so what we have stated is a distillation, both from the Qur'an and from the hadith. And the distillation that emerged from these discussions was this: wilayah has several dimensions, several manifestations.
One of them is this: that the Muslim society should not be dependent upon and attached to elements outside its own being; it should not have attachment to the non-Muslim. And of course we explained that this not being attached and not being dependent is one thing, while having no relations at all is quite another thing. We never say that the world of Islam should live in political and economic isolation and should have no relationship whatsoever with any of the non-Muslim nations and countries and powers; no, that is not the point. The issue is the issue of not being dependent, not being attached and a mere follower, not being digested and dissolved into other powers, of independence and standing on one's own feet — in short.
Another manifestation, another body and surface of wilayah, is the very intense internal cohesion and bond among the Muslim elements. That is: when the Islamic society is under discussion for us, in our minds, what they call wilayah is the Islamic society's being unified and moving in one direction. As there is in the Prophetic and non-Prophetic narrations: The likeness of the believers in their mutual affection and their mutual mercy is like the likeness of a single body — like one single frame, like one single building, like the interconnected parts of a single structure; the Muslims must be joined to one another, fused to one another, knotted to one another, and in short, must be a single hand against the other hands and against the conflicts and enmities that will arise. You saw this point fully in yesterday's verse.
Again, among the verses of Surat al-Ma'idah is the verse humble toward the believers, mighty against the disbelievers. In another verse of the Qur'an, this very same point is again expressed even more clearly: Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are severe against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. When they stand facing the external front, you see nothing firmer and more impervious to breach than they are; you see nothing more impervious to influence and more impenetrable; independent. But in the internal fronts — and to use the term "front" here is essentially incorrect, since there is no front-formation inside; inside, among the bodies and the wings of this immense Islamic frame, there is no impenetrability at all, no breach and no imperviousness to influence; on the contrary, all of them act upon one another, all of them draw one another toward goodness and virtue, all of them counsel one another to follow the truth ever more, all of them counsel one another to persevere ever more firmly in the path of truth and to resist ever more strongly against the motives of evil and corruption and decline, all of them hold one another up. And as I gave the example the other day: like ten seasoned mountaineers and climbers, who are making their way through these twists and turns of the mountain, along these narrow trails where, if a single clod, a single stone, slips out from beneath the foot of one climber, that is enough to send him plunging headfirst into the depths of a ravine — a hundred meters, two hundred meters, five hundred meters down. Here, the way for all the individuals to remain safe is this: that they bind their waists to one another with a rope as strong as possible, that they have mutual attraction, that they take one another's hand, that they call out to one another: "So-and-so, you have not lost the way, have you? You have not fallen behind, have you? You have not gone hungry, have you?" They watch to see whether there is among them anyone who, intellectually, materially, or in terms of knowing right and truth, is weaker than the others. If there is, then all strive to guide him, all try to draw him onto the straight path — in short, a family with members and individuals who are one hundred percent sincere with one another. This too is another of the manifestations of wilayah, that the Islamic society is of this kind.
Yet another manifestation of wilayah is this: the Islamic society needs an administering center with particular conditions. We mentioned it in the previous days as being very important — the most important of all — and it is also the guarantor of the survival of wilayah in the first and second senses. The Islamic society must have the status of a single frame: both mutually attracted and cohesive with one another within, and outwardly manifesting like a single fist, like a single body, like a single person in the face of the external fronts. This unity is necessary in the Islamic society; and unity, without a concentration of administering power, is not possible. If over every corner of the corners of the world of Islam there should rule some agent, some power, some pole [of authority], the parts of this frame will disperse from one another, will separate from one another, will not move along a single path. It becomes exactly like this: that the organism of the administering nerves of the human being should be transformed, from its present condition, into the state in which there were two nervous command-systems in the human being — one for the right side, one for the left side. Now that both of them are one, if I wish to move these two hands of mine in a coordinated fashion, I can; because both hands take their inspiration from a single center. The gentleman who wishes to lift a column and set it on that side, to lift a weight and place it on that side — both his hands, since they obey a single command-center, work together, work in proportion with one another. This hand comes and takes hold from this side, that hand also takes hold from that side, both press toward one side, then together they lift the weight. But if the command-center of the body's nerves became two in the human being — one for the right side, one for the left side — then here the right hand and the left will no longer have coordination with one another. The right hand, to take hold of this weight and heavy load, has opened its fingers; now the left hand, since it is taking its command and inspiration from another center, at that very moment is pressing these fingers together all the more tightly. The right hand says to the left hand, "Cooperate, you too take this side of the weight." No indeed, it does not lend an ear at all. At the very moment when this hand is ready to lift and grasp this load, the other hand has turned completely into a fist drawn in upon itself, clenched, frozen — under no circumstances is it willing to take this load at all. They reach another place, [where] they come up against an enemy; this hand that had been a fist now wishes to strike that enemy on the head; it says to the other hand, "Well, you help too, so we may land two double-blows on his head, with two fists smash his brain to pieces, so we may sooner be rid of him." But this hand now, to make up for the fact that the other had been obstinate there, in obedience to the command-center of the right-side nerves, becomes obstinate. It says, "No indeed, I now wish to be open, wide open." Well, this one comes down as a fist; that one is not at all ready to strike upon the head of that enemy. You see, sir, that if the body of the human being were to take its command and its inspiration, in its nerves, from two command-centers, what an absurd condition this body would acquire. Where it is supposed to lift a load, it cannot. Where it is supposed to transfer something from one place to another, again it cannot. Where it is supposed to repel an enemy, again it cannot.
If the Islamic society wishes to repel its enemies in the right place, at the right time, and well — if one corner of the Islamic society today takes a thought to repelling the enemy, and another corner takes it up the day after tomorrow, again there is no benefit. If a society and a single frame wishes to do battle with its enemy, all the wings of this Islamic society must, at one and the same time, confront and face that enemy. If this one takes the thought today, that one tomorrow, the third day that other wing and that other corner awakens from sleep, then that enemy, with an easy mind — [creates and brings about] the affair of those same three persons who had gone into the vineyard which Rumi has related — brings about and produces this affair, and will out-trick them all; just as this experience has occurred not once, not twice, but at least ten times in the history of Islam.
So if the Islamic society wishes to attract benefits at the right time, to repel harms and losses at the right time, to be on the inside parts that are congenial and connected with one another, and on the outside, in the face of the enemy, to hold the status of a single fist and a single hand — in short, if it wishes to secure within itself those two surfaces and two dimensions and two aspects of wilayah, it needs to have within itself a powerful command-center, so that all the active and energetic elements of this society may take their inspiration from that center: their intellectual energy, their practical energy, the activities of their life, their crushing of enemies, their cherishing of friends.
That center which, in the heart of the society and within the body of the Islamic society, administers all the wings, sets each person to the work worthy of his rank, prevents conflicts, guides the forces in one direction — he must be from God, must be learned, must be aware, must be trustworthy and safeguarded [from error], must be a crystallized being of all the constituent elements of Islam, must be a manifestation of the Qur'an. What name do we give him? We give him the name of wali (guardian). So wilayah in the Islamic society, in those two respects which I have stated, requires that there be a wali present in the society. This too is one dimension and one body and one surface from among the dimensions of the matter of wilayah. This was the explanation of the previous discussions.
The question that arises after this is: do I and you, sir, possess wilayah or not? It is possible that I and you possess wilayah; but does our society, taken as a whole, possess wilayah or not? Does it make a difference, sir? Yes — it is possible that one member [of the body] should in itself be sound, but the soundness of one member, first, does not mean the soundness of the whole body — this is one point; and second, a sound member, if it is placed in an unsound body, cannot possess all the merits of a sound member — these are two points. First let us see what kind of person a human being with wilayah is, so that we may understand whether I personally and you personally possess wilayah or not. And if it should be proven and made clear — God willing — that I and you possess wilayah, then we must proceed to see how a society must be in order to possess wilayah.
There is no obstacle to it whatsoever; "there is no obstacle" — I mean it is possible; that is my meaning; not that there is no problem with it — there is a great deal of problem with it — but there is no obstacle at all to our supposing a human being possessing wilayah within a society devoid of wilayah. Has this human being's responsibility come to an end? Merely because he himself possesses wilayah, even though he lives in a society deprived of and bare of wilayah — is this life a desirable life? And if a person himself possessed wilayah but lived in a society that is without wilayah, and he felt no responsibility in the face of the society's lack of wilayah — does this very absence of a sense of responsibility not itself injure and ruin his own wilayah? These are headings upon which you, the Muslim man, the Muslim woman, and especially the Muslim youth, must reflect. It is possible that I may not have enough time and opportunity to expound each one of these for you; and if I wished to expound each one of these for you, so that all the individuals here present might properly grasp the matter, this would require that we discuss each one of these headings for a day, say — and I do not have that much time.
The question is this: first, let us see what kind of human being a human being possessing wilayah is. How must I be, [so that] I possess wilayah? How must I be, [so that] I do not possess wilayah? That is one. Second, let us see how we — the society, the social body of human beings who have gathered together in one place — must be, in order to possess wilayah, and how we will not possess wilayah. In what condition is a society a society possessing a guardian (wali) and a custodian and friends-and-helpers (mawali), in the form that Islam has commanded; and in what condition, and under what circumstances, is it deprived of wilayah — that wilayah which Islam has spoken of.
Now the third and fourth questions — and I am repeating, so that each of you gentlemen may fix them in your minds. Those of you who are people of precision and reflection and note-taking, take notes. Go and think on it yourselves. Use your own stored-up Islamic mental resources and the existing Islamic texts. Arrive at the meaning of the verdict on these questions yourselves. The third question: a human being who possesses wilayah — has his duty come to an end merely with the possessing of wilayah for his own person? Does he have no duty to build a society possessing wilayah? This too is a question.
The fourth question: if a man himself possessed wilayah, lived in a society deprived of wilayah, and felt no sense of duty to make the society possess wilayah — will this not feeling of duty not blemish his own wilayah? This very thing, that he is not thinking of making others too possess wilayah — does not this very not-thinking itself weaken his wilayah, blemish it, ruin it? This too is another question.
These questions we must discuss. Now I will raise one or two of them, discuss them, talk them over. Of course, when this has been discussed, then compare in your own minds this progressive, exalted, fascinating, sensible meaning of wilayah — pronounced by the Qur'an, spoken by the hadith — with that meaning which the lazy, ease-loving, comfort-seeking, hardship-fleeing, facility-seeking man imagines wilayah to be for himself.
A group imagine that possessing wilayah is a matter of a man's merely weeping in the gatherings of the Ahl al-Bayt. They imagine that possessing wilayah is a matter of necessarily saying peace be upon them after the name of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) is mentioned; only this and nothing more. They imagine that possessing wilayah is a matter of having the love of the Ahl al-Bayt in one's heart, this and nothing more. Yes, to have the love of the Ahl al-Bayt is obligatory and incumbent. To utter the name of these great ones with reverence is most fitting and necessary. To hold a gathering in their name and to draw lessons from their mourning and their joy, to recount their mourning, to recount their joy, to weep over their nobilities, over their gallantries, over the wrongs done to them — all of these are necessary; but all of these are not wilayah; wilayah is higher than this. The one who sits in the gathering of the Master of Martyrs (the blessings and peace of God be upon him) and sheds tears does a good thing in that he sheds tears; but he does a bad thing if he reckons the shedding of tears to be sufficient for the possessing of wilayah.
Understand well what I am saying. Those whose minds are under the influence of the malicious or ignorant suggestions and inducements of certain mercenary and malicious hands — let them pay close attention. Let it not be said that someone is opposed to weeping for the Master of Martyrs — no. Even if anyone is opposed, we are not opposed; we are in favor. We say that weeping over Imam Husayn (the blessings and peace of God be upon him) can at times save a whole nation. The Tawwabun (the Penitents) went and sat at the grave of Husayn ibn 'Ali, and for twenty-four hours, or forty-eight hours, or three days, did nothing but weep. What was the result of that weeping? The result of those weepings was that they made a pact of death and blood with one another. They said, "We will go into this battlefield, we will not turn back; we make a covenant that we will not return alive." This is the weeping for Imam Husayn. No one is opposed to this.
To utter with reverence the name of Husayn ibn 'Ali (the blessings of God be upon him) and of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) — no sane person is opposed to it, no Shi'ah; the Sunni too is not opposed, the unbeliever too is not opposed. Anyone who comes to know them confirms that the name of these ones must be uttered with reverence. On the twenty-third night I said here, for those of you who were present: a family whose inheritance is martyrdom, a family whose most precious keepsake is sacrifice and giving one's life in the way of God, a family whose every resource, whose whole being, is dedicated and devoted purely to God — should a human being not commemorate this family with reverence? He must do so.
I give you my word: go to Europe, to America, to any city of any unbeliever-land, to any land of foreigners-to-Islam, in any place where they have not even heard the name of Islam; say, "There was a man, his name was 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, his life-story is this." Begin to recount the life-story of the Commander of the Faithful from beginning to end in summary, and you will see that, in honor of this figure, in honor of this human being who has so many glories in his life, they will applaud, they will show respect, they will glorify, they will bow in reverence, and they will keep his name in their minds as a precious memorial from you. This is not peculiar to the Shi'ah. Have you now performed some great feat that, when you say "'Ali ibn Abi Talib," you say "peace be upon him" after it? Have you done some momentous thing? And do you imagine that wilayah means just this? What a great mistake. That wilayah which carries a human being to Paradise — this is not it. Of course, weeping over Imam Husayn can be counted as one of the corners, the branches, the very far-removed sections of the great principle of wilayah. A group of people, truly out of ignorance, and — God willing — out of ignorance and not out of malice, raise these issues. They raise the issue of weeping; the issue of, may I say, verbal enmities with the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt — not intellectual enmities; they raise issues of this sort; they raise the superficial issues of the chapter of wilayah and Shi'ism, and they confine wilayah to these; and how astonishing it is that they beat down the comprehenders of wilayah, the knowers of wilayah, and the possessors of wilayah with this very weapon. This is most amusing. They confine wilayah within a domain and a narrow, small precinct that is not worthy of this great Islamic principle.
Wilayah in a human being means an ever-greater and ever-increasing intellectual and practical attachment to the wali. Find the wali; come to know the wali of God, the one who is the rightful wali of the Islamic society; identify him; and after you have identified him, connect yourself to him personally, intellectually, in deed, in temperament, in path and method and manner; link yourself to him, bind yourself to him; set out after him, move. If your effort is his effort, your jihad his jihad, your friendship his friendship, your enmity his enmity, your front-formations his front-formations — then you possess wilayah. Two words, and easy. Did you grasp what I said? The person possessing wilayah is this: that he know the wali, know the thought of the wali, become of one mind with the wali, know the conduct of the wali, become of one deed with the wali, set out after him, make himself attached to the wali both in thought and in deed — this is [a person] with wilayah.
Which of you is ready to raise your hand and say, like a man, "I possess wilayah"? And which of us is ready to confess, like a man, that we did not possess complete wilayah? We confined wilayah to nothing but this — that in our hearts there is love of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and that we shed a single tear too for the Commander of the Faithful — even though our deeds are contrary to the deeds of 'Ali, our thought and our notions contrary to the thought and notions of 'Ali. Have we named this wilayah? We made up for ourselves a legend, a myth, a superstition, and gladdened our hearts with it; we reckoned ourselves to be among the friends and helpers (mawali) of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) and to be possessors of wilayah, and were happy that all that belongs to the friends of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, we reckon to be certainly and definitely ours. This is a great wrong; this is a great injustice against the right of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib. This is a great injustice against the right of Islam, since wilayah is for Islam; and this is a great injustice against the right of this great principle, the principle of wilayah. And we are not even willing to understand wilayah.
This — that Imam al-Sadiq (the blessings and peace of God be upon him) recognizes the worth of his friends, those who possess wilayah, and holds them in honor, and reckons wilayah to lie in deed, and says, "The one who possesses deed, he is our wali [friend]; the one who does not possess deed, he is our enemy" — this is based on this very thing. Since Imam al-Sadiq interprets wilayah in that way, since wilayah in the culture of Imam al-Sadiq is different from wilayah in the culture of that ignorant or malicious person who is living off the name of Imam al-Sadiq — these two are different from one another. Why should I and you not understand the meaning of wilayah? Why should we not deeply comprehend this Islamic principle, so that we may not remain, ever more, in stagnation and rigidity and torpor and backwardness and remoteness from Islam and remoteness from this world and the next — why? I fear that we may keep ourselves, in hope of Paradise, a lifetime in the hellfire of this world, and that at the moment when we give up our soul — which is the time for the embodiment of wishes and the realization of long and far-reaching hopes — there too there may be no trace of Paradise. How great a cause for regret that is. The wilayah of a human being is his absolute attachment and dependence upon the wali; he must be attached and joined — this is one.
And now, the wilayah of a society — in what does it consist? The wilayah of a society consists in this: that the wali in that society, first, be identified; that they know that this is the wali; this is one. Second, that he be the source and the inspirer of all the forces, energies, and activities of that society. That he be a pole from which all the streams and wellsprings flow down. That he be a center from which he issues all commands and by which he executes all laws. That he be a point to which all the threads and strings return, to which all look, after which all go. That he start up the engine of life in this society; that he be the driver and the vanguard of the caravan of life in the society. This society is a society possessing wilayah.
The Commander of the Faithful (the blessings of God be upon him), after the Prophet, did not hold the reins of the community in his hand for twenty-five years. The Islamic society, after the Prophet, for twenty-five years did not possess wilayah; it was finished and gone. In that society, Salman personally possessed wilayah, Abu Dharr personally possessed wilayah, Miqdad personally possessed wilayah, that other one personally possessed wilayah — but what of the Islamic society? The Islamic society, after the Prophet, for twenty-five years did not possess wilayah. Then the Commander of the Faithful reached the rule, and the Islamic society came to possess wilayah. How much of it? Exactly that much by which 'Ali, in that measure, in that portion, in that part, was the source and the inspirer and the bedrock of the commands and ordinances and gnoses and recognitions. The wilayah of a community is in this. Whenever the Imam rules in a society, when the Imam becomes the source of command and prohibition in the society, when all the threads issue from the Imam, when the Imam is actually administering the society, when it is the Imam who fastens the banner of war, when it is the Imam who gives the order of attack, when it is the Imam who writes the peace treaty — then the society is a society possessing wilayah; and otherwise, the society does not possess wilayah. This too is the society possessing wilayah.
Now, if you possess wilayah, give thanks to God; if you do not possess it, set out after it. If such a blessing rests upon your head, give thanks to God. There is no blessing greater than the blessing of wilayah. I will now explain for you how there is no blessing greater than wilayah. If you do not possess it, set out after it, secure wilayah within your own person and within human society. Try to live in the manner of 'Ali; let us try to set out after 'Ali; let us try to establish a bond between ourselves and 'Ali, who is the wali of God. These require striving, require effort, require struggle, require the consuming of heart's blood. And let me tell you that the rightly-guiding Imams (peace be upon them), after the martyrdom of the Commander of the Faithful, strove ceaselessly in the path of wilayah, ceaselessly. The whole effort of the Imams was for this: that they should bring wilayah to life, revive the Islamic society, and make this sapling — which has been planted in the name of "the human being" in this field, in this orchard, in this nursery — alive and verdant and flourishing with the wholesome water of the life-giving, life-creating wilayah. This was the effort of the Imams, by its own path, in the requisite form.
To strive for the wilayah of a society does not mean that we should sit and constantly wag our chins and constantly babble idly and curse Zayd and 'Amr, this one and that one. By these deeds, wilayah is not built; by these deeds, we fall farther from wilayah. The way is for us to strive to give power to the wali of Islam, to the wali whom God has named. Yesterday I specified what kind of being the wali whom God has named is. Yesterday I said: one wali God names by name, one wali God names by description. There is a case in which 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him), Hasan ibn 'Ali (peace be upon him), Husayn ibn 'Ali (peace be upon him), 'Ali ibn al-Husayn (peace be upon him), down to the last of the Imams, are specified by name and by particular characteristics; and there is a case in which, no, they are not specified by name; that very wali who has been specified by name says: As for the one among the jurists who is a guardian of his own soul, a protector of his religion, an opposer of his own caprice, obedient to the command of his Master…; in this way he specifies him. The wali is the wali; this one too is from God, that one too is from God. Only, that one they have specified by name, this one they have not specified by name; this one's characteristics they have stated. You yourself reckoned, measured, took the dimensions, set the pattern, and saw that — for example — His Eminence Grand Ayatollah Aqa Burujirdi fitted it. Did you take note? When a human being is resolved to bring to life and revive the Islamic laws and the divine ordinances in the society, in the form that wilayah dictates, then he goes searching and finds the way to it. He searches, and learns the methods and modes that the world lays upon the shoulder and around the neck of the human being. Now we are not discussing methods and modes; we are discussing the principle of it.
Then, if a society comes to possess wilayah, what happens? It is well that I say it in a single word: it is a corpse that will come to possess a soul. This single word is enough. Consider a corpse: it lies there lifeless. It has a brain — it does not work. It has eyes — it does not see. It has a mouth — it does not digest and swallow food. It has a stomach and a liver and a digestive apparatus, but it does not absorb food. It has veins, but the blood does not circulate in them; it has blood, and it does not circulate in it — why? Because it has no soul. It has hands, but it does not even repel this tiny ant from itself. It has feet, but it is not willing to move from the sun into the shade — it cannot. It is just a corpse, just a corpse. Once the soul is breathed in, the brain works, the nerves work, the hand grasps, the mouth eats, the stomach digests, the digestive system absorbs, the blood turns and circulates, conveys energy to the whole body, warms the body, sets it to striving — it walks, it crushes the enemy, it attracts friendships, it makes itself ever more perfect and more flourishing.
Place this parable before your eyes for the purpose of grasping the importance of wilayah in a society. Take away the dead corpse of the human being, set a human society in its place; take away the spirit, set wilayah in its place. A society that does not possess wilayah — the talents and capacities exist in this society, but they are either neutralized, wasted, destroyed, squandered, or, worse, set to work to the detriment of the human being. It has a brain and it thinks, but it thinks for the creating of corruption, thinks for the killing of human beings, thinks for the setting of the world ablaze, thinks toward making human beings wretched, thinks for the strengthening of the foundations of exploitation and oppression and despotism. The human being has eyes, but what it ought to see, it does not see, and what it ought not to see, it sees. It has ears, but it does not hear the word of truth; the nerves do not convey the word of truth to the brain. The brain issues no command in accordance with truth to the limbs and organs. The limbs and organs perform no deed in accordance with truth in the world. The conditions of the world give the human being no leave to act in accordance with truth. This is the society without wilayah.
In the society without wilayah, the lamps not only do not flare up and grow brighter, but even that little bit of oil they have is constantly being used up, being used up, until it is altogether dried out. The oils that the Prophet had poured at the foot of the lamps and torches of guidance — did you see how they dried up? Did you see how, in the days after the passing of the Prophet, [the lamp] would flare up, would illuminate, would give light? Its oil the Prophet had poured; but since the hand of wilayah was not above the head of these torches and lamps, did you see how its oil ran low, ran low, dried up, went bad, became foul-smelling, became full of smoke, became dim — reached the time of 'Uthman and was handed over to Mu'awiyah? Did you see what happened? The very things that Fatimah al-Zahra' (peace of God be upon her) said to the women of the Emigrants and the Helpers, and they did not listen in the early days; the very predictions that Fatimah al-Zahra' made, [which] the heedless Muslim people of that day could not understand and did not listen to — those very things were all carried out. That very (the cutting sword), that very blood-shedding sword, that very blade that slew authenticities and virtues, that very hand that strangled human beings and human virtues — all of these Fatimah al-Zahra' had foretold, and before Fatimah al-Zahra' the Prophet too had foretold. These ones saw, these ones understood, they spoke — the Islamic society did not understand. Ears grew heavy, grew deaf. Today too the voice of Fatimah al-Zahra' still reaches our ears. O sensitive and alert ears, do you hear?
The society possessing wilayah becomes a society that develops all human talents. All the things that God has given to the human being for his perfection and elevation, it brings to fruition. It makes the human sapling flourish. It brings human beings to perfection. It strengthens human virtues. In this society, the wali — that is, the ruler, the very one to whom all the reins return — makes the society, in terms of its general course, set upon the path of God and possessed of the remembrance of God. In terms of wealth, he brings about a just distribution of wealth. He tries to spread good things; he tries to wipe out evils and uproot them.
Those who, if We give them authority in the land… — this is a verse of the Qur'an; those who, if We firmly establish them in the land, if We make them firmly settled in the land — "they establish the prayer" — the remembrance of God; the prayer is a symbol of the godly orientation of a society — for the remembrance of God and for the attention toward God and the orienting toward God, they establish the prayer, they go toward God, they set their orientation in accordance with the orientation that God has pronounced and God has commanded. "And they pay the alms-due" — the just distribution of wealth; they give the zakat (alms-due). According to a likelihood and a conjecture that is in my mind, the zakat in the Qur'an has a far wider scope than what exists in people's minds. I deem it likely — of course this is only a likelihood, mind you, I myself do not yet have proper certainty about it, and you too should not take this as a certain matter — I deem it likely that the term zakat in the Qur'an encompasses all financial spendings and charitable givings. I have, of course, found some indications too, though not to the degree that I would be certain of this matter and could state it decisively. In any case, such a likelihood is in my mind.
"And they pay the alms-due" — and, generally and certainly, it means that they bring about a moderation in wealth, in view of the narrations that exist in the chapter of zakat which say that zakat is a cause of the moderating of wealth. "And they enjoin what is right" — the spreading of good things, the extending of good deeds. "And they forbid what is wrong" — the uprooting of evil things. We imagine that enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong means that I should command you, sir, not to do such-and-such bad deed, to do such-and-such good deed — only this commanding and telling. Whereas commanding and telling is [only] one of the manifestations of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong. They said to the Commander of the Faithful, "Why do you fight Mu'awiyah?" — its narration is lengthy, I will not read it. He said: "For the reason that enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong is obligatory." Listen carefully, draw the conclusion. Sir, what business do you have, after all, with Mu'awiyah in the Battle of Siffin? Go off toward Kufa, and let him too go off toward Syria. He said that God has made enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong obligatory. Imam Husayn rises up from Medina; "Sir, where are you going?" — I wish to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong — I wish to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong. See how wide and far-reaching is the circle and the scope [of it], and how small and constricted and narrow it is in our view. In any case, when wilayah was present in a society, these things too are carried out: the establishing of the prayer, the giving of the alms-due, the enjoining of the right, the forbidding of the wrong — in short, a lifeless frame finds soul and spirit and life.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 27 · 39:15
- Ep 28 — Concerning Wilayat (1)Session 26: Concerning Wilayat (1).
delivered Monday, 22 Mehr 1353 / 27 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Nisa' (4:58-59).
Indeed, Allah commands you to render the trusts to those to whom they are due, and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that with which Allah counsels you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing. O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you should dispute over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and best in outcome.
Today, continuing our previous discussions, we have decided to raise several issues from among the matters we encounter around the question of Wilayat. These are not part of that original framework — the statement of the position of this question itself. The discussion about Wilayat — what Wilayat is, where in the Qur'an it is derived from, how many dimensions, aspects, and sides it has — we already presented earlier. But there is a series of issues that are subsidiary to the question of Wilayat. And yet each of these matters, in its own place, is itself a fundamental and decisive issue — one that, like a principle, must guide the orientation of Islamic directions and determine the path of the Muslim society.
These several matters we will mention in order. Two of them we have noted on today's sheet, and one or two more, God willing, we will present tomorrow.
Here is the first. You established from the Qur'an that a Muslim society can preserve its internal bonds and negate its external dependencies — I repeat: preserve its internal bonds and negate its external dependencies — only if there exists a center within it, a concentrated power, to lead and administer everything: all the activities and efforts, all the orientations and stances of the various poles and factions of this society. And the name of this is the wali. The wali — with the doubled ya' — means the ruler, the sovereign. That is, the one from whom all forces must take their inspiration, to whom all affairs must return — in short, the one with whom the management of the Islamic society lies, both on the intellectual side and on the practical side. This one is called the wali. These things we established from the Qur'an. Now tell me, let us see: who is the wali of the Islamic society? Do we have a concise word for it, so that if they say to us, "Very well, now we wish to know the wali; who can be the wali? Which power is it to which all the forces of the Islamic society must return, which must exercise rule?" — if this question is put to us, do we have an answer or not?
Yes, we have. Of course, I have presented the answer to this matter, the response, from time to time within the previous discussions, and you yourselves know it too; it is not as though the matter were unknown. We wish, from the standpoint of logical method and the natural sequence of the subject, to have examined this too.
The Qur'an's answer here is a single word. It says: the one who is the true wali of the Islamic society is God. The ruler in the Islamic society, other than God Most High, is no one else. This is a matter that Tawhid too was telling us, that Prophethood too was establishing as a certainty for us; and now you see that Wilayat too tells us this same thing. Let me state this point in passing, then move on: the principles of a school and a doctrine must always be like this — each principle yielding a conclusion that the other principles also yield. It must not be that from one principle of the school we draw an inference whose opposite we infer from another. And unfortunately, in the Islam that lives today in the mind and heart of some simple-hearted Muslims, this is exactly what happens: from some of its principles, things are inferred that are exactly the opposite of what is deduced from others.
Therefore, the one who, in the Islamic society, has the right of command and prohibition and decree, and the right to execute commands, and the right to give orders and to determine the path of the society, and, in short, the right of rule over all the particulars of human beings' lives, is God: And Allah is the wali of the believers.
I have traced the verses in the Qur'an that contain the expression wali and awliya'. I made an approximately summary study of them all, and I saw that this expression is among the Qur'an's established certainties — that God is the wali of the Islamic society, that the believers have no wali and helper other than God, that God must be the ruler of all the affairs of mankind. Of course, the brothers are aware of this; but nonetheless it is good for me to bring it to the attention of some in whose minds the matter might become confused. The discussion is not about the creational (takwini) sovereignty of the Lord; that is preserved in its own place — it is clear that God Most High arranges the revolution of the earth and the sky by His overpowering will. The discussion is about this: that the laws of human life, and the individual and social relations of human society, must take their inspiration from God too. That is, the legal ruler and sovereign in the divine, Islamic, Qur'anic society — in the shade of the Islamic order — is God alone. This order we always refer to as the Alawi order. And this is an expression that I would like to remain in minds: the Alawi order, the Alawi government — this order whose name we set down as the Alawi order and the Islamic order, and "the Qur'anic society" can be a name for it for us too. In such a society and such an order, the ruler is God alone.
Well, here we arrive at another matter: "Sir, what does it mean that the ruler is God? God Most High does not come face to face with the people so as to command and prohibit. Human beings need a human being to govern over them; a human being is necessary to take the reins of human affairs into his hand." When I say "a human being," I do not insist on the "one"; I do not wish to negate collective leadership — no. A human being is necessary to take the reins of human affairs into his hand. Otherwise the order of human society would again be disrupted. Suppose that, in human and social society, there were only law — even law from God's side — but no commander, in the expression of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, which I shall now present; no sovereign, or no body to exercise sovereignty; in short, no overseer over the execution of the law. Then the order would collapse. Who is this human being to be?
That human being, or those human beings, who are to be — over mankind and human society — to practically exercise sovereignty, to practically be the wali of the society, to practically take charge of the Wilayat of the society — who are these to be? The answer of the various schools to this question has been varied. The answer of historical realities to this question too has been varied. One group has said: al-mulk li-man ghalab — "Sovereignty belongs to whoever conquers"; that is, the law of the jungle. One group has said: whoever has the greater management. One group has said: whoever is accepted by the people. One group has said: whoever is from such-and-such a dynasty. One group has said other things; they have expressed other logics and approaches and tastes.
The answer of religion and the school of religion to this question is this: Your wali is only Allah and His Messenger…
The one who practically takes the rein of command and of command-and-prohibition into his hand in the society, on behalf of the Lord of the world, is His Messenger. Therefore, in a society, when a Prophet has come, it makes no sense that, with the Prophet present, a ruler other than the Prophet should govern over the people. "Prophet" means precisely the one who must take the rein of power in the society into his hand, who must be the ruler. When the Prophet departed from this world, what is the duty? When the Prophet of God, like all other human beings, departed from this world and surrendered his soul to the Soul-Creator, what do we do there? Again a verse of the Qur'an answers this matter: …and those who have believed — the believers are your wali.
Which believers? Whoever believes in the school of religion is the wali and ruler of the Islamic society? Well, this would require that we have, to the number of all believing souls, a ruler! What do we do here? Believers who have a special sign. It is evident that the verse of the Qur'an, while it wishes to designate a particular person, to put its finger upon a specific, known human being and say "your ruler is this one," also wishes, implicitly, to provide the criterion. Pay attention! It wishes that human being who, in the view of the Lawgiver and the legislator of Islam, is specified — it wishes to give him rule over the people; but at the same time it also wishes to state the criterion: the reason we said your ruler should be this one is this criterion. This is the cause of his being chosen by the Lord, or of his being appointed by the Lord. Therefore it says: And those who have believed — those who have believed, whose faith is correct, for the requirement of the absoluteness of "have believed" is that correct faith is intended, not outward faiths. Those who, throughout their lives, showed that they believed; those who, with their own deeds, signed their faith.
So "those who have believed" — the first condition is that they be truly believers. It has other conditions too: Those who establish the prayer — those believers who establish the prayer, not those who merely perform the prayer. Performing the prayer is one thing; establishing the prayer is another thing.
If they had wished to say "they perform the prayer," they could have said yusallun; an expression that is both shorter and more concise.
The establishment of the prayer in a society means that the spirit of the prayer comes alive there, that the society becomes a praying society. And you know what a praying society is: one in which, in all its corners and edges, the remembrance of God and the recollection of God surge completely. And you know that in a society where the remembrance of God surges, no catastrophe occurs — no crime, no treachery, no blow against human values. That society in which the remembrance of God surges, in which the people are mindful of God — its orientation is a divine orientation; in this society, all the people's deeds are done for God.
The cause of thefts, the cause of degradations, the cause of injustices, the cause of submitting to injustice — from both sides — the cause of the transgressions that occur, and likewise the cause of submitting to the transgressions that occur, is entirely remoteness from the recollection of God and the remembrance of God. That society which possesses the remembrance of God — its ruler is like 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, blessings of God upon him, who does not commit injustice and crushes injustice; its subject is like Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, who, even though he is beaten, even though he is exiled, even though he is threatened, even though he remains a stranger and friendless, yet does not submit to the burden of injustice, does not turn back from the path of God. This is the society in which the remembrance of God exists, this is the society in which the establishment of the prayer exists.
The believer who, in the society, establishes the prayer, who sets the orientation of the society toward God, who makes the divine remembrance current and established in the society: Those who establish the prayer.
But it does not even end here, the wali: And they give the zakat — they distribute wealth justly, they are among those who spend in the way of God.
And following it, it says: And while they are bowing — they give the zakat while they are in the state of bowing (ruku').
This is an indication of a particular case and a particular story. I have heard, and I know, the words that some of the other commentators have said — they have said that "and while they are bowing" means that these people are always in the state of bowing, and that it is not a reference to a particular event. But the spirit of Arabness and of knowing Arabic negates this possibility. "And while they are bowing" means: in the state of bowing they give the zakat. This too confirms that very matter that I presented yesterday — which comes to my mind as a possibility, which I suppose: that "zakat" is the absolute of all acts of charity (infaqat); because the ring that the Commander of the Faithful gave while in the state of bowing was not the technical zakat — it was a charity in the way of God, and the term "zakat" has been applied to it.
And they give the zakat while they are bowing — meaning a human being so attached to equality, so devoted to charitable spending, for whom the sight of poverty and the poor is so painful, that he does not wait for his prayer to finish, lest this beggar leave and another poor one come. He gives his only and sole ring — he says, "Let me set it aside, then I will give it." So great is this human being's attraction toward charity, so absorbed is this man in the path of fulfilling this duty, that he has no patience to wait, no room to bear it. He has seen a poor one, has seen a poverty, has seen an appearance that God does not love — he too does not love it — and he has nothing but the ring; so, in the state of the prayer, he takes it off and gives it to the beggar.
This is a reference to a special and specific episode in history, which the Commander of the Faithful, blessings of God upon him, brought about; that is, this noble one was in the state of prayer, a poor one came, and this noble one gave charity, and the verse was revealed. So, as you observe, the verse designates 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, by way of indication, as the wali of the affair (waliyy al-amr). But not in the manner of history's bullies. When, say, Mu'awiya wishes to designate a successor for himself, he says, "This son is my successor; he is my child, so he must, after me, reach this station." God Most High does not designate a successor for the Prophet in this way. He says 'Ali ibn Abi Talib must reach government after the Prophet, because the qualification for government exists in him to an intense degree. What is it? Complete faith in God, the establishment of the prayer in the society, attachment to charity and the giving (ita') of zakat to the point of being beside oneself. While appointing the successor, while designating the successor — who is 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him — it also clarifies the criterion, the linchpin, and the philosophy of his caliphate. This is a verse of the Qur'an.
Therefore, in Islam, the waliyy al-amr is the one who is the envoy of God, the one whom God Himself designates; because the premise is that no human being, by the very nature of his creation and formation, has the right of rule over other human beings.
The only one who has the right of rule is God; and since God has the right of rule, God can, according to the welfare of human beings, give this right to whomever He wills. And we know that the work of God is not outside of welfare, is not dictatorship, is not bullying and coercion; the work of God is according to the welfare of human beings. Since it is according to the welfare of human beings, therefore He designates and we submit. He designates the Prophet, He designates the Imam; after the Imam, He designates those who conform to particular criteria and qualifications. The one who possesses this quality, possesses this quality, possesses this quality — He designates qualities and says: these, after the rightly-guiding, infallible Imams, are the rulers over the Islamic society. So the wali is designated by God: He Himself is the wali, His Prophet is the wali, the Imams are the wali. The Imams of the Prophet's household have been appointed — twelve Imams. In the rank after that, those who conform to and match particular criteria and qualifications — they have been designated for government and caliphate. The question regarding the designation of the wali in Islam is this.
Of course, this was one verse that I mentioned for you; there are other verses in the Qur'an too, some of which we have brought on this sheet, and some you must search out and find for yourselves in your own Qur'an. We have many verses here.
That upon which emphasis is placed in Islam is this: that the rein of the people's affairs not fall into the hands of those who drag human beings to hell. Did history not show us this matter? Did we not see what they did to the Islamic society a little after the radiant dawn of the beginning of Islam, and what happened, and what befell this society? That society in which the people do not recognize the worth of good men, that society in which the people mistake the criteria of goodness, that society in which the people cannot recognize the one who is their reformer and their compassionate counselor — how much must have been worked upon this society for it to have reached this point and to have acquired such a condition? The apparatuses of unjust and tyrannical power had loosed a poisonous propaganda within the Islamic society. It so changed the horizon of the people's knowledge and insight, it did such a thing to them, that they were as if they saw black as white and white as black; they had come into such a state. It was for this reason that, in the second and third centuries of the Hijra, when one looks at history, one sees the atrocities of the apparatus of power and caliphate, and one sees the heedlessness and indifference of the people, and one is astonished. Are these the same people? Are these the same people who, before 'Uthman, did not show patience, who surrounded him from all sides and then, finally, with that gruesome circumstance, removed and deposed him from the caliphate? Are these the same ones? Are these the same ones who now, on the wedding night of the Abbasid caliph, see an enormous expenditure being poured out — an expenditure that could have administered a vast section of the Islamic society? They see on what debaucheries it is spent, for what kinds of things it is consumed, how the treasury of the Muslims (bayt al-mal) is spent on personal matters. I am not concerned with whether it is right or wrong; it is a personal matter — it is money for a thousand persons, and a single person spends it only on himself. We do not say he spends it on his own debauchery — no indeed, even if he spends it on his own prayer and fasting, is this act permissible? And they saw that, in the very fabric of the reality of the Islamic society, this act was being done, and yet, at the same time, they were heedless and uninformed.
Perhaps I have once said this: that on the wedding night of Ja'far al-Barmaki, the beloved vizier of Harun al-Rashid — he was a young man of twenty-eight or nine, thirty years old, Ja'far al-Barmaki. When Ja'far al-Barmaki departed from the world, he was thirty-four or five years old, when they killed him. At the peak of his popularity Ja'far became a son-in-law — Harun al-Rashid too had abundant affection for Ja'far al-Barmaki — on the wedding night, in place of the sweets (nuql) that they scatter over the bride and groom, the noble, high-ranking guests of the rank of the Barmakis and Harun al-Rashid saw that some things were scattered over the bride and groom. When they went near and picked them up — well, they had been scattered, they picked them up, they picked up two, three, five — they saw, yes, these are not sweets, nor are they coins. They looked carefully: they are delicate little boxes the size of a fingertip; they are boxes, made of pure gold; then, when you opened the box, from inside it came out a paper, a very thin and delicate paper. When you unfolded this paper, you saw — how astonishing! — it became a large sheet. You read the sheet, and you saw that on this sheet, the decree of ownership of such-and-such a part of the country had been given to you. It is a decree of land-grant (iqta'), it is a decree of fiefdom (tiyul).
In a single night, God knows, five hundred, eight hundred, a thousand decrees of fiefdom on very thin papers, in golden boxes, were scattered over a bride and groom, and people picked them up whom the caliph did not know who they would be. For example, suppose that the estates of the broad plain of such-and-such a region fell to a child, fell to the hand of a drunkard, fell to the hand of a knife-wielder, fell to the hand of an incompetent man. These the caliph no longer knew; he had scattered them — whoever took whatever, plundered it, picked it up, went off, devoured, carried away. But in that region whose land-grant has now fallen to the hand of this man, how many people will be trampled, how much wealth will be wasted, how many rights will be lost, ruined and trampled — these they did not think about. See to what degree class disparity reaches in those very circumstances. In those very circumstances in which these gifts and grants are being made, these extravagances and luxuries carried out — Yahya the Alawi was in the mountains of Tabaristan, fighting against injustice and oppression. He and his wife had only one single garment between them: the husband would take it at the time of prayer and wear it, then give it to the woman so that she might cover her body and perform the prayer. The household of the Prophet, who were fighting against injustice, were passing their lives in such a condition — and these people saw, and were indifferent.
My complaint is not against Harun, there is no grievance against Harun. If Harun does not do these things, he is not Harun. Harun's class dictates that, as long as this class exists, it does such work; there is no grievance against him. The grievance is against the people who had forgotten the sensitivity of the early days of Islam, who had lost the alertness and understanding that they had in the early days of Islam, who, in the face of this situation, did not feel any duty, did not feel any responsibility, did not feel any pain. What is this for? It is because the harmful, malicious, vile propaganda had so worked upon the people. These propagandistic hands and propaganda apparatuses, in the regions of the Islamic society and the Islamic country, had for years worked upon the people's brains, upon the people's souls, upon the people's spirits — they had worked and worked until it had come to this point. So you see how important it is who the ruler of the Islamic society is. He must be the one whom God designates: Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you.
What does "the possessors of command" (ulu al-amr) mean? The ignorant, foolish one who bears the name of Muslim imagines that "possessor of command" means anyone who can give commands, anyone whose force prevails for giving commands; he says this is the ulu al-amr. We say: no, that is not the ulu al-amr. If it were to be that whoever can give a command is the ulu al-amr and is recognized as legitimate by the Qur'an, well, then in such-and-such a mountain, such-and-such a dagger-girt bandit with a mustache stretching to his ears also gives commands — he too is the all-powerful one there; so is he there the ulu al-amr? And is obedience to his command obligatory?
The one who commands everyone that, for three days and three nights, only women should come out of the houses and the men have no right to come out of the houses — this was instituted by one of these very grandees of the Safavid era, according to the account of some of the histories, if it is true; in the Safavid era he instituted it, and it became instituted in Isfahan. An eyewitness of the episode wrote a [book of] history — now I do not know whether that history is reliable or not — only women should come out, in the covered markets and caravanserais and shops and bazaars and everywhere and everywhere, women and girls should come and work, the men should not come. Is there to be no man in this city? Well, the women are supposedly at ease without any non-mahram (na-mahram) about — no indeed: the master himself and his friends and companions and those around him, they may come. The people whose mother and sister are in the bazaar — they have no right to come; these may come. Well, is the command of this one the command of God? Is he the ulu al-amr? Can one obey this? The ulu al-amr in which the Shia believes is the one whose charter of command God has issued in his name; this is what we want. He is a human being among the other human beings — "from among you" (minkum) — yet he has received the Wilayat from God. The possessor of the supreme Wilayat (wilayat al-kubra) is God, and it is from God that he has received it.
Now, Harun al-Rashid, with that condition of his, with that "broken neck" of his, with that lavishness and extravagance, with that man-killing of his — who massacred this very Ja'far al-Barmaki and many of his household in a single day, with slaughter and uprooting and extermination, and many of the believers and many of the Muslims; and, to whatever extent God wills, yet other deeds — well, this is the one whom Abu Hanifa used to say is the ulu al-amr. With Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, too, there was always strife and war and dispute, for precisely this reason: they used to say, "Sir, why do you fall out with the ulu al-amr of your time?" The ulu al-amr of the time meaning this same notorious Harun — you noticed?
So the logic of the Shia in this question is a very subtle and precise logic. While it senses and infers the appointment by God from the Qur'an, it also gives the criteria and qualifications into the hands of the people, so that the people may not be deceived. They should not say, "Very well, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib — upon our head, upon our eye, we accept him; and now too the successor of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is Harun al-Rashid." Yes, they should not speak in this way — as in fact this speech used to be spoken. The Banu al-'Abbas had a chain of descent which, on occasion, also reached 'Ali ibn Abi Talib or reached the Prophet! They should not say, "We accept 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, and his successorship too finally reached Harun al-Rashid — it reached, by succession, all the way to Harun al-Rashid." Mansur the Abbasid used to say, "We accept Imam Hasan, the caliph; but he took money and sold the caliphate." It is the logic of Mansur the Abbasid, isn't it! Since he sold the caliphate, he therefore has no right to the caliphate. And we too, from those to whom the caliphate had been sold, took the caliphate by force — it belongs to us. This is their argument. So they would even accept 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, would set him upon their head, upon their eye, by outward appearance; yet, at the same time, they saw no contradiction between the government of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and the government of Harun the Abbasid.
The Shia says: no, this speech is not correct. The Shia says: you who accept the government of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib must also accept the criteria of caliphate and Wilayat. You must accept that 'Ali ibn Abi Talib was chosen as wali because of the assembling of these criteria; so if someone — these criteria were not in him, or the opposite of these criteria was in him — this man has no right to introduce himself as the successor of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib. He has no right to claim the Wilayat of the Shia, the being of the waliyy al-amr; and no one has the right to accept it from him. This is the first matter that arises in this domain, around the question of Wilayat.
Of course, the second matter too we have indicated here, and we have also written its verse. What is the Wilayat of God for? If someone should ask this — should say, "Sir, on what proof do you say: why is the Wilayat of the affair in God's hands and for God? Why?" — the answer is that it arises from a natural philosophy specified and determined in the worldview of Islam. In the worldview of Islam, everything in the world arises from the power of the Lord: And to Him belongs whatever rests in the night and the day.
Well, the one to whom all the phenomena of creation belong, and in whose hand the creational rule over everything lies, the legal and legislative (tashri'i) rule too must lie in his hand — there is no alternative. This too is the second matter, until we reach its subsequent matters. Now pay attention; let me, quickly, give the meaning of these verses. Indeed, Allah commands you to render the trusts to those to whom they are due, and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Indeed, Allah — excellent is that with which He counsels you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing.
That which He commands you is out of complete hearing and awareness and knowledge. Because He is the Hearer of your inner needs, because He is the Seer of your destiny, therefore that which you need, He gives and bestows upon you.
That first verse, which speaks about the trust and says "render the trusts to those to whom they are due," is in reality a preparation of the ground for the second verse. The trust is not only that I have one toman of yours in my hand and you say, "Return this one toman to me." The most important example of the trust is that the human being should convey God's trust among the people to its place and to those to whom it is due. That trust is the human being's obedience — the covenant and pact of God with man. He should expend it and spend it in its place; he should obey God and obey the one whom God has commanded be obeyed. This is the most important instance of the trust.
Then He says: O you who have believed, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you — the possessors of command from among yourselves.
Here the Islamic thesis (tez), with some of the other theses and ideas, makes its differentiator and point of divergence apparent. The Islamic thesis does not say that there will be a day when government is not necessary — no; the Islamic idea does not foresee that day on which, in society, there is no state and government — no indeed; whereas some schools foresee that day on which society is the ideal society, and one of its characteristics is that there is no longer state and government in that society. No; Islam does not foresee this.
The Khawarij, under the pretext of divine government, were the ones who used to say that 'Ali ibn Abi Talib must not rule. They used to say, "la hukma illa li-llah" — "rule belongs to none but God." The Commander of the Faithful, in answer to this, says: "kalimatu haqqin yuradu biha batil" — a word, a true word, but falsehood is intended by it. The speech is correct: the ruler is truly God; the one who gives the regulations and takes the rein of life into His hand is truly God. But you say "la hukma illa li-llah" or you say "la imrata illa li-llah" — law and rule belong to God; who is the executor of the law? Do you also say that other than God, no one should be the executor of the law? Then, therefore, in answer to this speech, He says: "la budda li-l-nasi min amir" — in the end, humanity and human society needs a commander (amir), needs a ruler and sovereign. This is human nature: that one's life must be accompanied by an executor of the law; the existence of the law is not sufficient — there must be someone to execute this law and to oversee the precise and correct execution of this law. This is what it says: And those in authority among you
— however, the ulu al-amr: is it the absolute ulu al-amr? Whoever commands is correct? Sometimes it may happen that, in a single place, two persons command against each other — are both of them ulu al-amr? Sometimes it may happen that a man commands whom the human intellect and reason negates as a commander — is he still ulu al-amr? It is here that, between us and the mode of thought of Sunnism, an essential disagreement arises. We say: the ulu al-amr, the possessor of command, is that possessor of command who conforms to the divine criteria. Whereas they, in practice, do not impose such a condition. Now, what is in their jurisprudential books, I have not made a proper reference to see. That which is widespread on tongues and in mouths is this: that no — whoever reaches the station of command and sovereignty is respected and authoritative for them. And if you should dispute over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is best, and best in outcome.
You see, He directs the people to the good consequences of the sovereignty of the good, and the evil consequences of the sovereignty of the bad. This too is one verse.
Following it is the third verse. It is a reproach to those who turn their heads away from this general command: Have you not seen those who claim that they have believed in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you — they imagine that they have faith in your religion and the religion of your predecessors, the heavenly religions; they suppose themselves believers. Despite supposing themselves believers, an act issues from them that is contrary to faith in God.
What is that? "They wish to refer judgment to the Taghut" — they wish to take their disputes for arbitration (tahakum) to the Taghut; that is, for the resolution and settlement of their own affairs they refer to the Taghut, they seek the Taghut's view, they take command, and according to his view, his command, they conduct their lives. This is contrary to faith: They wish to refer judgment to the Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it. And Satan wishes to lead them far astray — a misguidance and bewilderment exceedingly far.
I consider it probable that this Satan is the very Taghut itself, nothing else. These people wish to go after the Taghut, heedless that this Taghut-Satan — this Satan that is known under the title of Taghut in the Qur'an — leads them far from the straight path, until it takes their heads out into the valleys of the wilderness (tih) of bewilderment, out of misguidances. The Taghut, the Satan, throws them so far from the road that their return is no matter of a bit or two; it is with much difficulty that they may, then, return to the straight path of guidance. This is a verse of the Qur'an.
Of course, the next matter that we have written here, I present exactly as I have written it: "The Wilayat of God and its acceptance on the part of the believers arises from a philosophy that has been ordained in the worldview of Islam, and therefore it is a natural matter." That is, this that we say — that one must obey God, and the waliyy al-amr is God — this has a clear natural philosophy. Because everything belongs to God, which the verse And to Him belongs whatever rests in the night and the day. clarifies properly.
God willing, tomorrow we will again continue the sequel of this discussion.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 28 · 38:06
- Ep 29 — Concerning Wilayat (2)Session 27: Concerning Wilayat (2).
delivered Tuesday, 23 Mehr 1353 / 28 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Nahl (16:98-100).
So when you recite the Qur'an, seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. Indeed, he has no authority over those who have believed and rely upon their Lord. His authority is only over those who take him as their guardian and who associate others with Him.
Today, by means of these verses, we want to establish and explain one point. We have already come to understand that every Muslim — everyone who claims to be a servant of God — must regard the master of his own life as coming from God. The ruler, the one in charge of all the activity and striving of his entire lifespan: he must seek that from God, surrender his head to the wali whom God appoints and designates, and give the hand of obedience to the wali of God. In short: in all the activities of life, one must recognize as governor and ruler only God, and whoever God has chosen to be His own deputy. Of course, we have already discussed this question too — who exactly are those whom God has chosen to be His deputies. We said that they are the prophets, and after the prophets, the awliya' — the very ones whom you also know by the name of awliya'; that is to say, the divine rulers and governors. However, we said that the wali and the divine ruler is designated in one of two ways: either with both name and description, or else not designated by name but designated by a description. These were the matters that became clear in the course of yesterday's discussion, and perhaps somewhat in the day before that as well.
Here is the matter under consideration today. Suppose someone does not accept the wilayat of God and goes under the command of other than God. First, what is the ruling concerning this person himself? Second, what is the name of this act? Third, what is the outcome of this deed? These are the discussions that we said belong to the topics surrounding wilayat. True, once we have accepted wilayat in our minds and embraced it, it comes to be counted among the established principles of practical Islam; and within the framework of the discussion about the principle of wilayat, these issues become secondary, peripheral, and subsidiary matters. Yet in themselves they are matters of principle.
In the Noble Qur'an, every wilayat other than the wilayat of God has been introduced as the wilayat of the Taghut. Whoever is not under the wilayat of God is under the wilayat of the Taghut. What does Taghut mean? Taghut is from the root tughyan. Tughyan means to rebel, to transgress — to go beyond that natural and innate boundary and circle of a human being's life. For example, suppose that humanity came into being in order to reach perfection; whoever causes humanity to fall short of reaching perfection is a Taghut. Suppose human beings ought to live by the religion of God — this is an innate matter, natural and in accordance with the very disposition of human beings. If someone brings people up in such a way, does something to them, exercises such control over them that they come to live by a religion other than God's, this person is a Taghut. A human being must always be in earnest effort and striving to bring his own existence to fruition. Any factor that encourages and incites a human being toward lack of seriousness, toward not striving, toward laziness, toward ease-seeking, toward seeking comfort and safety — that is a Taghut. Human beings must be obedient to the command of God; anything that draws a human being aside from the command of God, takes him out of it, causes a human being to rebel in the face of God — that is a Taghut.
So Taghut is not a proper name — as some imagine, that Taghut is the name of a particular idol. Yes, it is the name of an idol, but that idol is not one specific idol. Sometimes that idol is you yourself; sometimes that idol is your money; sometimes that idol is your ordinary, comfort-seeking life; sometimes that idol is your object of desire; sometimes that idol is the person into whose hand you placed your own hand, closing your eyes and bowing your head so that he may take you wherever he takes you. Sometimes this idol is gold and silver — it is inanimate, it is metal; sometimes it is a human being — it is alive; it is a social order; it is a law. Taghut, therefore, is not a proper name. (Of course, in connection with the social classifications I mentioned in the discussion of prophethood — the way one infers it from among the Qur'anic verses — alongside the mala' and the mutrafin and the ahbar and the ruhban, the Taghut is the rank above all these. That is a different interpretation and a different place, which we are not discussing for now.) Therefore, anyone who has left from under the wilayat of God has inevitably entered into the wilayat of the Taghut and of Satan.
What is the relationship between Satan and the Taghut? Do they have a relationship with each other? Yes — and they have more than a relationship. Satan is the very Taghut; the Taghut is the very Satan. The verse of the Qur'an says this. I want to recite the verse only for a verbal inference, so that it may become clear that Taghut is equivalent to Satan. The verse of the Qur'an says: Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Taghut; so fight against the allies of Satan — indeed, the plotting of Satan is weak. Those who have believed do their fighting and struggle in the way of God; those who have disbelieved in and rejected the religion, their fighting and their war is in the way of the Taghut. Then He says: fight, oppose, and combat the awliya', the comrades, the adherents, and the dependents of Satan — for the scheme of Satan, the contrivance of Satan, is weak.
In this verse you see that Taghut is named in place of Satan, and Satan in place of Taghut. Satan is every element that, from outside the human being's existence, drives him toward wicked deeds, toward corrupting deeds, toward degradation, toward baseness, toward abjectness, toward oppression, toward evil, toward crookedness — this is called Satan. We have satans among humankind, satans among the jinn; we have a satan among kin and women, a satan among the great, a satan among strangers, a satan among the emotions — this is what is called Satan. One of the instances and examples of it is Iblis, who, in the face of Adam, the Chosen of God, stood up in opposition and independence, made his claim of superior knowledge, and said those words. Whatever curses you and I utter throughout our lifetimes, we curse that poor wretch, the first Satan — whereas Satan was not only him; perhaps it did not begin with him, nor did it end with him. There are satans without number in the world. They can even be touched, they come within reach, they come within sight; a human being is sometimes even in their company. Satan is Satan. Whatever drags a human being from the path of God toward corruption and wickedness and evil and degradation is Satan.
Every wilayat that is not God's is a satanic and taghuti wilayat. Whoever does not live under the command of the true wali must know that he is living under the command of the Taghut and of Satan. You may ask: Sir, what harm is there in living under the command of Satan and the Taghut and submitting to his command? This is one of the points of today's verses, and on it the Qur'an gives us several answers.
The first answer is this: if you submit to the wilayat of Satan, he will gain mastery over all the creative, generative, fruit-bearing energies of your existence. Turn your neck toward Satan and the Taghut, let him cast the rope of his wilayat around your neck, and you will no longer find any deliverance from his hand. Whatever exists within you — of strength, of initiative, of constructive activity, and of radiant manifestations — will come under the grip of the Taghut and of Satan. And once your entire existence has come into his grip, he can then easily drag you and take you along the very road that he himself wants, to the very place that he himself wants, by the very means that he himself wants. And it is plain that Satan and the Taghut do not guide a human being toward light, knowledge, ease, welfare, and spirituality. These things are not his aim. For Satan and the Taghut, his own personal interests are the primary aim, and he wants to secure them; so he puts you to work in the path of his own personal interests.
Pay attention to this sequence I have laid out. These words and these sentences are carefully calculated, with a meaning beneath every sentence — and you will see how greatly it corresponds with the historical realities, from the beginning of recorded history down to today. If you have submitted to the wilayat of the Taghut, all your forces, energies, initiatives, and talents fall into the grip of the Taghut; and once they have fallen into the grip of the Taghut, they are not put to work for your benefit, because your benefit is of no concern to the Taghut and Satan. For Satan, he himself is what matters; his interests are what matter; his path is what matters. If, on that path and for those interests, you are sacrificed, then you are sacrificed; if you are led astray, then you are led astray. If, to secure those interests, it becomes necessary for you to be sacrificed, then you must be sacrificed; if it becomes necessary for you to be led astray, then you must go astray. He is Satan, after all; the power is in his hands, and you, who have given yourself into his hands, are dragged wherever it pleases him.
This is the verse of the Qur'an — this verse that I am reciting for you from Surat al-Nisa' — a verse very worthy of attention and reflection. I myself am less in the habit of reading the Qur'an without attention and reflection. Yet at times, when I apply a greater reflection and find and sense something fresh in the Qur'an, I am all the more grieved that we still reflect so little upon it. This verse, which we have written down here, which we have rendered, and which I will also explain now:
And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We give him over to what he has turned to. Whoever rises up in dispute and contention with the Prophet after the path of guidance has become clear to him — separating himself from the Messenger, branching his road off from the road of prophethood, the very road that we earlier mapped out for you — and follows a way other than the way of the believers and the Islamic community and the goals of faith, withdrawing himself from the company of the upright, purposeful, directed Muslim: that very thing which he himself has cast around his own neck, We make fast upon his neck. That very wilayat which he himself accepted with his own hand, We make the fixed coloring of his wretched life. With his own hand he had gone to that region and taken up residence there; We make him stay right there, broken-footed. Indeed, Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves. You yourself went and gave your reins over to Satan; so let these reins remain in the hand of Satan. This is Our way; this is the law of creation.
This — for this world of yours — and for that world of yours, what is the consequence? "And We will burn him in Hell"; from here, once you have closed your eyes, you will go straight to the Hell of the Lord's wrath and the everlasting torment of God. When a human being looks at history, he sees that it is exactly so. These are very important matters — important social matters. We have worked very little on the Qur'an from this standpoint, and we have applied it very little to the history of Islam. How good it would be if people who possess the gift of reflection — those interested in the Qur'an, and especially in its social and historical matters — would reflect and ponder more. And if they then applied these to historical realities, it would become clear which interpretations and historical accounts conform to reality. This historical piece is an interpretation of this verse.
Of course, you know it is not my custom in gatherings of this kind to recount history; today I want to recount a bit of history. The city of Kufa is one of the most remarkable cities in the history of Islam. You hold several kinds of memories of Kufa. What I am about to say is nothing new concerning Kufa. You remember that Kufa is the place that the Commander of the Faithful, among all the Islamic lands and the cities attached to the great Islamic realm, chose for his caliphate. This is one positive point, as the gentlemen say. Again you remember that the people of Kufa took part in the wars of the Commander of the Faithful: they brought the Battle of the Camel to its conclusion; they finished the Battle of Nahrawan; in the Battle of Siffin too it was the tribes around Kufa and certain other tribes — and these very fighting men of that city — who brought that war to its conclusion, to where it reached. Again, in another place, you remember that it was these very people of Kufa about whom the Commander of the Faithful would complain and grumble: why is it that when I say, "Come to battle," you do not come? Again, it was these very people whose notables wrote letters and went into the service of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (the blessings of God be upon him): "Sir, come; we will hand this city over to you completely, at your disposal" — yet he did not come. Again, it was these very people whose notables wrote a letter to al-Husayn ibn 'Ali (peace be upon him): "Indeed, we have no Imam" — we have no Imam, we have no leader, we have no ruler, and God has set this tyrant in authority over us; so you come. And they were telling the truth: Sulayman ibn Surad, Habib ibn Mazahir, Muslim ibn 'Awsaja, and others. And again, it was these very people who came, in a most unequal and unbalanced battle, and lined up against al-Husayn ibn 'Ali (peace be upon him), and that catastrophe took place. Again, it was these very people who, a little later, brought about an episode in history that is among the very rare and glorious examples in the history of Islam: the episode of the Tawwabun (the Penitents). They went out with the intent of going to sacrifice their lives and to repent for not having reached the episode of 'Ashura' and the event of Karbala. And again, it was these very people among whom the seed of most of the revolts of the Umayyad and the Abbasid periods was sown, and sprouted, and came to fruition. How many martyrs they gave, how many slain they gave, how many splendid, brilliant, glory-bringing, glory-displaying deeds they brought forth from themselves! And again, it is these very people in whom — in certain affairs — you find slackness and laziness and weaknesses and the spiritual and intellectual incapacities that meet the eye.
What is this, then? Did these people have two kinds of character, two spirits, two faces? The very ones to whom Zaynab the Great says: "O people of Kufa, O people of deceit and treachery," recalling them as a treacherous folk. This is a problem; the matter of Kufa is a problem. In my view, a study of Kufa and a discussion of the psychology of the city of Kufa in history would be a very interesting discussion — if someone were equal to this task. Let the specialists, the sociologists, the psychologists sit down and talk about Kufa, think about it, discuss it, and see what a strange creature this is: in one place, all that astonishment in displaying the great manifestations of humanity; in one place, all this slackness and laziness and incompetence. What is it, then? Are the Kufans two classes? Does the society of Kufa have two aspects and two faces?
Kufa is a region that was so shaped and so tempered under the command of the dignified, eloquent words of the Commander of the Faithful, that whatever it nurtures, whatever it brings up green, is a sapling fit to be cultivated. This sowing-ground — its every shoot, its every nurtured thing, its every seedling — is altogether of fertile soil and life-giving climate; the very ground and air are human-making. That is why the great epic-creating men of the history of Shiism are, more than anywhere else, even more than Medina, in Kufa. On account of what? On account of the teachings and the instilling of the Commander of the Faithful during those very four years. It is no trifle that someone like 'Ali ibn Abi Talib should govern in a city. It is true that this government, in the span of four years, at the level of the Islamic world was a failure; but at the level of Kufa it was certainly a success. In the society of Kufa it surely had wondrous and remarkable effects. Kufa thus became a cradle of Shiism, the birthplace of Shiite authenticities and virtues. Is that right?
But wherever there is a birthplace of authenticities, it is not necessary that everyone who is there be authentic and virtuous and ideal people. One class of people are always, in a passionate and tumultuous society, the showcase of the passion and tumult of that society. Among millions of people, sometimes several tens of thousands, even several thousand human beings, perform some heroic deed of their own such that the name of those several million becomes fruitful in the world for heroism and passion-creating and epic-creating. There was one class among the people of Kufa who were striking. Not a class in the sociological sense, no — rather a stratum, an assembly, a group, a streak of people who were like this. But the mass of the people, the common people, were like the people everywhere else; they were no worse. Like the people of Mashhad, like the people of Tehran, like the people of Isfahan, like the people of Medina, like the people of everywhere else. But that small group, in that corner of the Islamic realm — namely Kufa — were a source of dread and terror to the governments of the time. So the governments would always appoint over that city the worst elements, the vilest governors, the basest of their own men, their lackeys and their executioners. And these would do such things to the people — whether by way of severity and suppression, whether by way of poisonous propaganda, whether by way of spreading poverty and destitution among them — that the mass of the people would, unconsciously and unawares, develop a greater pull toward corruption and degradation.
For whose sake did they do this? For the sake of that fighting group, that elite group, that existed in this city and did not exist in other cities. For the sake of crushing the ground that those pure, pure-natured, great human beings might have been able to make use of. So that they could not make use of it, the rulers would go and ruin that ground entirely. They would carry out poisonous propaganda, would put the people under pressure, would put them under suffocation, would weaken the people financially — in short, by all sorts of means they would place the people of the city of Kufa in conditions in which the people of other cities were not. And it was precisely on account of this that the common people, under the influence of the activity of the oppressive, treacherous, tyrannical apparatuses, performed certain deeds that were unbecoming; but their source was not the wickedness of the people of that city. This is a brief account concerning Kufa. In this field, if some people are able to think and study, in history, in my view they will come upon interesting things.
I want to explain the verse for you. Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was sent to Kufa by the Umayyad caliph 'Abd al-Malik, because he knew that no one but Hajjaj was equal to the task of dealing with the rebellious, epic-creating people of Kufa. He sent the most cruel and the basest of his own lackeys, and that was Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. Hajjaj ibn Yusuf came; he entered the city in the middle of the night. No one realized that Hajjaj had arrived. The previous governor, too, the people had apparently expelled, or something like an expulsion. He had brought with him a hundred swordsmen, or thirty or forty men. (Today we want to recount history. When I recount history I tire less. These are the last days of the month of Ramadan; I am tired, you are tired too; we want to recount history.) He came and stationed his men around the mosque of Kufa, where the murmuring of the worshippers at the prayer-niches, the night-vigil keepers, and the pious could be heard. He himself slipped into a corner, off to one side, among the crowd. He gave the necessary instructions to his slaves and lackeys.
The people in the mosque of Kufa, at the first call to the dawn prayer, came and gathered to pray the dawn prayer with the imam. They came for worship and prayer. But it turns out that, as they should have, they were not worshipping with awareness. The proof of it is the very thing I am about to relate. Hajjaj ibn Yusuf came — without the people realizing that he had entered the mosque, or for what he had come and what his intention was. He came and slipped among the crowd, without attracting anyone's attention, and suddenly threw himself up onto the pulpit; he went up there, to the top. And you have seen how large the mosque of Kufa is. The people did not notice at first. And here he was, seated on the pulpit, without uttering a single word. Suddenly one person raised his head and saw that Hajjaj was on the pulpit — of course, he did not recognize him. He said: Who is this on the pulpit? He had also fashioned a strange appearance: he had wrapped around his head a turban of silk, red in color, and he had also bound a veil over his face. That is, he had unwound the taht al-hanak of his turban and bound it up to the bridge of his nose, so that only his eyes were visible. They saw that it was a strange figure: an armed man with a sword and a cloak and a red turban, seated this way on the pulpit, in the mosque of Kufa; and the silence drew the people's attention. This one said to that one, that one said to this one; suddenly all of this crowd that was scattered in the mosque — their eyes fell upon him and their attention was drawn. And little by little they were drawn toward the pulpit, to see who this was.
Pay close attention to what the verse of the Qur'an says: "We give him over to what he has turned to." It says that whoever turns aside from the path of faith and the believers — the bond that he has cast around his own neck, We draw tight around his throat. Well — you were a Muslim; on the pulpit of your own mosque a man you do not know is seated. Why do you go there and sit down? You should have gone up and said, "Sir, who are you? Introduce yourself!" The first person, the second person, the third person should have questioned him. Had they asked this question, the situation would have been different. They displayed slackness. They displayed a state of will-lessness and weakness of soul. They sat down so that he might speak.
Then, when he saw that all the people were looking at him, he said: It seems the people of Kufa do not know me. The people glanced at one another — well, it was obvious they did not know him. He said: I will now introduce myself to you. He removed the turban from his head. This veil too was removed. He cast a glance at the people and recited a line of Arabic verse:
Ana ibn jala' wa-talla' al-thanaya / idha ada' al-'imamata ta'rifuni
"When I lift off my turban, you will recognize me." Some looked — once before, this man had come to Kufa — one or two said: I think it is Hajjaj. A whisper spread: Hajjaj, Hajjaj, Hajjaj. The people were suddenly seized with dread, seized with fear, that Hajjaj had come and was seated on the pulpit. He said: Yes, Hajjaj — yes, yes, you have understood rightly. The people now sat in a state of terror. Here, not one person says to himself: Well now, friend, Hajjaj is one man, I too am a man; he is seated above, I am below; whatever he has, I have too. The people's weakness of soul took hold of them here.
He said: O people of Kufa, I see heads that, like ripe fruit, hang upon the necks, and the time for their plucking has come. I see that it is necessary for a number of heads to be parted from these bodies. The people were all the more terrified by his pronouncements, which were hollow, which were empty. Well — Hajjaj had not gone to Kufa with an atom bomb; and even if he had had an atom bomb, he would not have detonated it, because if he had detonated it, no one would have remained for him to rule over. It was necessary that a number remain alive; he would not kill them all. If he killed them all, over whom would he rule? Over the walls and doors? What pleasure is there in that? Would he go and rule in the desert? The people did not think of this point.
He said: I see that heads are hanging upon the necks. The time for plucking and severing them has come. Well, now I shall determine whose head must be plucked. Stand up, slave! He called his slave; his slave rose and stood upon the pulpit. He said: Read out the letter of the Commander of the Faithful for these gentlemen. The slave — the letter of the Commander of the Faithful, by which, of course, you know is meant his honor 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan! — the slave opened the letter of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the caliph, and began to read. Its opening was this: "In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. From the Commander of the Faithful 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to the people of Kufa. O people of Kufa, peace be upon you." — "O people of Kufa, peace be upon you."
He had read to this point when suddenly Hajjaj turned to the slave and said: Quiet! Be still. He fell silent. He turned to the people and said: How very ill-mannered you have become! The Commander of the Faithful is greeting you, and you do not return his greeting. Slave, read from the beginning. The slave began again from the start: "From the Commander of the Faithful 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to the people of Kufa. O people of Kufa, peace be upon you." — Suddenly from the whole mosque a voice rose up: "And upon the Commander of the Faithful, peace." They returned his greeting. A satisfied smile took shape upon Hajjaj's lips; in his heart he said: The work is done. And indeed the work was done. The work of the people of Kufa was finished right there.
And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We give him over to what he has turned to.
You accepted Hajjaj? You answered the greeting of "the Commander of the Faithful" — he who is the commander of the disbelievers and the commander of the corrupt? Very well; now that you want him — Hajjaj for you! Now that you are of Hajjaj's persuasion, God will not, by a miracle, remove Hajjaj and put Zayn al-'Abidin (peace be upon him) in his place. That same Hajjaj for you, until such time as you no longer want Hajjaj. As long as you yourselves find Hajjaj to your liking, all of your life and your thought and your spirit will be at Hajjaj's disposal. This is the way of the world of creation; it is the way of history.
This is history. I would have very much liked to recount ten more historical pieces for you, in exchange for the twenty-seven days past on which I did not recount history for you. History is a lesson.
Better that the description of beloveds / be told in the discourse of others.
History is the interpretation of the Qur'an. Find the Qur'an in history. And know that:
For the wise, world-seeing man, two lives would be needed in this age: that in the one he might gather experience, and with the other put that experience to work.
And the experience of history is our very former life. Pay attention to history; become a little familiar with history. But strive to take from history that which lies in its heart. Do not content yourselves with merely versifying a tale, telling a story out of history. See what history wants to tell us. What does the episode of Hajjaj tell us in history?
It is not amiss for me to add this word too: that this very Hajjaj, at the hands of the very people for whose sake he was committing these atrocities, met his end in the most atrocious manner. It is also not amiss for you to know this: "Whoever aids an oppressor, God sets that very oppressor in authority over him." This too is another way. See what lesson history holds for us, what word it has for us, what message, what counsel. Let us delve into history with the utmost attentiveness; then we will see that the verse of the Qur'an comes to have meaning for us. I have recounted this history; its connection and link with the verse of the Qur'an, I leave to your own minds.
Let me explain the verses for you.
So when you recite the Qur'an, seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. Now that you have recited the Qur'an, now that you have learned the teachings of Islam — O brother, you who until now did not understand, now that you have understood — keep yourself safe from the satanic harm that wants you not to know and not to understand the Qur'an. What does "keep yourself safe" mean? It means: strive that he not take from you the Qur'anic knowledge that has been heaped up in your heart; that he not close upon you the road of action and the road of fuller understanding.
Indeed, he has no authority over those who have believed and rely upon their Lord. Can I, then, take refuge in God? Can I, then, flee from the evil of Satan? Yes. Satan — the evil-creating, corruption-creating, powerful one — has no mastery or might over those who come to believe in God and put their trust and reliance upon God. Those who place themselves under the wilayat of God, and strive and hasten toward the region of the wilayat of God — over them Satan has no mastery.
His authority is only over those who take him as their guardian and who associate others with Him. Indeed, the mastery of Satan is only over those who have accepted his wilayat. The mastery of Hajjaj is only over those who accepted his harsh speech, who with their own hand gave the rope around their own neck into his hand — over those who have accepted his wilayat and those who have taken him as a partner with God.
And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We give him over to what he has turned to; and We will burn him in Hell — and evil it is as a destination. Whoever separates himself, whoever wars in contention with the Prophet after the path of guidance has become clear and manifest to him, and yet separates himself from the path of the Prophet — he does not submit his body and neck to the commitment of faith, to the profession of prophethood, to faith in prophethood, and to bearing witness to prophethood — and follows a way other than the way of the true believers: every thing and every one whom he has accepted into wilayat, We make a wali and ruler over him. Whatever he himself has accepted into wilayat, We make its ruler over him. And We hurl him down into Hell — and how evil a fate and end Hell is.
Indeed, Allah does not forgive that He should be associated with, and He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. God does not pass over the one by whom He is associated with partners. Go back to the discussion of tawhid and the meaning of tawhid and shirk; see what shirk is, what tawhid is — and what is the sin that God does not pass over, which God does not forgive? If I want to be more precise and exact, there is still more to say. God does not extend His forgiveness to the one who has accepted shirk. The one who has become a polytheist has entered into the wilayat of other than God, has surrendered the domain of God's influence to other than God; those wounds that have settled upon his soul from sin and disobedience, from evil and wretchedness and disorder, will never be healed — that is, he attains no forgiveness. This is the meaning of maghfirah, after all; I explained it to you. The forgiveness of sin means the smoothing-over and healing of that wound which arises in the human soul on account of sin and error and slipping and deviation. When it is smoothed over, forgiveness and pardon have included him. That wound and distress had come upon your soul by way of evil conduct, of a wrong course, of not walking the path of God; once it heals, you have become forgiven. Ghufran means this. And if you are under the wilayat of other than God, that wound which had arisen from sin will never heal; the blow and kick of sin will never be made good. But the sins less than and lower than this, He brings under forgiveness for whomever He wills.
Of course, God's willing is not arbitrary either. The one who repents, the one who makes amends, the one who turns toward God — him God wills to place under forgiveness. And whoever associates others with Allah has certainly gone far astray — again it comes back to the matter of shirk: whoever assumes a partner for God and a peer has gone astray very, very far from the path of guidance. There is a time when you lose your way from the road in the wilderness, but you are only one kilometer apart from it. There is a time when, in the desert, you lose your way from the road and you have become tens of kilometers apart from the road; returning from that is not easy. It requires greater effort, greater alertness, a stronger guide. Those who have associated partners with God have likewise gone very, very far from the straight and middle path of guidance; they have fallen into bewilderment and a far-reaching misguidance.
They call upon none besides Him but female deities, and they call upon none but a rebellious Satan. Other than God, whatever they call upon are nothing but a few female idols; and they call upon none but a Satan who is rebellious and far from virtue and devoid of goodness. There is a narration in connection with this phrase that those who are people of hadith should consult and examine; I do not relate it. We have rendered marid here as "rebellious"; but you may also write, beside "rebellious," "devoid of goodness and virtue" — this too is a meaning of marid.
Allah cursed him, and he said: I will surely take from among Your servants an appointed portion. A Satan who is outcast from God. From the very beginning, Satan made his pact with God; the front of Satan and the front of God, by their very nature and disposition, are not capable of reconciliation. Here He is speaking of the nature of the satan-like ones and the satans; all the satans, and the class of Satan, are essentially this way. Satan has pledged and said: I will, O God, set apart for myself a fixed portion and an allotted share from among Your servants; that is, I will drag a number of Your servants from the straight path into misguidance; I will seize their reason; I will blind their insight and intellect; and instead of their being under Your wilayat, I will bring them under my own wilayat and rule.
And I will surely lead them astray, and I will surely arouse in them desires, and I will surely command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will surely command them so they will alter the creation of Allah. And whoever takes Satan as a guardian instead of Allah has certainly suffered a manifest loss. I will lead them severely astray. I will bind them severely to far-flung, long desires. Dwell a little upon the phrase "and I will surely arouse in them desires." Far-flung, long desires — that which holds a human being back from every effort in the path of God. The desire to live for another ten years in pleasure and comfort and welfare; the desire to marry off the eldest son and find husbands for the daughters; the desire to enlarge this small two-room house and make it three rooms; to make this one-room shop a two-room one; the desire to become the head and director of such-and-such an office and organization and to draw such-and-such an amount of money; the desire that they call my son "Mr. Engineer," or call me that — far-flung, long desires. Desires that, like a millstone fallen upon a human being's neck, bend the head, double the back, and bring a human being to his knees; desires that, if you draw out the tooth of their greed and cast it away, suddenly you find yourself free, you find yourself light, you find that no shackle or bond has tied your hand and foot in the path of God.
"And I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle" — I will command them to slit the ears of the cattle. This is an instance of an ignorant and false custom — though it is possible that a greater secret and mystery lies hidden in this phrase. I have not thought much upon this phrase. I did not have much opportunity to examine all that has been said in this regard; perhaps there is a fresh point in it, though I did not have much hope of that either. But I think it likely that there is a point fresher than what I am stating in this phrase; you too should think about it. The apparent matter is this: the ignorant custom of that time, in the time of the Prophet, dictated that the ear of this animal be cut, snipped, slit, so that by this means — suppose, for example — they might secure sustenance and blessing and well-being for it. It is an ignorant custom. He cites this here as a symbol of the non-divine customs and ideas and methods and programs. See how ridiculous it is; see how hollow this custom is. The satanic customs are all of this sort. In the view of the very followers of this custom, it is not hollow, but in the view of a rational person it is hollow.
"And I will command them so they will alter the creation of Allah." This phrase is very striking. I command them to alter and transform the creation and the fitrah and the God-given nature. Those human beings who are under my command — O God, those whom I hunt out from the region of Your governance and wilayat, my Lord, and carry off to the saltmarsh of my own wilayat — I command them, I compel them to set aside the divine creation and fitrah, to depart from that line of conduct which You appointed for them. I set down laws for them, laws contrary to fitrah; I give them commands, commands contrary to nature; I place before their feet a road, a road that brings them to a destination other than the natural, human destination. I will command them, definitely and decisively, certainly and emphatically, to transform Your creation, Your fashioning, the God-given fitrah. This is Satan's pact with God.
Satan's pact with God is a pact of this sort, a pact of obstinacy and a pact of defiance against God. "This is how we are, O God!" This is the scroll, the placard of the program of all the satans. The work of all the satans of the world is this very work. Be assured that if a people want to live by the God-given fitrah and nature, Satan will not allow it; the Satan who holds wilayat over them will not allow it — it is impossible that he should allow it. And by whatever means, those who are under his wilayat, under his wilayat and dominion, he draws them away from God-given creation and fitrah; because without this, his work does not get done — Satan's satanity goes lame. Therefore, after this, God says — and the address is to me and to you: And whoever takes Satan as a guardian instead of Allah has certainly suffered a manifest loss. Whoever accepts Satan, instead of God, into wilayat has incurred a very plain and evident loss, has suffered injury.
He promises them and arouses desire in them; but Satan does not promise them except delusion. Satan makes promises to these people: your future, your lifetime, your life — all lies. He afflicts them with far-flung desires and fancies. Satan gives a human being no promise but delusion and deception and falsehood; he gives them nothing but deluding and beguiling promises. This too is one verse.
The next verse as well — "Allah is the ally of those who believe" — its translation I have written here, with a brief explanation. I ask you to consult it.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 29 · 42:57
- Ep 30 — Concerning Wilayat (3): HijrahSession 28: Concerning Wilayat (3): Hijrah.
delivered Wednesday, 24 Mehr 1353 / 29 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394
Surat al-Nisa' (4:100).
And whoever emigrates in the way of God will find in the earth many a place of refuge and abundance; and whoever goes forth from his house as an emigrant to God and His Messenger, and then death overtakes him — his reward has fallen due upon God; and God is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
The question of hijrah (emigration) relates to the question of wilayah — to wilayah in the full breadth in which we have framed it here. We said that wilayah does three things. It forges a firm bond among the elements of the believing ranks with one another. It severs every form of attachment between the believing ranks and the non-believing ranks. And, at a further level, it forges a most powerful bond between every individual of the believing ranks and that central point and concentrated authority upon whom the administration of the Islamic society rests — that is, the imam, the wali, the ruler, the leader. Alongside this, we then discussed who the wali and leader is within the Islamic society. The Qur'an gave us our answer: Your guardian (wali) is only God, and His Messenger, and those who believe — those who establish the prayer and pay the alms while bowing. — to which we pointed, in connection with the affair of the Commander of the Faithful, may God's blessings be upon him.
If we have been able to understand wilayah with this breadth, and if we do not reduce the matter to the level of the subsidiary issues of wilayah and to the second degree of wilayah — as some, without due attention, do reduce it — then the question of hijrah turns out to be one of the corollaries of the question of wilayah. Why do we say it this way? Because the principle of wilayah taught us that every human being must live within the wilayah of God and of the wali of God. It taught us that a human being must put all of his energies, all of his bodily, intellectual, and psychic vitalities, to work under the will of the divine wali and the governor who is min qibal Allah (from God) — that, in short, with every element of his being a human being must be a servant of God and not a servant of the Taghut. Once we accept and embrace these points, we have no choice but to accept what follows from them. Suppose our existence, our being and all our energies and vitalities, were not under the command of the divine wilayah but rather under the command of the Taghuti and satanic wilayah. Then our divine commitment is that we free ourselves from the bonds and shackles of the wilayah of the Taghut — that we rescue ourselves, liberate ourselves, and go beneath the most blessed shade of the wilayah of God. Coming out of that oppressive wilayah and entering that just wilayah — its name is hijrah. You see, then, that the question of hijrah is one of the matters that arises in the train of wilayah. This is why we placed the discussion at the very outset: "Concerning Wilayah" — that is, in connection with wilayah we mentioned three topics, and this is the fourth.
Why must a human being flee from beneath the wilayah of the Taghut and Satan? This question that I am raising is very much worth attending to. When I raise the question, I would dearly like you, the friends who are listening, to break down and analyze it at once in the laboratory of your minds, so that you can give it an answer in accordance with your Islamic and religious learning and accumulated knowledge. Then, if your answer turns out not to coincide with my answer — the answer that I will give — and is at variance with it, there remains room for discussion between you and me. The question is this: Is it not possible to be within the wilayah of the Taghut and yet be a Muslim? Is it not possible for us to suppose a Muslim who is under the wilayah of Satan, yet who lives as a servant of the All-Merciful? Is such a thing possible or not? Picture a setting where, over the whole horizon and across all the regions of human life, a non-divine factor is busy ruling. A non-divine factor is administering the human body; a non-divine factor is administering human thought; that same factor is dragging the morale, the affections, and the sentiments of the members of society this way and that. A human being lives gripped in the fist of the power of such Taghuti and satanic factors. Can he nonetheless be a servant of God, be a Muslim? Is such a thing possible or impossible? I beg you to set about answering this. You need not answer aloud; prepare an answer to this question in your minds; see whether it is possible or not possible. In order for us to know whether it is possible or not, we must analyze and interpret this very question a little, so that the answer may become clear.
We ask: can a person be under the wilayah of Satan and be a Muslim, or can he not? These two questions are, in reality, a single question composed of two parts; let us properly break down these two parts and see what each means.
The first part is that a person be under the wilayah of Satan. What does it mean to be under the wilayah of Satan? What does wilayah even mean? If we place that meaning which we derived for wilayah from the verses of the Qur'an — a meaning which was supported by several Qur'anic verses — beside this phrase "the wilayah of Satan," then it becomes clear what the wilayah of Satan means. The wilayah of Satan means this: that Satan — in that comprehensive sense of "Satan" of which I have spoken many times — be dominant over all the powers, capacities, initiatives, and works within a person's being. Whatever the person does is along the course that Satan has determined; whatever he thinks is on the path that Satan inclines toward or sketches out. It is like a man who has fallen into the current of a river. A swift water is rushing down in the bed of a flood from the mountainside; a man falls into this river. Of course he does not wish to strike the huge, towering boulders and split his head open; of course he does not wish to be carried off by this water and dropped into a swamp; of course he does not wish to be choked and drowned amid the waves of this water — but, despite not wishing it, this swift current of water is carrying him off against his will. He flails his arms and legs too, clings to this side and that, grasps at everything — but the current of the water is a swift current; against his will it carries him away.
The wilayah of the Taghut and the wilayah of Satan is just such a thing. This is why the verse of the Qur'an says: And We made them leaders (a'immah) who call to the Fire. There exist leaders and chiefs who drag their followers and those under their command toward the Fire of Hell, drag them toward wretchedness.
Another verse of the Qur'an says: Have you not regarded those who exchanged the bounty of God for ingratitude and settled their people in the abode of perdition — Hell, which they shall enter? And what an evil place of settlement!
Have you not looked upon those people who were ungrateful for the bounty of their Lord? This bounty for which they were ungrateful — what was it? It could be anything. The bounty of power, which is a manifestation of the power of the Lord; worldly powers; the bounty of stewardship and administering the affairs of thousands of human beings; the bounty of having at one's disposal the capacities, thoughts, energies, and abundant powers of human beings — all of these are bounties; these are capitals that could have been a source of good for humanity. The human beings who came under the control of those people referred to in this verse — these human beings could have been great human beings, could have been the elite servants of God, could have reached the highest degrees of perfection; but these people were ungrateful for these bounties, did not put them to work in the way that they ought. Then the verse goes on to say: "wa ahallu qawmahum dar al-bawar" — and they too cast their own people into the abode of perdition; they drove their people and the people under their command into the realm of nonexistence, annihilation, and destruction. "Jahannama yaslawnaha" — and they drove them into Hell, into which they will be made to slide and be flung. "Wa bi'sa al-qarar" — and what an evil abode and place of settlement it is!
This verse was recited by Musa ibn Ja'far, may God's blessings and peace be upon him, to Harun; he made Harun understand that "you are that very one who will cast your people and yourself into the worst dwelling place, into the most calamitous of resting-places." Musa ibn Ja'far recited this meaning to Harun explicitly. He asked: "Are we then unbelievers?" — meaning, "do we then not believe in God, in the Prophet, and in the religion?" The Imam, peace be upon him, in answer recited this verse so as to make him understand that the unbeliever is not only the one who says plainly and explicitly, "No, there is no God; no, the Qur'an is a lie," or "the Prophet, for instance, is a legend." This is one type of unbeliever — and it is the best kind, the one who states his position openly, so that a person knows him and properly arranges his own stance toward him. The worse unbeliever is the one who is ungrateful for these immense bounties at his disposal, who casts them into the wrong channel — who drags not only himself, but all the human beings under his command, into Hell. The wilayah of the Taghut is just such a thing.
The one who lives under the wilayah of the Taghut has, in reality, as it were no will of his own. I do not say he is utterly devoid of will — now that we have interpreted the verse of the Qur'an, the explanation of the matter becomes clear in the Qur'an — but he is being carried off in the current of the flood. He wants to flail his arms and legs, he cannot. He wants to turn back from the road of Hell; he sees that everyone all around is moving toward Hell, and they drag him along with them. Those places where there is a large crowd — have you been there? Sometimes you want to go this way; the crowd carries you off against your will like a wisp of straw. He wants to be good, to live a good life, to live as a human being, to remain a Muslim and die a Muslim — he cannot; that is to say, the social current is dragging and carrying him off, carrying him off in such a way that he cannot even flail his arms and legs. And even if he does flail, he has accomplished nothing other than the waste of a certain amount of energy. Not only can he not stir his limbs — what is more painful is that sometimes he cannot even comprehend.
These fish that they catch at sea — I do not know whether you have seen this or not. Sometimes thousands of fish are being dragged within a single net toward the shore; from out in the midst of the sea, from several kilometers out, this net is dragging them all forward, and they are unaware. If you were to say to that fish, "Where are you going?", it would think it was going toward some destination by its own choice; but in reality it has no choice; its destination is the very place that is the destination of that fisherman who owns the net. This invisible net of the ignorant order drags a human being along so, drags him so toward those directions in which the steerers of that net incline, that the person does not comprehend where he is going. Sometimes he even imagines that he is heading toward the abode of felicity and salvation — heedless of the fact that no, he is heading toward "Jahannama yaslawnaha wa bi'sa al-qarar."
Well, this wilayah is the wilayah of the Taghut, the wilayah of Satan. This was the first clause of the two clauses out of which the question was composed. We said: Can one live within the wilayah of the Taghut and live as a Muslim? Can one? Now we have understood, in summary, what living within the wilayah of the Taghut means. And if we wish to understand it in detail too, we can turn back again to history.
Look at how, in the time of the Banu Umayyah and the Banu 'Abbas, the world of Islam moved with such vitality. Look at what an immense wave of knowledge and learning arose within the Islamic society of that day. What great physicians appeared; what great translators appeared in that era of dearth of linguistic knowledge and of general world-knowledge — men who translated into Arabic the great works of the ancient cultures and disseminated them among the Muslims. In every field — history, hadith, the natural sciences, medicine, astronomy, and even the beautiful and delicate arts — the Muslims of that day became among the most outstanding exemplars; is that not so? It went so far that even now, when a man like "Gustave Le Bon" the Frenchman, or some other writer and orientalist whose eye is dazzled only by these very outward appearances, looks back, he regards the second, third, and fourth Islamic centuries as the centuries of Islam's radiance. "Adam Mez" wrote a book called The Civilization of Islam in the Fourth Islamic Century; he conducts a remarkable lament over this civilization, which in his view is immense. He describes a great civilization in the fourth Islamic century. A French orientalist, a European orientalist, in general, when he looks back at those third, fourth, and second Islamic centuries, his eyes are still dazzled. Why is this? It is because of this: that strange activities, energies, and vitalities issued in that day from the Islamic society. But I ask you: did all this vitality and activity that was carried out in that day ultimately turn out to the benefit of the Islamic society and of humanity? I ask you.
Ten centuries are passing from that era. We have no fanaticism toward that era. Vis-a-vis the non-Muslim world we can say, "Yes" — it was the world of Islam that brought those universities into being, it was the world of Islam that constructed that philosophy, it was the world of Islam that did such and such in medicine and the natural sciences. But, between ourselves, in all truth and fairness: did all that power and energy turn out to be in the right place, at the right time, and to the benefit of humanity and of the Islamic society? After ten centuries, what does the Islamic society have of that legacy? And why does it not have it? Why does it not have it? Why has that scholarly and cultural wealth not remained for us? Why is it that we, as a society that ten centuries ago possessed all that radiance, today do not shine in the world and make no display? Why? Is it not because all that vitality and activity — though it was a human activity — was beneath the signet-ring of the Taghut? As the poet said:
That signet of Solomon I would not take at any price, Upon which from time to time there rests the hand of Ahriman.
It was these Ahrimans (demons) who toyed with the Islamic society. If they did speak, if they translated, it was for the sake of writing in the translation, "In the reign of His Excellency So-and-so the umpteenth Abbasid caliph, Mansur or Harun or Ma'mun" — in order to raise up their own names. If, instead of all this activity in the natural sciences, mathematics, astronomy, literature, jurisprudence, recitation, and the rest, they had permitted the 'Alawi government to take charge, had permitted Imam Sadiq to take charge — had they allowed Imam Sadiq to take in hand the vitalities and energies — then even if, scientifically and from the standpoint of literature and of those matters that the world today preens and boasts about, they had fallen back a hundred years, it would still have been to the benefit of humanity. Humanity would have grown, Islam would have blossomed, energies and capacities would have been put to work along the right path. Of what use is it that they translate books, that they bring medicine and scientific progress to the utmost degree, but from the standpoint of morality and of social ethics they are so weak that their class discord is still to be counted among the legends of history?
Exactly like the filthy, disgraceful civilization of our own contemporary world. The great world powers preen over their scientific discoveries, preen over their mind-boggling inventions, raise the cocked corner of their cap of pride to the very sun — "We discovered such-and-such a drug, we produced such-and-such a formula, we accomplished such-and-such a feat." This is from the scientific standpoint; but from the human and moral standpoint, even now, to this very day, they are living in the eras of thousands of years of pre-history. Even now, fabulous riches stand alongside fabulous hungers and poverties; even now there exists the enjoyment by a very small one percent in the world of privileges that exist at the expense of the millions of starving human beings in the deprived countries. They preen over this — and this is exactly the same condition as that great Islamic civilization in the second, third, and fourth centuries; it is the very same matter; in that day too it was just so. Vast scientific progress, but aristocratic excess and indulgence and heedlessness of virtues, of human qualities, and of authenticities; class discord in its severest form, deadly hungers in the face of deadly satieties — in that day too these were evident and to be seen. On account of what were these miseries? Why was it that the Islamic society of that day, with all its scientific vitality and activity, could not be a flower in the garden of virtues and human qualities? Why?
Even now, when we range over the history of the second and third Islamic centuries, those whose names we can recall together with honor and pride, those whose names we can deliver to the world's high stations on the list of the honor-creating men of the world, are those who fought severely against that very civilized order. There is Mu'alla ibn Khunays, whom they hang in the marketplace and kill; there is Yahya ibn Umm Tawil, whose hands and feet they cut off and whose tongue they sever; there is Muhammad ibn Abi 'Umayr, to whom they administer a hundred lashes; there is Yahya ibn Zayd, whom they kill at the age of eighteen in the mountains of Khurasan; there is Zayd ibn 'Ali, whose corpse they keep on the gibbet for four years. Those whose names we today can deliver with pride to the list of the honor-creating figures of the world of humanity are these men — and these, on that day, had no connection whatsoever with that splendid civilization that Mr. Gustave Le Bon recalls and names; rather, they were the very opposite of that civilization. So you see that when the wilayah of the Taghut and of Satan holds sway over a society, over human beings, and holds the reins of their affairs in its hand, their energies are set to work, their capacities are set flowing — but in what manner? In the manner in which they have been set to work today in the civilized world, and in the manner in which they were set to work in the world of Islam ten centuries, eleven centuries ago. In the manner that, by the logic and authentic values and the human standards and measures, is not worth a copper penny — this is the wilayah of the Taghut.
So then, within the wilayah of the Taghut, can one live as a Muslim? What does living as a Muslim mean, sir? Living as a Muslim means that all the resources, energies, powers, strengths, and capacities of a human being be wholly and without reserve at the disposal of God. Everything of theirs: their wealth at the disposal of God, their lives at the disposal of God, their daily activity and movement at the disposal of God, their night's sleep at the disposal of God, their thought and reflection at the disposal of God. Can you give an example of this? Yes. We have examples both at the level of societies, in the form of a community and a civic order, and we have examples in groups; among the rebellious groups that came out of the Taghuti systems and fled and made hijrah toward God — there we have examples.
The first — like the society of Medina, in the lifetime of the Prophet. In the lifetime of the Prophet, the society of Medina was a society of servants of God; it was a Muslim society. There, every step you took was in the way of God. There, even its Jew and its Christian, if he lived under the command of Islam, his life was an Islamic life. The Jew under the dhimmah too, the Christian under the protection of Islam too — in the Islamic society they move along the path of Islam. From the standpoint of personal acts, he is a Jew; but from the standpoint of being a member of society, he is a Muslim. Far more a Muslim than that Muslim who lives within an ignorant order. In the time of the Prophet, money in the way of God, the sword in the way of God, the tongue in the way of God, thought and reflection in the way of God, every task of which a human being is capable was in the way of God; the affections and sentiments in the way of God; this is for a society. In the time of the Commander of the Faithful too, it was more or less the same way, because the Commander of the Faithful, may God's blessings be upon him, was, from the standpoint of being a divine ruler and the wali of God, no different from the Prophet; but he was the heir of a bad society. He was the heir of disarrays, the heir of disorders; and even the Prophet himself, had he been in the place of the Commander of the Faithful and come twenty-five years later, would certainly have faced the very same difficulties as the Commander of the Faithful. This is in communities.
And as for groups: the group of the Shi'ah around the Imams, peace be upon them, throughout history. The month of Ramadan has come to an end, and we have not reached a detailed discussion of the Imamate; otherwise, in continuation of the discussion of wilayah, I would have discussed the Imamate. Then, had I been able to conduct this discussion, I would have told you what kind of a unit the Shi'ah were in the time of the Imams. We would have shown what the Imam's, peace be upon him, relations and dealings with the Shi'ah were, and what the Shi'ah's relations and dealings with the society surrounding them were; this would have become clear. For now I will mention it in summary. The Shi'ah, outwardly, lived within the Taghuti system, but inwardly they moved precisely in the direction opposed to the Taghuti system. Like that very small group who were with Husayn ibn 'Ali, may God's blessings and peace be upon him, at Karbala. These had truly cleft the flood and come against the very direction in which the flood was steering them. So, then, in history we have certain examples — both in society and in groups. The ordinary individual, though, is another matter. As a rule he cannot be a Muslim while living within such a society as I described earlier — the Taghuti society. He cannot place his whole being, his resources, his energies, all his powers and capacities, under the command of God. Such a thing is impossible. If a person lives within a Taghuti environment and a Taghuti system, some fraction of his being a Muslim is, after all, in the way of the Taghut; some portion of his life is, after all, in servitude to the Taghut; he cannot be one hundred percent a servant of God.
A noble hadith has been related in al-Kafi in several wordings. The book Usul al-Kafi, which is among the most reliable and most ancient of Shi'i books, has related this hadith in several phrasings; the one that I shall recite is one of those several phrasings. The gentlemen can refer to al-Kafi, the Kitab al-Hujjah; the title of its chapter, apparently, is this: Bab man dana Allah 'azza wa jalla bi-ghayri imamin min Allah (the chapter on whoever serves God while under a leader who is not from God). It says, on the authority of the Imam, peace be upon him, and the Imam on the authority of God, that God Most High has said:
A saying is related: I shall surely punish every flock (ra'iyyah) in Islam that gave its allegiance (danat bi-wilayah) to an unjust leader (imam ja'ir) who is not from God, even if the flock was, in its own deeds, godfearing and pious; and I shall surely pardon every flock in Islam that gave its allegiance to a just leader from God, even if the flock was, in itself, wrongdoing and evildoing.
A remarkable hadith, this. This hadith says that those people who live under the wilayah of the wali of God are people of salvation, even if in personal and private affairs they sometimes have shortcomings, failings, and sins too; and those people who live under the wilayah of Satan and the Taghut are people of wretchedness and torment, even if in personal affairs, in private deeds, they are people of good works and good deeds too. This is very remarkable. Of course, I have said that there are several phrasings, and all the phrasings yield this very same meaning. The hadith is in Usul al-Kafi. Just now I did not refer to it — it seems to me, since I am usually scrupulous about looking at the chains of transmission of the hadiths, I think its chain was a good chain too. Some time ago I saw it; just now I do not recall.
I always used to liken this hadith — I would say it is as though you boarded a car bound for a certain definite point, say, intending to reach Nishapur. If this car is heading toward Nishapur, you will certainly reach the goal. If this car, instead of going toward Nishapur, is going, say, toward Sarakhs or toward Quchan — well, it is certain that you will not reach the goal. Take the car that is going toward Nishapur and brings you to the goal. If the people in it associate with one another with courtesy, kindness, and human manners — so much the better. And if they do not — in the end they still reach Nishapur, they reach the goal. Even though along the way they did a little evil, those evils will of course have their punishments, their effects, their consequences, and the people are compelled to bear them; but they reach the goal. Now the contrary case: the car that is supposed to bring you to Nishapur is going to the point opposite Nishapur. Suppose all the individuals in this car behave toward one another with courtesy, with refinement, with respect, deal with one another with good cheer — yet they see that the car, instead of going to Nishapur, is heading toward Quchan, and in the face of this they show no reaction whatsoever. These are very good people, very kind to one another. But will they reach the goal or not? It is obvious — no.
In the first example, the driver was a trustworthy driver, a driver who knew the road — he was "imamin min Allah" (a leader from God) — he brought them to the goal, even though they were of bad character: "wa in kanat al-ra'iyyatu fi a'maliha zalimatan musi'atan" (even if the flock was, in its deeds, wrongdoing and evildoing). In the second example, the driver was not a driver who knew the road; he was not a trustworthy driver; he was a passion-worshipping driver, drunk, he had lost the road, he had business in Sarakhs and Quchan, he had given precedence to his own want over the wish of the people, he was heading there; these will certainly not reach the goal — even though inside the car the people were very kind to one another, very warm, very good-natured: "wa in kanat al-ra'iyyatu fi a'maliha barratan taqiyyatan" (even if the flock was, in its deeds, righteous and godfearing) — but in the end, "la-u'adhdhibanna" (I shall surely punish), they will fall into the torment of God, they will not reach the goal. Therefore, in a society administered by the wilayah of the Taghut — like that very car steered by the driving of an untrustworthy man who does not know the road — human beings will not reach the goal and cannot remain Muslims.
What are they to do? What are they to do? Here the verse of the Qur'an gives the answer. The verse of the Qur'an gives the answer to this "what are they to do"; it says: Indeed, those whom the angels take in death while they were wronging themselves…
Those whose souls the angels seize while these wretches have been wronging themselves; those people who wronged their own souls, their own future, their own everything, and are now dying — the angels of God, the agents of the Lord, are seizing their souls. "Qalu" — the angels say to them — "fima kuntum" — "In what condition were you? Where were you?" A person might imagine that the angel of heaven says, when it sees this man's condition so wretched, "Wherever were you living? Why is your condition like this?" Picture the surgeon who comes to operate on a patient and sees that his condition is very bad — very lamentable, despair-inducing. He asks the same thing. I draw this analogy: that the angels, out of the wretchedness of this poor man's state, out of the badness of his soul, out of the misery and torment that await him, are astonished, and say to him, "Wherever were you living, you poor wretch? Where were you that you wronged yourselves so, and are now departing this world, departing this world as a wrongdoer against your own soul?" "Qalu fima kuntum" — "Where were you? How were you?"
In answer they say — "qalu," they say — "kunna mustad'afina fi l-ard": "We, in the earth, among the people where we were living, were among the oppressed and downtrodden (mustad'afin); we were part of the will-less mass." The mustad'afin are that group within a society in whose hands the control of the society does not lie; these are the downtrodden. In the society's course and in its going, in its movement, in its repose, in its orientation, in its activity, they have no say. As I said yesterday, it goes wherever the pullers of the rope desire. So they go, the poor wretches, having no say of their own as to where to go and what to do.
Imagine a handful of small elementary-school children, first grade — and not even at the age of seven, for seven-year-old children today have their eyes and ears far more open than this — imagine a four- or five-year-old child placed in a school, a maktab, like the maktabs of old. I recall: when we used to come out of the maktab toward home, in a group, we did not even understand at all where we were going. Children do not pay attention to what is where. A monitor, say — some older child with a stick — "Go this way, go that way, don't go under a car," or "Do go under the car!" — sometimes he even wishes that this would happen (laughter from the audience) — they do not at all pay attention to where they are going; suddenly they find they are in their own house, say; they find they are in the house of some other student, say. Now if this monitor takes a fancy to lead them around the street a little, they find they are at such-and-such a place, say.
The mustad'afin of the earth are those who, within a society, have no news of the goings-on of the society. They do not know what is where; they do not understand where they are going. Where they will end up, who is carrying them there, how one might keep from going, and — now that we have not gone — what we must do next: they understand none of it at all, they pay no attention at all. Just so, they have hung their heads down, like — with all due distinction, with all due distinction, with all due distinction — the millstone horse. The horse, with all due distinction, of course (laughter from the audience). They have blindfolded its eyes; it keeps pacing, keeps walking. It just keeps going, going, going; it goes round, goes round, goes round. If this animal were capable of understanding anything, at dusk it would imagine to itself that "by now we must be around Paris and thereabouts, we have come such a long way" (laughter from the audience). Then, when they uncover its eye, it sees it is the very same place where it was at first dawn. It does not at all know where it has gone; it does not understand where it is going while it is moving.
The mustad'afin in a society are these — the majority, the uninformed mass of the people. Of course, in societies other than those administered by a sound system — not those societies that set a value on the jewel of humanity; not those societies that hold a dignity for the human being and for the human will; not that society whose leader is the Prophet, of whom, although he is the Prophet, the Qur'an says: And consult them in the affair. — even though he is the Prophet, even though he has no need to consult the people, he is nonetheless commanded to consult the people, to hold them dear, to deem them great, to give them personality. Not these societies — such a society does not have such a mass; but in those societies administered by an individualistic system, by a tyrannical system, by an ignorant system and the like, the majority of the people are mustad'afin.
They say: "kunna mustad'afina fi l-ard" — "We were among the mustad'afin." They dragged us along so, carried us off, flung us down, trampled us, befouled us, and we did not understand; and now we are dying too. This is the excuse and answer of the mustad'afin. See what the angels say to them now. "Qalu kunna mustad'afina fi l-ard" — they say, "We were oppressed in the earth; we were among the weak, the overpowered, the will-less, the powerless." The angels reply. See — it becomes clear that the logic of the angels is exactly equal to the reasonable, intelligible human logic; the human intellect too says this very thing. As that servant of God said seven or eight hundred years ago:
Set not your heart upon any one beloved, nor upon any one land, For land and sea are wide, and human beings are many.
Sa'di's view too was one with the view of these angels. The angels of the Lord say — "qalu," they say — "a-lam takun ardu Allahi wasi'atan fa-tuhajiru fiha": "Why, man, you were oppressed there — but was the earth of the Lord confined to that one place? Was the whole world summed up in that one society in which you were living in a downtrodden way? Was the land of God not spread out, that you might go forth from this prison, go to a point of freedom? — to a point where you could worship God, to a point where you could put your energies to work along the right path, to a point where you would not be downtrodden? Was there no such place in the world?" "Qalu a-lam takun ardu Allahi wasi'atan" — "Was the earth of God not broad and wide?" "fa-tuhajiru fiha" — "that you might make hijrah in the earth of God and go to another place?"
They have no answer left to give. What can they say, the poor wretches — it is well known that a sound argument has no rejoinder. This is why the Qur'an, regarding the outcome and end of these wretches, speaks thus: "fa-ula'ika" — those mustad'afin, those whose power and will were in the hands of the Taghuts, who were carrying them off to Hell — "fa-ula'ika ma'wahum jahannamu wa sa'at masiran": those, then — "their abode" — where is their dwelling-place? — "Hell, and what an evil journey's end" and final destination it is for a human being. This too is the end of the affair.
Of course, there is an exception. Not everyone is able to make hijrah; not everyone is able to rescue themselves from those bonds of the ignorant system. A certain number are incapable; a certain number are old; a certain number are children; a certain number are women for whom the possibility of this undertaking does not exist. Hence these are excepted: "illa l-mustad'afina" — except the oppressed and downtrodden, "mina l-rijali wa-l-nisa'i wa-l-wildani" — among the men, women, and children — those weak and incapable ones who, "la yastati'una hilatan" — who have no recourse, of whom no undertaking is possible, "wa la yahtaduna sabilan" — they find no way toward the region of light, toward the region of Islam and the worship of God; they find no way, they can do nothing — "fa-ula'ika," then, these who can do nothing, "'asa Allahu an ya'fuwa 'anhum" — it is to be hoped that God will pardon them. See, these are the very words of the Qur'an: it is to be hoped that God Most High will pardon them; this is how their case stands. "Wa kana Allahu 'afuwwan ghafuran" — and God is ever Pardoning, possessed of forgiveness.
Then, so that those to whom the address of hijrah is directed should not feel, should not imagine, that hijrah will be a source of wretchedness and loss for them — "How will it turn out? Can we? Can we not? Will we reach some place, or not?" — in answer it says: "wa man yuhajir fi sabili Allah" — that one who makes hijrah in the way of God — "yajid fi l-ardi muraghaman kathiran wa sa'atan" — finds in the earth a vast field of movement and a spacious land. He sees, "What a flight one can make in the world! What a heart's-content soaring of wing one can do in the Islamic society! Until now our wing and our flight, when we soared very high, reached only to the ceiling of the cage. What horizons there are, how vast! In Mecca, the poor wretch prayed his prayer by force; if he showed any keenness in the Masjid al-Haram he prayed a two-rak'ah prayer and then took a thorough beating into the bargain. The utmost of being a Muslim was this, no more than this. Then, when he made hijrah, when he came to the free land, to the free air, to the Islamic society, beneath the wilayah of God and of the Messenger of God, he saw, 'What a place this is! Here they vie with one another toward good works (yatasabaquna ila l-khayrat); here, by the verse of the Qur'an and by piety and worship, the rank of individuals is distinguished and made known. Whoever moves more for God, worships more, strives more, performs jihad more, gives more in charity — he is the more honored in this society.'"
Yesterday, if they had found out that one had given a single dirham in the way of God in Mecca, they would have heated the iron skewer red-hot and burned him with fire under torture. When you come and make hijrah in the way of God toward the city of the Messenger (Madinat al-Rasul), O Muslim of the early era of Islam, then you see what a field of movement it is, what a place for flight it is, how a human being can soar his wing to his heart's content. "Wa man yuhajir fi sabili Allah" — whoever makes hijrah in the way of God — "yajid fi l-ard" — that is, toward the divine and Islamic society — finds in the earth, in the way of God, "muraghaman kathiran wa sa'atan" — a vast field of movement, a place of abundant flight, and a spaciousness, an opening-up, a breadth.
Now, if you moved in the way of God from Mecca, from the abode of unbelief (dar al-kufr) toward the abode of emigration (dar al-hijrah); and along the way God took your soul, you died — how is it here? They say, "Then your wage and reward is with God, because you did your own part. The movement that it was incumbent upon you to perform issued from you."
Going to the desert road is better than sitting idle; For though I do not attain my desire, I strive to the measure of my capacity.
And Islam wants this. Islam wants every person, to the measure of his own ability — the amount that he can, and is able and capable of — to move in the way of God.
Whoever goes forth from his house as an emigrant to God and His Messenger… — that one who goes forth from his house, while he is making hijrah toward God and His Messenger — "thumma yudrikhu l-mawt" — then death overtakes him along the way — "faqad waqa'a ajruhu 'ala Allah" — then his reward has assuredly fallen due upon God and is upon the responsibility of God — "wa kana Allahu ghafuran rahiman" — and God is Forgiving, possessed of mercy.
Note this point: since today is the last day of the discussion of recitation and our Qur'anic study, this topic remains roughly half-finished. Let me state this point: hijrah from the abode of unbelief, from the wilayah of other-than-God, from the wilayah of Satan and the Taghut — to where? To the abode of emigration (dar al-hijrah), the abode of faith (dar al-iman), beneath the wilayah of God, beneath the wilayah of the imam; beneath the wilayah of the Prophet and the divine wali one must make hijrah — this is hijrah. Now, if such a region did not exist in the world, what is to be done? Must one remain in the abode of unbelief? Or must one set about creating an abode of emigration? The Prophet himself, too, was among the emigrants, was he not? The Prophet too made hijrah; but before the Prophet made hijrah, an abode of emigration practically did not exist; the Prophet, by his own hijrah, created the abode of emigration.
Sometimes it becomes necessary that a group of human beings, by their own hijrah, inaugurate the starting-point of hijrah, found the divine and Islamic society, bring it into being, create the abode of emigration; then the believers make hijrah to that place. The upshot of the matter — this is the substance of the discussion concerning hijrah.Jul 14, 2026 · Episode 30 · 43:43