Ep 14 — Tawhid and the Negation of Social Classes

Session 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.