Ep 18 — The Social Resurgence of Prophethood

Session 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.