Ep 20 — The First Melodies of the Call

Session 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.