Ep 28 — Concerning Wilayat (1)

Session 26: Concerning Wilayat (1). delivered Monday, 22 Mehr 1353 / 27 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394 Surat al-Nisa' (4:58-59). Indeed, Allah commands you to render the trusts to those to whom they are due, and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that with which Allah counsels you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing. O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you should dispute over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and best in outcome. Today, continuing our previous discussions, we have decided to raise several issues from among the matters we encounter around the question of Wilayat. These are not part of that original framework — the statement of the position of this question itself. The discussion about Wilayat — what Wilayat is, where in the Qur'an it is derived from, how many dimensions, aspects, and sides it has — we already presented earlier. But there is a series of issues that are subsidiary to the question of Wilayat. And yet each of these matters, in its own place, is itself a fundamental and decisive issue — one that, like a principle, must guide the orientation of Islamic directions and determine the path of the Muslim society. These several matters we will mention in order. Two of them we have noted on today's sheet, and one or two more, God willing, we will present tomorrow. Here is the first. You established from the Qur'an that a Muslim society can preserve its internal bonds and negate its external dependencies — I repeat: preserve its internal bonds and negate its external dependencies — only if there exists a center within it, a concentrated power, to lead and administer everything: all the activities and efforts, all the orientations and stances of the various poles and factions of this society. And the name of this is the wali. The wali — with the doubled ya' — means the ruler, the sovereign. That is, the one from whom all forces must take their inspiration, to whom all affairs must return — in short, the one with whom the management of the Islamic society lies, both on the intellectual side and on the practical side. This one is called the wali. These things we established from the Qur'an. Now tell me, let us see: who is the wali of the Islamic society? Do we have a concise word for it, so that if they say to us, "Very well, now we wish to know the wali; who can be the wali? Which power is it to which all the forces of the Islamic society must return, which must exercise rule?" — if this question is put to us, do we have an answer or not? Yes, we have. Of course, I have presented the answer to this matter, the response, from time to time within the previous discussions, and you yourselves know it too; it is not as though the matter were unknown. We wish, from the standpoint of logical method and the natural sequence of the subject, to have examined this too. The Qur'an's answer here is a single word. It says: the one who is the true wali of the Islamic society is God. The ruler in the Islamic society, other than God Most High, is no one else. This is a matter that Tawhid too was telling us, that Prophethood too was establishing as a certainty for us; and now you see that Wilayat too tells us this same thing. Let me state this point in passing, then move on: the principles of a school and a doctrine must always be like this — each principle yielding a conclusion that the other principles also yield. It must not be that from one principle of the school we draw an inference whose opposite we infer from another. And unfortunately, in the Islam that lives today in the mind and heart of some simple-hearted Muslims, this is exactly what happens: from some of its principles, things are inferred that are exactly the opposite of what is deduced from others. Therefore, the one who, in the Islamic society, has the right of command and prohibition and decree, and the right to execute commands, and the right to give orders and to determine the path of the society, and, in short, the right of rule over all the particulars of human beings' lives, is God: And Allah is the wali of the believers. I have traced the verses in the Qur'an that contain the expression wali and awliya'. I made an approximately summary study of them all, and I saw that this expression is among the Qur'an's established certainties — that God is the wali of the Islamic society, that the believers have no wali and helper other than God, that God must be the ruler of all the affairs of mankind. Of course, the brothers are aware of this; but nonetheless it is good for me to bring it to the attention of some in whose minds the matter might become confused. The discussion is not about the creational (takwini) sovereignty of the Lord; that is preserved in its own place — it is clear that God Most High arranges the revolution of the earth and the sky by His overpowering will. The discussion is about this: that the laws of human life, and the individual and social relations of human society, must take their inspiration from God too. That is, the legal ruler and sovereign in the divine, Islamic, Qur'anic society — in the shade of the Islamic order — is God alone. This order we always refer to as the Alawi order. And this is an expression that I would like to remain in minds: the Alawi order, the Alawi government — this order whose name we set down as the Alawi order and the Islamic order, and "the Qur'anic society" can be a name for it for us too. In such a society and such an order, the ruler is God alone. Well, here we arrive at another matter: "Sir, what does it mean that the ruler is God? God Most High does not come face to face with the people so as to command and prohibit. Human beings need a human being to govern over them; a human being is necessary to take the reins of human affairs into his hand." When I say "a human being," I do not insist on the "one"; I do not wish to negate collective leadership — no. A human being is necessary to take the reins of human affairs into his hand. Otherwise the order of human society would again be disrupted. Suppose that, in human and social society, there were only law — even law from God's side — but no commander, in the expression of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, which I shall now present; no sovereign, or no body to exercise sovereignty; in short, no overseer over the execution of the law. Then the order would collapse. Who is this human being to be? That human being, or those human beings, who are to be — over mankind and human society — to practically exercise sovereignty, to practically be the wali of the society, to practically take charge of the Wilayat of the society — who are these to be? The answer of the various schools to this question has been varied. The answer of historical realities to this question too has been varied. One group has said: al-mulk li-man ghalab — "Sovereignty belongs to whoever conquers"; that is, the law of the jungle. One group has said: whoever has the greater management. One group has said: whoever is accepted by the people. One group has said: whoever is from such-and-such a dynasty. One group has said other things; they have expressed other logics and approaches and tastes. The answer of religion and the school of religion to this question is this: Your wali is only Allah and His Messenger… The one who practically takes the rein of command and of command-and-prohibition into his hand in the society, on behalf of the Lord of the world, is His Messenger. Therefore, in a society, when a Prophet has come, it makes no sense that, with the Prophet present, a ruler other than the Prophet should govern over the people. "Prophet" means precisely the one who must take the rein of power in the society into his hand, who must be the ruler. When the Prophet departed from this world, what is the duty? When the Prophet of God, like all other human beings, departed from this world and surrendered his soul to the Soul-Creator, what do we do there? Again a verse of the Qur'an answers this matter: …and those who have believed — the believers are your wali. Which believers? Whoever believes in the school of religion is the wali and ruler of the Islamic society? Well, this would require that we have, to the number of all believing souls, a ruler! What do we do here? Believers who have a special sign. It is evident that the verse of the Qur'an, while it wishes to designate a particular person, to put its finger upon a specific, known human being and say "your ruler is this one," also wishes, implicitly, to provide the criterion. Pay attention! It wishes that human being who, in the view of the Lawgiver and the legislator of Islam, is specified — it wishes to give him rule over the people; but at the same time it also wishes to state the criterion: the reason we said your ruler should be this one is this criterion. This is the cause of his being chosen by the Lord, or of his being appointed by the Lord. Therefore it says: And those who have believed — those who have believed, whose faith is correct, for the requirement of the absoluteness of "have believed" is that correct faith is intended, not outward faiths. Those who, throughout their lives, showed that they believed; those who, with their own deeds, signed their faith. So "those who have believed" — the first condition is that they be truly believers. It has other conditions too: Those who establish the prayer — those believers who establish the prayer, not those who merely perform the prayer. Performing the prayer is one thing; establishing the prayer is another thing. If they had wished to say "they perform the prayer," they could have said yusallun; an expression that is both shorter and more concise. The establishment of the prayer in a society means that the spirit of the prayer comes alive there, that the society becomes a praying society. And you know what a praying society is: one in which, in all its corners and edges, the remembrance of God and the recollection of God surge completely. And you know that in a society where the remembrance of God surges, no catastrophe occurs — no crime, no treachery, no blow against human values. That society in which the remembrance of God surges, in which the people are mindful of God — its orientation is a divine orientation; in this society, all the people's deeds are done for God. The cause of thefts, the cause of degradations, the cause of injustices, the cause of submitting to injustice — from both sides — the cause of the transgressions that occur, and likewise the cause of submitting to the transgressions that occur, is entirely remoteness from the recollection of God and the remembrance of God. That society which possesses the remembrance of God — its ruler is like 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, blessings of God upon him, who does not commit injustice and crushes injustice; its subject is like Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, who, even though he is beaten, even though he is exiled, even though he is threatened, even though he remains a stranger and friendless, yet does not submit to the burden of injustice, does not turn back from the path of God. This is the society in which the remembrance of God exists, this is the society in which the establishment of the prayer exists. The believer who, in the society, establishes the prayer, who sets the orientation of the society toward God, who makes the divine remembrance current and established in the society: Those who establish the prayer. But it does not even end here, the wali: And they give the zakat — they distribute wealth justly, they are among those who spend in the way of God. And following it, it says: And while they are bowing — they give the zakat while they are in the state of bowing (ruku'). This is an indication of a particular case and a particular story. I have heard, and I know, the words that some of the other commentators have said — they have said that "and while they are bowing" means that these people are always in the state of bowing, and that it is not a reference to a particular event. But the spirit of Arabness and of knowing Arabic negates this possibility. "And while they are bowing" means: in the state of bowing they give the zakat. This too confirms that very matter that I presented yesterday — which comes to my mind as a possibility, which I suppose: that "zakat" is the absolute of all acts of charity (infaqat); because the ring that the Commander of the Faithful gave while in the state of bowing was not the technical zakat — it was a charity in the way of God, and the term "zakat" has been applied to it. And they give the zakat while they are bowing — meaning a human being so attached to equality, so devoted to charitable spending, for whom the sight of poverty and the poor is so painful, that he does not wait for his prayer to finish, lest this beggar leave and another poor one come. He gives his only and sole ring — he says, "Let me set it aside, then I will give it." So great is this human being's attraction toward charity, so absorbed is this man in the path of fulfilling this duty, that he has no patience to wait, no room to bear it. He has seen a poor one, has seen a poverty, has seen an appearance that God does not love — he too does not love it — and he has nothing but the ring; so, in the state of the prayer, he takes it off and gives it to the beggar. This is a reference to a special and specific episode in history, which the Commander of the Faithful, blessings of God upon him, brought about; that is, this noble one was in the state of prayer, a poor one came, and this noble one gave charity, and the verse was revealed. So, as you observe, the verse designates 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, by way of indication, as the wali of the affair (waliyy al-amr). But not in the manner of history's bullies. When, say, Mu'awiya wishes to designate a successor for himself, he says, "This son is my successor; he is my child, so he must, after me, reach this station." God Most High does not designate a successor for the Prophet in this way. He says 'Ali ibn Abi Talib must reach government after the Prophet, because the qualification for government exists in him to an intense degree. What is it? Complete faith in God, the establishment of the prayer in the society, attachment to charity and the giving (ita') of zakat to the point of being beside oneself. While appointing the successor, while designating the successor — who is 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him — it also clarifies the criterion, the linchpin, and the philosophy of his caliphate. This is a verse of the Qur'an. Therefore, in Islam, the waliyy al-amr is the one who is the envoy of God, the one whom God Himself designates; because the premise is that no human being, by the very nature of his creation and formation, has the right of rule over other human beings. The only one who has the right of rule is God; and since God has the right of rule, God can, according to the welfare of human beings, give this right to whomever He wills. And we know that the work of God is not outside of welfare, is not dictatorship, is not bullying and coercion; the work of God is according to the welfare of human beings. Since it is according to the welfare of human beings, therefore He designates and we submit. He designates the Prophet, He designates the Imam; after the Imam, He designates those who conform to particular criteria and qualifications. The one who possesses this quality, possesses this quality, possesses this quality — He designates qualities and says: these, after the rightly-guiding, infallible Imams, are the rulers over the Islamic society. So the wali is designated by God: He Himself is the wali, His Prophet is the wali, the Imams are the wali. The Imams of the Prophet's household have been appointed — twelve Imams. In the rank after that, those who conform to and match particular criteria and qualifications — they have been designated for government and caliphate. The question regarding the designation of the wali in Islam is this. Of course, this was one verse that I mentioned for you; there are other verses in the Qur'an too, some of which we have brought on this sheet, and some you must search out and find for yourselves in your own Qur'an. We have many verses here. That upon which emphasis is placed in Islam is this: that the rein of the people's affairs not fall into the hands of those who drag human beings to hell. Did history not show us this matter? Did we not see what they did to the Islamic society a little after the radiant dawn of the beginning of Islam, and what happened, and what befell this society? That society in which the people do not recognize the worth of good men, that society in which the people mistake the criteria of goodness, that society in which the people cannot recognize the one who is their reformer and their compassionate counselor — how much must have been worked upon this society for it to have reached this point and to have acquired such a condition? The apparatuses of unjust and tyrannical power had loosed a poisonous propaganda within the Islamic society. It so changed the horizon of the people's knowledge and insight, it did such a thing to them, that they were as if they saw black as white and white as black; they had come into such a state. It was for this reason that, in the second and third centuries of the Hijra, when one looks at history, one sees the atrocities of the apparatus of power and caliphate, and one sees the heedlessness and indifference of the people, and one is astonished. Are these the same people? Are these the same people who, before 'Uthman, did not show patience, who surrounded him from all sides and then, finally, with that gruesome circumstance, removed and deposed him from the caliphate? Are these the same ones? Are these the same ones who now, on the wedding night of the Abbasid caliph, see an enormous expenditure being poured out — an expenditure that could have administered a vast section of the Islamic society? They see on what debaucheries it is spent, for what kinds of things it is consumed, how the treasury of the Muslims (bayt al-mal) is spent on personal matters. I am not concerned with whether it is right or wrong; it is a personal matter — it is money for a thousand persons, and a single person spends it only on himself. We do not say he spends it on his own debauchery — no indeed, even if he spends it on his own prayer and fasting, is this act permissible? And they saw that, in the very fabric of the reality of the Islamic society, this act was being done, and yet, at the same time, they were heedless and uninformed. Perhaps I have once said this: that on the wedding night of Ja'far al-Barmaki, the beloved vizier of Harun al-Rashid — he was a young man of twenty-eight or nine, thirty years old, Ja'far al-Barmaki. When Ja'far al-Barmaki departed from the world, he was thirty-four or five years old, when they killed him. At the peak of his popularity Ja'far became a son-in-law — Harun al-Rashid too had abundant affection for Ja'far al-Barmaki — on the wedding night, in place of the sweets (nuql) that they scatter over the bride and groom, the noble, high-ranking guests of the rank of the Barmakis and Harun al-Rashid saw that some things were scattered over the bride and groom. When they went near and picked them up — well, they had been scattered, they picked them up, they picked up two, three, five — they saw, yes, these are not sweets, nor are they coins. They looked carefully: they are delicate little boxes the size of a fingertip; they are boxes, made of pure gold; then, when you opened the box, from inside it came out a paper, a very thin and delicate paper. When you unfolded this paper, you saw — how astonishing! — it became a large sheet. You read the sheet, and you saw that on this sheet, the decree of ownership of such-and-such a part of the country had been given to you. It is a decree of land-grant (iqta'), it is a decree of fiefdom (tiyul). In a single night, God knows, five hundred, eight hundred, a thousand decrees of fiefdom on very thin papers, in golden boxes, were scattered over a bride and groom, and people picked them up whom the caliph did not know who they would be. For example, suppose that the estates of the broad plain of such-and-such a region fell to a child, fell to the hand of a drunkard, fell to the hand of a knife-wielder, fell to the hand of an incompetent man. These the caliph no longer knew; he had scattered them — whoever took whatever, plundered it, picked it up, went off, devoured, carried away. But in that region whose land-grant has now fallen to the hand of this man, how many people will be trampled, how much wealth will be wasted, how many rights will be lost, ruined and trampled — these they did not think about. See to what degree class disparity reaches in those very circumstances. In those very circumstances in which these gifts and grants are being made, these extravagances and luxuries carried out — Yahya the Alawi was in the mountains of Tabaristan, fighting against injustice and oppression. He and his wife had only one single garment between them: the husband would take it at the time of prayer and wear it, then give it to the woman so that she might cover her body and perform the prayer. The household of the Prophet, who were fighting against injustice, were passing their lives in such a condition — and these people saw, and were indifferent. My complaint is not against Harun, there is no grievance against Harun. If Harun does not do these things, he is not Harun. Harun's class dictates that, as long as this class exists, it does such work; there is no grievance against him. The grievance is against the people who had forgotten the sensitivity of the early days of Islam, who had lost the alertness and understanding that they had in the early days of Islam, who, in the face of this situation, did not feel any duty, did not feel any responsibility, did not feel any pain. What is this for? It is because the harmful, malicious, vile propaganda had so worked upon the people. These propagandistic hands and propaganda apparatuses, in the regions of the Islamic society and the Islamic country, had for years worked upon the people's brains, upon the people's souls, upon the people's spirits — they had worked and worked until it had come to this point. So you see how important it is who the ruler of the Islamic society is. He must be the one whom God designates: Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you. What does "the possessors of command" (ulu al-amr) mean? The ignorant, foolish one who bears the name of Muslim imagines that "possessor of command" means anyone who can give commands, anyone whose force prevails for giving commands; he says this is the ulu al-amr. We say: no, that is not the ulu al-amr. If it were to be that whoever can give a command is the ulu al-amr and is recognized as legitimate by the Qur'an, well, then in such-and-such a mountain, such-and-such a dagger-girt bandit with a mustache stretching to his ears also gives commands — he too is the all-powerful one there; so is he there the ulu al-amr? And is obedience to his command obligatory? The one who commands everyone that, for three days and three nights, only women should come out of the houses and the men have no right to come out of the houses — this was instituted by one of these very grandees of the Safavid era, according to the account of some of the histories, if it is true; in the Safavid era he instituted it, and it became instituted in Isfahan. An eyewitness of the episode wrote a [book of] history — now I do not know whether that history is reliable or not — only women should come out, in the covered markets and caravanserais and shops and bazaars and everywhere and everywhere, women and girls should come and work, the men should not come. Is there to be no man in this city? Well, the women are supposedly at ease without any non-mahram (na-mahram) about — no indeed: the master himself and his friends and companions and those around him, they may come. The people whose mother and sister are in the bazaar — they have no right to come; these may come. Well, is the command of this one the command of God? Is he the ulu al-amr? Can one obey this? The ulu al-amr in which the Shia believes is the one whose charter of command God has issued in his name; this is what we want. He is a human being among the other human beings — "from among you" (minkum) — yet he has received the Wilayat from God. The possessor of the supreme Wilayat (wilayat al-kubra) is God, and it is from God that he has received it. Now, Harun al-Rashid, with that condition of his, with that "broken neck" of his, with that lavishness and extravagance, with that man-killing of his — who massacred this very Ja'far al-Barmaki and many of his household in a single day, with slaughter and uprooting and extermination, and many of the believers and many of the Muslims; and, to whatever extent God wills, yet other deeds — well, this is the one whom Abu Hanifa used to say is the ulu al-amr. With Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, too, there was always strife and war and dispute, for precisely this reason: they used to say, "Sir, why do you fall out with the ulu al-amr of your time?" The ulu al-amr of the time meaning this same notorious Harun — you noticed? So the logic of the Shia in this question is a very subtle and precise logic. While it senses and infers the appointment by God from the Qur'an, it also gives the criteria and qualifications into the hands of the people, so that the people may not be deceived. They should not say, "Very well, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib — upon our head, upon our eye, we accept him; and now too the successor of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is Harun al-Rashid." Yes, they should not speak in this way — as in fact this speech used to be spoken. The Banu al-'Abbas had a chain of descent which, on occasion, also reached 'Ali ibn Abi Talib or reached the Prophet! They should not say, "We accept 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, and his successorship too finally reached Harun al-Rashid — it reached, by succession, all the way to Harun al-Rashid." Mansur the Abbasid used to say, "We accept Imam Hasan, the caliph; but he took money and sold the caliphate." It is the logic of Mansur the Abbasid, isn't it! Since he sold the caliphate, he therefore has no right to the caliphate. And we too, from those to whom the caliphate had been sold, took the caliphate by force — it belongs to us. This is their argument. So they would even accept 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, would set him upon their head, upon their eye, by outward appearance; yet, at the same time, they saw no contradiction between the government of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and the government of Harun the Abbasid. The Shia says: no, this speech is not correct. The Shia says: you who accept the government of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib must also accept the criteria of caliphate and Wilayat. You must accept that 'Ali ibn Abi Talib was chosen as wali because of the assembling of these criteria; so if someone — these criteria were not in him, or the opposite of these criteria was in him — this man has no right to introduce himself as the successor of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib. He has no right to claim the Wilayat of the Shia, the being of the waliyy al-amr; and no one has the right to accept it from him. This is the first matter that arises in this domain, around the question of Wilayat. Of course, the second matter too we have indicated here, and we have also written its verse. What is the Wilayat of God for? If someone should ask this — should say, "Sir, on what proof do you say: why is the Wilayat of the affair in God's hands and for God? Why?" — the answer is that it arises from a natural philosophy specified and determined in the worldview of Islam. In the worldview of Islam, everything in the world arises from the power of the Lord: And to Him belongs whatever rests in the night and the day. Well, the one to whom all the phenomena of creation belong, and in whose hand the creational rule over everything lies, the legal and legislative (tashri'i) rule too must lie in his hand — there is no alternative. This too is the second matter, until we reach its subsequent matters. Now pay attention; let me, quickly, give the meaning of these verses. Indeed, Allah commands you to render the trusts to those to whom they are due, and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Indeed, Allah — excellent is that with which He counsels you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing. That which He commands you is out of complete hearing and awareness and knowledge. Because He is the Hearer of your inner needs, because He is the Seer of your destiny, therefore that which you need, He gives and bestows upon you. That first verse, which speaks about the trust and says "render the trusts to those to whom they are due," is in reality a preparation of the ground for the second verse. The trust is not only that I have one toman of yours in my hand and you say, "Return this one toman to me." The most important example of the trust is that the human being should convey God's trust among the people to its place and to those to whom it is due. That trust is the human being's obedience — the covenant and pact of God with man. He should expend it and spend it in its place; he should obey God and obey the one whom God has commanded be obeyed. This is the most important instance of the trust. Then He says: O you who have believed, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you — the possessors of command from among yourselves. Here the Islamic thesis (tez), with some of the other theses and ideas, makes its differentiator and point of divergence apparent. The Islamic thesis does not say that there will be a day when government is not necessary — no; the Islamic idea does not foresee that day on which, in society, there is no state and government — no indeed; whereas some schools foresee that day on which society is the ideal society, and one of its characteristics is that there is no longer state and government in that society. No; Islam does not foresee this. The Khawarij, under the pretext of divine government, were the ones who used to say that 'Ali ibn Abi Talib must not rule. They used to say, "la hukma illa li-llah" — "rule belongs to none but God." The Commander of the Faithful, in answer to this, says: "kalimatu haqqin yuradu biha batil" — a word, a true word, but falsehood is intended by it. The speech is correct: the ruler is truly God; the one who gives the regulations and takes the rein of life into His hand is truly God. But you say "la hukma illa li-llah" or you say "la imrata illa li-llah" — law and rule belong to God; who is the executor of the law? Do you also say that other than God, no one should be the executor of the law? Then, therefore, in answer to this speech, He says: "la budda li-l-nasi min amir" — in the end, humanity and human society needs a commander (amir), needs a ruler and sovereign. This is human nature: that one's life must be accompanied by an executor of the law; the existence of the law is not sufficient — there must be someone to execute this law and to oversee the precise and correct execution of this law. This is what it says: And those in authority among you — however, the ulu al-amr: is it the absolute ulu al-amr? Whoever commands is correct? Sometimes it may happen that, in a single place, two persons command against each other — are both of them ulu al-amr? Sometimes it may happen that a man commands whom the human intellect and reason negates as a commander — is he still ulu al-amr? It is here that, between us and the mode of thought of Sunnism, an essential disagreement arises. We say: the ulu al-amr, the possessor of command, is that possessor of command who conforms to the divine criteria. Whereas they, in practice, do not impose such a condition. Now, what is in their jurisprudential books, I have not made a proper reference to see. That which is widespread on tongues and in mouths is this: that no — whoever reaches the station of command and sovereignty is respected and authoritative for them. And if you should dispute over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is best, and best in outcome. You see, He directs the people to the good consequences of the sovereignty of the good, and the evil consequences of the sovereignty of the bad. This too is one verse. Following it is the third verse. It is a reproach to those who turn their heads away from this general command: Have you not seen those who claim that they have believed in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you — they imagine that they have faith in your religion and the religion of your predecessors, the heavenly religions; they suppose themselves believers. Despite supposing themselves believers, an act issues from them that is contrary to faith in God. What is that? "They wish to refer judgment to the Taghut" — they wish to take their disputes for arbitration (tahakum) to the Taghut; that is, for the resolution and settlement of their own affairs they refer to the Taghut, they seek the Taghut's view, they take command, and according to his view, his command, they conduct their lives. This is contrary to faith: They wish to refer judgment to the Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it. And Satan wishes to lead them far astray — a misguidance and bewilderment exceedingly far. I consider it probable that this Satan is the very Taghut itself, nothing else. These people wish to go after the Taghut, heedless that this Taghut-Satan — this Satan that is known under the title of Taghut in the Qur'an — leads them far from the straight path, until it takes their heads out into the valleys of the wilderness (tih) of bewilderment, out of misguidances. The Taghut, the Satan, throws them so far from the road that their return is no matter of a bit or two; it is with much difficulty that they may, then, return to the straight path of guidance. This is a verse of the Qur'an. Of course, the next matter that we have written here, I present exactly as I have written it: "The Wilayat of God and its acceptance on the part of the believers arises from a philosophy that has been ordained in the worldview of Islam, and therefore it is a natural matter." That is, this that we say — that one must obey God, and the waliyy al-amr is God — this has a clear natural philosophy. Because everything belongs to God, which the verse And to Him belongs whatever rests in the night and the day. clarifies properly. God willing, tomorrow we will again continue the sequel of this discussion.