Ep 7 — Faith and Adherence to Commitments

Session 5: Faith and Adherence to Commitments. delivered Monday, 1 Mehr 1353 / 6 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394 Surat al-Nur (24:51-52). The only saying of the believers, when they are called to God and His Messenger so that he may judge between them, is that they say: 'We hear and we obey.' And it is they who are the successful. And whoever obeys God and His Messenger, and fears God and is mindful of Him — it is they who are the triumphant. Here is another important point within the discussion of faith: the commitments of a believing person are not occasional, not a matter of personal whim. The one who wishes to present himself as a believer cannot be a believer only where his own aggressive personal benefit and gain demand it. That is the picture we must reject — a man who, wherever he can "ride the mount of his desire" in the name of faith and through a show of action, invokes the name of faith and of action, but then, in those cases where faith and action yield him no personal, aggressive, transgressive benefit, turns away from the name of Islam, the name of faith, and from acting upon the commitments of faith. Here we attributed this trait — which the Qur'an exposes in a variety of forms — to the profit-seekers; we said that profit-seekers are like this. All the people of the world are profit-seekers; who is there who desires his own loss? What we mean by "profit-seekers" are those who, for the benefit of their own person, are ready to sacrifice worldly interests — the transgressing profit-seekers. Their way of life is this: they want and love faith and action only to the extent that it serves their own person, and only insofar as, in the name of faith and through a show of action, they can derive some gain or pleasure. People of this sort are, from the standpoint of Islam, not believers. The verse of the Qur'an explicitly declares that these have no faith. Faith is one of the very first topics that had to be, and was, raised in the chain of the intellectual understanding of Islam. And in discussing it we reached this conclusion: faith is faith only when it is accompanied by commitment. Faith without commitment, without a sense of responsibility, without the carrying out of commitments — without, in the Qur'an's expression, righteous deeds — is not faith. The results of faith do not follow upon a bare, dry, merely mental faith. In addition to this, this further truth must also be kept in view: that commitment is perpetual and universal. The one who is a believer and wishes to remain a believer and to enjoy the fruits of being a believer must feel committed before all the commandments of God, and must feel committed everywhere. The one who believes that faith in God and faith in the prophetic mission brings a commitment — that commitment is this: that everyone must become a servant of God, and that I, to the extent I am able, must make everyone a servant of God. Faith in the Prophet, and bearing witness that I am one who affirms the messengership of my Prophet, brings this commitment: that I must follow the Prophet and move along his path. Suppose I am affirming and acknowledging in this sense — suppose I accept this commitment. Then one thing no longer makes sense. When I encounter some small phenomenon contrary to the conduct of the Prophet, contrary to the path of God's Prophet, I so fill the veins of my neck, so clench my fists — truly the performance of a Muslim. Yet when I face a larger phenomenon, a more troublesome one, again in opposition to the direction and course of prophethood and messengership, I forget my responsibility. There is a saying: Asadun 'alayya wa-fi'l-hurubi na'amatun — "A lion against me, but in wars an ostrich." With the weak you are a lion; with the bad people who are only mildly bad you roar like a male lion; but with the great evildoers, with the bad ones who breed evil, you have no fighting spirit at all! Asadun 'alayya wa-fi'l-hurubi na'amatun! This is an Arabic line of verse used as a proverb. It says: when they come up against us they are lions, but in the wars, when they face thick-necked, sword-wielding, armed enemies, they are ostriches. Does an ostrich do battle with anyone? Does an ostrich have claws and fangs? Commitment is not seasonal; commitment is not occasional. It is not directed at one time and not at another; it is not directed at one person and not at another. Commitment is universal, all-encompassing, and perpetual. The Noble Qur'an names the Jews — those who in one place would say that our brethren — meaning the Jews — must be preserved like dear ones; but in the place where their personal interests came into play, they would kill these very brethren in wars, take them captive, sell them, and consume the price. The Qur'an, in the position of rebuking the Children of Israel, says: Do you believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in part? Do you have faith in some of the religion, and in those untroublesome, comfortable parts of it you are believers and committed — while in some other parts of the religion you are faithless, without belief? Can such a thing be? Can one make a division between two statements and two commands, both of which have their source from one origin and one point? Our great Imam, Imam al-Baqir — God's blessings and peace be upon him — in that well-known hadith which is the first hadith in the chapter on enjoining good and forbidding evil in the noble book al-Wafi — of course this hadith is in al-Kafi as well, and in the reliable books of the Shi'a, but al-Wafi is the compendium of our four principal books, by the late Fayd al-Kashani — when you open the book on enjoining good and forbidding evil, its first hadith is this. He points precisely to people of this very kind: these are those who turn toward prayer and fasting, which are untroublesome and undemanding, but toward enjoining good and forbidding evil — which is troublesome and, on the surface, harmful — they show no inclination and pay no heed. Here the Imam, peace be upon him, does not go on to say whether these are believers or not believers; he does not say whether they are corrupt (fasiq) or hypocrites. But the verse of the Qur'an here says explicitly: those who, where their interests are at stake, do not want the religion — these are not believers. Those who, if the truth is on their side in some affair, submit to the judgment and rule of the Prophet, but where the truth is not on their side and they know that the ruling will go against them, do not submit to the rule and judgment of the Prophet — of these the Qur'an asks: did they fear? Did some doubt arise in them? Did they fall into uncertainty about the rightness and soundness of the religion? Its other half is this: Or do they fear that God and His Messenger will be unjust to them? — something at the level of unbelief: they feared that God and His Messenger would wrong them. In all affairs, in all matters, in every corner and aspect of life, the believing person is committed — not only where his advantage requires it. Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, in the place where it became necessary, even raised the Qur'an as pages upon the spear-points — as you have all heard, and you know its story. In the place where advantage required it, he too would speak of the Qur'an, of prayer, and of religion. In the place where he had to win over the heart of one of 'Ali's friends toward himself, he would even speak of the virtues of the Commander of the Faithful; when they would mention 'Ali's virtues, he would even shed crocodile tears. How many times have you heard that Mu'awiya was seated, and 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas was also seated, and others were seated, and then he said: "So, you so-and-so son of so-and-so, what do you know of the virtue of 'Ali?" The man said, "Am I safe?" Mu'awiya said, "Yes, you are safe." Then the man began to speak, and Mu'awiya began to weep loudly, wailing. Where it is necessary, he even speaks of love for 'Ali; where it is necessary, he even presents himself as God's special servant; where, for the sake of ruling over a handful of Muslims, he is forced to preserve their sentiments and not wound their feelings, he speaks of what the people love — namely, the Qur'an and Islam. These are the places where religion is to his benefit, in accordance with his personal interests and his transgressing desires. But there, where religion and adherence to the commandments of religion is to his detriment — there he no longer recognizes religion. Consider what these other matters are: the reckoning of justice, the observance of social justice, the regard for the oppressed and deprived classes, the placing of relatives and strangers on an equal footing — these belong to religion, these are part of Islam — and the raising of the level of people's thought and reflection, which is the goal of the messages, the prophethoods, and the missions. When these come into play, Mu'awiya knows nothing of religion, feels no commitment before religion. I use Mu'awiya as an example so that there may be a possibility for you and me to bring ourselves into this arena and to test ourselves against this certain standard. Let me give as an example someone whose badness is clear and certain in everyone's view. I want to say: if it is to be the case that we accept some portion of the religion in a committed way, and we do not accept the other portion, yet regard ourselves as believers — if such a structure is to stand, then let us first regard Mu'awiya as a believer; for Mu'awiya, too, was just like this. With regard to a certain portion of the religion, he expressed intense adherence. Have I not repeatedly said in the discussions that Mu'awiya prayed — he prayed in congregation, he prayed at the first time of prayer, he even acted as prayer-leader? — for the merit of congregational prayer is greater for the prayer-leader than for those who follow. That measure of reward which the prayer-leader has before God is greater than the measure of reward the followers have, according to the narrations that exist on this subject. He would be the prayer-leader. Well, here religion is a very good religion, a delightful religion, a harmless religion, a religion that attracts affection, draws sentiment, makes the people well-disposed — these are good things. But this religion says that its Prophet was sent for the teaching and the training of the people: Indeed God conferred a favor upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His verses, and purifying them, and teaching them the Book and the wisdom. God sent the Prophet to humanity so that he might teach them, so that he might advance humanity, so that he might make insight and reason strong and powerful in human beings. Anything that struggles against people's intellect, the religion struggles against it. Anything that blocks the eye, the perception, the reason, and the understanding of the people, the religion blocks its encroachment. Any factor, in whatever form, that does not let people think and understand and perceive — the religion does not let that factor remain alive. This is religion. That religion which they said is the opiate and narcotic of the nations is something else. In our Qur'an, in the conduct of our Prophet, in the conduct of our leaders, there are no signs of that sort of religion. Islam, which fights against unbelief, fights against that sort of religion too. Our Commander of the Faithful, the great Islamic leader, says: God sent the prophets to stir up and arouse the treasures of intellect and reason within people and human beings — wa-yuthiru lahum dafa'ina'l-'uqul ("and that they might unearth for them the buried treasures of the intellects"). So anything of the opposite kind stands exactly at the opposite point of the philosophy of the mission of the prophets: anything that buries these treasures more deeply, that conceals and hides the power of reason and thought of human beings under mountains of dust, or under mountains of fanaticism, or false notion, or strangulation, or suffocation, or anything else. It makes no difference what it is or in what age it may be. The prophethoods deal with the thought of the people and with the reason of the people; the more precise this thought and this reason is, the more acceptable the prophethoods are. They strive to raise these thoughts up. So whatever blocks this is against religion, contrary to religion. Take any person, any factor, any power, any motive — whether within the human being himself or outside him — that causes the thought, reason, and intellect of the human being to be held back from growth and development, so that it is given no possibility of activity, so that people cannot, under the light of the torch of their own thought and insight, understand anything, find a path, and freely traverse it. That is the thing religion stands against. And Mu'awiya was of this kind. Here, where the enlightening of people's minds came into play, Mu'awiya understood nothing at all of what Islam is. There, where Islam commands him: take hunger away from the people, remove class differences from within society, do not permit discrimination, do not set conscienceless oppressors over the people, do not choose your advisors and friends and intimates from among the most criminal of the people, do not drive the people toward Hell and do not subject them to the punishment of God and the punishment of this world — there, where these matters came up, where it was said to him, "Lift the pressure off the people, let them understand," there Mu'awiya stood leagues away from religion. He says to Ibn 'Abbas: "Ibn 'Abbas, do not recite the Qur'an." He said, "How should I not recite the Qur'an?" He said, "Well, recite it, but do not interpret it." He said, "How is it possible, Mu'awiya, that I recite the Qur'an and not interpret it? What are these words you are speaking?" Mu'awiya saw that he had, as it were, said something bad — in those days these words seemed bad to the people, that they should recite the Qur'an and not interpret it — so he said, "Very well, interpret it, but the interpretation that has come down through your own family, through the Commander of the Faithful — do not tell that interpretation to the people." He did not want the people to understand the Qur'an, and fundamentally he did not want the people to understand anything at all. The less the people understood, the more it was to Mu'awiya's benefit. Therefore, when we turn to Mu'awiya's record — apart from the oppressions, apart from the killings of people, pay attention! — apart from the buryings alive, apart from the rotting-away in prison, apart from the destruction of men like Hujr ibn 'Adi and Rushayd al-Hajari, apart from these vile, contemptible crimes against the likes of Maytham al-Tammar which everyone understands, which even any common person perceives — Mu'awiya has one crime which none but precise eyes can comprehend. That crime is this. Mu'awiya ought to have advanced this newborn child, this Islamic society, forward at least twenty years; this trust that had been placed in his hands, this Islamic society, he ought to have advanced twenty years. He did not advance it twenty years; he did not even keep it in the state it was in — he set it back two hundred years as well. In what respect did he set it back? Did their money decrease? No; would that their money had decreased! Did their territory shrink? Was their country broken apart? Did some of them die for no purpose? Would that these things had happened! In terms of thought, in terms of insight, in terms of morals, he set the people back. This was a crime that was in no way pardonable, and is not. This was a sin whose remedy was not achievable by ten or twenty years of another just government. After the era of Mu'awiya, twenty or thirty years after him, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz came, who is the just one of the Banu Umayya; he was unable to accomplish anything, unable to make amends for Mu'awiya's atrocities, unable to fill in Mu'awiya's pits. Indeed, they did not even give him more than two years' respite to rule; they poisoned him and killed him. He [Mu'awiya] had so arranged the situation that nothing but corruption would grow, nothing but corruption would be accepted. The people, ignorant, senseless, without reflection and precision in matters — eyes open — would see what Mu'awiya's loudspeakers said, and would believe that very thing, would come to hold that very belief. I have stories of the ignorance of the people of Syria in the time of the Banu Umayya, and often they are amusing stories too; I have related many of them in the discussions, the sermons, and the interpretive talks repeatedly. It would not be bad to tell one of them now, in the form of a "joke," as people say today. See to what point they bring the affair of a nation. In the time of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, Mecca was conquered by Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. Hajjaj is the very powerful and capable commander of the Banu Umayya, and he was against anyone and anything that had the slightest inclination toward Shi'ism — intensely against it. Of course, Mecca was not in the hands of the Shi'a; it was in the hands of 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr was also like Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, except that God did not give him respite. Hajjaj had fallen upon 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr; in the end they took and conquered Mecca, and among other things they took control of Mount Abu Qubays. You know that Mount Abu Qubays is one of the mountains beside Mecca, adjoining Mecca. He [Hajjaj] took up his pen and wrote a letter to Syria, to the caliph 'Abd al-Malik, saying: Praise be to God, we have gained control of Abu Qubays — that is, of the mountain of Abu Qubays — we have gained control. The caliph gave the order that this letter be read out from the pulpit of Damascus. The people had all gathered; it was a Friday; the people were assembled. The preacher took the letter and said: Praise be to God, the caliph's commander, Hajjaj, has gained control of Abu Qubays. At once a cry went up from all the people. They said: No indeed, we do not accept this, we do not accept it; this Abu Qubays the Rafidi must be put in chains and sent to Syria so that we may believe it. In their imagination, Abu Qubays was some Rafidi man in Mecca! This is the level of understanding and comprehension in a nation. And of stories of this kind there are many. Who has done these things? Upon whose shoulders is the sin of the people's not understanding? You may say it is upon the shoulders of Shurayh the judge, upon the shoulders of Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, upon the shoulders of so-and-so the judge or so-and-so the hired, mercenary jurisconsult. He ought to have made the people aware — and I too accept this. Of course Abu Yusuf the judge, or Shurayh, or Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, or others and others, committed the greatest of crimes, just as we read and saw in the letter of Imam al-Sajjad to Ibn Shihab. But I want to see: whose making and shaping is Muhammad ibn Shihab? That pole which makes the spiritual powers that are against religion and against the Qur'an — who is that pole? Is it not the pole of Mu'awiya? So the sins, in the end, are upon the shoulders of Mu'awiya, upon the shoulders of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, upon the shoulders of all the heads of the tyrants (tawaghit) of the Banu Umayya and the Banu 'Abbas and others besides them. And these people, with all their sins, sometimes even speak of following the Qur'an and the religion! Here, what is our duty? Did you take note? Faced with a man like Mu'awiya, a man like Shurayh, a man like al-Mughira, a man like Zayd ibn 'Amr of the time of Mu'awiya — it makes no difference, in whatever class — when it comes to judging this human being, how must we judge him? In some places he has accepted the religion and the faith in a committed way; in some places he has left no sign, trace, or token of religion and faith in his life. What shall we say to this man? Shall we regard him as a believer? The Qur'an explicitly states that a man of this kind is not a believer. So the faith that is valid in the Islamic way of thinking is not the faith of men of this sort — whose like in our age are countless, may God preserve us — but rather it is the firm faith of those men who are, everywhere, with everyone, at all times, in every condition, preserved — with their commitment, with their action: Indeed those who believe and do righteous deeds… — and so on to the end. And the promises that have been given for faith and for the believers are for that faith, not for this faith. If they said the believers are victorious, they said it of those sorts of believers, and they are victorious — certainly! If they said the hand of God is with the believers — that is, it is with that sort of believer. If they have said that nature cooperates and goes along with the believer, they said it of that sort of believer, not of the likes of you and me. So this discussion yields us at least one benefit. If we see that our faith does not possess the effects, properties, and glad tidings of faith — the glad tidings that the Qur'an and God gave to the believers — we will not be surprised; because we understand that the faith for which all those promises were given is not this. (Tomorrow, on the subject of the promises that have been given for faith, with a Qur'anic survey, we have a discussion which, God willing, we will present.) Now let me translate these verses; listen. Indeed We have sent down clarifying verses. We have indeed sent down clarifying verses. These verses of the Qur'an, these are illuminating. Those who do not permit themselves to understand the Qur'an, the wretches, are deprived of this illumination. And God guides whom He wills to a straight path. What does God's "willing" mean? Does it mean that God wills one person and does not will another? With some He has a special regard, draws them and carries them along, and pushes others away? The matter is not like that. God's will and God's decree — in ordinary cases, of course — manifests itself only in the form of natural and customary causes. If you decided, you resolved, you sat down at the foot of a guiding and illuminating discourse, and you were guided — God had willed that you be guided. This same you: if you were lazy, if you were slack, if you closed the road of understanding upon yourself — God had willed that you not understand. God's willing means that the ordinary means and instruments either came about or did not come about. If, by your will, by your wish, the ordinary means and causes came about for the carrying out of this effect, here God has willed; if you did not will, it is evident that God did not will — not that God's not-willing causes you not to will; no, you are free in your willing. God did not will means that the necessary cause did not follow; this is the meaning of "God did not will." Well, why do we not say "the necessary cause did not follow," and instead say "God did not will"? Because the bringer-into-existence of the causes and the giver of their properties was God. This fire that is kindled here: I put my hand into the fire, my hand burned — God willed it to burn. If I did not put my hand in and it did not burn — God willed it not to burn. What does this mean? "God willed it to burn" means that the natural cause for burning was provided. What is its natural cause? The presence of the fire, the absence of an obstacle, my willing, the putting in of the hand. When we say "God did not will it to burn" in the second case, it means that the natural cause of burning was not provided: I did not go near the fire, or the hand was wet, or the object was wet, or the fire was little, and the like. Well, why do we attribute to God that which is connected to the causes? Because God is the creator of the causes — that is the reason. These "whom He wills" (man yasha'u) phrases everywhere in the Qur'an are of this kind, and I have explained this in detail on other occasions, on other appropriate occasions; and now too I have given an indication of it. They make these claims, which are easy to claim: And they say, 'We believe in God and in the Messenger, and we obey.' But then a group of them turns away after that. When they turn away — the talk is not of unbelievers, the talk is not of apostates who suddenly take umbrage, leave the world of Islam, and depart; no, the talk is of these very ordinary believers within the societies, the Islamic societies — then about them He says: And those are not the believers. They are not believers. Now, more clearly than this: And when they are called to God and His Messenger so that he may judge between them, at once a group of them turns away. They are not willing to go and hear the ruling from the Prophet. The verse, on the surface, is about judgment; the expression "rule/governance" (hukuma) in the Qur'an is most often — I do not say always — in the meaning of rendering judgment, the very thing that we call arbitration and adjudication. But the import and content of the verse is general; it is not such that this concerns only those who do not submit to the judgment of the Prophet alone — no, those who also do not submit to the command of the Prophet in matters other than judgment are included in the verse, and this is clear. But if the right is on their side, they come to him submissively. If the truth is on their side, they come to the Prophet as obedient ones, with acknowledgment. There, where the ruling is to be in their favor, they are submissive before the religion; there, where the ruling is likely to be to their detriment, they do not accept the religion. Here the Qur'an, in truth, calls them to account. Why is it that, where it is not to the benefit of your person, you do not accept the religion? It is one of three things. First: Is there a disease in their hearts? The disease of hypocrisy? The disease of caprice and desire? The disease of ignorance and conceit? Are these diseases in their hearts, so that they do not accept the ruling? Or is it higher than this? Second: Or do they doubt? Have they fallen into doubt about the religion? If you have no doubt about the religion, if you are not in uncertainty, not in misgiving regarding the religion — why is it that, where it is not to your benefit, where it is troublesome for you, you are ready to deny it, to fundamentally reject the religion, that is, to deny that ruling? Or is it even higher than this? Third: Or do they fear that God and His Messenger will be unjust to them? Perhaps they fear that God and the Prophet will wrong them — which is higher than that doubting; this is the very essence of unbelief. That a person should be so ignorant, and not believe, that God and the Prophet do not wrong a human being in their rulings! The one who has such a fear, who fears that God might do him injustice or the Prophet might do him injustice — it is evident that this man does not know God and the Prophet at all and does not accept them. Nay, it is they who are the wrongdoers. God does no wrong to anyone; it is they who do wrong to themselves and do wrong to the truth. If they hold a higher position, they wrong themselves and the truth and the people; if their rank is higher over humanity absolutely, these are the wrongdoers and oppressors. But how are the believers? The believers are not like this. See, the Qur'anic vocabulary is this. The Qur'an has a lexical meaning, and it has a specialized vocabulary. "Believer," in the terminology of the Qur'an, has the meaning that it is expounding here: The only saying of the believers, when they are called to God and His Messenger so that he may judge between them, is that they say: 'We hear and we obey.' Which, as I have said, "we hear" means we have understood — not we heard with the ear; "we hear" means we have given heed. Consider the terminology of "hearing" (sam'): Or gives ear while he is a witness. "Hearing" and "listening" in the Qur'an, in very many of its instances — which, as it happens, while studying the Qur'an, I came across another instance last night, and of course I did not note it down, because they are many — is in the meaning of understanding, not in the meaning of hearing with the ear, with this particular organ and limb, but rather in the meaning of understanding. These say: we have understood; that is, we became believers knowingly. The same discussion we had in the previous session, that faith must be conscious. We hear and we obey. After we believed knowingly, then we also obeyed. And it is they who are the successful. Falah means success, becoming victorious, and attaining the goal and aim; of course in the meaning of "salvation" — that is, "deliverance" — it has also come in some lexical usages, but most often falah, when it comes for the believers, is more fitting with the very meaning we have stated, which is the ordinary lexical meaning. And whoever obeys God and His Messenger, and fears God, and is mindful of Him — it is they who are the triumphant. They are those who have attained the purpose and aim. Fawz ("triumph") is also in this very meaning. The next two verses do not have much bearing on our discussion; I want to get to the verse after them: God has promised those who believe… This too is a promise of God, again for the believer, and the committed believer. Pay attention: the divine promise in this verse says explicitly: We have promised the believers that the rule over the earth is yours; your idea, your creed, your thought, and your school will pitch its tent over the world; your fear and dread will be turned into safety and security; if throughout history you have suffered torment, borne oppression, after this you will live in comfort, without anxiety, without disquiet, and you will worship God and cast the rivals of God off the earth. This is the divine promise in this verse. If God has given such a promise to the Muslims, this promise pertains to the believers, and to the committed believers. Some become very scrupulous, they become rigid, they say it is special to the time of the Lord of the Age (Wali al-'Asr) — God's blessings and peace be upon him. We have no doubt that the time of the appearance of the Imam of the Age — God's blessings and peace be upon him — is the complete instance of this verse; in this there is no uncertainty. But where in this verse is it written that it is special to that time? Tell us, let us see! Which narration is there that states it is special to that time? Why do you restrict the verse? Did God not fulfill this promise with the believers of the early days of Islam? It was this very verse that was fulfilled. They came to Medina; they brought that government into being. The Bilals who, out of fear of the unbelievers of Quraysh, did not even dare utter "There is no god but God" with their tongues, called out the takbir aloud upon the minarets and sang "There is no god but God." Those who had been compelled, before three hundred non-human idols and several human idols and an idol of their own ego and their own lusts and their own carnal desires, every day and every night to prostrate and render absolute servitude and obedience — they had set up all these partners for God — these came and settled, busying themselves with life in that safe and secure land of the sublime Islamic society, without having the least anxiety. They set up no partner for God, from small and great, from the inanimate and the animate, from themselves and from others. This verse of ours has been fulfilled once there; it is capable of being fulfilled a thousand other times as well. But what is its condition? Its condition is that these opening clauses of the verse be realized, where it says: God has promised… — to whom? those among you who believe and do righteous deeds; that is, who act in accordance with the commitments of this faith. To these He has promised that He will surely make them successors on the earth. (This gentleman, the translator of this Qur'an that I have in hand, has very many errors in his Qur'an, among them this error which my eye just now fell upon and saw: he renders "fi'l-ard" ["on the earth"] as "in this land," and this is wrong. "This land" would mean the Arabian Peninsula. Was it some great feat that they should gain control of the Arabian Peninsula? They gained control of forty, fifty regions the size of the Arabian Peninsula. "Fi'l-ard" means upon the earth. I mentioned this because sometimes translations of this sort carry certain mis-teachings with them. We, of course, have no ill thought of anyone, and we do not say that you said "in this land" so as not to include the other lands — that is, that the believers and those who act righteously can gain control only over the land of the Hijaz, but over other lands — Rayy and Rome and Baghdad and Andalusia — no longer. We say, God willing, his intention was not these things.) even as He made those before them successors. He will make them successors on the earth, even as He made the believers before them — that is, the believers of earlier eras. We imagine that the believers, wherever they were from the beginning of the world, have always been beaten down, always taken a blow. Indeed, the historical knowledge and worldview of the general mass of Muslims is that faith means being inseparable from being beaten; that being a Muslim, being a believer, being on the path of God, is inseparable from suffering torment and being tortured and tasting defeat. This is exactly the opposite point of what the Qur'an wishes to say. We once explained this (we had a class of Qur'anic interpretation in the Mirza Ja'far school, two or three years ago, one or two years ago; there, on some occasion, for two days, three days, I recall, I spoke about this) — how religion, from the very first that it came into being until today, has had nothing but progress, with not one step of retreat. Not one step, in our belief, has religion retreated until now. That which they imagine to be retreat is in fact progress. In any case, the earth is yours and the rule over it is in your hands, even as it was in the hands of your predecessors — that is, the believers of earlier eras. And He will surely establish for them their religion — He will firmly establish their religion and creed and school and way, which He has approved for them — the religion and way which He has chosen as pleasing for them, the religion that is worthy of them; that is, this very religion of Islam, which encompasses this world and the hereafter, and the present and the future, and the body and the soul, and in short is all-sided, sufficient for all needs. And He will surely change their state, after their fear, to security. After their fear and dread and apprehension, He will transform it into safety and security. So that what may happen? Under the shadow of this security, what are they to do? Are they, under the shadow of security, to sit beside the garden in the heat of the summer afternoon, drinking tea with a Chinese teapot and a Warsaw samovar? Is the matter of security for these people? Are they to have security so that they can recline comfortably, loll about, and idle their time away? No. That security is so that, under its shadow, they may draw one step and ten steps nearer to the final destination of the human being — namely, perfection. So that they may be servants of God, so that the servitude to creatures may be lifted from their heads, so that they may be obedient and humble before God, and through this path may become exalted and perfected. Every word of these has a discussion of its own. They worship Me, not associating anything with Me. They render servitude to Him and associate no partner with Him. Of course, at the end of the verse, it also gives this admonition: that "if, after they have believed, they associate a partner [with God], here they will be corrupt (fasiq)." Fasiq means one who has gone out of the religion, departed from it. (Today, with the recitation that Mr. Fatimi is performing, in view of these papers that are in your hands, the verses are settling and taking their place ever more pleasingly in the soul. The gentlemen who will be present — I request that all the gentlemen be present, even if it is possible that not one person leave; this is always our recommendation, last year too I made this recommendation, and always some of you gentlemen who got up... I want to joke with you... you showed that, against all true words, there are after all a number of people who do not listen. Well, we say: if you have nothing to do, sit down, sit for a quarter of an hour. Why do the gentlemen get up and leave? Sir, those who have a shop without an apprentice; those who have a school and their school is far and the hour is late — these are within their rights, they can go. Those who have no school, let me say, who have no shop without an apprentice, who have none of these difficulties in their affairs, let them sit ten more minutes, let them benefit — my point was that the gentlemen who will be present should certainly look at these papers during the recitation of the Qur'an.) O Lord! In what we say and do, make our hearts sincere, and set them all for Yourself alone. O Lord! By Muhammad and the Family of Muhammad, let us taste the savor of a monotheistic life. O Lord! By Muhammad and the Family of Muhammad, wipe away polytheism even from the region of our hearts. O Lord! By Muhammad and the Family of Muhammad, do not withhold Your good from us. Remove conceit and afflictions and miseries and disorders from among the Muslims. O Lord, occupy the enemies of the Muslims with themselves.