Lesson Three
TO WHICH CLASS OF SOCIETYDO THE PROPHETS BELONG?
In this chapter we are going to discuss the social origins of the Prophets
themselves, i.e., to find out the social class to which the Prophets belonged.
We are going to see whether they belonged to the rich people, aristocrats and
holders of worldly power or to the poor, the needy and the deprived. It is, in
fact, very import-ant to know the social and economic classes from which the
Prophets have arisen in the course of history, founded monotheistic movements
and revolutions and provided the masses with divine words and messages.
The Holy Qur'an, the Traditions and the Nahj-ul-Balagha are rich sources which
can help us in the analysis of this matter, but here the emphasis is only on
the words of the Nahj-ul-Balagha. In the long and famous sermon of al-Qasi'ah
(the Sermon of Disparagement) there are statements which deserve careful
reflection and which offer information concerning the matter being discussed.
The statements run as follows: „Certainly , if God were to allow anyone to
indulge in pride, He would have allowed it to His selected prophets and
vicegerents. But God, the Sublime, disliked vanity for them and liked
humbleness for them. Therefore, they laid their cheeks on the ground, smeared
their faces with dust, bent themselves down for the believers and remained
humiliated people (they were from the oppressed people). God tested them with
hunger, afflicted them with difficulties, tested them with fear, and upset them
with troubles."6
Here, the Commander of the Faithful speaks about pride and vanity and
emphasizes that since God disliked these two qualities, He misrepresented them
in the eyes of His Prophets and righteous beings. Therefore, the Prophets hated
self-deceit and superiority complexes, but liked humbleness and humility. Thus,
they bent themselves down for the believers, lived among the lowest classes of
the people, rubbed their faces with the dust (in prostration) before God and
refrained from indulging in haughtiness. They did, in effect, what the Holy
Qur'an orders to be done to the parents. It says: „... and lower to them (one's
parents) the wing of humbleness out of mercy ... " (17:24)
The Prophets., according to the Commander of the Faithful were from the
oppressed masses of the people. They knew the, pains and agonies of the needy.
They felt, for instance, what hunger was, because God had tried them with
hunger. The Holy Qur'an quotes Moses, peace be upon him, to have said, „Oh God!
I need what you shall send me." According to narrations, Moses, peace be
upon him, was hungry and implored God in this manner to send him bread so that
he could satiate his hunger. Thus, the Prophets felt the pains of hungry
people. They had tasted the sufferings of life. They knew well the troubles of hard
physical labor in cold and hot weathers. They understood the meaning of
hardship.
Timidity and the state of being fearful are characteristics of the oppressed.
They are usually fearful of the future, poverty and the dominance of a powerful
hand over their destinies. They are always worried and in a state of mental
disturbance, concerning the existing situations and the coming conditions. They
expect at any moment to be put under pressure by a Powerful oppressor.
Likewise, the Prophets suffered from such fears and anxieties and, to say the
least, were so surrounded by hardships and difficulties as to become pure in
the same way as gold derives its purity under the pressure of very hot
temperature. In fact, the Prophets were not pampered individuals to suddenly
come Out of their Palaces and call the people to make a revolution.
There was a close link between them and the common people. They had, like all
members of the society been subjected to ignorance, tasted the pains and
sufferings of life and then became worthy to be called 'Prophets'.
The Definition of the Deprived (mustad'af)
A society dominated by ignorance is always made up of two groups of people. One
group consists of those who make Plans, administer society and have total
authority over all affairs. The other group consists of the subjects and
subordinates who have nothing to do with different affairs of society. They
work hard (and thus they are not good-for-nothings as they are usually called,
compared for example, to the amount of work Pharaoh performed with the slaves
in building the Pyramids), but they have no right to apply their will,
personality and points of view in the administration of the affairs of their
society.
The first group is a minority consisting of the powerful families and dynasties
with various degrees of authority over society. They are called 'the arrogant'
(mustakbirin). The second group are the common people and the masses who are
regarded as the weak and who are devoid of authority whatsoever. They are
called 'the deprived' (mustad'afin). Our own country, during the corrupt regime
of Pahlavi, was administered by a limited number of individuals, with the Shah
at the head of them. It is true that an institution named the 'National
Consultative Assembly' existed but all the decisions were made by the Shah and
his American advisers and dictated to the members of the Assembly, who had no
will of their own.
At the lower levels, decisions were made by the big money makers who acted in
collusion with governmental personages, by governor generals and so forth. In
fact, the total authority was centralized in the hands of one person, the Shah.
If all the ministers, Assembly members, director
generals and the like agreed on something, but the Shah opposed; it was his
will and decision which prevailed. The rest of the people, i.e. the masses, had
no authority (even over their own destinies) to interfere with the affairs
pertaining to foreign relations (with Russia and America, for instance),
internal industries, agriculture, animal husbandry, etc. let alone matters
concerning religion and morality. They had no right to meddle with the total
course of affairs of their society due to the absolute lack of democracy,
voting and elections in the country.
This state of affairs is nowadays an obvious characteristic of all socialist
countries but in a more respectable form, i.e. one party (the Communist Party)
possesses the total power and authority in administering the affairs of these
countries. In fact, all the affairs of these countries are determined by the
high governmental cadres, supreme councils and the general secretary himself.
Other people have no right to express their viewpoints, and their will and
decisions are not taken for granted. Thus, mental development is repressed in
such countries, and perhaps this is why the youth usually engage in Sports and
physical training and blossom out as the first rate athletes in international
competition such as the Olympics as we observed in the recent Olympic games
held in Russia.
In western societies, too, the situation is more or less the same (mostly in
the so-called civilized countries of America and Europe where 'freedom' and
'democracy' have widespread literal application). Nowadays, there are
unfortunately some people who try to transform freedom and democracy to western
conceptions of freedom and democracy, without knowing that the West itself is
bereft of real freedom; (in America, West Germany and the likes, people imagine
that they elect their representatives freely whereas the reality is that it is
specific currents which lead them to one side or another to cast their votes in
favor of one party or another. Recent elections in America and the conflicts
between the Democratic and Republican parties are the best evidence, verifying
this reality).
Generally speaking, in all countries of the world, people are divided into two
classes: the deprived and the arrogant. The deprived masses are themselves two
groups: the needy and the non-needy. In fact, a poor and wretched peasant who
performs fifteen hours of physical labor a day under the difficulties of rain,
snow and hot weather and one who lives an ordinary life, being a shopkeeper, or
employee, etc., without suffering so much, are both in the category of the
deprived, because both of them are considered to be worthless and
good-for-nothing and are devoid of the right to participate in the
administration of their society.
According to the Commander of the Faithful in the quoted Sermon, the Prophets
belonged to the deprived classes and, like them, have been deprived of the
authority to carry out a responsibility in their society. A historical review
of the life-accounts of Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him and
his descendants, and other Prophets will clarify this matter further.
Moses, peace be upon him, was born to a deprived family among the children of
Israel who lived under severe pressures. But after birth he was brought in a
completely arrogant house and became a favorite with the Pharaoh's family
although he had not been born of the Pharaoh's wife.
He was brought up under the best living possibilities, the most delicious food
and different kinds of luxuries (as a perfect aristocrat). Then, when Pharaoh
noticed that he was nourishing an enemy within his house, Moses decided to escape.
In fact, Moses had begun his invitation and calling people to God, had started
his revolutionary propagations within the royal palace and had succeeded in
converting the Pharaoh's wife to submission to God when Pharaoh experienced a
feeling of danger and decided to prosecute him. Moses escaped to Egypt.
To say the least, Moses became a Prophet and invited the people to make a
revolution when he was within the royal house and at the peak of arrogance
(this biographical account of Moses is narrated in the Qur'an, and no use was
made here of the Traditions).
Our Prophet, Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him and his
descendants was born in a tribal house of high rank. He was the grandson of and
a favorite with 'Abd al-Muttalib, the chief of Mecca (although he was, unlike
Pharaoh, a pious, chief and a believer in God). When his father, Abdullah, who
was one of the dearest children of 'Abd al-Muttalib, died in youth, the latter
brought up Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him and his descendants,
until he became four years of age (although Moses was the favorite with a great
emperor and Muhammad with a tribal chief, both of them enjoyed the favor of
highly respectful families). Then 'Abd al-Muttalib passed away and Muhammad
came under the guardianship of his uncle Abu Talib who did not enjoy the same
respect as his father, 'Abd al-Muttalib, but who was himself a distinguished
personality, not belonging to the masses.
Abu Talib acted as a good guardian for a period of time and then he was afflicted
with poverty. Thus, Muhammad lost the (financial) support of his uncle at this
time. But before long he married Khadija, a rich woman. He first acted as a
functionary to Khadija but later on, (fifteen years before his appointment to
prophethood) he married her, thus becoming a relatively rich man in Medina.
The very financial state remained with him until he became a Prophet at the age
of forty (this is why it is said that Islam advanced through Khadija's wealth
and Ali's sword).
Accordingly, the Prophet of Islam was born to an aristocratic family and lived
a comfortable and affluent life until he was appointed to prophethood by God.
After the appointment, however, due to the high expenses of propagation and
calling people to monotheism and due to the lack of opportunity for conducting
business, he became poor.
Other prophets, too, were more or less wealthy. It is in the Traditions
(although there is no clear, historical accounts available) that Job, for
example, possessed lands, gardens and trees which were destroyed when God
wanted to test his belief. David, too, had a rural origin. He was a commoner.
Yet he became a commander and a ruler. Solomon was born in the house of this
commander (David). In fact, this chosen Prophet of God (although there is no
difference between him and Moses as far as his purity, piety, revolutionary
spirit and prophethood are concerned) was the son of a ruler. Abraham was born
in the house of an idol-carver, and the history of nations and religions
reveals that idol-carvers were not only not among the low, deprived classes but
were also considered to be saintly and respectable.
We come to the conclusion, therefore, that a considerable number (not all of
them) of the Prophets have been brought up among affluent and powerful
families. Thus, we have two points here to be considered along with each other:
First, in the Commander of the Faithful saying that Prophets have belonged to
the deprived and humble masses of the people. Second, the Prophets (some of
them), as we see above, have been born among the socially, comfortable families
of high ranks.
Are these two realities incompatible? No It is not the main point here to see
whether they are compatible or not, The main point is to nullify the
(communists') imaginary legend that all the revolutionary agents have
originated from the proletarian, bare-footed and needy classes. What is
essential is that a revolutionary person (be he a leader of the revolution or a
commoner) should be dressed with revolutionary morals and Attributes.
Materialists and the interpreters of Marxism, in fact, hold a wrong belief that
only those individuals can enjoy revolutionary morals and Attributes who
themselves belong to the poor, bare-footed or proletarian classes, for man is
always and everywhere a human being and thus corrigible. He can, like the
Prophets about whom Ali says, „They were from the deprived people," equip
himself with correct, revolutionary habits and with the attributes of the
deprived.
It is true that aristocratic training and education entail no result but an
aristocrat human being, yet it is untrue to believe that such an education (in
a person who is brought up in an aristocratic atmosphere) is unchangeable and
indestructible. In fact, should divine guidance (either in the form of thinking,
meditation and the awakening of conscience of the individuals themselves or
through training and purification of the soul by the teachers of morality, i.e.
the Prophets) enlighten the sick bodies of those who are under the influence of
aristocratic habits and training, they would come out of their spiritual
depression and become dressed with revolutionary dispositions.
SUMMARY
Two points are perceived when the social origin of the Prophets is put to
discussion: First those who are appointed to prophethood are dressed with the
Attributes of the deprived, revolutionary morals and combative spirit against
the existing class systems of the arrogant, i.e. at the time of the appointment
(and even before it) they have an anti-arrogant position in support of the
deprived.
Second, having these Attributes does not necessarily imply that all the
Prophets belong to the deprived classes. They can either belong to these
classes or not but, as was mentioned before, even at the time of appointment to
prophethood and at the beginning of their revolution they may belong to the
arrogant strata, having a comfortable life. There is no need for them to have
suffered from forced labor and hard work before the appointment. Of course,
they should have felt pain and distress but this does not necessarily mean that
they should curtail the bonds of relationship with their social class and their
(comfortable) life.
Spiritually-exalted Beings Have Understanding as Well as the Feeling of
Sympathy.
Subsequent to the discussion concerning the arrogant and the deprived, it
should be added here that such a class division does not exist in monotheistic
societies. It is, in fact, the exclusive characteristic of' societies suffering
from ignorance and alienation. We have of course, rulers, ruling classes,
caliphs, holders of religious authority and governments in monotheistic
societies but none of them are arrogant enough to manage the affairs of these
societies on the basis of personal beliefs. Also, there are commoners in such
societies, consisting of workers, businessmen, peasants, bricklayers,
government employees and so forth, but none of them arrogant either. Each class
has, in fact, some authority over its own social affairs in proportion to the
total number of its members.
For example, under the present situations of Iran (although Iran is not a 100%
or even 50% Islamic society at the present time), every individual has some
authority and the right to vote as a member of a society with thirty-six
million individuals. It is on this basis that the great movements and even the
political affairs of our country are nowadays managed and led by the people
themselves, although it may be considered wrong so far as the prevailing
patterns of politics on the international level are concerned. The truth is
that if the people were not inclined towards certain actions and policies,
connections and disconnections, the government (itself consisting of Muslims
belonging to the low classes of people) would not dare take such positions as
it does today and perform such courageous actions. This is indicative of an
Islamic country (although Iran is still not a perfect Islamic country).
When Islam shall, God-willing, shed its light on our society in all its
dimensions, the role of every individual in the administration of the whole
country will be to the extent that he or she (although being the lowest in
social position) can act and promise on behalf of the Islamic community. Today,
if a given government or a certain action be condemned in the sermons of the Friday
ritual prayer in front of a multitude of people, or if a treaty between our
country and a given government be orally made (or violated) in such sermons,
neither our own government nor the addressee will take care of it.
But in a perfect Islamic community, there is no irresponsible individual. In
such a community, in which Islamic culture and education are perfectly
dominant, every individual (being a businessman, a housewife and so forth) can
conclude a treaty or announce an agreement for the cessation of hostilities or
a special occasion and the Islamic government is obliged to take it into
account, although that individual not be a minister, an army commander or a
diplomat. In fact, every individual can decide for the whole community on
specific occasions, and his or her decision is accepted by all.
This is not, however, practicable under the present culture and habits of our
society. But as the society gets closer to Islam and its teachings, this is
more likely to be accomplished. It should be added, of course, that when we say
something is not for the time being practicable, it does not mean that Islam as
a whole cannot be materialized. It can, but only when the world has a complete
readiness for its acceptance.
Questions and Answers
Q. You said that Khadija's wealth and Ali's sword made the progress of Islam
possible. Does this not lead to a deviating concept that wealth and material
things have been the only factors for the spread of Islam?
A. We do not believe that wealth alone played a role in this regard, but the
truth is that wealth, too, had certain roles and this is undeniable. It was, is
fact, necessary for the satiation of the newly-converted people's hunger as
well as for providing the expenses of those who were sent here and there by the
Prophet. This does not negate the influence of the spirituality and dynamism of
Islamic thought and ideology, since the very dynamism is in need of material
things when acting and making progress in the same way as it needs physical
labor and activity.
Q. You defined the deprived in its social and political aspects. Is it not
necessary to explain the economic and cultural aspects of it as well?
A. The economic activities of the deprived (as previously defined) are also
under the influence of the powerful, i.e. economic activities are usually
centralized where power is centralized (under the previous regime of Iran, for
example, no productive and economic activity took place except through the
direct or indirect interference of the government). Therefore, economic aspects
are dependent on political aspects. It may, however, be argued that political
power originates from economic power. This is possible but it lacks
universality. Sometimes political power is the cause for the absorption of
money and sometimes money gives rise to political power. They are
inter-connected, but in a society wherein political power is centralized in a
certain group, economics cannot grow and progress independently. The cultural
aspects (culture in its prevailing, not in its revolutionary sense) of society,
too, are affected by the opinion of those who possess political and economic
power. Thus, when political oppression dominates society, the existing cultural
and political aspects of the deprived are also influenced by lt.
Q. Is the following tradition, narrated from the Imams concerning deprivation,
authentic? „The deprived are those who endeavored in the way of God but could
not achieve their aim in establishing the divine system. The highest of them
are the Prophets and saints, next to them are the believers who make efforts in
the way of God."
A. It may be authentic for all the Prophets and their true followers belong to
the category of the deprived. It provides us with the definition of the
deprived not with the concept of deprivation.