Freedom and Bondage:
Our discussion about the meaning of 'worldliness' in the Nahj al-balaghah has
become somewhat drawn out. However, one issue, which cannot be omitted, remains
unanswered. We raised it earlier in the form of a question which we had
promised to answer later. The question was this: If attachment and bondage to
anything is a kind of unhealthy condition that leads to abandonment of human
values and cause stagnation, inertness, and inertia of the human personality,
what difference does it make whether that thing is something material or
spiritual, this worldly or otherworldly, or, as goes the saying, 'the Lord or
the apple'? It may be said that if the aim of Islam by prohibiting attachment
and warning against bondage to temporal things is to safeguard the human
being's identity and to rescue him from servitude and to protect him from
stagnating and vegetating in life, it should have encouraged man to acquire
absolute freedom and to consider every thing that compromises and confines it
as kufr; for such is the standpoint of some modern schools of philosophy which
consider freedom to be the essence of man's human identity. These schools of
thought equate man's human identity with his capacity to rebel and disobey
every form of servitude and to assert his absolute freedom. Accordingly, every
manner of bondage, confinement, and submission is, according to them,
inconsistent with man's real identity and leads to self alienation.
They say that man realizes his true humanity only by refusing to submit and
surrender. It is characteristic of attachment that the object of love absorbs
man's attention and compromises his self-awareness. This results in his
forgetting his own self and, subsequently, this aware and free being called
man, whose identity is summarized in his awareness and freedom, becomes a
slavish creature devoid of freedom and self-awareness. In forgetting his own
identity, man also becomes oblivious of his human values. In this state of
bondage and servitude he ceases to progress and edify his self and becomes
stagnant and frozen at some point. If Islam's philosophy of struggle against
worldliness aims at the resurrection of human identity and personality, it
should oppose every form of servitude and liberate man from every form of
bondage. This, however, is not the case, for Islam, undeniably, advocates
liberation from material for the sake of spiritual servitude. Freedom from the
world is acquired for the sake of the fetters of the Hereafter and the apple is
renounced for the sake of the Lord.
The 'urafa' who advise absolute freedom from attachments, however, do allow an
exception. Hafiz says:
I am the slave of the magnanimity of him
Who is free of the taint of attachment to anything under the blue sky
Except the love of the moon-cheeked one,
The joy of whose love redeems all sorrows and woes.
Openly do I declare, and am delighted to proclaim,
I am the slave of Love and free from both the worlds.
Except for the Beloved 's Name inscribed on the slate of my heart,
The teacher did not teach me another word.
From the viewpoint of 'irfan, one must be free of both the worlds but should
surrender totally to love. As Hafiz says, the tablet of the heart must be clean
of every name except that of the Beloved. The heart should be cleansed of every
attachment except the love of 'the moon-cheeked one', that is God, whose love
brings redemption from all sorrows and woes.
However, from the viewpoint of the so-called humanistic philosophy freedom of
the 'arif, being only relative, does not take us anywhere, because it is
freedom from everything for total surrender and servitude to one being,
whatever that may be. Servitude is after all servitude and bondage is bondage,
regardless of the agent towards which it is directed.
This is the objection raised by the followers of modern humanistic
philosophies. In order that the issues involved may be further illuminated, we
are compelled to refer to certain philosophical issues.
First of all, one may point out that to assume that there exists a kind of
human selfhood and identity and to insist that this identity should be
safeguarded, in itself amounts to the negation of movement, progress and
development of this selfhood, because, motion and change necessarily result in
alienation from this selfhood. This is because movement means becoming: that
is, becoming something one is not; it implies continuous transcendence of
selfhood and embracing of otherness. Obviously, if we accept this view, it is
only by the means of immobility and stagnation that one can preserve his
identity; for development necessitates self-alienation. For this reason, some
ancient philosophers defined motion in terms of otherness and
self-estrangement. Accordingly, to assume that there exists a certain kind of
human 'self' and to insist that this self should be safeguarded and protected
from becoming 'non-self', and to speak of movement, progress, and evolution in
the same breath, involves an unresolvable contradiction
Some, in order to free themselves from this contradiction, have said that man's
identity lies in being devoid of any kind of 'self' whatsoever. Man, they say,
is a creature absolutely undefined in his essence and free from any kind of
limit, form, or essence. His essence lies in his being without any defined
essence. Man is a creature devoid of a fixed nature and essential necessity.
Any attempt to define, limit and confine him amounts to depriving him of his
real self and identity.
Such a view may be aptly considered poetry and flight of imagination rather
than a philosophy. The absolute absence of a fixed form and essence is possible
in one of the two cases: Firstly, such a being should possess infinite
perfection and pure and unlimited actuality; that is, it should be a being
unlimited and unconfined, encompassing all times and places and predominant
over all existents, such as the Being of the Creator. For such a being,
movement and growth are impossible; because motion and development involve
overcoming of defects and imperfections, whereas such a being cannot possibly
be supposed to possess any imperfection. Secondly, it may apply to a being
devoid of every kind of actuality and merit. That is, it should be pure
possibility and sheer potentiality, a neighbour of nothingness, existing only
on the remotest frontiers of existence. It should be devoid of any innate
reality and essence though capable of assuming any form or essence Such a
being, which itself absolutely undefined, is always associated with a definite
being; though shapeless and colourless in itself, it exists in the protective
shadow of a being possessing form, shape and colour. Such a being is what the
philosophers call 'the primal matter'. It occupies the lowest status in the
hierarchy of existence and stands on the extremity of being, even as the Divine
Essence, being absolute perfection, stands on the other extremity of
existence-with the difference that the extremity occupied by the Divine Essence
circumscribes all the contents of being. Man, like all other creatures, is
situated somewhere between these two extremes and so cannot possibly lack any
defined essence. Admittedly, he is different from other creatures, but, unlike
them, there is no limit to his movement towards perfection. Whereas other
creatures remain confined to certain definite limits which they cannot
transcend, there is no end to the possibilities of human development.
Man possesses a special kind of being. But contrary to the view of the
philosophers who believe in the precedence of essence and reduce the being of
every thing to its quiddity, and who deny the possibility of transcendence and
essential change as being self-contradictory, and consider all changes to occur
at the level of accidents, the existential nature of man, like that of any
other material thing, is fluid, with the difference that its movement and
fluidity know no final limits.
Some commentators of the Quran, in their explanations of the verse: "O
people of Yathrib, there is no abiding here for you" (33:13), have generalized
it to cover all humanity. They hold that man is a creature which does not move
to a certain and definite stage or halt; the further he moves the greater are
the possibilities open to him. Here we do not wish to indulge in discussing the
legitimacy of imposing such interpretations on Quranic verses; we only intend
to show that Muslim scholars have thought about man in such terms.
In the hadith about the Prophet's Ascension (al-mi'raj), Gabriel who
accompanies the Prophet (S), at a certain point, gives up his journey
declaring: "I will get burnt if I move an inch further", while the
Prophet (S) leaves him behind and moves further. This is an allusion to the
truth mentioned above.
Also, as we know, there is a debate among Muslim scholars about the salawat
(Benedictions) upon the Holy Prophet (S) and the Ahl al-Bayt, which we make as
a prayer to God to shower greater blessings upon them. Now the debate is
whether the salawat is of any benefit to the Holy Prophet (S), who is the most
perfect man. In other words, is there any possibility of ascension in the
Prophet's station? Or does the salawat benefit only the person who pronounces
it and beseeches God to bless the Prophet (S), a favour that has already been
granted?
The late Sayyid 'Ali Khan opened this debate in his commentary on al-Sahifat
al-kamilah. A group of theologians believe that the Holy Prophet (S) is always
ascending and climbing higher in his station, and this movement is never
halted.
Yes, such is the station of man. That which makes man such is not the absolute
absence of a defined essence but a certain kind of essence which is ordinarily
referred to as 'human nature' and other similar expressions.
Man does not have any ultimate limits but he has a path. The Quran lays great
emphasis on what it calls the Straight Path, which is an unambiguous path
before man. Man is not constrained by stages so as to be forced to stop at
every stage in his journey. Instead there is an orbit in which he should move.
This is the orbit of human perfection which is different from those of the
animals. This means the movement in a specified orbit, a movement which is
orderly not haphazard.
The Existentialist Viewpoint:
Existentialism has been rightly criticized for its refusal to acknowledge any
kind of determination or definition of the human nature, for its considering
every determination (even in the form of path or orbit) as contrary to his
humanity, and for its emphasis on his absolute freedom and capacity for
rebellion; for this philosophy necessarily leads to the breakdown of social
morality and the negation of the individual's commitments and responsibilities.
Does Evolution Involve Self-Alienation?
Now returning to what we said earlier, does movement and evolution necessitate
alienation from one's self? Should every being, in order to remain itself,
abstain from change and evolution? Does it mean that either man should retain
his human identity or, if he chooses an evolutionary course, become something
alien to his essence?
The answer is that the true evolution of anything is a movement towards the
perfect state which conforms to its nature. In other words, the transformations
during movement on the straight path of nature by no means necessitate any loss
of specific identity.
That which constitutes the real self of a being is its existence, not its
essence. Accordingly, any change in essence does not imply mutation of the
'self' into a 'non-self'. Mulla Sadra, who is the champion of this philosophy,
holds that man does not have any definite essence; rather every developing
being passing through the stages of its evolution is not a single species but a
plurality of species. The relation of an imperfect being with its ultimate
stage of perfection is not a relation of otherness; rather it is a relation of
the thing to itself. It is the relation of an imperfect self to the perfect
self. A thing while evolving toward its perfect state is in movement from its
self to its self. In a sense, it can be said to be in movement from the
non-self towards its true self. A seed that breaks the ground and sprouts
leaves, and sends out branches and flowers, does not move from the self to the
non-self. If it were aware of itself and aware of its ultimate evolution, it
would not feel self alienated.
That is why the love of true perfection is the love of a higher self, and a
praiseworthy love is in itself a desirable and praiseworthy egotism or
self-love. Shaykh al-'Ishraq Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi has an elegant ruba'i
on this subject:
Beware lest you lose the wisdom 's thread,
And lose your self for the sake of water and bread.
You are the traveller, the way, the destination,
Beware lest you lose the path from the self to the self.
On the basis of what has been said it can be surmised that there is a great
difference between desiring God, the movement towards God, the love of God, the
attachment and the servitude to God and submission to Him, and the love, the
submission, and the servitude to other things. The servitude to God is freedom
itself. It is the only relation and tie which does not stagnate the human
personality or make it inert and immobile. It is the only kind of worship which
does not imply self-forgetfulness and self-alienation. Why? Because He is the
Absolute Perfection and the Ultimate Goal and the Destination of all existents:
'And unto thy Lord will be the end of all things' (53:42).
Now we have reached a point from where we can proceed to explain the position
of the Quran that forgetting God is forgetting one's own self and the
separation from God is absolute annihilation.
Forgetting and Losing the Self:
I remember that about eighteen years ago while discussing the exegesis of
certain verses of the Holy Quran in a private gathering, for the first time the
point struck me that the Quran very often employs typical expressions about a
certain group of human beings, such as those who 'lose', 'forget', or 'sell'
their selves. For instance, it says:
They have indeed lost their selves, and that which they were forging has gone
astray from them. (7:53) Say: 'Surely the losers are they who lose their selves
and their families on the Day of Resurrection' (39:15) Be not as those who
forgot God, and so He caused them to forget their selves; those-they are the
ungodly. (59:19)
The question might occur to a mind with a philosophic bent. Is it possible for
a man to lose his self? The loss of anything necessitates two things: the loser
and the thing lost. Now how is it possible for a human being to lose its self?
Is it not self-contradictory?
Likewise, is it possible for a man to forget himself? A living human being is
always immersed in itself and perceives everything as something other and
additional to its own self; its attention is, before everything else, focussed
on itself. Then what is meant by forgetting one's self?
Later I realized that this matter occupies a significant place in Islamic
teachings, especially in the prayers and some traditions as well as in the
writings of Muslim 'urafa'. It shows that often man mistakes 'non-self' as his
self, regards that non-self as his real self. Then imagining the non-self to be
his self, he treats the non-self and takes care of it as he would have treated
and cared for his true self. The true self, as a result, falls into neglect and
oblivion, and occasionally under goes a metamorphosis. For instance, when man
imagines his body to represent his total entity, all his endeavour revolves
about his body, it means that he has forgotten his self conceiving the non-self
to be his real self. Such a man, in the words of Rumi, is like the one who owns
a piece of land somewhere; he carries building materials and hires masons and
workers to build a house for him; after much toil, the house is made ready for
living; the doors and windows are painted, the floor is carpeted, curtains are
hung and the house is furnished beautifully in every way; however, one day when
he prepares to move into the new house, all of a sudden he realizes his
mistake; to his dismay, he notes that instead of erecting the house on his own
land, he has constructed it on a land that belongs to somebody else, while his
own plot lies abandoned elsewhere:
Don 't build your house on the land of another,
Work for your own self and toil not for the stranger.
Who is the stranger except your own earthen frame?
On whose account are all your sorrows and woes?
So long as you nurse and pamper your body,
The soul would not prosper, nor would it become sturdy.
At another place Rumi says:
You, who have lost your self in a losing encounter,
Distinguishing not the other from your own true self;
At every shadow you are quick to exclaim,
"Ah! This is me!" By God it is not you!
Isolate yourself for a while from the crowd,
And immerse yourself to the neck in thought.
Indeed you shall find that you are one with the One,
Beautiful, serene, and blessed is your self.
Amir al-Mu'minin 'Ali (A) has a saying in this regard which is as profound as
it is elegant:
I wonder at the man who searches for his lost things but doesn't care to
recover his lost self.[8]
Losing oneself and forgetting oneself is not confined to man's error in
recognizing his true identity and essence-such as the ordinary man's
self-identification with the body, or the 'arif's occasional identification of
himself with his barzakhi body. We have said in the last chapter that actually
every being in the natural course of its development moves from the self to the
self; that is, it moves from a lower, weaker self to a self which is powerful
and higher. Accordingly, the deviation of every existent from the path of its
perfection and development is deviation from the self towards the non-self.
Man, more than any other creature, being endowed with a free will and freedom
of choice, is subject to this deviation. By choosing a deviant objective as
ultimate for himself, in reality he replaces his true self with the non-self,
mistaking the non-self to be the self. It is on this basis that the human
being's total immersion in material aspects of life has been regarded as
condemnable.
Therefore, the adoption of devious goals and ends is one of the factors of
self-alienation that leads man to forget his true self and finally to lose it.
Devious goals and objectives not only result in the disease of self loss; they
lead ultimately to the metamorphosis of man's human essence, a metamorphosis
that is determined by that particular devious goal. A significant part of
Islamic teachings is devoted to drive home the point that on the Day of
Resurrection every human being shall be raised with the object of his love. Our
traditions declare unequivocally:
Everyone, on the Day of Judgement shall be raised in the company of his object
of love, whatever that should be, even if it is a stone.[9]
With attention to the indubitable and unequivocal Islamic teaching that on the
Day of Judgement man would be raised in the form of what he acquired in this
world, it becomes clear that the reason for a person's resurrection together
with the objects of his love is that the love and attachment for that object
make it the ultimate goal of the path of his becoming. However devious that
objective may be, it causes the soul and the inner reality of a person to
transform into that object.
This subject has been given great attention by Muslim sages and philosophers,
who have made great many interesting observations in this regard. For brevity's
sake, we shall quote only one ruba'i on this topic: The seeker of a mine of
diamonds is himself a mine; The seeker of the spirit is himself the spirit; I
will divulge the secret of this matter: You are whatever you seek, you are the
object of your quest.
The Discovery of the Self and of God:
The rediscovery of the self, in addition to the above two, requires to fulfil
one more condition, and that is the realization and knowledge of the Cause of
one's creation and existence. That is, it is impossible for man to recognize
himself and know himself by viewing himself in separation from the Cause of his
creation. The real Cause of every existent is prior to it and nearer to it than
it is to itself:
And We are nearer to him than his jugular vein. (50:16) And know that God
stands between a man and his heart. (8:24)
The Muslim mystics have laid great emphasis on the point that the knowledge of
the self (ma'rifat al-nafs) and the knowledge of God (ma'rifat Allah) are not
separate from one another. To experience the spirit, which according to the
Quran is God's 'breath', is, to experience the Divine Essence. The Muslim
mystics have raised severe objections against the statements of Muslim
philosophers regarding the problem of self-knowledge and consider them to be
inadequate.
Shaykh Mahmud al-Shabistari was sent a series of versified questions by someone
from Khurasan. His poem Gulshan-e raz is the reply he gave to the questions. In
one of the questions, the enquirer asks:
Who am I?
Inform me about my self.
What is meant by "Journey within thy self"?
The Shaykh's reply is elaborate. There he says:
Forms and spirits, from the same light are derived,
Reflected of mirror or beaming from the lamp.
I' the word is everywhere in all your speech.
It refers to the soul, the spirit. 'I' and 'You ',
are greater than the body and the spirit,
Which are together parts of the self.
Go then, my good man, first know well your self,
And remember: edema is different from robustness.[10]
Leave one of them to soar over the undulations of space and time,
Abandon the world to become a world in yourself.
A further elaboration of this theme will take us outside the scope of our
present discussion. To be brief, it should be said that the gnosis of the self
is inseparable from that of God. This is exactly the meaning of the famous
saying of the Prophet (S), and the same theme recurs in the recorded statements
of Imam 'Ali (A):
He who knows his self knows his Lord.
In the Nahj al-balaghah it is reported that Imam 'Ali (A) was asked by
somebody: 'Have you seen your God?' Ali (A) replied: 'Would I worship what I
have not seen?' Then he elaborated his answer thus:
He is not visible to the eyes but the hearts perceive Him through (the factual
experience of) faith (iman).[11]
An interesting point that is implicit in the statements of the Quran is that
man is in possession of himself as long as he 'possesses' God. Only through the
remembrance of God does he remember his self and become fully aware of it, and
to forget God is to neglect one's own self. Forgetting God is accompanied by
self-forgetfulness:
Be not as those who forgot God, and so He caused them to forget their selves.
(59:19)
Rumi, following his verses quoted above, says:
Even if the body should lie amidst fragrance and musk,
On death it will petrify and give out its stink.
So scent not the body, but perfume the soul with musk,
What is that musk except the Name of the Glorious Lord ?
Hafiz says:
Hafiz, if you desire presence,
do not be absent from Him.
If you desire His rendezuous,
abandon the world and forget it.
This shows why the remembrance of God is essential for the life of the heart;
it awakens and illumines the heart and gives peace to the soul; it revives,
purifies, refines, and humbles the human conscience and fills it with delight.
How profound and beautiful are 'Ali's words in the Nahj al-balaghah where he
says:
Certainly God Almighty has made His remembrance a means for cleaning and
polishing the hearts. It makes them hear after deafness, see after blindness,
and makes them submissive to guidance after being stubborn and resisting. In
all periods and times when there were no prophets, there were individuals to
whom He whispered through their thoughts and spoke to them through their
intellects. As a result they were enlightened with a light awakening their
hearts, their vision and their hearing.[12]
Worship and the Rediscovery of the Self:
There is so much that can be said about worship that if we were to be elaborate
we would have to devote scores of chapters to this subject. Here we shall make
a brief reference to the value of worship in the rediscovery of the self.
As much as the bondage to material matters and immersion in them severs man
from his true self and induces self-alienation, worship helps him in recovering
his own self. Worship awakens and arouses man from his spiritual slumber. It
rescues him from drowning in the sea of self-neglect and forgetfulness and
saves his identity from being lapsed in the world of material things. It is in
the mirror of worship and God's remembrance that man can observe himself as he
really is and become aware of his failings and faults. It is in worship that he
acquires the true perspective of being, life, space and time, like watching a
city from a high mountain, and perceives the insignificance, pettiness and
abjectness of his materialistic hopes, desires, and ambitions. It is in worship
that a yearning is awakened in his heart to attain to the very core of being.
I have always marvelled at the following words of the famous scientist of our
age, Albert Einstein. What adds to my amazement is that he was a physicist and
a mathematician, not a psychologist, theologian or philosopher. After dividing
religion into three stages, he calls the third stage of religious experience as
the one arising from 'cosmic religious feeling.' He describes this religious
experience in these words:
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims, and the sublimity
and marvellous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of
thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to
experience the universe as a single significant whole.[13]
William James, writing about prayer, says:
The impulse to pray is a necessary consequence of the fact that whilst the
innermost of the empirical selves of a man is a self of the social sort it yet
can find its only adequate socius (its "great companion") in an ideal
world. Most men, either continually or occasionally, carry a reference to it in
their breasts. The humblest outcast on this earth can feel himself to be real
and valid by means of this higher recognition.[14]
Iqbal also has something profound to say about worship and prayer and their
value for the rediscovery of the self. He writes:
Prayer as a means of spiritual illumination is a normal vital act by which the
island of our personality suddenly discovers its situation in a larger whole of
life.[15]
We conclude our discussion of this extensive subject right here.
Some Relevant Issues:
Now that our discussion about the concept of the world in the Nahj al-balaghah
is nearing its conclusion, I want to clarify some issues with attention to the
principles discussed above.
The World Versus the Hereafter:
1. Some Islamic traditions seem to imply that there exists a kind of conflict
between the world and the Hereafter. For instance, it is stated that they are
like 'two rival wives' who can never be reconciled, or it is said that they are
like the East and the West: one cannot approach any one of them without moving
farther from the other. How should one interpret these statements in order to
reconcile them with what has been said above?
The answer is that, firstly, as has been expressly stated in most Islamic
traditions, a reconciliation between winning the world and the Hereafter is not
only possible but is a necessity of the Islamic creed. That which is impossible
is their reconciliation as ultimate ends and goals.
The enjoyment of the good things of the world does not necessarily require
deprivation from the blessings of the next world. That which deprives one of
the rewards of the next life is a series of mortal sins, not the enjoyment of a
wholesome, comfortable life and the availing of pure and lawful bounties
provided by God. Similarly, that which leads to deprivation in the world is not
taqwa or righteous deeds or the endeavour for the Hereafter; a number of other
factors are responsible for it.
Many prophets, Imams, and pious believers, whose virtuousness and piety are
indubitable, have been among those who benefited greatly from the legitimate
bounties of the world. Accordingly, even if it be assumed that the religious
texts do imply irreconcilability between the enjoyment of the world and that of
the Hereafter, they would not be acceptable because of the incontrovertible
evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, if we scrutinize such traditions closely, an interesting point comes
to the surface in whose light we observe no contradiction between them and the
incontrovertible principles of Islam. But before that this point may be
explained, we should examine three possible relationships between the world and
the Hereafter:
1. The relation between enjoyment of the good things of the world and enjoyment
of the rewards of the Hereafter.
2. The relation between the world as the ultimate goal and the Hereafter as
such.
3. The relation between adoption of one of these as the ultimate goal with the
enjoyment of the other.
There is no conflict whatsoever involved in the first case. Accordingly a
reconciliation between the two is quite possible. The second case, however,
involves a contradiction; for there is no possibility of reconciling these two
opposite goals.
As to the third, it involves in turn two cases: first, the adoption of the
world as the ultimate end and the enjoyment of the Hereafter; second, the
adoption of the Hereafter as the ultimate goal and the enjoyment of the world.
The first case involves a contradiction, whereas the second doesn't.
The Primary and the Secondary:
The conflict between the adoption of either the world or the Hereafter as
ultimate ends and the enjoyment of the other is the kind that exists between a
perfect and an imperfect end. If the imperfect is made the ultimate goal, the
perfect is necessarily missed; whereas if the perfect were one's end and goal,
it would not necessarily preclude the imperfect. The same is true of anything
primary in relation to its secondaries. If something secondary were made the
aim, it would result in deprivation from the primary. But if the primary is
made the aim and goal, the secondary, being a corollary of the primary, is
automatically included. This is most eloquently explained in Hikmah 269 of the
Nahj al-balaghah:
There are two types of workers among the people of the world: (One type is represented
by) the man who works in this world for this world and his involvement in the
world makes him forget the Hereafter. He is worried about those whom he shall
leave behind (on death) lest poverty should strike them as if he were himself
secure of it (in the Hereafter). So he spends his life for the (worldly)
benefit of others. The other type of man works in the world for the sake of the
Hereafter and secures his share of the world effortlessly. Thus he derives
benefit from the both and comes to possess both the worlds. As a result he
acquires honour before God, Who grants him whatever he asks of Him.
Rumi offers an interesting allegory. He compares the Hereafter and the world to
a train of camels and the trail of dung that it leaves behind. If one's aim
were to own the train of camels he would also have the camels' dung and wool.
But if one wants only the dung and the wool, he will never come to acquire the
train of camels and will always be collecting dung and wool of camels which
belong to others.
Hanker you after faith for its pursuit yields
Beauty, wealth, honour, and good fortune.
Consider the Hereafter as a camel train;
The world is a trail of wool and dung in its rear.
If you want only the wool, you will never the camels own;
Yet if you own a camel train, isn 't its wool your own ?
That the relation of the world to the Hereafter is like that of a secondary
thing to its primary; that worldliness, being a pursuit of the secondary, leads
to deprivation from the benefits of the Hereafter; and that other worldliness
by itself ensures the benefits of the world, is a teaching that originates in
the Quran. Verses 145-148 of the Surat Al 'Imran expressly, and verses 18 and
19 of the Surat al-'Isra' together with verse 20 of the Surat al-Shura implicitly
present this view.
A Tradition:
1. There is a well-known tradition found in the texts of hadith as well as
other books and is also mentioned in the last will of al-'Imam al-Hasan
al-Mujtaba (A). This is the text of the tradition:
In regard to the world be as if you were going to live for ever. With respect
to the Hereafter be as if you were going to die tomorrow.[16]
This tradition has been highly controversial in that it has led to
contradictory interpretations. Some interpret it as implying that one should
deal with worldly matters with relaxed inattention and without hurry. Whenever
one is faced with an affair of worldly life, one should say to himself
"There is still a lot of time, why hurry?" But when performing good
deeds for the Hereafter, one should imagine as if he were not going to be alive
after tomorrow and say to himself: "There isn't much time left; it is
already too late."
Others with the conviction that Islam would never recommend negligence and
carelessness, which certainly has not been the practice of the leaders of the
faith, have said that what is implied is that one should always approach the
worldly affairs as if he were immortal, attend to them with attention and care,
and not perform them in a perfunctory manner with the pretext that life is
fleeting. Rather, they say, the works of the world should be done with firmness
and great foresight and attention, as if one were going to live till the end of
the world. The rationale for this is that if one were to die, others will
derive benefit from one's works. The affairs of the Hereafter, however, are in
God's hand; so think of them as if you were going to die tomorrow and there is
not much time left for anything .
As can be noticed, the first one of these two interpretations recommends negligence
and lack of commitment towards the affairs of the world, whereas the second one
advises a similar attitude towards the Hereafter. Obviously, none of these two
interpretations can be regarded as acceptable.
In our opinion, this, one of the most subtle of traditions, consists of an
invitation to action, care, and attention and avoidance of negligence and
indifference, whether with respect to the worldly activities or those which
relate to the Hereafter.
Suppose a person living in a house knows that sooner or later he will have to
move to another house where he will stay permanently. However, he does not know
the day, the month or the year when he shall have to make the shift. Such a man
is in a state of dilemma with regard to matters relating to his present home
and his plans about his future house. If he knows that he will move tomorrow,
he would not pay any attention to the repairs and upkeep of his present house,
and attend only to matters concerning the planned Shift. But if he knows that
he would not be shifting his residence for several years, he will act in an
opposite manner; presently he will devote all his attention to the present
house, knowing that there is much time left to deal with those relating to his
future residence.
Now this person, in a state of doubt about the exact date of the shift, not
knowing whether he will have to shift in near future or remain in his present
house for years, meets a friend who wisely advises him to attend to the affairs
of his present house as if he were to continue living there for a long time and
not to neglect its upkeep. As to the other house, the wise friend advises him
to get it ready as if he were going to move tomorrow and have it furnished as
soon as possible. This advice will have the consequence that it will make him
adopt a serious and active attitude towards both his houses.
Suppose someone wants to start a work, like writing a book or founding an
institution or taking up a project which requires years of pursuit. If such a
person thinks that he will not live long enough to finish his work, he might
desist from starting it. That is why it is said that one must think that he
will live for long. But the same person, from the point of view of repenting
for his sins and compensating for the past excesses with regard to religious
duties or the rights of the people he has transgressed-all of which require
little time for their accomplishment given the will to do so-may keep on
postponing them every day so that the promised tomorrow may never come.In such
cases, contrary to the first kind of attitude, to assume that one has still
enough time and there is no reason to hasten, would result in negligence and
delay in fulfilment of one's duties. Therefore, here one should assume that
there isn't much time left.
Therefore, we see that in one case to assume that one has enough time
encourages action and endeavour and the assumption that there is no time left
would lead one to abstain from action and endeavour. In the other case, the
result is quite the opposite. Here, the assumption that one has still a lot of
time leads to negligence and procastination, and the assumption that there
isn't much time left leads to quick accomplishment of duties.
In the light of this, the hadith means to say that in regard to one kind of
duties one should assume that he is going to live on and with respect to
another kind suppose that not much remains of his life.
This interpretation is not baseless. There are several traditions which confirm
the above interpretation. The reason that this tradition gave rise to
controversy is that attention was not paid to such traditions.
Safinat al-bihar, under rifq, relates a tradition of the Holy Prophet (S)
addressed to Jabir:
Indeed this (i.e. Islam) is a firm religion. So (do not make it hard on yourself
but) act in it with mildness ... Cultivate like him who thinks he will never
die and work (for the hereafter) like him who is afraid he will die tomorrow.
In volume XV of Bihar al-'anwar (the section on akhlaq, Bab 29), it is related
from al-Kafi that the Holy Prophet (S) addressed 'Ali (A), saying:
This (Islam) is a firm religion ... So work like him who hopes to live for long
and be cautious like him who is afraid that he would die tomorrow. That is,
when commencing a useful project that requires a long time for its completion,
assume that you will live long enough to complete it. However, in regard to
matters which you might postpone thinking that you have enough time to handle
them, assume that you shall die tomorrow, so that time is not wasted and delay
is avoided.
In Nahj al-balaghah, it is related from the Holy Prophet (S) that he said:
Attend to the affairs of the world; but with respect to the Hereafter be such
as if you were going to die tomorrow.
In the same book, the Prophet (S) is related as saying:
Work like the man who imagines that he will never die; and be cautious like him
who knows he is going to die tomorrow.
In another tradition the Prophet (S) is reported to have said:
The mu'min is the most vexed of men, for he must attend to the affairs of the
world as well as those of the Hereafter.
In Safinat al-bihar, under nafs, a hadith of al-'Imam Musa al-Kazim (A) is
related from Tuhaf al-'uqul to the effect that:
He who abandons the world for his Hereafter or abandons his Hereafter for his
world is not from us.
The above discussion on the whole confirms our interpretation of the hadith and
also shows that this approach finds recurring echo in the teachings of the
leaders of the Islamic faith.
Notes:
[1] This is a tradition of the Prophet (S).
[2] This is in reference to a sentence from Nahj al-balaghah, Khutab, No. 28
[3] This is in reference to a sentence from Nahj al-balaghah, Hikam, No. 131
[4] This is in reference to a sentence from Nahj al-balaghah, Hikam, No. 131
[5] Nahj al-balaghah, Hikam, No. 131
[6] Ibid., Khutab, No. 223
[7] Ibid, Khutab, No. 203
[8] al Amudi, al Shurar wa al durar, vol. 4 p. 340
[9] Safinat ul Bihar, under hubb
[10] This reference to the famous words of Ibn al Arabi about one who imagines
to have known the mysteries of the self through the statement of the
philosophers.
[11] Nahj al-balaghah, Khutab, No. 179
[12] Ibid, Khutab, No. 222
[13] A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (London 1973) based on Mein Weltbild; ed
by Carl Seeling, p. 38
[14] Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lahore
1971, p. 89
[15] Ibid., p. 90
[16] Wasail al Shiah, vol. 2 p. 535 (Bab No. 82, hadith No. 2