Creator cannot leave the man to
wander aimlessly hither and thither in his life; that He must have
provided for him a guidance to lead him aright in his actions and morals.
By this healthy reasoning, the man acquires the belief in One God, in the
institution of prophethood and in the Day of Resurrection. In this way,
his faith in the fundamentals of religion becomes complete. That faith
leads him to show his servitude before his Lord, and to use all that is in
his power - wealth, prestige, knowledge, power, and any other excellence -
to keep this faith alive and to convey it to others. Thus we come to the
prayer and benevolent spending. The five virtues enumerated in these
verses are such that a healthy nature unfailingly leads the man to them.
Once a man reaches this stage, Allah bestows on him His another grace,
that is, the guidance by the Qur'an.
The above-mentioned five
qualities - correct belief and correct deeds - fall between two guidance,
a preceding one and a following one.
This second guidance is
based on the first one. This fact has been described in the following
verses:-
Allah confirms those who
believe with the sure word in this world's life and in the
hereafter (14:27).
0 you who believe! fear
Allah and believe in His apostle. He will give you two portions of
His mercy, and make for you a light with which you will walk .
. . (57:28).
0 you who believe! if
you help Allah, He will help you and make firm your feet
(47:7).
And Allah does not guide
the unjust people (61:7).
. . .and Allah does not
guide the transgressing people (61:5).
The same is the case with
error and straying of the disbeliever and hypocrites, as will be seen
later on.
The above verses give an
indication that man has another life, hidden behind this one. It is by
that life that he lives in this world as well as after death and at
resurrection. Allah says: Is he who was dead then We raised him
to life and made for him a light by which he walks among the
people, like him whose likeness that of one in utter darkness
whence he cannot come forth ....(6:122). We shall explain it, God
willing, later on.
"Those who believe in the
unseen": "al-Iman" ( = faith, to believe) is consolidation of
belief in heart. It is derived from al-amn ( = safety, to feel
safe). The believer, by his belief and faith, gains safety from doubts.
(Needless to say that doubt is like a poison to the faith.)
It has already been
explained that faith has many grades. Sometimes one is certain of the
object of faith; and this certainty has its effects; at other times the
certainty increases and includes some concomitants of the said object; and
at times it increases to include all the related matters of the object of
faith. Naturally, the belief thus is of various grades, and so are the
believers. "al-Ghayb" (= the unseen) is opposite of "the
perceived". It is used for Allah, and His great signs, including the
revelation, which is referred to in the clause, "And who believe in that
which has been sent down to thee and that which was sent down before
thee". Also, it includes the hereafter. But in these verses, the beliefs
in the revelation and in the hereafter have been separately mentioned.
Therefore, "the unseen" must have been used for Allah only. In this way
the belief in the three fundamentals of religion becomes complete.
The Qur'an, emphasizes that
man should not confine his knowledge and belief to only the perception; it
exhorts him to follow healthy reasoning and rational understanding.
QUR'AN: and they are
sure of the hereafter:
Instead of only believing
in the hereafter, they are sure of it. There is an indication here that
one cannot be pious, cannot guard himself against evil, until he is really
certain of the hereafter - a certainty that does not let him forget it
even for a short time. A man believes in a matter, yet sometimes forgets
some of its demands and then commits something contrary. But if he
believes in, and is sure of, the day when he shall have to give account of
all that he has done big or small - he will not do anything against the
divine law, will not commit any sin. Allah says: . . . and do not
follow desire, lest it should lead you astray from the path of
Allah; (as for) those who go astray from the path of Allah, for
them surely is a severe punishment because they forgot the day
of reckoning (38:26). Clearly it is because of forgetting the
day of Reckoning that man goes astray. It follows that if one remembers it
and is sure of it, he will surely guard himself against evil, will become
pious.
QUR'AN: These
are on guidance from their Lord and these it is that shall be the
successful ones:
Guidance is always from
Allah, it is not ascribed to anyone else except in a metaphorical way.
Allah describes His guidance in these words: Therefore (for)
whomsoever Allah intends that He would guide him aright, He expands
his breast for Islam . . . (6:125). If one's breast is expanded, he
will be free from every tightness and niggardliness. And Allah says that:
. . . whoever is preserved from the niggardliness of his soul, these it
is that are the successful ones (59:9). Therefore, He says in this
verse about those who are on His guidance that "they shall be the
successful ones".
TRADITIONS
as-Sadiq (a.s.) said about
the words of Allah: Those who believe in the unseen: "Those
who believe in the rising of al-Qa’im ( = one who stands, i.e.,
al-Mahdi, the twelfth lmam - a.s.) that it is truth." (Ma’ani
'I-akhbar)
The author says: This
explanation is given in other traditions also; and it is based on the
"flow" of the Qur'an.
According to at-Tafsir
of al-'Ayyashi, as-Sadiq (a.s.) said about the words of Allah: and
spend (benevolently) out of what We have given them,
that it means: the knowledge We have given them.
In Ma’ani 'I-akhbar,
the same lmam has explained it in these words: "And they spread the
knowledge We have given them and they recite what We have taught them of
the Qur'an.
The author says: Both
traditions explain the "spending" m a wider sense that includes spending
the wealth as well as using other bounties of Allah in His cause; the
explanation given by us earlier is based on this exegesis.
A
PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION
Should we rely on rational
concepts, in addition to the things perceptible through the senses? It is
a subject of great controversy among the western scholars of the later
days. All Muslim philosophers as well as most of the western ones of
ancient times believed that we could rely on the rational as well as the
sensual perceptions. They were rather of the opinion that an academic
premise does not look at a tangible and sensual factor as such. But most
of the modern scholars, especially the scientists, hold that nothing can
be relied upon except what one perceives through the five senses. Their
proof is as follows:
Pure rational proofs often
go wrong. There is no test or experiment, perceptible through the senses,
to verify those rational proofs or their premises. Sensual perceptions are
free from this defect; when we perceive a thing through a sense, we verify
it through repeated tests and experiments; this testing continues till we
are sure of the characteristics or properties of the object of test.
Therefore, sensual
perception is free from doubt, while rational proof is not.
But this argument has many
flaws:
First: All the
above-mentioned premises are rational; they cannot be perceived by any of
the five senses. In other words, these scholars are using rational
premises, to prove that rational premises cannot be relied upon! What a
paradox! If they succeed in proving their viewpoint through these
premises, their very success would prove them wrong.
Second: Sensual
perception is not less prone to error and mistake than rational proof. A
cursory glance at the books dealing with the optics and other such
subjects is enough to show how many errors are made by sight, hearing and
other senses. If rational proof is unreliable because of its possible
mistakes, sensual perception also should be discarded for the same
reason.
Third: No doubt, there
should be a way to distinguish the right perception from the wrong. But it
is not the "repeated testing", per se, that creates that
distinction in our mind. Rather, it becomes one of the premises of a
rational proof, which in turn provides that distinction. When we discover
a property of an object, and the property remains the same through
repeated tests, a rational proof, on the following lines, is offered by
our thinking power. If this property were not this thing's own property,
it would not be found in it so unfailingly; But it is always found in it
without fail; Therefore, it is its own property. It is now obvious that
sensual perception too depends on rational premises to finalize its
findings.
Fourth: Let us admit
that practically every sensual perception is supported by test. But is
that test verified by another test? If yes, then the same question will
arise about this later one. Obviously, it cannot go on ad infinitum;
there must come at the end a test whose verification depends not on a
visible test but on the above-mentioned rational proof It means that one
cannot rely on sensual perception without relying on rational
concepts.
Fifth: The five senses
cannot perceive absolute and major issues; they know only the particular
and minor things. Knowledge depends on absolute issues, which cannot be
tested in a laboratory nor can they be grasped by the five senses.
A professor of anatomy operates upon, or dissects, a number of living or
dead human bodies - it does not matter how large or small that number is.
He finds that each of the bodies - which he has opened - has a heart, a
liver and the like. And after looking at those particular cases, he feels
bold enough to teach an absolute proposition that all men have a heart and
a liver. The question is: Has he seen inside "all" the human beings? If
only that much can be relied upon which is perceived by the five senses,
how can any absolute proposition of any branch of science be accepted as
true?
The fact is that sensual
perception and rational concept both have their place in the field of
knowledge; both are complementary to each other. By rationality and
understanding, we mean that faculty which is the source of the above
examples of absolute principles. Everyone knows that man has such a
faculty. How can a faculty created by Allah (or as they say, by nature) be
always in wrong? How can it always fail in the function entrusted to it by
the Creator? The Creator never entrusts any work to an agent until He
creates a connecting link between them.
So far as mistakes in
rational and sensual faculties are concerned, the reader should look for
it in related subjects like logic etc.
ANOTHER
PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION
Man in his early childhood
perceives the objects around him; he knows them without knowing that he
knows, that is, without being aware that he has, or is using, a faculty
called knowledge or cognition. This continues until a time comes when he
finds himself doubting or presuming a thing. Then he realizes that before
that he was using "knowledge" in his life affairs. He also gradually comes
to understand that his perception or concepts are sometimes wrong, that
error cannot be in the materials that he perceives - because those
material things are facts and facts cannot be non-facts, that is, cannot
be wrong. Therefore, the error must be in his perception. When there is no
error in perception, it is knowledge - a perception that leaves no room
for opposite ideas.
By these stages, he becomes
aware of the basic principle that positive and negative are mutually
exclusive and totally exhaustive; they are contradictories, they cannot
both be present nor can both be absent. This fundamental truth is the
foundation -stone of every self-evident or theoretical proposition. (Even
if one doubts this statement, he intuitively knows that this "doubt"
cannot be present with its negative, with its "non doubt".)
Man relies on knowledge in
every academic theory and practical function. Even when he feels doubtful
about a matter, he identifies that doubt by knowing that it is a doubt.
The same applies when he does not know, or only presumes, or merely
imagines a thing, he identifies it by the knowledge that it is ignorance,
presumption or imagination.
But in ancient Greece,
there arose a group, the Sophists, who denied existence of knowledge. They
showed doubt in every thing, even in their own selves, even in that doubt.
The Skeptics of later days are almost their successors. They deny
knowledge of every thing outside their own selves and their own minds.
Their "arguments" run as follows:
First: The most potent
knowledge (that comes through the five senses) is often wrong and in
error. Then how can one be sure of the knowledge obtained through other
sources? How can we rely, in this background, on any knowledge or
proposition outside our own selves?
Second: When we wish to
comprehend any outside object, what we get is merely its knowledge; we do
not grasp the object itself. Then, how can it be possible to grasp any
object?
Reply to the First
Argument:
First: This argument
negates and annihilates itself. If no proposition can be relied upon, how
can one rely on the propositions and premises used in this
argument?
Second: To say that a
source of knowledge is "often" wrong, is to admit that it is also correct
many times. Then how can it be rejected totally?
Third: We have never
said that our knowledge is always correct. The Sophists and the Skeptics
affirm that no knowledge is correct. To refute this universal negative
proposition, a particular affirmative proposition is sufficient. That is,
we have only to prove that some knowledge is correct; and we have done so
in the second reply.
The
issue in dispute is knowledge, which means to unveil an object. The
Skeptics admit that when they try to comprehend an object, they get its
knowledge. Their only complaint is that they do not grasp the object
itself. But nobody has ever claimed that knowledge means grasping the
object itself; our only claim is that knowledge unveils some of the
realities of its object, that is, of the thing so known.
Moreover, the Skeptic
refutes his own views practically in every movement and at every moment.
He claims that he does not know anything outside his own self, outside his
own mind. But when he is hungry or thirsty, he moves to the food or water;
when he sees a wall falling down, he runs away from it. But he does not
try to get food when he just thinks about hunger, and does not run away
when he just thinks about a falling wall. It means that he does not act on
the pictures in his mind - which he claims are the real things, and acts
on that feeling or perception which comes to him from outside which,
according to him, does not have any reality and should not be relied
upon!
There is another objection
against existence of knowledge. They deny existence of established
knowledge; and have laid the foundation of today's natural sciences on
this rejection. Their reasoning is as follows:-
Every single atom in this
world is in constant movement; every single thing is continuously moving
towards perfection or deterioration. in other words, what a thing
was at a given instant, is not the same in the next. Understanding and
perception is a function of brain. Therefore, it is a material property of
a material compound. Naturally, this process too is governed by the laws
of change and development. It means that all functions of brain, including
knowledge, are constantly changing and developing. It is, therefore, wrong
to say that there is any such thing as established knowledge. Whatever
knowledge there is has only relative permanence - some propositions last
longer than others. And it is this un-permanent conception that is called
knowledge.
Reply: This argument is
based on the presumption that knowledge is not non-material and abstract;
that it is a physical thing. But this supposition is neither self -evident
nor proved. Knowledge is certainly non-material and abstract. It is not a
physical and material thing, because the attributes and properties of
matter are not found in it:-
1. All material things are
divisible; knowledge, per se, is not divisible.
2. Material things depend
on space and time; knowledge, per se, is independent of space and
time. An event happens in a certain place and time, but we may comprehend
it in any place and at any time without any adverse effect on its
comprehension.
3. Material things are I
'admittedly governed by the law of general movement and constant change.
But knowledge, per se, does not change. Knowledge, as knowledge, is
incompatible with change, as one may understand after a little
meditation.
4. Suppose that knowledge,
per se, is subject to constant change like matter and material
things. Then one thing or event could not be comprehended with the same
details, in exactly the same way, at two different times. Nor could a past
event be remembered correctly later on. Because, as the materialists have
said, "what a (material) thing was at a given instant is not the same in
the next ".
These comparisons show that
knowledge, as knowledge, is not a material or physical thing. It must be
told here that we are not talking about the physical actions and
reactions, which an organ of a sense or the brain has to undergo in the
process of acquiring knowledge. That action and reaction is a process, or
a tool, of knowledge, it is not the knowledge itself.
For more detailed
discussion of this subject one should study the philosophical
works.