In The Name of Allah The
Merciful, The Compassionate
ISLAM
And the Freedom of Thought and Belief
By Shahid Murtada
Mutahhari (qs)
Translated from the Persian by ‘Ali Husayn
* This is a rather free translation of two lectures
delivered by Martyr Mutahhari at the Husayniyyeh Irshad, Tehran, in the fall of
1969. They form part of a posthumously published collection consisting of an
interview, speeches and notes, Piramun-e Jamhuri-ye Islami, Tehran:
Intisharat-e Sadra, 1st ed., Khurdad, 1364
Lecture One
' No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude
has become clear from error. So whosoever disbelieves in taghut and believes in
God, has laid hold of the most firm handle, unbreaking; God is All-hearing.'
Qur`an (2:256)
The freedom of belief and thought is one
of social freedoms. It implies that man should be free in these vital aspects
of his life and that there should be no obstacle in the way of his advancement
and sojourns and no hurdle to the development of his capacities. One of the
most venerable capacities in man, which he needs most intensely in order to
develop freely, is his capacity for thought and belief, to put it provisionally
(for later we will draw a distinction between them). In fact, thought is the
most important part of man’s being that must be developed, and since
its growth requires freedom-that is absence of an obstacle and hindrance-man
stands in need of freedom. Nowadays also we observe that the so-called free-freedom
of belief has become one of the most important global issues, especially ever
since the publication of declarations of human rights. We read in the preamble
of the Universal Declaration of Human rights:
…the
advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and
belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people,
Here ‘belief’ includes
social, political and religious beliefs. Hence the greatest aspiration of man
is a world wherein everyone is free to express his belief and wherein everyone
has a right to choose any belief and to express it freely, a world wherein
there is no fear or poverty and where there is perfect security
and economic welfare. Such a world has been declared as a human ideal, Article
19 of the declaration states:
Everyone has the right
to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Here we want to examine this issue from
an Islamic point of view, to see whether or not Islam defends the freedom of
thought and belief. It is here that we must differentiate between thought and
that which is often called ‘belief’ nowadays.
There is a difference between thought and belief. Thought is human faculty that
arises in the intellect. Since man is a rational and thinking being, he has the
ability to think and reflect about problems. By the means of his thought he can
discover facts within the limits of his capacity, whether the mode of
ratiocination is deductive and rationalistic or empirical. God, Almighty and
Exalted, has given man the faculty of intellect with which he can reason, that
is, discover the unknown. Man is born in ignorance as the noble Qur`anic verse
declares:
He brought
you forth, knowing nothing, from your mothers’ wombs (16:78)
Man is born ignorant and has to become
knowledgeable, through thought and study. To think is to use one’s capacity for
reasoning regarding a problem and to solve it in a scientific way. Can Islam,
or any other authority for that matter, deny man the right to think? No,
because it is a human necessity and an essential need of his humanity. Islam
has not only acknowledged the right to think, it has declared thought to be one
of man’s duties. Reflection is an act of worship in
Islam.
Since we are used to read only the
Qur`an and we do not read other
scriptures, we often fail to appreciate the great emphasis laid by the Qur`an
on thought and reflection. You will not find any book, religious or secular,
that has driven man towards thought and reflection to the extent of the Qur`an.
Repeatedly, it asks one to think about all kinds of issues -concerning history,
concerning creation, God, the prophets and prophets and so on. There are a
large number of such instances in the Qur`an. Thought has even been considered
a worship. You have often heard the various traditions of the Prophet of this
kind:
An hour’s reflection is better than
a year’s worship.
An hour’s reflection is better
than sixty years of worship.
An hour’s reflection is better
than seventy years of worship.
The variance in these statements, as
pointed out by the ‘Ulama’ (scholars),
refers to the different levels of reflection as well as its subjects. One kind
of reflection makes man advance to the extent of a year’s worship.
Another type of reflection makes him advance to the extend of sixty or seventy
year of worship. In our traditions it is stated that:
Most of the worship of Abu Dharr consisted of
contemplation.
That is Abu Dharr-whom we consider to be
next or equal to Salman, and about the two of them we may say that no man after
the Infallible Ones (the prophet, Fatima and the Twelve Imams) has had a faith
likes these two-worshipped God a lot, but most of his worship consisted of
contemplation.
Apart from this, there is a principle in
Islam concerning the doctrines of the faith that sets our religion apart from
other creeds, in particular Christianity; Islam does not accept belief in its
doctrine except through reflection and intellectual effort. That is, when it
calls upon one to know God and be a monotheist, it requires one to furnish the
reasons of his belief himself. From the viewpoint of Islam, it is a scientific
and intellectual problem that of a teacher who says to his pupil, ‘Go and solve
this arithmetical problem yourself. You should know how to solve it. My solving
it for you will not help you.’ Islam states categorically the La ilaha
illallah (There is no God except Allah) is a problem that one must solve with
the help of his own reasoning. That I believe in La ilaha illallah and am able
to apprehend its meaning is not sufficient for you. You should yourself
confront this issue and solve the problem.
Muhammadun rasulullah (Muhammad is the
Messenger of God) is the second ‘pillar" (rukn) of Islam. This is
also another problem that you must solve with the help of your own intellect.
The same is true of resurrection and other doctrinal issues, though the solution
of these two helps in the solution of the rest of problems. In any case, belief
in the doctrines is, from the Islamic viewpoint, a matter that depends on
independent reasoning (ijtihad), not on imitation (taqlid), and everyone must
verify them for himself.
Hence this is the most compelling proof
of the fact that Islam not only permits intellectual inquiry into its doctrines
but regards it as an intellectual duty of everyone to reflect regarding the
doctrines of his faith in order to understand to some extent that he has a
creator, and that God is one, the He has sent messengers, that the Qur`an has
been sent down by God, and that the Prophet has been sent by Him. Islam does
not accept belief in these matters if it is a verbal declaration and pronounced
without intellection.
It is here that the difference between
Islam and Christianity—and even other faiths—becomes clear.
The case of Christianity is quite the converse, in that the doctrines of the
Christian creed considered being beyond thought and reason. The Christians put
it as a formula when they say that " this is the domain of faith, not that
of reason. That is, they recognize separate domains for faith and reason. They
state that reasoning and intellection has its own function and faith and submission
have a different function; you may reason if you want to, but you have no right
to employ reasoning in the matters of faith. The domain of faith is the domain
of submission; one has no right to reason in this matter. One can see how much
these two positions differ. One of them considers its doctrines as a prohibited
zone for thought and intellect; the other not only does not declare it a
prohibited zone but also requires the intellect to enter it, making it an
essential condition for the acceptability of faith. This is what is meant by
freedom of thought.
Hence, from the viewpoint of Islam, one
has a right to make a rational inquiry into such issues. Should some doubt
occur to one’s mind in his rational inquiry concerning God,
prophet-hood or resurrection, he has a right to bring it to the attention of
others and to ask them to resolve it. To question concerning doctrinal issues
is an obligation. The people used to put a lot of questions to the Prophet (S),
‘Ali (A) and the other Imams (A) regarding these
issues and they would answer them. Our books on polemical issues as well as
other works indicate the extent to which Islam acknowledges the freedom of
expression and the right to inquire and question. Islam encourages the spirit
of inquiry, questioning and research. The more the numbers of doubts that occur
to an inquiring mind, the closer does it ultimately get to the truth?
That was concerning the freedom of
thought and inquiry. How about freedom of belief (‘aqidah)?
A`qidah’ is derived from i`tiqad, which is derived from
'aqd, in`iqad, and so on, meaning ‘to tie’. ‘To knot’ ‘to congeal’ and ‘to be concluded’. One’s heart may be ‘tied’ to something
in two ways: either as a result of reasoning and thought, or as a result of emotional
and irrational attachment. Most of the beliefs of people in the world are a
result of irrational attachment, not reasoning.
Now the question that arises is, should
people be free in respect of their irrational beliefs? It is these attachments,
which create fanaticism, stagnation, apathy and passiveness in human beings and
arrest the process of rational thinking. Wherever such beliefs are formed,
their first consequence is to stop the free activity of thought. It is said
that,' the love of a thing makes man blind and deaf '. When one is made blind
and deaf by prejudice, he cannot see facts and cannot hear the word of truth.
For instance, the idolaters worship idols, a practice that existed in the past
and still exists at the present. Can we consider their belief a result of
rational thought and a consequence of unfettered intellection? Or is it a
result of superstition that has been handed down from generation to generation
on the basis of imitation? Can one believe that a human being will conclude as
a result of free and logical thinking that the cow must be considered as
sacred, a belief which is subscribed to by millions of people in India even
today? Is it possible that a group of human beings will reach the conclusion as
a result of free, unfettered and logical thinking that one must worship the
sexual organs, a belief which, is held even now by millions of people?
No, the human intellect and thought, even
in its most elementary stage, will not reach such a conclusion. These beliefs have
irrational roots. For instance, at the beginning there emerge some exploitive
individuals who want to hold others in bondage (the world has seen for which
they need some kind of creedal basis, without which its establishment would not
be possible. The originator of the belief himself knows what he is doing. That
is, he perpetrates the treachery with knowledge. He gives prevalence to
something - an idol, the cow or the dragon in a certain form amongst the
people, who are thus misled. At first they are not very attached to it. But as
years past and their children grow up observing their parents' practice, they
imitate them. One generation succeeds another and the matter assumes a
historical background and becomes part of national custom and traditions. It is
looked upon as a matter of national pride and distinction, and then it is first
a thin paste when mixed with water; you can form it in any shape you want. But
once given a certain form and allowed drying, gradually it becomes harder the
drier that it gets. Then it reaches a state when it cannot be broken even with
a cudgel.
Should we combat such beliefs or not?
That is, when we speak of freedom of thought does that include this kind of
beliefs? The current fallacy lies just here. On the one hand they declare that
man's reason and thought must be free; on the other they add that belief too
must be free. The idolater must be free in his belief, and so also the
worshipper of the cow or the dragon. Everyone must be free to worship anything
he chooses and to practice any belief of his choice, despite the fact that
these kinds of beliefs are contrary to the freedom of thought. It is beliefs
such as these that put thought in bondage.
They praise England for being a free
country, a land where all religions are free. There, they declare, the idol
worshipper is free to worship idols; the cow-worshipper is free to worship the
cow. Both of them have freedom to practice their beliefs and are even provided
with facilities, and their temples and deities are looked upon with respect.
All that is done, they say, because man has freedom of belief. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights has also committed the same kind of mistake. The
principle on which it rests is the dignity of man (a principle which we also
accept). Now since man is respectable, it argues, every belief that he may hold
is also respectable. This inference is strange, for it possible that man may
choose something that puts him in chains. Is he to be left free to do so?
What is more compatible with the
acknowledgement of man's dignity? To guide him and to show him the path of
progress and development or to tell him that since you are a human being and
every human being is respectable, you are free to choose anything and your
choice is respectable even though I consider it to be a wrong one and know it
to be a false superstition that has thousands of evil consequences, but I
accept it because you have made this choice yourself? What he has chosen is a
chain, bondage for reason and thought; how can you respect chains? Your respect
for these chains is an insult to his human capacity and his dignity as a human
being, which lies in his ability to reason. It is your duty to liberate him
from this bondage so that his thought is set free.
The Queen of England once went to India
where she visited temples. While entering a temple she would take off her shoes
as a mark of respect even before the point where shoes are usually taken off -
with the remark: "This is a temple and a place to be venerated." She
was a Christian and not worshipper of idols; she showed respect to idols
because they are held in veneration by some human beings.
There is a certain group of people (among the Iranians) who declare with a
feeling of national pride that " We signed the declaration of human rights
two thousand and five hundred years ago! When Cyrus entered Babylon he declared
respect for all the temples of idol worship that were there, though he himself
was a Zoroastrian and not an idolater. So we are a nation that has upheld the
freedom of belief. “ This is a most misguided position,
though it may serve the purpose of political propaganda. Because one who seeks
to subjugate a people must show respect for its beliefs. But it is something
totally wrong from a human point of view.
The right approach is that of Abraham,
may peace be upon him. He was alone in possessing a free mind, and he saw all
the people around him captives in the chains of hollow traditional beliefs
without any intellectual foundation. One day when the people left the city to
celebrate some festival, he remained behind with the pretext of illness. When
there was no one about in the city he entered the main temple, took an axe and
broke all the idols. Then hanging the axe in the neck of the biggest idol, he
came out of temple. He did that on purpose, as the Noble Qur’an says, in
order to emancipate the minds of the people. When the people returned at
nightfall, on entering the temple they saw it in shambles. The whole scene
appeared as if the idols had fought out a battle amongst themselves with the
biggest idols being the sole survivor.
‘Who has done all this?’ they ask one
another, for their inherent rational sense tells them that the lifeless idols
could not have fought amongst themselves. Definitely it is the work of a
conscious being. Some of them say,
“We heard a
young man, called Abraham, making mention of them.
Perhaps he is the one who has done it.” They bring
Abraham in order to cross-examine him.
They tell him, “ So, art thou the
man who did this unto our gods, Abraham?”
Abraham replies, “ No; it was this great
one of them that did it. Question them, if they are able to speak.”
He meant, “ You see that
the weapon with which the crime was committed is carried by the big idol. Why
do you accuse me? Ask the victims
themselves so that they may inform you.
” So they returned to themselves, and consulted
their own reason. With his act Abraham made them ‘return to
themselves ’ and emancipated their minds from the bondage of
belief. Such an act as this is an act of human worthy.
Similarly the act of Moses, son of Imran,
is an act of human worth. When Moses observes that his people are worshipping
the Samaritan’s golden calf as an idol, he declares:
“We will surely burn it and scatter its ashes into the sea.” The Israelites
who worshipped the calf did not do so as a result of free and unfettered
thinking. After crossing the sea they came across a people who prostrated before
idols-something they had not seen before. They were fascinated by it,
considering it a good pastime, and they said to Moses,
“Moses, make for us a god, as they have
gods.“
The right
approach is that of the Seal of the Prophets, who struggled for long years
against idolatry in order to emancipate the minds of the people. Had the Arab
paganism survived for another thousand years, the Arabs would have continued to
worship idols (in the same way as idolatry still exists even in some civilized
nations such as Japan) and would have not moved a single step towards
intellectual progress and development. The Prophet came and released them from
the chains of that belief and emancipated their minds. The Qur’an says of the
Prophet (S):
‘ He relieves them of their load, and the fetters that were
upon them.’ (7:157)
That which the European considers as one’s right to keep
is referred to as fetters by the Qur’an which asks the faithful to be thankful
to God for relieving them of the burden of superstition and for freeing them
from the fetters in which they had chained themselves.
When the captives of war were brought
before the Prophet (S) after the battle of Badr, they were bound in order to
keep them from escaping. When the Prophet glanced at them, an involuntary smile
appeared on his face. They said to him, “We did not expect you to rejoice at our
misfortune.” He said
to them, “I am not rejoicing at your misfortune. It seems
amusing to me that I have to put these chains on you in order to drag you to
paradise and that I have to resort to force in order to emancipate you from
your false beliefs.”
Accordingly, there is a great difference
between freedom of thought and freedom of belief. A belief is founded on thought and reasoning, Islam accepts it;
otherwise it does not accept it. It permits a belief that is derived from
freedom of thought. Islam never accepts such beliefs as are based on tradition
and imitation and which emerge due to ignorance, absence of reflection and
submission to irrational ideas in the name of freedom of belief.
This extremist view concerning freedom of
belief that one finds in the European world today is partly a reaction to the
terrible history of the Inquisition, which held Europe in its clutches for
centuries. The Church used to investigate the beliefs of people to see if
anybody held an opinion contrary to the official doctrine, even if it were a
matter related to astronomy. For instance, if the Church held the elements to be
four and the sun to revolve around the earth, it considered it its business
to discover and punish those who held different view, even if that were more
scientific and logical. The ‘culprits’ were brought
to trial and sentenced to the most terrible kinds of punishment such as burning
at the stakes. If you read the history of the European Middle Ages, you will
see that it has no parallel in the East.
I have pointed out once earlier that
whatever one may say in characterizing the East’s history in respect
of cruelty and however our speakers may exert themselves in describing the
black character of the Umayyads and the ‘Abbasids-even Hajjaj ibn Yusuf –those accounts
pale before the history of the Europe of middle Ages, even before that of
contemporary Europe. Punishment by burning people alive was a simple matter.
Albert Malet in the part of his history concerning the Midle Ages writes, for
instance, how a woman was burnt alive for some very petty offence. Many
scholars received the death sentence for expressing an opinion, not about some
issue of theology, but some scientific issue related to physics or astronomy.
The inevitable reaction to this intolerance and
tyranny was to declare that in matters related to religion and faith, the
people were free to hold and practice any kind of belief, even if it were
cow-worship.
Another reason for this approach to
freedom of belief is that, in the view of European philosophers, religion and
faith-regardless of whatever form it takes, whether it is the worship of God,
or that of idols or that of the cow is a matter related to individual’s conscience.
That is, every individual in his personal life stands in need of a certain kind
of diversion called ‘religion’. They
acknowledge at least this much that man cannot do without some kind of
preoccupation with religion. They make similar statements about art and
poetry-matters, which are entirely subjective, to which such criteria as good
and evil, true and false, right and wrong, do not apply. Hence goodness and
badness depend on personal taste, as in the case of food one likes to eat and
the colour of clothes one likes to wear. There is nothing, which is absolutely
good and bad in matters of personal taste.
They do not want to admit any objectivity in the matters of religion
and prophet-hood or accept that the
Prophets have really been sent by God to show mankind and
objective path in treading which lies man’s
felicity.
They say that the real nature of the religious feeling and its
roots are unknown to us. All that we know is
That man cannot live
without religion and that he needs a certain kind of preoccupation in life that
may
termed as ‘religious’, regardless of whether that object of
worship is the One God, or a man named Jesus
Christ, or the cow, or some image of metal or wood. Hence we
should not create trouble for individuals.
Everything that one chooses in accordance with his or her taste
and liking for him/her.
Our objection lies just here. We do not consider this approach to religion as a correct one. In fact the kind of religion in which belief - as they declare - is a matter of free choice is, in our view, no religion at all. We believe in religion as a path of human felicity that has objective existence. We cannot say that any belief concerning the objective path of human felicity is free, even if it is not based on thought and intellection. I will give and example. Will you permit freedom of belief in matters of health and education? Suppose the people of a region want to have trachoma and ninety per cent of them have it. Will you ask their permission to cure them of it? Don’t you try by all means, through tact and force, to treat them of this disease, and declare that you have rendered them a service though they
themselves don’t
appreciate it?
Suppose there are some people who don’t
want education. You open schools for them, but they oppose you
and try to close them down. Don’t you think that their compulsory
education is necessary? Why doesn’t the
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights condemns compulsory education as a violation of
human freedom?
On the contrary, the same declaration in
its Article 26 considers elementary education as compulsory. Does
it negates men right to freedom in this matter? No. Why? Because,
it answers, it is a matter related to
Human welfare; those who want to remain
ignorant and illiterate do not understand. Force must be used to
make them literate; coercive methods are
essential to render them this
service.
However, they don’t take a similar
approach in regard to religion, because they assume that
while health and education have an
objective reality on which human welfare depends,
religion is a personal matter relating to
a subjective need that must be satisfied somehow.
Man, they say, feels an inner need to
worship and adore, whatever that object of worship
may be. That is why they say that beliefs
are to be respected and do not differentiate
between belief and thought.
Hence there are two objections involved here. Firstly, we should
not consider religion as a
subjective matter of personal taste and preference, such as
preference for a certain color
for one’s dress. Secondly, the choice of religion is different
from preference for the color of
dressing. That is, if man adopts an irrational belief, that
belief becomes a hindrance to the
free activity of his intellect and thought.
To summarize what we have said above,
freedom of thought exists in Islam, as well as
Freedom of holding a belief that is based
on proper reasoning. But there is no freedom in
Islam for a belief that not based on
rational thought, for such a freedom amounts to a
license for slavery and bondage. Hence
the approach of the prophets, who used to break
these kind of chains and compel men to
think, was the right approach.
Islam, on the one hand, seriously combats idolatry and, on the
other, tells the idolater that
his belief in God in the state in which he worships idols is not
acceptable. Belief in God must
be accepted with a free and unfettered mind:
In
the earth are signs for those having sure faith; and in your selves; what, do
you not see?
The
Holy Qur’an ( 15:20-21 )
Islam does not accept an unthinking belief in God. It calls upon
human beings to study the
Creation - the plants, the animals, one’s own creation, one’s
body and soul, the skies. It
lays such a great emphasis on studied belief in Divine Unity
that man is forced into the
study of the sciences of nature as a means to acquiring the knowledge
of God’s Oneness,
Prophet-hood, and resurrection.
Surely
in the creation of the heavens and earth and in the alteration of night and day
there
are signs for men possessed of minds, who
remember God, standing and sitting and on their
sides, and reflect upon the creation of the
heavens and the earth; ‘Our Lord, Thou hast not
created this in vain. Glory be to Thee! Guard
us against the chastisement of the fire.’
Holy Qur’an ( 3:190-191 )
This noble verse points out that there are signs of the Divine in
the earth and the
Heavens. It calls men, provided they have intellect, spirit, and
thought, to study
those signs and to contemplate abut them. Another verse of the
Qur’an declare:
There is no compulsion in religion.
Rectitude has become clear from error.
Holy Qur’an ( 2:256 )
It means that religion and faith is not a
matter of coercion. The path is clear. All that is
required is thought and care. Basically, the kind of faith that
Islam requires cannot be forced.
There is no possibility of coercion, for
it is impossible to force anyone to acquire the kind of
Faith that is required by Islam. It is
not possible to spank a child into solving
a certain
Arithmetical problem? His mind and thought must be left free in order
that he may solve it.
The Islamic faith is something of this
kind.
It has been written
concerning the circumstances of the revelation of the above mentioned
Verse that the Ansar, that
is the people of Madinah belonging to the clans of Aws and
Khazarj, used to send
their children to the Jews before the Prophet’s migration. The Jews
were more civilized than
the polytheists of Madinah and some of them, ten or twenty knew
how to read and write.
These children were to learn something and to be trained by Jews.
They would come to realize
the difference of level of culture the Jews and their own families
and clan and, occasionally, they embraced Judaism. When Islam came
to Madinah, the
Polytheists became
Muslims, but most of the Jews continued to follow their faith. From
among those who had been
trained under the Jews, some continued to follow the Jewish
Religion. When the Jewish tribe of Banu
al-Nadir was exiled from Madinah due to its
violation of the terms of
treaty and on account of treason, the children of the Ansar who
were attached to the Jews
and had embraced their faith wanted to go with them. Their
parents wanted to stop
them and insisted that they remain and embrace Islam. When the
matter was brought to the
Noble Prophet (S); he forbade them to exercise coercion. He told
the parents to explain the
Islamic creed to their children and leave them free to accept or
reject it. He recited to
them the verse,
‘There is no compulsion in the faith.”
From the path of error.
Should anyone fail to take the path of guidance, it indicates the
sickness of his soul.
Islam has combated false
beliefs that often form the basis of tyrannical regimes.
In our own country, Iran,
it fought to overthrow a corrupt regime and then invited the people to its
teachings, leaving them
free to decide. This is history, and Western historians admit that the majority
of
Iranians
remained Zoroastrian during early Islamic era. The Iranians gradually embraced
Islam during a
Period when Arab rule had
been replaced by Persian rule. They did not embrace Islam under Arab rule
and the Arabs, too, did not
force them to convert.
LECTURE TWO:
In the last session, we discussed freedom of belief and spoke concerning the kind of belief that is free and the kind that shouldn't be free, for its freedom is contrary co man's dignity. We said that beliefs rest on two kinds of bases. Sometimes it is based on free thought, and sometimes it is imposed through imitation of ancestors without having even the least relation with the faculty of reasoning. The primary characteristic of the latter kind of beliefs is to hinder the course of free thought and co fetter the human intellect. These kinds of beliefs are chains of habit, custom and imitation that fetter man's spirit and thought. In the same way as a man bound in chains is unable to release himself and someone else should emancipate him with the means at his disposal, the nations that are captive in the chains of such beliefs need another power that may emancipate them. This is the greatest service that can be done co man. One of the accomplishments of the prophets was to shatter the foundations of such beliefs so that liberated man may be able to chink freely about himself, his destiny, and convictions.
Many examples can be offered in this relation.
In order that you may realize how someone in the bondage of custom cannot chink
properly, I will mention a small example. One of the well-known Companions of
the Prophet (S) once came and standing in front of him declared: "O
Messenger of Allah! The more that 1 reflect, 1 find that the favour done by God
to us through you is greater than we can imagine." Apparently he said this
when the Prophet (S) was showing his affection to his daughter or some other
girl. Then he related a terrible story, which is truly shocking. He himself
wondered how he
could have committed such an atrocious act. He
said, "I was one of chose who lived under the influence of the custom that
daughters were a source of disgrace and were not to be kept alive when
born." Then he related that his wife gave birth to a daughter when she hid
away from him, telling him chat the baby had been put to death. When the child
grow up to an age of six or seven, his wife brought her in front of him with
the belief that he would be delighted to see what a charming daughter he had
and would not think of harming her. Then he de- scribed how he cruelly buried
the child alive. He said, "Now 1 know what kind of beasts we were and how
you have delivered us. At that time we used to think that we were doing
something good."
There are certain matters in which compulsion is impossible, like love and friendship. No one can be forced to love or befriend someone that he does not love nor be compelled to relinquish his love for some- one dear to him. Among such things, which are not susceptible by nature co force, is faith. That which Islam demands from people is faith, not forced confession, for it is useless and unenduring; it remains as long as force is there and disappears as soon as its cause disappears. The Holy Qur'an speaks of faith throughout its pages. When a group of Arab Bedouins came to the Prophet (S) and claimed to have faith, God Almighty instructs the Prophet to tell them, "Don't say, 'We believe':"
The Bedouins
say, 'We believe?' Say. 'You do not believe;
rather say, "We surrender" (aslamna-); for faith has not yet entered
your hearts.' (49. 14)
The Bedouins are cold that all that you may
claim is chat you have embraced Islam, but you cannot claim to have attained
faith. 'Islam' means an outward act of confession of faith and pronouncement of
the shahaddatayn, whereupon one is counted as one of Muslims in respect of
social rights and other laws that apply to Muslims. But Islam did not come
merely to create a society following Islamic regulations. That is only one of
the stages. Islam came to create faith, love and enthusiasm in the hearts, and
faith cannot be forced upon anyone. The verse:
has perhaps another meaning apart from the ore
thaw 1 mentioned in the first lecture. It means that "O Prophet, you want
people to have faith. But can you make anyone a believer by force?"
Elsewhere the Prophet (S) is told:
Call them to the
way, of thy Lord with wisdom and good admonition (16.125).
Then remind them! Thou
art only a reminder; thou art not charged to
over- see them. (88:21-22)
Hence there are certain matters, which by nature
are not susceptible to coercion and the people, are of necessity free in regard
to them; that is, there is no alternative to freedom there.
There are certain other matters where people can be coerced, but co act under coercion in such cases is not any merit. For instance it is a moral duty to be truthful, honest and just and to abstain from cheating others. It is possible co compel people to abstain from lying, dishonesty and theft. But that is from the viewpoint of law and order in society. However, there is another aspect involved in such matters, which is the moral aspect. That which morality requires of one is not that one should speak the truth but that he be a truthful person. That is, truthfulness must be a spiritual habit for him. Truthfulness, honesty and justice are considered moral virtues when they become one's second nature. A righteous person is truthful, honest and just not due to the fear of penal laws but because he considers these qualities as a merit and human asset for himself, and abhors lying, dishonesty and deceit. Hence these qualities are considered moral virtues when they become part of one's character, and not when one is merely true and honest in conduct. Hence coercion cannot instill moral sense in people, and the moral sense is not susceptible co force.
Another matter, which is not susceptible to
coercion and wherein freedom is a necessity, is personal development and growth
(rushd). You cannot make a child grow and mature by always ordering him
to do things and without giving him the freedom to choose. Within certain
limits it is essential to guide him, but it is also necessary to give him a
certain amount of freedom. Guidance and freedom should go hand in hand.
There are many social issues in which it is necessary for the guardians of society to guide the people, who will be lost without such guidance. But if they deprive the people of their freedom, even with good intentions (to say nothing of evil intentions), with the pretext chat people lack understanding and capacity, the people will always remain incapable. A society that has no freedom to make its choices and is always compelled to follow the judgments of its leaders -even if the judgments are right and the leaders have good will and fair intentions-it will fall co attain maturity. Its development and growth lies in freedom, though it may make mistakes a hundred times. It is like a child learning to swim. If you want to teach swimming to a child and instruct him for a hundred years in a classroom concerning the required motions of the arms and legs, he will not learn swimming unless he is allowed to get into water and left free to learn the movements required for swimming. He will also not learn it if you hold him on your hands in water without leaving him on his own.
Freedom is also necessary for intellectual
development. If people are denied freedom in matters where they should use
their thinking, with the fear that they would make a mistake, or if they are scared
of punishment in hell if they think about some religious issue and if a doubt
occurs to them, their minds will never develop and mature in respect of
religious issues. A religion that requires people to reach its doctrinal truths
through thought and intellection, necessarily grants them the freedom, of
thought. It does not frighten them from entertaining doubts and does not tell
them that an attempt to reflect concerning a certain problem is a satanic
insinuation that would lead one to hell. There exist many traditions in this
regard. One of them is the one according to which the Noble Messenger said:
"My ummah is absolved of -nine thing; one of them is a doubt that occurs
in the course of reflection concerning the creation" i.e. reflection on a
doubt concerning the creation). It means that God would not punish one who in
the course of his inquiry encounters a doubt. In a famous hadith mentioned in
al-Shaykh al-'An.sari's
Faraid al-'usial, it is narrated that an Arab Bedouin came to the
Prophet and said: "O Messenger of Allah, 1 am doomed!" The Prophet
immediately knew his problem and said to him, "I know what you want to
say. You want to say that Satan came to you and asked you, 'Who created you?'
You answered that it was God. Then Satan asked you, 'Who created Him?' and then
you could not give him a reply." the man said, "O Messenger of Allah,
that is exactly what happened." The Prophet (S) said to him: 'That is pure faith.' That is, this doubt will
lead you to real faith and is a preliminary step towards it. Skepticism by
itself is an evil destination but a good and essential transit. If one were to
stop at his doubt and give up further inquiry, that is the skepticism of the
lazy, and is destructive. But the man in the story just narrated did not sit at
home when the doubt occurred to him. He did not worry that others would censure
him for his doubt. That help-immediately came to the Prophet (S) co question
him concerning his doubt, showed that he had a spirit of research and inquiry.
The Prophet (S) therefore cold him not to worry.
This is
freedom of thought. Hence Islam has broken the chains of imitation, and it does
not accept a belief in its doctrines that is based on blind imitation of
others. Is it possible that such a school of thought should have compelled
people to embrace its creed? Islam did not do anything of this kind. What it
did was to release man from the bondage of superstitious beliefs chat have
nothing whatsoever to do with thought and intellection. It cooks off these
chains and then left people to think freely for themselves. The battles chat it
fought were against tyrannical regimes, not against people. That is, it fought
those who held people captive in the chains of superstition and evil social
customs. You cannot show an instance where Islam has fought people. That is why
the nations embraced Islam with extreme eagerness and zeal and our own people
were one of those.
The
issue of freedom of belief constitutes one of the most radiant chapters in the
history of Islam. Regrettably the history of other creeds has many a black page
in this regard. Unfortunately, we do not give sufficient thought and attention
to this matter. 1 have no time to elaborate on this matter and all 1 can do is
to ask you to study history. Read the third volume of Albert Malet’s work concerning the history of the European
Middle Ages. You will see what crimes have been committed to impose the
Christian creed by those who are today making propaganda amongst us that Islam
spread through force. You will see what atrocities they have committed amongst
themselves (that is those whom they refer co as 'heretical' sects) and against
Muslims and the followers of other creeds. Read the history of Zoroastrianism,
especially that of the Sassanid era and of Iran before Islam. You will see what
kind of conduct was adopted by the Zoroastrians in power and their
priests against the Christians and Jews of that period. Read volume 13 of Will
Durant's A Story of Civilization, which tells of the atrocities
perpetrated by the Christians. Read also the volume 11 of this work, which
concerns Islam, especially those parts where the author shows the extent of
respect that the Muslims had for the freedom of peoples under their rule. Such
a thing has no parallel in the world's history.
The scholars have mentioned two basic reasons for the emergence and expansion of the Islamic civilization. The first one is the un- bounded encouragement offered by Islam to think, learning and education as indicated by the Qur'anic text itself. The second reason they mention is the respect-or as they put it, tolerance and lenience- chat Islam showed to the beliefs of peoples, which allowed it to create a cosmopolitan unity out of different, heterogeneous and mutually hostile peoples. When this civilization first came into existence, its first nucleus was constituted by the Muslims of the Hijaz. Gradually other peoples joined the fold of Islam. At first only a few of them be- came Muslim. The rest were either Sabaeans, Christians, Zoroastrians or Jews. The Muslims mixed with them in a friendly manner that there, was not the slightest trace of duality in their conduct. It was for this reason that they were gradually assimilated by Islam and embraced Islamic beliefs.
There are a large number of examples that may be
cited from history. For instance, we read in history that the Commander of the
Faithful 'All (A) repeatedly made this declaration during the period of his
caliphate: i.e. 'Ask me any question that you may have so long as 1 am alive
and in your midst.' Once a man rose from amongst the audience and in an
insolent manner said to 'All (A): "You, who don't know what you are
claiming, 1 will ask you. Answer me." From his appearance he did not look
to be a Muslim. The accounts describe him as a lean man with long curly hair,
who had a book hung in his neck. His appearance was that of the Arabs who had
embraced the Jewish faith. At his insolence, the companions of 'All indignantly
rose to chasten him. 'All told them to sit down. Then he remarked:
The proofs of God are neither established
nor defended by thoughtless acts.
Then turning to the man, he said: "Ask
anything that you may want." This sentence of 'All was enough to soften
the man. Then he asked several questions and 'All answered them. The sources
also mention what these questions and answers were. They also say that at the
end the man pronounced the shahddatayn and embraced Islam.
People used to come to the Prophet (S) and put
questions to him, to which he would answer. In history you read that 'All (A)
often used to be present in the Prophet's Mosque, especially during the rule of
the first two caliphs. Explaining the reason for doing so, he said that since
the call of Islam had resounded throughout the world, people came from various
parts and they had certain questions, which someone should answer. At times he
would send his close companions such as Salman and Abu Dharr to be present in
the mosque and to be on the look out for people who came to ask questions and
lest there be no one to give an adequate answer or some ignorant person should
rudely drive them away. He would tell them so inform him if the visitor was a
scholar from some part of the world and had come to inquire concerning Islam.
Even when we compare the Umayyads-with all that
is said regarding them and about ninety percent of which is correct-with
regimes in otter parts of the world, you will see that they were better.
Especially during the era of the 'Abbasids there was a lot of freedom of
belief- so far as it did not come into conflict with their policies.
AI-Mufaddal ibn 'Umay was one of the companions
of al-'1m&in al-S5diq (A). 6ne day he came across Ibn Abi al-'Awja', an
atheist, who was saying blasphemous things to a like-minded companion in the
Prophet's Mosque in Madinah. AI-Mufaddal could not restrain himself when he
heard Ibn Abl al-'AwjA"s blasphemies. Infuriated, he said to the latter:
"O enemy of God, do you mention such things in the mosque of the Messenger
of God?" Ibn Abl al-'AwjA' asked him as to which sect of Muslims he
belonged. Later, he said to him. "If you are one of the companions of
Ja'far ibn Muharimad, you should know that we say similar things in his
presence. He listens to us in such a patient manner that we imagine that he has
accepted our views. Then in a poised manner he begins his reply and answers to
all our objections. He never becomes impatient and there is no trace in him of
this kind of fierceness of yours."
AI-Mufaddal got up and left to see the Imam.
When he described to him the matter, the Imam smiled and told him not to be
vexed. He told al-Mufaddal to come the next morning for lessons on theology,
which would help him in his future debates with atheists. The book al-Tawhid
al-Mufaddal that we possess today is a product of that episode.
As 1 said, some of our books of hadith consist
of records of polemics and debates (ihtijdjdt). Among these is one of the
volumes of the Bihir al-'anwar and al-Tabrisi's al-'lhtijdj. We must
study these works, which are records of the debates that our Imams had with the
scholars of other creeds, some of whom were materialists and atheists and
others were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and Sabaeans. Some of these debates
were even with idol-worshippers. They would come to the Imams, question them
and receive replies from them. None of them was ever told that they had no
right to raise such question under a powerful Islamic government. Of special
interest among these debates are those of al-'Imam al-Rida (A) which have been
recorded in works of history and hadith. The regimes of Harun and al-Ma'miin
were among the most powerful regimes that the world has seen, and had they
wanted, they could have easily curbed all freedom of belief and expression and
no one would have dared to object. Yet we see that they permitted free debate
amongst Mu'tazilite, 'Ash'arite, and even Shi'ite theologians. Though they were
number one enemies of the Shi'ah, they, more or less, permitted Shi'i
theologians to participate in such debates.
Since Islam had confidence in its own logic, it
did not warn people against reflecting on the matters of theology. It is
convinced that every human being can attain essential knowledge about God, His
existence and Attributes through rational thought. The same is true of belief
in prophet-hood and resurrection.