The Meaning of History: An Islamic
Perspective
by T. M. Aziz
Not since Ibn-Khaldun's al-Muqaddima in
the fourteen century did any Muslim scholar make a significant
contribution to the understanding of the historical process.
The late Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr from Iraq made a serious effort
in giving his vision on the development of the history. His interpretations
of history can be considered as part of his effort to prove that
Islam, through the ulama (jurists) of the traditional
religious schools, is still capable of contributing to the advancement
of knowledge and resolution of problems facing man in this temporal
world. The [cultural, and scientific] invasion of the West, once
Sadr was quoted saying, must come to an end, and Muslim scholars
should export their knowledge to the world. The aim of this article
is to present Sadr's views on the philosophy of history in an
organized and systematic manner than the form unlike his presentations,
which was in the form of lectures delivered to his pupils in
the religious school of Najaf, a Shi'a holy city in Iraq. The
comparison of his views to that of other thinkers is my own,
but the all the references to the Islamic sources are his.
The Nature of History
Sadr views history as a causal process and as working
according to a well-defined pattern. This understanding of history
grows out of his general Islamic beliefs. Man and his environment
exist by virtue of divine creativity and thus must have meaning.
History unfolds according to a specific set of rules and its
natural processes are not random, for God's actions are not without
meaning. God has implanted within his creation a well-defined
system that links the effects of all elements in the historical
process to each other. However, the historical process itself
is not a self-contained mechanism, but rather has two sides:
the materialistic side, where man and nature have great impact
on the process; and the metaphysical side, where the Deity's
will has full control over its telos. Therefore, the materialist
side does not comprise the totality of the historical process.
It is the will of the Almighty that prevails in the end.
Consequently, Sadr defined the historical process
as causal in respect to its mechanical workings, divine in respect
to its goal, and social in respect to its impact on human life.
While the physical forces may act independently, their impact
extends into a wider arena, because the process encompasses the
whole human realm. This is why the effect of small social forces
or influential personalities within the society is felt throughout
the social system. Accordingly, Sadr is able to take account
of the Marxist notion that the change in the means of production
may reshape the social structure of the society, while at the
same time finding room in his theory of history for the Hegelian
notion that ideas are the prime factors shaping history. On the
other hand, the historical process, considered as a totality,
is shaped according to the will of God. It is true that history
follows a dialectical course of development, but it operates
according to a divine pattern. Materialistic conditions as well
as idealistic conditions have effects on the final outcome of
the historical development. Nonetheless, the Deity has its own
way of directing the development of history according to its
own will. The story of history has a built-in divine logic. To
understand history one must be aware of the telos of history
as ordained by the Deity.
The sunan (laws) of history are general
conditions that govern the historical process, conditions that
determine outcomes of historical development. If one is to understand
history, one must understand the laws. Sadr classified three
types of historical laws of development: First are the voluntaristic
laws, those which involve human agency as a determiner of outcomes.
Through these laws man can have control over the destiny of his
life. They function as if they are physical laws of nature. Once
man has acted, he will because of these laws witness certain
consequences without fail. Sadr finds a reference to these laws
in the Qur'anic statement that God would not change the environment
of people unless people change within themselves. He also notes
that the Quran mentions that the collapse of society would
be the natural outcome of the control of corrupt-wealthy individuals
over the affairs of the society.
Second are the naturalistic laws. These
consist of inexorable patterns that are evident in the historical
process and that cannot be changed by man's action. Man, at some
stages of history, may deviate from these patterns, but eventually
he will be subdued by them. Thus, man must realize that he is
part of a divine historical design. If one society tries to challenge
or change the social roles of males and females, for example
forcing women to work outside the home and men to be homemakers,
these actions would lead to the destruction of society because
women are naturally created to nurse children and men naturally
have the physical ability to confront the physical demands of
the outside world. For Sadr, such a social violation is limited
in duration, and the divine design for history will eventually
prevail. Sadr also mentioned that if a society should legalize
the homosexual relationship, such a society would eventually
be doomed to annihilation. He believes that the espousal of religious
beliefs and norms is also part of the divine design. If people
choose not to espouse such beliefs and norms, they would also
suffer disintegration in the end. The Quran specifically
mentions this,
So set thy purpose for religion
as a man by nature upright--the nature (framed) of Allah, in
which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws of)
Allah's creation. That is the right religion, but most men know
not. (30:30).
Third are the deterministic laws. These
govern history's movement toward its final goal or outcome (telos).
God has full control over the direction of the historical process
and enforces it on man. While man through the voluntaristic laws
of history has an impact on the outcome of specific historical
development, the deterministic laws govern the entire historical
process from creation to eternity. God, according to Sadr, has
a grand design for history. The whole historical process is a
divine drama unfolding since the creation of Adam and operating
according to God's will. The entire process will culminate in
the coming of the Savior (Mahdi, the twelfth Imam) and
the establishment of a justice and social system on earth that
will prevail over all the injustices of man.
Stages of Historical
Process
Sadr recognized three stages in the history of
man: 1) the stage of rearing (Hadanah), which started
with the creation of Adam and Eve and ended with their becoming
dependent upon the earth; 2) the stage of unity or solidarity
(Wihdah), which preceded the rise of social differences
between men (as a social group, not as individuals); 3) and,
the stage of dispersion or discord (Tashatut), which will
last until the coming of the Mahdi (Messiah).
The first stage refers to the rearing of humanity
as a whole not just to the creation of Adam and Eve, because
their creation represents the creation of all mankind. It is
considered a rearing stage because Adam and Eve were protected
from facing any physical needs or environmental difficulties.
They were provided with abundant resources in a 'heaven-like'
environment. Man also during this period must grow into maturity
and be provided with faculties to help him in his earthly mission.
Sadr summarizes the events and features of the first stage. First,
the superior nature of man to angels is his ability to learn
and acquire knowledge. This characteristic of man had made the
angels bow to him. Second, God made man responsible for his actions
through sanctions on his behavior. Man was created with free
will and with the ability to violate the sanctions and commands
of his Lord. Third, there is a system of reward and punishment
for the purpose of restraining man from committing sins and encouraging
him to do good deeds (in this life in the form of enjoyment and
burden of guilt and in the hereafter, heaven and hell). Three
features, knowledge, free-will, and reward and punishment, are
to enhance the progress of man in his life on earth. The lack
of any one of these features would make man's existence on earth
undesirable. Such analysis was envisioned by the angels when
God presented them with his vicar, i.e., a creature having free
agency. Their response was that man would eventually commit sins
and bloodshed, unless some control measures were imposed on him
to limit his behavior. Being vicar of God implies that man has
the freedom to choose, and without the ability to distinguish
between good and bad, he would wander aimlessly and ultimately
go astray. However, God's remedy was that man would acquire the
knowledge (the names), as the first control mechanism of his
action. The new creature (mankind), who was chosen as the vicar
of God on earth, would have the capacity to learn and progress
according to the guidance of God, which would be sent to him.
Messengers of God would act as witnesses and lead man to the
proper course of action to fulfill his role on earth.
Man was faced thereafter with a dilemma to test
his action and force him to go through a decision-making process
to test the use of his knowledge to control his behavior. His
creator had warned him of his enemy (Satan) and against eating
the fruit from a specific tree. The prohibition was to give the
father of humanity the experience of controlling his sensual
urge and to prepare him for the responsibility of living on earth.
Resources on earth are limited and man is supposed to acquire
a reasonable amount of them to satisfy his needs. Through a rational
dialogue full of lies, Satan won Adam's confidence and seduced
him to eat from the tree and violate God's prohibition. God therefore
warned Adam again of his enemy and made him take full responsibility
for his action. Man thus was presented with his second behavioral
control mechanism, punishment and reward. He was left to face
the difficulties and enjoyment of life on earth and to receive
God's warnings from time to time. Furthermore, man was allowed
to repent of his action and was able to gain his Lord's forgiveness.
He was able to reconsider his action and behave according to
God's will. From this point of view, man's experience with Satan
was for his benefit in order to prepare him to repent whenever
he deviates from his purpose in life. The sinful action allowed
man to experience spiritual feelings and made him live up to
the responsibilities given him by God through repentance and
praying for God's mercy. By then, man's mental faculty (rational
reasoning, spiritual feelings) had developed to the capacity
of his role as vicar of God on earth.
The second historical period is parallel, but not
identical, to the state of nature of the social contract
theorists (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau). Men at one time maintained
a harmonious social life. Unlike the state of nature, there has
always been some sort of social setting and man cannot be portrayed
without society for man is a social animal, to use the Aristotelian
proverb. The social relationship was the outcome of man's physical
needs for such items as food and shelter. His search for survival
forced him to cooperate with others. Eventually he found himself
using the help of other men and cooperating with them for his
survival. Man possesses the natural instinct of self-love. This
instinct makes him more dependent on others to secure his needs
and interests. The more he gets the less satisfied he becomes
and the more eager the demand for more. This ultimately results
in an increased complexity of his social relationships. Generally,
man's social relations are driven by his self-love: the more
he gains physical satisfaction, the greater his desire for additional
commodities.
Sadr has recognized two aspects of man's physical
livelihood: First, every man has specific on-going 'primary'
needs connected with his physiological being--nutritional, sexual,
rational, and sensual needs; and second, there are no limitations
to the quantity of these needs and commodities, because they
are dependent on the complexity of life and social relations
and the demands of the changing environment. The extent of man's
experience in life, the widening of his knowledge, and the complexity
of his social relations make his 'secondary' needs grow and expand.
These latter needs are different from one person to another,
one society to another, and from one historical period to another.
For example, modern technology has made electricity one of the
basic needs of man. This need, however, was not a fact of life
in the past century, and is not a basic for the Amish people,
living within the most technologically advanced society, the
United States. The function of a social system, therefore, is
to recognize, and organize, the social relationships between
men according to these needs. Similarly, the best social system
for humanity should satisfy man's primary needs and should
have a progressive nature so as to keep in touch with the development
of society in attempting to satisfy the secondary needs.
At the unity stage, humanity as a whole, according
to Sadr, was considered as one nation, as men lived together
in harmony. Man at this stage had not yet formed a state, and
the social units that he formed were free of any form of social
exploitations. He was guided by the Divine knowledge, distinguishing
between good and evil and refraining from the latter. The simplicity
of life made his livelihood needs and expectations simple. The
faculties that God implanted in man's nature (fitra) enabled
him to form a monotheistic society that adhered to the worship
of God alone, which meant, in practical terms, the rejection
of nondivine standards of behavior and of deviation from the
role of vicar of God on earth. The social responsibilities in
these social units were performed by all members, and even messengers
of God did not have special hierarchical privileges. They functioned
only as guides and advisors. The commitment to the guidance of
God was the only security that kept these social units, in that
historical stage, in tranquility. There was no need for political
leadership or any form of social enforcement agencies in order
for man to conform to a certain course of behavior. It was only
deviation from God's way-of-life that would endanger the survival
of a peaceful and just society. The third stage started with
the rise of differences between people. Men, by nature, possess
different capabilities and talents. The complexity of the social
life gave growth to livelihood needs, which resulted in the uneven
distribution of goods and possessions between people. Men with
extra talents and more physical powers gained the upper hand
in social relations, and began to exploit others who were weak
or had fewer talents to acquire the material goods. A contradiction
in social life, which took the form of oppression by the powerful
few of the weak, became the major phenomenon of this historical
stage. The oppression took different forms with various degrees
of intensity, but the social contradiction lasted through all
ages and generations and permeated various types of social systems.
Sadr differs from Marx on the origin of the social
contradiction. Marx relates the contradiction to the growth of
means of production. The development of each new means of production
gives rise to new social relations and thus to a new type of
exploitation, one class of the society exploiting another class.
So, "the handmill gives you society with the feudal lord;
the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist."
In other words, the contradiction originates in the economic
environment in which man lives. The people who possess, or have
access to, the means of production have full control over social
relations and social arrangements. In order to change the social
arrangement and end the exploitation of the many, one must take
from the few their access to the means of production and allot
it to the society as a whole. In sum, the historical development
of societies is tantamount to the development of its economic
conditions; the social revolution is the abolition of ownership
of capital by the elite class of a society.
Although Sadr pictured the rise of contradictions
in the social relations as due to the changing economic conditions
of the society, he regarded the real cause behind it not as consisting
of external-environmental conditions, but rather as resting within
man himself. Man is not always the product of his environment,
but the environment is shaped by his activities. The development
of economic conditions is his doing, and social relationships
are developed and organized to meet his needs. It was his intellectual
and physical capabilities that made it possible for man to advance
his living conditions. Without these faculties, the external
conditions would have stayed the same since the dawn of history.
The reason behind the rise of the social contradiction is that
man deviated from the way-of-God.
The changes in the conditions surrounding man would
only serve as instigators of man's mental capabilities. They
act as 'raw materials' for the human brain to work on. Change
of environmental conditions gives man the ability to develop
new tools or means of production to counteract the effects of
the changing conditions. Consequently,
...the natural forces of production
do not, by themselves, reach their [state of] perfection and
growth, or quicken their development and maturation, but rather
they only instigate the senses and the thinking of man. Their
natural development, thus, is not [the result of a] dialectical
process, and the positive effect [i.e., the emancipation of life]
does not emerge out of this development. Rather, the forces of
production are governed by an historical factor that is superior
to them.
The superior factor, according to Sadr, is the
human mental faculty. If production itself, in the Marxist definition,
"is natural activity against the environment, performed
by many people to satisfy their materialist needs, and where
the social relations become its natural outcome" then the
whole process of production must have been preceded by two factors:
thought and language. Thought allows the human being to change
the nature of his environment to meet his needs, e.g., from wheat
to flour to bread. Unless there is such a faculty, we cannot
suppose man would respond to the new changes in the environment.
Animals, for instance, are not able to effect radical change
in the environment. Language, as the physical (phonic) side of
thinking, allowed the participant in the production activity
to communicate, and thus facilitated the development of production.
Language itself is not the natural outcome of economic conditions
as are social relationships, but is rather the outcome of needs
to exchange views and thoughts. "We don't find one Marxist
--not even Stalin-- who would dare to say that the Russian language
for example had changed [or developed] after the socialist revolution
to a new one." Hence, the primary factor behind the contradictions
that exist in society is, according to Sadr, not the changing
economical conditions (forces of productions) but rather the
contradictions within man himself.
At this historical stage, man had deviated from
his fitra and started abusing his talents and power to
oppress and alienate others. His deviation led him to adopt a
new kind of worship and turn away from his creator. Once there
was no control over his behavior, he fell deeply into sin, and
social corruption grew. The society, once a coherent and harmonious
entity, became divided and conflict-ridden. Classes and groups
opposed each other. The social dilemma was that the powerful
would get even more powerful, and thus more corrupt and abusive,
while the weak became more weak and subject to more oppression.
In general, the history of mankind during this period was a struggle
between these two groups. The historical process can be defined
between two poles of political thinking, those who would like
to protect their interests and keep the existing system of alienation
indefinitely and those who would like to revolt and change the
existing oppressive system of social relations with a just one.
The natural course of action for the deprived and
weak was to lead a revolution against the corrupt and oppressive
political regimes. The history of revolutions, according to Sadr,
has taken two different routes to confront the unjust social
structure. The first type are revolutions that advocate the elimination
of materialistic forms of oppression in the society. They are
considered forms of alienation which the oppressed encounter
every day. These feelings of the masses (that they are underprivileged)
lead them first to a silent opposition. When oppression continues,
they organize their effort in vocal political movements that
give force to their demands upon the system. These groups eventually
resort to violent actions when all other means are exhausted.
Revolutions of this type of movement mobilize masses on the basis
that a new system would transfer the wealth and resources to
all members of society and eliminate special privileges for the
upper and dominate classes. However, such revolutions, while
concerned about certain kinds of social needs, are short-sighted.
The masses would continue to face other forms of alienation in
the post-revolutionary system. The oppressed of yesterday would
become the master, and thus, the oppressor of today. The whole
historical process would repeat itself. Thus, "the revolution
would only change the position of exploitation, but would not
accomplish the elimination of it." That is why Marx probably
thought there is a dialectic process in history where each rising
class resorts to oppressive measures and means to protect its
interests against other groups, i.e., every thesis gives rise
to an antithesis.
The second type of revolutionary process is one
that tries to eliminate the source of alienation and does not
merely emphasize elimination of its materialistic contradictions.
It is a revolution that would resort to the creation of new social
values that would put an end to all sources of exploitation.
The revolution would advocate the values of justice, righteousness
and equality that stem from belief in God is the only revolution
that would secure man from the domination and the exploitation
of other powers. It is the total surrender of man to God that
would free him from surrendering to others. When the revolution
advocates the equality of all people, it must be on the basis
that all are equal before God and no one group has special rights
with respect to others. When revolutionaries try to eliminate
the means of control of the dominate group it is not because
of a belief that they do not have the right to reign, but because
all people have an equal right to govern before God and act as
His vicar on earth. Sadr called the latter type of revolution
the 'real revolution' and the former the 'relative revolution.'
Prophets and messengers of God were the pioneers
to lead the struggle for the latter type of social revolution.
The divine missions of prophethood had the complete answer to
the social problems facing man. Unlike other social movements
in history, the purpose of prophethood was not to wither away
social contradiction (the facade of the problem) but to solve
the inner contradiction of man. The revolutions and the messages
of prophets were concerned with eliminating the alienation of
man, and also helping him to overcome the psychological tendency
of oppression of his human nature.
On the social level, God sent his messengers with
codes of law that would put an end to the alienation, and eliminate
the oppression of man. For this reason, prophets led social revolutions
of the oppressed against the oppressors. Throughout history,
the followers of all prophets were from the deprived classes.
The message of the prophets (and religions) became the cry of
the oppressed for generations that followed them. The great religions
of the world, e.g., Christianity and Islam, were embraced by
the deprived and the poor and were opposed from the start by
the elite. The prophets' concern was the liberation of man from
his sins and from his unjust social environment. The goal of
the prophets was to create a just social system that protects
the rights of every individual within the social structure. Hence,
"the idea of the state originated [first] with the prophets,
whose main role was to establish a flawless state whose structure
and principles were founded by God, the most High." The
reason behind the revelation of religion that contains shari'a
(divine cannon laws), or cannon laws, was to lay the ground for
the formation of a political system that would end all forms
of human oppression and alienation. That is why Sadr considers
the Prophet Nuh (Biblical name, Noah) as the first advocate and
the founder of a political state. His message was the first universal
religion that had elaborated a shari'a to govern people.
In every epoch of history, God reveals his commands and message
to prophets as a basis for social conduct. The great universal
Divine messages to Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were to
be the higher (constitutional) laws of political states.
On the personal level, prophets were to refine
human behavior according to man's fitra. Man was driven
by his passions and self-love into sinful action and social corruption.
Unless man could be liberated from his tendency toward evil behavior,
then all efforts at eliminating social injustice would be impotent.
Without freeing man from his sins, social injustice would soon
be replaced by new forms of social injustice. The prophetic message
carried the spiritual guidelines that would purify human nature.
Man would be in constant struggle against his sins. He would
be trained to lead the fight against his corrupt desires and
excessive passions. The prophetic mission would make man responsible
for his actions before divine authority. Such divine guidance
is the only control mechanism that would prevent man from exploiting
his fellow man.
The prophets have led the struggle against injustice
on two levels: the greater (or more precisely, fundamental) struggle
(jihad al-Akbar) to confront man's inner passions and
corrupt tendency, and the lesser (or minor) struggle (jihad
al-asghar) to eliminate the manifestation of personal corruption
in the society. Prophets directed their followers to rotate the
battle fields of struggle from self to society, and from society
to self. This is the only way, according to Sadr, for humanity
to eliminate all forms of exploitations and oppression. The prophets
throughout history were the source of real social revolution
when they led the struggle against corruption in society, and
the corruption in the human self. Hence, he plainly affirms that,
..we believe that it is not
possible for the real revolution (emphasis added) to be disassociated
from revelation and prophethood, and their extension in history
of mankind; similarly, that it is not possible for prophethood
and Divine message in any way to be detached from the social
revolution against exploitation, opulence, and oppression.
Development of Historical
Process
The historical process is a social affair where
the main participants (or elements) are man, nature, and God.
They correspond to the three types of historical laws mentioned
above: voluntaristic, naturalistic, and deterministic, respectively.
Though other social theories had recognized only the first two
elements, Sadr thought that their shortcoming stems from the
fact that history itself is kalimah (literally, word;
meaning creation) of God. Without including the role of God in
history, our understanding of the process of historical development
is meaningless. Sadr, hence, recognizes three type of relations
man would be bound to: 1) social relations between man; 2) economic
relations between man and nature; 3) vicarage (the relations
between man and God.) It is the last type of relation that makes
his Islamic theory superior to non-Islamic theories. Historical
process is the byproduct of this relationship. While the positivist
theory of man would only recognize the effect of economic relationship
on the social one, or vice versa, Sadr discloses the effects
of the third relationship on the other two. He claims that the
failure of man-made theories to solve the social problems facing
man throughout history is due to their discounting of the prime
dynamism of the historical process, which has a direct effect
on man's life. To illustrate Sadr's point of view, I will explain
two interpretations of historical development from social and
economic aspects.
Ibn Khaldun is considered the first to give a theory
of the historical development of man from the standpoint of his
social relationship. The major concern of his Muqaddimah
is the study of the rise and fall of dynasties, which he thought
"has a natural term of life like the individual." He
traced the strength of the dynasty to the blood ties and family
traditions which bound members to the state and created a sense
of solidarity which he called, casabiyah. At
the first stage, the formation of the dynasty, a primitive tribal
solidarity--that of the first wave of uncivilized nomad tribes
bent on domination-- is at its peak. These tribes eventually
achieve their objective of seizing power over the cities and
establishing their dynasty. In the second phase, the dynasty
would become a sovereign political state, where the ruler would
govern his people according to his will, and not according to
the mutual consent of his followers. "The third phase is
one of quiet ease and leisure to gather the fruits of the rule
and dominion, since human nature tends to acquire wealth and
leave behind... fame." At this time the sovereign would
regulate taxes and impose new civil rules to govern people instead
of relying upon the communal solidarity. He becomes careless
about the welfare of his followers, and increasingly concerned
with his own leisure, building palaces and stocking his treasury
with the wealth of his people. "The fourth phase is one
of extravagance and waste." The corruption of the ruler
becomes widespread and taxes on the people are increased to finance
his lust for pleasure. The civil laws become the norms that govern
the society, not the strong bond of solidarity. The tradition
of solidarity is weakened. People become divided into factions
and have little interest in defending the dynasty. The ruler
has a standing army to do the job. In the fifth phase, the whole
system shows signs of decay. The rulers are more corrupt and
may even spend part of his army's pay for his own pleasure. This
weakens his troops' desire to defend the state. Subjects of the
dynasty are busy with their own daily affairs and survival. There
is nothing bonding them to the state. By then, "the 'asabiyah
collapses completely, and they forget about the defense of their
dynasty against attacks of the enemy." The dynasty is open
for invasion by a new nomadic group.
The cyclical process of historical development
of Ibn Khaldun emphasizes the importance of the social relationship
for the survival of political entities, thus considered by him
as the prime mechanism that shapes history. He was a pioneer
in showing the effect of economics on the strength of the social
solidarity of the people.
Rousseau had reached the same conclusion that the
social relation is negatively influenced by the economic relationship,
but he looked at the problem from a different perspective. He
viewed the 'state of nature' as a harmonious social affair, where
man lived in nature and exploited its resources with other men
in a cooperative way. Life, then, was not threatening, and man
thus did not have an aggressive attitude toward other men and
nature. He was governed by his inner feelings, instincts, and
impressions, which made him a patient and compassionate creature
with empathetic feelings toward other men. He does not calculate
personal advantage in dealing with his fellow men, and his social
relations are based on seeking approval from them. It is private
property that made man think about his self-interests and his
personal welfare instead of the welfare of his community. Once
he built a fence around his property and was willing to defend
it, then the social phenomenon of haves and have-nots started
to take shape and became an acceptable norm in human relationships.
The basic characteristic of civil society is inequality
of ownership. Private property came into existence as an historical
accident and it has subsequently shaped the mentality and relationships
of mankind. On the psychological level, it has introduced greed,
and made human beings calculating, and aggressive and rational
creatures. On the social level, it has divided human society
into various classes of haves and have-nots where the former
exploits the latter. Therefore, Rousseau concludes that the consequences
of private property are all negative. It made slaves of every
one; even the owners are slaves to their greed and to their property.
To elevate human beings above such unhealthy and destructive
relations, man must abolish private property, i.e, transform
the civil society into 'the state of nature.'
Marx, while making use of Rousseau's analysis of
historical development, did not agree with his conclusion. Although
private property has negative consequences for human relationships,
it is the prime factor of historical development. History, according
to dialectical materialism, is a progressive process that centers
around the ownership of property, but leads eventually to the
abolition of private ownership by social ownership. In this way,
according to the Marxist view, negative effects of materialism
are eliminated while producing the essential positive effects.
While Sadr confirms that there are effects of the
social and economical relationship on the process of historical
development, he thinks that they do not subsume the whole process.
It is man's relationship to God that ultimately explains the
development of history. Sadr considers man as the sole agent
in the shaping of the course of history, because only man can
strengthen or weaken the vicarage relationship. Man commits to
or deviates from the divine purpose of his existence. The social
and economic structure in any society is the by-product of his
deeds. Sadr, therefore, differs from the Marxist view, which
considers the superstructure of the society (i.e., the state,
economic relations, values, culture, laws and knowledge) as the
manifestations of material conditions. Sadr, then, asks what
is inside man that makes the outcome of historical development
different from one society to another, and from one epoch to
the next? His answer is al-mathal al-acla (the
social ideal, or the ultimate goal of the community which I will
refer to henceforth as the Ideal), which defines the purpose
that social action seeks to achieve during its life span. It
is derived from people's views about life and nature, that is,
from a socially determinate view. Social policy would be only
the reflection of this Ideal, and the community's life,
values, and temporary goals would be a determinant of it. "To
the degree that the Ideal of the social group is righteous,
superior, and comprehensive the social goals will be right, and
comprehensive; and to the degree that the Ideal is limited,
and low the goals derived from it would be limited and subdued
too... So when any group chooses an Ideal, it has in fact
determined its goals, means and the drawbacks of achieving such
goals through those means."
Sadr specified three types of Ideals. The
first is that which reflects the environment and the conditions
people experienced in their life. In other words, it is the present
condition (with all its limitations and faults) that shapes the
future of a people. This 'conservative' Ideal (as I call
it) would halt the progress and development of history. It would
make the future a repetition of the past, and form out of the
relative and limited standards and values an ultimate goal. In
fact, the commitment to a conservative Ideal can be considered
an act of suicide for a social group. It would lead to a degeneration
of society or nation because it would not give it the opportunity
and moral energy to develop the socioeconomic resources, or to
mobilize the talents of its members.
However, why would any society determine to go
in this historical route and choose its own demise? Sadr states
two reasons for such a suicidal social mission: First is a psychological
reason where people are accustomed to their way of life, praise
their condition and are protective of what they have. A member
of the society becomes the product of his environment, and is
unwilling to change. His social environment has made of him an
empiricist, not a rational being; thus he lives for the day and
cannot foresee any progress in the future. Second is a social
reason where an authoritarian and tyrannical rule would impose
standards and goals on the people to shape and mold the society
according to its will for the survival of the regime itself.
The survival of such a type of a social system throughout history
is critical. Because of this sensitivity, the political ruler
or elite tries to resist any changes within the existing social
norms which might bring a challenge to his reign. The Quran
mentions such social dilemmas. In reality, the ruler himself
or the political regime becomes the Ideal per se. The
goal is to prevent the realization of an alternative Ideal
that would transform the present circumstance into a completely
different future that would eventually culminate in the withering
away (to use Engles' term) of the existing political system.
The historical consequence of the conservative
Ideal is the gradual decaying of the society and the waste
of its resources. No solidarity emerges that unites people together,
producing goals that articulate their resources and opening up
a future that is worth struggling to achieve. Rather, the social
system is doomed to collapse. Sadr lists three possibilities
that would bring about the ultimate termination of such a society:
1) a military invasion by a foreign power that
cannot be resisted by scattered social resources. The will of
the people had long dwindled, having been wasted upon the immediate
concerns of daily-life. A good example of such a case is the
Mongol occupation of Muslim territories and the subsequence collapse
of the Muslim Empire. The cAbbasid state was not able
to muster a strong resistance to the invasions.
2) the intellectual encroachment of a foreign ideal
and the adaptation of foreign Ideal to bring about the
revival of society. The people by then have lost their identity
and do not believe in their capacity to survive, as they become
the shadow of another society. Sadr cited the example of Muslim
appropriation of western values and the Western Ideal
and their satisfaction at being the peripheries of Western civilization.
Notable instances of this are the regimes of Reza Shah of Iran
and Mustafa Kamal Ataturk of Turkey, which attempted to foist
the ideals of European man on their countries.
3) the emergence of a new Ideal that would
put an end to the old political and social structure and bring
about a new system to satisfy the immediate needs of the society
and delay its eventual death. Example of this type are the leaders
of the Islamic revival movement such as Jamal al-Din Afghani
and Muhammad Abduh who, at the beginning of the twentieth century,
tried to introduce a new Ideal that would re-created the
new Muslim Ummah out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire.
The second type of the Ideal is that derived
from futuristic ambition of a people. This 'utopian' Ideal
(as I call it) is not a carbon-copy of the present conditions
as in the first case. Rather it drives the nation towards development
and progress. The members of the society are striving for a better
future, for change of their present conditions, and for accomplishing
certain goals. Such a society is looking for an advanced and
utopian state.
However, the short-sighted vision of the society
would not produce a utopia in a meaningful sense of providing
a solution to the human problem. The mental capacity of man is
limited, and therefore, unable to visualize the ultimate goal.
The conditions he thought of as paradise would soon be discovered
to be imperfect. Though such a Ideal can mobilize the
people into challenging their values and environment and utilizing
their resources in the production of improved material conditions,
and motivate their effort to a powerful historical movement,
the social achievement would be for a limited time only. The
capacity to grow is proportionately related to the capacity of
the Ideal to picture the reality of the future. Man soon
would achieve his goal, and the Ideal would stagnate and
eventually kill the achievement because the utopian conditions
proposed by the Ideal have become living circumstances.
It would eventually be a 'conservative' Ideal that halts
progress, and the people committed to its stagnating principles
face the same historical determinism.
Sadr identified two ways in which a utopian man-made
Ideal fails to visualize the ultimate state of affairs
and make valid generalizations about the future outcome:
1) Failure in 'horizontal generalization'(or prediction
of conditions). Man visualizes his future from the circumstances
he faces and will rebel against everything that is linked in
one way or the other to his present environment. Rousseau's man,
'born free, but everywhere in chains,' would strive to break
all of them. He is on the march to create a new world that is
unrelated to his past and in opposition to its values and principles.
The Enlightenment movement of eighteenth century Europe is an
example of this phenomenon. The European man, suffering from
religious persecution of the church, economic exploitation of
feudalism, and political oppression of the monarchies, was determined
to gain freedom from all those impairments. However, he later
discovered that he had created a monster out of human nature
by the new unbound and unlimited forms of freedom. When moral
standards were abolished, values became relative, and every cruel
action got some kind of justification. Hence capitalist democracies
failed to produce a utopia for Western man. The result is a political
system controlled by big capitalists. The society is wounded
by moral ailments, as people adhere to amoral political ideologies,
and workers all over the world are severely exploited by the
new economic system.
2) Failure of 'temporal generalization' (or prediction
of a future epoch). Man, while rejecting the ills of the existing
social conditions, may adhere to his vision of a splendid social
situation in the future, i.e., the invention of a utopian social
state. Marxists of nineteenth century Europe, for example, who
had witnessed the failures of their social systems, proposed
the utopia of communism. However the socialist movement in Russia
and China may claim the success of their experiments on many
levels, they are witnessing that the utopia that have promised
is all an illusion. If Sadr had lived to witness the recent transformation
in Eastern Europe, he would have seen his historical analysis
of ill-fated man-made utopias come true. His prediction was that
such man-made forecasts of the future would soon be exhausted
and were doomed to failure. Man may predict discrete events in
time but he cannot envision the whole historical process, only
God can. Part of Marx's failure in making an accurate prediction,
Sadr explained, is that his thought is limited to his experience
of the social system in Europe. Hence, his analysis and prediction
would be limited to his case study. A man's mentality cannot
transcend beyond his environment when making futuristic predictions.
So the second type of man-made Ideal would
also bring an end to the survival of society. Since the gains
of the Ideal are transient, the society would find itself
in the midst of a stagnate situation that consumes all previous
social advancement. Sadr, furthermore, gives an account of the
stages of stagnation of the society that went through the adaptation
of a 'utopian' Ideal. At first the society would grow
and develop rapidly since the Ideal is truly the outcome
of people's aspiring to of a better future. However the span
of development is short-lived, and the gains are limited. Time
would pass too quickly to achieve the goals prescribed by the
Ideal.
The second stage starts when the dynamism of the
Ideal become static, and is not able to entice people
to participate. They have found that the utopian situation is
not real. The Ideal cannot deliver new promises so as
to make the society believe again in future paradise. The stagnation,
thus, transforms the Ideal into an idol, the leaders
into masters and sovereigns, and the people into followers but
not participants in progress and development. The third stage
is only a continuation of the stagnation of the Ideal
where the society is divided into two distinct groups: an elite
governing class with one purpose in mind, which is to keep and
protect its privileges, being careless about the future of the
society; and at the bottom a divided mass that neither has hope
in its future or in the social system. The last stage is where
the 'criminals' would take over the leadership positions to bring
about the final destruction and immediate death of the society.
One nation Sadr refers to as an example of his cycle of the rise
and fall of nations that adopt the second 'utopian' Ideal
is Germany. The German nationalism in few decades had delivered
its promises of building a great nation-state. However the idealism
of national solidarity of the German people, when achieved, made
an idol of the Aryan people, which was considered the superior
race. By then, the German people who felt lost in their historical
mission and could envision no future to their lives became indifferent
about their social system and their leaders. It was easy then
for criminals like the Nazis to seize power in Germany. While
mobilizing people around the idol, the Nazis were able to deliver
final destruction not to the German nation alone, but to modern
European civilization that was built around the idol of nationalism.
The third type of Ideal, according to Sadr,
is the 'real' one. The Ideal is actually God himself.
The mission of mankind in earth is to work toward the ultimate,
that is God. Here, Sadr argues that religion, or the divine utopia,
is only the means for the long historical process of man's ascendancy
to God. It is religion and utopian social order that make it
possible for man to progress spiritually and physically. Since
God is the ultimate in existence, therefore, man's mission is
a progressive one to achieve higher value. The mission is also
a divine patterning of the historical process, which cannot be
avoided by man. Thus, all mankind is part of a historical process
regardless of their immediate goals and the temporal missions
that have embraced in life. Nations may adopt a different Ideal
that causes groups resist change, men may have alternate goals
in life or disbelieve in God, but the whole historical mission
is directed towards God. God in this case represents the end
of everything, as He was the beginning of everything. This ultimate
end is not a geographical or historical end. God is the ultimate
and the absolute of existence, which means he is everywhere and
anywhere. Man cannot achieve the ultimacy of God, but encounters
Him at any moment or point at which man might decide to halt
his mission. Encountering God is relative to where man (who is
the limited) cannot achieve the ultimate and the absolute. Hence,
the progress of his historical development is not limited at
all.
Man may progress toward God in two ways: He may
be fully aware of the mission and its goal, or he may be ignorant
of the historical development and be proceeding towards Him without
his determination. The former is called by Sadr responsible
progress, and the latter irresponsible progress. Irresponsible
progress is when man adopts an Ideal in his life other
than God. Responsible progress is known in Fiqh as the
act of worship, or the submission of man to God and following
his guidance. Such submission would make man compatible to progress
of the historical process.
Responsible progress will have a positive impact
on man. On the one hand, it will open the opportunity for continuous
development and growth and achievement. There are no limits to
that progress or to temporal goals that can be achieved at any
point in history. Man will, in discharging his mission and duty
toward the ultimate, to be in a constant struggle to abolish
all idols and other Ideals that impede his progress. There
are no boundaries or limits for man's development, and no historical
stages of stagnation during the mission.
On the other hand, the responsible undertaking
of the God-given mission would put an end to the contradictions
facing man in his social life. The source of these contradictions
is neither the economic relationship nor the social relationship,
but rather, according to Sadr, man himself. Man will have the
responsibility to account for his deeds before God. Such accountability
to his All Powerful Lord will end all forms of oppression by
man of man. Other Ideals also create some forms of accountability,
such as laws, norms or moral values that make man responsible
before different social authorities; but their effectiveness
is limited because man always finds a way to avoid his responsibilities.
However, the case of accountability before God is not a contingent
he can escape. In the latter case, the responsibility is not
accidental, but rather an essential and continuous one aimed
at eliminating the contradiction within man himself, which is
the source of all forms of oppression in the social setting.
Man by creation is formed from part of earth and
part of God, the soul. The former part inclines him towards fulfilling
his passions. In order to satisfy his sensual needs to the maximum,
man is willing to oppress others. The latter part will make him
ascend to the ultimate, beyond his earthly needs. He will search
for the attributes of God, for His justices, His mercy, His beauty,
and His knowledge, to the rest of the one hundred attributes
of God. His role is to be the vicar of God, not to resemble animals.
Thus, the purpose of the religion of God is to give man the ability
to restrain his inner passions from getting out of control and
harming others so as to establish a divine utopia on earth and
not a jungle. Therefore, the only way to constrain his animalistic
features is to make him accountable to the All-Seeing, All-Hearing.
In sum, Sadr concluded that monotheistic (tawhid)
religion is the only Ideal that could give man the potential
to progress throughout history and end the contradiction of mankind.
The attribute of God's justice represents the ideal on which
man should model his relations on earth. Moreover, the belief
in the Day of Judgment would give the spiritual power to man
to restrain his passions and make him fully responsible for his
deeds before God. Meanwhile, God would reveal his message to
mankind through prophets. They guide man in his mission under
God and safe-guard his historical development. Finally, the Imams
would lead the struggle of mankind against all forms of idols
and corrupt the Ideals that hinder the progress of man.
The Pattern of the Historical
Process
Sadr interprets of the historical development as
a complex process that takes different forms and involves multiple
actors. However, the main factor that shapes history is man's
adopted ideal, which he called the Ideal. The rise and
fall of civilization depend solely on the power of the Ideal
to mobilize human energy and its ability to solve his contradiction.
His conclusion is that the only the Ideal that can guarantee
the ever-lasting human progress is divine monotheistic religions
revealed to divinely guided prophets. While other the Ideals
might govern human progress, their impact in human history is
short because their remedy to man's problems is not effective.
In the meantime, human history is a process that functions according
to God's blue-print. Man might curtail or speed up the process,
but he cannot alter its direction. God not only made the dynamics
of the process function in a certain fashion, but His will prevails.
History is a process in which the will of God or
the power of his message do not endure. History is functioning
according to man-made-Ideal that brought a constant reign
of oppression to man, and there is no end in sight. Sadr asserts
that God's final victory will prevail at the coming of the Mahdi
(the messiah), who will rule the earth and establish a reign
of justice and peace that will last to the Day of Judgment. The
victory of righteousness over wickedness is a predetermined fact
that will surely come about. The whole of human history is progressing
toward the realization of God's will.
How is the mechanism of history thus functioning?
One of God's laws that govern history is that oppression necessarily
precedes the rise of just order. So the more severe the forms
of oppression, the better the chance for justice to emerge victorious.
Thus, the oppression would beget eventually its antithesis, to
speak in Hegelian terms. The oppressive forms of relationships
in human history will result in more demands and calls of justice
and peace. Victory will come dialectically to the oppressed people.
Since the oppressed people are always adopting an Ideal
that is limited in its ability to solving human problems, while
some forms of oppression are eliminated by human struggle and
revolution, others will prevail. Throughout history many forms
of oppression accumulate and are reinforced within the structure
of human society. In the time that precedes the coming of Mahdi,
the world will conform to the prophetic description of "full
of oppression and tyranny." The dialectic outcome of this
situation will be the final victory of the forces of good and
justice over all forces of oppression and tyranny. These forces
led by the Mahdi will adhere to the message and the guidance
of God and end once and for all the contradiction of man and
set up the historical stage for the everlasting progress toward
the eternity of the Absolute.
Sadr thinks that man would not only progress in
his material condition then, but also would ascend beyond this
physical world into the unseen world. The spiritual part of man
will predominate over that part made of the 'dirt' of earth.
Or put another way, the physical world will ascend in a progressive
manner toward the spiritual world. Sadr seemed to believe in
the substantial motion (al-harakah al-jawhariyah) of Sadr
al-Din Shirazi, a Muslim philosopher (d. 1640), in which the
matter continues to develop to a higher state. "Matter in
its substantial movement pursues the completion of its existence
and continues its completion, until it is free from its materiality
[physical being] under specific conditions and becomes an immaterial
[metaphysical] being - that is, a spiritual being."
At the fourth historical stage (the Epoch of Justice
of Mahdi's reign and beyond), man will progress, and his material
being will develop to the state of an immaterial being. Such
development will allow man to cross the dividing line between
the material world and spiritual world.
Sadr discovers a different pattern of development
in history, unlike the linear process of Christian thought which
pictures history as moving between two events, from the creation
to the Last Judgement. Though St. Augustine added other important
events that influenced man's history, the basic linear process
was kept in Christian thought. The coming of Christ, which is
considered as God's act of redemption, had no effect on the development
of man. The history of man is governed by his original sin, and
his fall to the lower world on earth. The second coming of Christ
will put an end to the city of man and establish the heavenly
city of God which will enable man to transcend his original sin
and return to God. However, this development is a progressive
linear process of history, similar to that of the Enlightenment
thinkers of eighteenth century Europe. While the Enlightenment
philosophers thought the scientific revolution is the basic factor
for man's development, St. Augustine thought that man overcoming
his original sin of disobeying God's order is the reason for
his development. In other words, the former thought that religion
hinders the development of man, yet the latter thought otherwise,
that religion is the salvation of man and the only cause for
his development.
Sadr seemed to agree with St. Augustine's views
about divinely revealed religion, but his interpretation of history
takes into consideration a rise and fall connected with man's
progressive trials. However these attempts are not in conflict
with the grand design of God in the development of history. They
function with the divine blue print, but do not constitute the
whole mechanism of human history. Plato thought that there is
a cycle of degeneration of the ideal state, the rule of the philosopher-king;
first into temocracy, the rule of officers for the pursue of
honor and prestige; then into oligarchy, the rule of aristocrats
for the pursue of material interests; and into democracy, the
rule of the masses for the pursue of their interests; and finally
into tyranny, the rule of the corrupt one for his own interests.
Ibn Khaldun's historical cycle, unlike Plato's, which is centered
around the quality of the ruler, is centered around the solidarity
of the social group that formed the political state. The degeneration
of Plato's republic is caused by inferior educational background
of the ruler, while Ibn Khaldun's monarchy is caused by growth
of the economic life of the kingdom and the subsequent breakdown
of solidarity. However, the cause of the degeneration of the
progress of man, according to Sadr, is the limited efficacy of
the Ideal adopted by man.
Sadr's historical process is not cyclical; rather
the dialectic of history looks like a spiral. At each point of
ascension, a man-made Ideal had brought an oppressive
condition which caused man's progress to degenerate. However,
out of these worsening conditions, man would ascend to a new
epoch of progress. Then a new cycle of rise and fall of human
civilization will be repeated. In the meantime, the message of
the Divine prophets gives the alternative Ideal to mankind
whereby man can end his misery and inner contradiction. While
the prophets succeeded in revealing to man the solution to his
social problems, the problems persisted because man did not commit
himself to the implementation of the message. However, the messages
of the Five Great Prophets (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad)
represent the five advancing periods in human history. Yet again,
at each time man deviated from following the guidelines of the
message, and went into a period of darkness, which is symbolized
by oppression and conflicts. The hope for humanity will be in
the coming of the Mahdi who will end the historical stage of
diversification, and lead man into salvation and progress. Mahdi,
therefore, is considered the fruit of human progress, and the
conclusion of the historical process. Sadr eloquently expressed
this metaphoric dream:
The Mahdi is not an embodiment
of the Islamic belief but he is also the symbol of an aspiration
cherished by mankind irrespective of its divergent religious
doctrines. He is also the crystallization of an instructive inspiration
through which all people, regardless of their religious affiliations,
have learnt to await a day when heavenly missions, with all their
implications, will achieve their final goal and the tiring march
of humanity across history will culminate satisfactory in peace
and tranquility. This consciousness of the expected future has
not been confined to those who believe in the supernatural phenomenon
but has also been reflected in the ideologies and cult which
totally deny the existence of what is imperceptible. For example,
the dialectical materialism which interprets history on the basis
of contradiction believes that a day will come when all contradictions
will disappear and complete peace and tranquility will prevail.
|
