Can you compare the lines of prophets and corrupted philosophy with
respect to their fruits?
The fruits that it has presented to mankind on the branch of animal
desires and appetites are idols and goddesses. Because, according to the
principles of philosophy, power is approved. ‘Might is right’ is the norm.
Its maxims are: ‘All power to the strongest’; ‘Winner takes all’, and ‘In
power there is right’. It has given moral support to tyranny, encouraged
dictators, and urged oppressors to claim divinity. Also, by appropriating
the beauty in works of art and ornamentation, that is, by attributing it to
the works themselves, not by relating it to the pure, sacred Beauty of the
Maker and Fashioner, it says, ‘How beautiful it is!’, instead of ‘How
beautifully made it is!’ and thus it considers each as an idol worthy of
adoration.
Besides, because it adulates a cheap, self-conceited, ostentatious,
superficial, transient, physical beauty that may be ‘sold’ to anyone, it has
led people to pretension and caused those it has idolized to display
hypocritical reverence before their admirers. On the branch of empowered
anger and passion, it has nurtured the fruits of greater and lesser Nimrods,
Pharaohs and Shaddads to tyrannize over unfortunate mankind. It has yielded
on the branch of empowered reason such fruits as atheism, materialism and
naturalism, embedded them in the minds of mankind, and thrown them into
confusion.
A comparison between the lines of Prophethood and corrupted philosophy
and Now, to clarify this truth, we shall mention a few examples and
compare the results that originate from the sound foundations of the line of
Prophethood with those that arise from the rot-ten foundations of the way of
philosophy.
Seeking distinction through Divine values or claiming Lordship?
First example: According to the rule ‘Be molded by Divine values’, which
is one of the principles of the line of Prophethood concerning individual
life, there is the instruction: ‘Seek distinction through Divine values and
turn towards the All-Mighty with humility, recognizing your impotence and
insufficiency, and therefore be a slave in His presence.’ Whereas, the line
of philosophy, by the self-oriented principle of seeking the perfection of
man, instructs: ‘Try to imitate the Necessarily Existent Being.’ That is
obviously impossible because, while the Necessarily Existent Being is
infinitely powerful, omnipotent, self-sufficient and without need, the
essence of mankind has been mixed with infinite impotence, weakness, poverty
and need.
Does life consist in conflict or mutual assistance among all parts of
creation?
Second example: Among the principles of the line of Prophethood
concerning the fundamental conditions of social life are mutual assistance,
magnanimity and generosity. These are functioning in the reciprocal
co-operation of all things—from the sun and the moon down to even particles—plants help animals, for example, and animals help human beings,
and particles of food help the cells of the body. By contrast, philosophy
names conflict as the fundamental condition of social life. In fact,
conflict springs from the misuse of their innate dispositions by a number of
tyrants, brutish men and savage beasts. Indeed, this principle of conflict
is so fundamental and general to the philosophers' line of reasoning that
they have absurdly claimed: ‘Life consists in nothing but conflict.’
Is God the only creator and director of creation or are there
intermediaries?
Third example: One of the sublime results and exalted principles of the
line of Prophethood concerning Divine Unity is: ‘Something that has unity
can proceed from only one.’ That is to say, ‘Since each thing in itself has
unity and so have all things severally, each must be the creation of a
unitary being’. Whereas, the ancient philosophy had it that ‘From one, only
one proceeds.’ That is, from one person, only one single thing can proceed,
everything else proceeds from him by means of intermediaries. This
misleading principle of philosophy which is stained with associating
partners with God opened the way to a most grievous polytheism by presenting
the Omnipotent and Absolutely Self-Sufficient as being in need of impotent
intermediaries, thereby giving all causes and intermediaries a kind of
partnership in His Godhood and allotting to the Exalted Creator only the
creation of what they called ‘the First Intellect’. If the Illuminists
(Ishraqiyyun), who were among the foremost philosophers, exerted themselves
for such nonsense, you can imagine how much more absurd must be what
inferior philosophers, like the materialists and naturalists, say.
What are the purposes for creation?
Fourth example: According to one of the wise principles of Prophethood,
There is not a thing but hymns His limitless glory and praise,
the purpose and wisdom in the creation, particularly of living creatures,
may have an aspect looking to the creature itself, but many aspects looking
to the Creator. Each individual thing, a single fruit, for example, has as
much wisdom and as many purposes involved in its creation as all the fruits
of a tree. This principle, which is pure truth, results from the Divine
Wisdom, whereas, ac-cording to the nonsensical principles of philosophy
which lack true wisdom, ëthe purpose of every living creature looks to
itself or is connected with benefits for mankind'. That in effect means that
the creation is so senseless that the purpose of a mountain-like tree is
only to yield a tiny fruit. It is one of the disastrous results of
philosophy that geniuses from amongst the Muslim philosophers like Ibn Sina
(Avicenna) and al-Farabi, having become infatuated by its apparent glamour
and deceived into following this way, attained only the rank of ordinary
believers; Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazzali did not accord them even that rank.
Deviations of philosophers
Also, the leaders of the Mu'tazili school, who were among the most
learned scholars of Islamic theology, attracted by the glitter of philosophy
and becoming closely involved with it, regarded reason as a self-sufficient
and sound measure for determining the truth, so that they were unable to
rise above the rank of heretical or novitiate belief. Furthermore, since
they took pleasure in the line of philosopy’s flattery
of their evil commanding souls, such famous literary figures in Islamic
history as Abu l-A‘la al-Ma‘arri, who was notorious for his pessimism, and
‘Umar Khayyam, who was known for his pitiful weeping, basked in the applause
of philosophy but earned contempt and condemnation, and restraining
reproofs, from the men of truth and perfection, who told them: ‘You are
being impertinent. You are approaching heresy and leading others to heresy.’
Another consequence of the rotten basis of the philosophers’ position is
that although ego is, in reality, insubstantial, the philosophers’ making it
self-regarding and self-dependent has caused it to change from a ‘light
vapor’ into ‘viscous liquid’. Thereafter, as a result of man's indifference
to the miraculous truths of creation because of his too much familiarity
with them, and of his pre-occupation with the affairs of the ‘material’
world and natural sciences, that liquid hardens. Next, ego ‘freezes’ through
neglect and denial; through ingrained rebelliousness it further loses its refinement and becomes opaque, gradually becoming more and more dense and
enveloping the per-son. Then, it expands with the fancies of mankind.
Finally, supposing all of mankind, and even causes, to be like
itself—although they do not accept this and deny it—it gives to each of them
the status of a Pharaoh. At this point it contests the commands of the
Exalted Creator, and says: Who could give life to these bones when they have
rotted away into dust? and, in defiance, accuses the Absolutely Omnipotent
of impotence. Ego even goes so far as to debase the Attributes of the
Exalted Creator. It either rejects or deforms the Attributes it deems
unsuited to its interest or disagreeable to its Pharaoh-like evil-commanding
soul.
Is God bound by His own decree or does He have an absolute will?
A group of philosophers, by calling the All-Almighty ‘self-bound’ (i.e.
constrained by His own decree), denied Him choice. They rejected the endless
testimony of all creation, which proves that He has choice. Glory be to Him!
Although all the creatures in the universe, from the smallest particles to
the sun, show that the Creator has choice, each with its own appointed
individuality, order, wisdom and measure, this blind philosophy refuses to
see it. Another group of philosophers said, ‘Divine Knowledge does not
contain the particulars’, thus denying the Attribute of All-Encompassing
Knowledge and refusing to accept the true witnessing of the whole creation.
Do nature and natural causes have any part in creation?
Furthermore, philosophy has attributed to nature the power to create,
thus attributing a creative effect to causes. Since philosophy does not see
the evident stamp upon everything signifying the Creator of all things, it
assumes nature to be the originator, when nature is, in fact, impotent,
inanimate, unconscious and blind, and its supposed power comes from ‘chance’
and ‘necessity’, which are also blind. It attributes to nature some part in
creation, every element of which is in fact like a missive from God, the
Eternally Besought-of-all, that tells of thousands of instances of exalted
wisdom.
Ego and nature as two deities in the views of philosophers
Moreover, the philosophers did not find the door to the Resurrection and
the Hereafter, which the All-Mighty with all of His Names, the universe with
all of its truths, the line of Prophethood with all of its verifications,
and the revealed books with all of their verses, demonstrate, and they
therefore denied the bodily resurrection and ascribed pre-eternity to souls.
Their superstitions in this respect give an idea of what their views on
other matters would be. Indeed, the powers of evil have flattered the reason
of the atheistic philosophers, throwing them, in their self-conceit and
arrogance, into the abyss of deviation. Thus, in the microcosm, ego is
idolized or falsely deified, while in the macrocosm nature becomes the
object of worship .
Hence, whoever rejects false deities and believes in God has indeed taken
hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: God is the
All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.
|