لطفا منتظر باشید ...
History and Human Evolution
(Lecture II of II)
Murtada Mutahhari
Translated from Persian by Dr. 'Ali'uddin Pasargadi
Our former discussion was about the meaning of the historical or social
evolution of man in the past. We-examined the question whether the processes
which man and his society have undergone may be called evolution or at
least progress, or whether there is a third alternative explanation that
in some aspects of social life considerable progress has been made, while
in other aspects there has been no progress or evolution. Or we may, at
least, say that if there has been progress it has been very slow and out
of harmony with the rate of progress in technical matters and evolution
of social structure. The dimension in which man has not been able to make
proportionate advance is the human dimension of social life. If we liken
man's social life to an individual human being, technical progress and
social development may be thought of as the body of society, while the
human aspect of social life is the ethos of the individual. We may conclude,
therefore, that humanity has physically overgrown, while its spirit and
human ethos have made very little headway. The divergence between various
views concerning the future is rooted in this matter.
Man's Future from Different Viewpoints
Some people are doubtful about the fact as to whether man has a future
at all. They are uncertain because man is threatened with self-destruction.
Such an uncertainty is evident among the enlightened and learned men of
the West. Another group go a step further, and in addition to uncertainty,
they are extremely pessimistic about humanity's future and openly cynical
about human nature. They believe that man's nature consists of animality,
lust, selfishness, egoism, deceit, cunning, falsehood, tyranny and such
things, and since times immemorial when man began his life and social existence,
this familiar scene of life has been always as full of evil and mischief,
both in the days of barbarism and in the age of civilization. They believe
that civilization and culture have not changed the nature of man, and nothing
has been able to transform the wicked nature of this creature called man.
The difference between the savage of primitive times and the civilized
man of today is nothing with regard to goals and objectives. The only difference
lies in the method of work, and outward form and style. The primitive man,
because of his primitiveness and lack of civilization and culture, committed
his crimes more openly and unaffectedly, whereas the civilized man equipped
with modern culture, commits the same crimes under the deceptive cover
of high-sounding and stylish phrases and euphemisms. But both are essentially
alike. What the wild man did, is not different in nature from what the
civilized man does; the difference lies only in the outer form and appearance
of their acts.
What is the conclusion? They say: pessimism and despair. What is the
solution? They say: suicide, collective suicide. Fortunately, there are
few among us who think in this fashion. If there had been no such ideas
at all amongst us, I would not have mentioned it. But the thinking exists,
and it may more or less exist mainly among students, and I mention it because
I have noticed such thinking in some of the books which I have come across.
What is amazing in what they say is that man, after having reached cultural
maturity, should commit suicide. Why? Because, they explain, when we find
that human nature is beyond remedy, every person has the right to kill
himself, and encourage others to commit suicide too. This is the logic
of the type of writers such as Sadegh Hedayat. Such a kind of thinking
is prevalent in various forms in Europe, and statistics show that in spite
of all the welfare that exists in the civilized world, the number of suicides
is increasing daily. By comparing the figures published in our newspapers
we see this steady increase between the years 1955 and 1975. The Hippie
movement was a social phenomenon, which was a reaction that took the form
of dislike of civilization. It meant that civilization has failed to do
anything for man, and that it has failed to change his nature. Do not compare
this Western hippyism with our own hippyism, which is only a superficial
imitation. But those who had originated this way of thinking in the West,
had in fact a philosophy for it: the philosophy of disgust for civilization,
and despair on account of its inability to do something to solve human
problems. And this difficulty, too, is considered insoluble, a knot that
by no means can be disentangled.
You may have read the reports coming from the UNESCO and elsewhere,
as well as the articles written by our own experts, about the urge for
taking refuge in narcotics. This trend in Western countries is the result
of despair and cynicism about the future of mankind. When man reaches the
stage where he finds no remedy, when he thinks that reform and revolution
have, both, failed to change man, when regimes and systems of government
and economic and non economic solutions have only changed their form without
changing the content, then some people say: let us drop this matter once
for all. And this is one type of view and theory.
The View of Scientism
Before this, there existed another view or theory which finds no support
in the developed countries today, although there are still some who follow
it in the developing countries. This view began with Bacon and those like
him who said that the remedy for all human pains is science: when you build
a school, you destroy a prison. By securing science and freedom, all sufferings
will come to an end. Why does man suffer? On account of ignorance, weakness
and helplessness before nature, sickness, poverty, worry and anxiety, oppression
of man by man, need and greed. They offered science as the remedy for all
these pains
There may be some truth in this view. Science remedies ignorance, and
weakness, helplessness and abjectness in front of nature, and the pain
of poverty-in so far as it is related to nature. But not all human suffering
comes within bounds of his relation with nature. What about the suffering
produced by the relation of man with man, namely, greed, tyranny and oppression,
which are derived from man's own nature, his feeling of loneliness, fear
and anxiety? Science has not been able to remedy these. Therefore, this
view that science can remedy all human pains has been abandoned in those
countries. But in the countries which follow on the trails of the West,
there are still individuals who think that science can really remedy all
pains and sufferings.
Do not misunderstand me; my intention is not to negate science: for,
as I said before, half of human pains find no remedy except through science.
But man has other pains which constitute his 'human' suffering, the suffering
which relates to his human dimension. Here science provides no help, and
the scientists, when they reach this point, declare that science is neutral
and indifferent; it is a means and it does not prescribe any goal for mankind.
Science does not elevate human objectives, and does not provide a direction.
Rather, it must be said that man uses science as an aid in the direction
which he selects in life. Today we observe that most of the human suffering
is caused by human beings, by those who are well-informed, and not by the
ignorant. In the problem of colonialism in the world of today and since
the last few centuries, were it the ignorant who exploited and plundered
the resources of others, the ignorant and the learned alike? Or were it
the learned and well-informed men who exploited both the ignorant and others?
Therefore, this supposition that science and education are the remedy
for all pains and suffering of humanity is unacceptable. What I mean by
'science' or 'education' is that which makes man aware of the world; and
awareness or understanding is something which is necessary, and nothing
else can take its place. Again, do not misunderstand me: understanding
is not enough to remedy all the pains of humanity.
The Viewpoint of Marxism
There is a third viewpoint here which says that the problem lies somewhere
else, and that we should not be cynical of man's nature and despair on
its account. The answer as to why the past has been disappointing, is that
you have not been able to discover the roots of human suffering. These
roots lie not only in ignorance, helplessness and such things, but in the
type of ideology ruling over mankind. There is another problem for man
which is independent of science, education and technology, and that is
the problem of the ideology prevalent in society. To enable man, with all
his human weaknesses, to start his struggle to change his situation, his
ideology must be changed.
According to this view, since man left behind his early communistic
system and since the institution of private property came into existence,
and since ideologies have been based on private property and class distinctions,
and social systems have been based on class division, and the exploitation
of human beings by other human beings has been given legality and legitimacy,
all these defects and shortcomings, these bloodsheds, wars, conflicts,
massacres and cruelties have occurred. But if the ideology ruling over
man is changed, then all these defects will be removed; for then, mankind
takes the form of a united entity, and all will be like brothers. There
will remain no trace of tyranny, fear, worry and anxiety. Then human society
will advance in its human dimensions on a par with the technical and material
evolution; the spiritual development of society will then be parallel with
its physical growth. This is the view of Marxism.
Marxism considers the root of all human suffering to lie in the ideology
of class distinctions and private property; therefore, a society which
has attained its ultimate form is a classless society, free of any contradictions.
There are many objections against this theory. One of them is: if an
ideology is merely a system of thought or a philosophy, does it possess
the power to change man's nature? Why, then, science couldn't change the
nature of man? If all the elements of an ideology consist only of understanding
without possessing the element of faith or belief, how can it influence
human nature?
Is the ruling ideology derived from the nature of human beings in power?
Or is it ideology that shapes the nature of the rulers? If you believe
in the priority of objectivity over subjectivity, can you say that the
dominant classes oppress others because they possess that ideology? Do
they possess this tyrannical ideology because their nature is tyrannical?
This means that their self-seeking nature requires it in so far as it is
human nature to pursue selfish interests to the greatest extent possible.
Then, according to this view, the quality of seeking profit has created
this tyrannical ideology, and not that the ideology has produced that nature
in man. Ideology is a tool in man's hand, and not vice versa. It is sheer
idealism to say that man is a tool in the hands of his own thought and
the ideology created by himself. If that is true, when the ideology is
changed while human beings remain unchanged, has man then reached a dead
end to the effect that the greatest exploitation of man by man and the
extreme suppression of man by man should be perpetuated by those in the
name of a classless ideology? The heart of the matter is that, no matter
what form the social system may have taken in the past, man has remained
unchanged and used that system as his own tool. How can we guarantee that
it would not be repeated again? Do people have freedom in the countries
where such an ideology is followed? There may be equality, but not in happiness;
it is an equality in misfortune. There are classes there, but not economic
classes. Out of a population of two hundred millions, ten millions control
everything in the name of the communist party. Why do they not allow the
other 190 millions to share the same privileges provided by the communist
ideology? Because, if they do so, then there would be an end to those privileges.
The severest repression and gravest misfortunes and miseries have been
inflicted in the name of a classless ideology. A new class has emerged
without bearing the name of a class. This is because when an idea or philosophy
is related to the mind and based on an abstract understanding of mankind,
such an understanding by itself cannot influence his nature. Understanding
clarifies the way for man to distinguish his interests better and to be
more farsighted. But it does not offer him any higher goals. If I lack
a higher goal intrinsically, in my nature, how can I find it? Do the Marxists
not say that thought does not have any fundamental reality for man? If
thought has no fundamental reality, clearly it cannot control human behaviour.
The View of Existentialism
There is another philosophy called existentialism, whose outlook of
the world and man is the same as the materialist world-view. The existentialists
have a plan and a theory which tries to solve the deficiency of Marxism,
namely, the question of human values. Since in Marxism the questions of
humanity and human values and ideas such as peace and justice and ethical
norms are considered worthless, idealistic chimeras, existentialists clung
to the question of human values in order to provide man with a source of
inclination, not just a source of thought but something which would be
attractive enough to draw man towards itself, something which would provide
exalted goals besides material ends. That is why they emphasize human values
and what is called man's 'humanity'.
One may ask: you who say that the world is a mass of matter and physical
action and reaction, and that totality of being is confined to matter,
then what are these 'human values' in a universe of matter? Where do they
come from?
Let us now talk of man. According to this view, man has no reality except
his body. Matter constitutes his entire being. What may be related to this
material composition is profit, which is something real. If I am totally
a material entity, and nothing but matter exists in me, then in my relation
with the external world, too, nothing but matter can interfere, and I must
seek something which has material objectivity. For me, food, clothes, sexual
relations and housing are objective matters. What, then, are the human
values and the value of self-sacrifice which man senses within his being?
They answer that they do not exist; however, man by his will can create
values. Values do not have an objective existence; there is no such thing
as 'value' in the external world that man can attain, they say.
Then, this question crops up: what is the destination of this mass of
matter? It can only move from one point in space to another; reaching a
destination which lacks a material or physical existence is meaningless.
They say that values have no objective reality, but we give them 'value'
by creating them.
This is one of the most comical and stupid remarks ever made. They should
be asked: what do you mean by your claim that you 'create' values, and
'give' value to an act, to friendship, to generosity, to sacrifice, and
to service (which according to you have no value in their own nature, since
value has no meaning in the world of matter.)? Do you then mean that you
can really give value to an objective existence? It is like saying to this
steel microphone: "O microphone, I will give you the value of gold." Does
it become gold with my saying so? Iron is iron. Or if I say: "O piece of
wood, I grant you the quality of silver." If I keep on saying so to the
end of time, it will not become silver. Wood is wood. Its reality cannot
be changed, and man is unable to change it.
Therefore, granting value by creating it in the sense of giving objective
reality has no meaning. What has meaning is giving an arbitrary, suppositional
reality. What does this mean? It means, supposing something to be what
it is not. Such arbitrary and conventional notions are useful only as means.
FoE example, a non-Iranian visits our country, and we can grant him Iranian
citizenship and an Iranian identity card, on the basis of which he becomes
an Iranian national and can benefit from all the privileges and rights
which an Iranian enjoys. The value of this conventional act is a means
to something which may have an objective significance. This is like saying
that a man or woman may want his or her spouse to be handsome. If the spouse
happens to be ugly, and if the other says,"I grant you the hypothetical
credit of being handsome," and then begins admiring the spouse for his
or her hand someness, it is meaningless. This is the cult of idolatry,
creating idols and then worshipping them. The Quran says: "O man, how
can you make a goal out of something that you have yourself created, and
make an idol of something that you have yourself hewed?"
The goal must possess a reality beyond imagination and assumption. One
cannot assume something for himself as a goal, and then think it to be
real. The value of an assumed thing is only within the limit of its being
a means and a tool. Therefore, it is an illusion to say that man creates
his own values. It is here that Islam asserts the existence of its absolutely
coherent ideology.
The View of Islam
Islam to begin with, does not regard the past with total pessimism.
Secondly, it is not so cynical of human nature. It says: This testimony
that man of today gives against human nature, to the effect that it is
based on wickedness and mischief, is similar to the ignorant verdict that
the angels gave about man before he was created, and God rejected it.
See how the Quran relates the secret truths of events that preceded
man's creation:
And when your Lord declared to the angels: 'I will make a deputy
on the earth '... (2:30)
In these words God declared His decision to create a being upon the
earth who would be God's deputy and viceroy on this planet. The angels,
for some reason or another, seemed to be aware of only the animal side
of man, and no more. So they said to God, as the man of the nineteenth
or twentieth century would say: "Do You wish to make a being Your deputy
whose very nature is mischief and bloodshed?
Create a being, who like us, shall be free of bestial desires, and one
which is wholly spiritual."8 How did God answer them? He said to them:
Certainly, I know what you do not know. (2:30)
God says to the angels, "You paid attention only to one aspect of man:
his natural and animal side, and are unaware of his spiritual and Divine
aspect. I have placed something in his nature which makes him intrinsically
free of any ideology. I have planted in him an inclination for exaltation.
I have granted him an ideology, one of whose pillars is this natural and
rational inclination. I have planted in his nature the seeds of love of
truth, love of justice, and love of freedom. His essence is not totally
selfishness, animality and class interests, or tyranny. He is a creature
made of both light and darkness and this combination of qualities has lifted
him above every other creature, above you who are angels and others besides
you."
Can an ideology, which reduces all problem to that of classes and class
interests, provide guidance for mankind? Can an ideology, which is totally
rational or exclusively philosophical, heedless of any spiritual inclinations
and unaware of the reality of man, serve as a guide for man? or teach and
develop exalted values in mn? Or, can the other view which makes the absurd
claim that man is essentially devoid of a nature, and is merely an earthly
and material being, and that he 'creates' or hallucinates values for himself,
help man to know himself?
O man, know yourself!
O man, teach yourself properly!
O man, train yourself!
O man, know your goal!
O man, recognize the path of your evolution!
It is an insult to the station of humanity to consider all man's efforts
in the past to be motivated by the selfish interests of individuals, groups
or nations. As man has two natures, an exalted one and a base one, within
him, this internal conflict has raged within every individual human being.
Those who have been able to subdue their lower urges to the higher powers,
thus attaining a sublime balance, stand in the ranks of the supporters
of truth and justice.
Those who have failed in this combat, have formed the group of means,
bestial and degenerate beings. As the Quran says, the most magnificent
struggle of man has been the combined between the supporters of Truth and
the followers of falsehood. Who are these two groups? Supporters of Truth
are those who have been liberated from the captivity of external nature
and of other human beings and from the clutches of their own inner beast.
They are those who have attained belief, faith and ideal, and rely on them.
They are different from those human beings who seek material gains and
are mean and corrupt.
The Quran speaks of the first clash and contradiction in the human world,
which may either be interpreted historically or taken as an allegory:
And relate to them truly the story of the two sons of Adam [Abel
and Cain]-when they offered an offering, and it was accepted of one of
them, and not accepted of the other. 'I will surely slay thee, 'said one.
'God accepts only of the God-fearing,' said the other. 'Yet if thou stretches
out thy hand against me, to slay me, I will not stretch out my hand against
thee, to slay thee; I fear God, the Lord of all beings. I desire that thou
shouldest be laden with my sin and thy sin, and so become an inhabitant
of the Fire; that is the recompense of the evildoers.' Then his self prompted
him to slay his brother, and he slew him, and became one of the losers.
(5:27-30)
Islam takes the story of Abel and Cain to discuss the conflict between
two human beings, one of whom has attained his ideal and belief and seeks
truth and justice, and is free from materialistic inclinations; the other
is a low animalistic being. The man with an ideal and Faith is one whose
speech is Divine and chaste, and his deeds are wholly based on piety. He
tells his corrupt brother: 'If you wish to kill me, I am not the one to
kill.' Thus killing is not a part of his human nature, for, he fears the
Creator. But the other is fettered by his own carnal desires.The story
of Abel and Cain is one of the most magnificent stories in the Quran, which
describes the Quranic view of a man who has attained belief and the ideal
and is freed from the bondages of nature, society and self. How steadfast
he is in the way of his faith! While the other is inclined towards something
which is quite the opposite of it.
This story should not be mistaken for a parable of the class conflict,
which is a Marxist idea. While the Quran speaks of the oppressed on the
one hand and oppressors on the other (mala' and mutrafun),
it always tries to show that the progressive wars in history are those
which are waged between men who have realized belief and faith and the
profit seekers-a point which I have explained more fully in my book The
Rise and Revolution of Mahdi (A).
As there are two opposing processes within man, in human society, too,
there are two types of human beings: those who are exalted and progressive,
and those who are base and bestial. Rumi, the poet, says:
The two streams of water, saltish and sweat,
Shall run through human nature until the doomsday.
In this school of thought, which believes in the love of truth and love
of justice as ingrained in the human nature, in this school which trusts
in man and in human values, and which unlike Marxism does not negate them
or consider them mere idealisms, these things are regarded as an inherent
inclination towards the existence of discoverable truths, and not something
conventional or imaginary created by man himself.
The Quran says: O man, know yourself, and your own reality; these values
exist within yourself as they exist in the great world, and you are a microcosmic
model of the entire macrocosm: Mould yourselves in accordance with Divine
norms.
These are Divine qualities, the reflection of which exists in the inner
depths of his being, and he must discover it.
Accordingly, what is the future of man? Should we repeat the words of
angels and say that man has a wicked nature, and wrap our hearts in despair
for his future? Should we follow such suicidal ways as that of hippyism
and take refuge in narcotics and such stuff? Or should we expect a miracle
from an ideology, the only quality of which is belief in class divisions,
and overlook thousands of its shortcomings? Shall we embrace a creed which
says that motion is caused by contradictions, and without contradiction
there is no motion, which means that when a society attains a stage in
which there is no contradiction, it means a society without an ideal, without
motion, a dead and stagnant society? Is the ultimate goal of man and his
evolution to reach a position of standstill? Doesn't human evolution imply
something far above the questions of contradiction and conflict?
Moreover, after man resolves those conflicts and contradictions and
negates class controversies, he reaches a position when he must remove
his own defects and this is only a beginning, the beginning of his vertical
ascent which has no limit; for, in this system there is infinite room for
ascension and edification even for the Prophet (S), though it is something
that lies beyond our imagination, even though it is a reality for the Prophet
(S). This is why the ideal human society is in fact a society of men who
have realized their ideal and attained faith and belief. It is the victory
of effort, endeavour, piety and justice. Victory is one side of this coin
of human existence, whose other side, as the Quran says, is the victory
of God's Party over the party of Satan.
Man has been created to be an intelligent, aware, free and responsible
being. From the first day that man has attained the station of humanity-regardless
of whenever that might have occurred-he has been the deputy and vicegerent
of God. There has been no time since the instant of creation of man when
the earth was ever without the existence of a vicegerent, the hujjat
(testimony) of Allah, that is, a being endowed with freedom and responsibility.
As long as mankind as such a Creator who has decreed for it a goal and
purpose-a purpose which implies his knowledge of himself and ultimate conquest
of evil and mastery over his own mind-the battle between good and evil,
and between truth and falsehood, will continue. It will continue to the
point-as predicted by our great religious figures-when it will ultimately
result in a universal government, which is also interpreted as the universal
rule of Imam Mahdi (A)-may God expedite his appearence. On this basis,
the evolution of man in his human dimensions has, by no means, reached
a dead end from the point of view of Islamic Ideology. Islam, here, emerges
as an ideology that relies on the spiritual aspect of human nature and
which reclines heavily on recognition of this aspect of human nature. It
stresses the need to make man aware of and to motivate him to develop and
nourish this aspect of his being.
Islam seeks to achieve a balance between the two aspects: the higher
and the lower, inherent in the human nature. The recommended acts of worship,
rituals, the enjoined abstinence from sins, the forbidding from lies, treachery,
slander and oppression, all and all, besides their social value, are basically
designed for cultivation of the human aspect of man and revival of his
humanity. Therefore, if we really desire to take a step the direction of
this evolution, there is no alternative to rising above all the materialistic
criteria and notions about human nature; that is, we must consider man
as a being whose faith transcends the notions of class differences and
classless society. Only then human struggle can acquire an essentially
ideological character based on faith and belief.
But where is the beginning point of this struggle? The answer is: from
inside oneself. This is what the Prophets have taught; and you will not
find any example in other teachings which can equal in magnificence of
meaning with what the Prophets of God have taught.
The Holy Prophet (S) sent an army to fight external enemies. The victorious
warriors returned and the Prophet went forth to welcome them. Now look
at the Prophet's sense of timing and occasion At a moment when he is expected
to congratulate them and welcome them with a cry of 'Bravo!', the Prophet
(S) instead says to them: "Praise on you who have taken part in the
minor jihad, and who have yet to wage the major jihad ! Surprised, his
Companions declare: "O Messenger of Allah, we don't have any battle ahead
bigger than the one we have just been fighting?" The Prophet answers:
the greater battle is the jihad against the self. This jihad is the struggle
of becoming a human being. This is the viewpoint offered by Islam for understanding
of man and his struggle against his own carnal self.
The Quran says in this regard:
He who purifies the soul indeed attains deliverance, and one who
corrupts it certainly fails. (91:9-10)
Issues such as these cannot be encompassed by other teachings which
neither possess the requisite capacity to uphold them nor the room for
such dicta and ideals.
