Ep 20 — The First Melodies of the Call

Session 18: The First Melodies of the Call. delivered Sunday, 14 Mehr 1353 / 19 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394 Surat al-Nahl (16:36). And We did indeed raise up in every nation a messenger, [proclaiming]: 'Worship God and shun the Taghut.' Then among them were some whom God guided, and among them were some upon whom error became deserved. So journey through the earth and behold how was the end of those who cried lies. In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. Consider the verses appointed for today. The first is from Surat al-Nahl, the sixteenth sura, in the fourteenth juz' — verse thirty-six: And We did indeed raise up in every nation a messenger, [saying\: 'Worship God and shun the Taghut.' Among them were some whom God guided, and among them were some upon whom error became deserved. So journey through the earth and behold how was the end of those who cried lies.] The second passage is from the blessed Surat al-A'raf — an extensive stretch of that sura, the part bearing on our discussion. Because those verses run very long, I could not quote them at full length; of the ones I have in view, I cite only the portion I shall translate for you here. It gives an account of the conversation one of God's noble prophets — the prophet Hud — held with his people. Before it comes a verse concerning the prophet Noah, and if you follow closely, that verse will serve our purpose in quoting these two together. The first portion is this: Indeed We sent Noah to his people, [and he said\: 'O my people, worship God; you have no deity other than Him. Truly I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous day.'] From here I again pass over the verses that follow, so that we may reach the story of the prophet Hud and the people of 'Ad. I have left out two or three verses that were not the place of our argument, but the ones after them are once again what we need. This is the verse we cite: And to 'Ad [We sent\ their brother Hud. He said: 'O my people, worship God; you have no deity other than Him. Will you not then guard yourselves [against evil]?' The chiefs of his people who disbelieved said: 'Indeed we see you in foolishness, and indeed we reckon you among the liars.' He said: 'O my people, there is no foolishness in me; rather, I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds. I convey to you the messages of my Lord, and I am to you a faithful, trustworthy counselor'] — and on to the end of the verses. Today our purpose is to set forth one point: what was the first melody of the prophets' call? From the discussions of these past few days, anyone who has paid attention and given it thought now sees clearly what the prophets are about in this world — for what purpose they have come, how they carry on their work, and by what road they secure their aim. All of this should have grown clear over the course of those discussions. If you find that — God forbid — it has not, turn once more to the written notes. And if even then some ambiguity remains and the matter stays unclear, the fault is mine, for having written the notes deficiently or obscurely. Otherwise, these are the points those notes ought to yield: for what work the prophets come, what the benefit of that work is, and how they secure it. All of this we have already discussed. Here is today's discussion. God's mighty prophets set out to accomplish a great work — to found a monotheistic government and society, to overthrow the order of ignorance and polytheism, to raise up a tremendous resurrection within the fabric of society. These are the aims of the prophets (peace be upon them). But where do they begin? The question of where to begin is exceedingly important. Think of all the undertakings that present themselves to a person, to a group, to a whole society — that we should perform such-and-such an act, carry out such-and-such a plan or program. Sometimes it faces a group, sometimes a handful of people bound to a certain idea or creed, sometimes a nation, sometimes a single individual. Among all these ideas and weighty undertakings, this question is one of the most important of all: from where shall we begin the work? The point of beginning is exceedingly important. Choose the point of beginning correctly and aptly, and there is much hope this work, this plan, this program will reach its result. Choose it badly, and it is not that the load will never reach its destination and the work never come right — no; it may still arrive, but it will arrive with difficulty. This is why the point of beginning matters most: to a large extent, at a high percentage, it underwrites and guarantees the success of the work that begins from it. In the case of the prophets' work, knowing their point of beginning matters first because we cannot appraise their work without it. To grasp their work fully, we do well to know this too — where they began. Beyond that, it instructs us. If we have seen that the prophets all acted in one style and by a defined method, that becomes a lesson for us, since we are their followers and the successors of their schools and their way. On several counts, then, this question is worth pursuing. God's mighty prophets — as we wrote for you in the handout — began by declaring the kernel, the marrow, the foundation and spirit of their school. At the outset of the social and doctrinal revolution and resurrection, the prophets never flattered the people. They never kept the people confused for a time with some other talk, some other slogans, only to bring out the real slogan once they had gained a measure of success — no. From the very first, with sincerity, uprightness, and truthfulness, they declared their real and ultimate aim. And what was that aim? It was Tawhid. As we explained in the past days, Tawhid is the whole of the school of the prophets (peace be upon them). Tawhid and the knowledge of God serve two ends. On one hand, they are the means of the perfection and exaltation of the human spirit — the lofty, ultimate aim of the prophets. On the other, the plan of Tawhid means bringing about a divine environment: a divine society and order, a just order, a classless order, an order without exploitation, an order without oppression. It means the formation of just such an order. And this is the very fitting environment we were speaking of yesterday — the environment necessary and indispensable for the nurturing of the human being. Tawhid is the whole of the school of the prophets. Belief in Tawhid, in the existence of God and the oneness of God, secures the final and ultimate aim of the prophets, and also provides the environment they hold necessary for the making of human beings — for the operation of the factory of man-making. Tawhid is the best and most eloquent slogan, because a monotheistic society is a society in which God alone is master and lord. No one other than God acts as lord in it. No being in a monotheistic society imposes upon, lays obligations upon, or legislates for others. No other being in a monotheistic society calls the people to obey itself — not even the Prophet; not even the Prophet, who is the representative of God. And [recall\ when God said: 'O Jesus son of Mary, did you say to the people: take me and my mother as two gods besides God?'] God Most High addresses Jesus: did you teach the people such a thing? Did you instruct them to regard you and your mother as God and as objects of worship? He said: 'Glory be to You! It is not for me to say that to which I have no right.' "Glory be to You, my Lord" — Transcendent are You, my Lord; I would never give such a false teaching, such a bad instruction — never. I take refuge in You from saying to the people what is not the truth and is not right. If I had said it, You would surely have known it; You know what is within my soul, and I do not know what is within Your soul. — to the end of the verse. There is another verse in this connection, and it is, in fact, more fitting than this one: no prophet has the right to tell the people, "Be servants to me." The content of the verse is this — if you wish to find it in the Kashf al-Ayat [Quranic concordance], the phrase "Be servants to me" is in the verse; you can find this clause there. No prophet has the right to say to the people: O people, be slaves and bondsmen to me. Of course no prophet says this explicitly — "O people, be my slaves and my chattels." What is meant is that no prophet has the right even to call the people to his own command unconditionally; that is the exclusive right of God. And if even the Prophet was like this — if the chosen servant of God has no right to take any liberty within the domain of God's rule and dominion, if the bearer of the Lord's revelation cannot summon the people to obey himself in disregard of God — then the case of everyone else is evident. The political powers, the tyrants of history, the bullies who throughout the long span of human life imposed their will upon the people and loaded burdens upon their shoulders — all of these performed an act contrary to Tawhid. Tawhid negates all of this; this is the meaning of Tawhid. And if someone does not grasp this from Tawhid, he certainly either has not studied the question or has not had the requisite understanding of it. This is among the self-evident matters of Quranic Tawhid: Tawhid in worship, Tawhid in obedience — to which I alluded briefly in the discussion of Tawhid. When the prophets enter a society, as soon as they say La ilaha illa Allah [there is no god but God], the thumbs of friend and foe alike are alerted as to what is afoot. Do you follow? This is a very important matter. Here is what matters. Why did the people of the prophets' time see and feel so sharply, while the people of later times — like you and me — do not? As soon as the prophets came, from the very first step they took, their friends and their enemies stood apart. Consider our own Prophet. From the very first day he descended from the Mountain of Light and the Cave of Hira', and began — in the barren land of that graveyard of virtues — to go forth and lift up the melody of Tawhid, from that very moment they set themselves against him. Only the forms of their opposition differed. From the first his enemies stood out; from the first those who were bound to crush the Prophet understood that they must crush him, and it was hidden from no one. So too with everyone in that other camp who was bound to accept him — those whose perception and divine favor ran deeper. He too understood, from the first and as fast as he could, what the Prophet was saying and what he was calling people to. So from the very moment our Prophet was commissioned, both groups grasped his message: his friends and supporters, those whom he protected and for whom he existed, and his enemies, those whom the Prophet was to strike upon the head. Yet it is a message that you and I have still not properly understood. We must sit down — and here I must labor and cry out — to lay before you the self-evident truths of Islam, truths that are, I will not say new for the first time, but at any rate fresh, more unprecedented, somewhat less familiar than many other matters. What we must stand here and prove, argue, and clarify before you, the desert Arab or the townsman of the Prophet's day grasped in the very first sentence. Today we must tell you that the spirit of Tawhid consists of the negation of every power other than the power of the Lord. Abu Lahab understood this very point at the very, very first. Walid ibn al-Mughira al-Makhzumi, the lord of Quraysh; Abu Jahl, another lord of Quraysh; and likewise Umayya ibn So-and-so, and others besides, the lords of Quraysh — they were the first to understand this matter. They understood that this one who says La ilaha illa Allah, this one who says there is no lord, no object of worship, except God, was not calling people merely to a doctrinal matter, but to a social one as well: the abolition of Umayya ibn Khalaf, the abolition of Walid ibn al-Mughira, the abolition of 'As ibn Wa'il, the abolition of So-and-so, So-and-so, So-and-so, the abolition of the lords of Quraysh. This they understood first; and because they understood, they opposed it. Do you imagine that the disbelievers of Quraysh, the ringleaders of disbelief and error, opposed the Prophet for any reason but this — that they saw their own rank and social position in danger? Were their hearts aching for the idols? Were they that devout? We have never seen, among the upper classes of society, at any time, people who were truly believing, devotedly self-sacrificing for religion, for the sacred — any religion, any sacred thing. Whoever throughout time has claimed this has spoken vainly; experience has shown that he is lying. In a class such as the class of 'As ibn So-and-so and Umayya ibn So-and-so and Walid ibn So-and-so, it makes no sense at all that there should be people so attached and devoted to their religion that now, because the Prophet has shown insolence to their idols, they should, say, tear the Prophet to pieces, oppose him, contend with him. No faith that strong exists in them, or could. Of course, there was a little belief, there was bigotry — but the social considerations outweighed all else. They saw that Tawhid would destroy the palace of their mastery and chieftainship. They saw that the negation of the false gods, the negation of the lords — that is, the founding of a monotheistic society — meant the exclusive sovereignty of God and exclusive obedience to God. They saw that Tawhid means the equality of human beings before the Lord of the worlds: if a person, a society, an order is based on Tawhid, then in that order there is no discrimination, no class difference, no oppression. They understood this, and because they understood it and would not come to terms with such an order, they opposed it. Their like is Pharaoh; their like is Nimrod; their like is the chiefs of the Children of Israel in the time of Jesus; their like is the affair of 'Ad and Thamud; their like is all the prophets whom the Quran has mentioned by way of a firm and solid testimony. When the Prophet enters society and says that there is no god but God — his first word is this word — they begin at once to draw up their ranks against it, to oppose it, to set themselves against it, even to destroy him; in some cases the matter did lead to his destruction. The first melody of the prophets' call, the point where their work begins, is the proclamation of Tawhid; they utter the last word first. The schools and political parties of the world that have no connection with God and religion have no message that could justify keeping people chasing after "black chickpeas" [i.e., a fool's errand] for years on end, warming their heads with hollow, empty slogans, gladdening them with vain hopes — only for us to see at last that the object and aim was never these things from the start, that the quarrel was over Mullah Nasr al-Din's quilt. They have no real message. The prophets do. Straightforwardly and squarely, honestly and plainly, they declare the matter from the first. From the first they tell the people what their purpose is — the higher classes and the lower classes alike. From the first they say: we wish to bring those at the top down, to bring those at the bottom up, to make them all equal. From the very first they say this. What is the benefit of speaking this way? What harm is there in the prophets' first putting the people off with delay? They could string the people along for a time, talk hollow talk for a time, make out that the people want what in fact they do not want, and then at the end secure their aim — what obstacle is there in that? The obstacle is that religion is bound up with awareness and insight. Religious faith, if it is blind and unaware, is of no benefit. Religion wants everyone who embraces it, everyone who enters its region, to know from the start where he is going and what work he is pursuing. Even that desert Arab who is uninformed about everything knows, from the first hour he comes to the Prophet and becomes a Muslim, what he wants; he is not pursuing an absolute unknown; he understands what he wants. This is the very reason he endures so, and is patient. This is the very reason he bears all that suffering and torture and hardship — because he knows what he is doing. And always — in struggles, in clashes and conflicts, throughout the whole of history and everywhere in the world — the person who takes action will grow weary in those first moments if he is not aware, if he does not know what he wants, if he does not know what aim and what beloved he is running after. And this is only natural. A group of people are running with great fervor; you are idle, walking along the street; you see them running, and you run too. After a few paces, you have the right to ask yourself, and you certainly will: why am I running? Where am I going, after all? We have run, we have panted for an hour — and what then? That thought breeds slackness in you. But they know where they are running. Suppose they are travelers whose vehicle is about to depart, and they are running to catch it. They are running to reach such-and-such goods in such-and-such a shop; the goal is clear to them. Until they reach it, they do not grow weary; and even if they do, they drag themselves there with effort, in proportion to how much that goal is worth to them. But you, who do not know why they were running, do not know what their goal was, just aimlessly fell in behind them and ran along for a while — at once you reflect to yourself, and even if you do not, they plant the thought in your mind: "Sir, why? For what? For the sake of whose heart?" There a person grows cold — unless he is aware, unless he has set out from insight. Consider why a young man, comfortable and at ease, would kick aside everything that has value and importance for a human being, everything that was a means of his comfort and ease, and not regret it. Yasir and Sumayya, that woman and that man, that father and mother, those two exemplary Muslims — the father and mother of 'Ammar — kicked aside all the beauties of life and gave up their lives. How glorious these lives are! The cause of it was that it sprang from insight. A while ago — a year or two or three back, I think — I read a Persian book about 'Ammar and Yasir, written by an Egyptian author. I found one or two mistakes in it, but it is a fascinating book. It is a book on the biography of 'Ammar Yasir and of his father and mother, Yasir and Sumayya. I think it is by Taha Husayn, or by one of these same Egyptian writers, and Mr. Ahmad Aram has translated it into Persian — a fascinating translation too. As I said, I found one or two mistakes in it, but on the whole it is very interesting. Read this book — its title is Va'da-yi Rast ["The True Promise"] — and see how, out of insight and perception and awareness, this faith had penetrated their hearts. See how vividly it explains the state of Yasir's faith, how this man came to believe, and 'Ammar too, and their striving. First the wife believes; then she brings her husband to faith. It is an uproar, it is a whole affair. Without insight, they would never have endured. From the very first, the religions declare the final word plainly — from the first they say why they have come, and hide nothing. And they do it for a reason: so that those who embrace religion and attach themselves to it enter out of awareness, out of insight, with no illusions warming their heads. This is the exact opposite of what is customary today in the world of religion. There, insight and awareness are a crime — a crime. And here is the strange thing: the religious person and the anti-religious person arrive at one and the same conclusion on certain religious questions. Both groups have come to believe, as it were, that religion means not understanding, that religion means not thinking at all, closing the eyes and ears. In appearance we say — and the religious say — that the principles of religion are demonstrative, that in the principles of religion no one should imitate anyone. But just dare not to imitate; dare to step a hair's breadth away from imitation in some corner of the principles of religion, and see how at once you will be technically knocked out. We have all come to believe that religion means walking a road without insight, without awareness, without perception, with eyes closed, in servile blindness. Because we have heard and know that in the branches of religion [furu'] one must refer to a specialist, recognize the specialist, and follow him, we have imagined religion is everywhere like this — whereas it is exactly the reverse, exactly the reverse; the two differ by a hundred and eighty degrees. Religion is fundamentally [a matter] of awareness and insight. It does not tell anyone: accept it for now, and go investigate later — never; in the world of religion there is no such talk. Even if you suppose you have accepted it, so long as your heart has not accepted it and it has not come out of awareness, you have not truly accepted it. And even if you have accepted religion, religion has not accepted you — not until your acceptance rises from insight and awareness. For religion sets a value on awareness, a worth on insight, a higher and loftier station on the person of insight. It wishes that all, from the first moment they turn toward God, turn consciously. It is for these purposes that the prophets, from the very start, declare their own aim. There is another point we can draw from this. What we conclude in this discussion comes down to two or three matters. One of them was the very thing I just stated — that religion regards awareness and insight as fundamental and does not accept the unaware Muslim. Here is the second. Consider the followers of the prophets, those who regard themselves as the inheritors of the prophethoods — and not only the scholars. The scholars are, of course, the inheritors of the prophets, but all the divinely-oriented people of the world are reckoned among them too: everyone who walks in the path of Tawhid and accepts Tawhid as a [binding] resolution is a follower of Abraham, a follower of Moses, a follower of Jesus, and a follower of all the other dear and noble prophets of God. By what road do these followers of the prophets wish to enter? Where do they wish to begin — better, more decisive, and more fruitful than the point from which the prophets began? Why, today, when religion is spoken of, do we not put Tawhid forward first? Why? This is a question that must be asked — is it not so? Wherever there is talk of religion, what percentage of the talk is of Tawhid? To make our own people religious — our own society, our own world — why do we not begin where the prophets began? We wish to make the people of the world believe in the religion of Islam, yet we enter by a road other than the one the prophets took. We must put forward Tawhid — the very Tawhid the prophets put forward. We may not be able to bring about that resurrection on the world horizon, on the international level — and of course we cannot do it easily — but at least we can tell the people, on that same international level and world horizon, that the aim and goal of the prophets is to bring about such a resurrection. This much we can say. Why do we not put it forward? Why do religious speakers, instead of beginning from Tawhid — both in thought and in practice — busy themselves with secondary, second- and third-rank matters? This is a very noteworthy and important question. Often it is said to us: "Sir! If you have an objection to some of the religious propaganda, why do you not take it up with the propagandists themselves?" The answer is this: where are we to find the propagandists? Those whose manner of delivery we criticize — where are we to find them? And how much enforceable weight does our friendly, well-meaning advice carry? Let me say this to you, however. I firmly believe in the authenticity of religious propaganda, and in the authenticity and necessity of the standard-bearers of religion — that is, the august clergy of the Shi'a. I love the clergy very much, and I believe the cleric is necessary. By "clergy" — though the word "clergy" [ruhaniyyat] is a mistaken one, I use it because it is common and current — I mean the scholarly and religious community of the Shi'a, the very body our dear clerics today belong to. And I believe that if this community did not exist today in the world of Islam, the affairs of the Muslims would become even more pitiable than they are. In short, some group must be girded for understanding and expounding the teachings of Islam, and that is precisely this scholarly and religious community. A young man, a tradesman, someone who has not made this work his special field may sometimes think, investigate, even express it or write it down — and may God confirm and preserve those who render these services to Islam — but he is not a permanent worker; he is an amateur at this work. A professional is needed. There must be someone whose profession is this, whose specialty is this, whose work is this — and that is the scholarly and religious community of the Shi'a, that is, the clerics. Therefore let there be no doubt about the existence of these people, their authenticity, their necessity — you, my young friends, who know that I do not speak out of bigotry but out of realism. The existence of an entity called the clergy is necessary; it is among the most necessary of necessities. But we also have this right, and we grant it to ourselves, to say a word to those who today stand in this path, in this garb. We acknowledge that a number of them act exactly as we would wish — a number of the clerics and propagandists truly act as they should. Yet there are also some who simply pay no attention, in any way, to the fact that today their starting point is not the starting point of the prophets' work. Matters of the tenth rank, of the eighth rank, of the fifth rank have, for them, more value and worth than the question of Tawhid — than the exposition of the Quran, than the principles of religion, than the lofty teachings of Islam. A cleric is ready to discuss for hours how Nakir and Munkar [the two angels of the grave] come into the grave: do they stand on a person's right side, or on his left, or facing him, or what? Yet knowing or not knowing this has not a particle of effect on a person's being a Muslim, not the slightest effect on how we act and on the fulfillment of our Islamic commitments. And of this sort of question there are very many. These, too, they bring into the reckoning of the necessities of religion; they put them forward like the first-rank matters of religion, yet they are never ready to give thought to this one question: Tawhid's proposal for the form of society, for the social order — what is it? Does it have a proposal or not? Our message is that these tasks must be placed in the first rank. Here is one lesson we take from the work of the prophets and from where their call began: we too must make our own starting point the very starting point of the prophets. Even if we cannot accomplish the prophets' resurrection, we can at least say what that resurrection was, what the prophets aimed at, what road they walked; we can explain it — this much we can indeed do. When there is a discussion about the Prophet of the End of Time, preference goes to matters of the fourth and fifth rank in the life of that great one — for example, the question of the Messenger of God's casting no shadow. There is a narration in the Khisal of Saduq that the Messenger of God (may God's blessings be upon him and his family), when he walked, used to see behind him. But Saduq himself says in the footnote what is meant: that the Messenger of God was so alert, so intelligent and watchful, like a person who continually sees everything around him. Some people walk down the street dazed and stupefied; someone behind them makes faces and mimics them, and you could walk behind such a man for an hour and he would never notice. With others, you cannot pull such things off behind their backs. He is intelligent, he is attentive, he is watchful of everything around him; the slightest gesture, the slightest movement, near him or behind him, draws his eye. So Saduq says: the Prophet was an intelligent, discerning man. This is Saduq's statement, mind you — the statement of Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn Babawayh al-Qummi, a traditionist [muhaddith] of eleven hundred years ago, one of the greatest scholars of the Shi'a, a man whose books have stood at the height of fame from a thousand years ago until now. This very 'Uyun Akhbar al-Rida, Ikmal al-Din, Man La Yahduruhu [al-Faqih], and Khisal, Amali — dozens of books by this great one are now printed and extant, among the highest source-texts of the Shi'a. This is the man whose opinion it is. Now, I am not concerned with whether the opinion is correct or not. But they are ready to put it forward and debate it — the opinion itself, the criticism of it, this traditionist's view of it, that one's. Yet as to what the noble Prophet had come for at all — what his proposal was for the shape of society, what he said about government, what his view was on how human beings should be raised: did he consider individual upbringing enough, or did he hold social upbringing to be necessary? — these things are never raised at all. That is exactly the point. Today is not a day on which the world of Islam can bear delay in these matters. Today we do not have that abundance of time; we do not have that opportunity; today our patient is in his death-throes — his hour is late. Today we must put forward, ahead of all else, whatever is most necessary; and whatever is a hair's breadth less necessary must fall a hair's breadth behind. Every breath and every hour of today weighs heavily on us, and counts for much. Yes — leave those detailed, extensive theological discussions about the particulars of the second- and third- and fourth-rank teachings of Islam for the day when we have no other work to do, when we have at least solved these first tasks. And one last word: if you do not accept this advice from us, at least do not take offense that we gave it. That is yet another matter — for the best of people is the one who does not take offense at receiving advice. So the starting point of the prophets' call is Tawhid. As for the witness we cited from the Quran for this meaning, one is Surat al-Nahl, and its verse is this: And We did indeed raise up in every nation a messenger — We raised up in every nation a prophet. And what was the message of this prophet and messenger? His proclamation was this: Worship God and shun the Taghut. This is the first word of the prophets. The moment they arrive, before they have even shaken off the dust of the road, their message is this: "Worship God and shun the Taghut." The Taghut is the rival of God. The Taghut is whatever stands horn to horn against God and the command of God — whoever it is. Sometimes this Taghut is your own self; A saying is related: Your most hostile enemy is your own self, which is between your two sides. Sometimes the Taghut is that very babbling heart of yours. Sometimes it is the caprice that drives you day and night. Sometimes a person's love of mastery is his Taghut; his arrogance is his Taghut. And sometimes the Taghut is a power outside the human being's existence — a power that expands in widening circles and rises up. In every case, when the prophets came, they said God, not Taghut. The first sentence they uttered was this: worship and serve God, and turn away from the Taghut. Then among them were some whom God guided — some of them God guided; and among them were some upon whom error became deserved — and some were those upon whom error and misguidance were laid. So journey through the earth and behold how was the end of those who cried lies. See what became of those upon whom error was laid, who called the Prophet a liar and did not accept his guidance. Behold the fallen civilizations; behold the ruined countries and cities; behold Babylon and Assyria and Chaldea, destroyed, of which nothing remained but a name in the column of history. Behold the power of the Pharaohs of Egypt — how Egyptian society was rolled up like a scroll. This is what the Quran speaks of: behold the nations and countries that did not lend an ear to the word of the prophet, and see what their end became — they are doomed to extinction. The talk is not even of a miracle. In the earliest age, of course, miracles used to come, because the doomed had to disappear quickly: it could not be allowed that, with the passage of ages and days, the people of 'Ad, for instance, should be brought to perdition only slowly. So there God would send down chastisement upon them — the blowing of a wind, an earthquake, a flood, something — and remove them from existence. But, generally speaking, until the end of the world this holds: any nation that does not move along the course of religion will be destroyed. Not that its people will all die — no; the destruction of a nation means the destruction of its national organization. They are absorbed, they are digested, they become part of other nations, and their nationhood vanishes entirely. Today, find where the nationhood of Chaldea is, where the nationhood of Assyria is, where the nationhood of Babylon is. These great civilizations of history, the first human civilizations — where are they? Where are they? Is there any trace of them at all? Behold how was the end of those who cried lies. That was in Surat al-Nahl; now Surat al-A'raf. Surat al-Nahl speaks generally: "And We did indeed raise up in every nation a messenger" — in every nation We sent a prophet. But Surat al-A'raf names the prophets one by one. It begins with Noah: Indeed We sent Noah to his people — He said: O my people, worship God. See — his very first word is this: O my people, "Worship God". "You have no deity other than Him" — He is the true object of worship. "Truly I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous day". Then his people answered that they would not accept, and there followed the affair of the Flood; but those parts were not our subject here, until the turn again reaches 'Ad. And to 'Ad [We sent\ their brother Hud] — We sent to the people of 'Ad their brother Hud. Now the people of 'Ad are among those most ancient peoples — perhaps prehistoric — for it has never been correctly established who they were or in what era; they come after the Flood of Noah, belonging to the very, very ancient. And you skillfully hew out houses from the mountains. This is about the people of 'Ad, apparently — that they carved houses into the mountains; one need not deem it far-fetched that this belongs to the late Stone Age, which some materialist scholars have described and depicted. At any rate, they belong to the very ancient. They had a prophet named Hud, who likewise said to them this same thing: He said: O my people, worship God; you have no deity other than Him — O people, worship God, for you have no god besides Him. Notice, too, how this statement makes utterly false the theory of those who claim that Tawhid and religion in general arose from the natural condition of human beings, out of their ignorance and foolishness — that religion only gradually arrived at Tawhid. They say the peoples were polytheists at first — some of these sociologists who speak by rote. It is a very bad thing to speak by rote — like someone who sets out to describe the Mosque of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba, to describe this building, without ever having come near it. He begins: yes, I see the Mosque of Imam Hasan thus — these marble stones cover all its wainscot, the chandeliers hang in such a manner, the walls are decorated with such beauty. But he has not seen it. He has heard that the Mosque of Imam Hasan draws a large crowd and, on conjecture, imagined it must be like this — whereas the moment he stepped inside, you would see: no indeed, it has neither roof nor wall! In matters of sociology, if someone speaks without study, by rote, the result is exactly this: a cause for ridicule. They speak about the interpretation of history without having studied an important part of it. They speak about the phenomena of religion and creed without paying attention to the religions of history. This is a religion that existed perhaps tens of thousands of years ago. Or, if we take that famous date found among the narrations as reliable — that seven or eight thousand years have passed since the descent of Adam — then suppose this was perhaps six or seven thousand years ago. And these people solemnly recount the chronicle: first there was polytheism, and then Tawhid appeared. But no: we see that from antiquity, Tawhid was already there. Will you not then guard yourselves [against evil\?,nofn] — O my people, will you not show piety? He wanted to make Tawhid acceptable to them, to help them understand it. Here I have cited the conversation of his people with the prophet Hud. I read it from the Quran and give a brief translation: The chiefs of his people who disbelieved said: Indeed we see you in foolishness and indeed we reckon you among the liars This is among the accusations that, throughout history, have been directed against those who call to the truth. One of my discussions on prophethood takes up precisely this — perhaps the last chapter — what kind of slanders were cast at the prophets, and what they amounted to; it is a side discussion. They say: you are a foolish man; they accuse him of ignorance. He said: O my people, there is no foolishness in me; rather, I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds In the face of their accusation and their improper speech, he repeated his true statement. I convey to you the messages of my Lord, and I am to you a faithful, trustworthy counselor I desire your good, I desire your growth, I desire your progress — for I call you to God and Tawhid. Do you marvel that a reminder from your Lord has come to you by means of a man from among yourselves, that he may warn you? Do you marvel that a reminder from your Lord came to you, by means of a man from your very selves, to warn you? That is, do you find it astonishing that an ordinary person, in this same garb of yours, should attain the station of prophethood and messengership? Then he directs them to a historical matter: And remember when He made you successors after the people of Noah — that sinful people — and increased you abundantly in stature — in your very creation He gave you greater strength — so remember the bounties of God, that perhaps you may prosper. They said: Have you come to us — see how the enemy too grasps at once what the exclusive worship of God means. They said: Have you come to us that we should worship God alone? And forsake what our fathers used to worship? — and set aside the idols our fathers worshipped, inanimate and animate both? Then bring upon us that with which you threaten us if you are among the truthful. He said: There has [already\ befallen you defilement and wrath from your Lord.] There has befallen you defilement and wrath: a defilement within your own beings, and a wrath from your Lord that has overtaken you. You are wretched. Do you dispute with me concerning names that you have named, you and your fathers? Do you argue with me over hollow, marrowless names that you and your fathers coined and fabricated — names you fastened onto a being you yourselves made and to which you granted power? For its sake you dispute with me? for which God has sent down no authority [sultan\,nofn] — concerning which God has sent down no sultan, that is, no power — or no proof. We have written down both meanings: hujja means a proof and argument; and sultan carries both the sense of power and the sense of hujja, that is, proof and argument. Here both can hold. On the first, we say that God Most High has sent you no proof or argument for the correctness and soundness of these gods and lords of yours. On the second, we say instead that God has given them no power at all — and these abject, helpless beings, to which God gave no power whatsoever, you place at God's side. Then wait; indeed I am with you among those who wait. He said these things; then the chastisement of the Lord came down.