Ep 24 — The Commitment of Faith in Prophethood

Session 22: The Commitment of Faith in Prophethood. Thursday, 18 Mehr 1353 / 23 Ramadan al-Mubarak 1394 Surat al-Anfal (8:72). Indeed, those who believed and emigrated and struggled with their wealth and their lives in the way of God, and those who gave shelter and aid — those are allies of one another. But those who believed yet did not emigrate — you owe them no guardianship at all until they emigrate. And if they seek your help in religion, then upon you is to help, except against a people between whom and you there is a treaty. And God is Seeing of what you do. This issue must be raised within the discussions of Prophethood. If we fail to grasp it, much of what has been said on the subject of Prophethood will have almost no practical effect for us. This final discussion is what guarantees that the previous ones enter our lives and are put into practice. What is this final discussion? It is this. We who say "Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah" — "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God" — announce in the call to prayer, in the ritual prayer, in the pronouncing of the two testimonies (the shahadatayn), everywhere, that we belong to the Prophet's Ummah, that we accept and are convinced of his prophethood and have faith in it. What commitment does this testimony place on our shoulders? Does this belief, this testimony, this profession, create any commitment for us at all? There is one kind of testimony where you say, "I bear witness and accept that — suppose — the narcissus flower is more fragrant than the Muhammadan rose." That is one matter. Some people do not even know this; some believe the opposite. You, sir, rightly or wrongly, have become convinced that this flower's scent is more pleasing to the nose than that one. Now that you have given this testimony — thumma madha, as we seminary students say, "and then what?" Nothing. You see that if a person testifies this flower is better than that one, or the reverse, it has no effect on our life and creates no commitment in it. Let me give another example. In the Christian world, one person stands at the head of the religious hierarchy, called the Pope. As you know, this Pope is in reality merely a kind of statue that people must respect. He puts forth no new theory in Christian belief, and issues no new ruling among Christian laws that differs from the previous ones. His being or not being is just like the presence or absence of a beautiful statue in your reception room: if it is there, the decor is complete; if it is not, then to luxury-loving eyes the room is deficient. On Christian thought, the existence of the Pope and his absence have no greater effect than this. In this very year in which we are living, if an informed Christian were aware that the present Pope has died and so-and-so has taken his place, or refused to believe it, it would make no difference whatsoever to his life. If a Christian were to say, "I bear witness that the existing Pope of my time is Mr. So-and-so," this testimony brings him no commitment. That is to say, the state of this Christian is the same as the state of that broken-down old man sitting in a corner of some village — who has no news that the former Pope has died and someone has come in his place. Just as the old man's life underwent no change after the death of the former Pope, so too no change of any kind comes about in the life of this gentleman who knows the Pope died and another has taken his seat. "I bear witness that today the Pope is so-and-so" — this testimony creates no commitment. Now: when I say in the tashahhud of my prayer, "Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah," when it is proclaimed from the minaret of my city and province as a general slogan, as a portrayer of the overall countenance of this society, "Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah" — does this testimony to prophethood, this faith in prophethood and the proclaiming of it, place a commitment upon my shoulders as the one professing it, and upon the shoulders of that society for which this profession is uttered as its slogan? Or does it not? This is the question. The answer is yes, it does. What commitment does it place upon the shoulders of the follower of the Prophet, the one who accepts his call? Let me put it in a single phrase. A person who believes in the prophethood of the Prophet takes upon his shoulders the commitment to follow the Prophet's path and to carry the Prophet's burden home. These words are uttered very easily, but their responsibility is very heavy; and fundamentally, to be of the Prophet's Ummah and to be a witness to his prophethood is precisely this. A group of people imagine that once they have said "We accept that so-and-so is a prophet" — that the moment they proclaim with the tongue the acceptance of his prophethood that is in their heart — their work is done, and they have carried themselves across the border of Hell into the border of Heaven. Listen carefully, and see whether this belief I am describing exists in your mind too. I have no concern with who holds it and who does not. Some imagine that human beings were burning in the fire of God's wrath, and then the matter of the prophethood of the Seal of the Prophets was raised; a number of these people, there in the precinct of torment and God's wrath, said "Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah" — "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Prophet of God" — and by uttering this phrase they came out of the region of God's torment, they were pulled out, and they fell into the region of mercy. From there, if they prayed, they come a little closer, within the region of mercy, to the wellspring of mercy; if they fasted, they come a little closer; if they paid khums and zakat, closer still; if they also enjoined good and forbade evil, closer again; if they performed other deeds too, then they reach the wellspring of mercy; and even if they did not perform them, in the end they are still within the region of mercy. Did you grasp it? Some imagine it this way. The result of this way of thinking is this. Suppose today a person were to write in his identity document "Muslim, follower of the Prophet of Islam" — back when they used to write it in identity documents, though now they do not — or, put to him in a question and answer, he is asked, "Sir, what is your creed and religion?" and he says "Islam." Merely because he has specified Islam and not specified Christianity, not materialism, not Judaism, not some other religion — merely because, among the various things presented to him under the name of religion, he has put his finger on Islam — they say: "Very well; since you have specified Islam, go to Heaven. Now, if you also prayed, all the better; if you also fasted, all the better; if you also did other deeds, all the better; and even if you did not do them, your place is in God's Heaven — except that before you reach the Resurrection, they will squeeze you hard." This is a saying and a thought that is current in people's minds. This saying is not correct. Faith in the Prophet is necessary, but that faith brings commitments along with it; and a person's faith is sound only to the extent that those commitments are fulfilled. Suppose a person held a faith on his tongue, or even in his heart, but did not commit himself to any of the commitments that this faith specifies for him, did not accept any of the responsibilities that acceptance of the Prophet's prophethood places on his shoulders. Then this person, though outwardly a believer, is not a true believer. What will God do with him at the Resurrection? I do not know, nor do I have any concern to know. But by the measures of this world, as a basis on which we can pass a verdict on the faith or lack of faith of a person, we do not regard this man as a person of faith. Of course, let me add one thing. Uttering this phrase and declaring belief outwardly does preserve a person's life and property, as the saying goes — though there is some loose usage in that expression — that is, it brings him inside the Islamic sphere. But our discussion is not about whether a person's life and property are protected. We want to see whether he is a believer or not. On the basis of the Quranic criteria, whose verses I will now explain for you, we say: that person who is not bound to the commitments of faith is not a believer. A believer is one who is bound to the commitments and responsibilities that faith in prophethood brings. What is this commitment? It is that I should see what the Prophet wanted to do in this world. The Prophet wanted to lift a tremendous burden, the Prophet wanted to uproot a tremendous boulder, the Prophet wanted to erect a tremendous edifice. And I too, in my own time, should look and see: has that burden which the Prophet wanted to lift been completely lifted? Has that stone which the Prophet wanted to uproot from the ground and completely tear out been completely torn out? Has that edifice which the Prophet wanted to demolish and to build been built? If I saw that the answer is negative — that burden is still on the ground, that stone has not been torn out, that edifice has not been built — then let me strive to do the work he wanted to do. Let me strive to lift this burden myself. If my bones were weak, if my strength did not suffice, then to the extent that I can, let me strain at it, and let me also find ten other people so that we lift this burden together; let me find yet another group so that we build this edifice together. If I could not finish the building, can I not at least bring ten bricks and stack them there? Can I not dig out even a portion of its foundation and footing? Can I not at least prepare the preliminaries of the work? If I say I cannot, it is a lie. He must be bound to this commitment; otherwise it is a lie for him to say, "I bear witness that he is the Prophet of God." That is a superficial testimony. "I bear witness that he is a prophet, but I cannot bear witness that I believe in his prophethood" — like the hypocrites: When the hypocrites come to you, they say, 'We bear witness that you are indeed the Messenger of God.' And God knows that you are indeed His Messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites are surely liars. They would come and say, "O Messenger of God, we bear witness that you are the Prophet of God." God says: yes, We Ourselves know that you are Our prophet; this matter is certain to Us — the statement is, in itself, true. But We bear witness that they were liars in this testimony of theirs; in their hearts they do not accept it, while with their tongues they say it. The commitment of the messengership is the building of a world in the form that Islam has stated. The Messenger, when he comes, comes in order to build a world to the dimensions that Islam proposes. The Prophet is commissioned for this — to set right the form and the order of human life in the manner that God states. Suppose that you, in your own time, saw that humanity is not living by the God-ordained form, that mankind is deprived of a divine society, that various schools are pulling humanity this way and that, and that Islam has remained confined to a corner of people's minds and hearts and no more. Then your duty and your commitment, on the basis of the testimony you give to the messengership of the Prophet, is to strive to bring the world into the form ordained by Islam. This is the responsibility and the commitment of prophethood. Just as has been written in these papers, which you have studied or are studying: Islam brings a new thought, and on the basis of this new thought a new front-formation, a new lining-up, comes into being. And through the study of the verses of the Quran we have repeatedly reached this conclusion — that religion, in essence, means the creation of a new front-formation and lining-up. When human beings live in an ignorant (jahili) society, they are all obedient and tamed, all facing one direction, one way. The Prophet, when he comes into this society, divides them into two groups: one group he rescues from this misguidance, this straying, this bewilderment; he changes their path, and so they become two groups. In the sense I have described, the prophets are an agent of division; in this sense, they are an agent of duality. Hold on to the sense in which I said this, so that if you recount it somewhere you do not say, "So-and-so says the Prophet is an agent of division." In this sense he is an agent of division, and in no other — everyone is going, like the cars of a single train, toward the downward slope of ruin; the Prophet comes and takes hold of these cars from behind. Some of the cars detach themselves from the Prophet's hand and go on toward the downward slope of ruin; a number welcome this holding-back of his; and division falls among the cars. This caravan is heading toward the bandits, toward the place of death, toward the earthquake-zone; the Prophet comes and says, "Do not go." Some listen to his word and do not go; some do not listen and go. So they become two fronts — division. In this sense, the prophets, when they come, create division and duality within societies — except that it is a duality within a society that had been uniformly misguided. They come and say, "Turn back toward God," and division falls among those uniform masses; some turn back, some do not. So a new front, a new lining-up, a new mutual positioning comes into being in society with the coming of the Prophet. The Prophet stands on one side, in one rank; the obstinate adversaries of the Prophet stand on the other side, in another rank. Pay close attention to these two ranks that I am sketching. At first the Prophet was all alone, and everyone stood in that opposing rank. He exerted effort, he strove, one by one, two by two, until at last he was able to form a rank facing that misguided and hellbound one — to bring into being a rank facing the rank of error. They stand as two ranks facing each other: one is the rank of the Prophet; the other is the rank of the Prophet's enemies. What did the Prophet want to do? He wanted to take the people to Heaven — the Heaven of this world and the Heaven after death, both. Because he wants to take the people to Heaven, the people must come with him; if they do not come with him, they do not reach Heaven. Is this correct? The Prophet wants to take human beings to the destination of felicity; if they do not come with him, if they do not become his companions and fellow travelers, they do not reach that destination. Remember this well. Now, between these two ranks stands a person. He looks at the Prophet and sees that he speaks true words; however much he listens, he finds that the Prophet's word is a good word. On the other hand, he sees that if he enters the Prophet's rank, he will be forced to contend against that opposing rank. He has no heart to go into the opposing rank, because he sees that they are heading toward Hell; he has no heart to come into the Prophet's rank, because he sees that the Prophet's rank means trouble. So what does he do? He comes between the two ranks, chooses a safe, secure, peaceful spot, pitches a tent there, and sits down. What sort of person is this? You tell me. This man who has sat down in the middle, slumbering on a comfortable bed between the two ranks — will he reach Heaven or not? Plainly he will not. The Prophet is bound for Heaven, and only those who set out together with him will go, while this one never set out with the Prophet at all. Whoever is between the two ranks is not with the Prophet; whoever has not joined the Prophet is against the Prophet; whoever is not with Ali is against Ali; whoever is not with the truth is against the truth. The Quran tells us this too, but the eloquent, clear tongue of the Imam (peace be upon him) — much closer to comprehension — states it for us. He says, "Al-sakitu akhu al-radi" — learn this hadith; the reference for it is Bihar al-Anwar, the volume of admonitions (mawa'iz) — "Al-sakitu akhu al-radi, wa man lam yakun ma'ana kana 'alayna." The one who is silent in the face of a false situation is the brother of the one who is content with that situation. They do not even go on to say what the content one becomes; that much is obvious — man radiya bi-'amali qawmin fa-huwa minhum: whoever is content with the deed of a community, content with the life of a people, is one of them; they too will take him and tie him to the same manger to which they tie those people. This one who is silent — discontented in his heart, yet never proclaiming his discontent — he too is the brother of the one who is content. Then it continues: "wa man lam yakun ma'ana kana 'alayna" — whoever is not with us is against us. Between these two ranks, Islam has supposed no place at all. Those who read it blind were the men like the companions of 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud — among them this very gentleman Rabi' ibn Khuthaym (if this grave in Khurasan is indeed his). At the Battle of Siffin he said, "We are not prepared to accompany the Commander of the Faithful, because he is going to shed the blood of Muslims," and, seeking his own comfort, asked the Imam to send them off to the frontiers to stand guard. These men imagined that the war between Yazdgerd the Third and — I do not know — Heraclius the umpteenth of Rome was such that, whichever of them prevailed, it would mean nothing at all for a person's religion or worldly life. So, seeking ease, a person could conclude a pact of non-aggression, an agreement not to intervene in the war, and go sit in some corner. They imagined it was an international war, several nations fighting one another over power and government, where whichever country manages to keep itself aside has won. They did not understand that the war between truth and falsehood is an unavoidable one. They did not grasp that in the war between truth and falsehood, if you are not with the truth, you are with falsehood. Being with falsehood does not necessarily mean you take up arms against the truth; even the case where you simply do not fight for the truth falls under being with falsehood. This is what they did not understand. Prophethood comes and makes the ranks distinct; it says, "Let those who are with us come." He said: O company, whoever has not love for us, let him take to the road and depart from our Karbala. Let him go; he is no longer with us. Take the one whom Husayn ibn 'Ali summons on the road — "Come, help us" — and who answers, "O son of the Messenger of God, shall I offer this horse of mine to your service, or this sword of mine?" — clearly he is no longer with Husayn; he stands against Husayn, not with him. And so you see that our traditionists write of him: that unfortunate one — truly unfortunate. And they speak the truth. Woe to those wretched people who, like him, are unfortunate throughout time; O unfortunate one! The prophets come and make the road clear; they say, "This is it. If you are a man, if you are a seeker of truth, if you are for God's sake, if you bear witness to our prophethood — then come, by God, our road is this. But if you sat down there, and you saw our road, you saw the wayfarers of our road, and because it was hard you did not come, because it was hard you did not help, because it was hard you even turned your face the other way — that is, 'I did not see' — yet at that very moment you took up a rosary in your hand and said, 'I bear witness that you are prophets, I bear witness that you are prophets, I bear witness that you are prophets,' and you told off one full round of the rosary — this is of no use. Say nothing, and come; do not bring this remembrance to your tongue, do not act: O you who have believed, why do you say that which you do not do? Great is the hatred in the sight of God that you say what you do not do. Why do you not act upon what you say with your tongue, "I believe in it"? Woe unto me — I am describing my own condition. It is a great sin for a person to say something with the tongue, to declare a belief, but not act upon it. Why should I say I am a follower of the Prophet of God, while I am a follower of Abu Jahl? Why should I say I am after Islam, while I am after polytheism? Why should I say I am an 'Alawi (a follower of Ali), while I am of Mu'awiya and of Abu Jahl? What was the difference between Ali and Mu'awiya? By God, today you sketch out Ali and Mu'awiya in your own society. Picture one person. Everything he says cuts against ease and comfort; everything he says lays a burden of responsibility on the shoulder; everything he wants is effort. He is repelled by lying; he is made uneasy by a bribe; he is made uneasy by a gift that gives off the smell of a bribe. On the path of God and for God's sake he is fierce. He has a strange leopard-temper on the path of God. On the path of God and the ruling of God he shows mercy to no one. Even his own brother, when he comes and asks him for money from the public treasury (bayt al-mal), gets red-hot iron held toward his fist. One such person in society — strict, precise, cautious in carrying out the divine and Islamic rulings and prescribed limits — this is one man. And one man is his exact opposite. He is willing for you to make merry, willing for you to live in comfort, willing to give you whatever you want from him, and he sets only one condition before you in return, and that condition is that you say, "Do not help Ali, help me; and the help I want from you is not much help either — sometimes praise me, and that is enough." Well, by God, of these two men, which one do you go after? Which one do you accept in this time and in this segment of history? Are you willing to go with the one who has trouble, responsibility, movement, effort — to be with him, to act upon his command? Are you willing to pass over the one who has money for you, has rank, has comfort, has title, has influence, has a powerful hand — to pass him over for this? If you are willing, blessed are you; had you been alive in Ali's time too, you would have been a Shia of Ali. But if you see that your heart takes flight toward comforts, indulgences, pleasures, monies, ranks, prestige, preening and boasting before this person and that — even outside the path of God — then know that had you been there, you would have been one of those who, if you were very calculating, would by night, secretly, without having bid farewell to the neighbors, mount your horse — even telling your wife and children, "I await you in Sham (Syria); ya 'Ali madad!" — and ride off toward Sham. You would leave Ali alone, just as many of the respected figures of that time left him. 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, the cousin of the Commander of the Faithful and cousin of the Prophet, the narrator of so much hadith, the commentator of the Quran, a figure respected among Shia and Sunni — did this very thing to Ali, so that the Commander of the Faithful, in Nahj al-Balagha, has two letters and two addresses to 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas. And who was 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, after all? Merely because they narrated some four hadiths from him, on the authority of the Prophet, both Shia and Sunni accept him. He was not even a Companion of the Prophet, yet all accept him — and this is a point worth noting. Had he been a Companion whom Shia and Sunni accepted, it would not matter — like Salman, like Abu Dharr, like 'Ammar, whom all accept. But he is one of the Successors (tabi'in); he did not properly perceive the time of the Prophet, since he was a child when the Prophet passed away. Studying a bit of history, I saw that this gentleman 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas was among the entourage of the second Caliph, and very fond of him too — this one also rode mostly in the train of Mr. 'Umar. For a man to be one of the Successors, never to have known the time of the Prophet, and yet for both Shia and Sunni to accept him — ya lal-'ajab! (how astonishing!) — this must be a very strange man. What is the name for this in Islamic convention, that two hostile groups should both accept one person? This man, while he was the governor (ustandar) of Basra, took the monies of the public treasury and made his getaway! Where to? Mecca — into the safe sanctuary of the Lord. No doubt he took the monies there and gave them in charity! He gave them to the poor — yes, to the poor slave-girl dealers; he bought a few beautiful slave-girls, with whom he might be at ease and busy himself in pleasure-seeking. Now, if 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas were here today, what do you suppose he would say about the Commander of the Faithful? He would narrate all the first-hand hadiths on the merit of Ali; he would shed tears at the remembrance of Ali; he would recount his memories of having been with Ali. But would you and I — clever and shrewd as we are — accept that he is a Shia? We would say: "Sir, go set this snare for some other bird, go; if you were a Shia, you ought to have shown yourself at the time of the test." "'Inda al-imtihan yukramu al-rajulu aw yuhan" — at the time of the test a man is either honored or disgraced. "Fi taqallub al-ahwal 'ulima jawahir al-rijal" — in the vicissitudes of circumstances the substances of men become known. Had you been a Shia of Ali, you would not have cost Ali so much heart's blood; your fleeing would not have wrung such moaning out of Ali, moaning as he did over the departure of 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas: "You were closer to me than all my kinsmen; I had hope in you; I relied upon you. You left your cousin alone in these conditions and went away?!" It is a letter Ali has in Nahj al-Balagha, addressed to 'Abdullah — except that the late Radi (may God's pleasure be upon him), living in the time of the Banu al-'Abbas, either out of fear or out of embarrassment at writing "From a letter of his to 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas," wrote instead, "From a letter of his to one of his administrators" — he wrote that the Imam (peace be upon him) wrote to one of his agents, his governors, but did not write who this governor was. When you read this letter, it is obvious that it was 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas; and beyond Nahj al-Balagha, in other places they have narrated that it pertains to 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas — that "you left your cousin alone, you did such and such and such and such." In any case, the commitment of accepting and embracing prophethood is this: walking behind the Prophet, accepting his assignment, acting in the very manner that he wants. Let me explain just this brief portion of the verses for you, so that you may see what the commitment of Islam is. "Inna alladhina amanu wa hajaru…" — "Indeed, those who believed and emigrated." Those who believed and emigrated and struggled with their wealth and their lives. This concerns the time of the Prophet — not that I mean it is not for other times; no, this is a general ruling. It is stated in regard to the time of the Prophet, when emigration (hijra) was also at issue there — emigration to the Islamic society. In those days a number of people would become Muslim and accept the thought of the Prophet, yet were not prepared to leave Mecca. They would say, "Well, why should I go out? In Mecca I have a shop with two or three doorways, I have an excellent round telephone number, I have my customers, I have kinsmen and relatives and friends and drinking companions — should I leave all these and go off to the side of the Prophet? Well, why? Is faith required? I have faith — I will say it a hundred times, in my heart, on my tongue, softly of course so that no one hears: God is One, and the Prophet too is in the right. The Prophet wants prayer from me — I pray; he wants fasting — instead of thirty days I will fast sixty days; why should I go to Medina?" Some thought this way. But emigration was required there. The Islamic society was newly founded; they had to go, they had to strengthen it, they had to make that society invulnerable against its enemies. Emigration was therefore a decisive condition of the acceptance of faith. "Inna alladhina amanu" — those who believed and adhered; "wa hajaru" — and emigrated to Medina; "wa jahadu bi-amwalihim wa anfusihim" — and with their wealth and their lives, both, exerted struggle in the way of God; and likewise, from the other side; "wa alladhina awaw" — those who gave shelter to these people in Medina, without protector and without home; "wa nasaru" — and aided them; "ula'ika ba'duhum awliya'u ba'd" — these are allies of one another. These are some who are joined to the others and stand on the same front. These are those same believers who are like bricks interlocked into one another. Look at a building, look at this edifice: the bricks have gone into one another, the timbers have gone into one another, the parts of a building are interlaced and knotted together with the other parts; the believers in the Islamic society are just like this — all joined and welded and knotted to one another. Awliya' means this, wilayat means this: complete joining, complete cleaving and adhesion — this is wilayat. "Wa alladhina amanu…" — "ula'ika ba'duhum awliya'u ba'd" — they are some the allies of the others. But now, consider those who believed — who in their hearts believed that you are a prophet — but "wa lam yuhajiru" — did not emigrate, did not shoulder the commitment of faith. "ma lakum min walayatihim min shay'in hatta yuhajiru" — you have no bond with these people at all, until they emigrate. As long as they have not emigrated and remain where they are, they are strangers to you. There is no Islamic tie of brotherhood between you. Yet there is another ruling alongside it. If those very ones fall into war with another group and seek your help, then of course you must go and aid them — because they are of one mind with you, and because they are at war. When a Muslim is at war with a group of unbelievers, it is obligatory upon you to help him, even though that Muslim is not beside you, is not in your homeland, has not emigrated to you. There is one exception, and it is this: that the one that Muslim is fighting has concluded a peace treaty with you. In that case, helping that Muslim is no longer obligatory. What does this verse teach us here? First, that helping a Muslim, wherever in the world he may be, is obligatory, even if he has not emigrated. Second, that this obligation has a limit. Take the Muslim who has not emigrated, who has not migrated to the Islamic society — though of course today, in the world, we do not have an Islamic society in this sense — who has remained in the abode of unbelief (dar al-kufr). Suppose he falls into war with one unbeliever or a group of them, and you have a peace treaty and non-aggression pact with that unbeliever. Then you have no right to go to the aid of your Muslim brother. Why? Because he has not emigrated, because he is not your brother, because he has not migrated toward you. "Wa in istansarukum fi al-din fa-'alaykumu al-nasr illa 'ala qawmin" — except against a people; against the harm of a people — "baynakum wa baynahum mithaq" — between whom and you there is a commitment and a treaty. "Wa Allahu bima ta'maluna basir" — and God is Seeing of what you do. And those who disbelieve are allies of one another. "Wa alladhina kafaru ba'duhum awliya'u ba'd" — those who are unbelievers, some are on the same front as the others, joined to them. Do not be misled by the fact that they stand in two camps; in their enmity toward you, they are one camp and one front. "Illa taf'aluhu takun fitnatun fi al-ardi wa fasadun kabir" — if you do not do this, there will be a discord (fitna) in the earth and a great corruption. Perhaps the meaning is this: if you do not observe this front-formation and this lining-up — if you do not grasp that your rank, facing the rank of the enemies of God, is a distinct and separate rank, and if you do not grasp that whoever stands between the two ranks belongs to the rank of the enemies and opponents, not to this rank — if you do not grasp these things and act on what they require, there will be discord in the earth, there will be corruption. The fitna is the discord of distance from religion; the fasad, probably, is the corruption that follows when God's ruling does not exist in the midst of society. "Wa alladhina amanu" — those who have believed; "wa hajaru" — and migrated — — this verse too is an interesting witness to the matters we have set forth — And those who believed and emigrated and struggled in the way of God, and those who gave shelter and aid — those are the true believers; for them is forgiveness and a noble provision. "Wa alladhina amanu" — those who have believed; "wa hajaru" — they emigrated; "wa jahadu fi sabil Allah" — they struggled in the way of God; "wa alladhina awaw wa nasaru" — those who gave shelter and aid; "ula'ika humu al-mu'minuna haqqa" — these are the true believers. Did you understand? This is what the true believer is. But the one who has believed, and from whom no emigration, struggle, sheltering, or aiding has issued — what is he? Hum al-mu'minuna ghayra haqq: a false believer, a lying believer. This is the import of the verse, on to the verses that follow. Let me set out one word from those verses of Surat Al 'Imran, because I must expound it briefly, or our meaning will not come through: And when God took the covenant of the prophets… "Wa idh akhadha Allahu mithaqa al-nabiyyin…" I rendered this verse's translation there and will not translate it again. Here is what it means to express: that We took a commitment even from the past prophets. We said to them — to a past prophet, for example to Moses: that which We have given you, if after you a prophet comes who confirms and ratifies what We have now given you, you are required to have faith in that prophet and to aid him. So it holds for Moses regarding the prophets after himself, and for Jesus regarding the prophets after himself. Every prophet who comes after another and ratifies the word of the previous prophet — the previous prophet, who acknowledges him, is required to believe in that later prophet, and beyond that, to aid him as well. "La-tu'minunna bihi wa la-tansurunnah" — he must aid him. Then it asks: what, now, is the aid of the prophet? The aid of the prophet is this. How, for example, does Moses aid our Prophet? By enjoining upon his Ummah, his friends, his companions: beware, beware, beware — if this prophet comes with these signs, do not oppose him. That is aid. "Qala a-aqrartum…" — God said to these prophets: Did you acknowledge? Did you accept this commitment of Mine? This covenant that I am taking from you, that you must believe in the prophets after yourselves, on this condition: "a-aqrartum wa akhadhtum 'ala dhalikum isri" — did you acknowledge, and did you take My burden (covenant) upon yourselves? And did you likewise take this very covenant from your Ummah too, until the Day of Resurrection? Which means that the Jews of the world are, right now, being held to account for this covenant on the part of Moses son of 'Imran. Right now Moses son of 'Imran, by the tongue of his state and his word, is as though saying to them: "O you ignoble ones! Did I not take a covenant from you that, forever, whoever has faith in Moses — Moses himself has faith in the Seal of the Prophets — must believe in the Seal of the Prophets and aid him, help him?" Chapter Four: Wilayat The Bonds of the Islamic Ummah. The Heaven of Wilayat. Concerning Wilayat (1). Concerning Wilayat (2). Concerning Wilayat (3) — (Emigration).