The Perfection of Unity

Source: The Learning of the Glorious Qur’an, by Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi page 47.

Finally, at-Tawhid reaches a stage where man becomes eyewitness of the fact that the entire existence and its affairs are in need of Allah, or, actually there is nothing but the need of Allah. In the terms of philosophy, this is expressed as: "The world of existence is the very connection, the very belonging itself, not something that belongs or has a connection." In an instance this subject appears in man in the form of a belief supported by proofs; in another instance, when man's knowledge increases and his faith becomes more perfect, it reaches a stage in which he becomes an "eyewitness" of this fact and understands it. These were the stages of monotheism (at-Tawhid)

The Border between Polytheism and Faith

If one wants from the Islamic point of view, to become a monotheist and embrace Islam so as to be counted in this world among the Muslims and the monotheists, and, in the other world be happy and enter Paradise, must he pass through all these stages, or is it enough to have only the first one, or is there any particular limit which must be attained to, and a lower stage will not be acceptable? Which one is it?
Should the limit, which man must comprehend, be the last stage, only few individuals along the history had actually reached it, could be eyewitnesses and understood it through intuitive knowledge. As a matter of fact there were such individuals in the history, but what about the others? Should they be rejected? Of course not. On the other hand, is the first stage sufficient? i.e. somebody believes that the Necessary Being is One, but admits for others to have the attributes of creation, lordship and being worshipped. He does believe that the only self-existent being is Allah, yet he also believes that there are other world-creators, too. Naturally, this belief is contradictory. Nevertheless, there are many such self-contradicting beliefs which are believed in by people who do not recognize the duality of their contradictory beliefs. This is because of their insufficient knowledge.

For example, there are some people who believe that the Creator of the world is none but Allah, who, after having created it left it to be managed by some of His creatures, or they did it automatically even without any permission from Him by taking the management out of Allah's hands! Incidentally, basic polytheist beliefs along the history stem from this very question. Even the Arab polytheists, about whom the Qur'an says:...the idolaters are but unclean" [Suratut-Tawbah/28] and "... and kill them wherever you find them",[Suratul-Baqarah/191] and who were the same filthy idolaters who drove the Muslims out of their homes, did not believe that the world had many creators. They believed that the management of the world was done by many, such as the angels, whom they believed to be Allah's daughters. The idols were to represent those daughters, which they worshipped in order to draw nearer to the angels - the directors of the world. They even thought that those daughters were so dear to Allah that He rejected none of their demands. Thus, they wanted their to intercade for them with Allah: ...we do not worship them save that they may bring us nearer to Allah" [Suratuz-Zumar/3] and Should you ask them: `Who created the heavens and the earth?' They would most certainly say: 'Allah .,,[ibid/38]. Their polytheism was in lordship and worship. Similarly were the idolaters of the time of the Prophet Joseph (Yusuf). He did not ask them: "Are sundry creators better or a single one?" He asked them: "Are sundry lords better or Allah the One, the Omnipotent"[Surat Yasuf/39].
It is clear, then, that their polytheism was in lordship. If a person believes that the Creator is One, but the world has many lords who direct its parts - a lord for each part: for the earth, the animals, the lands, the waters, and so on, but that all of them had been created by Allah, will such a person be regarded by Islam as a monotheist or a polytheist? Undoubtedly he is a polytheist. That is, only at-Tawhid in creation is not enough.
There are, however, others who believe that the genetic manager of the world is Allah, the one who created it, yet there, are besides Him, others who have the right to make laws for the people; and to obey them, like obeying Allah, is a duty. Allah sends a law and tells people to do so and so.
There are also others who make other laws, besides Allah's, which are to be obeyed, too, i.e. both the laws of Allah and the laws of those individuals are to be enacted, and it is incumbent upon them to obey both. This is polytheism in legislative lordship: They have taken their rabbis and their monks for lords besides Allah."
The Jews and the Christians believed that the big people in the synagogue and in the church had the right to legislate laws, or change the Divine law and dispose of it, just as it is currently done by the church - to make lawful what is unlawful and vice versa.
For example in Catholicism, divorce had been unlawful for many years. Marriage had been an everlasting bondage between man and woman once they were wed to one another. They had to live with one another. There was no way to divorce, but of late there appeared some particular exceptions in which the Ecclesiastical Council allowed divorce, i.e. making law is in their hands. What does the Christian religion say? It says whatever the said Council says.
This is the religion of Messiah. If they have to change their opinions tomorrow, the religion will change accordingly, and yet it will remain the same Christianity, only this time it appears in a different form. This type of belief is polytheism in the legislative lordship.
It seems that the Qur'an refers to this by the said ayah about the rabbis and monks whom the Jews and the Christians regarded as their lords. Did they really believe that, say, the Pope was the creator of the world? Apparently there was no such belief in the Church nor among the Christians. They only accepted their authority to originally legislate laws, taking it a duty upon them to obey their commands as they obey Allah's, though, as regards worshipping, they were of the opinion that no one deserved to be worshipped except Allah.

Looking thoroughly into the Qur'an we realize that the said items are necessary for one to be a monotheist. That is, the monotheist, in the view of the Qur'an, is the one who sees that the attributes of being necessary and being a creator both are exclusively confined to Allah, as well as Genetic Lordship, Legislative Lordship and the only ayah to be worshipped. And, since believing in Allah's divinity and Unity belonged to the last stage, Islam's slogan was "La Ilaha Illallah", "there is no god but Allah". It does not say: "There is no Necessary Being but Allah", "There is no Creator but Allah" or "There is no Lord but Allah", because these alone are not enough. They must include "There is no one to be worshipped but Allah." So, the limit, here, is at-Tawhid. Believing in this turns the individual into a monotheist, from the Islamic point of view, such that it is accepted and he is regarded as a Muslim, deserving to enter the House of Happiness. A stage below this is insufficient. But what about a higher stage? So much the better! man should try to attain it. The more he advances the more perfect he becomes in his monotheism. As a matter of fact, man's procession of perfection advances towards at-Tawhid, and the evaluation of a man's merits in accordance with the Islamic criterions is measured in proportion to the degree of his monotheism.

Here someone may ask: Does each one of the said stages of at-Tawhid provide a part of our happiness and secure a stage of our perfection and piety, or are those monotheistic concepts like a mixture which if it contained all the ingredients it would be effective, and if not it would be as if it did not exist at all?
In more explicit terms: suppose a person accepts at-Tawhid in creation, but he does not accept at-Tawhid in Lordship. When this person is compared with another person who accepts none of these two concepts, can we say that these two are, as regards perfection and piety, in two different stages, such as to say this one gets 10 degrees and the other gets 20 degrees? Or by acquiring all the stages of at-Tawhi`d one has, actually, just started the process, and is it here that the effects appear, whereas before reaching this stage there would be no effect whatsoever? It occurs to one that these are almost a successive series of stages, each of which is relatively effective. That is, if somebody denies the existence of Allah, even as the Necessary Being, he will be extremely low. The one who admits that Allah is the Necessary Being has found a part of the truth and ascended a step towards perfection. He is better than the one who denies it; and so on until comes to accept at-Tawhid in Divinity.
What is the answer to this question?
The Qur'an says that it is not true that the one who accepts some aspects of at-Tawhid is better than the one who accepts none of them, i.e. if one accepts only the first four stages of at-Tawhid will be regarded as if one accepts none of them - a fact which appears to us strange, at first glance. An explicit example of this in the Qur'an is the disbelief of Iblis (Satan). It is not our concern to discuss whether Iblis is a real creature or a legendary one, or whether he is separate from man or an inseparable dimension of him. We, however, believe that Iblis is a separate creature who has a real existence outside man, and who lives for a long period, all of which is not our concern now.
At any rate, the episode of Iblis, which is repeated in the Qur'an several times, is not a mere useless legend.
The Qur'an's repetition and insistence upon it is but for us to take a lesson from it. Did Iblis believe in Allah's creation? The Qur'an says that when Allah asked Iblis why didn't he fall down in obeisance to Adam, he replied: ...You had created me of fire, while You created him of clay. I am better than him", [Suratul-'A'raf/12 and Surat Sad/721] why should he make obeisance to him? In this conversation there is no denial of Allah's creation, on the contrary, it declares that He is the Creator of both of them. Satan admits that Allah is the Creator of the world, including Satan and the human beings. So, he did believe in Allah's power of creation, but what about Allah's Lordship? He addressed Allah, saying: "My Lord! Because you have sent me astray, I shall entice them..."[Suratul-Hijr/39] Allah is addressed as "Lord", which means that he believed in Allah's Lordship, too. He also believed in the Day of Resurrection, as he says: "...My Lord! Then respite me till the time when they are resurrected."[ibid/36] This he asked after that Allah had cursed him for his disobedience. He asked Allah to lengthen his life till the Day of Judgement so as to instigate them and deviate them from the right path.
Therefore, if each of these beliefs was individually sufficient to be regarded as a virtue and perfection, he should have had as many virtues and perfections, since he believed in Allah's Existence, Oneness, Creation, Lordship and in the Resurrection.
In "Nahjul-Balaghah", by Imam 'Ali (A.S.) we read about Iblis that: "He had worshipped Allah for six thousand years, whether counted by the years of this world or of the next world is unknown."["Nahjul-Balaghah", Sermon 192, al-Qasi'ah.]
Now let us suppose that Ibis had worshipped Allah for six thousand years before the creation of Adam - and the worship of six thousand years is not a trivial thing - what shortcomings did Iblis have? He was short of obedience. He should have obeyed what Allah had ordered him to do. It is Allah's right to be obeyed without dispute. When He commands He must be obeyed. All existence is His; so, self-assertion before Him is pointless, since one has to accept Allah's legislative Lordship and to obey Him unquestionably. Nobody else is to be obeyed in this manner. But Satan disputes with Allah, meaning to say to Allah: "This order of Yours is irrelevant- [we seek Allah's refuge!] - if someone has to bow down before someone else, the former must be lower in position than the latter, whereas my position is higher than that of Adam. It is Adam who should make obeisance before me. So, You have issued a groundless order. You have no right to tell me to bow to Adam." Nowhere in the Qur'an, nor in any Divine Book and any traditional narrative, it was said that lbl i s had committed any error except this one which is mentioned with its psychological preliminaries. This was the cause of Satan's downfall - he refused to obey Allah's order. The reason for his refusal is, of course, conceit and envy. He envied Adam. These are psychological causes. But what had practically caused Satan's downfall was Allah's verdict: "And My curse is on You to the Day of Judgement" [Surat Sad/78], and on that day it will be said: "That I will indeed fill Hell with you and with those who follow you, all." [ibid/85] That is, the forerunner of the people of Hell is Iblis, while the others follow him. Allah had pledged that He would fill hell with Satan and his followers. If we suppose that whoever accepts a stage of at-Tawhid must be superior and more honoured than the one who does not accept it, then Iblis must be much superior to the one who denies even the existence of Allah, such as a person who does not believe in any deity lives a few years in this world and perhaps no evil deed is committed by him, and yet, Iblis, who worshipped Allah for six thousand years and believed in several aspects of at-Tawhid, is placed at the head of the Hell-dwellers, that is, he is confined to the lowest stratum of Hell.
Maybe lblis had partners. There may be human Satans even, and not better than him, but none of them may be benefited by whatever worshipping he had done, since he did not reach the necessary limit of at-Tawhid, such as the mixture which lacks one of its essential ingredients. This mixture can benefit only when all its ingredients are added. A mixture lacking an essential part may even be harmful. In medicine, if a compound lacked a particular material, it may not only be useless, but it may also be harmful. Similarly, the collection of the monotheistic beliefs is a mixture effective in bringing about man's happiness, and entering him in Allah's Mercy and His Paradise. If it lacks any of its elements it will be ineffective.
We know that if a Muslim denies a necessary Islamic precept mentioned in the Qur'an he is regarded as an apostate; that is, he has forsaken his religion. We remember that the Imam (late Ayatullah Ruhullah Al-Khumayni, the Founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran) some time ago said that, whoever regards the [Islamic] Penalty Bill as inhumane will be an apostate, his wife will be haram [illegal] to him, his penalty will be death, killing him will be lawful and his property will be distributed among his heirs. Why? Does he deny the existence of Allah, or the Prophet? Does he say that there will be no Judgement Day? No, he denies none of these. He even performs his salats and fasts. He only says that that "Bill" is inhumane and unfair. Why should he be regarded as an apostate? He has so many [Islamic] beliefs. He serves so much. Why should he become lower even than the one who denies Allah? Is it because he does not attain to the accepted limit of at-Tawhid?
This shows as if some part of the mission of Muhammad (S.A.) were inadequate, or that Muhammad (S.A.) himself had - we seek Allah's refuge - badly conveyed Allah's message to the people, or Allah (W.S.A.R.) had badly expressed Himself, or badly legislated the laws. In any case, it is a denial of either the Message or the limit of at-Tawhid. The one who admits that the Prophet (S.A.) utters nothing out of himself and believes in the Message, by objecting to any of the Prophet's utterances, will actually be objecting to Allah i.e. he objects: why did Allah, for example, legislate the Penalty Code?
It is not without reason that the episode of Satan is so much stressed. We must understand it. We cannot be Muslims unless we submit to Allah's commands. If I say: "I accept this only when I understand its reasonable proof, but I'll leave it if I do not understand it", I will be following my reason. Of course, the Islmaic precepts have their rational evidences and they are related to the good and the bad. But it is different to say: "I will not accept them unless I know what good there is in them", and to say: "There is no precept without an interest, though I do not know it."
Is there anything minus Allah? Whatever we have is from Him, so how can we say before Allah: "You are One and I am one, You will and I will." Who are we? What do we have from ourselves? When I say: "Allah said so in the Qur'an, but I think it would have been better if He had said so," is as if I say: "I have a sense which Allah does not have." Thus, in this sense you are a god, and the taste is not from Allah. If it is, then Allah is its originator. If you understand something which Allah does not, then you, in this understanding of yours, are the god of your understanding, since you did get it from Allah!
Islam means "submission", resignation to the will of Allah. So, how can it be possible for somebody to be a Muslim and nevertheless questions Allah about His commands, and shows off his own opinion, and says: "This precept is an insult to the women's dignity, that one is inhumane," and things like that? This is why the Imam [Khumayni] said that the penalty for such a person is death, he must be killed, because he lacks the foundation of Islam in himself. This, however, is a religious decree and is backed by particular proofs. This precept is explained according to the Islamic point of view, as denying a necessary precept means denying the Divine Legislative Lordship. The parable of this person is like the parable of lblis. If he worships for a thousand years and fights for Islam for a thousand years, but he denies a single necessary precept which is stated in the Qur'an, killing him will be lawful, his wife will be haram to him and his wealth will be distributed among his heirs, as it will no longer be his. Thus, there is a limit, a norm, before Allah. To dispute these norms is not accepted in Islam.
Islam is submission. If it is sometimes recommended that one should be tough and self-assertive, the opposite is required before Allah. One is to be humble, powerless, helpless, modest and submissive before one's Lord. Those who think that Islam does not want man to be humble even before Allah have understood nothing of Islam.
Man, before Allah, must be the most humiliated, and he must show his humiliation before Him.
Man's perfection is in his being humble before Allah. No one should be self-assertive before Him. This is actual worship. Islam without worshipping means nothing, and no worship is possible without showing humility to Allah. So, how can it be said that Islam does not want man to be humble even before Allah? What does it want, then? Islam is nothing but this. Islam is submission (to Allah).

"It is enough for me as a pride to be a slave of Yours and it is enough for me as an honour to have You for a Lord!" [A saying ascribed to Amirul-mu'minin 'Ali (A.S.)] .Islam says: "Put your forehead, before Allah, on the soil, and your face, too", "And they fall down on their faces weeping, and it adds to their humility." [Suratul-'Isra'/109] If not, why, then, `Ali (A.S.) used to cry and to humiliate himself before Allah? How can they say that Islam does not want us to show humiliation before Allah?
At any rate, the Qur'anic ayahs tell us that the agreeable limit or norm of the human perfection, i.e. the least standard acceptable to Islam from a worthy godly person is his accepting these aspects and manifestations of at-Tawhid. To be careless or indifferent to any one of them leads to man's downfall from the lowest stage of Islam. The highest stage of man's perfection comes after this one, as without passing through these stages, there would be no advancement on the road of perfection and human virtue endorsed by Islam and acceptable to it. All those aspects can be helpful. Originality belongs to at-Tawhid, while other virtues help man to progress upwards. That which has the originality is the connection between the heart and Allah, which is manifested in those beliefs.
To conclude what has been mentioned above: at-Tawhid means considering Allah to be One, as an Islamic principle. His Oneness is admitted in the following subjects:
1. In the necessity of His existence, and this necessity is exclusively in respect of Allah alone.
2. In Creation
3. In Genetic Lordship, i.e. the management of the world.
4. In the Legislative Lordship, i.e. giving laws, biddings and forbiddings, which are to be carried out undisputedly.
5. In worshipping and deity, i.e. no creature deserves worshipping except Allah.
At this point one will be representing the concept of "La ilaha illallah", there is no god but Allah, which is the first stage of Islam, without which Islam cannot be fulfilled. Then, there are other stages of at-Tawhid, which can be attained to by way of knowledge and deeds on the road to perfection: at-Tawhid in seeking help and reliance, at-Tawhid in fear and hope, at-Tawhid in love, and so on until one reaches the highest stage of at-Tawhid, that is at-Tawhid in His "independent existence". The independent existence is exclusively His. All the affairs of existence are from Him - this must become a visualized fact, not just a mental concept attained to by mental and philosophical reasoning. Whoever reaches this stage will be a perfect monotheist. Such a person will have no independent relation except with Allah: "You are the One Who made the lights shine in the hearts of Your friends so that they could know You and admit your Oneness; and You are the One Who removed the others from the hearts of those who love You so that they could love no one save You." ["Arafah" Supplication of the Imam al-Husayn (A.S.)].
The connection between at-Tawhid and the genetic guardianship raises a question: Having admitted that Allah is One as the Necessary Being, the Creator and Lord, should we, consequently, deprive all other creatures of any kind of effect in respect to creation and management, and if we attribute to them some effect would it be a sort of polytheism? Or what is meant by at-Tawhid is not this, as others can also create, raise the dead and practice management, but only with permission of Allah. For example, there are some ayahs concerning Jesus (A.S.), in which certain things are mentioned. Allah, addressing Jesus (A.S.) says:"...and you create out of clay the shape of a bird by My permission, then you blow into it and it becomes a bird by My permission, and you heal the blind and the leprous by My permission, and you bring forth the dead by My permission..."[Suratul Ma'idah/110]
So, Jesus (A.S.), son of Mary did not only cure the sick, but raised the dead to life, and even more than that - he could turn a handful of clay into the shape of a bird, breathe into it, and it flew away a full real bird by Allah's permission. Those were the miracles which Jesus (A.S.) showed to the people to prove his prophethood.
In another ayah he himself says:" I bring the dead to life by Allah's permission."[Surat Ali 'Imfan/49] Some of the commentators who deny miracles and try to explain them according to the laws of nature, believe that Jesus's curing of the sick was a kind of genius in the science of medicine, alleging that Jesus (A.S.) was a very clever physician who could very easily cure the sick, which used to be regarded as a miracle. Otherwise there was nothing unnatural about it. Then, when they reached this part of the ayah "...and you bring forth the dead", they said that "to bring forth" referred to disentombing the dead bodies, which Jesus (A.S.) did! This is, of course, a ridiculous thing that only an insane can utter. Why should Allah hold Jesus (A.S.) under obligation for telling him , he was the one who dug the dead bodies out of their graves? Was it a pride for him to do so? Yet, Jesus (A.S.) himself said in another ayah: "I bring the dead to life".
At any case, these comments are symptoms of certain ailments which usually attack those who assume to be Muslims. They are motivated by their pro-Western tendencies and try to show off their fake scholarship, or whatever you may call it. It is their weak faith which causes them to think that all laws of the world are only the natural ones. They deny all metaphysical rules governing nature, and thus, whatever happens in the world must be in conformity with the natural laws. Consequently, to them, there can be no miracles and no extraordinary accomplishments. Therefore, in their efforts to combine their false beliefs with those ayahs which they pretend to accept and believe in, they fall into contradictory statements and find themselves in straits, and hence such absurd and childish talks.
The Qur'an definitely says that Jesus (A.S.) did bring to life dead people, create living creatures and cure acute diseases, and , yet he was one of Allah's servants. Actually, this was the very cause which made some of his apostles and followers exaggerate his position and say that he was the son of Allah, or even he was Allah Himself. Those beliefs are positively reputed by the Qur'an :"...and say not: Three. Desist, it is better for you. Allah is only One God..." [Suratun-Nisa'/171] At the same time it confirms that Jesus (A.S.) did practice those acts, by Allah's permission. Once again we repeat the said ayah for a more serious consideration: "... and you create out of clay the shape of a bird by My permission, then you blow into it and it becomes a bird by My permission, and heal the blind and the leprous by My permission, and you bring forth the dead by My permission..." It should have been enough to use "by My permission" only once for all those achievements of Jesus (A.S.). However, such achievements are regarded as polytheism only when one thinks that they had been achieved independently and without Allah's permission. But if one believes that Allah may grant somebody a power enabling him to affect the world of nature and bring about phenomena contrary to the accepted laws of nature, this belief, besides not being polytheism at all, it is, actually, the very monotheism itself, and to deny it is to deny the Qur'an, the message of the Prophet (S.A.) and at-Tawhid in its complete tenets.
We have, thus, to believe that such performances can possibly be achieved by other than Allah, but by Allah's permission. Now, what is the nature of this permission? It is what is known in our culture as "the Genetic Guardianship", and whether the holy Prophet (A.S.) and the infallible Imams (A.S.) possess this "genetic guardianship" or not.

The Opinion Denying Genetic Guardianship


Some of the brethren of the Sunni sects think that such a belief is polytheistic, that is, if a person believes that the Prophet (S.A.) possessed "Genetic Guardianship", i.e. he could bring to life the dead or cure the sick, he is a polytheist, because such acts are only done by Allah. Consequently, they regard other Muslim sects, who make more than 95% of the Muslims, to be polytheists, including the Shi'ites who believe that the Prophet (S.A.) possessed "Genetic Guardianship".
Such accusations can be referred to as being ill-informed if partiality and political motives are excluded. The one who has read the Qur'an and those ayahs, too, how could one allow oneself to take such a belief as polytheism? The Qur'an itself says that Jesus (A.S.) did create, animate the dead and remedy the sick, so, how can these be regarded as polytheistic beliefs? Sometimes they add other unwise talk to that. They say that only the very instances stated in the Qur'an are not shirk (polytheism). But to ascribe them to persons not mentioned in the Qur'an, will be shirk. It is quite clear that this talk is groundless. If some act is shirk, then it is shirk even if the Qur'an does not, mention it. Can the nature of monotheism be changed that which is shirk is shirk, disregarding what the others say. How is it possible that when the Qur'an says, addressing Jesus (A.S.): you created, you brought the dead to life, it is called Tawhid, but if it is not directly mentioned by the Qur'an, it is counted shirk?
This kind of immature viewpoint, which is spreading among many Muslims, is caused by economic and political factors. It is imposed by the force of money upon the poor people of the Islamic countries. It is now spreading throughout such countries as India, Pakistan and some Arab countries, whose majority of people are too poor to resist temptations of the Wahhabi money.
The connection between at-Tawhid and the "Legislative Guardianship"' in this respect, is similar to that of the "Legislative Lordship". That is, by saying that no one but Allah has the right to legislate laws, to issue orders and to be unquestionably obeyed, we do not mean that no one else is to be obeyed in all cases, nor that no one has the right to issue orders in all cases. Actually, what is meant here is that no one has, independently, the right to issue orders on his own account, unless Allah Himself gives him the right to do so, in which case, to obey him would practically mean obeying Allah Himself.
The Qur'an confirms this by saying: "And We did not send any messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah's permission..." [Suratun-Nisa'/64], to obey somebody by Allah's permission is, actually, to obey Allah. Such obedience not only does not contradict at-Tawhid, but is part and parcel of it. What contradicts Divine Legislative Lordship is to think that there are others, besides Allah, and diagonally, who have the right, like Him, to legislate laws, without depending upon Him, and regard obeying them is obligatory, like obeying Allah. This is real shirk. But to say that Allah had appointed some persons to see to people's affairs, to direct them and to bid them what to do and what not to do, and, at the same time, He ordered us to obey them - this is not shirk at all.
The said topics are referred to in the Qur'an: "Then those who manage the affair;" [Suratun-Nazi'at/5] despite the fact that management is exclusively His, as: "Surely His is the creation and the command"[Suratul-A'raf/54], and : "He manages the affair from the heaven to the earth..."[Suratus-Sajdah/5] , yet, at the same time, He says: "Then those who manage the affair", no matter who they may be. (Most of the commentators believe that they are angels). At any case, there are others who, by the permission of Allah, practice some sort of managements, which are admitted by the Qur'an.
The Qur'an orders the people to obey the Prophet (S.A.): "...obey Allah and obey the Messenger and the authorized from among you...". [Suratun-Nisa'/59]
They are to obey not only the Prophet (S.A.), but also his infallible successors, as was told by the Messenger (S.A.) himself that "the authorized from among you" were the 12 infallible Imams (A.S.). It goes without saying, then, that obeying the Messenger and the authorized also covers those who had, in particular or in general, been appointed by the Prophet (S.A.) or the Imam (A.S.). When the Prophet appoints a governor to a certain region, the people there must obey him, and their obedience to him is, in fact, obedience to the Messenger himself. Likewise, obeying the Supreme Islamic Guardian who had been appointed by the "Imam of the Time" [the 12th Imam] to take care of the people's affairs during his Occultation, is obeying the Imam, and obeying the Imam is obeying Allah: "They are my Proof before you and I am the Proof of Allah" So, believing in the legislative guardianship of the Prophet (S.A.), the Imam and the related, including the great jurisprudents during the Occultation of the "Guardian of the Time" [the 12th Imam] not only does not contradict at-Tawhid, but it is one of at-Tawhid's affairs. That is, obeying Allah includes obeying Allah's Messenger, because He ordered us to obey him, and so on until we get to the jurisprudents. This explanation was necessary to be annexed to the case of at-Tawhid so as to remove some of the doubts cast on this matter by the ignorant and the prejudiced.
This case of at-Tawhid is exactly the same as that of ash-shafa'ah [intercession]. In the previous lesson we said that the idolaters of Mecca believed that the angels were the daughters of Allah -we seek Allah's refuge!- and that Allah obliged them by granting them whatever they demanded, even if it was contrary to His will.
They used to say: "We worship them, and although we do not see them, we carve their statues. So, they made the idols and worshipped them so that their souls - being Allah's daughters - may cast a kind glance at their worshippers and interceded for them with Allah. Asked: "Why do you worship these idols?" the idolaters would say: "We do not worship them save that they may bring us nearer to Allah,"[Suratul-Zumar/3] or: "They are our intercessors with Allah."[Surut Yunus/18]
This provoked the Wahhabis and others like them to consider the believers in intercession (ash-shafa'ah) to be, in some cases, polytheists.
As a matter of fact, the leader of the Wahhabi's does believe that the Prophet (S.A.) will have the privilege of intercession on the Resurrection Day. But as to the others, including the Imams of the Shi'ah, and especially if such interceding expands to cover worldly materials, they regard it to be polytheism. There are people who are more Catholic than the Pope. They allege that the very idea of there being an intercession is a mere falsity, and that it actually means leadership, guidance and teaching, and nothing else. They even surpassed the Wahhabis. They say that "intercession" is shirk, and it is a belief like that of the idolaters in respect of the idols. But the Qur'an itself says that "intercession" is accepted from the angels, the prophets and the godly men, and it is with the permission of Allah, on the one hand, and is acceptable only from particular people in accordance with their special merits and virtues, on the other. It is accepted under particular disciplines, and never on nepotism or arbitrarily. Actually, this in itself is one of the Divine laws. We hope to be able later on to expand on this subject a little more.
The Qur'an says: ..."Who is he who can intercede with Him except by His permission..:[Suratul-Baqarah/255]. The ayah negates the "independent intercession", i.e. to impose one's own will on Allah's - as the idolaters used to say - and say to Him: Your will is to throw this person in Hell, but since we are bashful of one another, you must take him to paradise. And, on the basis of this reciprocal bashfulness, and as Allah attaches importance to such people, says: I shall not let you down, and will send him to paradise. This is shirk, because it is an independent intercession. But if Allah himself enjoins such a law and appoints certain persons allowed, in certain occasions, to intercede and invoke Allah's mercy for others, even before asking it for their own benefit according to their merits this is confirmed by the Qur'an. Allah's mercies are of His bounties. He can bestow His mercy upon some of His creatures, or upon all of them even more than they deserve. But for such grants He had assigned special channels and special regulations. Those who directly receive their rewards in proportion to their deeds only, are treated in a certain way. But there are persons who, through certain deeds, deserve to receive indirect Divine favours, more than their due. For example, there are people who eat only their bread, and there are others who are worthy of being invited as guests, too. But they have to acquire the merit of deserving to be guests, as no one will be invited without a cause or a reason. The Prophet (S.A.), the infallible Imams (A.S.) and the godly people have the right to invite guests on the Day of Resurrection, but they do not invite everybody to be their guest. At any rate, the Qur'an says: "...and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves...;[Suratul-Anbiya/28].
This means that there are certain conditions, approved by Allah, for one to get their intercession. Many ayahs in the Qur'an go this way, i.e. basing the intercession on Allah's permission, on the one hand , and limiting its effect to those who have won Allah's approval, on the other. Thus, believing in intercession not only does not contradict at-Tawhid, but is, actually, a part of it.

The Qur'anic Proofs of at-Tawhid


The former discussion about at-Tawhid concerned its limits in Islam. In this respect we talked about management and legislation with Allah's permission. The topic now is to find out whether at-Tawhid, whose limits had been discussed before, is proved in the Qur'an, or it only accepts it and leaves the task of proving it to the people. The answer is that the Qur'an has stated some proofs which are logically administrated and based on the criterion that should be used in such instances: "...Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder...".[Suratul-Anbiya'/22]
It is quite clear that such an argumentation is a rational one, asking us to realize that since the heaven and the earth are in good order, then there can be no gods other than one God. This is called, in the terms of logic, "the exceptional syllogism". Those who know about logic, know that syllogism is of two kinds: the exceptional and the conjunctive. In the exceptional syllogism, there appears a correlation between two things, then one of them is proved. It has special forms, as explained in the books of logic. For example, they say: "If the sun has risen, then it is daytime". Then they say: "It is daytime", from which they deduce that "the sun has risen". Or they say: "It is not day time", from which they deduce " then the sun has not risen. This is a common example often used by the logicians. Here, too, is a correlation between polytheism and the corruption of the heaven and the earth. Had there been more than one god, the heaven and the earth would have been in chaos, like if there is sun there is daytime. However, no other matter is mentioned as to what happened to the heaven and earth, and whether there are many gods.
Once again the logicians, say that there is a hidden part of a syllogism. Some times the deduction is made in such a way that when a premise is mentioned, the other premise (an induction usually consists of two premises) automatically occurs to the mind and it need not particularly stated, so, it is called the "hidden premise", although it does not exist. In this instance, the exception is not stated in the speech. It should have been said: but they are not", to end the said ayah, then the deduction would be: "Therefore, there are no gods in them except Allah". But, as you see, the exception and its result are manifest, i.e. the heaven and the earth are there and in an orderly state, therefore, it goes without saying that they are not in disorder. This leads us to conclude that there is no god to rule them other than Allah.
Thus, this is perfect logical induction based on the logical method of syllogism. What is important here is bringing the correlation to light. What does it mean to say: "Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder"? What is the correlation here? What is meant by stating this correlation?
Commentators differ in explaining this correlation, which can be put on different statements. One is rather simple and naive. The other two are technical and strict. The first statement says that in order to direct and manage an establishment, a group or a society, it is necessary to have some sort of order which must be a single unified one, otherwise that establishment will fall to pieces. Sometimes the example is offered that even within the limits of a family, if two of its members try to independently rule it, the family will be ruined. Or, if a township has two mayors its affairs will be in chaos. So, such being the case in these instances, how can a universe, so large and great as ours, be controlled and managed by more than one god.
This explanation is not logically satisfactory and can be disputed. But the other two explanations are technical and based on strict philosophical principles.

The Philosophical Induction of Antagonism

This antagonistic induction had been chosen by the scholars with philosophical inclinations, because there is in the philosophical writings a proof of at-Tawhid called: The Proof of Antagonism.
Those with philosophical taste had applied this proof to the said ayah, and, in order to shed light on its strict logical form, they offered premises, each of which is considered to be a philosophical principle, [The results of those premises are as below:
a. The "apparel" of existence, with respect to every "possible" being, must be bestowed by the "Necessary Being", and it is only the Necessary Being who is Self-Sufficient and' cannot be imagined to be in need.
b. The "caused" is in need of the cause, both in its existence and creation, and its existence is its very creation, as it in nothing but a connection and affinity to the "cause'.
c. Affiliating a single "caused" to two "causes" is impossible, like preferring without justification. From these premises we reach to the conclusion that in supposing that there are two or more gods, the existence of a being is to be attributed to them both. But, as the existence of a being is its very creation and affinity to its cause, and if it is affiliated to one of them, there we will have a preference without justification, which is impossible. If it is affiliated to many causes, then there must be as many "caused" as there are "causes", in which case the universe will be different and there will be chaos. For a detailed explanation, please refer to "The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism", Vol.5, ch. on at-Tawhid, footnotes by the martyr Professor Murtada Mutahhari, [in Persian].] The conclusion obtained from the Antagonistic Proof is, briefly: Two causes cannot independently be effective in the creation of a single "caused". If two causes take part in that, each one can have created a part of the "caused". Thus, such a "caused" must be composed of two parts, one part created by one of the two causes, and the other part by the other.
Finally, on the basis of the said premises, it can be concluded that there cannot be two gods in the world, as it is impossible to run the world by two deities both of whom are "Necessary Beings". A Necessary Being must, from every respect, be a necessary being - a necessary being in essence and a necessary being in all aspects.
In a term, there is, according to this proof, a false consequence in the said argument about the well-known example: "If the sun has risen then it is daytime", or sometimes we say: "The sun has not risen, then it is not daytime", or "It is not daytime, then the sun has not risen".
Concerning the second part, it is said that it is consequently false, i.e. the case is consisting of two parts, the first called the premise, and the second called the consequent. Thus: "If the sun has risen " is the promise, and "then it is daytime" is the consequent. If the consequent was false, the premise would be false, too, that is, if "it is not daytime", then it will be known that "the sun has not risen".
In this argument the consequent - the disorder of the world - is false, it is a lie, since the world is not in disorder. The falsity of the consequent means the falsity of the premise, that is, the supposition of multiplicity of gods is false, too.
In the said noble ayah the false consequent is not the non-existence of the world, but the false consequent is the disorderliness of the world. It says: "Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have been in a state of disorder", but you see that the world is not in a state of disorder.
It does not say: "Had there been many gods, the world could not have existed." The sate of disorder befalls something existent. If it is said in respect of a non-existing thing, it will be a falsity. This is why the Qur'an says: "If the world had had many gods it would have been corrupt". It does not say: ...it would not come to existence, whereas the relevant induction of antagonism mentioned by the philosophers denotes the disorderliness of the world.
Using this proof of antagonism is critisized on the grounds that what is applicable to this ayah is other than this proof established by the philosophers. The critics assert that this proof does not well conform to the appearance of the ayah. The import of the proof is: "Had there been many gods, the world would not have been created," while the import of the ayah is: "Had there been many gods, the world would have been in a state of disorder." That is, the existing world would have been in disorder.
These two cases are not quite the same the conclusion of this statement, though a serene and in itself a philosophic proof, is not completely applicable to the ayah. I myself do not approve of it in respect of this ayah.

The third statement
The third statement which can be a proof of at-Tawhid in this ayah needs a preliminary explanation - an explanation on which we depend in this instance.
This universe, including the heaven, the earth and all the phenomena therein, are run by means of a single order.[In the following lines we shall explain what we mean by "a single order".]
In the antagonistic proof pain is taken to prove a unity throughout the whole universe, i.e. the universe itself is a single being. In this proof we support the opinion that the world has a single order. But a single order does not necessitate that the world should have a unity of existence, as there may be many existing beings, but ruled by a single order. This is quite enough for us to prove that the world is ruled by a single order, and we need not prove, in stating this, that the world is one, and even if it is not one, this proof will still be applicable. We just want to prove that the order of the world is one.
But what do we mean by one order? We mean that this world, whether we take it as one with many parts or a whole one, i.e. to take it consisting of many independent systems, each existing independently and without any organic connection among them. Even if it is so, we cannot deny the oneness of its order, because the world which we know had been constructed and created in such a way that its beings are not isolated or independent from each other. It is not that I should have in this world an existence which has no connection whatsoever with the phenomena of the past, nor that the coexisting beings have connection at all with the beings to come. We are not like the grains of rice in a bag they do exist next to one another, but none of them has any connection with its neighbour.
Try to study each part of this world individually. It does not even need a thorough scientific study. Simply looking into it would be sufficient. Take a flower in a vase, a green plant in the garden, a baby in his cradle, or anything within your reach. How does each come into existence? Can this shrub of roses grow without your watering it? Hence, its existence depends upon that water you give to it. It cannot live without water. Nor can it grow without first sowing its seed, or transplanting its seedling. Before becoming a rose-bush it was a seed. You have to sow it first in order to obtain a rose. Thus, it is connected with a former phenomenon, and is not isolated from it. It utilizes the oxygen or other gases of the air. If they had not been there, the rose could not have grown and continue its existence. Yet, at the same time, it has its effective role in changing the percentage of the gases in the air. By taking oxygen it decreases its percentage in the air, and by taking other kinds of gases, it increases the percentage of the oxygen in the air. So, it has a close connection with its neighbouring atmosphere.
Consequently, neither the air is independent of the rose-shrub, nor the rose-shrub is independent of the air. Such is the case with the animals. That chicken which has just hatched out, under your observation, could not have come into existence without its mother and the egg. Now as it is alive and runs about in the yard, has its connection with its surroundings in the form of action and reaction. It breathes the air, eats, etc., and, in its turn, it has its effect on its environment, lays eggs and brings forth the chickens for the future.
So, it has reciprocal interactions with its contemporary, past and future creatures. Even if we turn to the inanimate world and study the physical and chemical reactions of its lifeless matters, we shall realize that each phenomenon has appeared as a result of the interactions of some former phenomena, and that it acts upon its contemporaries, and becomes the material for the appearance of coming ones. This is the system that governs this world - the system of correlation, action and reaction. As a matter of fact, this does not even need any philosophical proof. Everybody can, according to his knowledge, understand the existence of such correlation, connection and unified order. Of course, the more precise and expansive our knowledge is, the deeper our understanding of this correlation. Yet, even a passing glance is enough to make one get it to a great extent.
Now somebody may say: "There are different systems in the world, each of which has organic connection with the other from inside, but none of them has a connection like this with the other.”This is one of the theories of systems, with which we shall not deal for the time being. Nevertheless, however independent these systems may be, we still notice such a connection among them, and recognize that they are contained in a single larger order. That is, supposed partial systems do not mean that they are not parts of a general one, which brings all the phenomena of the world under the control of the law of being effective or being affected. This is quite clear.


Supposing a Multi-system for the World
Now look into the following question: If we suppose that each one of these systems has a god, to whom belongs the existence of a creature, and all the needs of that creature are satisfied by that god; so do you think that such a world can continue? Please note what a god means. Especially according to the concept of the Islamic at-Tawhid mentioned before, as we have said that at-Tawhid -in creation is not enough, unless it is accompanied by at-Tawhid in Lordship, too.
So, Allah to whom we refer, as Muslims, is that Who has created the creatures, Who controls their existence and Who meets all their needs. Had it been otherwise, one would have had to stretch one's hand to some other one to meet one's needs. If He is the God of this creature, He will have to satisfy all his needs, since the creature's existence is in His hands. So, it is meaningless to say that a god has created a creature, whose needs have not been satisfied by his own god, but by another god. This is an irrational supposition. There can be no such god. The God is the One Who has created this creature, whose existence is in His hands. He manages his affairs, develops him and guides him towards his perfection. If each of these different systems in the world, had a god, this god must have himself created his own system, and it must be self-sufficient and in need of nothing from outside himself. The supposed god and creation must be like this. When Allah creates a creature, the complete existence of this creature will be in His hands, and all his needs will be provided for by Him or by other creatures whom He Himself has created. Now, if we suppose that the world had many gods, there must also be as many self-sufficient systems which must be in no need of any help from outside themselves.
If the human kingdom had a god, the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, and the kingdom of inanimate matters each would have a god too. It would be necessary to suppose that the human kingdom is only in need of its own god and his creatures, and it has nothing to do with the creatures of other gods, since the other gods have different independent and separate systems. That is, it should not breathe the air which is created by another god and is at his disposal, because that air belongs to another god and is in his possession, and the creation of this god should be self-sufficient, needing nothing from other than its own god and his domain. This system must keep its existing connection with its own god. If we suppose that the universe is composed of such isolated and separate systems, do you think that will last long?
Suppose that we had been created by a god who had nothing to do
with the god of the earth, heaven, air, etc., could we, who had been created like that, live without air? Could we live without water? - the things supposed to belong to another god with another system, separated and isolated from us. We must live away from that system, without being in need of that god and his creations. But the universe is not like that. We do not see any being or system which lives alone and with no connection whatsoever with other creations, or if it did live, it wouldn't be able to last long. Even if we suppose that Allah had created man out of no material, no clay, no sperm, yet, this man had to breathe, to eat, to drink, to make use of meat, vegetables, etc., or he would die.
The Almighty Allah says: "Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder..." [Suratul Anbiya/22].
If we suppose that this universe consisted of systems with a god for each to run it, its order would fall to pieces and perish, because we notice that the creatures need one another and without mutual efforts
they cannot continue, they rot and perish away. So, this unity governing the order of the world can easily be recognized by everybody, though the degree of the recognition differs according to different individuals.
No one, however, fails to notice that the parts of this world are connected and coordinated, and they are not isolated from each other, and that a single order governs the whole world. This means that it is only one hand that runs and manages all things. Had there been many independent hands, each one of them wanting to "independently" run this world according to the requirement of its lordship, then the world would have been disintegrated. But, since we see this world sound and intact, running with a single order and free from any corruption and disintegration, we, consequently, realize that the one who runs this world, directs its affairs, looks after its development and connects its parts, is a single One Who had brought up a single order.

Preference of the Rational Argument

Originally this rational argument belongs to the 'Allamah Tabataba'i (may Allah bless his soul), only its statement may be a little different. It seems that it is more appropriate to the meaning of the ayah, because the false consequent for the condition of multiplicity of gods is" ...,they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder..:', not "they would both have not existed." This statement has another merit.
The `Proof of antagonism' established by the philosophers only proves, at the most, that there cannot be two or more Creators. That is it can prove the oneness of the Necessary Being, and, at the most, the creation.
It says that if the world had two gods, or, in the philosophic terms: had there been two causes of existence, it would not have existed, because having two complete causes for a single caused is impossible, and it is impossible to have a single caused by two complete causes.
The result, thus, will be the Oneness of the Creator. This proof, besides proving the Oneness of the Creator, also proves the Oneness of Lordship, i.e. it proves that the original creation has not been done by two gods, and it proves that the management of the world is not carried out by two gods either.
According to this statement, which is based on the management and the order of the world, it becomes clear that the world has only one Manager and Lord. That is, besides proving at-Tawhid in the Necessary Being and Creation, it also proves at-Tawhid in Lordship and worship, i.e. there is no creator, no lord and no one deserving worship, but Allah.
Islam confirms this by saying: "Had there been in them both any gods..." it does not say: "Had there been in them both any creator except Allah, or any lord except Allah."
So far it has been proved that none except Allah is the Lord of this world, nor is there any creator except Him. Now, in order to bring our belief in at-Tawhid to the agreeable level, we must also prove that none except Him deserves to be worshipped. So, how shall we start? We have already explained the connection between Allah's Lordship and Divinity, and it has been made clear that the one who deserves to be worshipped is the one who owns and controls the worshipper's affairs.
The one who wants to offer his worship and servitude must believe that the one whom he worships is his Lord and Owner, so that he can manifest to Him his practical servitude by showing submission, humbleness and inability before Him. So, He must be Mighty, Possessor and Master, in order that man may be a slave and show his servitude in the form of worshipping. So, believing in His Divinity includes believing in His Lordship. If we want to rightly worship we are to believe that the worshipped is our Lord, and that no one, except the Lord, deserves worshipping. When the Divinity of the Lord is proved, i.e. when it has become obvious that man and the world have no Lord except Allah, it would consequently be proved that except him there is none to be worthy of worshipping, because if some other one is to be worshipped, he must have divine lordship, and, since none but Allah has it, it goes naturally that it is only Him Who is to be worshipped. Here the limit of the Islamic at-Tawhid:"La ilaha illallah (there is no god but Allah), is completely proved.

Another ayah Proving At-Tawhid

And your God is one God! There is no god but He, the Beneficent, the Merciful."[Suratul-Baqarah/163]
The claim is stated in this ayah. Some say that it even refers to a proof, but we shall not rely on this aspect.
What is quite obvious in this ayah is that the claim of at-Tawhid is stated, i.e. the Qur'an says that its claim is that "Your God is one God." "La ilaha illallah" is a confirmation of it. When your worshipped one is He, then there will be no other worshipped except Him, "ar-Rahman", or "Rahim" (the Beneficent, the Merciful). Why should these two attributes be mentioned here? There are very delicate explanations in this respect, which we do not want to discuss. We may, however, say that the attribute ""ar-Rahman" (the Beneficent) denotes creation and genetic Lordship. While "ar-Rahim" (the Merciful) concerns man's development and spiritual perfection, which is brought about under the shadow of the Legislative Lordship. The stated claim here is that the Ilah (Allah) and the worshipped are one, and that except Him there is no god, and it is He Who is the "Rahman", the Bestower of existence, and it is He Who is the "Rahim", the Merciful. He takes those who tread upon the road of servitude to Him, to a becoming perfection and a worthy happiness. In the next ayah we read:
"Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth, the alternation of night and day, and the ships that sail on the sea for that which benefits mankind, and the water that Allah sends down from the sky to revive with it the earth after its death, and spread in it all (sorts of) animals; and the changing of the winds and the clouds made to serve between the sky and the earth; there are signs for a people who reason". [Suratul-Baqrah/164] After making the claim, it says: if you think of those phenomena, you will recognize signs that prove the claim. By deeply contemplating on the ayah, it becomes more obvious when you descern the whole universe, its sky, its earth, its moon, its sun, and the revolving of the earth resulting in the appearance of the day and the night, which is related to the sun.
Let the earth revolve around itself a thousand million times, but there will be no day and night without there being a sun. These phenomena, whether, celestial or terrestrial, are connected to each other.
These movements cause the sun to shine on the seas, where from the clouds ascend to the sky, then, under the effect of the conditions of the weather, they turn once again into rain drops pouring down on the earth, causing plants to grow out of it, and the animals to survive. All these phenomena are related to one another. Neither the sky is separate from the earth, nor the earth from the sky. Other terrestrial phenomena are also connected to each other. By studying these phenomena in general you will find that they are governed by a single, coordinated and harmonious order. They are joined together, and whatever you think of, you will see in it the unity, harmony and order. Consequently, such a universe cannot have many gods, or many creators or many directors, because all its phenomena are connected to one another in creation. The Creator of man is the same One Who has created the earth, the parents and the sperm to create man.
It is not possible to say that man's earth is created by another god, and his parents by a second one and their new born baby by a third. Nor can it be said that the sun is created by someone, while the rain is sent down from the sky by another. What does sending down the water mean? Is it anything other than the sun's sending of its heat onto the oceans, turning their waters into vapour, which rises to the sky, and then, under low temperature and certain conditions, it turns once again into water?
Does rain mean anything other than this? Doesn't it happen by the effect of the sun and some other factors? So, the one who has created the sun and the said factors is the same who brings down the rain from the sky. It is a single order, and it cannot be said that the god of the sun is different from that of the rain. The one who moves the wind, also moves your ships on the sea.
Anyhow, it is the laws of nature that are being utilized to make all that man invents and fabricates. Allah has enjoined and regulated these things, and He is the One Who has created the matter, the human beings, and the metals of which ships and planes are made. He created the brain to enable man to turn the metals into those shapes.
It is He Who created the plane as well as the whole world, directly or indirectly. One cannot say that the creator of the ship and the plane is someone other than the One Who created man and the elements of nature, as without the human brain and the elements of nature the plane and the ship cannot be created.
As a result, a deep contemplation on the world's phenomena will guide you to realize that the universe has a single God, Allah.

At-Tawhid in Essence, Attributes and Acts


Unity of Essence, Unity of Attributes and Unity of Acts are three terms used in special meanings by two groups of people: the philosophers and the theologians on the one hand, and the Gnostics on the other. The meanings intended by these two groups are different. We begin first with these terms as used by the philosophers and the theologians, and later on we shall deal with the terms as used by the second group.

Unity of Essence in the View of the Theologians and the Philosophers

In the view of theologians and philosophers, the Unity of Essence means that the Essence of Allah is one and has no partner in His Being and there is no compound inside Him and no other god outside Him. He is simple in Essence, composed of no parts or organs. He is One and has no partner.

Unity of Attributes in the View of the Theologians and Philosophers

At-Tawhid in attributes means that the attributes which we ascribe to Allah are nothing but His very Essence they are not things other than Himself added to Him, such as the case with us, the human beings and our attributes. If a black object wanted to be white, a colour is to be added to it to make it white. Similar are the moral characteristics. A sad person may become happy by adding to him a mood of happiness. To the one who dislikes work we may add the required attribute to make one like it and want it.
So, there is a being who lacks the will, then the will can be added to him - an addition which suits the soul and abstract things, then it finds what it has not had before. Thus, it becomes clear that the soul itself is something and the will is something else. The soul was there, but the will was not there, then later there was the will added to the soul and the soul has acquired the will. So, the wanted attribute can be ascribed to the soul only when something other than the soul is added to it.
All the attributes which we recognize in the substances and non-substances, such as the psychological attributes, are all of this type, that is, the attribute is something other than the essence. Is it the same with Allah, the Most High, too? Is this Essence something other than His knowledge? If so, does it mean that, if we disregard His knowledge, the Essence itself will lack knowledge? Is Allah's power something other than His Essence? Does it mean that His Essence, in itself, is lacking power which is added to it afterwards, and only then we say: Allah is powerful? Is it so? It is said that the Ash'aris (a Sunni sect) say that Allah's Attributes are other than His Essence, as Allah Himself is a truth that has eight Attributes, each one of them is self-existent, but they are not His very Essence, though they are old. That is why the Ash'aris were called "The Old Eights", one is Allah's Essence, and the others are the Attributes of His Essence.
On the opposite side of this opinion (which is untrue) stands the belief of the other intellectual Muslims, both the philosophers and the theologians, who say that Allah's Attributes are His very Essence, which is simple. Our minds derive different concepts from this Essence. The origin of all these concepts is the Essence itself, and it is the mind that derives these concepts through diverse view points concerning Allah, the Exalted. Such concepts have been formerly derived from another source, but they are concepts that speak of perfection.

Realizing that Allah is devoid of imperfection, the intellect says that He also has that perfection. But that perfection is nothing but His Essence. We first recognize the meaning of knowledge in ourselves. Is it possible that the one who has created this world is devoid of knowledge? It is impossible for the one who has no knowledge to create such a world so wisely. So, we say: "Allah is Knowing", or "Wise". These concepts are recognized first in ourselves, but we ascribe them to Allah, as we know that Allah possesses all perfections. So, the source from which these concepts are derived is the Sacred Divine Essence. Knowledge is not a separate thing annexed, or added, to Allah, or united with Him. It is the Simple Divine Essence that causes the mind to ascribe these concepts to it. The expression that the Divine Attributes are nothing but the very Essence -of Allah is called, in the terms of the philosophers and theologians, "at-Tawhid in Attributes" or the unity of Attributes. Maybe what has Imam `Ali (A.S.) said in "Nahjul-Balaghah" was a reference to this. He said: "The perfect admission of His Oneness is to deny Him attribute." Oneness can be perfect only when we deny Him the attributes which are not His very Essence; not to ascribe to Him the knowledge which is outside Him or is contrary to His Essence, otherwise at-Tawhid will be imperfect, and we will be accepting a kind of multiplicity: there is Allah, and there is His Knowledge, His Power, His Existence or else. Therefore, Unity of Attributes, as believed in by the philosophers and the theologians, means that Allah has no separate Attributes added to His Essence.

The Unity of Acts in the View of the Philosophers and Theologians


At-Tawhid in acts means to them that in performing His acts, Allah does not need any help or helper. He is independent and alone in doing. Some of the polytheists and deviators used to say that without there being other things or other persons, Allah is unable to carry out an act, and that when He wants to do anything He needs the help of others. Here is, of course, a delicate point which must be mentioned. To say that Allah carries out an act by some means which He Himself has created is different from saying that He cannot do without the help of some means. These two expressions differ from each other. By Allah's Will, we shall expand on them in the coming pages, to explain the difference between saying Allah acts through means, and that He cannot act without means.
Thus, the meaning of Unity of Acts, in the terms of rationality and theology, is that Allah, in carrying out His acts, does not need any help and helper from outside Himself. Should he use any means for that purpose, the means itself is created by Him and used by Him. It is not that He needs some help from outside Himself and not connected to Him, and to be brought from somewhere else, or else Allah would not be able to do whatever He wants to. No, it is not like that, Allah's Acts need
none but Himself. If the Act needs a means, He creates it and uses it.

Another Version of the Unity of Acts

Some Islamic philosophers use the term "Unity of Act" instead of "Unity of Acts". By this term they intend to say that all Allah's created beings are connected to one another with an existential tie which collects them in a single order oneness, i.e. there is a sort of unity throughout the stages of existence.
Taking into consideration that the entire universe, from this point of view, is a single unit, the act which Allah achieves is the creation of this one universe, and thus, Allah has only one thing to do the creation of this world with all its details and diverse dimensions, extended over the vast expanse of time. This, however, does not mean that Allah has created the world in a single moment, and then it goes on automatically forever.
Actually, they mean that this world, besides having its dimensions of length, width and thickness, which are collected together, it also has its dimension of time, too. The world, with this dimension, which spreads in the expanse of time, is a single unit. Producing such a thing does not happen in the time, since time contains the world, not Allah. This world had been created with its time, but in what time is Allah? He has no time. The relation of the world, with all its phenomena along the time with Allah, is an existential one, yet it is not one of time nor of place.
Can anybody tell where Allah had created the world? Such a place is a part of the world itself. The "where" appears with the world when it is created. So, it is impossible to tell where Allah had created the world.
The "place" is something which Allah had created first and then He created the world in it. One may ask: "Where did Allah created the 'where"'? If we suppose that a vacancy in the space had been created first by Allah, then the world was created in that vacancy, the same question rises again: "Where did He create that vacancy?" It goes on until it comes to where one can no more ask: "Where was that creation created?" "Where" belongs to the creation, and there was no "where" before creation. This is like length, width and thickness, which belong to the world. It is not that Allah had first created the world and then gave it its length.
Actually the world of matter means something which has length. We cannot say that Allah created the world, then gave it width or thickness. The world of matter cannot be without length, width and depth. Similarly, it cannot be without time.
Therefore, time and place, like volume and other dimensions, are characteristics of the world itself, not added from outside. The entire world, with its time and place dimensions are a single unit, which Allah had created. This they derived from the ayah: "And Our command is but one..." [Suratul-Qamer/50] and this one command is: "Be!" and it is there. This is regarded by some Islamic philosophers as a proof of the Unity of Acts, which can be regarded as Unity of Act, too. That is, there is only one act, no more, as, in fact, all of the Acts stem from a single one.
The real nature of these Acts is one, though they appear in different complexion and at different places and times. So, the different Acts are the manifestations and appearances of a single one.

At-Tawhid as Seen by the Gnostics

The Gnostics are those who try, through training the soul, purifying the inside and polishing the spirit, to prepare themselves to receive the truths through their visions and tasting, not through studying and arguing. They are those who, through sufferings and laborious mortifications, can acquire visionary knowledge and see, not understand the facts. As to who the real Gnostics are, is another topic. As a matter of course, many people allege to be of true gnosticism. The false ones are most probably, much more than the real ones.
At any rate, when some people, because of their pure hearts, are capable of discerning the facts, their such a faculty is called gnosticism, visionary or intuitive knowledge. Those people have a lot to say concerning what they find. The nature of gnosticism is what the heart finds and recognizes. As to what is being said, their words are merely moulds for what they find, or signs of what they taste, but these words can never convey what the Gnostics receive into their hearts, since what they receive is from beyond this limited, small and emulative world. So, when they want to pour their findings into the mould of words, they use certain terms.
We must remember that the discussion is not about who the true Gnostic is, and whether every body who uses gnostical terms is a real or a false Gnostic, i.e. whether he has picked up some gnostical terms and ascribed them to himself, as is the habit of most of those who claim gnosticism. They themselves actually found nothing, but have heard some information from others, they liked and adopted it, using the relevant gnostical terms. It is even vague whether they understood and tasted them, or they were mere words they picked up from here and there.
To us, the real gnostics are the prophets, the pure Imams (may Allah bless them all) and those whom they personally educated. Whether there are others who have attained real gnosticism is not easy for us to know, unless those who have some degrees of gnosticism show certain signs,. or can be known through spiritual intuition.
Ordinary people cannot recognize whether those who speak like the gnostics have really found something, or theirs is just a borrowed language. The real gnostics use, like the theologians and the philosophers, the three special terms: at-Tawhid in Acts, at-Tawhid in Attributes and at-Tawhid in Essence, to demonstrate their findings.


At-Tawhid in Acts as Seen by the Gnostics

In manifesting these terms, the philosophers begin with the Unity of Essence. They say that we must first believe in the fact that there are no attributes added to the Essence, then we may realize that in His Acts Allah is in no need of help and helper. But the gnostic, explaining these subjects on the basis of the human procession, starts with the Unity of Acts, i.e. "man's procession and advance towards Allah." The first thing uncovered to him is the Unity of Acts, then, when he reaches a more perfect stage, he deserves to understand the Unity of Attributes. The last stage to which a gnostic arrives is the Unity of Essence, though not as the philosopher explains it.
At-Tawhid in Acts means, to them, that when a person gets his soul purified, he will see every act to be Allah's, and the others are merely means and instruments. The hand which, from behind the curtain of causes, directs the world, creates everything in time and puts everything in place, is the powerful hand of Allah - a hand which is present everywhere and in all times. The tiniest phenomenon that happens in the world is created by Allah. So, what is the role of the material causes? They are no more than instruments, such as the incomplete simile of a pen in the hand of a writer.
The writer writes with the pen, but the basic role is played by the writer himself. The gnostic believes that, having believed in Allah and made it his profession to obey and worship Him, man would receive such a light from Allah that, he would be able to see and find the world's phenomena as they are, not just to understand them. But the Unity of Acts is one of at-Tawhid's degrees which man can attain first. We can also, more or less, attain them, through the philosophical studies, and by means of knowledge. But they (gnostics) see (witness) and find the facts without need of learning them. There is a famous story which clearly shows this fact but, we don't know to what extent it is right.
It is related that there was a meeting between Avicenna, (Ibn Sina), a philosopher, and Abu Said Abul-Khayr, a gnostic. "How did you find Abu Sa'id Abul-Khayr?" the students of Avicenna asked him. "He sees whatever I know", was his reply. Asked by his students about Avicenna, Abu Said Abul-Khayr said: "He knows whatever I see". Now, suppose that this story is untrue, but it quite clearly shows the basic difference between philosophy and gnosticism as an important one. The object of philosophy is to know, and the result of gnosticism is seeing and finding - that is, the real perfect gnosticism. So, this is the first stage which man reaches on his procession towards the stages of at-Tawhid. Having passed the stage of knowing himself, and stepped onto the valley of at-Tawhid, the first stage of at-Tawhid which man attains to and sees, is at-Tawhid in Acts (Unity of Acts).

Unity of Attributes, the Gnostic's Second Stage

The gnostic says: Having passed through the first stage, become firm in it and continued his advance, man will reach the stage of the Unity of Attributes. This Unity of Attributes is different from the philosophic version. It means that man in this stage regards every attribute of perfection as to originally belong to Allah. That is, he sees that, except Allah, no one really has knowledge, and that the knowledge of the others is a manifestation and shadow of the Divine Knowledge, since the real knowledge is Allah's. Similarly, the other powers of the world are originally Allah's, but we fictitiously ascribe them to things or people. In reality they are manifestation of Allah's power which appears in His creatures, otherwise, they are originally His.
Thus, at-Tawhid in the Attributes means that the gnostic sees that all the attributes of perfection originally belong to Allah, while what is seen of them in man is but a shadow, a reflection, or a manifestation of the Divine Attributes. We cannot, however, have an agreeable and delightful impression of understanding and comprehending what they claim.
Much as we press our minds to get the belief that our knowledge is that of Allah, we fail in getting it in. They themselves admit that such things cannot be understood by reasoning. One must have a pure soul to do so.
They say: It is to be tasted, not heard of. Of course, those who are endowed with sufficient mental powers, philosophic brilliant intellects and gnostical tastes can present those gnostical topics in delicate philosophic terms. Such people are not many. In the philosophical terms, the Unity of Attributes means that the Divine Attributes are not additions to His Essence. But they do not say that every attribute of perfection, wherever it is, is an attribute of Allah.
The gnostic sees that Allah's Attributes are not additions to His Essence, and that every attribute, wherever it is, originally belongs to Allah. It is a ghost of Him ascribed to others. An Arabic poem which refers to this gnostical concept, reads:
The glass is so sheer, and the wine is sheer, too As though there is wine but no glass,Or as though there is a glass but no wine.[The verses are ascribed to the gnostic poet, and man of letters Sihib ibn 'Abbid, minister of the Iranian Monarch, Fakhruddawlah ad-Daylam. He loved Ahlul-Bayt (A.S.) [the offsping of the Prophet (S.A.).] He died in 385 A.H.]. The gnostic claims that such vocabularies are symbolic, according to the terms of the gnostical poets, with special meaning for every word. The poem says that the glass, full of wine, was so transparent and so clear and it added nothing of itself to the wine, that one could only see the wine, not the glass. But the wine was also so clear and transparent that one would think it to be just a red glass with no wine, as if there was a glass with no wine, or wine with no glass. By this they mean to say that when the Attributes of Allah are manifested in His creation they appear as if they were the Attributes of the creation and not of Allah.
Here we think that there is a glass with no wine. But if somebody's attention is drawn to the fact that the colour belongs to the wine, it appears as if he sees only the wine with no glass. The gnostic reaches a stage when he sees the attributes of perfection in the world like this. Wherever he sees knowledge, it is the knowledge of Allah poured into a certain container, manifested in this way. Its original reality is Allah. Wherever he sees a power, he believes it to be Allah's. Likewise the other attributes of perfection. He claims that finding these facts is so much pleasing that one is thrown into ecstasy and rapture.
Naturally we accept whatever had reached us through the prophets and the infallible Imams (A.S.) as to be true. But as to others, we can neither take whatever they claim to be right, nor deny them, since we know nothing of what is there in their minds. It may be possible to guess their credibility by their acts and conduct.
For example, if the one who claims to have such intuitive visions, is seen in his daily life resorting to flattery even for trivial gains, or extending his hand begging, can we believe in his unity of acts and that he knows some divine secrets? The one who, for his daily bread, extends his hand to the courts of the sultans, praises them and flatters this and that, can we believe him that he takes Allah as the manager of the world?
We do accept such claims from somebody who says (like late Imam Khumayni): "By Allah, I feared no one in my whole life except Allah". In his practical life he proves that he fears no one except Allah. On mentioning Allah's Name his eyes are filled with tears, but before the greatest world powers he seems as if talking with a child. "For so-and-so President is to go!" thus he fears nobody. When he stands for worshipping Allah he trembles, but in facing grave dangers that threaten his life, wealth and existence, he does not turn a hair, and so steadfast he is that he astonishes the entire world. If such a person claims that he has realized that all powers are Allah's, and that the others are no more than means, we are apt to believe him.

The Gnostic and the Last Stage of At-Tawhid

To the gnostic, the last stage of at-Tawhid is the Unity of Essence. He says that man, in his march to perfection, reaches a stage in which he believes that the real existence is confined to Allah. There, in the world of existence, he sees that the whole world is the manifestations and the reflexions of His Existence. In fact, "reflexion" is an inapt expression, yet it is used for a better approach to the subject. The gnostic believes that when man reaches the highest degree of at-Tawhid, he sees everything as a reflexion in a mirror showing the existence of Allah, the Exalted. The multiplicities which he witnesses in the world are but multiplicity of mirrors. The light which illuminates these mirrors is one and same, and it does not belong to them, it is only reflected in them:
"Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth, the likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp..."[Suratun-Nur/35]

So, he regards the world to be a mirror, in which he sees that what is manifested is the Divine Essence of Allah. This is the same-subject referred to by the Persian poet, Sa'di:

Man reaches where he sees nothing but Allah Look! To what extent man's position can rise.
This is the highest position in at-Tawhid to which man can ascend.

As it has been said, comprehending what those notables had said, cast into the moulds of common vocabulary, is no easy task. Yet, those who have explained their beliefs, their behaviour, and morals and showed conformity with the religious regulations, can have our good opinion of them that they would not claim groundless achievements. They must have found something which they tried to contain into their utterances, though somewhat vague. Those who have written in their books ehat Allah is immaterial; Allah does not transmigrate; Allah is not the very creation; and when they have said they see nothing but Allah, they do not mean that whatever they have seen is Allah. They actually mean that in these mirrors they discern the beauty of their own beloved. If those who have spent their whole lives obeying Allah and worshipping Him claim such allegations we shall have the right to have a good opinion of them and say that their utterances bear high meanings which we cannot understand well. But if a careless, wine drinker and unrestrained person alleges gnosticism, we cannot have a good opinion of him. Gnostical intuition is not such a gem to be offered to every rascal.
Acquiring such a knowledge requires decades of toil, or, as that great man said: "It needs digging the mountain with one's eyelashes." Treading the road of gnosticism is not an easy job, it is like rubbing off a mountain with one's eyelashes. Those who had endeavoured so hard for the sake of knowledge and servitude to Allah, might have been blessed by Him and they must have been guided to uncover certain realities that our minds are incapable of understanding.
This is quite possible, as it had been referred to in some narratives, which assure that among the companions of the Prophet (S.A.) and the pure Imams (A.S.) there were some who could not tell their closest friends about the things they could understand. Such traditional narratives are seen in Usulul-Kafi , as: "Had Abudharr known what was there in Salman's heart, he would have accused him of infidelity (or: he would have killed him), whereas the Prophet (S.A.) proclaimed them as brothers." We do know that Abudharr and Salman were the Prophet's most favoured companions. Their faith made them so close to one another that the Prophet (S.A.), on the day of announcing brotherhood among the believers, proclaimed them to be brothers.
Yet, Salman had attained such a knowledge that could not be understood by Abudharr, and thus, on hearing it, he would either accuse Salman of infidelity or kill him. Salman's knowledge, apparently, was so deep and profound that if he had tried to tell Abudharr about it, the latter could not have understood it correctly, and would have thought him to have turned back to infidelity. Amirul-Mu'minin, 'Ali (A.S.) could understand facts which he could not disclose to Salman either. They could not be explained. Poured into the moulds of words, would have caused them to be wrongly understood and get incorrect meanings. As a matter of fact, some great personalities were actually misunderstood and badly accused of groundless accusations, whereas they were quite innocent.