Lectures of Nekoonaam (may his soul rest in peace) (Session 343)
This paper presents profound and multifaceted reflections on the relationship between divine causality and human free will, derived from the mystical, theological, and philosophical lectures of Nekoonaam (may his soul rest in peace), explaining *Maqasid al-Sairin* by Khwaja Abdullah Ansari. The central theme of this session encompasses a critique of determinism, an analysis of the concepts of good and evil within the framework of divine unity, an investigation into the stages of creation in mystical journeying, and a critique of political and social immunities in relation to religious infallibility.
One of the central discussions in this lecture is the critique of the Aristotelian view which attributes evil to non-being, aiming to protect God from being the cause of evil. This view, which was adopted in Islamic philosophy by figures such as Avicenna and Farabi, is countered by the speaker, who, citing the noble verse "Say, 'All things are from God.'" (Quran, 4:78), affirms that everything is existent and under divine causality. He draws a profound yet simple analogy: horizontal motion of the hand signifies love, while vertical motion represents oppression, emphasizing that both are existent, but the difference lies in the human's voluntary determination. This argument rejects determinism and aligns with the Ash'ari concept of "acquisition" and the interpretation of Allama Tabatabai in *Al-Mizan*.
Key Point: Both good and evil are existent and subject to divine causality, but the determinations of evil are a result of human choice. This view places divine unity at the center of the analysis of good and evil, refuting the Aristotelian philosophy of non-being.
The speaker analyzes the verses "Say, 'All things are from God.'" (Quran, 4:78) and "Whatever good happens to you is from God, and whatever evil happens to you is from yourself" (Quran, 4:79). These verses appear contradictory, but the speaker resolves the apparent contradiction by distinguishing between "divine causality" and "human actualization." The verse 78 addresses disbelievers who attributed evil (such as war and conflict) to the Prophet, emphasizing that everything, even disputes arising from the invitation to monotheism, is under divine causality. However, verse 79, in warning to the Prophet, attributes the evils arising from personal actions to himself.
Key Point: The distinction between divine causality and human actualization is key to understanding Quranic verses 4:78 and 4:79. This distinction refutes determinism while affirming human moral responsibility within the framework of divine unity.
This analysis aligns with Allama Tabatabai's interpretation in *Al-Mizan*, which considers the context of the verses in relation to the audience. For scholars, this discussion can be compared with Quranic hermeneutics or philosophical theories on the relationship between God and humans. Using the metaphor of a conflict arising from the call to "There is no god but God," the speaker demonstrates that this conflict does not stem from the Prophet's personal actions, but from divine causality.
The speaker refers to the three stages of creation in *Maqasid al-Sairin*: 1) the good conduct towards the creation of God, 2) the appreciation of one's own creation in relation to God through gratitude for goodness and seeking forgiveness for shortcomings, and 3) continuous repentance for imperfection. He critiques these stages, asserting that attributing all evil to humans and all good to God is incompatible with divine unity. Using a humorous metaphor, he challenges this division: "Everything good is from God, everything bad is from whose father?"
Key Point: The stages of creation, emphasizing human responsibility, should not lead to determinism. Divine unity views the sources of good and evil within divine causality but assigns the determinations to human choice.
This perspective resonates with Ibn Arabi's mystical philosophy of the unity of existence, but distances itself from determinism by emphasizing human responsibility. For educated audiences, this discussion can be compared with Aristotelian virtue ethics or Kantian deontological ethics, both of which assign moral responsibility to the individual. The speaker, critiquing the views of Talamsani, who borrowed some of his phrases, emphasizes the authenticity of mystical journeying.
The speaker criticizes Abdul-Razzaq Kashani and Talamsani, pointing to academic plagiarism in religious writings. He humorously remarks, "He writes fifty books, forty-nine of which are stolen from others," and sees plagiarism as an impediment to scholarly progress. This critique touches upon historical issues in Islamic scholarly traditions, such as citation practices, and is comparable to modern discussions on plagiarism.
Key Point: Authenticity in authorship is crucial for academic growth. Plagiarism, whether in Islamic tradition or in the modern world, hinders intellectual progress.
This perspective highlights the speaker's awareness of methodological issues in the scholarly tradition. Using the metaphor of forbidden paper, he stresses the importance of creativity and originality, urging researchers to generate novel knowledge.
The speaker, citing the verse "We have sent you to the people as a messenger, and sufficient is God as a witness" (Quran, 4:79), explains the distinction between infallibility (the absence of sin in the prophets) and immunity (exemption from punishment). He asserts that religion acknowledges the infallibility of prophets but rejects immunity. The immunity of rulers in human systems leads to oppression and corruption.
Key Point: Infallibility is a divine attribute of prophets, whereas immunity is a human construct used to justify the oppression of rulers. Religion does not exempt anyone from accountability.
This view aligns with Shia jurisprudence, particularly the opinion of in *Velayat-e Faqih*, which holds that rulers are accountable for their actions. For researchers, this discussion can be compared with political philosophy theories by Locke or Weber's political sociology. Using metaphors of the immunity of Saddam, Mubarak, and Gaddafi, the speaker makes this critique tangible.
The speaker considers parliamentary, diplomatic, and governmental immunities as key contributors to oppression and corruption in human history. Using a humorous metaphor ("Immunity gave thieves security"), he shows that these immunities, unlike religious infallibility, benefit the powerful at the expense of the people. This critique aligns with Michel Foucault's theories on power and domination and is a rich source for political sociology research.
Key Point: Political immunities are the root of systemic oppression in human societies. Religion, by rejecting immunity, prioritizes justice.
The speaker, referencing 's critique of American diplomatic immunity, connects this discussion to contemporary history, illustrating inequality caused by immunity using the metaphor of the American dog and Iranian man.
The speaker emphasizes the shared nature of good and evil, asserting that multiple factors (society, environment, parents) contribute to human actions. Using a humorous metaphor ("Sinners become claimants"), he shows that on the Day of Judgment, divine justice will consider all these factors. This view aligns with the verse "Every soul is a hostage to what it has earned" (Quran, 52:21).
Key Point: Good and evil are collectively shaped within the social system. Divine justice will account for all contributing factors on the Day of Judgment.
This view resonates with sociological theories of crime, such as those of Emile Durkheim. The speaker compares responsibility to a tree whose roots lie in society, environment, and individual factors.
The speaker critiques social culture that attributes evil to the weak and good to the powerful, deeming this division unjust. Using a metaphor ("The disgrace of the elite is silent, the death of the poor also has no voice"), he highlights inequality in accountability. This analysis aligns with Pierre Bourdieu's theories on social capital.
Key Point: The social culture that attributes evil to the weak is a structural injustice. Good and evil must be viewed collectively within society.
This critique offers an opportunity for researchers in religious sociology to study social inequalities within Islamic societies.
Session 343 of *Maqasid al-Sairin* provides a comprehensive map for understanding the relationship between divine causality and human free will. Through critiques of determinism, the philosophy of non-being, and political immunities, this lecture delves into the importance of personal responsibility in both religion and society. The analysis of Quranic verses, the stages of creation, and the critique of power structures make this lecture a valuable source for scholars in mysticism, theology, jurisprudence, and sociology. The speaker's use of metaphors and humor makes complex ideas accessible to both general and specialized audiences, and this paper effectively conveys the essence of these teachings. Written under the supervision of Sadegh Khadami
