Lectures of (Session 349)
This article presents profound and multi-faceted reflections on the concept of humility to religion, the critique of blind obedience, and the role of reason in the acceptance of divine decrees. It is derived from the esoteric, theological, philosophical, and sociological discourses of , may his soul rest in peace, in the commentary on *Mansal al-Sairin* by Khwaja Abdullah Ansari. The central focus of this session is to elucidate humility as an informed submission to the truth, critique views that promote unquestioning acceptance of religious decrees, and emphasize the necessity of using reason in religious practice.
The speaker defines humility as an informed submission to the truth and emphasizes that humility before the Almighty does not equate to equating oneself with Him, as the Divine is above any form of deficiency or degradation. Humility in this context is an intellectually conscious and informed acceptance of divine decrees, compatible with human dignity, rather than a subservient or blind obedience. Using a subtle metaphor, humility is likened to a bird that spreads its wings not to fall but to soar towards the truth. This view differentiates humility from degradation and stresses awareness and volition in spiritual practice. Key Point: Humility to religion is an informed submission to the truth, accompanied by a rational acceptance of divine decrees, rather than subjugation or blind obedience that disregards human dignity. This definition finds its roots in Islamic mysticism and the views of Khwaja Abdullah Ansari in *Mansal al-Sairin*, who presents humility as an informed virtue. Scholars may compare this concept with Islamic moral philosophy, particularly the works of Al-Ghazali and Mulla Sadra, who regard reason as a prerequisite for accepting religion. Additionally, this view aligns with religious philosophy theories, such as Kants perspective on practical reason, where the acceptance of faith is grounded in rationality. The metaphor of the bird makes this concept tangible for the audience and creates a meaningful link between mysticism and philosophy. The speaker references the Qur'anic verse: And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth in humility (Al-Furqan: 63) to explain humility as the smoothness and rational acceptance of divine commands. This verse presents humility not as abasement but as a sign of dignity and gravitas before the truth.
The speaker critiques the traditional definition of humility to religion in the text of Khwaja Abdullah Ansari, summarizing it in three stages: 1) the non-opposition of reason to the transmission of divine revelation, 2) the absence of critique against religion through reasoning, and 3) the lack of a path to dispute religion. He challenges these conditions and, with a sharp and humorous tone, dismisses them as nonsense. The speaker asserts that unconditional acceptance of religious decrees without rational inquiry leads to superstition and misery. He ridicules such blind obedience with the metaphor of a "bearded goat shaking its head and approving everything," emphasizing the necessity of reason to discern right from wrong. Key Point: Humility to religion does not mean blind obedience to religious decrees. Reason is a necessary condition for distinguishing the true religion from falsehood, and without it, religious practice leads to superstition and misery. This critique targets one of the key issues in Islamic philosophy and mysticism: the relationship between reason and transmitted revelation. The speaker, citing the Qur'anic verse Do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? (An-Nisa: 82), reminds the audience of the Qur'an's invitation to contemplation and rational thought. This perspective aligns with the rationalist Shia tradition, particularly in the works of Allama Tabatabai and Shaykh Ansari, who regard reason as a prerequisite for the execution of divine decrees. Scholars may compare this discussion with epistemological theories in religious thought, such as Alvin Plantingas theory of warranted belief or analytical philosophy of religion. The metaphor of the bearded goat, with its biting humour, vividly illustrates the danger of blind obedience.
The speaker stresses that accepting religion without reason leads to superstition and misfortune. He uses the metaphor of a closed watermelon, which should not be accepted without examination, to illustrate that even in the presence of infallibility, humans have the right to question and reason. Citing the story of Prophet Moses (PBUH) and the doubt surrounding the divine proclamation of Indeed, I am Allah (Al-Qasas: 30), he argues that even the prophets accepted the truth through reason and knowledge. This view posits reason not as an obstacle to faith, but as a necessary condition for it. Key Point: Reason is a necessary condition for accepting the true religion. Even in the presence of the infallible, humans have the right to question and reason in order to remain free from superstition and error. The speaker references the Hadith: Indeed, we are a family that speaks only with proof (Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 2, p. 184), showing that even the infallibles invited reasoning and proof. This view aligns with the Shia jurisprudential principles, particularly in the discussion of the necessary connection between reason and religious law. Scholars can compare this perspective with religious rationalism, such as the views of the Maturidiyyah school, or the philosophy of science regarding the role of reason. The metaphor of the closed watermelon subtly reinforces the necessity of rational inquiry. The speaker also references Avicennas (Ibn Sina) account in his book *Al-Shifa*, where he accepted the bodily resurrection limitations of reason. He argues that blind obedience is only justified when reason reaches an impasse, not when it is disregarded. This analysis reflects the philosophical depth of the lecture, which places blind obedience within the framework of reason.
The speaker challenges the commentator of the text, who defines humility to religion as mere blind obedience without seeking wisdom. He stresses, based on jurisprudential principles, that reason is essential for accepting religious decrees. With a humorous analogy of "mixing faz and null," he demonstrates how blindly accepting decrees, even from a jurist, can lead to errors. He argues that if a person is certain that the jurist has made a mistake, imitation (taqlid) is not permissible, as error cannot be imitated. Key Point: Accepting religious decrees without reason is unjustified. Reason is a necessary condition for the validity of religious acceptance, and a jurists error invalidates imitation. This critique addresses the methodology of jurisprudence and mysticism. By referencing jurisprudential principles, such as the need for the correctness of a decrees issuance and the necessary connection between reason and religious law, the speaker demonstrates that accepting decrees without reason leads to error. This view is in harmony with the works of Shaykh Ansari in jurisprudential principles. For scholars, this discussion could be compared to theories of comparative jurisprudence or Islamic legal philosophy. The analogy of mixing faz and null vividly illustrates the dangers of blind obedience.
The speaker criticizes religious education that habituates individuals to unquestioning acceptance, asserting that this approach leads to misfortune and superstition rather than spiritual growth. He uses the metaphor of a "sheep trained for riding or slaughter," critiquing such educational methods and arguing that they deprive individuals of dignity and reason. He also uses the example of signing a paper without reading, illustrating the danger of blind acceptance. Key Point: Religious education based on blind obedience leads to superstition and misfortune, rather than spiritual elevation. True faith is accompanied by reason and knowledge.
The speaker embarks on a psychological and sociological analysis of religious education, drawing upon historical experiences such as the acceptance of superstitions due to the fear of excommunication. This illustrates that blind obedience results in both intellectual weakness and social harms. This viewpoint aligns with educational psychology theories, such as Piaget's theory of cognitive development, and religious sociology, such as Weber's perspective on religious rationality. For researchers, this section can be examined in light of critical religious studies or social psychology. The allegory of the sheep, with its biting humour, renders this critique tangible for the audience.
The speaker critiques the social culture that has conditioned individuals to unquestioning obedience, arguing that this approach has led to exploitation and societal weakness. By referencing social experiences, such as blind obedience at the onset of the revolution, the speaker asserts that this culture has not brought unity but rather led to the exploitation of the powerless by the powerful. Using the allegory of "seventy million empty heads with one person thinking for all," the speaker ridicules this culture and emphasises that Shi'ism represents rational obedience to the infallible, not blind adherence.
Key Point: The culture of blind obedience leads to intellectual weakness and exploitation, rather than reinforcing faith. True Shi'ite faith entails rational obedience to the infallible.
This critique delves into the sociological and historical analysis of religious culture in Iran. The speaker draws on social experiences to demonstrate how obedience without reason has led to structural harms rather than strengthening society. This perspective aligns with power sociology theories, such as Foucaults discourse theory, or social psychology, such as Milgrams obedience theory. For researchers, this section may be examined through the lenses of sociology of religion or cultural history. The allegory of the empty heads, with its sharp wit, adds a layer of accessibility to the critique.
This section, through its critique of religious education and the social culture of blind obedience, explores the social and cultural damages caused by such practices. The use of humorous allegories and sociological analysis transforms this lecture into a valuable source for interdisciplinary research in the fields of sociology of religion and social psychology.
The speaker concludes that humility towards religion entails rational and conscious acceptance of the truth as opposed to falsehood, rather than accepting whatever is presented as religion. Critiquing fallacious definitions of religion that conflate the true religion with distorted versions, the speaker stresses that humility should be directed towards the divine religion. Using the allegory of "a stew religion versus the religion of God," this distinction is made clear, and it is argued that the acceptance of religion must be accompanied by reason and knowledge.
Key Point: Humility towards religion is the rational and conscious acceptance of the true religion, which stands in opposition to falsehood, not the blind acceptance of whatever is presented as religion.
Quoting the noble verse "They listen to the word, then follow the best of it" (Surah Az-Zumar, 39:18), the speaker invites the audience to hear and rationally select the best word. This perspective aligns with the Qur'anic interpretation of Allama Tabatabai, who bases faith on reason and knowledge. For researchers, this discussion can be examined in the context of theories of philosophy of religion regarding rational faith or critical theology. The allegory of the stew religion uses a delicate language to make this distinction palpable to the audience.
The speaker critiques views that call for blind obedience and emphasises human free will and responsibility. The speaker asserts that God has endowed humans with intellect to distinguish truth from falsehood. Using the allegory of "being a servant of God rather than a donkey of God," this argument is reinforced, emphasising that true faith is accompanied by knowledge and awareness.
Key Point: True faith is accompanied by reason and knowledge. God has granted intellect for distinguishing truth from falsehood, and blind obedience is incompatible with human dignity.
This viewpoint resonates with the mysticism of Ibn Arabi regarding conscious knowledge and the philosophy of Mulla Sadra concerning religious rationality. For researchers, this argument may be compared with moral philosophy theories, such as Aristotelian virtue ethics or Kantian deontology, which assign moral responsibility to human intellect and free will. The allegory of being a servant of God, articulated with a refined tone, enriches this concept.
This section, by elucidating humility towards religion as rational acceptance of truth and critiquing determinism, addresses the role of intellect and free will in religious conduct. The analysis of Qur'anic verses, Hadiths, and literary allegories makes this lecture a rich source for mystical and philosophical research.
Lecture 349 of *Maqamat al-Sairin* presents a comprehensive framework for understanding humility towards religion and the role of intellect in the divine journey. Through critiques of blind obedience, emphasis on rationality in religious acceptance, and the analysis of social and cultural harms, this text addresses the responsibilities inherent in both religion and society. The analysis of Qur'anic verses, Hadiths, and examples such as the story of Prophet Musa (PBUH), Ibn Sina, and social experiences makes this lecture an invaluable resource for researchers in the fields of mysticism, theology, jurisprudence, and sociology.
With the supervision of Sadegh Khademi.
