Session Seven, The First Stage: Examining the Existence or Non-Existence of Inherent Dignity in the Human Being
Session Seven
The First Stage: Examining the Existence or Non-Existence of Inherent Dignity in the Human Being — The Foundations of Inherent Human Dignity — The First Category: 1. Intellect — Objection
October 12, 2024
Summary of the Previous Session
Thus far, we have clarified the subject of discussion and the point of contention. We stated that our aim is to examine whether, on the strength of the proofs, we can establish an inherent dignity for the human being—in the sense that the human being possesses a nobility, station, and rank that distinguishes him from other creatures in this world, and that in this regard, there is no difference between the Muslim and the non-Muslim, nor with respect to place of residence and geography, or color and race. Thus, we must first examine whether this inherent dignity exists or not; and second, whether this inherent dignity serves as a source for establishing particular rights and duties or not. This is the central theme.
We noted that opinions, views, and formulations differ because the point of disagreement and contention has not been precisely clarified. Consequently, at times a scholar denies inherent dignity while keeping in view a particular meaning of the term, whereas another affirms inherent dignity with a different meaning in mind. We referred to these positions and views, noting that some hold that inherent dignity exists in the human being, while others hold that inherent dignity does not exist in him, but rather that there is only the potential for dignity in him. Still others maintain that dignity is inherent, yet say that the human being can at times divest himself of it by his own hand—meaning they employ the word “inherent” (dhātī) while nonetheless regarding this dignity as divestible. Some have used the expression “potential inherent dignity,” while others have used “actual inherent dignity.” In any case, as you have observed, these differences exist.
The Foundations of Inherent Human Dignity
We therefore wish to examine the existence or non-existence of inherent dignity in the precise sense we have indicated. First and foremost, we must examine its foundations in the religious proofs, the intellect, the verses, and the traditions—whatever they may be—to see whether such a thing exists or not.
In general, several proofs or foundations have been mentioned—or can be mentioned—as the basis for inherent dignity. Were we to enumerate them, there might be about ten such foundations. However, at the very outset, I shall distinguish among these matters and divide them into two categories:
The first category comprises those matters that bear no particular coloring or distinct character, whereas the second category consists of those that do possess such a character. To illustrate: the existence of intellect in the human being is something that all human beings, qua human beings, possess; but whether this constitutes inherent dignity is what we shall examine.
The second category comprises matters such as being the object of the angels’ prostration, which carries a specific coloring and character, or being God’s vicegerent (khalīfat Allāh)… I separate these matters so that the rationale for doing so becomes clearer later.
The First Category
I shall now present the first category: those matters that all human beings can possess, given the human being’s structure, constitution, physical form, and appearance.
1. Intellect
The first of these is the intellect (ʿaql). Concerning the intellect, it is stated in various speeches and writings that the intellect is that by means of which the human being can perceive, analyze, and draw conclusions; in other words, it is the faculty of cognition and awareness, which exists to this degree in no other creature. This faculty grants the human being the ability to analyze matters, reason, dissect, and deduce conclusions from a series of premises; this is precisely what is referred to as the intellect—the faculty of cognition, awareness, and analysis. Naturally, this is something that exists in all human beings; it is on account of his intellect that the human being is distinguished from other creatures, particularly animals.
In logical definitions, regardless of whether we consider “rationality” (nuṭq) to be an essential part or an accidental part, and whether we say that “rational animal” (ḥayawān nāṭiq) is a complete definition (ḥadd-i tāmm) or an incomplete definition (ḥadd-i nāqiṣ), as some have argued, it nonetheless remains a major distinguishing component of the human being from other creatures; no other creature possesses intellect in this sense. To be sure, we may ascribe some level of consciousness and awareness to all entities, especially material ones; however, this specific type of consciousness and faculty, which grants the human being such capability, is observable in no other creature.
It is argued that, by God’s grace, the human being has been granted a specific bounty and possesses a unique existential (takwīnī) endowment that no other creature enjoys. This dignity is inherent; it exists within the essence of the human being. For the human being qua human being, it can neither be divested, nor changed, nor lost. Thus, the intellect is an endowment that all human beings, qua human beings, possess, and it serves as the source of various other capacities and forms of awareness. In the words of the late Martyr Muṭahharī, five major capacities arise from this human faculty, all of which trace back, in some way, to the intellect: the scientific capacity and search for truth, the moral capacity (the moral conscience), the religious capacity and search for the sacred, the artistic and aesthetic capacity, and the capacity for creativity and inventiveness.
Some have attributed to the late ʿAllāmah Tabataba’i the view that this constitutes an inherent dignity for the human being, citing various passages from his works. Among these are the discussions he presents under the verse: “We have honored the children of Adam” (وَلَقَدْ كَرَّمْنَا بَنِي آدَمَ)—though we shall address this verse independently later. For now, what the late ʿAllāmah states under this verse is: “And preference (tafḍīl) is a relative meaning, which is his being singled out for an increase in bestowment in comparison to others, while they both share in the origin of the bestowment; and the human being is distinguished among all cosmic creatures by the intellect, and he surpasses others in all qualities, states, and actions that are found among them” (وَالتَّفْضِيلُ مَعْنًى إِضَافِيٌّ وَهُوَ تَخْصِيصُهُ بِزِيَادَةِ الْعَطَاءِ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إِلَى غَيْرِهِ مَعَ اشْتِرَاكِهِمَا فِي أَصْلِ الْعَطِيَّةِ وَالْإِنْسَانُ يَخْتَصُّ مِنْ بَيْنِ الْمَوْجُودَاتِ الْكَوْنِيَّةِ بِالْعَقْلِ وَيَزِيدُ عَلَى غَيْرِهِ فِي جَمِيعِ الصِّفَاتِ وَالْأَحْوَالِ الَّتِي تُوجَدُ بَيْنَهَا وَالْأَعْمَالِ الَّتِي يَأْتِي بِهَا).
ʿAllāmah states that the human being, among all creatures, is uniquely endowed with something called the intellect, and the apparent sense of these words is that this is actually present in the human being. It is not a matter of mere capacity… They argue that this is not merely the potential for cognition, but a faculty actually present in him, and since this is a dignity, it is ultimately a divine gift; God has bestowed this upon the human being, and therefore the human being, qua human being, possesses it. However, he can utilize this very factor and faculty to acquire further perfections, greater capacities, and so forth. The late ʿAllāmah then pairs this with certain other matters that we shall discuss later. Under the verse “We have honored the children of Adam” (وَلَقَدْ كَرَّمْنَا بَنِي آدَمَ), several aspects can be mentioned as to what “We have honored” (كَرَّمْنَا) or “We have preferred” (فَضَّلْنَا) refers to; the intellect is one of them, and there are several other dimensions in the verse that we shall, God willing, point to.
Question:
Professor: Regarding the origin of the bestowment, he states that it is shared with other creatures, but in the human being, it is greater… He states that the intellect is something other creatures lack and only the human being possesses. Thus, the human being is endowed with something called the intellect.
Naturally, since the human being qua human being possesses intellect, this intellect constitutes an advantage, a station, and a nobility for him.
Thus, according to their claim, one of the foundations of inherent dignity is that the human being possesses intellect; hence, the intellect is recognized as one of those elements that serve as the foundation of inherent dignity. This is a point made in certain writings and articles. Muḥammad Ḥusayn Faḍlallāh has also pointed to this in his book Min Waḥy al-Qurʾān, as have others.
Objection
The objection is that the intellect, in the Qur’an and according to certain traditions, is defined as “that by which the All-Merciful is worshipped and Paradise is acquired” (مَا عُبِدَ بِهِ الرَّحْمَنُ وَاكْتُسِبَ بِهِ الْجِنَانُ). In other words, the intellect is that which conforms to the fiṭrah (innate disposition); it conforms to the heart and to the path of guidance. Thus, you find in the Qur’an that on many occasions, God the Almighty attributes to the disbelievers that “they do not understand” (الَّذِينَ هُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ). Are the disbelievers not human beings? The human being qua human being possesses intellect, yet concerning the disbelievers, God the Almighty states that they do not possess intellect. Let me present one example here.
Verse 28 of Surah al-Rum states: “Thus do We explain the signs in detail for a people who understand” (كَذَلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ). In Surah al-Rum, certain signs for the Origin and the Return are mentioned, and then it is stated that these signs are for those who possess intellect and are people of contemplation. But as for those who do not accept these signs and associate partners with God, they follow their whims. Verse 29 of Surah al-Rum states: “Nay, but those who do wrong follow their own lusts without knowledge. Then who can guide him whom Allah has sent astray? And for them there will be no helpers” (بَلِ اتَّبَعَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا أَهْوَاءَهُمْ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ فَمَنْ يَهْدِي مَنْ أَضَلَّ اللَّهُ وَمَا لَهُمْ مِنْ نَاصِرِينَ). Here, ʿAllāmah explains the implicit meaning of this verse as follows: “And these polytheists did not base their polytheism on contemplation; rather, they followed their whims in that regard without knowledge” (وَهَؤُلَاءِ الْمُشْرِكُونَ لَمْ يَبْنُوا شِرْكَهُمْ عَلَى التَّعَقُّلِ بَلِ اتَّبَعُوا فِي ذَلِكَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ).
He states that they did not base their polytheism on contemplation, but rather followed their whims. We have many verses in the Qur’an that attribute a lack of contemplation to the disbelievers, even though they are human beings. Thus, it becomes clear that this intellect which you speak of as dignity—the intellect that all human beings, qua human beings, possess and which establishes an advantage, rank, and nobility for them—is not inherent and is indeed divestible. In certain places, God states that they possess no intellect at all. That is, the intellect that does not conform to the fiṭrah is not considered intellect at all from the Qur’anic perspective. The intellect that is polluted by whims, and that follows whims, is not intellect.
We also have in the traditions that Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) states: “Indeed, God, the Mighty and Sublime, compounded in the angels intellect without desire, and compounded in the beasts desire without intellect, and compounded in the children of Adam both of them. Thus, he whose intellect overcomes his desire is better than the angels, and he whose desire overcomes his intellect is worse than the beasts” (إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ رَكَّبَ فِي الْمَلَائِكَةِ عَقْلًا بِلَا شَهْوَةٍ وَرَكَّبَ فِي الْبَهَائِمِ شَهْوَةً بِلَا عَقْلٍ وَرَكَّبَ فِي بَنِي آدَمَ كِلَيْهِمَا فَمَنْ غَلَبَ عَقْلُهُ شَهْوَتَهُ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ مِنَ الْمَلَائِكَةِ وَمَنْ غَلَبَتْ شَهْوَتُهُ عَقْلَهُ فَهُوَ شَرٌّ مِنَ الْبَهَائِمِ). The angels are intellect without desire; beasts are desire without intellect; but the human being is compounded of both. He who causes his intellect to overcome his desire is superior to the angels, and he whose desire overcomes his intellect is baser than animals. Therefore, the true human being is one whose desire is under the control of his intellect.
Thus, it may be argued that the intellect is not the foundation of inherent dignity; the intellect in the human being is not an inherent dignity. The intellect that is counted as a dignity in the human being is this very type: an intellect that distinguishes between good and evil, and that leads the human being toward religion and religiosity. It is that intellect referred to in the traditions as the “inward proof” (ḥujjah bāṭinah), set against the “outward proof” (ḥujjah ẓāhirah), which, when paired with the outward proof, brings about the human being’s salvation. Yes, this constitutes a dignity, but it is not inherent; it is potential (istiʿdādī). That is, the human being’s intellect must move in this direction to become a fitrah-based intellect. The intellect of the human being is regarded as a dignity for him on condition that it is not ensnared by whims, this world, and material attachments; otherwise, if the intellect distances itself from these—meaning it is neither a guide, nor a distinguisher of good and evil, nor performs this guidance—then in the phrasing of the Qur’an, it is not an intellect at all. ʿAllāmah Tabataba’i himself has explicitly stated this in various places; that is, if one relies on the aforementioned words of ʿAllāmah, he also maintains this point elsewhere.
For instance, regarding verses 28 and 29 of Surah al-Rum, he states: “Indeed, what is meant by intellect in His speech, Exalted is He, is that perception which is completed for the human being when his fiṭrah is sound” (أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالْعَقْلِ فِي كَلَامِهِ تَعَالَى هُوَ الْإِدْرَاكُ الَّذِي يَتِمُّ لِلْإِنْسَانِ مَعَ سَلَامَةِ فِطْرَتِهِ). This means that if that soundness of fiṭrah is lacking, it is not so. In another passage, ʿAllāmah explicitly states that the intellect is in fact that element which guides the human being toward righteous deeds and truths, and if it is not on this path, it is not called intellect, even if it remains functional for purely worldly good and evil.
Therefore, according to the Qur’an and the traditions, the intellect is in reality that which guides the human being toward righteousness and salvation; it guides him and calls him to monotheism, whereas the disbelievers derive no benefit from this intellect, and indeed, anything other than this is not intellect. Consequently, the intellect is not considered an inherent dignity for the human being such that it could serve as the foundation for those rights and duties. Thus, it can be said that when the intellect is in such a state, it is not actual, nor is it inherent; rather, it is potential. … Ultimately, is the intellect considered an inherent dignity or not? This we shall address in the next session.