Session Eight, The First Stage: Examining the Existence or Non-Existence of Inherent Dignity in the Human Being

Session Eight

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 — Examination — Intellect in the Qur’an — Two Meanings of Intellect

October 13, 2024

Summary of the Previous Session

In the previous session, we presented certain points concerning the first factor that could serve as the foundation of inherent dignity. We stated that the intellect has been proposed as one of the foundations of inherent human dignity, although an objection might be raised against it. We also mentioned that objection.

Examination

If we wish to examine this factor and state what rigorous investigation requires in this regard, we must see in how many senses the intellect is used, and then see in what sense it appears in the Qur’an. After that, we must see which of these two senses can be considered inherent to the human being.

Intellect in the Qur’an

First, we shall have a brief discussion concerning the meaning of the word intellect (ʿaql) and its synonyms or similar terms employed in the Qur’an.

1. Intellect

Several words in the Qur’an refer to this faculty. One of them is the intellect (ʿaql). The word ʿaql has been used frequently in the Qur’an on various occasions and in its different derivative forms. I shall not provide examples, as they are numerous and we do not wish to delve into them here.

2. Intellects (Nuhā)

Another is the word nuhā, as in verse 54 of Surah Taha: “Eat and pasture your cattle; verily, in this are signs for those possessors of intellects” (كُلُوا وَارْعَوْا أَنْعَامَكُمْ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِأُولِي النُّهَى). This is a plural form and is used for the perceptive faculty. It also appears in the Ziyarah of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him): “And the refuge of the possessors of intellects” (وَمَلْجَأَ ذَوِي النُّهَى), meaning the sanctuary of the people of wisdom and the possessors of intellect and wisdom. In certain traditions, commenting on this verse, it is stated: “By God, we are the possessors of intellects” (نَحْنُ وَاللَّهِ أُولُو النُّهَى), meaning we are the possessors of intellect and wisdom, and in a sense, the highest degree of wisdom and intellect.

3. Intellects (Aḥlām)

Two other words are also used. One of them is the word aḥlām (plural of ḥilm, meaning intellects or minds). It appears in verse 32 of Surah al-Tur as follows: “Or do their intellects command them to this, or are they a transgressing people?” (أَمْ تَأْمُرُهُمْ أَحْلَامُهُمْ بِهَذَا أَمْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ طَاغُونَ).

4. Intelligence (Ḥijr)

It also appears in verse 5 of Surah al-Fajr: “Is there in that an oath for one possessing intelligence?” (هَلْ فِي ذَلِكَ قَسَمٌ لِذِي حِجْرٍ). The usage of these two terms and the specific occasions that prompted their use are naturally beyond the scope of our discussion here; nevertheless, these words and terms have been applied to this faculty whose function is perception, cognition, knowledge, and awareness.

5. Pure Intellect (Lubb)

The word lubb (pure intellect or core) has been used even more than the three other terms; indeed, the most frequent usage is associated with the words ʿaql and lubb. The expression “possessors of pure intellects” (ūlū al-albāb) is used frequently in the Qur’an, such as in verse 179 of Surah al-Baqarah: “And there is for you in retaliation life, O possessors of pure intellects, so that you may guard against evil” (وَلَمْ لَكُمْ فِي الْقِصَاصِ حَيَاةٌ يَا أُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ), or verse 269 of Surah al-Baqarah: “And none receive admonition except the possessors of pure intellects” (وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ). The word lubb is thus also used to denote this faculty.

Equivalence and Non-Equivalence of Intellect (ʿAql) and Pure Intellect (Lubb)

However, there is a discussion as to whether ʿaql and lubb share the same meaning or whether each denotes a distinct concept:

1. Some believe that ʿaql and lubb are synonymous because both are considered analogous to the kernel or the core. The intellect and the brain relative to the human body are like the kernel within a shell. If a fruit has no kernel, it is said to be hollow; likewise, if a human being has no intellect, he is nothing—hollow and empty. In any case, both are used in the Qur’an. The late ʿAllāmah Tabataba’i has a statement: “The lubb is the intellect, because in the human being it is in the position of the kernel to the shell; and it is in this sense that it is used in the Qur’an. The word ʿaql in the sense known today was one of the newly coined names by prevalence, and for this reason, it was not used in the Qur’an; rather, verbs derived from it were used, such as ‘they understand'” (اللُّبُّ هُوَ الْعَقْلُ لِأَنَّهُ فِي الْإِنْسَانِ بِمَنْزِلَةِ اللُّبِّ مِنَ الْقِشْرِ، وَعَلَى هَذَا الْمَعْنَى اسْتُعْمِلَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ، وَكَانَ لَفْظُ الْعَقْلِ بِمَعْنَاهُ الْمَعْرُوفِ الْيَوْمَ مِنَ الْأَسْمَاءِ الْمُسْتَحْدَثَةِ بِالْغَلَبَةِ وَلِذَلِكَ لَمْ يُسْتَعْمَلْ فِي الْقُرْآنِ وَإِنَّمَا اسْتُعْمِلَ مِنْهُ الْأَفْعَالُ مِثْلَ يَعْقِلُونَ).

There is a particular point to this statement: he says that the word ʿaql is used in this very sense in the Qur’an—the meaning that everyone understands. However, the exact noun form ʿaql with the meaning understood today is not used in the Qur’an; rather, derivative verbs such as “they understand” (yaʿqilūn) and the like are used. At any rate, according to one view, lubb and ʿaql share the same meaning.

1. Others believe that these two terms have distinct meanings. ʿAql refers to the intellect in an absolute sense, whereas lubb, in the words of al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, is “the intellect that is pure from blemishes” (الْعَقْلُ الْخَالِصُ مِنَ الشَّوَائِبِ)—an intellect free from illusions and whims. He cites an example for each and then states: “Every lubb is an intellect, but not every intellect is a lubb” (كُلُّ لُبٍّ عَقْلٌ وَلَيْسَ كُلُّ عَقْلٍ لُبًّا). Thus, there exists a conceptual relationship of absolute generality and specificity (ʿumūm wa-khuṣūṣ muṭlaq). He then adduces proof by citing verse 269 of Surah al-Baqarah: “And whoever is granted wisdom is indeed granted abundant good; and none receive admonition except the possessors of pure intellects” (وَمَنْ يُؤْتَ الْحِكْمَةَ فَقَدْ أُوتِيَ خَيْرًا كَثِيرًا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ). Here, lubb is employed because this intellect is one in which wisdom resides—an intellect pure from blemishes.

Two Meanings of Intellect

In any case, these five words are used in the Qur’an in relation to the intellect, and there is a difference of opinion regarding the semantic equivalence or non-equivalence of these terms. Regardless of whether these words share the same meaning, it is certain that the word ʿaql itself is used in two senses in the Qur’an and the traditions. Perhaps these two meanings and terminology can also be observed among scholars of logic, philosophy, and mysticism. One meaning of ʿaql is the perceptive faculty, and the other is the perceptive faculty free from whim, desire, and blemish—the intellect that conforms to the fiṭrah and propels the human being along the path of guidance.

It is clear that the intellect in the first sense exists in all human beings; that is, the human being qua human being possesses a faculty of perception and distinction, and by its means, he uncovers the unknown through the known—which is indeed what is called thought. This thinking is carried out by a faculty called the intellect. All human beings possess this, though its strength may vary depending on different circumstances, such that one person may have more of this capacity and another less; yet this is something everyone possesses, and there is no doubt about it. On the other hand, the second meaning—namely, the rational and perceptive faculty that is free from blemishes and is not influenced by whims and desires—is in fact considered the perfection of the intellect. This is something that is not actualized from the outset, but rather its capacity exists within the human being.

In one sense, the intellect is actualized within the human being’s existence; it is actual in the sense of the perceptive faculty and the power through which he acquires knowledge and awareness about everything in the world, and distinguishes good from evil. Of course, the stronger these blemishes are, the greater the possibility of confusing good and evil. This faculty is actualized in the human being. However, the faculty that is distant from blemishes, desires, and whims is what is sometimes referred to as the perfection of the intellect, and it is something the human being acquires over time. That is, it is not actualized from the beginning; the intellect in this sense is only potential in the human being. When a child is first born, his rational faculty has naturally not yet begun to function, as he interacts primarily with sensory things. As his interaction and familiarity with the material world and sensory things increase, these blemishes increasingly envelop him. The further he proceeds, the more this intellect becomes entangled in these blemishes. To be sure, that faculty of cognition and awareness is present and actualized; however, if this intellect—which was from the outset familiar with the material world and influenced by these blemishes—is elevated, perfected, and distanced from these blemishes, or at least preserves its original nature, it becomes the more perfect intellect that shows him the path and serves as a guide toward salvation. This is potential.

Of course, this does not mean that we possess two distinct intellects; rather, these are two aspects. The intellect from one aspect is actual, and from another aspect is a potentiality, a capacity that is not yet actualized. Both exist in the human being—one in an actualized state and the other as a potential. To substantiate this, I shall quote a statement from the late ʿAllāmah. However, keep in mind that what I have presented differs slightly from the explanation given by the late ʿAllāmah here.

Commenting on the verse: “And they say: If only we had listened or understood, we would not have been among the companions of the Blaze” (وَقَالُوا لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ أَوْ نَعْقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِي أَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ), the late ʿAllāmah states that there are two meanings of the intellect. Note the wording carefully: “The intellect is applied to the distinction of good from evil and the useful from the harmful, and sometimes what is intended by it is its ultimate purpose, which is adherence to its requirements by seeking good and utility and avoiding evil and harm” (وَيُطْلَقُ الْعَقْلُ عَلَى تَمْيِيزِ الْخَيْرِ مِنَ الشَّرِّ وَالنَّافِعِ مِنَ الضَّارِّ، وَرُبَّمَا يُرَادُ بِهِ مَا هُوَ الْغَايَةُ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ الِالْتِزَامُ بِمُقْتَضَاهُ مِنْ طَلَبِ الْخَيْرِ وَالنَّفْعِ وَاجْتِنَابِ الشَّرِّ وَالضُّرِّ).

The intellect is sometimes applied to the capacity to distinguish good from bad, and the beneficial from the harmful. At other times, it is applied to, and intends, its ultimate purpose. What is meant by this ultimate purpose? Adherence to its requirements. When one recognizes good and evil, one must pursue the path of good and keep oneself away from the path of evil; one must seek good and avoid evil and harm. He then states that what is intended in this verse is the second meaning. When they say: “If only we had listened or understood, we would not have been among the companions of the Blaze” (لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ أَوْ نَعْقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِي أَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ), they mean that if they had possessed that intellect free from blemishes, if they had not been influenced by whims, if they had acted upon and adhered to the requirements of that perception of good and evil, and if their intellect had been their guide along this path, they would not be in Hell now.

Question:

Professor: One meaning of the intellect is the faculty through which cognition and awareness occur. The other meaning is the intellect that guides the human being and leads him toward good. Many of the disbelievers understood good and evil, and bad and good, but for specific reasons, they did not pursue that path. They possessed the intellect to perceive and recognize good and evil, but because they were under the influence of whims, they did not place themselves on the path of guidance. When God the Almighty says “they do not understand” (lā yaʿqilūn), He refers to the disbelievers who possessed this faculty but did not utilize it along the path of guidance and good. They thought, but this thinking was not guiding… “Its ultimate purpose” (mā huwa al-ghāyah minhu) means, in fact, that I understand good and evil and it guides me; this very guidance, and the distancing from whims and blemishes, means salvation. Thus, He says to the disbelievers: “You did not contemplation.” … Incidentally, concerning the word “we had listened” (nasmaʿ)… they heard quite well, but they were indifferent, they denied, they listened but paid no heed.

Our argument is that the intellect has two meanings and is used in both senses in the Qur’an and the traditions. One of these two is inherent to the human being, while the other is not inherent but rather a perfection that the human being can attain. The intellect in the first, general sense—namely, that very faculty of cognition and awareness that I explained in the previous session—is established for the human being qua human being, without distinction between the disbeliever and the Muslim. He can utilize this faculty, and it serves as the source of his other capacities. The human being, with the aid of this faculty, can discover the unknown; this is a faculty unique to the human being, and no other creature in the world enjoys this privilege.

Question:

Professor: I have mentioned examples in some places where it commands contemplation and reflection… “Do you not then understand?” (أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ) denotes the second meaning; yet in some places, it is used in the first sense. I have mentioned its usage in that first meaning in some verses: “And these examples We present to the people, but none understand them except those of knowledge” (وَتِلْكَ الْأَمْثَالُ نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِ وَمَا يَعْقِلُهَا إِلَّا الْعَالِمُونَ), where ʿaql is in the second sense… but it is mostly used in the second meaning.

Consider verse 75 of Surah al-Baqarah: “Do you covet that they will believe in you, while a party of them used to hear the word of Allah and then distort it after they had understood it, and they knew?” (أَفَتَطْمَعُونَ أَنْ يُؤْمِنُوا لَكُمْ وَقَدْ كَانَ فَرِيقٌ مِنْهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا عَقَلُوهُ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ). What is meant when it says: “they distort it after they had understood it” (min baʿdi mā ʿaqalūhu)? This is in that first sense. Yet despite this, they did not possess that second meaning.

Also, consider the verse: “Indeed, the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not understand” (إِنَّ شَرَّ الدَّوَابِّ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الصُّمُّ الْبُكْمُ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ), or the verse: “Do you enjoin right conduct upon the people and forget yourselves, while you recite the Scripture? Do you not then understand?” (أَتَأْمُرُونَ النَّاسَ بِالْبِرِّ وَتَنْسَوْنَ أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ تَتْلُونَ الْكِتَابَ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ). The phrase “Do you not then understand?” (أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ) denotes the second meaning; whereas the verse “then distort it after they had understood it” (ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا عَقَلُوهُ) denotes the first meaning. Thus, without a doubt, we find both meanings in the Qur’an.

To summarize, our argument is that the intellect in the first sense is established for the human being qua human being. We can regard this as an inherent dignity. By possessing this faculty, the human being is distinguished from other creatures; he has acquired a nobility and an advantage, and this remains with him, and he possesses this faculty to the very end. As for the intellect in the second sense, its capacity exists in the human being because it is considered a perfection, and the more perfect it becomes, the higher his level of understanding of truths and knowledge.

When I say this faculty exists in the human being, it means that every human being benefits from it. Everyone possesses this faculty—disbeliever and Muslim alike. This faculty remains with the human being until the end, and were it not for this faculty—by virtue of which will and choice are established, which we shall discuss independently—the call to reflection, contemplation, and return would fundamentally hold no meaning for the human being up to his final moments. God commands Moses: “Go and invite Pharaoh.” Pharaoh possessed the faculty of cognition and the distinction of good from evil, but the aim was for this faculty to reach a point where it is freed from those blemishes so that it might steer him toward guidance and salvation. That there is hope for salvation and transformation in individuals even in the final moments of life is solely due to this very faculty.

Indeed, there is a discussion regarding cursing (laʿn), as to whether anyone may be cursed. Imam relates a point from his teacher, the late Mr. Shāhābādī, who said: “According to our Sheikh, a person should not curse even a deceased disbeliever, for perhaps that deceased disbeliever departed from this world with faith at the moment of death.” The main point is that if hope for reform and transformation exists up to the final moments of human life, it is only because this faculty exists within him, and this faculty, at any rate, provides this possibility for the human being.

Thus, the intellect is present in the human being; it is established for the human being qua human being. This is an advantage in the human being that is not present in others.

Question:

Professor: We stated that it denotes rank, station, position, nobility… The very act of benefiting from this faculty is a kind of nobility. Whether Satan was of the jinn or… we are not discussing them at the moment; we are discussing the human being. Does the existence of this faculty, this existential endowment, constitute in itself an advantage and a privilege for the human being? This privilege is precisely what dignity means. Once we establish this, once we say that the human being possesses such an endowment, we can then argue that coercion is incompatible with it… Why did God grant him the faculty of distinction? If He had wished, He would have created everyone as angels. We say that this is incompatible with force, compulsion, and coercion. There is a Qur’an verse stating that had We willed, We would have made everyone on earth a believer… Punishment is another discussion; the essence of this privilege and this existential endowment is an advantage in the human being, and it is also actualized.

As for the objection raised by those scholars who said that the intellect is not an advantage, and that the intellect must be of a certain kind to be an advantage—we reply: Yes, we possess both. One is potential and the other is inherent; the former must be present to yield its effects and results. Naturally, in that former sense, it is not actualized in the human being, but this latter sense of the intellect in the human being is inherent and actualized.

Now, you might say that another objection may arise, which is that God, Blessed and Exalted is He, has stated: “Indeed, the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not understand” (إِنَّ شَرَّ الدَّوَابِّ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الصُّمُّ الْبُكْمُ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ). Here, God considers anyone who utilizes this intellect and faculty in the direction of falsehood and Satan to be baser than cattle. In the aforementioned tradition, it was also stated: “and he whose desire overcomes his intellect is worse than the beasts” (وَمَنْ غَلَبَتْ شَهْوَتُهُ عَقْلَهُ فَهُوَ شَرٌّ مِنَ الْبَهَائِمِ). Which intellect is this referring to? It means to say that one who did not perfect his intellect, and instead of employing his intellect on that path, utilized it in the direction of evil and harm, causes his standing to degenerate to a level worse than animals. This raises the question: can we say that this person, who nevertheless possesses this faculty, has an inherent nobility that cannot be divested under any circumstances, or not? This is a matter we shall address in the next session.