Session Thirteen, The First Stage: Examining the Existence or Non-Existence of Inherent Dignity in the Human Being
Session Thirteen
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: 2. Will (Irādah) and Choice (Ikhtiyār) — Mullā Ṣadrā’s View on the Inherent Dignity of the Will — Evidence — The First to Ninth Pieces of Evidence
November 2, 2024
Summary of the Previous Session
Our discussion concerned the foundations of the inherent dignity of the human being. We presented several pieces of evidence for the intellect and the inherency of this dignity granted by God. The second factor is will (irādah) and choice (ikhtiyār), though discussions have arisen as to whether this is deemed an independent factor or one of the branches of the intellect; we have mentioned this independently because the divine call, the call of the prophets, and the establishment of religious obligation (taklīf), commands, and prohibitions are founded upon this very issue.
Evidence
There are also pieces of evidence indicating that this dignity is inherent—in the sense that it is established by God, Blessed and Exalted is He, specifically for the human being; inherent dignity meaning an ennoblement from God for the human being and not for non-humans, such that all human beings enjoy it. There are several pieces of evidence for this; we referred to one piece of evidence in the previous session.
Mullā Ṣadrā’s View on the Inherent Dignity of the Will
Before explaining that piece of evidence further, I shall quote a passage from Ṣadr al-Muta’allihīn [Mullā Ṣadrā] in al-Asfār; he writes: “By this will, Allah distinguished you from the beasts as an ennoblement and magnification for the children of Adam, just as He distinguished you from them by the knowledge of consequences” (بِهَذِهِ الْإِرَادَةِ أَفْرَدَكَ اللَّهُ عَنِ الْبَهَائِمِ إِكْرَاماً وَتَعْظِيماً لِبَنِي آدَمَ كَمَا أَفْرَدَكَ عَنْهَا بِمَعْرِفَةِ الْعَوَاقِبِ).
This very will under discussion—by which the human being in reality decides, resolves to perform matters, and selects the superior option, which we call choice—has been granted to all human beings by way of ennoblement and honoring (takrīm); it is unique to the human being, and no other creature enjoys this dignity. He goes on to state that, at the same time, with respect to knowing the consequences, predicting the results of deeds, seeing the benefit and harm of matters, and then choosing, this is exclusive to the human being; it is not the case that beasts (bahā’im) and animals possess the power to weigh the results and harms of actions after which a will is formed in them.
The First Piece of Evidence
In any case, the first piece of evidence, to which we referred briefly in the previous session, is that, in general, the religious obligation (taklīf) of human beings with respect to divine rulings, commands, and prohibitions, God’s invitation to the truth, the sending of messengers, the revelation of books, and fundamentally the legislative system (niẓām al-tashrīʿ) and the consequences and effects of God’s legislative enactment (jaʿl) hold no meaning whatsoever without will and choice. It is the nature of the legislative system and enactment that, based on the roadmap God has established, it guides the human being toward salvation, or, if the human being chooses the path of wretchedness, he falls into ruin and destruction.
This first piece of evidence possesses a positive dimension unique to the human being, and fundamentally, the foundation of human obligation is this very will and choice. The angels do not even enjoy this blessing; in our discussion of the intellect, we noted that they also enjoy the blessing of intellect, yet we stated that fundamentally the angels are excluded from the verse: “We have honored the children of Adam.” Only one point must be noted here: if we accept the difference between honoring (takrīm) and preferring (tafḍīl) and say that takrīm pertains to matters exclusive to the human being while tafḍīl pertains to matters the human being shares with certain other creatures but in which they enjoy a greater share, then—even if we say the verse “We have honored the children of Adam” does not encompass the angels—if the angels also enjoy the blessing of the intellect, how is it an ennoblement for the human being? How is this an inherent dignity of the human being?
Since the argument was that the angels are excluded from this verse, we reply: assuming they are excluded from this verse, as we pointed out there and emphasize now, it is true that the angels possess intellect and consciousness, but it is not certain that the process of organizing known facts to discover unknowns exists in them. Yes, they possess intellect, but this intellect has attained complete actualization; there is nothing unrevealed to them for which they would need to piece together certain known facts to reach a higher point. Therefore, God, Blessed and Exalted is He, states in Surah al-Taḥrīm: “angels, stern and severe, who do not disobey Allah in what He commands them, and perform what they are commanded” (مَلَائِكَةٌ غِلَاظٌ شِدَادٌ لَا يَعْصُونَ اللَّهَ مَا أَمَرَهُمْ وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ). They do not possess will and choice; the stern and severe angels, as a class of angels, do not commit sin or disobedience, and they obey and perform whatever they are commanded. Or, for instance, in Surah al-Naḥl He states: “and they perform what they are commanded” (وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ).
Question:
Professor: They do not possess will and choice at all in the sense of being able to disobey; meaning, for example, to stand at a crossroads and choose the side of evil. Indeed, even the choice of a superior good is not theirs. This is because they are beings that, according to what is well-known, have reached complete actualization, and there is no longer any capacity or potential in them to ascend further.
Question:
Professor: His saying: “and they perform what they are commanded” (وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ) means they do what they are commanded; “who do not disobey Allah in what He commands them” (لَا يَعْصُونَ اللَّهَ مَا أَمَرَهُمْ) is the explicit text (naṣṣ) of the Qur’an. One of the aspects presented in the narrative of the human being’s creation is precisely this: that it does not in reality refer to an actual event, occurrence, or conversation between the angels and God; rather, it symbolically expresses the creation of the human being and his advantage over the angels (the rebellion of Satan notwithstanding).
Otherwise, some have argued that the angels did not even object, and that it was not an objection; what the angels did in that event was due to their oversight of occurrences. Some have said this was due to a prior history of humans before Adam, which prompted them to ask such a question. Others believe the angels asked this question out of the intensity of their love for God and their annihilation (fanāʾ) in God… they even suggest this regarding Iblis… some scholars of the discipline have said that if Iblis objected there and said: “You created me from fire and created him from clay” (خَلَقْتَنِي مِنْ نَارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِنْ طِينٍ), it was because of his prior thousands of years of worship and his love and affection for God that he raised that question and those events transpired, leading him to say, “Should I prostrate to this human?”
At any rate, the angels did not possess will and choice; they were purely commanded and excused. God commands them, and they perform. These questions and objections either bear a symbolic character or were due to their oversight of events before or after, and they lacked the capacity to comprehend what this being was. Thus, God said to them: “Verily, I know what you know not” (إِنِّى أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ).
Question:
Professor: “And there is none of us but has a known place” (وَمَا مِنَّا إِلَّا لَهُ مَقَامٌ مَعْلُومٌ) points to a specific and designated limit; this designated limit does not change, whereas there is no designated limit for the human being. This is their ultimate limit, and they do not transcend it. At the outset of the discussion, I quoted a passage from Ṣadr al-Muta’allihīn: “By this will, Allah distinguished you from the beasts as an ennoblement and magnification for the children of Adam, just as He distinguished you from them by the knowledge of consequences.” This is by way of ennoblement and magnification of the children of Adam; the human being is distinguished from beasts. What does “And there is none of us but has a known place” (وَمَا مِنَّا إِلَّا لَهُ مَقَامٌ مَعْلُومٌ) mean? At any rate, we have eight or nine pieces of evidence; you may see which you accept and which you do not.
I shall mention nine pieces of evidence. The first piece of evidence, which we discussed in the previous session and to which we referred in this session, is that will and choice are fundamentally the basis for making human beings religiously obligated and subject to punishment, the invitation of the prophets and messengers, and the revelation of books—all of which hold no meaning or concept whatsoever without will and choice.
The Second Piece of Evidence
“And by the soul and Him Who perfected it, then inspired it with its wickedness and its righteousness” (وَنَفْسٍ وَمَا سَوَّاهَا * فَأَلْهَمَهَا فُجُورَهَا وَتَقْوَاهَا). He swears by the soul and that which perfected it. We do not wish to enter into the discussion of the perfection of the soul; these verses involve many discussions, and we shall only point to the part under consideration. That We showed him both the path of wickedness, corruption, and evil, and the path of righteousness, self-restraint, and refraining from wickedness—Our inspiring both paths in him points to the fact that he is the one who can choose which of these two paths to traverse.
Question:
Professor: We argue now that the human being is the possessor of this will, and no such thing has been said of non-humans; rather, the contrary has been said.
This is certainly not for beasts and animals, and certainly not for the angels, because wickedness (fujūr) holds no meaning for them.
The Third Piece of Evidence
“And We guided him to the two highways” (وَهَدَيْنَاهُ النَّجْدَيْنِ)—meaning that We guided or guide him to one of these two. Any verse that in some way encompasses the expression of two paths—salvation and wretchedness, good and evil, wickedness and righteousness, gratitude and ingratitude—indicates the existence of the will in the human being.
The Fourth Piece of Evidence
“To all—these as well as those—We extend assistance” (كُلًّا نُمِدُّ هَؤُلَاءِ وَهَؤُلَاءِ). Despite God having no inclination for any of His servants to pursue the path of evil and corruption and deviate, He has left him free in his choice, and this indicates the will.
The Fifth Piece of Evidence
“And if your Lord had willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together” (وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّكَ لَآمَنَ مَنْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعًا). If God, Blessed and Exalted is He, had willed, He would have created all those on earth as believers. God did not wish for people to believe in Him through compulsion and existentially; rather, the meaning is that God did not wish thus. He willed that the possibility of both paths remain open to them, after which they choose themselves, and this indicates will and choice.
The Sixth Piece of Evidence
“Would you then compel the people until they become believers?” (أَفَأَنْتَ تُكْرِهُ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَكُونُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ). Do you wish to force the people to become believers? God states to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family): Do you wish to force the people to become believers? We have distanced ourselves far from these teachings. Sometimes, in the discussions and disputes that arise, and the debates raised in public, the point of contention is not clearly identified, and both those who deny and those who affirm incorrectly claim a matter, resulting in a waste of effort and energy.
God states to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family): Do you wish to force the people to become believers? This is not so; this is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of the human being and with this granted human dignity. If one wishes to force people to become believers contrary to this granted dignity, the first objection would be to God, Blessed and Exalted is He, as to why He created human beings in this manner. If God had willed, He would have done so from the very beginning, so that it would not have led to this; had it been so, it would possess no value. It is will and choice that grant value to the human being, enabling him to traverse that acquired dignity and reach degrees that even the angels have not reached.
Question:
Professor: Many things are among the established matters, from ritual purity (ṭahārah) to blood-money (diyāt); these are sometimes doubts we must answer later—either correct them, or answer and justify them, accepting a part and justifying another. The foundation of enjoining right and forbidding wrong is invitation; otherwise, if there were no will and choice, why would there be reminders, commands, and prohibitions, in whatever sense we understand them? The Prophet’s movement was based on invitation; Moses and Jesus began with invitation. Why did they do so? Despite knowing that they would not believe, this principle and divine Sunnah was nonetheless not abandoned.
The Seventh Piece of Evidence
“Verily, We guided him to the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful” (إِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ إِمَّا شَاكِرًا وَإِمَّا كَفُورًا). This verse clearly states that We show the way; it is the human being himself who chooses to be grateful or ungrateful.
The Eighth Piece of Evidence
“He Who created death and life, that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct” (الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَالْحَيَاةَ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا). He states: We created death and life to test you as to whose conduct is better and more virtuous. Can this divine test as to whose conduct is best hold any meaning except through the human being’s will and choice?
The Ninth Piece of Evidence
“Verily, We have made that which is on earth as an ornament for it, that We may try them, which of them is best in conduct” (إِنَّا جَعَلْنَا مَا عَلَى الْأَرْضِ زِينَةً لَهَا لِنَبْلُوَهُمْ أَيُّهُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا). Here, too, He states that whatever We placed on earth as an ornament is solely to test them as to who is better in conduct.
This test or trial by God, Blessed and Exalted is He, as to who performs better conduct clearly indicates that the possibility of choosing the best exists, otherwise “best in conduct” (aḥsanu ʿamalan) would hold no meaning. He fundamentally possesses the possibility of choosing and selecting. That God established the basis of human life and death, and the basis of whatever He placed in this world as an ornament—such as wealth, children, and so forth—was solely to make known who is best in conduct.
Best in conduct holds no meaning without the possibility of choosing, without the possibility of superior selection which we express as choice or freedom; and choice and freedom hold no meaning without the will. One cannot say choice exists but will does not. Nay, even the contrary: to say will exists but choice does not. These are mutually concomitant. Will means intense desire after assenting to utility and weighing benefits and harms; this results in intense desire and subsequently the stimulation of muscles. Will and selection are inseparable; if there is no possibility of selection, will fundamentally holds no meaning, and vice versa. Freedom and will are both concomitants of the intellect, and in reality, they are inseparable from one another.
Question:
Professor: I do not wish to say that the evidence is restricted to these… there are other verses indicating that will and choice are a granted dignity from God specifically for the human being, and no other creature possesses will and choice in this sense. Although the animal, with a certain level of consciousness, may intend to perform an action, that is on the basis of instinct. Will in this sense holds no meaning whatsoever in its case; we also explained the angels.
Therefore, this is an inherent dignity of the human being; this is a granted dignity that God has specifically bestowed upon the human being, and all human beings—whether believer or disbeliever—possess it. The issue of faith and disbelief makes no difference in this regard; a disbeliever may possess a very strong will, and a believer may also possess a very strong will; a disbeliever’s will may be weak, and a believer’s will may be weak. A disbeliever may make good choices, while a believer may make bad choices, and vice versa. There is genuinely no debate that this is inherent, and the evidence—both traditional and intuitive—proves it. We find intuitively that this exists.
As I indicated at the outset of the discussion, there is a difference of opinion as to whether will and choice are deemed a branch of the intellect, rather than being an independent foundation. However, we have stated that it is preferable to consider this independently in Our mention.
Question:
Professor: The angels do not possess that intellect… they lack the faculty of analysis and organizing known facts to discover unknowns.