The Straight Path

The Straight Path

1990 6 June 12-16 The Straight Path (1674)

What is the straight path?

According to the Qur’an God has laid down a set path for the entire universe – even for so small a creature as the bee (16:68-69) – a path which every part of the universe must strictly follow: “Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come obedient” (41:11).

Just as it is imperative that all things of the universe move on the path appointed by God, so that they may be perfect in their functioning, so also must man – if he aspires to success – submissively follow the divinely appointed path (16:69). But, as man is “on trial” in this world, he has not just been told the path he must follow, but has also been given the license to hold to it, or to reject it as he sees fit, “Lo, we have shown him the way, whether he be grateful or disbelieving”(76:3). Even so, once God has shown man the straight path, he ought to follow it in the belief that it is the only way that leads to success: “How should we not put our trust in God when He hath shown us our ways? ... In God let the trusting put their trust,”(14:12). If man, influenced by some fleeting temptation, strays in some other direction, he will lose his foothold on God’s path; and when he loses that, he will meet with nothing but failure in this life (6:154).

A man remains a human being in the eyes of God only so long as he remains on the straight path. One who deviates from it, descends to the level of an animal.

‘Who is more rightly guided? He that goes grovelling on his face, or he that walks upright along a straight path’?

‘Say: “It is He who has created you and given you ears and eyes and hearts. Yet you are seldom thankful” (67:22-23).

Thus we learn from the Qur’an that following the straight path means living the kind of life in which we make use of the powers of the intellect and the heart. Now, what is special about these powers? Their speciality lies in their expressing the superiority of man over other creatures; it is these powers which raise him from the level of mere existence to that of the moral human being. The animals, on the contrary – though they too are living beings – are only minimally possessed of the powers of feeling and reasoning with which man has been so plentifully endowed. Humans who misuse these God-given capabilities degrade themselves, willingly or unwillingly, to the level of animals. Such men have, therefore, been likened to dogs(7:176), asses(62:5) and cattle(25:44). The most degraded among them are referred to as monkeys, pigs(5:60) and even worse.

This is something which is quite easily understood, yet there are many who treat this subject as if it were beyond the powers of the human intellect. Such people in the eyes of God are blind and deaf.

According to the 95th verse of the Qur’an, man was created in the highest form, then cast down to the lowest. The former, the ‘highest form’, meant ‘human’, while the latter, the ‘lowest form’, meant ‘animal’. That is to say that God created men with the status of human, but left them in the animal state. This is the trial that man must go through; he must raise himself from the lowly state of an animal to the heights of humanity.

“Had it been our will, we would have exalted him through (our signs); but he clung to this earthly life and succumbed to his fancies.”

Such verses as apply the terms blindness, deafness and sottishness to men, do not use them in the literal, biological sense. Nor were those so described lying in some abysmal state of drunkenness. The adjectives ‘blind’, ‘deaf and ‘sottish’ were actually applied to men of great learning and wisdom, who were, in fact, great leaders of their times. To their credit, they built great houses and forts and were experts in business, agriculture and the cultivation of orchards. They were leaders not only of peoples but of whole countries. In connection with the above quoted verse, one heard the name of Arabia’s Umayya ibn abi aI-Salt, who was famous not only for his leadership and generosity, but also for his poetry and wisdom. Similarly, a man of the later days of Moses, Balaam, son of Beor, is described in such terms, although he was one of the most distinguished men of Iraq in learning and piety. According to Ubadah ibn al-Samit, this verse was also applied to the leaders of the Quraysh who were in effect, leaders of the whole of Arabia, being custodians of the Kabah.

That being so, why were they called ‘blind’ and ‘deaf’? To understand this, one should study the difference between man and animal. Apparently, an animal has all that a man has and can do all that a man does. He moves about, eats and drinks, sees and hears, and feels pain or happiness. Wherein lies the difference? Biologists tell us that what differentiates man from the animals is his capacity for conceptual thought. That is to say that he is able to think about something, which is not necessarily present in material terms, and then believe in it. Animals do not possess this capability. This explains the difference between the human and the animal state. In the latter state, one is unmoved except by material reality, material utility and the avoidance of harm; in the human state, fact and states of affairs become of importance once the mind has grasped their truth. Thus, what distinguishes humans from animals is the capacity of the former for ratiocination and their ability to plan their lives on the basis of mental acceptance of truths. The Qur’an says: “This book is not to be doubted. It is a guide for the righteous who have faith in the unseen.”(2:2)

That is, the Qur’an cannot be a guide for those who are never moved by anything other than material reality, material utility and the fear of harm. The Divine Book will guide only those who are ready to accept such truths as have no force of external reality to back them, their importance being wholly in the mind. In other words, the state of animality is characterised by belief in the seen while the state of humanity is characterised by belief in the unseen.

According to a tradition, the Prophet said of Abu Bakr’s acceptance of Islam: “Whenever I invited someone to Islam, he would show some doubt or hesitation. The only one who did not do so was Abu Bakr, who accepted the faith without hesitation or second thoughts as soon as I talked to him of Islam, (Al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah).

In his evaluation of Islam purely on its merits, Abu Bakr attained to the highest point of humanity. There were some who accepted Islam because of the Prophet’s charisma, or the miracles, or the ineffable style of the Qur’an, or the conquest of Mecca, or the material gains brought by Islam; but Abu Bakr had reached such heights of conceptual thought that he could accept or reject a thing purely for its beauty or its ugliness.

When, at the time of his death, Abu Bakr nominated Umar Faruq to the Caliphate, there was a general feeling of unrest. Talha ibn ‘Ubaidullah came to him and said: “The people have sent me to you as their messenger. They say that you have seen all along how strict ‘Umar has been with us. When you pass on your work to him, what then will become of us? And then, if God questions you about this choice, what answer will you give Him? But there were others who had attained to such a high state of humanity that they could see beyond appearances: they knew that ‘Umar’s strictness was not a personal failing but a matter of faith. They knew that his God-fearing heart was the greatest surety of his remaining staunch on matters of faith. ‘Uthman ibn Affan pointed out that they should not look only at what was on the surface, but should also consider what lay beneath, for what was inside him far surpassed his exterior.

The man on the straight path develops the highest capacity for discernment. When the Quraysh heard the Prophet recite the Qur’an, they exclaimed: “This is the work of a poet!” They did not, of course, use the word poet in any derogatory sense; yet, even so, to God this conveyed only partial, not total faith (69:41). If they called it the work of a poet, it was merely to indicate their assessment of it as a literary achievement in which the teachings of the ancient Abrahamites were presented in a novel way. Interpreted as such, the Qur’an well deserves to be acknowledged as a literary masterpiece. The fact remains, however, that it ought rather to be regarded as the sole repository of Higher Truth and that it should be grasped in full faith.

Just one day before the entry into Mecca, when the Prophet asked Abu Sufyan to testify to the Islamic faith, the latter said, “By my parents, you are undoubtedly very forebearing, very tolerant, nobler and of higher derivation than others, yet I still have some qualms about your prophethood.” Later, the Prophet’s uncle Abbas apprised Abu Sufyan of the delicacy of the occasion, whereupon he recited the article of faith and became a Muslim. It had been easier for Abu Sufyan to acknowledge the Prophet’s nobility and perseverance than to concede that he was a genuine Prophet; even after his conversion, he had the psychological satisfaction that the difference between him and the Prophet was one of personal worth, and not that his ideas had been incorrect vis a vis the Prophet’s. No doubt the acceptance of moral worth is for easier than the recognition of another’s ideology.

(Al-Islam, pp.48-51)