In this chapter the learned scholar has invited our attention to some important subjects:

1. What is the reality of Nafs and Ruh? (Being and Spirit)

2. The creation of Ruh (Spirit) before the design of material structures.

3. The Survival of Spirits after the demise of bodies.

4. The pronouncement of Tawhid in the spiritual realm.

5. The repudiation of transmigration.

It Is Difficult To Find The Essence Of Nafs And Ruh

It was universally accepted that there were certain phrases, which, we used when we said about something within ourself, like, ‘this is my book’ or ‘this is my hand’, or ‘I have done my best’, or ‘this pen is mine’. The thing to which the words - my, mine, whose or I were applied to was called the Ruh (Spirit) and Nafs al-Natiqa (a being that could speak).

This being was the foundation of humanity. This being was the one on whom the legal sanctions were applied. This was the one that would be liable for punishment or reward. However, the nature or the essence of this Nafs and Ruh, always escaped the logic and philosophy of thinkers of all times.

This was why people were given an abstract answer when they posed this question to the Prophets. They knew that they did not hold the capability to understand its nature. This is the reason why Prophet Muhammad (S) replied to the query of a Jew, who asked him about the nature of spirit, in simple words. He said that the Spirit was one of the commandments of God.

The Qur’an had described this incident in these words:

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي

“They ask you (O, Prophet) about the Spirit; tell them that this is one of the commandments of My Lord” (17:85).

And then, God provided the reason for this short reply:

وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا

“… And you are not given aught of knowledge but a little [therefore you are unable to understand its nature]” (17:85).

This reply along with a statement of the Prophet (S) that, “Whoever, has understood the essence of his being has understood his Lord,” sheds some light on the complexity of this subject.

It has been suggested that just as it was difficult to comprehend the Essence of God, so it was impossible for us to appreciate the nature of the Nafs and that of the Spirit. Man had been awarded an inquisitive nature as proven by the rapid technological changes around us. His desire to unravel the secrets of nature compelled him to unravel the heavens in such a manner that some distant objects came within his reach. He was now daring to say that he had unwound the knot of creation. Yet, his knowledge of the spirit was negligible, and as usual he tended to deny its presence within the spectre of life.

Philosophers and parapsychologists have done some work to understand this phenomenon, but their difference was still no less than their initial counterparts. A summary of their differences has been presented below. Their basic difference was about the nature of Spirit. The second difference is on its Hudus wa Qudum (whether, it is a created being or it is eternal). They differed about whether it would die or live forever. It was not clear what would happen to it after death.1

Applicability Of The Meanings Of Ruh

Ruh belonged to the Arabic language and different meanings were applicable at different times. A few of these have been presented below.

In the Qur’an, God said:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا

“And thus, have We inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit of Our command [with our commandment, We have revealed the Qur’an on to you in this manner]” (42:52).

God has said about Ruh in the context of His revelations:

يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةَ بِالرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ عَلَىٰ مَن يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِه

“He sends down the angels with the inspiration by His commandment on whom He pleases of His servants” (16:2).

Regarding faith, it has been mentioned in the Qur’an:

وَأَيَّدَهُم بِرُوحٍ مِّنْهُ

“…God helped them with their faith…” (58:22).

It has been used in relation to the light of Faith (Iman):

Imam As-Sadiq (‘a) said: “Kharaja minhu Ruh il-Iman, “The light of faith has been withdrawn from them”2.

Ruh was used for Gabriel, when God said:

قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ

“Say (O Prophet), The Holy spirit (Gabriel) has revealed it from your Lord with the truth” (16:102).

Ruh was used to signify an angel, which was mightier than Gabriel and Michael.

تَنَزَّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ فِيهَا

“[During the night of Qadr] the Angels and Ruh descends to the earth…” (97:4).

It was used to imply blessings, when it was said

يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةَ بِالرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ

“God sends with His commands the Angels with blessings” (16:2).

It was applicable to Jesus, when it was said

وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ

“…and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him…” (4:171).

Four Important Statements On The Spirit

There were four important statements to bear in mind regarding the spirit. Firstly, a spirit was that state, which was created after an appropriate composition of its ingredients, had been attained. The Physicians of the East referred to this state as its Mizaj (Humour). Secondly, the spirit and the body were one and the same thing. In other words, spirit was another name for a body. Thirdly, the spirit was a sensitive essence that motivated a body. Lastly, its cessation from a body was called death. It then became free of the implications of the material ingredients of the body.

Spirit was a sensitive essence and it had a delicate electronic bulk that streamed continuously through the body like the flow of water in a rose flower, or oil in the seeds of a plant or the heat in a fire or the movement of electric charge in an electrical circuit. Its detachment from a body caused its (body’s) death.

The first statement belonged to Physicians and Hakims. The second account related to the views of Atheists, the third assertion was that of Eastern Philosophers, Theologians and majority of the Shi’a Scholars. Finally, the fourth affirmation was that of some Shi’a researchers and devoutly spiritual people.

Rebuttal Of The First Statement

Mizaj was variable in its nature. We could see that a person was in a higher state of energy on one day and on another, he was lethargic and lacking energy. This was due to the change in composition of the body ingredients. The spirit did not have such variations and its sensitivity remained the same. This suggested that spirit and the mizaj were two different things.

If Ruh and mizaj were the same entities, then their likes and dislikes should be the same. Often it has been noticed that spiritual demand was different from the humour (mizaj) of a person e.g. human disposition was that if he was standing at a height, he would like to come down, unlike the spirit, which always liked to ascend greater heights to elevate a person.

Similarly, mizaj sought tranquillity. Its composition was material oriented. So, a person moved when his spirit desired. A person who is suffering from Parkinson’s disease would experience tremors at physical level but his spirit would wish for composure and ease. Given that these requirements were diverse for the two aspects of human beings, then how could the two be considered to be a single entity?

In the present age, it was possible to practically show that a spirit’s nature was different from the material structure of a living being and its disposition. Therefore, the work of parapsychologists convinced many who rejected the concept, to accept the presence of a soul, and some were reverted to a belief in God.

Rebuttal Of The Second Statement

A human body was prone to change. Sometimes it would be strong and at other occasions it would be eroded by disease. However, the soul stayed constant in itself. This proved that the body and soul were two different entities.

Everyone referred to their body parts by identifying them with their soul and Nafs. They would say that these were my feet, my hands and my body. Evidently, the referee and the object that was being referred to were two different things. Thus, body and spirit could not be the one and the same thing under any circumstance.

All human beings were alike so far as the chemistry of their body was concerned. Yet there was something that differentiated between Tom, Dick and Harry. What was that thing, which made them different? It was called ‘ana’ in Arabic, ‘mun’ in Persian, ‘main’ in Urdu and ‘I’ in English. This was otherwise known as ‘Nafs al-natiqa’ or the soul.

It was clear that man was not in the same state when he was alive or was dead. He spoke, he felt and pondered when he was alive, but all of these faculties became redundant when he was dead. This showed that in life there was something extra to his body that was responsible for those functions, which was missing from his dead body. This was what is called Nafs al-natiqa or the spirit.

Reasoning For The Uniqueness Of Soul

Soul was independent of matter in its actions, and its exploits were to attain knowledge. Once it had acquired the knowledge of its essence, then it became totally independent of the body. It was therefore, natural to assume that soul was a unique and exclusive (lonely) entity.

If soul were a material being, it would then alter with the change in the state of the body. It has been seen however that body might become weak and reduced in size due to malnutrition, yet the soul would become stronger and stronger. This was witnessed particularly in people who went through intense spiritual exercise. After completing their sacred task for spiritual development, they would feel enhanced spiritually. The perceptive ability of thus weakened body would become increased and manifold. On the other hand, those who had lavish indulgence with food would appear to have inflated bodies but their spirit would find itself at its lowest point.

A material body drained out more and became exhausted as it worked harder. However, a spirit’s strength would improve with stern exercises. This again suggested that the basis of soul was totally different from that of a material body.

Matter on its own could not evaluate itself, because it was devoid of intuition. On the other hand, a soul was always aware of itself. This suggested that soul was a different entity in as to the matter.

Functions of a material being and its related tools were limited. Soul, however, possessed indefinite perceptions, so it was different from corporeal arrangements.

Removal Of A Perplexity

If we accepted spirit (soul) as mujarrad (exclusive), then certain Islamic Schools would object to this claim by saying that it was tantamount to committing shirk, because, according to them only God was Mujarrad (unique). By considering a soul to be mujarrad as well, a commonality was suggested to exist between God and the spirit. This was shirk. Thus, it was an extremely weak postulation due to several reasons.

Equating the soul with God impinged upon the non-permissible attributes (sifat al-salbia) of God. It was proven earlier that an equation in these attributes did not make the two entities similar, because if it were so then many different realities and natures would become one and the same thing.

To give an example, a donkey and a lion were two different species, and both of them had a common attribute that they were different from man i.e. they did not walk on two feet, or man had a superior intellect, which both the donkey and lion lacked. Thus, a lion and a donkey shared several common non-permissible attributes when compared to a third entity, yet nobody could claim that lion and a donkey were of the same species. They would always belong to two different categories. It was therefore, proven that a resemblance in non-permissible attributes of any two or more species did not demand that they should be classed into a single entity.

If we accepted the spirit to be mujarrad (unique), then it did not in any way constitute shirk, just because we have differed in the meaning of some other attributes that were common between God and His Creation - man, such as listening, hearing, knowledge and authority etc. We all agreed that the sense in which God was all Hearing, all Seeing and all Mighty, His creatures were not. Therefore, it was possible that in terms of exclusivity, any similarity between the two might be totally different in its essence. Therefore, resemblance of syntax shouldn’t lead it to shirk.

Summarily, we could not outrightly reject this third statement, however, the fourth statement about the souls was more convincing and acceptable

Fourth Statement: Soul Possessed A Delicate Light Like Body

Most of us have known that anything that could be addressed by - I, me, my or mine - was related to the attributes of a body. Just like when we said that - I am standing or I am going – it related to the function of the physical body. Therefore, everything that was connected to the features of a mass and volume must itself be matter.

Soul could sense a thing both as a whole and in its parts. For example, it could sense that fire was hot and water was cold, but this sense of hot and cold was only appreciated through the sensory mechanisms that were inherently material. Therefore, soul needed a body, however, delicate it might be.

The fourth statement was in line with the information that had reached us through the Qur’anic revelations and the statements (of the Prophet and the Imams), and all of those indicated that soul had some sort of corpuscular attachment that possessed a light like structure. It was mentioned in Ihtijaj al-Tabrasi, a tradition, on the authority of Hisham Ibn Hakam that Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a), while replying to a heretic, said, “Soul is a delicate body, which is enveloped by a thick carcass (our own structure).”

At another place, the same Imam has said, “Example of the soul of a believer is like that of jewels kept in a box, and when those jewels are removed, the box is then abandoned (as a waste).”

This tradition suggested that soul was contained within the body and not outside it, and it directed the body for its active duties.

These traditions related that souls were created almost two thousand cosmic years before the creation of its material form, and that the soul survived after the demise of the body. For example, it was said that the soul stayed close to its dead carcass and then it was either sent to Paradise or to Hell. Ahadith suggested that the characteristics of souls were reserved for corporeal things. Similarly, the Qur’anic Verses:

يَا أَيَّتُهَا النَّفْسُ الْمُطْمَئِنَّةُ

“O soul that art at rest!” (89:27).

ارْجِعِي إِلَىٰ رَبِّكِ رَاضِيَةً مَّرْضِيَّةً

“Return to your Lord, well-pleased (with him), well-pleasing (Him)” (89:28).

فَادْخُلِي فِي عِبَادِي

“So, enter among My servants” (89:29).

وَادْخُلِي جَنَّتِي

“And enter into My garden” (89:30).

Here, soul was directly addressed and was advised to enter the Paradise with the servants of God. Similarly, Verses that related to the captivity of spirits also suggested a three- dimensional (bodily) structure of the souls.

Anyhow, all of these reports suggested that spirit was not entirely mujjarad (singular) and it possessed some sort of delicate corpuscular structure. For this reason, many Orientalists, religious scholars and godly people showed their inclination to this definition of the soul. Allama Sayyid Murtaza ‘Ilm al-Hoda was an adherent of this postulate, and so was Allama Fakhruddin Razi, who mentioned this view in Tafsir al-Kabir. He said: “This religion (Islam) is very particular regarding spirit, and it is essential to ponder about it, because this account is very congruent with those statements that have been made for the conditions of life and death.”

Allama Al-Majlisi discussed this subject in great detail in the fourteenth volume of his Bihar Al-Anwar. He said: “After listening to various opinions of different groups, regarding the nature of soul, the reality would have dawned upon you that there is no real argument available that could suggest against the mujarrad and material features of the soul.”

On the other hand, the Qur’anic Verses and prophetic narrations, all proposed material facets of soul, although some of those are subject to interpretation. The arguments put forward by those who believed in the singularity of soul, were not very convincing, although there might be a slight hint in their favour. Therefore, the edicts of kufr that were posted on these people were totally out of place, especially, when a group of very learned Shi’a Ulamas (scholars) held this view.

On the other hand, the stringent belief of those who believed in the exclusivity of soul was also based on unconvincing arguments, especially when the apparent meanings of the Qur’anic Verses were against this approach. This was also an act of revulsion.

However, the reality was not free of two possibilities i.e. soul was either a delicately fine object that entered a body. It was taken captive by the Angels at the time of death. Thereafter it remained blessed or under a sentence in its original form, or had a virtual body during the period of Barzakh (time between death and the day of resurrection), as many of the narrations suggested. Or, it was left untouched until the day of resurrection.

There was nothing illogical about the view why God could not keep a refined object alive for a long time. This is particularly so as the Muslims believed in the same proposition regarding Angels and the Jinns. The sophisticated entity of soul could become manifest, by its Lord’s permission either in its original form or as a virtual image to some people. Or, it could stay out of sight. Or, this soul being mujarrad, would develop a relationship with a virtual body after its dissociation from its physical form. Thus, the activity of a liberated soul or its presence near the gullet, at the time of death were allegorical manifestations of the separation of a soul from a body. Instead of any real meaning, and the rules of a spirit in air form (a material soul) were symbolically placed on this Ruh al-mujarrad.

Allama Sayyid Naimatullah Jazairi writes in Al-Anwar An-Nu’maniyah, “In fairness we can say that the reality of soul is hidden from us. The majority of the scholars while, interpreting the meaning of the Prophet’s Hadith, “Min arafa nafsuha faqad arafa Rabbahu”, have said, that just as it was impossible to understand the Essence of God, so was gauging the perception of the nature of a spirit. However, what had been passed down to us from the heavenly scriptures and the sayings of the Prophet was close to the fourth postulate for the spirit i.e. a soul was an extremely refined entity that was in continuous presence all through the body and was not mujarrad.”

Allama Jazairi also wrote in Al-Anwar An-Nu’maniyah:

“It was known about Shaykh Al-Mufid that he was originally convinced of the singularity (mujarrad) of a soul, and then he repented to God and affirmed that reality had dawned upon him that no one other than the Lord was really singular or unique in its essence.”

In view of these facts, it had been now profusely clear that though the third postulation could not be all-together refuted, but the massive evidence favoured the fourth proposition.

Allama Sayyid Ali Khan wrote in the elucidation of Sahifa As-Sajjadiya, “Some of the later Ulama’s have expressed that whatever, they had learnt from the narrations of the Imams, the hard work of researchers and the efforts of the thinkers that a soul was a virtual body on the pattern of our corporeal carcass. It was not totally material (in composition) or a complete intellectual entity, but it was between these two extremes.”

Discussion On The Eternal Or The Probable Basis Of The Spirits

As the author of this book had pointed out towards this topic, the discussion on the subject would remain incomplete unless illuminated further. There has been a huge difference of opinion on the issue whether a soul was eternal or probable.

If it was probable, was it then created with or before the fashioning of the body? The Greeks and Hindus being the advocates of transmigration of soul, accepted soul to be eternal. However, Greek philosophers and scholars of other nations were unanimous that it was a created being, since no one other than God could claim eternity.

However, these philosophers differed about the time of its creation i.e. whether it was created with or before the advent of the body? Muslim thinkers accepted that it was created before the arrival of the body, though some equated its timing to when the cadaver was formed. Still there was no reason to discuss Hudus in relation to creation of a soul, because Muslims of all factions were unanimous on this issue. Hence mind could be focussed on its another facet.

Statement On The Creation Of The Spirit Before The Creation Of The Body

It must be appreciated that majority of Islamic sects believed in the creation of spirits before the creation of material objects. This belief was based upon the intellectual and logical arguments of the scholars and the Hadith of the Prophet, which stated, “God has created souls almost two thousand years (May be cosmic) before the advent of the bodies.”

One should remember that the word “bodies” that was quoted in the Hadith, referred to the construct of entire species and it could be justified by the creation of even one member of that species – like the creation of just Hazrat Adam alone. If the span of two thousand years were applied to each and every individual who was to appear on the Earth, then it would result in a time scale that could prevail over millions of years.

The reports that peg the time scale of creation of spirit, as two thousand years have been numerous, as suggested by Allama Nematullah Jazairi in his book Al-Anwar An-Nu’maniyah, and their authority was unquestionable. Allama Al-Majlisi collected some of these reports in the 14th volume of Bihar. We have quoted a few of those reports to enhance the faith of the believers.

It was reported that once a man went to Imam Ali (‘a) and expressed that by God he adored him a lot. Imam replied that by God he was not considering him (Imam Ali) as his friend. The man was upset and asked whether the Imam was telling him the state of his heart (feelings)? Imam replied that God had created spirits two thousand years before their physical frame and the spirits that had become friendly in the initial domain remained friends on earth as well, and those who remained aloof, failed to develop an attraction between each other upon arrival to their earthly lives, and he (Imam Ali) had not met that person him in the realm of spirits.

Many a time people asked various Imams about the state of their mind, when their family members or they went into depressive moods, without any apparent reasons. They received the same answer that some spirits were friendly with each other in their original domicile, therefore, when anyone of those believers was under the weather, the other soul felt concern and were disturbed about him.

A Brief Discussion On The Realm Of Dhurr And The Original Covenant With God

The acceptance of God’s Sovereignty and the Prophethood of Muhammad (S) along with the wilayat of Imams was the pillar of Islamic belief. This is well known as mentioned in the Qur’an:

وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَىٰ شَهِدْنَا أَنْ تَقُولُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَٰذَا غَافِلِينَ

“When your Lord drew forth from the loins of the children of Adam, their progeny, so that they might be witnesses on themselves and (asked them) - Am I not your Lord? They replied in affirmative - we do testify! This is because they may not say on the Day of Judgement that they were not aware” (7:172).

In the elucidation of this Verse, it was mentioned in Tafsir al-Safi that once God had extracted from Adam’s seed all his descendants - both male and female, He took a covenant from them on Him being their Lord and the Muhammad (S) being their Prophet. Some souls agreed to this, a few hesitated and a number of them declined.

Denial Of The Happening Of Dhurr And Primacy Of The Soul By Some Quarters And Their Rebuttal

It has been a matter of great concern that some of our grand Ulama including Shaykh Al-Mufid, Sayyid Murtaza ‘Ilm al-Hoda and Allama Tabrisi have categorically denied the primacy of the soul and the incidence of Dhurr. The word Dhurr was derived from Dhurriyat, which meant progeny. These scholars explained the narrations that had reached them in a far-fetched manner.

It was distressing in many ways when the basis of their rejection was examined. In their view, the acceptance of the primacy of spirits precipitated the acceptance of the ideology of transmigration of souls, which was a wrong concept. The reason for their denial of the happening of Dhurr was based upon the view that if such an incident had happened in the past, we would have some recollection of its occurrence, when in fact we were totally ignorant about it. This proved, according to them, that no such incident had ever happened. They also reinterpreted the Prophet’s Hadith that timed the creation of the spirits almost two thousand years before the advent of the human race by saying that the Arwah or Spirits were a metaphor for Angels who had been created two thousand years before the human beings.

So far as the other bit of the Qur’anic Verse, which spoke of a covenant with God was concerned, they said that in view of man’s notional creation and God’s absolute knowledge of everything, this Verse referred to His questioning them (in an intellectual environment), if He was not their Creator and they (humans) with their sublime nature, had replied in an affirmative that He was definitely their Lord.

Rejecting Imam’s Statements On The Pretext Of Complexity Is Contemptuous

The grand status of these Ulama had forced us to keep quiet. Otherwise, it was a bitter reality and a painful thing to say that such simple doubts could be used to deny or reinterpret the authentic proclamations of the Prophet and his progeny, without any reasonable logic. It was an act of transgression, when hefty affirmations of Imams were available on this subject. These proclaimed the sanctity of their statements in the following words, “Our statements are very complex and these can only be endured by the Angels, prophets or tried and trusted faithful.”

Usul al-Kafi devoted a chapter on this issue. In view of the complexity, our Imams had taught us a golden rule, which stated: “When our statements reach you and you understand their gist, then thank your Lord. Otherwise, return it to the people of understanding so that they might make you visualise the true meanings of those statements. Beware! Do not try to repudiate or deny those, because their denial is kufr.”

The cautious scholars always observed this stipulation that if they understood the gist of their assertion, they were pleased. Or else, a brief apparent view was sufficient for their satisfaction.

We would now refer to their objections and try to answer their disapproval of the concept of the primacy of spirits. Their initial doubt was that if the spirits were supposed to be present before the creation of human species, it was then tantamount to accepting the concept of transmigration of soul. This doubt had arisen due to a misperception of the idea of transmigration.

True Meaning Of Transmigration

The true meaning of transmigration, according to the philosophers was that human soul was transferred from one frame to another frame, in order to award punishment or reward. Therefore, a spirit that had been created earlier and then was infused into a subsequently created body was not transmigration by any standard of imagination.

The Real Reasons For Repudiating Transmigration

Though, transmigration of souls was logically possible, Islam disapproved of it for two reasons.

Firstly, it negated the concept of the Day of Judgement, because the followers of transmigration denied the rising up of the dead on a particular day. They satisfied the condition for punishment or reward being fulfilled by migration of souls between physical frames chosen in accordance to their deeds.

The author of the present text also provided the same reason for refuting transmigration in Chapter Eighteen of this book by saying, “Muslims advocate that souls were created beings (Hadith), and in another world they would join the bodies, whereas, the followers of transmigration considered souls to be eternal and offered their migration between different bodies within this world itself. Thus, they denied the concept of Paradise and Hell. This is why they are deemed as kafirs.

The second reason paved the way for the matter and soul both to be eternal, which resulted in the acceptance of the Universe to be perpetual as well. Therefore, Shaykh Bahauddin Ameli, said, “Our reasons for calling these people as kafir was not on the basis that they believed in moving of spirits from one frame to another, like the returning to the bodies (Ma’ad al-Jismani), which according to the majority of the Muslims was also a similar concept. Our rejection of their ideology and the reasons for their kufr was that they considered matter and spirits to be eternal and they said that spirits moved from body to body, and that the Day of Judgement had no meaning in their concept.

They also proclaimed that they were alive (today) and they would die (someday) and this process would be carried out by the time itself. God on the other hand has said that they follow conjectures and they had no solid reasons to prove their concept. It was evident that both of these concepts were against the spirit of Islam. This was the reason for their kufr, and that is why Islam had so strongly rejected this corrupt ideology.

It was also clear that the theory of the primacy of souls did not include any of these defects because according to the common traditions this time span was not more than two thousand years, and it would not have made any difference, if this time span was extended to millions of years, the spirit would still be considered Hadith (created), and not Qadeem (eternal). Also, this theory did not invoke the negation of the Day of Judgement.”

The explanation that Shaykh Al-Mufid provided in respect of the primacy of souls was at the best his personal opinion, unless strong evidence was provided in its support. It appeared that the great master was in immense confusion, and changed his goal post very often. This was a clear proof of his dissatisfaction. Allama Al-Majlisi viewed Shaykh’s explanation as a far-fetched thought.

The second doubt that had been projected by these great masters against the Hadith of Dhurr (pronounced on the scale of ‘Hur’) was that if this incidence had ever to with us, we would have some recollection of that moment. Allama Al-Majlisi answered this objection in Bihar Al-Anwar by saying, “To say that we must have some recollection of the incident, if it had ever happened with us, was unacceptable on the following grounds.

- There was a longer time lapse, which might have affected the memory

- The transition from a pure spiritual existence to the material life had lots of barriers such as fertilisation, embryo and foetus.

- There might have been some possible gains for us in forgetting this act.

- We have forgotten many important chapters of our near life, and so to forget an incident that took place several millennia ago is not something that could not be understood.”

Apart from Allama Al-Majlisi’s approach there were two other explanations.

Since, this incident took place with the pure spirit that was devoid of body, therefore, when it came into material confinements, it forgot the previous incidents due to this turbid environment. If someone wanted to remember his forgotten experience then they should ignore their material envelope and fuel their spiritual faith by sacred exercises, and then look for the forgotten incident.

This was the reason that past, present and future were equivalent in the sight of those who had treaded this route. They were familiar with, what was present and what was to come. No barriers could hide anything from them and they would remember the covenant of Dhurr.

Shaykh Abdul Wahab Sherani wrote in his book, “Imam Ali (‘a) used to say that he remembered that covenant which he made with his God. He could even recognise those men who were standing on his either side.”

A similar incident is quoted in Tafsir Al-Bayan. The second answer to this doubt was that - at most, this covenant was logically tedious to understand, but it could not become a reason for denying an established Qur’anic principle.

The third point of difference regarding the soul was an enquiry, i.e. whether a soul survived death and continued its existence or was it annihilated with the demise of the body. In case of the first postulate, a further question was posed as to know, if it could ever die.

One should know that atheists, who considered body and soul as the same entity, were of the opinion that soul was destroyed with the termination of body. However, those who considered Nafs as a delicate, light-like entity, believed that soul survived the experience of death and continued its existence.

Both Greek Philosophers and Islamic theologians were in agreement with this view, but their concepts were poles apart. Greek Philosophers, considered soul to be eternal, therefore, its demise was impossible. Muslim Theologians considered it to be prone to death, depending upon the will of God. Muslims also believe that a soul, either in its original form or in manifested its virtual body, lived on during the period of Barzakh, in a state of blessing or castigation, until the Day of Judgement.

Allama Al-Majlisi said, “Survival of souls after demise of their bodies had always been the concept of various philosophers and thinkers, other than a few who considered spirit as a disposition (mizaj), no other group had disputed this thought, and there was no value attached to their divergence.”

Shaykh Bahai had adopted this concept in his book - Arbaeen. He said: “And on the Day of Judgement God will return this soul, with His immense powers to its original body, where it will be evaluated and then it will be rewarded or punished. The proof of this thesis is that according to the Islamic philosophy, man has not been created in vain but he is bound by certain religious constraints, both theoretical and practical.

The Qur’an said that Jinns and humans were created for the worship of their Lord. Therefore, it was a demand of God’s justice that He should punish or reward them for the nonconformity or non-compliance with His commands, otherwise religious restrictions would be deemed senseless, which was logically incorrect.

Therefore, if we adopt a view that souls were destroyed with the death of the body, then above rational demand would be denied. God, however, does not oppose a logical claim. Therefore, we have to accept that soul was not annihilated with the demise of its body, but would remain alive to pay for its deeds.

Punishment could be awarded in two ways – one, by transmigration and the other, through evaluation on the Day of Judgment. As transmigration was proven to be wrong therefore, souls had to survive till the Day of Judgement.”

Prophet’s famous Hadith that humanity had been created for survival and not for annihilation, was a document to support this theory. The author of this book had used this hadith to support the concept. Shaykh Al-Mufid subjected this to an unfair criticism, by saying:

“Whatever Shaykh As-Saduq has reiterated is the view of many faithless heretics and atheists, who say that soul is beyond destruction and death is only for the body. This is very corrupt concept and it is far removed from any correct interpretation.”

However, we were once again unable to support Shaykh Al-Mufid’s point of view, because this view, under no circumstances aids and abates atheistic ideas. The purpose of this Hadith was to remind people that they were not created to live lavishly for a few years and then be completely wiped out forever, without having to answer for any of the deed that they had performed. This idea was similar to atheistic approach that had been mentioned in the Qur’an:

وَقَالُوا مَا هِيَ إِلَّا حَيَاتُنَا الدُّنْيَا نَمُوتُ وَنَحْيَا وَمَا يُهْلِكُنَا إِلَّا الدَّهْرُ

“And they say: There is nothing but our life in this world; we live and die and nothing destroys us but time....” (45:24).

In other words, they denied the existence of a Creator and the associated charter that was advanced through religion. This Hadith served as an important link in this chain. If this were not the case then there would be no disparity left between a man and a donkey. That is why the meaning of this tradition was to remind people that their spirits were not destroyed but those were returned to another domain, where they would be rewarded according to their deeds.

The Philosophers argued that spirits were indestructible. Shaykh As-Saduq and other Muslim scholars however also did say that spirits would not be destroyed but they did not proclaim that they could not be destroyed. God, in His wisdom was fully capable of destroying them. However, if their destruction did not serve any purpose, then those would not be destroyed. This point of view was miles apart from that of the philosophers.

Allama Al-Majlisi said that in Barzakh, the punishment or reward was reserved for the spirits either in their pure self or while they were kept within a virtual body.

Last Word About The Classification Of The Spirits

It should not remain hidden from our readers that the spirit, we have so far talked about, belonged to human beings. There was one in each person and then those were further subdivided. These subdivisions that were mentioned in the Ahadith, were actually various faculties within human form that were metaphorically referred to as spirits.

It was also important to know that in this world the spirit of each species was different from that of the other. For example - human beings, rabbits and mice shared many aspects with each other, that is they possessed a body or they were alive. However, an individual human would not belong to the family of a horse, nor would a donkey belong to the human species. Therefore, we must ponder, as to what was that special thing which made man as a man, and a donkey as a donkey.

If we explored this question deeply, we would find that the spirits of each species were made different from each other. This influenced their food, their habitat and their style of living. If one tried to alter this balance, it would bring destruction.

Some States Of A Spirit

Different states of a Spirit have been mentioned in the Ahadith. It was related from Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) that there were six states of a spirit, viz. health, disease, life, death, sleep, awakening, doubt and faith.

Its sleep was forgetfulness, and awakening was remembrance. Therefore, a wise person was the one who cared about these states and protected his self from those states, which caused damage to the spirit.

Addition

The presence of Ruh Al-Qudus did not change the species of the Prophets and Imams, just as spirit of faith did not alter the genus of a believer.

• 1. Note from the Author: Allama Shaykh Al-Mufid has rigorously criticised the author of this book. I therefore, attempted to tackle those issues with God’s help. It would be injustice on my part if I did not acknowledge the help of dozens of books that I consulted during this work, including, Bihar ul Anwar, Al-Anwar An-Nu’maniyah and Risala al-Abtal al-Tanasukh etc.
• 2. Al-Hidayah, Shaykh as-Saduq, p.189.