Shafaqna English- A selection from the translated Nahjul-Balaghah with commentary by Martyr Ayatollah Murtaza Mutahhari and edited by Yasin T. Al-Jibouri.
Another ingredient of Zuhd is love of freedom and independence. The union between Zuhd and freedom is as primordial as it is indissoluble.
The dictates of need and exigency are the criteria of opportunists, whereas independence from want is characteristic of free men. The deepest aspiration of the free men unattached to the world is nonencumbrance, buoyancy, absence of hindrance and freedom of movement.
As a result, they adopt Zuhd and contentment so as to reduce their wants to a minimum, thus liberating themselves from the bondage of need for things and persons.
The life of a human being, like that of any other [rational] animal, requires a series of natural and indispensable necessities like air, shelter, food, water and clothing. Man cannot free himself entirely from attachment to such needs and other things such as light and heat so as to make himself, in philosophical terminology, “self-sustaining”(Muktafi Bidhatih).
However, there are series of other wants which are not necessary and natural but are imposed upon one in the course of one’s life either by oneself or by social and historical factors beyond his control, which nevertheless set limits upon his freedom. Such constraints are not very dangerous as long as they are not transformed into inner needs, such as certain political constraints and compulsions. The most dangerous of compulsions are those which emerge as inner needs from within one’s own self to shackle him.
The mechanism of these needs which lead to inner weakness, impotence and defeat, operates in such a way that when one turns to luxuries and comforts in order to add charm, delight and glamour to one’s life so as to feel more secure and strong in order to derive a greater gratification from life, one is impelled to possess more and more things.
In the course of time, one gets gradually accustomed to and engrossed in the means of comfort, luxury and power. These habits gradually result in a deeper attachment to and love for those things, and he is bound to them with invisible bonds, thus becoming helpless and impotent in front of them. That is, the same thing which had once added charm and delight to his life later deprives his personality of its vigor, and the same thing which once made him feel powerful against nature now turns him into a helpless slave without a will of his own.
Man’s inclination towards Zuhd is rooted in his love of freedom. By nature, he is disposed toward possession of things and their exploitation. But when he realizes that the things, to the very extent they make him outwardly powerful and successful, inwardly transform him into a weakling without a will-power and a slave, he rebels against this slavery. This rebellion of man is what we call Zuhd.
Our poets and sages have spoken a lot about freedom and liberation. Hafiz calls himself “the slave of the magnanimity of the One Who is free of everything under the blue sky that carries any taint of attachment.” Among the trees, he admires the cypress which to him seems free of all woes. What those great men meant by “freedom is freedom from attachment, freedom from being possessed, bewitched, and captivated by anything.”
But freedom implies something greater than being devoid of attachments. The ties which make a man weak, helpless, dependent and impotent are not only those which originate in the heart or emotional attachments; to these must be added the various bodily, physical and psychological conditioning and artificial appendages that are first acquired for adding charm and glory to life and for the satisfaction of the lust for power and dominance, later growing into a form of addiction or rather becoming a second nature.
These, while they may not involve one’s emotional attachments or may even be regarded by one as reprehensible, should be counted as even stronger means of human servitude: They may bring an even greater degradation than emotional attachments do.
Take the example of an enlightened arif with a heart free of worldly attachments. For him, an addiction to tea, tobacco or opium has become a second nature. For him, abstention from foods to which he is accustomed may endanger his life. Can such a man lead a carefree life?
Liberty from attachments is a necessary condition of freedom, but it is not sufficient in itself. Getting used to a minimum amount of the niceties of life, an abstention from affluent living, is another condition of freedom.
The first thing to strike Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri, one of the honored Companions, when describing the station of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), is the following: “The Prophet of Allah (SWT) was able to manage with the minimum necessities of life.”
Is it a merit to be able to do with a minimum amount of means? If we take only the economic aspect into view, we should say that the Prophet’s (PBUH) level of consumption was quite low. In this respect, therefore, the answer would be: “No, not at all; it is not a significant merit. But if viewed from a spiritual viewpoint, that is, when examined according to the criterion of one being free from the worldly bondage.
We have to admit that it is a great merit indeed because it is only by acquisition of this merit that a human being can live with any measure of unfettered freedom and unimpeded mobility and participate in the incessant struggle
of life with agility and vigor.
This matter is not restricted to habits involving the individual; binding one’s self to social habits and customs, to modes and manners of dealing with people, the mesh of social connections and gatherings, adherence to styles and fashions in dress and demeanor… these and the like encumber life and deprive it of dynamism Freedom of movement in the arena of life is like swimming:
The lesser the interference and incumbrance for the swimmer, the greater is his ability to move around in the water. Too many attachments will not only deprive him of his mobility but bring him closer to the danger of drowning. Athir Al-Din Akhsikati (d. 577 or 579/1181 or 1183) says the following: To cross the river of life, shed your robes; Nakedness is a condition of keeping afloat.
Farrukhi Yazdi says the following.
Of nakedness the sage does not complain,
A sword of good steel would not rust without a sheath.
Baba Tahir has a Rubai which, though intended for some other purpose, is nevertheless relevant here:
O’ heart! Thy path is better when covered with thorns;
Your track is better when stretched on heavens high;
Nay! If thou can strip the skin off thine flesh,
Do it, for the lighter thy burden the better it be.
Sa`di, too, relates a relevant fable in Chapter 7 of his Gulistan, although it also aims at some other purpose:
“I saw a rich man’s son squatting by the side of his father’s grave and bragging thus before the son of a darwish son: ‘My father’s tomb is constructed of rare stones.
Inside, it is paved with marble with inlaid turquoise. And look at your father’s! An unbaked brick or two was/were fetched on which a handful of earth was thrown!’
“The sage’s son heard these remarks and replied: ‘Yet before your father is able to budge under the pile of those stones, my father would have already reached Paradise!’”
These are allegories underlining the significance of lightness and freedom from bondage, the essential condition for dynamism, nobility and nimbleness. Leaps, movements and struggles were achieved by individuals who were practically freer of bondage and attachments, that is, in some sense, they were Zahids.
Gandhi, with his ascetic mode of life, brought the British imperialism to its knees. In the words of Ya`qub Layth Saffar, Ghandi Adid not set aside his diet of bread and onions till he became a terror for the caliph.
In our own times, the Vietcong fighterss were such an example. Their surprising power of resistance was drawn from what in Islamic idioms has been called “Alightness of provisions.”A Vietcong fighter could sustain himself for days in his shelter with a handful of rice and continue his battle against the enemy.
Which leader, religious or political, living in luxury and comfort has brought about drastic upheavals in world history? Which monarch who, having founded a dynasty, transferred power from another family to his own, has been a lover of luxuries and comforts?
Ali ibn Abu Talib (AS) was the most free of all the world’s free men. He was a free man in the complete sense of the word because he was a Zahid in the most profound sense of the word. Ali (AS), in Nahjul Balaghah, lays great emphasis on renunciation of worldly pleasures and comforts as a means of liberation. In one of the Hikam (aphorisms), he says the following: “Greed is everlasting slavery.”
In one of his sermons, he describes the Zuhd of Jesus (AS), the son of Mary (SA), in these words: “He was free of any abasing greed.“ In another place he says the following: “The world is a place of transit, not a place of abode. Its people fall into two categories: those who sell away their souls into slavery and those who ransom their souls and liberate them.”
In a letter to Othman ibn Hunayf, Ali (AS) is more explicit than elsewhere. Towards the end of the letter, addressing the world and its pleasures, he reveals to us the philosophy of Zuhd and the secrets of renunciation thus: “O’ world! Get away from me! I have thrown your reins on your shoulders, have freed myself from your claws and released myself from your snares.
Go, get away! By Allah (SWT), I shall not surrender to you so that you should abase me! I shall not follow you tractably so that you may control me and lead me wherever you please.”
Yes. Ali’s (AS) Zuhd is a rebellion against abasement and indignity on account of life’s pleasures. It is a rebellion against human weaknesses and impotence before the tyranny of desires. It is a defiance of servitude to the world and obsequiousness before its charms.
Part of a series: Nahjul-Balaghah with Commentary by Martyr Ayatollah Murtaza Mutahhari
Sympathy and Kindness