Before passing on the arguments for the existence of man’s free will, we should point out:

Most of the Western orientalists accuse Islam of being fatalistic. Whereas, except a small sect-Jabriya-no one in the history of Islam has defended fatalism. Almost all the Western philosophies of history are, by contrast, based on the irresistibility of what they call historical laws and therefore fatalistic. The outlines of those philosophies of history may be summed up as follows:

a. Mankind is in a continuous progress towards the final happy end.

b. This progress depends on the fatalistic, irresistible laws of history which are completely independent of man, so a man must, in any case, obey these laws, otherwise he is certain to be eliminated.

c. All the stages, primitive, feudal or capitalistic, through which mankind inevitably pass in the course of time to the final happy end should not be criticized, because mankind have nothing to do other than passing through them.

What is implied concerning the political conditions of time by all such philosophies of history may be this: The present socio-economic and even the political conditions of the world are inevitable, because they were dictated by nature, which decrees that only the able and the powerful can survive. If the laws of history dictated by nature are in favour of the West, the communities that choose to survive must concede to the dominion of the West.

What distinguishes the Qur’anic concept of history from other philosophies is that, first of all, while philosophers of history or sociologists build their conceptions on the interpretation of past events and present situations, the Qur’an deals with the matter from the perspective of unchanging principles. Second, contrary to the fatalism of all other philosophies, the Qur’an lays great emphasis on the free choice and moral conduct of the individual. Although Divine Will, emphasized by the Qur’an, could be regarded as, in some respects, the counterpart of the ‘Geist’ in the Hegelian philosophy and of absolute, irresistible laws of history in other philosophies, the Qur’an never denies human free will. God, according to the Qur’an, tests man in this life so that man himself should sow the ‘field’ of the world to harvest in the next life, which is eternal. For this reason, the stream of events-successes and failures, victories and defeats, prosperity and decay-all are the occasions which God causes to follow one another for mankind, to the end that the good may be distinguished from the evil. Testing must evidently require that the one who is tested should possess free will to prefer between what is lawful and unlawful or what is good and bad. Thus, according to the Qur’an, what makes history is not a compelling Divine Will, rather it is man’s own choice, the operation of which God Almighty has made a simple condition for the coming into effect of His universal will. If this point is understood well enough, then it will be easy to see how groundless are the Western philosophies of history especially with respect to their conception of ‘inevitable end’.

After these preliminary notes, we can discuss the existence of man’s free will:

a. A man feels remorse when he commits something wrong. He begs God’s forgiveness for his sins. If he troubles someone or does someone harm, he begs that person to excuse him. All this shows that man does on his own whatever he does or he himself decides to do something and how to do it. If he had no free will to exercise in doing the actions he does and were compelled to do them by a superior power, why should he become remorseful and beg forgiveness if he has done something wrong or committed a sin?

b. Obviously enough, we choose to move our hands or say something or stand up to go somewhere. We see that there is nothing, no fetters around our necks, to compel us to do or not to do something. We feel free to, for example, read a useful book in our leisure time to sit and watch TV. Nothing or no one makes us pray to God or not by force. None of us move by a remote control in the hands of an invisible superior power.

c. We hesitate, reason, make comparisons, judge the circumstances, choose and decide before doing something. For example, when two of our friends invite us to different places or suggest doing different things, before deciding, we hesitate, make comparisons and finally come to a decision. Likewise, perhaps a hundred times a day, we act in the same way, that is, we think, hesitate, judge the circumstances, make comparisons and then decide, in the face of the opposed appeals of good and evil within us.

d. When we are wronged, we sometimes go to a court and bring suit against him who has wronged us. Neither we nor the court ascribe the wrong done to us to a compelling superior power like Destiny, nor does the one accused attempt to excuse himself by blaming that power The virtuous and wicked, those who are promoted to high ranks in social life and those who waste their time idly, those who are rewarded for their good acts or successes and those who are punished for their crimes-all this shows that everyone acts of his free will, under no compulsion.

e. Only the insane are not held responsible for their acts. Reason and other mental faculties with which man is endowed require that man should be free in his decisions and acts, and actually show that he is so. Without free will, neither human reason nor other faculties have a meaning.

f. Animals have no will power. They act under the guidance of God, which materialistic science calls instinct. For example, a bee always builds hexagonal hives. Since it has no will power to decide on the form of its hives, it never attempts to make, for example, a nest or a triangular hive. However, human beings decide between many alternatives before doing or building something. Also, we are free to change our minds. It usually occurs that we make changes in our decisions in the face of emergencies or new, better proposals. This is also indicative of man’s will power.

The nature of man’s free will

Man’s free will is not something visible like the parts of the body. Nor does it have a material existence. However, that something has no visible, material existence does not mean it does not exist. Everyone has two eyes but we can also see with a third eye we have. We see with our two eyes the things in the external, material world. As for the third eye we have, we see the things beyond events and the physical world with it. The free will is like the third eye of ours, which you may call insight. It is an inclination or an inner force by which man prefers and decides.

Man will and God creates. The project or a plan of a building has no value or use unless you start to construct the building according to it. Actually, it is the building which is visible and serves many purposes for man. However, that building has been built according to its plan. Man’s free will is, in a sense, like that plan, according to which man decides and acts and God creates man’s actions. Creation and acting or doing something are different things. God’s creation means that God gives actual existence to man’s choices and actions in the physical world. Without God’s creation, man cannot do anything.

We can explain the role of man’s free will and actions and God’s guidance and creation by means of an analogy:

In order to illuminate a huge, magnificent palace, we must install in it a lighting system. However, after we have installed the lighting system, the illumination of the palace will still require that we should touch the switch and turn on the lights. Unless we touch the switch, the lights will not be turned on and the palace will still remain in darkness despite the lighting system. In a like way, man is a magnificent palace of God, which is illuminated by belief in God. God has supplied him with the necessary lighting system: He has given him intellect, the powers of reasoning and sensing, and the faculties of learning, making comparisons and preferences between opposite things. Nature and events and also the Divinely revealed religion are like the source of the electricity with which this Divine palace-man-will be illuminated. Nevertheless, man’s illumination with belief requires that he should use his free will and touch the switch. Man’s touching the switch means petitioning God to illuminate him with belief. In a manner befitting a slave at the door of his lord, man must petition the Lord of the Universe to illuminate him and make him thereby a king’ in the universe. When he does so, the Lord of the Universe will behave towards him in a way befitting Himself and promote him to the rank of kingship over the other realms of creation.

In His treatment of man and His acts with respect to man, God takes man’s free choice into account and regards it as the cause for creating man’s deeds. That is, man is not, as some assert, a victim of Destiny or one wronged by Fate. However insignificant it seems, and in comparison with God’s creative acts it is insignificant, man’s free will is the cause of his deeds. God’s way of acting is that He makes huge bodies out of things as small as minutest particles and makes simple means for creating many important results. For example, he makes a huge pine tree out of a tiny seed and makes man’s inclinations or free choice in eternal happiness or punishment in the eternal world.

In order to understand better the part of man, including his will power, in his acts or accomplishments, it is enough to consider his part in the food with which he is fed. Without earth, water, air and the heat of the sun, even a particle of which the whole of humankind are unable to produce or create despite their vast technology, man cannot procure even a single morsel of his food. In addition, the whole of humankind are also unable to produce a single seed of corn. Also, it is not man himself who endows himself with intellect and other mental faculties and power to produce corn. Furthermore, it is not, again, man himself who has created his body and established the relation between it and the food. With all its parts and organs and cells, the body operates not under the control or supervision of man himself. Have you ever thought that if a man had to set his heart like a clock at a fixed time every morning, how long he could continue his life? Obviously, almost all the parts of the universe, which is, like a most developed organism, so complicated, yet so harmonious, a system, cooperate with one another according to the most delicate measures in order that a single morsel of food can be produced. So, in fact, a single morsel is almost the same price as the whole of the universe, which the whole of mankind are unable to pay, and man’s part in the production of that morsel is utterly negligible: it consists of the effort he exerts.

Is it possible for us to give enough thanks to God for even a morsel of food? If only the picture of a bunch of grapes had been shown to us, could the whole of mankind produce it, even if they worked in close cooperation? Whereas God nourishes us with all those bounties of His for nothing and in return demands from us almost nothing. If, for example, He had stipulated that we should perform a thosunad rak‘ahs(units) of prayer in return for a bushel of wheat, in order to survive, we would have been obliged to do that. If, again, He had sent a single drop of rain in return for a rak‘ah of prayer, then we would have been doing nothing but spend all of our lives praying. Supposing you are left in the scorching heat in the middle of a desert, would you not give whatever you had for a single glass of water?

How can we pay the thanks for each limb of our body? When we see the ill and crippled in hospitals or when we are ill, we can understand how valuable health is, and how can we pay the thanks due for our health? The worship which God Almighty orders us to do is, in fact, for our benefit, for our spiritual refinement and a good personal and collective life. Furthermore, if we believe in and worship God, He will reward us with infinite happiness and bounties in an external world, in Paradise.

In sum, we see that almost everything we have is given to us for nothing, our part in the bounties we enjoy in the world is quite negligible. Like this, the will power we have is equally negligible when compared to the consequences which God Almighty creates as a result of our use of it. However weak it is and however difficult it is to understand its true nature, God creates our actions according to the choices and decisions which we make through our will power.

The relation between Divine Destiny and man’s free will

In human history, people have suffered difficulties to distinguish or reconcile Divine Will and human free will. Some have gone so far as to deny man a free will to act and determine his life, while others have attributed to man himself even the creation of his deeds, completely ignoring the role of Destiny in his life. However, Islam is a middle way; as it is in every other issue, what is right in the matter of the relation between Destiny and man’s free will is also following the middle way. That is, Divine Destiny dominates over the whole of existence, including the human realm, while man obviously has a free will by using which he directs his life. In three succeeding verses coming at the and of sura al-Takwir, the Qur’an expresses the true nature of relation between Destiny and man’s free will: This (the Qur’an) is not but a reminder onto the worlds, onto whoever among you wills to walk straight. You do not will, unless God wills, the Lord of the Worlds. (al-Takwir, 27-9) These verses attribute absolute will to God Almighty but does not exclude man from having a will power to exercise in directing or designing his life. In another verse (al-Saffat, 37.96) the Qur’an declares that it is God Who creates us and whatever we do and therefore ascribes creation to God exclusively. In other verses such as Fulfil (your part of) the covenant so that I fulfil (my part of) the covenant (al-Baqara, 2.40), if you help God(‘s religion), He will help you and will make your foothold firm (Muhammad, 47.7), and God changes not the condition of a people unless they change what is in their hearts (al-Ra’d, 13.11), it speaks about a contract or covenant between God and man, openly declares that it is man himself who directs history. Except for the human realm and jinn, who have free will and therefore are accountable for their acts, Divine Destiny is the single absolutely and exclusively dominant factor in existence. In order to reconcile Destiny and man’s free will, the following explanations may be worth consideration: a. Destiny is a title for Divine Knowledge. As explained before, God’s Knowledge comprehends everything within and beyond time and space. If you know beforehand that a certain thing will happen at a certain future time and that things happens at exactly the time you predicted, it does not mean that that thing’s happening was caused by your knowledge beforehand that it would happen. Since every thing and every event in the universe is comprehended in God’s Knowledge, He has written such a thing will happen at such a time and a place, and it does. Although there is not the slightest difference between what God has written for a man and what that man does, this is not because God’s having written it forces man to do it, rather it is because man willed to do that and did it. Consider this example: a train is traveling between Istanbul and Ankara, at a certain speed according to the characteristics of its manufacture and the conditions of the railway, and Istanbul is at a known distance from Ankara.

Also, there are a certain number of stations along the way, at each of which the train stops for a certain time. Taking all these matters into consideration, a time-table is written in advance. The time-table’s being prepared in advance is not the cause of the train’s traveling. Again, the time and duration of such heavenly events as the solar and lunar eclipses are known and written down beforehand through astronomical calculations. This does not mean that the sun or the moon is eclipsed at that certain time because astronomers knew it beforehand and recorded. The truth is exactly reverse: since astronomers knew beforehand when the sun or the moon would be eclipsed, they recorded it. There is the same relation between Destiny and man’s free will. b. Man’s free will is not something excluded from Destiny; rather, Destiny includes man’s free will. For example, one asks you whether the clock in the next room is working or not. You hear its sound and answer that it is working. The one who asks you about the clock will not need to ask you whether the hands of the clock are moving. Because the working of the clock means that the wheel of the clock is working and its hand are moving. In an analogous way, Destiny and man’s free will are not independent of each other.

As regards Destiny, man is neither a dried leaf blown by the wind, nor is he completely independent from Destiny. As Islam follows the middle way in every issue—for example, it allows neither debauchery nor intolerable self-denial, or it neither advises celibacy nor allows illicit intercourses, and so on—it has also established the right way in the issue of Destiny and man’s free will. In other words, Islam has explained the true relation between Destiny and man’s free will. According to its explanation, wills and does a thing, and God creates it. c. Cause and effect are not separable in the view of Destiny. That is, it is destined that this cause will produce that effect. But, from there it cannot be argued that, for example, shooting a man dead should not be regarded as a crime because the dead man was destined to die at this time anyway so he would have died even if he had not been shot. Such an argument is baseless since that man is actually destined to die as a result of being shot. The argument that he would have died even he had not been shot mean that he died without a cause, and in this case we should not be able to explain how he died. It should be remembered that there are not two kinds of Destiny—one for the cause, and the other for the effect. Destiny is one. d. People tend to, excluding themselves from the passage of time, imagine a limit for past time which extends through a certain chain of things, and they call it ‘azel’—past eternity. But to reason according to such an imagination is not right and acceptable.

For better understanding of this subtle point, the following example may help: Imagine that you are standing with a mirror in your hand, that everything reflected on the right represents the past, while everything reflected on the left represents the future. The mirror can reflect one direction only since it cannot show both sides at the same time as you are holding it. If you wish to reflect both directions at the same time, it would be necessary to rise high above your original position so that left and right directions are united into one and nothing remains to be called first or last, beginning or end. As already mentioned, Divine Destiny is in some respects identical with Divine Knowledge. It is described in a Prophetic saying as containing all times and events in a single point, where first and last, beginning and end, what has happened and what will happen, are all united into one. And we are not excluded from it so that our understanding of time and events could be like a mirror to the space of the past. e. Man cannot be the creator of his actions. For if he were the creator of his own actions, then he would himself be the ultimate cause of them, and his will would be cancelled. Since, according to logic, if a thing is not necessary, it will not exist. That means for something to come into existence there has to be a real complete cause, but a complete cause makes the existence of something compulsory so there will be no room for choice. f. Although man’s free will is too inefficient to cause something to happen, Almighty God has made its operation a simple condition for the coming into effect of His universal Will. He guides man in whatever direction man wishes by the use of his free will so that man remains responsible for the consequences of his choice.

As an example, if you were to take a child upon your shoulders, and then leave him free to decide where he would like to go and he elected for you to take him up a high mountain, and in consequence he caught cold, he would have no right to blame you for that. Indeed, you might even punish him because he wanted to go up the mountain. In like manner, Almighty God, the Most Just of judges, never coerces His servants into doing something, and He has accordingly made His Will somewhat dependent on man’s free-will. We may summarize the discussion so far in five points: ^1234567

It is true that almost all of the nineteenth century Western philosophical theories were based on the idea of ‘progress’ and ‘evolution’. As everyone knows, the roots of the Darwinian theory of evolution lie in the theory of Malthus, an eighteenth century Anglican priest, who was interested in the influence of demographic factors on economics. According to his theory, only those who are able to produce have a right to survive, while the others-the poor, the sick, the disabled, who are not able to produce-are condemned by nature to be eliminated. Having much appreciated this socio-economic theory of Malthus, Darwin put forward, as a scientific theory, that selection is an overall law encompassing the whole of nature, according to which only the powerful can survive; the weak are cleared away in the course of time. Maurice Bucaille, a contemporary French scientist, says that he has not been able to find, in the work of Darwin, a single scientific proof although Darwin made plenty of observations to support his theory, and that his is more of a philosophical, not scientific, theory. If, then, some socio-economic worries lie in a ‘scientific’ theory, one which has shaken the circles of science for the last two centuries and been used as a ‘weapon’ against religion, why should it be unfair to seek a political purpose behind some philosophical ones?

It may well be asserted, albeit difficult to affirm in a brief article intended for a magazine, that the Western philosophies of history, especially those put forward in the nineteenth century, had some political intentions and functioned as an ideal precept for the nineteenth century Western imperialism. Almost all of these philosophies suggested that mankind were in an irreversible flow towards good and nothing could stop this flow. This was an assertion of continuously forward movement of progress. The sociology of Spencer, for instance, is a continuation of the theory of Darwin. According to Auguste Comte, mankind had already passed the stages of metaphysics and religion, and reached the last and happiest age of progress by entering the stage of science. We can find the same notion of progress in the historical philosophies of Herder, Fichte, Hegel and Karl Marx.

Hegel’s philosophy of history can be defined, according to Abdu-Hamid Siddiqi, as a composition of conflicts and contradictions. As a matter of fact, Hegel holds that each period in the history of social civilisation represents an independent unity. This unity, which is thoroughly of its own, gives rise to it antithesis over time, resulting in a thesis-antithesis conflict. After a while, the sides agree on a ‘synthesis’, which finally ends in a new conflict of thesis and antithesis. As a result of this conflict, a new thesis is brought about which encompasses both its thesis and antithesis. This tripartite system causes ‘thoughts’ to progress, until it attains to the ‘Geist’.

The ‘Geist’ is, in the philosophy of Hegel, who appeared to be under the influence of the Indian philosophies, a spirit-the universal spirit-which manifests itself through concrete events. Each event, together with the philosophy accompanied to it, is a stage in the evolutionary course of this spirit, and because of this no philosophy is not to be criticised as being wrong. Every event is planned by an absolute, determining will, and all of the desires, inclinations, efforts and conflicts are the means which the Geist employs in self-realization. Everything in the world, therefore, happens irrespective or independently of man’s free will and man is nothing more than a plaything of an all-powerful will. That being so, only those who can perceive the demands of this will or, more clearly, the course of events, and act accordingly are the heroes of their time to be absolutely obeyed.

His theory mostly based on the atheism of Feurbach, the evolutionist theory of Darwin and the dialectics of Hegel, Karl Marx, in his own words, stood up the Hegelian man who stands on his head, upright on his feet. (To this, an Egyptian Muslim thinker responds: ‘Is man really a being who ‘walks on his head’) According to Marx-in all his views whether philosophical or historical, sociological or economic-man is a being ‘walking on his feet’, that is, whose mind is directed, commanded by his ‘feet’.

Marx maintains that man is an outcome of the legal relationships between himself and the tools of production that he must originally have found present in nature and then developed in the course of history. What we call ‘human thought’ is the reflection in his mind of the relations between himself and his material, economic life and the tools of production he uses. For this reason, the only true knowledge is, according to Marx, that which will come out in human mind when the legal relationships between man and the tools of production are established in a communist system according to the principles of communism. We can rightfully conclude from this argument that all the Marxist theories are substantially false because Marx himself conceived them all in a capitalistic system. Again, to Marx, all the human life or history on the earth consists of the conflicts between individuals, classes and peoples for the economic reasons. This conflict, which is inevitable, after passing through the primitive feudal and capitalistic stages, is certain to result in communism. For this reason, all these stages are not to be criticised.

As to historicism, which was once quite widespread, because sociological laws vary according to time and place, we cannot find a long, stable period in human history by which we can come to long term general rules. History never repeats itself at the same level. We cannot make true predictions about ‘tomorrow’ since the relationships between events are very complex. This is truly so, but, in historicism, activity has a great importance, although what we conceive of is impossible to realise unless they are in conformity with the main course of history. This main course, however, depends on certain blind and irresistible laws. So, only when man acts in accordance with these independent laws and the urgent, inevitable changes they impose, man means to have acted reasonably. What falls to man, then, is to give a hand to the changes or attempts that he is expected to accept because it is completely unreasonable to desire to give a better shape to the world.

To sum up, we can list the outlines of the philosophies of history summarized above, as follows;

a. Mankind is in a continuous progress towards the final happy end.

b. This progress depends on the fatalistic, irresistible laws of history which are completely independent of man, so a man must, in any case, obey these laws, otherwise he is certain to be eliminated.

c. All the stages, primitive, feudal or capitalistic, through which mankind inevitably pass in the course of time to the final happy end should not be criticised, because mankind have nothing to do other than passing through them.

What is implied concerning the political conditions of time by all such philosophies of history may be this: The present socio-economic and even the political conditions of the world are inevitable, because they were dictated by nature, which decrees that only the able and the powerful can survive. If the laws of history dictated by nature are in favour of the west, the communities that choose to survive must concede to the dominion of the West.

Is it ever possible to approve this while we clearly see that any age contains ‘ages’- while some people are living in the age of electronics in some parts of the world, some others are suffering the conditions of the middle, or even primitive ages, which is equally true also for individuals-and history, rather than moving forward along with a straight line, advances by cycles, and that man is the being who, much more than a plaything of some laws of only nominal, not external, existence, makes history by enjoying free choice. Also, it is not morally, even scientifically and historically, possible to approve the injustices, no matter whenever and under what circumstances they are committed. Further, we have a right to ask those who side with such philosophies of history whether they can concede to the spread of Islam at the expense of Christianity, and why they would prefer to try their hardest and resort to every kind of means to maintain their dominion, rather than leaving everything to the fatalistic laws of history?

Like every other incoherent and false philosophy, the above mentioned philosophies of history did not last long. When the twentieth century came in, the atomic physics had already dethroned the mechanical physics, which resulted in the obsolescence of the gross materialistic and positivistic world-views together with the ever-evolutionist conceptions of history, like the money which is no longer in circulation. The places of such conceptions were taken by the philosophies of history which were anxious about the future of the West and did not put absolute confidence in science and technology.

Of these, according to Danilevsky’s philosophy of history a civilisation is not transformed into another, and no civilisation cannot be saved from dying. A civilisation is the further step of a culture and each culture develops one or more than one values of humanity. The present Western civilisation is based on science. Any civilisation cannot claim superiority over the others in all respects. A people that have reached the stage of civilisation are doomed to collapse after a long period of decline; because of this, the Western civilisation will one day become a thing of the past.

There are many cultures according to Oswald Spengler, a German sociologist whose work The Decline of the West shook the West in the early years of this century. Each great culture is unique and none of them can, as with Danilevsky, claim superiority over the others. A civilisation manifests itself in big cities as the inevitable result of a culture. Over time, the desire for living dies away and women no longer bear children. Faith is replaced by scientific irreligion or dull metaphysics. Any civilisation that has entered upon this stage either gives birth to materialism, love of money, passion for power, sex and class conflict as its fruits, or results in imperialism, and finally collapses. Spengler holds that the present Western civilisation, with all its big cities, railways and skyscrapers, will in a near future, turn into an etnographic museum.

The ideas of Arnold Toynbee can be traced in Ibn Khaldun. A civilisation is, Toynbee maintains, the work of a creative minority in a propitious clime, and it falls into decay as the founding minority lose their charm and become unable to find solutions to new problems. According to Ibn Khaldun, who influenced, to some extent, almost all the philosophers of history in the twentieth century, a civilisation-he calls it ‘Umran-is based on tribal solidarity which is the distinguishing mark of nomadic life. Nomads lead a very simple life and do not know anything of luxury.

Ibn Khaldun also holds that human beings feel an intrinsic need to live together, but, since some people are of an aggressive disposition, co-existence calls for some sanctions. These sanctions are either put by a powerful individual or tribal solidarity determine them naturally. Thus, the need for a common authority results in the establishment of the state.

The social solidarity is, Ibn Khaldun maintains, much stronger in nomadic tribes. If united with religion, it becomes an irresistible power. Nevertheless, as the state is established more firmly, the social solidarity becomes no more needed and, due to the established (settled) living, people indulge in luxury. Luxury dissolves the solidarity and the ruler, in order to strengthen his authority, forms a council and a troop of royal guards. But nothing keeps the state or civilisation from collapse: increasing extravagance, luxury and indulgences of every kind, and heavy taxes bring about the ruin of the civilisation

What distinguishes the Qur’anic concept of history from other philosophies is that, first of all, while philosophers of history or sociologists build their conceptions on the interpretation of past events and present situations, the Qur’an deals with the matter from the perspective of unchanging principles. Second, contrary to the fatalism of all other philosophies, including even Ibn Khaldun’s, the Qur’an lays great emphasis on the free choice and moral conduct of the individual. Although Divine will, emphasised by the Qur’an, could be regarded as, in some respects, the counterpart of the ‘Geist’ in the Hegelian philosophy and of absolute, irresistible laws of history in other philosophies, the Qur’an never denies human free will. God, according to the Qur’an, tests man in this life so that man himself should sow the ‘field’ of the world to harvest in the next life, which is eternal. For this reason the stream of events-successes and failures, victories and defeats, prosperity and decay-all are the occasions which God causes to follow one another for mankind, to the end that the good may be distinguished from the evil. Testing must evidently require that the one who is tested should possess free-will to prefer between what is lawful and unlawful or what is good and bad. Thus, according to the Qur’an, what makes history is not a compelling Divine will, rather it is man’s own choice, the operation of which God Almighty has made a simple condition for the coming into effect of His universal will. If this point is understood well enough, then it will be easy to see how groundless are the Western philosophies of history especially with respect to their conception of ‘inevitable end’.

A possible question; If civilisations are not, essentially, subject to an inevitable end, why, then, was none of the past civilisations able to resist decadence and the ‘corrosive power of time’?

The core of the matter lies in the answer to this important question. What, indeed, caused the philosophers of history such as Ibn Khaldun, Toynbee, Spengler and the like to form a wrong conception of history is that they, rather than trying to discover the real dynamics of historical movements, attempted to explain the apparent causes of the establishment, flourishing, and decay of civilisations. Whoever looks back to the past couldn’t help arriving at the same conclusions. But that no community has so far been able to remain at the peak it climbed does not mean that this is an inevitable end, a determinist grip on the fate of nations. The past civilisations collapsed because they did not heed the warnings of what had happened to peoples preceding them. To accept a historical determinism means to nullify human free will and to regard as useless, even an absurdity, all the warnings and advices made to living people by both Divine scriptures and social sciences.

As stated before, man is tested in the world. He has a carnal soul which is the source of all desires and animal appetites. In addition, man has a natural inclination towards living together with his fellow human beings, and also he is in a complex relationship with his natural environment. This requires that man’s carnal desires should be limited and his relations with both his human and natural environment be based on ‘justice’ so that he may be at peace with himself, his environment and nature. Nevertheless, as history witnesses, some people may, under the instigation of his carnal desires, not be pleased with his share in the society and attempt to dominate others. If such people realise their ambitions, they, this time, in order to justify their actions, make a constitution to govern the people. It is indeed, easy to have the people to ‘vote’ for their constitution.

This is what has always been where and when the Divine laws are abrogated. Where the people sincerely believe in one God as the Lord, Sovereign and Master of human kind, without concession to any intermediate role of some classes such as Clergy as in Christianity and Shi‘a Islam, and where they are really conscious of the meaning of Divine Unity, which, by delivering man from the humiliating slavery of carnal desires, worldly positions, or of other beings, and eradication of the false and artificial contradictions of the black and the white, clergy and laity, the ruler and the ruled, the employer and employed etc., elevates him so high to be the servant of only One God, no one does attempt to dominate others through the force of money, colour, race or weapons.

According to the Qur’an, all men are, on account of being the creatures of one God, essentially equal in the sight of God. Furthermore, man lacks the enough knowledge and power to establish the rules according to which at least the majority of people could live at peace with themselves, with each other and with the natural environment. Above all, man has to be at peace with his Creator and Sustainer. Because of these, only God’s exclusively is sovereignty both in heavens and on the earth.

What God asks of man-it is what we can conclude we must do through the exercise of our reasoning-is that man should build his wordly existence on three foundations: justice, religious-moral values and Divine laws of life and nature.

The Qur’an invites man, first of all, to believe in and worship One God, by which he may lead a balanced life: He may attain true inward happiness and peace and co-exist with his fellow human beings in accordance with the rules of justice, without being led astray by his carnal, evil-commanding soul. Second, the Qur’an lays some moral, also legal, principles-for example, it says:

Give to the kindred his due and the poor and to the wayfarer. But spend not wastefully in the manner of a spend thrift. Kill not your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Come not near to unlawful sexual intercourse. Do not kill anyone which God has forbidden, except for just cause. Come not near the orphan’s property except to improve it. And fulfil covenant. Give full measure when you measure and weigh with balance that is right.

Also, the Qur’an prohibits usury, black marketing, hoarding, theft, gambling, and cheating etc. Besides, it is also a Qur’anic injunction to study nature, discover its laws and make progress in sciences. Moreover, there are some other vital principles, obedience to, or neglect of, which has a definite part in man’s ‘fate’. For example, patience and forbearance usually bring success and victory, and while working produces wealth, inertia and laziness are the causes of poverty.

Thus, man, according to the Qur’an, by neglecting or living in accordance with justice, religious-moral values and divine laws of nature, determines his own future. There is principally nothing, other than his free choice, to dictate his fate. If, then, a community, at least by majority, obey God and perform both His ‘religious’ and ‘natural’ laws, there can be nothing to prevent them from realizing peace, happiness and harmony in both individual and social life. Otherwise, no matter how glittering a community may appear, it is inevitable for them to fall into decay.

There is another point to be emphasized concerning the Qur’anic concept of history. The Qur’an does not accept ‘inevitable end’ for civilisations. Any civilisation, as long as it follows its ‘right’ way, it could remain at the peak, although no civilisation has so far been able to. And, any civilisation which is due and, on the threshold of, collapse because it has deviated from its course, could be saved from destruction and even realise a new rise if it reforms its way. Finally, history does not follow a straight and always forward course, rather, it advances by cycles.