The subject of our discussion is the meaning of evolution in history, or in other words, man’s social
evolution and progress. Men of science assume two types of evolution for man: one of which is
biological evolution, about which you may have read in biology and know that man is considered as the
most perfect animal and the last link in the natural evolution of animals.
The meaning of biological evolution is clear: it is an evolution that the process of nature has produced
without the intervention of man himself and without his asking for it. In this respect there is no difference
between man and other animals; since every animal has reached a stage of evolution by a natural and
coercive process. The same process has brought man to the stage that we call him a human being, and
consider him a specific kind of species as distinct from other species.
But the historical or social evolution means a new process of evolution in which nature does not play the
role it played in man’s biological evolution. This evolution is an acquired one, namely, an evolution that
man has secured by his own effort, and in every period has transferred it to the next generation through
teaching and learning, and not through heredity.
The biological evolution has taken place without man’s will power and initiative, and has been achieved
through a series of laws of heredity. But the social or historical evolution, being acquired by man’s effort,
has not been handed down from one generation to another, or from zone to zone through heredity, and
there is not even a possibility of its being such. It has been accomplished through education, teaching
and learning, and primarily through the art of writing.
We see that the Quran swears in the name of the pen and tools of writing1, and addresses the Prophet
thus: “Read in the name of your God, Who created man from clotted blood. Read, and your God is the
most exalted; He, who taught with the pen.”2 This means that God taught man how to use the pen; that
is, He granted him the power to make progress in his historical and social evolution.
There is no doubt that human society since its origin, that is, since civilization first began to appear, has
continuously progressed and evolved. We all know that like the biological evolution, social evolution, too,
has been gradual, with one difference, and that is, with the passage of time the rate of evolution has
increased in speed; in other words, it has followed a course of acceleration. It has moved on and on and
has not been stationary, and the motion, too, has not been a fixed one. A car may move at a fixed speed
of a hundred kilometers for several hours; but a speed with an acceleration means a gradual increase of
speed in which the speed increases every minute.
But although evolution and progress seem an obvious matter, you may be surprised that there have
been learned men who have doubted whether what has happened can be called progress or evolution.
One may wonder that there should be any room for doubt in this matter. But the reason why they have
expressed doubt about it will be discussed later on. Here, it is sufficient to say that although we do not
consider their doubt justified and we believe that human society has continued its course of an all-round
evolution and is approaching its final phase, at the same time their doubts are not quite without
foundation. Nevertheless, we must clarify the cause for this doubt in order to be able to fully understand
the meaning of evolution.
What is Evolution?
We must first define evolution. Many matters seem at first so obvious as to require no definition. But
when one tries to define them, he finds it very hard and is faced with difficulties. I have no intention of
quoting all the definitions which philosophers have given for evolution. There is a fine point in Islamic
philosophy which is subject to argument from the viewpoint of the Quran, and that is the difference
between “complete” and “perfect”.
We use the word “complete” as the antonym of “defective”, and again we use “perfect” as the antonym
of the same word “defective”. But does “complete” mean “perfect”? No. There is a verse in the Quran
which is related to the question of Imamah and wilayah. It says:
“Now We made your religion perfect, and completed Our blessings on you and were content for
Islam to be your religion.” (Quran, 5:3)
This shows that the Quran attributes two meanings to “perfection” and “completeness”. The blessings
were completed from a defective state, and religion was perfected from a defective condition. But before
explaining the difference between the two words, let me first explain the difference between evolution
and progress, and then return to this matter.
Is progress the same as evolution, and is evolution identical with progress? They happen to have a
difference and you may consider their usage. We sometimes speak of a sickness which is progressing,
but we do not say it is evolving. If an army which is fighting in a land occupies a part of it, we say that
the army is advancing, but we do not say that it is evolving. Why not? Because there is a sense of
exaltation in evolution: evolution is an upward movement, a vertical movement, from a lower level to a
higher plane.
But progress and advance is always on a horizontal level. When an army has occupied a territory and
added some land to its own possessions, we say that it has advanced, which means that it has moved
ahead but on the same plane that it had before. Why do we not say that it has evolved? Because, there
is the idea of exaltation in evolution. So, when we speak of social evolution, it means man’s social
exaltation and not just progress.
Many things may be considered progress for man and society without being evolution and exaltation for
the human society. We say this to show that if some scholars have expressed doubts about such
progress’ worthiness to be called an evolution, their view is not without foundation. Although we do not
confirm their view, yet what they have stated is not entirely pointless. Therefore, there is a difference
between evolution on the one hand and progress and development on the other; for progress and
development are almost similar in meaning.
But the difference between perfect and complete can be explained in this fashion: If something consists
of a number of parts, such as a building or a car, as long as all the necessary parts do not exist in it, we
say that it is imperfect. But when we place the last part in it, then we can say that it is “complete”. In
comparison, evolution has many phases and stages.
When a child is born with some defect in his limbs, we consider him defective; but even when he is born
with all his limbs complete, it is still considered defective from another point of view; he must pass
through many stages of evolution in his education which are for him a form of exaltation and ascension
by degrees and steps. So far our discussion was about the definition of evolution in the social and
biological sense. But now we deal with other matters in this connection, the most important of which may
be stated in three questions:
- Has man, in his social life and throughout history, achieved evolution and exaltation?
- Is human society undergoing evolution and will reach a fully evolved state in future?
- If it is undergoing evolution, what is that ideal society, or, as Plato would say, that utopia of man, and
what are its peculiarities?
We can understand the course of history up to the present; but what about the future? Should we close
our eyes about the future and say that history inevitably moves on an evolutionary course? Is evolution
in nature imposed by time? Is the ship of time voyaging on an evolutionary course without the slightest
intervention of man and without any responsibility on his part? Have human beings in the past had no
role as beings endowed with free will, freedom of choice and responsibility? Has the role of human
beings in the past been secondary and subject to determinism or if there has been no such determining
force in the past?
Human beings, by their own free will and choice and their own initiative and planning of their society,
have determined an evolutionary course for their society, and have advanced it. This matter of free will
and freedom of human beings in the past should not be forgotten.
Therefore, a group of men are worthy of praise and admiration, and they are those who had the choice
to stand against historical evolution, or deprive it of their support, and prefer their personal welfare to the
struggle for the sake of progress. But they chose the other way, and freely, by their own choice, followed
the way of evolution, and sacrificed themselves. Similarly other human beings should be reproached and
even cursed for posing hindrances in the way of this evolution.
If we do not recognize the future and have no plan for it, and if we pay no attention to our responsibility
for making history, we too deserve being reproached by future generations. History is made by man, and
not man by history. If we have no plan for the future, and do not realize our responsibility for the future of
history, no one can promise us that this ship will reach its destination automatically.
The least that can be said is that it may either go ahead or turn backwards. This matter of ability to
advance or reverse the course of events, the idea that there isn’t a blind coercive force that drives events
ahead, is in Islam, and especially in Shi’ism, a question, which from a sociological viewpoint (as I have
explained in my book, Man and Destiny), may be considered one of the most sublime of Islamic
teachings.
The Problem of Bada’ ( Revision)
In Islam there is an issue called bada’ (revision). The concept of bada’ has an apparent meaning which
few would regard as acceptable. Some have even criticized the Shi’ah for believing in bada’. The
meaning of bada’ is revision in Divine Destiny (qada’), meaning that God has not fixed a definite and final
form for the course of human history.
In other words, God says to man: “You yourselves are in charge of the fulfilment of Divine Destiny, and it
is you who can advance, stop or reverse the course of history.” There is no blind determinism either on
the part of nature or the means of life or from the viewpoint of Divine Destiny, to rule over history. This is
one way of looking at man, his history and destiny.
Therefore, as long as we do not understand the direction of evolution and man’s ultimate goal, we
cannot speak of evolution and merely state that man is progressing; for then, immediately, the question
arises: towards what? If we cannot answer this question, what right do we have to speak of evolution?
Don’t we study history in order to open a way for the future?
If by studying history we get only so far as to allow it to introduce itself without showing a way for the
future, what is the use of history? But we see that the Quran surveys history in a way to show us the
path for the future, and this is how it should be. Therefore, our discussion is related to the past up to the
present, and then the future. The question of our duty and responsibility is determinable only when, after
becoming familiar with the past, we gain an understanding of the future too.
The Evolution of History in the Past
If we regard history from two points of view, there has been indubitable progress of man, if not an
evolution. One of them is in the matter of tools and implements of life. Man has certainly made progress
in making tools, and, of course, an amazing progress it has been. Once his tools consisted of unhewed
stone, which later on was hewed and polished. Today he has attained the present advanced state of
technology, craft and industry.
Man has not only advanced in technical skills and achieved stunning progress in production of tools, but
he has made such a marvelous progress that if our predecessors and philosophers of a hundred or two
hundred years ago had been told that man would advance so much in a hundred years time, as he has
today, no one would have believed it.
You may call it whatever you like, either “progress” or “evolution”, there can be no doubt that man has
made tremendous progress in making tools, and it may be expected to continue in future too, on
condition, however, that it is not, checked by a historic catastrophe, a calamity which is again predicted
by some men of learning.
They consider it probable that man’s technical and industrial progress will reach a point when man may
destroy himself and all his achievements in science and technology, his books, his learning and
civilization and all its vestiges. A new type of human being may appear to start life from the beginning. If
no such catastrophe occurs, there is no doubt that the creation of tools may further advance to a stage
which may not be imaginable today.
This evolution is produced by the evolution of man’s experience and his knowledge, for man has made
so much progress in his experimental understanding and knowledge of nature that he has been able to
conquer nature and turn it into a docile servant. This was one aspect of human progress.
Another aspect of man’s evolution (which again may hardly be called “evolution”) is in the relations of
social life and the structure of society (by “relations” here is not meant human relationships). Human
society has gradually been transformed from a simple one into a complex structure. In other words, in
the same way as he has advanced in technical and industrial matters from the simple cars of yesterday
to the present day aircrafts and sophisticated spacecrafts, in the same way as in natural evolution a
unicellular organism is so simple as compared with an animal like man in bodily structure, human
society, too, has changed from a simple to an extremely complex structure.
Some have defined evolution as a process involving two stages: at first, there is an accumulation, that is,
a multiplication of parts followed by division, characterized by a movement from homogeneity towards
heterogeneity, or, in other words, movement towards organization between parts and organs
interconnected by a unifying relationship.
For example, we know that in the process of fertilization, a cell which is formed by the combination of
male sperm and female ovum has a simple form at first; then it begins the process of division
(accumulation); one cell divides into two, the two into four, the four into eight, the eight into sixteen, and
this division goes on. But it is only a question of quantity until a stage is reached when there takes place
another form of division; this is, one part becomes the nervous system, another emerges as the heart
and system of blood circulation, and so on, and all these organs are interrelated forming an organized
unity which is the human body.
In this respect, human society, too, has progressed, whether you may choose to call it ‘evolution’ or not.
That is, the structure of human society has changed from a simple state into something complex. The
structure of primitive and tribal societies was very simple. Someone was the chief of a tribe consisting of
a number of people, and the chief divided the tasks between them, and these tasks were few in number.
But you see that with the progress of science and technology, such division of work has become
complicated because there are more tasks and more people to perform them. Compare the existing
variety of jobs, tasks, professions and crafts of modern day with those of the societies of a hundred
years ago.
Or look at the degree of specialization at the administrative and scientific levels. In the past, a man was
able to master all the sciences of his own time. He could become an Aristotle or an Ibn Sina. But now
the system of education has undergone such subdivisions, that we have hundreds of the like of Aristotle
and Ibn Sina, each a specialist in his own field, who are not the least acquainted with other branches of
science and quite unaware of even their existence in the world. This is a characteristic of our time, a
quality that removes uniformity and homogeneity from among human beings and replaces it with
differences and distinctions.
For, as man creates work, work too builds up man. As a result, although all are human beings living in
one society, but they seem to possess different natures, since everyone is dealing with a task which is
unknown to another who is engaged in another task. Every one of them seems to live in a different world
of his own. The result is that human beings vary from one another. If we speak of progress or evolution
in connection with society and its organization and division of labour, skills and talents, again the
structure of human society has changed from a simple into a complex and extremely entangled one.
You may, from these remarks, realize that if things go on in this fashion, there is a danger of the creation
of so many differences that the unity of mankind will be threatened; that is, human beings will resemble
one another only in appearance, but their mental, spiritual, emotional and educational structures will be
totally different from one another; and this is a great danger for humanity.
That is why it is said that technological progress has alienated man from himself, and made him a
stranger to himself. It has turned man into a creature styled and tailored to the needs of his job and
profession, and destroyed human unity. This is in itself a serious problem. In any case, we may say that
from the viewpoint of social structure too, societies have evolved in the past. However, here, in addition
to the problem of power and domination over nature and besides the structure of human society and
social organizations, there are a number of other problems which are related to human nature, and that
is the relationship of individuals with one another.
Human Relationships
Has man made progress in the quality of relationships of human beings with one another in the same
way as he has made progress in the creation of tools, and in the complexity of social structure? If he
has, then we may call it evolution and exaltation. Have human beings progressed in the sense of cooperation? Does a human being of today feel more co-operative towards others than in the past?
Has he made a proportionate advance in the sense of responsibility towards other human beings? Has
man’s exploitation of other human beings been really effaced? Or is it that only its form has been altered
and that it has increased in degree? Has man’s aggression against the rights of others diminished?
Have human relations improved in proportion to the advances made in building tools and with the
complexity of social structure? Or have these problems remained the same as before? Or there may be
some who claim that not only no progress has been made in this connection, but also there has even
been a retrogression? In other words, can it be said in general that human values, and everything that is
the criterion of the humanity of man, have advanced proportionately?
Different views have been expressed in this connection; some cynically deny it totally that man has
made any progress whatsoever in this respect, for, they say, if the criterion of progress is welfare and
happiness, we may hardly call it progress. For example, even in the case of tools, it is doubted whether
they have provided man with welfare. As an example, speed is one of the things which has greatly
advanced as exhibited by the telephone, airplane and other such things.
But can this improvement in speed be called progress when measured by the criterion of human
welfare? Or, since speed is a means, it has produced comfort in one respect; in other respects it has
deprived man of welfare: it carries a good man promptly to his destination, but it also carries a wicked
man as quickly to his goal and as promptly in his evil purpose. A sound and honest man has found
stronger hands and quicker legs.
A wicked man, too, has the same advantages. These means have made possible the transfer of a
criminal from one part of the world to another part in a few hours, to kill thousands or even millions of
people at once. What, then, is the final conclusion? Though I am not in favour of this cynicism, yet I wish
to explain why it has been expressed by some. For example, is the progress in medicine a true
progress? In appearance, it is, for I see that when a child suffers from diphtheria, right drugs and proper
medical treatment are readily available.
This is progress. But some people like Alexis Carl who measure these things with the criterion of
humanity, believe that medicine is gradually weakening human species. They say: In the past, human
beings had resistance against diseases; the weak were destroyed and the strong remained alive, and
this made successive generations stronger and resistant to diseases, and also prevented the
unnecessary increase of population.
But now, medicine is artificially preserving weak persons who otherwise would have perished and were
really condemned to death by nature. Therefore, the successive generations are not fit to survive, and so
every generation becomes weaker than its predecessor. A child born in the seventh month of pregnancy
is by the law of nature condemned to death; but now medicine, with its progress and means, preserves
this baby.
But what will become of the next generation? Moreover, there is the question of over-population. It
happens that those who are fitter for the improvement of the human race are destroyed and those who
are not competent to bring about this improvement somehow manage to survive. This is the reason for
doubt in this matter.
Another Example
In connection with the mass media, one may think it wonderful to sit in a corner and at the right moment
hear the news in which he is interested. But remember that this same thing creates so much anxiety and
worry for human beings; for, in many matters, it is more advisable for man not to hear such news.
For instance, in the past the people who lived in Shiraz were unaware of the flood which overran
Ghuchan, drowning so many people and making others homeless. But now they learn of it immediately
and feel sad and anxious. There are thousands of such unpleasant happenings occurring in various
parts of the world.
It was from the viewpoint of human welfare, and welfare as a criterion that learned men have doubted
whether to regard speed as a measure of progress and evolution or not. However, we have nothing to
do with these problems, for as we believe, there is ultimately an evolution and all these difficulties may
be overcome-a subject which we will discuss later.
Thus, in the question of human relationships, we cannot say that any progress or evolution has taken
place, or, even if it has occurred, it is not proportionate to the progress made in making tools and to the
growth in social organization.
The Relation of Man with Himself
Another question is the relation of man with himself, which is termed ‘ethics’. If we do not say that all the
happiness of man lies in the establishment of a good relationship with oneself-and we do not say so
because it would be an exaggeration-yet we may say that if the means of man’s happiness are
compared with one another to find a percentage of role of every factor, a greater part of human
happiness would be found to lie in the relation of man with himself, or with his “self”: the relationship of
man with his animal aspect.
For, man, in spite of his humanness and the human values inherent in his nature, is also an animal; that
is, he is an animal on which humanity has been imposed. In other words, he is an animal, which, by the
side of his animality, also possesses humanity.
The question arises here whether the humanity of man is subordinate to his animal side, or if his
animality is subservient to his humanity. The Quran says:
He who purifies the soul indeed attains deliverance, and one who corrupts it certainly fails
(91:9-10)
The problem here is of self-purification, which means not being captivated by greed and concupiscence
of the self, and not being in the clutches of one’s base animal characteristics. As long as man has not
evolved ethically and has not attained internal emancipation from his own animality, it is not possible for
him to establish good relations with other human beings. Good human relations can come into existence
when man liberates himself from the captivity of other human beings, and is also able to abstain from
subjugating other human beings to himself.
So far we have discussed four points: - The relation of man with nature, in which he has made progress.
- The relation of man with his society, which has progressed from the viewpoint of social structure and
organization. - The relation of man with other human beings, and the quality of his relations with other members of
his kind, which depends again on his spirituality and is linked with the substance of his humanity. In this
matter there is doubt as to whether he has made progress or not: that his progress in this sphere has not
been on a par with other aspects is beyond doubt; the real question is whether he has made any
progress at all. - The relation of man with himself, which is the subject of ethics.
The Role of Prophets and religion on the Historical Evolution
Has man of today overcome his animality more than his ancestors in the past, and have the higher
human values been realized in his existence? Or, has the quality of human existence been better in the
past? The role of the prophets in the historical evolution, their role in the past and in the future, becomes
clear in this connection.
Here we can discover the role of religion in the past and thereby find out its role in the future, and on the
basis of scientific and sociological evidence, we can guess whether man requires religion in future for his
evolution or not; because, the survival or annihilation of every thing is subject to its being able to fulfill
human need. This principle has been stated by the Quran and is affirmed by science. The Quran says:
“As for the scum, it vanishes as jetsam, and what profits men abides in the earth …” (13 :17)
There is a parable which I have repeatedly used in my lectures, and that is the parable of flood and the
foam on water. It says that the foam disappears quickly and the water remains. Right and wrong are
compared to water and foam, and what is beneficial remains, and what is useless disappears.
The question whether religion will survive in the future is related to its role in human evolution, that is, in
the evolution of his essence, his spirituality and humanity and the evolution of good relation of man with
himself and with other human beings-something which cannot be replaced by anything else, either now
or in future.
The question, therefore, is that, either, in the future, human society will dissolve and mankind will be
effaced from the face of earth as a result of collective suicide, or human society will attain its true
destiny, which is an all-round evolution (evolution in his relation with nature, evolution in awareness, in
power, in liberty, in emotions and sentiments and other kinds of human feelings). We believe that this
evolution will be achieved-a belief which, in the first place, we have obtained under the inspiration of our
religious teachings.
In a lecture entitled “The Significance of Occult Aids in Human Life” I have stated the point that this
optimism concerning the future of humanity and human evolution and man’s deliverance from reaching a
dead-end, cannot be provided by anything except religion. It is the role of religion in human life which
alone guarantees the evolution in the human essence of man’s being.
About The Author
