Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, and the Social Problem
Written by Shabbir Agha Abbas
When it comes to the seminary of Najaf, the intellectual heart of Twelver Shi’ism, there are scholars aplenty; therefore, a generational scholar to arise therein would require them to produce truly innovative and direction-altering intellectual output. One such generational scholar was Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (1353/1935 – 1400/1980), who lived a remarkable but yet tragically short life of a scholar. He was a jurist par excellence who attempted to respond to the philosophical challenges of capitalism and communism in the mid-twentieth century. In his attempts at intellectually combating capitalism and communism, he produced two manifestos, Falsafatuna and Iqtisaduna, that truly are masterclasses in the deep ‘aqli (rational) and mantiqi (logical) tendencies within the Twelver Shi’i tradition. These two manifestos, alongside the rest of his bibliography, highlights a man ultimately concerned with the preservation of human dignity. Nevertheless, this piece will not delve into either manifestos or his juridical works, as that task would exceed the limits of this exposition, instead this piece will attempt at encapsulating an essay that Baqir al-Sadr wrote as a foreword to his Falsafatuna. This essay is titled ‘The Social Problem’ (المسألة الاجتماعية), which serves as an initial rebuke of the two western traditions in their implementations of social systems (governments), prior to delving into the specific complexities within Falsafatuna and Iqtisaduna. In essence this paper should also serve as an insight into the modern Twelver’s understanding of contemporary politics and global trends.
Origins and Brief Biography
Jabal ‘Amil in the South of present-day Lebanon historically was a land that produced numerous Shi’i scholars. It was recognized as a major intellectual center, giving rise to the likes of Shahid al-Awwal (d. 786/1384) and Shahid al-Thani (d. 966/1559). The ancestral family of Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr too arose from this region of the levant and were known not only for their scholarly prowess but also as Shurafa, descendants of the Prophet through the lineage of Musa al-Kazim (d. 183/799). This clan of Musawi Shurafa came to be known as Al Sharaf al-Din upon the laqab (honorific) of an ancestor, al-Sharif ‘Sharaf al-Din’ Ibrahim (d. 1080/1670), who resided in the village of Jaba’. Till the contemporary era, eminent Shi’i scholars from this ancestry have carried the Sharaf al-Din name with pride, such as the famed mujtahid, ‘Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi (d. 1377/1957); responsible for the taqrib (ecumenic) movement in the early part of the twentieth century, advocating the proximity of Sunni and Shi’i Muslims.
In the year 1197/1783, Sadr al-Din Muhammad b. Salih Sharaf al-Din (d. 1264 AH/1848 CE) a great-great grandfather of Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr’s migrated along with several members of the Sharaf al-Din clan to Iraq in response to the Fitnah of Ahmad Pasha al-Jazzar (d. 1219/1804), the Ottoman governor of Sidon [and later Damascus]. This Fitnah was a pogrom of the Shi’i population of Southern Lebanon, beginning in the year 1189/1775 continuing through the extent of al-Jazzar’s rule culminating in his death; it was in this Fitnah that an elder brother of Sadr al-Din’s, Hibat Allah al-Musawi was killed. Upon arrival in Iraq, Sadr al-Din studied in the seminary of Karbala under the tutelage of Ja’far Kashif al-Ghita’ (d. 1227/1812) and it is said that he attained the level of ijtihad at the minor age of 13, he too married a daughter of his teacher. After completing his education he migrated to the city of Isfahan in Iran, where his stature vastly grew and deriving from his name, Sadr al-Din, a new appellation ‘al-Sadr’ appeared for his descendants, replacing the surname of Sharaf al-Din. Sayyid Isma’il al-Sadr (1338/1920), son of Sadr al-Din returned the family back to Iraq from Isfahan, and based himself in Karbala to serve as a marja’ al-taqlid (source of emulation). Sayyid Isma’il al-Sadr is most notable for being one of the first Shi’i clerics to implant himself into the emerging discourse of pan-Islamism, by declaring fatawa for Muslims broadly to unite and fight back against the European powers; the Russian wars with Iran and the brutal Italian occupation of Libya greatly influenced his outlook, which ultimately resulted in his public support of the [later-titled] Iraqi thawrat al-’Ishrin (1920) movement against the British before passing away. His son was Sayyid Haydar al-Sadr who continued the familial role of serving the Shi’i community as a mujtahid, and he based himself in the Kazimiyyah neighborhood in Northern Baghdad. He had three children, his oldest was Sayyid Isma’il al-Sadr (d. 1388/1969), his second was Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (b. 1353/1935), the subject of this analysis, and the youngest, a daughter named Aminah (Bint al-Huda) (b. 1356/1937). Haydar al-Sadr tragically died only a few months after Aminah’s birth. At the young age of three, Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr was orphaned, he and his infant sister were thus raised by their elder brother Isma’il.
Baqir al-Sadr was only thirteen years junior of his elder brother Isma’il, meaning the elder al-Sadr himself was quite young at the passing of their father. Nevertheless, Isma’il al-Sadr not only fulfilled the paternal role for his younger siblings, but also gave them their initial religious training as was expected of one from the clerical al-Sadr family. At the age of seven Baqir al-Sadr enrolled into the newly formed Muntada al-Nashr School, established by Sayyid Murtada al-’Askari (d. 1428/2007) and Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Muzaffar (d. 1383/1964). While the elementary program was designed to last six years, Baqir al-Sadr completed it in only three and at the age of ten he was ready to move on to the seminary of Najaf. Therein he studied with some of the greatest of scholars, including both Marja’ al-Taqlids, Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakim Tabataba’i (d. 1390/1970) as well as Sayyid Abu’l Qasim al-Khu’i (d. 1413/1992). He showed brilliance in his studies such that he fully completed his Hawzah (seminary) training by the age of 20, and was recognized by other seminarians as a mujtahid in his early 20s. During this period, the Iraqi Communist Party gained popularity amongst the people of Najaf. Inspired by Hawzah graduates turned communist, such as Husayn Muhammad al-Shabibi (d. 1368/1949) and the Lebanese Husayn Muruwwah (d. 1410/1987), the politically marginalized and poorer Shi’i of Southern Iraq were attracted to the call of class warfare and social revolution. In response to these philosophical challenges, Baqir al-Sadr, at the age of 24, wrote Falsafatuna (Our Philosophy), the first of his two manifestos critiquing western thought; the second being Iqtisaduna (Our Economics), analyzing the western economic systems. His prodigal youth and rapid ascension within the scholarly ranks is not necessarily what he is remembered for, instead it is his acute awareness of modernity and the challenges that it posed to Islam and Muslim as displayed in these two works. In the former he dissects western philosophy, that of Kant, Hume, Berkeley, Marx, et al, and in the latter he demonstrates what an Islamic system of economy is and why it is substantially better than the three western systems, capitalism, communism, and socialism. Philosophically he promoted the concept of Islamic rationalism, and in regard to economics he developed a theory formulated on Qur’anic principles of justice. Additionally as a faqih (as a jurist), he introduced many knew concepts and tools for deriving jurisprudence, one such concept was called al-sirat al-‘uqala’iyyah (السيرة العقلائية) in which he refined the concept of ‘urf (عرف) to denote to the conduct of rational people. Unfortunately, his genius and revolutionary thought process ultimately led to his demise. His powerful intellectual output propelled him to the forefront of Shi’i Islamist politics of Iraq, resulting in his emergence as the leader of Hizb al-Da’wah. Therefore, in the year 1980, a year after the Islamic Revolution in neighboring Iran, the Shi’i of Iraq were at the highest point of their self-esteem, frightening Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Baath Party. In response he had Baqir al-Sadr arrested, brutally tortured and executed at the young age of 45. Alongside him, his younger sister, Bint al-Huda, who in many ways was equal to her brother as a renowned writer, was executed at the age of 42; she was known for her skill of composing stories addressed to the female audience, in which she advocated similar Islamic ideals as her brother. The loss of both siblings in their prime really devastated Shi’i Muslims globally, and till this day many wonder in sadness as to what could have been if Baqir al-Sadr and his mind were allowed to flourish.
Two Fundamental Investigations, Brief Overview of Falsafatuna
In the introductory words of Falsafatuna, Baqir al-Sadr explains that the Muslim world fell into the hands of colonizers, resulting in the popularization of western ideologies. This was so because these western powers not only colonized the Muslim world but also competed amongst each other in terms of controlling the local intellectual and political spheres of existence. In order to survive this philosophical onslaught, Muslims had to respond in a powerful manner that could clearly and comprehensively deflate the arguments of the west. In his opinion the Muslim response had to be complete and thorough, such that it could victoriously represent God’s word on the intellectual battlefield. Therefore, in his approach to formulating this response he basis his Falsafatuna manifesto on two fundamental investigations:
- Theory of Knowledge (نظرية المعرفة)
- Philosophical Perspectives of the World (المفهوم الفلسفي للعالم)
The first investigation is in function preparatory for the second, in totality it serves as an argument for the rationality of logic as defined by Twelver Shi’ism. The need for this is that it serves as an elucidation on the methodology used by Baqir al-Sadr in the second investigation, which would initially require one to determine ‘the principle method of thought, the general criterion of true knowledge, and the extent of the value of true knowledge.’ The second investigation is divided into five subsections: philosophical notions in conflict (المفاهيم الفلسفية المتصارعة في الميدان), dialectic ideologies (الديالكتيك), principle and laws of causality (مبدأ العلّية وقوانينها), matter and God (المادة او الله), and awareness/knowledge (الادراك). Nevertheless, before even getting into these two investigations, Baqir al-Sadr inserts a preceding essay on ‘The Social Problem (المسألة الاجتماعية), which is the locus of analysis of this paper. It is hoped that in a future paper, one of the five subsections from Falsafatuna could also be examined.
The Social Problem (المسألة الاجتماعية)
Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr begins this essay by asking the fundamental question: “Which system brings order to human beings, and provides for them a happy social life?”  According to Baqir al-Sadr, the answer to this question serves as the preoccupation of humankind, producing answers upon answers. Humans have been suggesting and applying a variance of possible systems since the primitive age of communal living, and these different systems have sometimes led to the betterment of life, but at many times have led to the harm of life. Therefore, the search for the best system has led to the ridding of one and replacing it with the other, sometimes violently; chiefdoms, kingships, all have come and gone. According to Baqir al-Sadr, the three most pervasive systems in this realm of modernity are:
- The Capitalistic System (النظام الديمقراطي الرأسمالي)
- The Socialistic System (النظام الاشتراكي)
- The Communistic System (النظام الشيوعي)
In contention with all three, presented as the answer to the fundamental question of order and happiness, Baqir al-Sadr introduces his concept of the Islamic System (النظام الإسلامي). In this essay al-Sadr elaborates on the three, pinpoints their flaws and drawbacks, and then attempts to demonstrate the excellence of Islam.
The Capitalistic System
According to Baqir al-Sadr, the capitalistic system was introduced as a means to rid of the historic injustices associated with dictatorial rule as well as the stagnation of the ideational European church. Capitalism promoted the locus of power to shift to the individual instead, such that total confidence was to be afforded to the individual, with the assumption that one’s personal interests ultimately aligns with that of society as a whole. The capitalistic system called for four basic freedoms: political (السياسة), economic (الاقتصادية), ideational (الفكرية), and individual (الشخصية). Political freedom demands that the voice of every citizen be heard and their conceptualization of what constitutes good life be respected, especially in the context of legislation and the distribution of power. Thus, individuals actively participate in erecting and maintaining the system, and in this process all participants are determined to be equal; this equality is the basis for suffrage and general elections. Economic freedom, like political freedom, too gives total confidence to the individual, in that individuals in a private capacity own both consumption and production without limitations. This unrestrictive capability for private ownership results in a free economy, where individuals can buy and sell as they please for motives entirely personal. Defenders of a free economy typically make three claims in support of their position. The first claim being that the general principles of allowing citizens to freely pursue a livelihood, to operate businesses and compete in the marketplace, leads to the happiness of society. Secondly, personal interest, especially that of avoiding harm and maintaining happiness leads to general social welfare. Thirdly, competition in the free market naturally allows for justice and fairness to govern contracts and dealings; if prices go abnormally high demand drops, therefore free markets are self-regulatory. Personal interest would always influence producers to improve their products to both maintain and increase sales, while competition between parties would allow for rates of goods and salaries of employees to become standardized. Ideational freedom guarantees the individual ideological and doctrinal liberty, whereas in the past people were forced to conform to the dictates of the church. This freedom allows for individuals to freely utilize their mental capacity and determine what they deem best, their intellects are allowed to work on their own accord, allowing them to draw up their own conclusions concerning the questions of life. Likewise, individual freedom is the liberation of the human will, to the extent that the individual is given control over their personal conduct, and can thus largely do as they please. However, this individual freedom is not unrestricted, instead it is allowed to function freely until it affects the rights and freedoms of others. Hence, as long as the individual does not cross the boundary of affecting others then they are free to live in whatever way that pleases them. In a capitalistic system, religious freedom is simply an expression of this very ideational freedom; as religion is regarded as just another idea.
After expounding on the four freedoms that are to be guaranteed by the capitalistic system, Baqir al-Sadr makes the point that while the intentions may have been pure, the system in practice is wholly materialistic. Those who set up this system originally did not fully comprehend the philosophical implications, as the capitalistic system divorces those living under it from everything that is not related to material things and benefits. The Industrial Revolution of the 1700s guaranteed that the capitalistic system would essentially possess a materialistic tendency, the reason for this is that this revolution arose in conflict with the church. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by the arrival of technological and scientific advancements, which in turn arose from a growing intellectual rebellion from the church which historically enforced their own version of ‘truths’ controlling the ideational aspect of individuals. This intellectual rebellion promoted skepticism and doubt against what the church presented as truth, instead deferring to empiricism, giving rise to experimentation. The church was blamed for intellectual stagnation and the various abuses and corruptions of the powerful; the responding intellectual rebellion was welcomed as it not only culled the influence of the church but resulted in a supposed drastic betterment of the European standard of living. However, the true change that the Industrial Revolution brought to society was a constant impatient demand for more production; this may have brought more prosperity to society, but it also froze out any considerations of the actual situation of life. While the church is definitely to blame for many wrongs, the replacement of religion with the material tendency all but removed morality and ethics from consideration. The capitalistic system boasts that none can tell the individual what to do or not to do, and this is its very downfall as there is no tertiary entity that could influence the individual towards good conduct and moderation in their lives. Fulfilling the criterions of faith was replaced with individual interest as the highest objective, thus resulting in many of the tragedies that have befallen capitalistic societies. Supporters of the capitalistic system would argue that the objectives of the spiritual principles in religion are still being met as the maintenance of social interests is a requisite for any system to exist, that a tertiary moral authority is not needed. Baqir al-Sadr responds to this by stating that these social services in capitalistic societies are driven purely by personal interest, that the state of society directly impacts the individual’s benefits as demanded by the material tendency. Morality, according to Baqir al-Sadr, is not limited to just these social services that are based on the language of benefits, it goes beyond personal interests by delving into the realm of the unquantifiable, a true moral act does not necessitate a benefit in return.
As mentioned earlier, Baqir al-Sadr opined that capitalistic systems were plagued by tragedies, one such tragedy is that of argumentum ad populum. Political freedom in the capitalistic system meant that the majority governed the minority, that the needs and desires of the majority gave direction to the given nation. The majority alone had the prerogative to manage the system, to introduce and enforce legislation. What results from this is that the welfare of the majority and the preservation of their interests becomes the objective of the governing system, the minority are left defenseless and thus fall through the cracks; the welfare and interests of the minority are all but forgotten. Bereft of any moral and spiritual guidelines, the social mentality in a capitalist system would fail to be concerned of any injustices that it enacts on the minority, this is particularly dangerous. If the social mentality of the majority desires despotism, nothing can stop despotism from arising; hence, capitalism does not improve life in relation with the systems of the past, Baqir al-Sadr vociferously writes:
وبطبيعة الحال، إنّ التحكّم سوف يبقى في ظلّ النظام كما في السابق، و أن مظاهر الاستغلال والاستهتار بحقوق الآخرين ومصالحهم ستحفَظ في الجو الاجتماعي لهذا النظام كحالها في الأجواء الاجتماعية القديمة. وغاية ما في الموضوع من فرق: أنّ الاستهتار بالكرامة الإنسانية من قِبَل أفراد بأمٌة، واصبح في هذا النظام من الفئات التي تمثِّل الاكثريات بالنسبة إلى الاقلِّيات التي تشكِّل بمجموعها عدداً هائلاً من البشر.
“It is natural that under (this capitalistic) system, the despotic rule continues as before, and that the phenomena of manipulation and neglect of the rights and interests of others persist in the social atmosphere of this system as they did in the old social atmosphere. Put briefly, the difference [between the present and the old systems] is that neglect of human dignity arose [in the older systems] because of individuals in the nation; while in the present system, it arises because of groups that represent majorities in relation to minorities. [But] the totality [of these minorities] constitutes a large number of people.”
This switching of the locus of despotism from singular individuals as in the past to the majority as an entity is not the only tragedy of capitalistic systems according to al-Sadr, for this despotism coupled with the mentioned material tendency allows for the rise of an elite class with no concern other than multiplying their wealth. These elite, al-Sadr explains, could care less about how deviant their methods are in the acquisition of wealth, as the capitalistic system urges individuals to look out for their personal interests and benefits, thus any exploitation by them is regarded as justified. The middle class are turned into a commodity in which they serve the needs of the elite by working underpaid in their factories and industries. They technically still possess equality of political rights, but by virtue of the elite’s economic power, these rights are in many ways dismissed. As the elite possess the means of mass propaganda and whatever else is needed to defend their positions, this equality of political rights is largely nullified. Another tragedy of this capitalistic system is that of the earth, in order to maximize profits more and more raw material must be consumed. In order to attain these raw materials land grabs have to take place, and whatever or whomever gets in the way of these capitalistic interests are simply annihilated. The calamity of the Amazon Rainforest and its indigenous peoples is a direct result of this materialistic tendency, of this systematized greed.
Communism and Socialism (الاشتراكية والشيوعية)
Baqir al-Sadr begins his analysis of communism by introducing the reader to the concept of dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism (المادية الجدلية) is a procedure of scientifically looking at history and analyzing its metamorphosis materialistically. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (d. 1831) is credited with first introducing dialectical materialism, however it was truly popularized by the likes of Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels. According to Hegel a dialectic is a turning point for something especially when confronted with a conflict. The dialectic can be divided into three parts, the thesis which is something already established, the inherent opposite or contradiction of this is the antithesis. The resolution of the two disagreeing propositions is called the synthesis. Karl Marx does not necessarily agree with dialectics in this format, as he thinks it’s too abstract and opens the door to irrelevant questions, like those of religion. Marx is purely concerned in materialism, he writes:
“My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos (god-figure) of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.”
Marx contended that the working class, the proletariat, have been suffering in a constant struggle between those in power, the bourgeois; this he termed as “Class Struggle.” For him, the aristocratic class (monarchs, dictators, politicians, et al) have always controlled the welfare of all of society, and in this position, they only looked out for themselves whilst exploiting the proletariat. So, according to Marx the thesis in this scenario are the bourgeois, whereas the antithesis are the class conscious proletariat. The transitory stage towards the synthesis are both class struggle and revolution, while the synthesis is communism where the working class are given control over the means of production
Hence, for Marx this dialectic method was to be applied on history, economics, on society; when the three are combined it circles the entirety of humankind. Thus, Karl Marx achieved two things, one he thought to have conceptualized all of human history in terms of material, and two he claimed that he comprehended the contradictions within the capitalistic system, that it was a case of never ending theft; employers exploited their employees to attain unfair benefit. These two assumptions of his led him to propose the abolishment of capitalism, and the erection of socialistic and communistic ideals in society. According to the proponents of socialism, every social situation is innately a material phenomenon, and that every individual’s personal situation is in conflict and contradiction with that of others. When these conflicts and contradictions accumulate, there is no choice but for changes to arise in these situations, gradually resulting in the alignment of interests, until all become unified as one unified class. This gradual social unification does away with the toxic multiplicity of classes in the capitalistic system, leading to peace and tranquility in society. The proponents of communism differ with those of socialism on methodology here, they instead propose three immediate steps. Firstly, private ownership must be obliterated, and all property must be transferred to the masses by being entrusted to the state, the state in turn manages this property to meet the interests of the people. Secondly, all the proceeds of the state must be divided amongst the people based on their consumption, as Marx states “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The individual devotes themselves in service to the state, in return the state fulfills their natural needs. Thirdly, the state forges a necessary economic plan to meet the needs of the people, not meeting these needs would lead to the very same tragedies that capitalism is afflicted with.
Deviation From the Communist Operation
Even though the language espoused by the communists is revolutionary, according to Baqir al-Sadr wherever such a group seized power they were unable to implement as they desired. Instead they were forced to recognize that a slow teaching process of society would initially be required. Therefore, instead of enacting true communism they always deferred to socialism, where the total annulment of private ownership was toned down to the nationalization of heavy industry, control of foreign trade, and large government oversight on everything in between. By doing so the greed of employers and the exploitation of employees would not be totally erased from society, however by removing access to large capital from individuals the previous never-ending theft was hoped to be greatly diminished. Nevertheless, for Baqir al-Sadr this well-intended design was doomed from its very onset, as it could not agree with the very essence of human nature. Without any motivation to work harder at their jobs, neglect and laziness would become regular. Therefore, these governments had no option but to apologetically introduce some capitalistic ideals to increase workers’ morale; small forms of competition were utilized, greater salaries were offered based on rank. Thus, these communist states were subject to continual change when confronted with reality, the reality of human nature. Communism is truly designed for an end result when communal and social mentalities prevail, such that when achieved the need for a state itself is abrogated. However, this philosophy would entail a Machiavellian “ends justify the means” process, where dictatorial governments could prevail in the meantime as long as the stated goal was the protection of the labor class. Nevertheless, this is the most crucial difference from the capitalistic system, the capitalistic system is not grounded in a philosophical basis, a philosophical eschatology, there is no intended conclusion. At the same time the single purpose of the communistic system is to destroy the individual, and make it an instrument of society, whereas the capitalistic system liberates the individual and treats society as its instrument for subjugation. In the capitalistic system the individual personality wins, in which legislation serves its interests, leading to societal afflictions. Whereas in the communistic system, the social personality wins such that the individual personality is quelled, leading to the loss of natural rights and freedoms.
Of the many flaws within the communistic system, for al-Sadr the erasure of the individual proves to be its greatest weakness. In order to treat the malady that was private ownership, the proponents of this system brought forth a treatment that was simply too high in cost. The tremendous social transformation that communism demanded is a cure that is worse than the disease, Baqir al-Sadr writes:
“…this power quiets any voice that grows loud, stifles any breath of freedom that circulates in society, monopolizes all the means of propaganda and publicity, imposes limits on the nation that the nation cannot exceed under any circumstances and punishes on the ground of accusation and speculation, so that it does not suddenly lose its grip on the reins of power. This is natural in any system one seeks to impose on a nation, before the mentality of that system matures in that nation, and before the spirit of that system prevails.
Indeed, if the materialistic human being begins to think in a social manner, to consider his interests with a social mentality and to be free of all personal sentiments, private inclinations and psychological effects, it would be possible to erect a system in which individuals melt away. With that, nothing would remain at the scene except the huge social giant. But the realization of this in a materialistic human being who does not believe in anything except in a limited life, and who does not perceive any sense of life except that of material pleasure requires a miracle that creates heaven in the present life and brings it down from the highest to earth.
The communists promise us this heaven. They await that day in which the factory will put an end to human nature, recreate ideal humankind in thinking and acting even though they do not believe in any idealistic and moral values. If this miracle is realized, we will then have some words for them.
Under this system, even if the individual acquires full insurance and social security for his life and needs because the social wealth supplies him with all of this at the time of need, nevertheless, it would be better for him to obtain this insurance without losing the breath of righteous freedom, without melting away in fire as a person, and without drowning in a stormy social sea”
For Baqir al-Sadr the communist proposition forced people into humiliation, into a position of having to choose dignity or choose the satisfaction of their needs. Likewise, in order to impose their conformation, the communists necessarily resort to fear and punishment of their subjects, this outrightly fails the very fundamental question that all social systems try to answer, “Which system brings order to human beings, and provides for them a happy social life?” Baqir al-Sadr argues that the communists wrongly put all the blame for the evils of capitalism on the issue of private property, when private property by itself is powerless. Private property does not directly command for despotism in the workplace, or the monopolization of the markets. Private property does not ask for any of that, instead the root of the evils in capitalism is the morally unregulated material interests of individuals. If a moral code, a higher purpose for life, were introduced into society the abuse of private property would plummet.
The Correct Explanation of the Social Problem, and its Solution
For Baqir al-Sadr, both the proponents of capitalism and communism introduced their ideologies as solutions to the discussed social problem, “which system brings order to human beings, and provides for them a happy social life?” Of the two systems, communism does not even attempt at solving this problem as it is designed purely as a response to capitalism. Thus, by deriving the root factor in capitalism’s attempt at an answer, the essential flaw of both capitalism and communism can be delineated. Therefore, if the crux behind capitalism is killed, the communist campaign against natural rights and freedoms as well as private property can too be extinguished. The result of this would be that the tools of capitalism, which are abused in the quest of excesses, could be transformed into a means of furthering human development and welfare for the underprivileged in society. The individual in the west’s implementation of capitalism is conditioned to consider their own personal material life as not only their greatest asset, but also the purpose of their life. Life is reduced to just a material dimension without any greater meaning. Therefore, the individual’s sense of pleasure is intrinsically tied with material factors, hence the natural instinct of self-love (حب الذات) that all humankind possess is fine-tuned onto the ways of capitalism. Self-love is the desire for happiness and aversion towards pain and misery, hence satisfying one’s material needs equates to happiness and not doing as such is a life of pain and misery. Even in the dimensions of sacrifice of parents for their children or friends for each other, ultimately according to capitalistic ideals they are done for personal benefit, be it emotional or otherwise. Therefore, capitalism alters the pure human instinct of self-love, transforming it into selfishness, which is then reflected in the behavior of those elite who hoard resources knowing well that others starve. According to Baqir al-Sadr, true self-love would instead find pleasure in “moral and emotional values,” where one deprives themselves of resources to ensure others get their share. He writes, “whenever we wish to create any change in human behavior, we must first change the human notion of pleasure and benefit, and then place the behavior desired in the general frame of the instinct of self-love.” Understanding this, how could abolishing private property as the communists propose actually solve the tragedies of a capitalistic system? The communistic system is as trapped by materialistic notions as its antagonistic system is, both are designed specifically to respond to material needs, nothing more. If personal interests were solely represented by private property communism would not be as deficient as it is; personal interests – selfishness, instead are multifaceted.
The Islamic System, the Proper Treatment of the Problem
As Baqir al-Sadr elucidated, the affliction of society is not private property, but it is instead the misused instinct of self-love within humankind. According to al-Sadr, there are only two options that can treat this malady. The first is what the communists attempted, and that is to replace the very nature of humans with another, such that they forget about their personal interests and instead give all their efforts to society. This would entail that self-love be excised from the very hearts of individuals and social love inserted into that vacancy. This first option demands that humankind wholly be reconstructed, but who is to be responsible for this societal surgery, and how long will that procedure take? This process is philosophically possible but practically implausible in implementation, and as mentioned before, in many ways this cure is worse than the disease itself. Nevertheless, for Baqir al-Sadr, seeing countless individuals submitting themselves to this communistic philosophy gives credence to how much society has suffered at the hands of the capitalistic system.
The second option is the Islamic option, which Baqir al-Sadr’s essay exposing both the capitalistic and communistic systems has all been leading up to. According to Baqir al-Sadr, the Islamic system came to adjust the human materialistic notion of life, he writes:
“Thus, Islam did not begin with the cancellation of private ownership. Rather, it assaulted the materialistic notion of life and posited, instead, a new notion of life. On the basis of this new notion, Islam established a system in which the individual is not considered as a mechanical tool in the social system, nor society as an organization established for the sake of the individual. Rather, it gave to each – the individual and society – their rights and insured for the individual both his spiritual and material dignity.”
Capitalism from its onset was destined to fail, and communism by virtue of its incorrect prescription too was destined to fail. Happiness cannot be drawn from the materialistic essence of the capitalistic democracy; the social system must find deliverance through a non-materialistic means. Islam went about this by introducing to the world a new set of guiding principles for life, such that pleasure was to ultimately be found in the satisfaction of God. Therefore, while personal interest still exists, it no longer is the driving factor in the individual’s decision making, instead one attempts to align their personal interests with the interests of God. Thus, self-love that is so intrinsic to human nature is not at all eliminated as communist ideals would demand, instead the morals and objectives influencing it are replaced. According to Baqir al-Sadr’s reading of history, it was self-love that allowed for the earliest of humans to survive, to thwart off threats, it is how they preserved their lives. This earliest form of self-love is how social life developed, based off these mutual human needs. Attempting to rid humankind of self-love is not only fighting reality but fighting humanity at its origins.
The moral criterion of trying to attain the satisfaction of God, works twofold, by both meeting the personal interests of individuals but also fulfilling the social objectives of society. This reconciliation can only occur through the advancement of religion [Islam], of which can be expressed in two forms. The first form is such that it explains life in a way that includes a concept of a just afterlife, that this life is only preparatory for that second life. Thus, these believers in religion would readily work towards establishing a happy society, implementing justice and equity amongst each other, such that they are proportionally compensated in the afterlife. This Baqir al-Sadr admits may be construed as a materialistic view, but he contends that the materialistic view of the other two systems limits the human outlook to just this world, whereas religion broadens one’s horizons such that their view on benefits and interests is much more profound. Baqir al-Sadr shares the following Qur’anic verses in his explication:
“He who does right it is for his soul, and he who does wrong it is against his soul” (41:46) 
“He who does right, whether male or female, and is a believer will enter Paradise where he will be provided for, without restriction” ( 40:40) 
“On that day, people will proceed in scattered groups to see their deeds. He who does good an atom’s weight will see it then, and he who does evil an atom’s weight will see it then” (99: 6-8) 
Thus, the profits in the view of religion concern good deeds and not wealth and resources, in fact in order to attain these good deeds many a times the believer is asked to sacrifice their worldly standing. This way personal interests as well as general human interests converge on the basis of goodness, as society together wants to please God.
The second form of reconciliation as brought by religion that Baqir al-Sadr mentions is reconciliation through didactic means. Religion introduced to the people a moral education that focuses on their spiritual nourishment and upbringing. As mentioned earlier, individual’s personal interests and inclinations are multifaceted. Some of these inclinations lead the individual towards their desires for pleasure (sex, food, etc) and material gain, however individuals too possess spiritual inclinations which largely remain dormant unless released through a process of education. This education is entrusted to infallibles, be they in the form of Prophets or Imams, under their guidance spiritual growth and an elevated state of consciousness develops. The result of this education is that moral values and ideals as found in religious teachings supersede one’s personal interests and benefits. This alters self-love in such a way that its ultimate pleasure is in the pursuit of these values. Therefore, the Islamic state primarily educates the people on what life means in both a spiritual and moral context, and thus this understanding guarantees that there is a balance between the individual and of society when determining the central principles for legislation and governance. It is at this point that Baqir al-Sadr concludes his essay, and then segues into his Falsafatuna manifesto.
Al-Sadr’s Theory of Governance
While Baqir al-Sadr does not elaborate on his theory of governance, it would be remiss if it is not briefly discussed here. When it comes to modern Shi’i political theory, focus is largely drawn towards Khomeini’s (d. 1409/1989) wilayat al-faqih (guardianship of the Islamic jurist), a form of the Platonic “philosopher-king” system, justified with Shi’i hadith that hint towards the deputization (niyabah) of the ‘ulama during the absence of the Twelfth Imam. There is much to say about Khomeini’s theory, but that would lead to an entirely different discussion. However, Baqir al-Sadr, like Khomeini, too was working on theorizing a Shari’ah system that could function efficiently and justly in the modern era. The reason why al-Sadr and other thinkers within Twelver Shi’ism had to theorize, was that unlike the Sunni caliphal system, as defined by the likes of al-Mawardi (d. 450/1058) in his al-Akham al-Sultaniyyah, the concept of ruling as a Hakim al-Shar’ (Shari’ah Ruler) according to the historic demands of Twelver Shi’ism was limited strictly to the Prophet and the divinely appointed Imams after him. Therefore, these thinkers had to comprehensively examine the Qur’an and Hadith literature in order to extract other themes and principles to assist in enacting a Shari’ah system whilst not violating the Imamic prerogative. Nevertheless, Baqir al-Sadr due to his tragic death was not given the full opportunity to develop a theory, however the closest we can get to his understanding is his 1979 pamphlet Khilafat al-Insan wa Shahadat al-Anbiya’ (Man as the Trustee of God, Prophets as the Witnesses) written barely a year prior to his execution. In this pamphlet al-Sadr traces the origins of the Shari’ah system to the origins of humanity itself, and he argues that the Qur’an states humankind were vested with a shared khilafah upon earth:
هُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَكُمْ خَلَائِفَ الْأَرْضِ وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَكُمْ فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ دَرَجَاتٍ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَا آتَاكُمْ ۗ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ سَرِيعُ الْعِقَابِ وَإِنَّهُ لَغَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ
“It is He Who has appointed you as khulafa upon the earth, and has raised some of you in rank above others, that He may try you in what He has given you. Surely thy Lord is swift in retribution; and surely He is All‑forgiving, All-compassionate.” (6:165)
God created humans as khulafa, therefore humanity collectively are trustees in managing the world. Khilafah was conferred upon all of humanity as a trust, and it is a heavy responsibility, not to be disregarded. Likewise, humans were created with the attributes of desire, reason, freedom, and guidance; when their desires overpower the other attributes, they become Pharaonic. Thus, in order to correct humanity from drifting into despotism, infallible Prophets and Imams were sent by God to serve as shuhada (witnesses) upon humankind, guiding them when they stray, as is found in the 33rd chapter, Surat al-Ahzab:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ شَاهِدًا وَمُبَشِّرًا وَنَذِيرًا وَدَاعِيًا إِلَى اللَّهِ بِإِذْنِهِ وَسِرَاجًا مُّنِيرًا
“O Prophet, We have sent thee as a witness, and good tidings to bear and warning, calling unto God by His leave, and as a light-giving lamp.” (33:45-46)
More specifically, as the shahid (witness), the infallible is tasked with enjoining good and forbidding evil, and through this role legislates the Shari’ah, introducing laws for humankind. This is explained in the following verse of the 7th chapter, Surat al-A’raf:
الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنْجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَآئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالأَغْلاَلَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُواْ النُّورَ الَّذِيَ أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ أُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“those who follow the Messenger, ‘the Prophet of the common folk, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, enjoining them to good, and forbidding them evil, making lawful for them the good things and making unlawful for them the corrupt things, and relieving them of their loads, and the fetters that were upon them. Those who believe in him and succour him and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him — they are the prosperous.’” (7:157)
Thus, mankind is entrusted with khilafah and the infallibles are tasked with being shuhada over mankind. However, this role of enjoining good and forbidding evil is not limited to just the infallibles, instead it is also tasked upon the believing men and women, as is found in Surat al-Tawbah:
وَٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ وَٱلۡمُؤۡمِنَـٰتُ بَعۡضُهُمۡ أَوۡلِيَآءُ بَعۡضٍ۬ۚ يَأۡمُرُونَ بِٱلۡمَعۡرُوفِ وَيَنۡهَوۡنَ عَنِ ٱلۡمُنكَرِ وَيُقِيمُونَ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَيُؤۡتُونَ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَيُطِيعُونَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ ۥۤۚ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ سَيَرۡحَمُهُمُ ٱللَّهُۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ۬
And the believers, the men and the women, are guardians one upon the other; they enjoin good, and forbid evil; they perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and they obey God and His Messenger. Those — upon them God will have mercy; God is All-mighty, All-wise.” (9:71)
Therefore, after the infallibles believers are shuhada of each other, in the sense that they hold each other accountable. Amongst the believers, the ‘ulama, specifically the marja’iyyah, by virtue of their great struggle in learning the religious sciences as well as their elevated piety are tasked with being witnesses upon society, and in turn the laypeople are shuhada over the scholars. Thus, for Baqir al-Sadr, in an envisioned Shari’ah state, the people are given democratic power as they are the khulafa, whereas Islamic jurists as shuhada are to play a role in the formulation of legislation through their necessary presence in the upper chamber. Similarly, Islamic jurists are to be given some authority within the judicial system, in order to judge the shari’i legitimacy of legislation. The marja’iyyah as an institution give direction to society by their constant advice, and they are to intervene in emergency situations through their issuance of fatawa in order to prevent calamities. The followers of Baqir al-Sadr named this system of shared responsibility for governance between the people and ‘ulama as wilayat al-ummah (guardianship of the Islamic community) in contrast to wilayat al-faqih of Khomeini.
There are many legitimate questions that arise from Baqir al-Sadr’s otherwise impressive essay rebuking the western social systems, and of these three are foremost. In his analysis of the capitalistic system, he traces its partial origination as a response to the ideational tyranny of the church in Europe. No matter how much more progressive one can demonstrate Islam to be in contrast to Christianity, by ultimately imposing its principles and regulating them upon society is their not a threat of ideational tyranny here? The response would be that in Baqir al-Sadr’s theory, the ‘ulama are not all-powerful, instead power is not only shared with the people, but that the majority of power is in the hands of the people. The concern here would be that even if the power is largely in the hands of the people, who can speak authoritatively for Islam other than the ‘ulama? This brings one to the second question and that is, if the fallacy of capitalism is the concentration of power with the wealthy elite, and likewise in communism with the state officials, how can the ‘ulama, whom control the narrative of Islam in the Shari’ah state, not too go down the path of elitism. The third and last question is in regards to his treatment of communism and socialism, he considers the latter as a toned down version of the former, which is not necessarily true as socialism is founded upon its own ideological principles, distinct from communism. This point however can be forgiven as it is unknown how much access he had to such literature whilst in a place like Najaf. Nevertheless, Baqir al-Sadr’s ‘The Social Problem’ essay elucidates his grave concern for the welfare of humankind, as well as his honest empathy for the followers of the three western social systems. His approach is not of religious fanaticism but of genuine altruism, such that his selflessness ultimately led to his martyrdom on the 8th of April, 1980. His last public words were:
““…Oh my brothers from the sons of Mosul and Basra, from the sons of Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf, from the sons of Samarra and Kazimiyah… from the sons of Amarah, Kut and Sulaymaniyyah… from the sons of Iraq from every region, my promise to you is that I am yours, that I am for you all, and that you all are my goal in the present and in the future. So let your words unite, and your lines join as one under the banner of Islam: for the sake of saving Iraq from the nightmare of this group of tyrants, and for the cause of building a free and dignified Iraq, ruled by the justice of Islam and where human dignity and rights are supreme, and where all citizens, from different ethnicities and sects, feel that they are brothers working together- all of them- in leading their country, rebuilding their nation, and realising their higher Islamic values based on our true message and great history.”
 The Library of Congress method of transliterating Arabic has been used, albeit without diacritic marks
 Sayyid ‘Abd Allah Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi, Bughiyat Al-Raghibin Fi Silsilah Al Sharaf Al-Din (Beirut: al-Maktabat al-Hadithah li’l-Taba’ah wa-l-Nashr, 2017)), p 13 -14.
 There are two villages known as Jaba’ in the Levant, with alternating spellings of جبع and جباع, one is within the Jabal ‘Amil region the other is near Nablus
 He was known as al-Jazzar, the butcher because of his violent tendencies as ruler
 al-Shahid al-Sadr (al-Fasahah Documentaries, n.d.))
 Sarah Bowen Savant, Genealogy and Knowledge in Muslim Societies: Understanding the Past (Edinburgh University Press, 2014)), p 145.
 By this time the greater al-Sadr family was regarded highly in both religious and political circles, a relative Sayyid Muhammad Hasan al-Sadr (d. 1375/1956) went on to serve as a prime minister of Iraq in the year 1948.
 Yitzhak Nakash, The Shi’is of Iraq (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003)), p 265.
 al-Sayyid Kazim al-Husayni al-Kazimi, Zindagi Wa Afkar-i Shahid Sadr, trans. Hasan Tarumi (Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Guidance, 1996))
 Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, Lessons in Islamic Jurisprudence, trans. Roy Parviz Mottahedeh (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003))
 T.M. Aziz, “The Role of Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr in Shiʿi Political Activism in Iraq from 1958 to 1980,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 25, no. 2 (April 23, 2009))
 ما هو النظام الذي يصلح الإنسانية و تسعد في حياتها الاجتماعية؟
 The translations utilized throughout are from the Muhammadi Trust’s 1987 translation, however as the page numbers were not available during the process of writing this paper, the Arabic original is being cited.
 al-Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, Falsafatuna (Beirut: Dar al-Ta’aruf al-Matbu’at, 1959)), p 49
 Ibid., p 50-51
 Ibid, p 60
 “Hegel’s Dialectics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, June 3, 2016, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/)
 Karl Marx, “Afterword to the Second German Edition,” Marxists Internet Archive, n.d., https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm)
 Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)
 al-Sadr, p 71-72
 Ibid, p 77
 Ibid, 82
 مَّنۡ عَمِلَ صَـٰلِحً۬ا فَلِنَفۡسِهِۦۖ وَمَنۡ أَسَآءَ فَعَلَيۡهَاۗ وَمَا رَبُّكَ بِظَلَّـٰمٍ۬ لِّلۡعَبِيدِ
 مَنۡ عَمِلَ سَيِّئَةً۬ فَلَا يُجۡزَىٰٓ إِلَّا مِثۡلَهَاۖ وَمَنۡ عَمِلَ صَـٰلِحً۬ا مِّن ذَڪَرٍ أَوۡ أُنثَىٰ وَهُوَ مُؤۡمِنٌ۬ فَأُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ يَدۡخُلُونَ ٱلۡجَنَّةَ يُرۡزَقُونَ فِيہَا بِغَيۡرِ حِسَابٍ۬
 يَوۡمَٮِٕذٍ۬ يَصۡدُرُ ٱلنَّاسُ أَشۡتَاتً۬ا لِّيُرَوۡاْ أَعۡمَـٰلَهُمۡ فَمَن يَعۡمَلۡ مِثۡقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيۡرً۬ا يَرَهُ ۥ وَمَن يَعۡمَلۡ مِثۡقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ۬ شَرًّ۬ا يَرَهُ
 Mohsen Kadivar, “Ayatollah Khomeini’s Political Theory and Public Interest ,” Mohsen Kadivar Official Site, April 20, 2020, https://english.kadivar.com/2020/04/20/ayatollah-khomeinis-political-theory-public-interest-url/)
 Jaffar Al-rikabi, “Baqir Al-Sadr and the Islamic State: A Theory for ‘Islamic Democracy’,” Journal of Shi’a Islamic Studies 5, no. 3 (2012): pp. 249-275)
 “Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr,” Ijtihad Network, n.d., http://ijtihadnet.com/ayatollah-sayyed-muhammad-baqir-sadr/)
al-Husayni al-Kazimi, al-Sayyid Kazim. Zindigi Wa Afkar-i Shahid Sadr. Translated by Hasan Tarumi. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Guidance, 1996.
al-Musawi, Sayyid ‘Abd Allah Sharaf al-Din. Bughiyat Al-Raghibin Fi Silsilah Al Sharaf Al-Din. Beirut: al-Maktabat al-Hadithah li’l-Taba’ah wa-l-Nashr, 2017.
Al-rikabi, Jaffar. “Baqir Al-Sadr and the Islamic State: A Theory for ‘Islamic Democracy’.” Journal of Shi’a Islamic Studies 5, no. 3 (2012): 249–75.
al-Sadr, al-Sayyid Muhammad Baqir. Falsafatuna. Beirut: Dar al-Ta’aruf al-Matbu’at, 1959.
al-Sadr, Muhammad Baqir. Lessons in Islamic Jurisprudence. Translated by Roy Parviz Mottahedeh. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003.
“Al-Sayyid Haydar Al-Sadr.” al-Shi’ah, Muwaqqa’ ‘Ilmi Thaqafi ‘Aqa’idi, n.d. http://arabic.al-shia.org/السيد-حيدر-الصدر/.
Al-Shahid Al-Sadr. al-Fasahah Documentaries, n.d.
Aziz, T.M. “The Role of Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr in Shiʿi Political Activism in Iraq from 1958 to 1980.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 25, no. 2 (April 23, 2009).
“Hegel’s Dialectics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, June 3, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/.
Kadivar, Mohsen. “Ayatollah Khomeini’s Political Theory and Public Interest .” Mohsen Kadivar Official Site, April 20, 2020. https://english.kadivar.com/2020/04/20/ayatollah-khomeinis-political-theory-public-interest-url/.
Marx, Karl. “Afterword to the Second German Edition.” Marxists Internet Archive, n.d. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm.
Marx, Karl. Critique of the Goth Program, 1875.
Nakash, Yitzhak. The Shi’is of Iraq. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.
Savant, Sarah Bowen. Genealogy and Knowledge in Muslim Societies: Understanding the Past. Edinburgh University Press, 2014.
“Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr.” Ijtihad Network, n.d. http://ijtihadnet.com/ayatollah-sayyed-muhammad-baqir-sadr/.