This series of short talks on Surah al-Balad – translated as Watan – was delivered by Sayyid Mustafa Muhaqqiq Damad and originally released as a collection of audio lectures. In these reflections, Ustad Muhaqqiq Damad presents a contemporary reading of the Qur’anic concept of homeland, exploring themes such as love of the watan, national culture, human dignity, civilizational identity, and ethical responsibility toward one’s land and society through the lens of Islamic teachings.
What you are about to read is an English translation and edited compilation of these lessons, gathered together into one continuous article for easier reading.
In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
“I swear by this city, and you reside within this city, and by the parent and what he begot.”
Surah al-Watan
The verses I recited are from what is commonly known as Surat al-Balad — the Chapter of the City. Yet, in light of the following verse, “and you reside within this city,” I have preferred to call it the “Chapter of the Homeland” (Surat al-Watan). This chapter begins with an oath by the city or homeland, treating it as something noble and sacred because it is the homeland of the Messenger of God. Apparently, this chapter was revealed in Mecca and consists of twenty verses.
The important message contained within these opening verses revolves around three themes. The first is love of one’s homeland. The second is the importance of the city, citizenship, and urban civilization. The third is the role of the family in the formation of civilization.
The subject of love for one’s homeland has occupied human attention since ancient times. In Islam as well, several Qur’anic verses and narrations have elevated attachment to one’s homeland into a religious value. Among these traditions is the famous saying attributed to the Prophet (p): “Love of one’s homeland is part of faith” (ḥubb al-waṭan min al-īmān). This statement attracted considerable attention among Muslim scholars.
Some scholars, unable to explain the relationship between faith and love of homeland, considered the narration problematic and eventually judged it to be fabricated. On the other hand, many scholars — from both Sunni and Shi‘i traditions — attempted to interpret “homeland” in different ways, such as Paradise, the Hereafter, or the broader Islamic world, in order to resolve the perceived difficulty in the narration’s meaning.
Others accepted the narration but argued that the “homeland” referred to here is humanity’s original homeland: Paradise. For example, Shaykh Bahā’ī, may God have mercy upon him, accepted the narration but then explained in poetry:
“Our homeland is not Egypt, Iraq, or Syria;
This homeland is a city without a name.”
In recent centuries, another difficulty emerged. Some thinkers, influenced by pan-Islamic ideas, attempted to oppose the concept of nationalism and love of homeland altogether. For example, Muhammad Iqbal Lahori famously said:
“Our hearts belong neither to India, Rome, nor Syria;
Our homeland is nothing but Islam.”
Thus, he criticized attachment to the territorial homeland. Yet two great Shi‘i commentators of the Qur’an — both Iranian scholars — accepted the narration in its apparent and literal meaning, and connected it to the historical circumstances under which the Prophet uttered these words.
One of these commentators lived in the sixth Islamic century and the other in the tenth. Both wrote Qur’anic commentaries in Persian. However, as far as I have been able to investigate, the earliest reliable appearance of this narration is found in the Marzbān-Nāmeh. As you know, the Marzbān-Nāmeh is a book composed in the early centuries in the style of Kalīlah wa Dimnah. It was originally written in old Mazandarani by Marzbān ibn Rustam Sharwin, one of the local rulers of Mazandaran, and later translated into Persian by Sa‘d al-Din Varāvīnī in the sixth century. The work contains moral tales and animal fables.
As for the first commentator, he was Mullā Fatḥullāh Kāshānī in his commentary Minhāj al-Ṣādiqīn. He narrates from Ibn ‘Abbās that when the Messenger of God (p) departed from Mecca during the migration to Medina, and reached the Cave of Thawr, he turned back toward Mecca and declared:
“You are the most beloved of God’s lands to me. Had the stubborn disbelievers and hostile idolaters not driven me out, I would never have left you.”
Then he connected this statement to the saying: “Love of homeland is part of faith.” He explained that the Prophet would never have abandoned his homeland willingly nor chosen separation from it.
The second commentator was Abū al-Futūḥ al-Rāzī of Rayy, a scholar of the tenth century Hijri, who wrote in exceptionally beautiful Persian. He similarly narrates from Ibn ‘Abbās that when the Messenger of God left Mecca for Medina and spent the night in the cave, he gazed toward Mecca and said:
“There is no city in the world more beloved to me than you, O Mecca. Had the disbelievers not expelled me, I would never have departed willingly.”
Abū al-Futūḥ then says that it was here that the saying “Love of homeland is part of faith” was uttered. He also mentions another narration: “Love of homeland is from purity of birth” (ḥubb al-waṭan min ṭīb al-mawlid). This is a fascinating expression. It suggests that a person of pure and lawful birth naturally loves his homeland. Conversely, one who lacks attachment to his homeland should question the purity of his own origins.
In addition, one of the great Shi‘i jurists of the fifth century transmitted another narration reinforcing the significance of the homeland. He narrates that after the Muslims settled in Medina, many of them fell ill and longed for Mecca. The Prophet (p) then prayed:
“O God, make Medina beloved to us just as You made Mecca beloved to us — or even more beloved.”
All of these narrations, and many others besides them, clearly demonstrate that the Prophet deeply loved his homeland, Mecca. Numerous statements expressing attachment and affection toward Mecca have been narrated from him.
Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī relates another striking report in al-Iṣābah. Before the verses mandating hijab for the wives of the Prophet were revealed, a man named Usayl al-Ghifārī came from Mecca to Medina and met ‘Ā’ishah. She asked him about the condition of Mecca, and he began describing it beautifully and nostalgically. ‘Ā’ishah asked him to wait until the Prophet arrived so he could repeat these descriptions in his presence.
Shortly afterward, the Messenger of God (p) entered, and the same conversation was repeated. When the Prophet heard Usayl’s vivid description of Mecca, he interrupted him and said:
“That is enough, O Usayl (حَسْبُكَ يَا أُصَيْلُ). Do not make us sorrowful any further.”
Meaning: “You have reminded me of my homeland.” The memories and emotions associated with his homeland returned to him once again.
Love of homeland was one of the slogans and lived realities of the Prophet of Islam. We are Muslims, and in this famous narration, a direct connection is established between faith and attachment to one’s homeland: “Love of homeland is part of faith.”
Solidarity as the Shield of the Homeland
In this turbulent and chaotic age — when the insane and insatiable greed of oil profiteers, thirsty for this black flowing wealth, continues through its habitual deceitful methods to tear apart and overturn the unaware yet oil-rich countries of Africa and Asia, one after another, through fire, bloodshed, destruction, and death — the only thing that can truly serve as our shield, armor, fortress, and impenetrable wall of security for us and for our homeland is undoubtedly the interwoven unity, solidarity, harmony, and national togetherness of our people.
This unity must encompass all of us: every ethnicity, every race, every language, and every religion or school of thought.
Yet such national cohesion and interdependence will never come into being except through holding firmly to our shared positive cultural and historical commonalities. And this chain of connection and shared bond cannot be achieved except through study, examination, awareness, familiarity, and a correct understanding of the history, culture, and civilization of all those who live within the political borders of contemporary Iran.
However, even this understanding and recognition of our shared past will lead nowhere and bear no fruit unless its acceptance and implementation settle deeply within our collective conscience in the form of an unbreakable national covenant and sacred pact, becoming second nature to our very being.
Faithfulness to this ideal and national covenant reveals itself in our immediate response whenever foreign aggression threatens us, whenever the independence of the country is endangered, whenever oppressive enemies seek domination, and during all other major social events.
We must never forget our ancient and longstanding spirit and culture — namely, love of homeland, love of Iran, and devotion to our motherland. We must always keep alive our enduring slogan:
“If there is no Iran, may my body not remain.
If this land and soil perish, may not a single soul remain alive upon it.”
Allow me to conclude my remarks with lines from our renowned contemporary poet, the late Master Mehdi Akhavan Sales:
“From this hollow world, if there is anything I love,
It is you, O ancient land and homeland.
I love you,
O ancient and eternal old realm.
I love you,
O precious and age-old Iran.
I love you,
O noble jewel.
I love you,
O ancient birthplace of the great ones.
How magnificent is this name — and I love it.”
The Foundations of Collective Civilization
To truly understand a nation, we must pay attention to two fundamental elements. The first is the element of identity, and the second is the element of national culture.
Perhaps it may be said that these two social phenomena do not come into existence except after the formation of the earliest nucleus of collective human life, when people, driven by the need for cooperation in confronting and overcoming the challenges of nature and advancing social life within their homeland, gathered together. Over the course of long centuries, through mutual understanding and shared experience, and through collective struggle and labour in producing the tools and means of livelihood, they gradually developed a material culture as well as language, customs, arts, literature, religion, philosophy, worldview, and all the particular values, norms, obligations, and prohibitions that shaped their spiritual culture.
The narration of the memorable and significant events of their shared collective life — which in the earliest periods existed only orally and was transmitted from mouth to mouth — eventually, with the emergence of writing and historical documentation, was transformed into a written historical memory. This collective memory ultimately gave rise to a valuable national identity.
Such a memory and identity — through constant remembrance, emphasis, repetition, and honouring of it — strengthen the cohesion, unity, harmony, and continuity of a nation’s collective spirit and existence. This identity has often proven to be stronger and more enduring than borders, walls, fortresses, and iron barriers, and more effective than deadly weapons in times of foreign invasion and hardship, particularly in preserving the homeland and safeguarding the continuity and survival of nations.
For this reason, identity and culture — in terms of their national, historical, and social function and value in establishing, preserving, and continuing the life of a human society — have always operated together as two inseparable elements. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that in the absence of either of these two harmonizing phenomena, national and historical existence could retain any real meaning or coherence.
Just as the flight of a bird depends upon the possession of two wings, so too are these two twin concepts indispensable. Their significance and status are so profound that scholars of political science and sociology, when defining the concept of nationhood, also articulate their understanding through the meaningful concepts of identity and national culture using precise and comprehensive scientific language.
Anthony Smith defines a nation in the following way: “A nation is a named human population whose members possess a historic territory, shared myths and historical memories, a common public culture, a common economy, and shared legal rights and duties.”
Human Dignity and Iranian Culture
In the scientific definition of identity, scholars state that national identity is something constructed through history and sustained through continuous narration and transmission. As for culture, linguists define it as refinement, knowledge, understanding, education, and cultivation.
Abu Nasr Farahi, the linguist and poet of the ninth Islamic century, says in his book Nisab al-Ṣibyān: “An adīb is one who teaches adab,” meaning that culture is synonymous with refinement and cultivated conduct.
Sociologists define culture as the essence of social life, reflected in all of our thoughts, desires, words, and activities. They also say that culture is the collection of the material and spiritual values of human society that have emerged through the course of its historical and social activity.
Having briefly referred to the concepts of culture and national identity from the perspective of linguists and sociologists, I would now like to speak about the place and character of these two outstanding social and national phenomena — namely identity and culture — within the history and civilization of our beloved Iran.
Without resorting to exaggeration, grandiose claims, or departing from the framework of historical realities and events, a brief examination of the pages of history — pages often written more according to the desires of enemies than by the pens of friends — together with a study of inscriptions, stone carvings, more than sixty thousand Persepolis tablets, and the vast body of archaeological discoveries, clearly reveals that from the most ancient times until the present day, the culture of the Iranian land, although bearing the marks of the efforts, struggles, aspirations, ideals, and collective historical life of all the peoples dwelling within the Iranian plateau, has nonetheless remained a truly human, social, transnational, universal, and inclusive culture.
It is a culture free from ethnic, racial, and sectarian fanaticism. It is a culture of reconciliation and tolerance, a culture of coexistence and accommodation, thirsty for mutual understanding with the diverse societies of the world. At the same time, it possesses the ability to absorb, refine, and neutralize destructive forces. It is a civilization and culture that lays down the sword, the claw, the fang, and the rage of bloodshed and brutality, and turns away from destruction, massacre, ruin, and human misery.
Within the nurturing embrace of this gentle, compassionate, and human-centered culture arose figures such as Zoroaster and Cyrus; Darius, Anushirvan, and Bozorgmehr; Borzuya the physician, Zakariya al-Razi, Ibn Sina, Ferdowsi, Sa‘di, Attar, Khayyam, Rumi, and Hafez — each of whom, through their thought, conduct, speech, and brilliant works, inspired the admiration of the wise throughout world history.
Allow me here to quote a passage from a well-known French sociologist named Émile Grousset concerning Iran and Iranian culture. He says:
“Iran owes a great debt to humanity, because history testifies that through the powerful and subtle culture it developed across the centuries, Iran created the means for understanding, harmony, and concord among nations. Through the influence of Iranian thought and culture, different peoples came to share common beliefs and convictions. Iranian poetry delighted the world, and the mystics of Iran, despite being completely Muslim, move the heart of a Christian just as deeply as they move the soul of a Brahmin.”
I repeat this sentence:
“The mystics of Iran, despite being completely Muslim, move the heart of a Christian just as deeply as they move the soul of a Brahmin.”
And for this very reason, Iranian culture belongs to all humanity.
The Prophetic Description of the Persian People
After discussing the definition and analysis of identity and national culture — which are essential for the existence of a nation — we now turn to the important elements that constitute the identity and national culture of our Iran.
I find it appropriate to begin my remarks with the narration of a very important statement from the Seal of the Prophets, peace and blessings of God be upon him, as transmitted by Ibn Shahrāshūb, one of the scholars of the eighth Islamic century. In my view, this narration is extremely significant and fascinating.
Ibn Shahrāshūb, the author of Manāqib Āl Abī Ṭālib, was from Mazandaran in Iran. He performed a very important service in his multi-volume work. I will quote this passage from his book.
He writes — and I will provide the Persian rendering of his Arabic text — that when the Persian captives entered Medina, the second caliph ordered that the Persian princesses be taken as slave women and the Persian princes be reduced to servitude. He even commanded that Persian princes and military commanders be used to carry weak, elderly, and sick Arabs during the circumambulation of the Ka‘bah. In other words, they were to remain near the Sacred Sanctuary so that whenever an aged, ill, or weak Arab wished to perform ṭawāf, these Persian nobles would carry them upon their shoulders around the Ka‘bah.
But when Imam ‘Ali (a) heard of this, he referred to a statement of the Prophet (p) concerning the Persians. The Prophet had said:
“The Persians are wise and noble people. Do not do this.” (al-Furs ḥukamā’ kurramā’)
Imam ‘Ali strongly prevented such treatment.1
In this statement, the Noble Messenger of Islam describes the Iranians with two qualities and two defining characteristics. The first is that they are ḥukamā’ — the plural of ḥakīm, meaning sages or wise men. The second is that they are kuramā’ — the plural of karīm, meaning noble and generous people.
“They are wise, and they are noble.”
I would now like to speak about these two characteristics, after which we will continue with other discussions.
The first quality is the matter of wisdom. If I were to say that the most distinguished and recognizable element within Iranian culture and civilization is knowledge and wisdom, I would not be exaggerating. Likewise, if I were to say that these two traits — wisdom and nobility — are among the most prominent characteristics of Iranian culture, I would not be speaking falsely.
In histories of philosophy written by Western authors, great effort is often made to portray Greece as the pinnacle and origin of human civilization, and the Greek people as uniquely gifted with extraordinary genius. In the Western imagination, Greece is regarded as the mother and cradle of European civilization. Through reinforcing this identity and a largely mythical and questionable historical narrative, Westerners seek to connect themselves to an imagined Greece from three thousand years ago in order to present Europe as possessing an ancient and civilized identity, the offspring of Greece. In doing so, they attempt to create a place for Europe alongside the great ancient Eastern civilizations such as Iran, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China.
Hegel, one of the prominent Western philosophers — and I quote him through Copleston — wrote that:
“The name of Greece awakens in the hearts of cultured Europeans the feeling of home.”
In other words, they regard Greece as the homeland of culture itself.
Other European historians hold the same sentiment. They express deep emotional attachment to Greece, despite the fact that Greece, centuries after the formation of Athens, and even during the era of the Achaemenid Empire and the flourishing civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt, did not truly possess an independent political, social, or historical existence comparable to the other ancient nations.
Yet they continue to speak of Greece with enormous reverence, whereas historically such a narrative does not truly exist.
According to established historical evidence, around 4500 years before the Common Era, Thales of Miletus — whom they consider the first Greek philosopher — had in fact studied astronomy, philosophy, and mathematics in Mesopotamia and Iran, according to many researchers. He later spread these sciences and philosophical ideas, and he became famous as the first person in the West to calculate eclipses. But his education had taken place in Iran.
Pythagoras, from the island of Samos in the Aegean Sea, also travelled to Egypt, Babylon, Iran, and India. He acquired wisdom and knowledge from the Iranian Magi before returning to his homeland. There, he established a school centered around esoteric and mystical teachings and promoted the Iranian philosophy of illumination, which is known as the Khusrawani Wisdom. Later, due to political pressure, he fled to southern Italy.
Other famous philosophers, aside from Socrates and Plato, similarly came from and were influenced by other civilizations.
Thus, it is an injustice for them to claim that all philosophy and the very beginning of philosophy originated exclusively in Greece. It is an injustice against Iran.
Based on what I have presented, those who insist that Greece was the first birthplace of philosophy, science, and art, and who perhaps view Iran’s intellectual past with skepticism, must accept that centuries before the seeds of knowledge and wisdom were planted in Greek soil, scientific, medical, and philosophical centers already existed across the Iranian plateau. These institutions were actively engaged in teaching, research, and the training of astronomers, physicians, and mathematicians — so much so that Greek, Indian, and Chinese scholars repeatedly referred in their own writings to the existence of such academies.
Persian Pursuit of Knowledge
We previously stated that the Noble Messenger of Islam (p) described Iranian culture with two defining characteristics: wisdom and human nobility. We also explained that wisdom (ḥikmah) in its specific sense refers to the rational sciences, while in its broader sense it refers generally to knowledge and learning.
In the statement of the Messenger of God (p), the intended meaning is the broader and more general one, not merely the restricted philosophical sense. Therefore, it includes both the rational sciences and the empirical sciences.
There is another narration found in authoritative Islamic sources concerning Iranian culture. This narration appears in three different forms in Islamic texts, and in our view, it is possible that all three expressions were uttered by the Prophet (p) on separate occasions.
The first narration is transmitted from Imam al-Ṣādiq (a). I quote it from Qurb al-Isnād by ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja‘far al-Ḥimyarī, one of the most reliable Shi‘i hadith collections. Imam al-Ṣādiq narrates from his father, Imam al-Bāqir, that the Messenger of God (p) said:
“If knowledge were suspended from the star Sirius, men from Persia would surely attain it.”
The mention of Sirius refers to an old Arabic expression. Whenever the Arabs wished to describe something extremely distant, difficult, or seemingly inaccessible, they would say it was “near Sirius.” Thus, the Prophet means that even if knowledge were hanging from the farthest star, people from Persia would still pursue it and acquire it.
As I mentioned, I quote this narration from al-Ḥimyarī’s work, but it is also found in many other sources, including Kanz al-‘Ummāl, Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Ḥilyat al-Awliyā’, al-Durr al-Manthūr, the Musnad of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and Safīnat al-Biḥār of Shaykh ‘Abbās al-Qummī.
However, in some other sources, such as the noble tafsīr Majma‘ al-Bayān by al-Ṭabarsī, the word “knowledge” is replaced with “religion.” The narration appears in the context of the revelation of verse 54 of Sūrat al-Mā’idah:
“O you who believe! Whoever among you turns back from his religion — God will soon bring forth a people whom He loves and who love Him; humble toward the believers, stern toward the disbelievers; they strive in the path of God and fear not the blame of any blamer. That is the grace of God which He grants to whom He wills, and God is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing.”
When this verse was revealed, according to Majma‘ al-Bayān, someone asked the Prophet (p): “O Messenger of God, who are these people?” The Prophet placed his hand upon the shoulder of Salman al-Farsi and said:
“This man, his companions, his people, and his countrymen.”
Then the Prophet (p) said:
“If religion were suspended from Sirius, men from the sons of Persia would attain it.”
Meaning: even if the true religion of God were hidden in the furthest reaches of the heavens, Persian seekers would still find it. They would seek out the truth, attain it, and then live according to its teachings.
This narration is found in Majma‘ al-Bayān, volume 3, page 21.
These two narrations may well have been uttered on two separate occasions. Yet there is also a third narration.
Ibn Khaldun — who is regarded throughout the world as one of the fathers of sociology, so much so that many major universities still maintain academic chairs in his name — also preferred the first version, mentioning “knowledge.” He argues that the course of history itself stands as the greatest proof of the Prophet’s words. When we study history, we see exactly as the Prophet described: the Iranians pursued knowledge relentlessly.
I will now read the Persian translation of Ibn Khaldun’s words:
“One of the astonishing realities is that the majority of the scholars of the Islamic nation, whether in the religious sciences or in the rational sciences, were non-Arabs except in rare cases. Even when some of them were considered Arab by lineage, they were Persian in language, upbringing, and teachers.”
In other words, even if they were ethnically Arab, they had studied under Persian masters.
He continues:
“This is true in the rational sciences, just as it was true regarding the founders of grammar such as Sibawayh, al-Fārisī, al-Zajjāj, and others — all of whom were Persian by origin. They learned the Arabic language through interaction with the Arabs, but then transformed it into a systematic science with principles and rules, from which later generations benefited.”
In other words, they learned Arabic through social interaction with Arabs, but it was the Persians who organized it into the sciences of grammar and morphology (naḥw and ṣarf).
Ibn Khaldun further adds that the scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh, the theologians of kalām, and most Qur’anic commentators were also Persian. He says that no people besides the Persians truly rose to preserve, codify, and develop the sciences. Thus, the saying of the Prophet (p) was fulfilled:
“If knowledge were suspended from the heavens, a people from Persia would attain it.”
Ibn Khaldun then remarks that the rational sciences in Islam only flourished after the sciences had become organized disciplines with distinguished scholars and authors, and these sciences became particularly associated with the Persians. The Arabs later learned them from the Persians. This remained the case so long as civilization flourished in Persia and its regions such as Iraq, Khurasan, and Transoxiana. Knowledge advanced alongside civilization.
This discussion appears in the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun.
Now, as you saw, we have two narrations: one concerning knowledge and another concerning religion. Yet there is also a third narration related to the opening verses of Sūrat al-Jumu‘ah.
When the opening verses of Sūrat al-Jumu‘ah were revealed, the Prophet (p) recited them during a Friday sermon similar to this gathering. The verses speak of God sending the Messenger to the unlettered people and then mention “others among them who have not yet joined them.”
At that moment, someone asked the Prophet (p): “O Messenger of God, who are these people?”
The Prophet placed his hand upon Salman al-Farsi and said:
“If faith were suspended from Sirius, men from these people would attain it.”
So now we have three versions: one mentioning knowledge, one mentioning religion, and one mentioning faith.
If faith itself were hidden among the distant stars, men from Persia would still reach it.
This narration is a tremendous honor for the Iranian people. It is narrated by ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī in al-Mīzān, by al-Suyūṭī in al-Durr al-Manthūr, by al-Zamakhsharī in al-Kashshāf, by al-Qurṭubī, by al-Marāghī, and by Sayyid Quṭb in Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān. The main narration is found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
Thus, we encounter three expressions — knowledge, religion, and faith — and in our view, it is entirely possible that the Prophet ﷺ uttered all three on separate occasions.
Sa‘di’s Ethics of Noble Conduct Toward Others
The second element that the Messenger of God (p) identified in the national culture of Iranians was human dignity. He said:
“These Persians are wise and noble people.”
That is, the people of Iran are sages who possess nobility and human dignity.
The word karāmah has a very broad and expansive meaning. In verse 70 of Sūrat al-Isrā’, the Qur’an says:
“We have certainly honoured the children of Adam, carried them on land and sea, provided them with good things, and favoured them greatly over many of those We created.”
The word karramnā — “We honoured” — appears in the intensive verbal form, which indicates abundance. This means: We have granted the human being great and abundant dignity. This dignity has been given to the human being as a human being — to the children of Adam — not merely to the human being as a believer. It is because one is a child of Adam, because one is human, that dignity has been granted.
In Persian, this word has often been translated as honour, nobility, greatness, elevation, and similar terms. Yet it seems that karāmah contains a meaning greater than all of these. None of these words fully captures the content of karāmah.
In verse 72 of Sūrat al-Furqān, God says:
“And when they pass by vain or immoral conduct, they pass by with dignity.”
This verse describes the true servants of the All-Merciful. God, in His quality of mercy, has special servants, and these servants possess certain qualities. Among them is that when they encounter vain, futile, or wrongful actions, they respond with dignity.
From this verse, we can understand that if a person is attentive to their own dignity, first, they will not commit wrongdoing themselves; and second, when dealing with wrongdoers, they will deal with them with dignity.
Among the interpretations offered for this noble verse, in my view, one of the finest is the interpretation given by Sa‘di Shirazi in the Gulistan. He tells the following story:
A man was lying drunk on the roadside, having lost control of himself. A pious man passed by and looked at him with contempt in that humiliating state. The young man awoke from his drunken sleep, raised his head, and recited:
“When they pass by vain conduct, they pass by with dignity.”
After citing this verse, Sa‘di gives three lines of poetry. The first is in Arabic, and the next two are in Persian:
“When you see a sinner, be concealing and forbearing.
O you who look upon my affair, why do you not pass by nobly?
O pious one, do not turn your face away from the sinner.
Look upon him with forgiveness.
If I am base in my conduct,
Then pass over me as the noble-hearted do.”
These three lines, in Sa‘di’s view, are an interpretation of the Qur’anic verse.
Sa‘di’s interpretation is that karāmah and moral elevation may be rendered in Persian as javanmardi — chivalry, noble-heartedness, or magnanimity. He considers this quality to be one of the signs of the complete servants of God.
Grammatically, the word kirāman in the verse functions as a circumstantial qualifier for “they pass.” That is, they pass nobly and generously. Of course, “passing” here does not merely mean physically walking by. In this verse, the word “pass” appears twice. The first passing means encountering or coming across something. The second passing means responding or acting in a noble-hearted way.
The common interpretation of this verse is that when the men of God encounter ugly actions committed by others, and when they are invited to participate in them, they consider themselves too noble to join the company of those who act shamefully. In this interpretation, the first “passing” means encountering, while the second “passing” means turning away and refusing to participate.
But Sa‘di offers a different interpretation. In his view, when one encounters the ugly actions of others, one must respond with dignity and nobility.
Sa‘di translates karāmah into Persian as javanmardi. According to him, and especially in light of the verses that follow in his poem, a chivalrous response to sin and sinners requires several things.
First: concealment. That is, even though the wrongdoer has committed an improper act, he still possesses rights. The first human right of a wrongdoer is that his privacy and personal dignity must be protected, and his faults must be concealed rather than exposed.
Second: forbearance. One must be patient and forbearing. Religious zeal must not become an excuse to destroy someone’s reputation or violate their personal sanctity.
Third: one must not turn away from the sinner with bitterness. Those who consider themselves pious, if they wish to combine piety with noble-heartedness, must adopt an educational and ethical approach in dealing with sinners. A true educational ethic means not responding with harsh legality or cold rejection, and not turning one’s face away from the sinner.
Fourth: one must look with forgiveness. Not only should one avoid turning away from the sinner; rather, one should look upon the sinner with compassion, mercy, and kindness.
This is the way of the people of futuwwah — the path of spiritual chivalry.
In other words, the famous interpretation of the verse focuses merely on a negative act when confronting ugly behaviour: namely, turning away. But according to Sa‘di’s interpretation, “passing with dignity” when encountering ugly conduct means carrying out positive acts of nobility and chivalry. It means responding with kindness and taking constructive steps toward the person’s moral education.
That is what it means to act with karāmah.
Of course, I have a particular view regarding the meaning of karāmah and the claim that it is one of the central elements of Iranian culture. I will explain that in the next lesson.
Human Dignity as Rights-Consciousness
We stated previously that the Messenger of God (p) identified two principal elements in Iranian culture: wisdom and human dignity. He said:
“The Persians are wise and noble people.”
We also explained that various interpretations and translations have been offered for the concept of karāmah (human dignity): honour, nobility, chivalry, magnanimity, and similar expressions in Persian.
However, the Noble Qur’an, even when speaking about ugly and wrongful actions — actions it describes as laghw, vain and improper conduct — still commands a “noble” or “dignified” response:
“And when they pass by vain conduct, they pass by with dignity.”
Therefore, we must understand karāmah in a way that properly fits this Qur’anic context as well.
In my view, karāmah is an inward spiritual and moral quality whose effects become manifest in one’s dealings with others. Its practical expression is this: a noble person is one who recognizes rights for other people.
This is my understanding of the meaning of karāmah.
A husband must recognize rights for his wife, and a wife for her husband. Parents must recognize rights for their children, and children for their parents. More generally, every human being, by virtue of the other’s humanity, must recognize rights for another human being.
This, in my opinion, is the meaning of karāmah. And in this matter, friendship and enmity, personal affection and inner beliefs, must not interfere.
Even for one’s enemy, one must recognize rights. This is precisely what the Noble Qur’an teaches:
“Do not let the hatred of a people cause you to abandon justice. Be just; that is nearer to piety.”
Even toward an oppressor — someone who has wronged us and is our enemy — we are commanded to act with justice.
Justice toward friends is easy and unremarkable. True justice is justice toward one’s enemy. This is the teaching of the Qur’an, and it is a sign of human dignity.
If someone wrongs us, we are permitted only to repel and prevent that oppression. We are not permitted to become oppressors like them.
The Noble Qur’an relates the words of one of the sons of Adam when his brother attacked him:
“If you stretch out your hand toward me to kill me, I will never stretch out my hand toward you to kill you. Indeed, I fear God, the Lord of the worlds.”
This means that when an aggressor attacks, one may defend oneself and repel the aggression — but one may not commit reciprocal oppression and injustice.
With the definition we have presented, it becomes clear why the principle of human dignity has become the central axis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Interestingly, in the writings of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the expression “human rights” itself scarcely appears, yet he is regarded as one of the intellectual fathers of universal human rights because he emphasized the principle of human dignity and made it foundational.
If the people of Iran have been described as “noble,” it is because within Iranian culture — from the time of Cyrus the Great onward — the issue of human rights and human dignity was regarded as one of the primary principles of society.
God willing, in future discussions, we will examine in detail the statements and principles concerning human rights found in the legacy of Cyrus the Great.
Cyrus the Great and the Moral Imagination of Iranian Civilization
We previously stated that the Messenger of God (p) identified two principal elements within Iranian culture: the first was wisdom, and the second was human dignity.
We also explained that, in our understanding, the necessary implication of human dignity is that every human being must recognize rights for another human being simply by virtue of that person being human.
Whoever the other person may be, a noble person must acknowledge rights for them.
We further stated that if the people of Iran have been described as noble, it is because within Iranian culture, from the era of Cyrus the Great onward, respect for human rights was recognized as one of the foundational principles of society. Cyrus has therefore been regarded as one of the pioneers of human rights.
At the 43rd General Conference of UNESCO held in Samarkand, the Charter of Cyrus the Great was officially recognized as one of the earliest charters in world history, emphasizing respect for cultural diversity and the concept of human rights.
If we truly wish to understand the personality of Cyrus the Great, we should compare him with one of the kings or emperors of his own era so that we may appreciate the immense difference between them.
I suggest comparing Cyrus with Ashurbanipal, though in truth the comparison is hardly fair.
Assyria was a land in northern Iraq and parts of southeastern Turkey that later became the center of the Assyrian Empire. At the same time, there existed in western Iran the civilization of Elam, an ancient Iranian civilization whose center was the region known today as Ilam.
In 645 BCE, the Assyrian emperor Ashurbanipal attacked this civilization and reached its capital. He devastated the land with bloodshed and destruction. He looted its treasuries filled with gold, silver, poetry, and precious objects. He exhumed the bones of Elamite kings and renowned men from their graves and sent them to Nineveh, the Assyrian capital.
He tied the fleeing king of Elam behind his chariot and dragged him to the temple of Ishtar. To destroy the agricultural lands, they scattered salt and stones across the fields. The scale of slaughter, plunder, and devastation became so great that one of the prophets of the Israelites referred to Elam as a graveyard.
Ashurbanipal himself proudly described these brutal acts in one of his inscriptions. He wrote:
“I carried away the soil of the city of Susa and the city of Madaktu and all the other cities to Assyria. In the space of one month and one day, I swept the land of Elam completely clean. I deprived this land of the sound of livestock and of music. I allowed wild beasts, snakes, animals, and gazelles to overrun it.”
Elsewhere, he wrote:
“I flayed all the leaders who had rebelled against me and covered pillars with their skins. Some I immured within walls, others I impaled upon stakes, and still others I pierced through with sharp spears. I cut off the hands and feet of the rebellious officials.”
Now compare such a character and such deeds with the noble Cyrus of Iran.
Though, honestly speaking, it is not a fair comparison, yet there is no other way to introduce Cyrus except through such contrasts. Only then can one truly see the distance between the two.
The text of Cyrus’s decree reads as follows:
“I am Cyrus, king of kings, the great king, the mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters of the world, son of Cambyses, the great king, descendant of Cyrus, whose dynasty is beloved of the gods and whose rule is dear to the hearts of the people.
When I entered Babylon without battle or conflict, all the people welcomed my arrival with joy. I sat upon the throne in the palace of the kings of Babylon.
Marduk, the god of Babylon, turned the noble hearts of the people of Babylon toward me, because I treated him with honour and reverence.
My great army entered Babylon peacefully. I did not permit harm or suffering to come upon the people of this city and this land.
The condition of Babylon and its sacred places deeply moved my heart. I commanded that all people should be free in the worship of their own gods and that no one should harass them.
I commanded that no one should deprive the inhabitants of the city of their livelihood.
The great god was pleased with me and bestowed his blessings upon me, Cyrus, son of Cambyses, and upon all my army.
The kings seated throughout the world in their palaces — from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea and the kings of the West — all brought heavy tribute and kissed my feet in Babylon.
I commanded that from Babylon to Assyria and Akkad, and throughout all the lands beyond the Tigris, which had been established since ancient times, the temples that had been closed should be reopened.
I returned all the gods of those temples to their rightful places so that they might remain there forever.
I gathered together the inhabitants of those regions and rebuilt the homes that had been destroyed.
I restored the gods of Sumer and Akkad unharmed to their sanctuaries, places known as ‘the joy of the heart.’
I granted peace and tranquillity to all the people.”
This is the magnanimous and human-centred proclamation of Cyrus — a message that rises from the depths of history and carries the conscious hearts of the children of this land deep into the past, so that they may stand before the grandeur of his spirit and the nobility of his statesmanship with reverence and admiration.
From Cyrus to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
We previously stated that the foundational axis of the principles of universal human rights is the concept of human dignity — a principle which the Messenger of God ﷺ identified as one of the two defining elements of Iranian culture.
In future discussions concerning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we will explain that the introduction to this global charter emphasizes the recognition of the inherent dignity of all members of the human family, their equal and inalienable rights, and the fact that this inherent dignity cannot be transferred or taken away. These principles are presented as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.
The declaration further states that the creation of a world in which human beings enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and poverty represents one of humanity’s highest aspirations.
If we wish to review the history of human rights thought, then undoubtedly one of the oldest and deepest-rooted documents in human history is the Charter of Cyrus the Great.
The Charter of Human Rights attributed to Cyrus stands as one of the clearest proofs of the authenticity and legitimacy of Iranian culture. The authenticity, historical value, and antiquity of this document have been affirmed by renowned archaeologists throughout the world, and opponents of Iran — up to this very moment in which I speak — have not succeeded in proving, through any sound evidence or rational argument, their claims concerning its lack of authenticity.
This cylinder is currently preserved in the British Museum, and a replica of it is also displayed at the headquarters of the United Nations.
Several centuries after Cyrus, historians are generally unanimous in acknowledging that the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (p), established in the Arabian Peninsula a civilization founded upon citizenship rights, human rights, and humanitarian principles.
The Prophet opposed the social corruptions of his age and introduced Islamic social reforms in areas such as social welfare, family structure, the gradual abolition of slavery, women’s rights, and the rights of ethnic groups.
John Esposito regards the Prophet of Islam as a reformer who condemned many of the practices of the pagan Arabs, including the killing of infant girls, exploitation of the poor, usury, murder, unjust agreements, and theft.
Similarly, Bernard Lewis believed that the egalitarian nature of Islam represented a significant advancement over both the Greco-Roman world and ancient Persia.
The famous Pact of Medina — known as the Constitution or Charter of Medina — was established by the Prophet (p). This document constituted a formal agreement between the Prophet and various tribes and families in Yathrib, later known as Medina, including Muslim groups, Jewish tribes, and even pagan communities.
This charter implicitly sought to end the bitter inter-tribal wars, particularly the conflicts between the Aws and Khazraj tribes within Medina. Accordingly, the Prophet established a number of mutual rights and responsibilities for the Muslim and Jewish communities living there, bringing them together into a single political and social community — what was termed an Ummah.
During the Farewell Pilgrimage sermon, the Prophet (p) emphasized principles that were, for many of his listeners, entirely new and unprecedented. Many of those principles later found their way into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the twentieth century.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted and adopted in the twentieth century after the end of the Second World War, simultaneously with the establishment of the United Nations Charter. On December 10, 1948, it was approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations with the affirmative vote of 48 out of 56 member states.
It should be noted that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted without a single negative vote and only eight abstentions.
The states of Belarus, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and South Africa abstained.
Six of the abstaining countries were communist states and abstained because they believed the declaration did not sufficiently address collective or socialist concerns and focused too heavily on individual rights. South Africa abstained because it rejected aspects concerning political, economic, and cultural equality, while Saudi Arabia abstained due to objections regarding the principle of religious freedom.
Our beloved Iran, alongside 47 other countries, voted in favour of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This declaration represents the first comprehensive human rights document adopted by an international organization, and naturally, it possesses exceptional moral and political significance. It has been presented as a shared understanding among nations regarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of human beings — rights and freedoms that must always be respected and protected.
For the international community, it constitutes one of humanity’s great achievements.
Human Brotherhood, Freedom, and Equality
Our discussion in the interpretation of the “Chapter of the Homeland” reached the subject of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We stated that the introduction to the Universal Declaration emphasizes the recognition of the inherent dignity of all members of the human family, together with their equal and inalienable rights, as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.
It further declares that the creation of a world in which human beings enjoy freedom of speech and belief and are free from fear and poverty represents the highest aspiration of humanity.
We also emphasized that this principle of the inherent dignity of the human being is precisely the same principle that the Noble Messenger of Islam (p) identified as one of the two principal elements of Iranian culture.
The introduction to the Declaration also stresses that the General Assembly has proclaimed this Declaration as a common ideal for all peoples and nations, so that it may constantly remain before them and that they may strive to promote respect for these rights and freedoms.
This Declaration consists of thirty articles.
In Article 1, the philosophical foundation of the Declaration is presented. It declares that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights; that all possess reason and conscience; that all belong to one human family; and that they should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
This principle of the unity of the human family — presented as the philosophical basis for universal human brotherhood — is precisely the same principle expressed in the Noble Qur’an in verse 13 of Sūrat al-Ḥujurāt:
“O humanity, We created you from a male and a female.”
That is, the entire human family shares one father and one mother, and humanity therefore possesses a fundamental familial unity.
Article 2 further emphasizes the foundational principle of equality and non-discrimination.
Articles 3 through 21 deal with civil and political rights and the fundamental freedoms of human beings, constituting the largest portion of the Declaration’s provisions.
Among the most important civil and political rights mentioned in the Declaration are the following:
Article 3: the right to life, liberty, and personal security.
Article 4: freedom from slavery and the prohibition of the slave trade.
Article 5: the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Article 6: the right to recognition as a person before the law.
Article 7: equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
Article 8: the right to an effective remedy before competent courts.
Article 9: the prohibition of arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.
Article 10: the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
Article 11: the presumption of innocence and the prohibition against retroactive criminal laws.
Article 12: the right to privacy.
Article 13: freedom of movement and residence.
Article 14: the right to asylum.
Article 15: the right to nationality.
Article 16: the right to marry freely and with full consent.
Article 17: the right to property.
Article 18: freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
Article 19: freedom of opinion and expression.
Article 20: freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Article 21: the right to participate freely in the public affairs of one’s country.
Article 22: the right to social security.
Article 23: the right to work, to free choice of employment, to protection against unemployment, and to equal pay for equal work without discrimination.
Article 24: the right to rest, leisure, and recreation.
Article 25: the right to an adequate standard of living and support in times of unemployment or disability.
Article 26: the right to education.
Article 27: the right to participate freely in the cultural life of the community and to enjoy the moral and material benefits resulting from scientific, literary, or artistic productions.
The Declaration also recognizes in Article 29 that the rights and freedoms mentioned within it are not absolute and that their exercise may in certain cases be limited.
Paragraph 2 of Article 29 specifies that in exercising one’s rights and freedoms, every person shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others, as well as meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society.
In other words, the only thing that may legitimately limit a person’s freedom is harm caused to the freedoms and rights of others, together with the proper requirements of morality, public order, and the common good.
The Geneva Conventions and Humanitarian Law: Protecting Human Dignity in War
After the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, additional international conventions were also ratified which further emphasized principles and standards whose foundation, as we have explained, rests upon the principle of the inherent dignity of the human being — a principle that the Noble Messenger of Islam (p) identified as one of the two principal elements of Iranian culture.
As we discussed in previous sessions, the Charter of the United Nations declared war itself to be fundamentally prohibited. Yet due to the realities of human nature — or at least the behaviour of some human beings — the possibility of armed conflict remained an undeniable reality.
Therefore, after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in 1949, following the end of the Second World War, a conference was convened in Geneva in which various dimensions of warfare were addressed, including the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians during armed conflicts. The result was the drafting of four conventions.
The First Geneva Convention guarantees humane treatment without discrimination for wounded and incapacitated soldiers and medical personnel who are no longer participating in hostilities.
The Second Convention extends those protections to shipwrecked soldiers and naval forces.
The Third Convention emphasizes the protection of prisoners of war.
Finally, the Fourth Convention concerns the protection of civilians during wartime, especially in occupied territories.
Collectively, these four treaties are known as the Geneva Conventions.
Later, in 1977, two additional protocols were attached to these conventions, known as the Additional Protocols.
Taken together, these conventions and protocols established a body of international legal standards for humanitarian conduct during war. This body of law is known as International Humanitarian Law (IHL). It establishes minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees for respecting victims of armed conflict, gradually replacing earlier customary rules.
Furthermore, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions — particularly Article 53 — prohibits any hostile action against historical monuments, places of worship, and cultural heritage belonging to the common heritage of humanity.
This prohibition includes direct attacks and destruction of such sites. Only under extremely limited circumstances involving absolute military necessity — which is itself a separate and highly restricted discussion — may exceptions arise.
Likewise, the military use of historical, cultural, and archaeological sites through the placement of military equipment within or near them has also been prohibited.
It should also be mentioned that in recent decades, especially within the last fifteen years, the International Criminal Court has emerged as an extremely important institution in our era.
Under the Rome Statute, particularly Article 8, intentional attacks against historical and cultural buildings — provided they are not military objectives — are recognized as war crimes.
Therefore, if it can be proven that a historical monument was deliberately targeted while lacking any military use, such an act may result in international criminal responsibility for those who carried it out.
Indeed, if damage to historical sites results from deliberate and direct attacks, this may constitute a clear violation of international law and even a war crime.
Even in cases where such sites are not directly targeted, parties involved in conflict remain obligated, according to the principle of precaution, to avoid damage to cultural heritage. Any negligence in this regard may also entail legal responsibility.
The Geneva Conventions have produced several important positive effects within the international order.
First, the primary focus of the Geneva Conventions is the protection of civilians and non-combatants — ordinary people who are not participating in warfare. They also define non-combatant status for medical personnel during armed conflicts and establish special protections and restrictions for them, guaranteeing that those treating the sick and wounded must be protected from all forms of attack or interference.
These conventions have played a central role in promoting humanitarian values. In particular, the International Committee of the Red Cross — which was instrumental in the creation of the Geneva Conventions — has significantly advanced universal humanitarian values, especially humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations.
The Geneva Conventions provide a vital legal framework for protecting those who serve in the treatment of the sick and wounded during armed conflicts, emphasizing the obligation to reduce suffering under such conditions.
These conventions require allied and participating forces to comply with humanitarian rules, especially regarding the treatment of civilian populations and prisoners of war. This provides humanitarian specialists and relief workers with guidance during armed conflicts.
In our own book, we have made many comparisons between these international principles and Islamic sources regarding these subjects. By the grace of God, we defended this dissertation with distinction and the highest honours at Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium, and thanks be to God, the work has now gone through several printings. I hope those who are interested will consult the book.
Karbala, Human Dignity, and the Ethics of War
We stated previously that the foundational principle underlying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international humanitarian law is the principle of the inherent dignity of the human being — a principle explicitly affirmed in the Noble Qur’an and regarded as a divine gift bestowed by God.
We also explained that the Noble Messenger of Islam (p) identified human dignity as one of the two principal elements of Iranian culture.
It is interesting to note that in place of the word karāmah (dignity), Imam Husayn ibn Ali used another term in his final moments — when, due to severe wounds and blood loss, he had become physically weakened and exhausted. Yet that term carries precisely the same meaning.
That word is āzādegī and javanmardī — freedom, nobility, and chivalry. The Imam called people to become ahrār — free and noble human beings.
On the Day of Ashura, when the enemy army attacked the tents of his household, Imam Husayn (a) cried out:
“O followers of the family of Abu Sufyan! If you have no religion and do not fear the Hereafter, then at least be free and noble in your worldly lives. You fight me, and I fight you. These women have committed no offence.”
In other words, even one who fights in war must preserve dignity and nobility. Warfare conducted with chivalry and honour means that soldiers fight soldiers. Women and children are to remain safe from all harm.
“Why,” the Imam asked, “do you attack my household?”
Observing these principles is a sign of humanity itself. It is not dependent upon religion or sectarian affiliation.
The very principles we referred to in international humanitarian law are all founded upon this same idea: that warfare itself should ideally be abolished altogether. Yet if, God forbid, conflict exceptionally occurs, then these principles must still be upheld.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions established international standards for humanitarian conduct during war, throughout history and in many conflicts, their provisions have repeatedly been violated.
The greatest violations, he argues, have been committed by the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people, most recently in Gaza, in ways that drew the attention of the entire world. Countless innocent women and children were killed. So many children lost their lives.
One of the clearest violations of these humanitarian standards of warfare, he continues, occurred during the attacks carried out by the United States in cooperation with the Zionist regime against Iran in the closing months of the Persian year 1404 and the beginning of 1405.
According to the speaker, this aggression violated all international standards and contradicted the Charter of the United Nations. Actions were then committed that openly violated international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions, and their additional protocols.
He states that during the very first day of those attacks, residential areas in Minab were bombed, resulting in the deaths of many children, some of whose bodies, he says, remained beneath the rubble. Several hospitals and medical centers were attacked, scientific institutions were destroyed, and numerous historical sites of Iran — which belong to the shared heritage of human civilization — were damaged or destroyed.
These acts of violence, he says, deeply angered the patriotic people of Iran, who could not bear to witness the destruction of their homeland.
At this point, he recalls the poetry of Malek o-Sho’ara Bahar, composed during a similar historical moment in Iran’s past — verses that seem to arise from the depths of every Iranian heart:
O land of great Iran,
O my homeland,
My soul and body are woven together with your love.
O sky of the inhabited world,
Once again your borders are thrown into turmoil,
And my heart has become filled with sorrow.
Far from you, neither flower nor tulip nor jasmine has meaning for me,
O garden of my tulips and jasmine.
So many thorns of calamity pierce the heart
When your trampled gardens lie before my eyes.
As long as your borders are filled with enemy armies,
My grieving heart shall never know peace.
O my God,
If I should live without my homeland,
My very nature would become demonic.
Alas and sorrow,
That you have become so stripped of color
That even my own woven cloth cannot serve as my shroud.
And today once again I cry out with endless sorrow:
Alas and sorrow —
My homeland, my homeland.
Long live Iran.
Peace be upon you.
Sayyid Ali studied in the seminary of Qom from 2012 to 2021, while also concurrently obtaining a M.A in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College of London in 2018. In the seminary he engaged in the study of legal theory, jurisprudence and philosophy, eventually attending the advanced kharij of Usul and Fiqh in 2018. He completed his Masters of Education at the University of Toronto in 2025 and is the head of a private faith-based school in Toronto, as well as an instructor at the Mufid Seminary.
Footnotes
- Full narration is as follows, in vol. 4, pg. 48:
لَمَّا وَرَدَ بِسَبْيِ الْفُرْسِ إِلَى الْمَدِينَةِ أَرَادَ عُمَرُ بَيْعَ النِّسَاءِ وَ أَنْ يَجْعَلَ الرِّجَالَ عَبِيدَ الْعَرَبِ وَ عَزَمَ عَلَى أَنْ يَحْمِلُوا الْعَلِيلَ وَ الضَّعِيفَ وَ الشَّيْخَ الْكَبِيرَ فِي الطَّوَافِ وَ حَوْلَ الْبَيْتِ عَلَى ظُهُورِهِمْ فَقَالَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (عليه السلام) إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ ع قَالَ أَكْرِمُوا كَرِيمَ قَوْمٍ وَ إِنْ خَالَفُوكُمْ وَ هَؤُلَاءِ الْفُرْسُ حُكَمَاءُ كُرَمَاءُ فَقَدْ أَلْقَوْا إِلَيْنَا بِالسَّلَمِ وَ رَغِبُوا فِي الْإِسْلَامِ فَقَدْ أَعْتَقْتُ مِنْهُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّهِ حَقِّي وَ حَقِّ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ فَقَالَتِ الْمُهَاجِرُونَ وَ الْأَنْصَارُ قَدْ وَهَبْنَا حَقَّنَا لَكَ يَا أَخَا رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فَقَالَ اللَّهُمَّ فَاشْهَدْ أَنَّهُمْ قَدْ وَهَبُوا وَ قَبِلْتُ وَ أَعْتَقْتُ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ سَبَقَ إِلَيْهَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ وَ نَقَضَ عَزْمَتِي فِي الْأَعَاجِمِ وَ رَغِبَ جَمَاعَةٌ فِي بَنَاتِ الْمُلُوكِ أَنْ يَسْتَنْكِحُوهُنَّ فَقَالَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُخَيِّرُهُنَّ وَ لَا نُكْرِهُهُنَّ فَأَشَارَ أَكْبَرُهُمْ إِلَى تَخْيِيرِ شَهْرَبَانُويَهْ بِنْتِ يَزْدَجَرْدَ فَحَجَبَتْ وَ أَبَتْ فَقِيلَ لَهَا أَيَا كَرِيمَةَ قَوْمِهَا مَنْ تَخْتَارِينَ مِنْ خُطَّابِكِ وَ هَلْ أَنْتِ رَاضِيَةٌ بِالْبَعْلِ فَسَكَتَتْ فَقَالَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (عليه السلام) قَدْ رَضِيَتْ وَ بَقِيَ الِاخْتِيَارُ بَعْدُ سُكُوتُهَا إِقْرَارُهَا فَأَعَادُوا الْقَوْلَ فِي التَّخْيِيرِ فَقَالَتْ لَسْتُ مِمَّنْ تَعْدِلُ عَنِ النُّورِ السَّاطِعِ وَ الشِّهَابِ اللَّامِعِ الْحُسَيْنِ إِنْ كُنْتُ مُخَيَّرَةً فَقَالَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ لِمَنْ تَخْتَارِينَ أَنْ يَكُونَ وَلِيَّكِ فَقَالَتْ أَنْتِ فَأَمَرَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حُذَيْفَةَ بْنَ الْيَمَانِ أَنْ يَخْطُبَ فَخَطَبَ وَ زُوِّجَتْ مِنَ الْحُسَيْنِ ع.
When the captives from Persia were brought to Medina, Umar ibn al-Khattab intended to sell the women and to make the men slaves of the Arabs. He also resolved that they should carry the sick, the weak, and the elderly during the circumambulation (ṭawāf) around the House (the Kaʿbah) on their backs. At that point, Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Commander of the Faithful (a), said:
“The Prophet (p) said: Honour the noble of a people, even if they oppose you. These Persians are wise and noble. They have inclined toward us in peace and have shown interest in Islam. Therefore, I have freed my share and the share of Banū Hāshim among them for the sake of God.”
The Muhājirūn and the Anṣār then said: “We grant our rights to you, O brother of the Messenger of God.” He replied: “O God, bear witness that they have granted (their rights), and I have accepted and set them free.”ʿUmar then said: “ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib has preceded me in this matter and overturned my decision regarding the non-Arabs.” After this, a group expressed interest in marrying the daughters of the Persian nobility. The Commander of the Faithful said, “We will give them the choice and will not compel them.”
Their leader indicated that Shahrbanu, the daughter of Yazdegerd III, should be given the choice. She veiled herself and refused. It was said to her: “O noble lady of her people, whom do you choose from among your suitors? Are you content with marriage?” She remained silent. So the Commander of the Faithful said: “She has consented; her silence is her acknowledgment, though the choice remains with her.”
They repeated the offer of choice. She then said: “I am not one who would turn away from the radiant light and the shining star – al-Ḥusayn – if I am given the choice.” The Commander of the Faithful then asked: “Whom do you choose to be your guardian (walī)?” She replied: “You.” So the Commander of the Faithful instructed Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman to conduct the marriage proposal. He did so, and she was married to Husayn ibn Ali (a).
