The Causes Responsible for Materialist
The topic of the present study are the causes that lie behind materialist tendencies.
Before we proceed with the discussion it is necessary that we first define the word
'materialism,' as a term current in common usage, and specify its exact meaning for
the purpose of the present discussion.
The word 'materialism' has various usages and all of them are not relevant to our
study while studying the cause for materialist inclinations. For example, at times
'materialism' is used to refer to the school of thought which asserts the principiality
of matter in the sense that matter is something fundamental (asil) and real in the
realm of existence and not something imaginary and mental, an appearance and a
product of the mind. In this sense it is opposed to 'idealism' which negates the real
existence of matter and considers it a mental construct. In this sense of materialism,
we would have to categorize all theists, both Muslims as well as non-Muslims, as
'materialists,' because all of them consider matter-as a reality existing in space and
time and subject to change, transformation, and evolution, and which is also
perceivable and tangible-as an objective reality existing externally and
independently of the mind and having its own properties. Being a 'materialist' in this
sense does not contradict with the concept of God or monotheism. Rather, the
material world and nature as a product of creation constitute the best means for
knowing God. The workings of Divine will and wisdom are discovered in the
transformations which take place in matter, and the Holy Qur'an, too, refers to
material phenomena as the 'signs' of God.
Sometimes this word is used to imply the negation of supra-material being, as an
exclusivist school of thought which considers existence and the realm of being as
confined to matter, confining being to the realm of the changeable and limiting it to
space and time. It negates the existence of all that does not fall within the
framework of change and transformation and is not perceivable by the sense
Our present discussion centres around the causes for inclining towards this
exclusivist school of thought, and the reasons why a group of people became
protagonists of this exclusivist and negative theory, negating God and imagining
anything outside the ambit of the material world as non-existent. Is Man by Nature
a Theist or a Materialist?
This manner of posing the issue, i.e with the question 'What are the causes for
inclining towards materialism?,' suggests that we claim that man by nature would
not incline towards materialism, and that materialism is an unnatural tendency
opposed to human nature (fitrah). And since it goes against the rule, it is necessary
to seek its cause and to investigate the reasons which have led to the violation of
To put it more simply, it implies that faith in God is equivalent to the state of health,
and the materialist tendency is equivalent to disease. One never asks about the
reasons of health, because it is in accordance with the general course of nature. But
if we come across a person or a group which is sick, we ask as to why they are sick.
What is the cause of their illness?
This viewpoint of ours is completely opposed to the view usually expressed in books
on history of religion. The writers of these books generally tend to pursue the
question, 'Why did man develop the religious tendency?'
In our opinion, the religious tendency does not need to be questioned, because it is
natural; rather, the question that needs to be examined is why do human beings
develop tendencies towards irreligion?
Presently we do not intend to pursue the argument whether being religious is
something natural and the lack of religion unnatural, or if the converse is true,
because we see no need for doing so from the point of view of the main topic of our
However, it is worth noting that we do not mean that, as the monotheistic tendency
is natural and innate (fitrah), no questions arise when the issue is dealt with at the
intellectual and philosophical level. This is certainly not meant. This matter is just
like every other issue that naturally- and despite affirmation by natural instinct-
gives rise to questions, objections and doubts in the mind of a beginner when posed
at the rational level, and satisfying answers to them are also available at that level.
Therefore, we neither intend to disregard the doubts and ambiguities which do in
fact arise for individuals, nor do we consider them consequences of an evil
disposition or ill-naturedness. Not at all. The emergence of doubts and ambiguities
in this context, when someone seeks to solve all the problems related to this issue,
is something natural and usual, and it is these doubts that impel human beings
towards further quest. Accordingly we consider such doubts which result in further
search for truth as sacred, because they constitute a prelude to the acquisition of
certitude, faith, and conviction. Doubt is bad where it becomes an obsession and
completely absorbs one's attention, as with some people whom we find enjoying
the fact that they are able to have doubt concerning certain issues and who
consider doubt and uncertainty to be the zenith of their intellectual achievement.
Such a state is very dangerous, contrary to the former state which is a prelude to
perfection. Therefore, we have said repeatedly that doubt is a good and necessary
passage, but an evil station and destination.
Our present discussion concerns the individuals or groups who have made doubt
their abode and final destination. In our opinion, materialism, although it introduces
itself as a dogmatic school of thought, is in fact one of the sceptic schools. The
Qur'an also takes this view of the materialists, and according to it they are, at best,
beset with a number of doubts and conjectures, but in practice they flaunt them as
knowledge and conviction.  The Historical Background:
This mode of thinking is not new or modern. It should not be imagined that this
mode of thought is a consequence of modern scientific and industrial developments
and has emerged for the first time during the last one or two centuries, like many
other scientific theories which did not exist earlier and were later discovered by
man. No, the materialist thinking among human beings is not a phenomenon of the
last few centuries, but is one of the ancient modes of thought. We read in the
history of philosophy that many ancient Greek philosophers who preceded Socrates
and his philosophical movement, were materialists and denied the supra-material.
Among the Arabs of the Jahillyyah contemporaneous to the Prophet's ministry
there was a group with a similar belief, and the Qur'an, while confronting them,
quotes and criticizes their statements:
They say, 'There is nothing but our present life; we die, and we live, and nothing but
time destroys us.' (45:24).
This statement, which the Qur'an ascribes to a group of people, involves both the
negation of God as well as the Hereafter. Materialism in Islamic History:
The word 'dahr' means time. Due to this verse and the term dahr occurring in it,
those who negated the existence of God were called 'dahriyyah' during the Islamic
period. We encounter such people in Islamic history who were dhari and
materialists (maddi), especially during the reign of the Abbassids, when various
cultural and philosophical trends entered the Islamic world.
Due to the freedom of thought which prevailed during that period with respect to
scientific, philosophical and religious ideas (of course, to the extent that it did not
contradict the policies of the Abbassids), some individuals were formally known as
materialists and atheists. These individuals debated with Muslims, with the
adherents of other religions, and with believers in the existence of God, and
presented their arguments and raised objections concerning the arguments of the
monotheists. Thus they did enter into dialogue and freely expressed their beliefs,
and we find their accounts recorded in Islamic works.
During the lifetime of Imam Sadiq, may Peace be upon him, there were certain
individuals who used to gather inside the Prophet's Mosque and express such
views. The book al-Tawhid al-Mufaddal is a product one of such episodes.
A companion of Imam Sadiq ('a) named al-Mufaddal ibn 'Umar narrates: "Once I
was in the Prophet's Mosque. After prayer I became engrossed in thought about
the Prophet (S) and his greatness. Just then 'Abd al-Karim ibn Abi al 'Awja', who was
an atheist (zindiq), came and sat down at some distance. Later another person
holding similar views pined him, and both of them started uttering blasphemies.
They denied the existence of God and referred to the Prophet (S) simply as a great
thinker and a genius and not as a Divine emissary and apostle who received
revelations from an Unseen source. They said that he was a genius who presented
his ideas as revelation in order to influence the people; otherwise there was no God,
nor any revelation or resurrection."
Mufaddal, who was greatly disturbed on hearing their talk, abused them. Then he
went to Imam Sadiq, may Peace be upon him, and narrated the incident. The Imam
comforted him and told him that he would furnish him with arguments with which
he could confront them and refute their views. Thereafter Imam Sadiq ('a)
instructed Mufaddal in the course of a few long sessions and Mufaddal wrote down
the Imam's teachings. This was how the book al-Tawhid al-Mufaddal came to be
compiled. Materialism in the Modern Age:
As we know, during the 18th and 19th centuries materialism took the form of a
school of thought which it did not have earlier. That which is ascribed to some
schools of ancient Greece does not have a proper basis. Usually the writers of
history of philosophy do not know philosophy, and when they come across certain
statements of some philosophers concerning the pre-eternity of matter or some
other opinions of the kind, they imagine that this amounts to the negation of God
and the supra-natural. It has not been established for us that there existed a
materialist school of thought before the modern age. Rather, what did exist earlier
in Greece and elsewhere were individual tendencies towards materialism.
However, this is what has led many people to suppose that perhaps there is some
direct relation between the emergence of materialism as a school of thought and
science and scientific advancements.
Of course, the materialists themselves make a great effort to present the matter as
such, and they try to convince others that the cause of the growth and prevalence
of materialism during the 18th and 19th centuries was the emergence of scientific
theories and that it was the spread of science which resulted in mankind being
drawn towards it. This observation resembles a joke more than any noteworthy
The inclination towards materialism in ancient times existed both among the
educated as well as the illiterate classes. In the modern age, too, the case is similar.
Materialists can be found in all classes, and likewise there are theistic, spiritual and
metaphysical inclinations in all classes and sections, especially among the learned. If
what the materialists claim were true, in the same proportion that advances are
made in science and great scientists are born in the world, there should be an
increase in the inclination towards materialism among the scholarly class, and
individuals possessing more scholarship should be greater materialists, while in fact
this is not the case.
Today, we see on the one hand some well well-known personalities like Russell,
who, to a large extent, present themselves as materialists. He says, "Man is the
product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his
origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the
outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."  Thus Russell rejects the existence
of a conscious and intelligent power ruling the universe, although at other places he
avers to be a skeptic and an agnostic. 
On the other hand, we find Einstein, the twentieth century scientific genius,
expressing an opinion opposed to that of Russell; he says "You will hardly find one
among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own
... His religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of
natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it,
all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant
reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he
succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond
question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
Can it be said that Russell is familiar with the concepts of modern science whereas
Einstein is ignorant of them? Or that a certain philosopher of the 18th or l9th
century was familiar with the scientific concepts of his age whereas the theist
Pasteur was unaware and ignorant of them?!
Or can we say that William James, the monotheist or rather the mystic of his time,
Bergson, Alexis Carrell and other such thinkers were ignorant of the scientific ideas
of their time and their thinking was in tune with the ideas of a thousand years ago,
while a certain Iranian youth who does not possess a tenth of their knowledge and
does not believe in God is familiar with the scientific ideas of his age?!
At times one sees two mathematicians, one of whom believes in God and religion
while the other is a materialist, or for that matter two physicists, two biologists, or
two astronomers, one with a materialist and the other with a theistic bent of mind.
Therefore, it is not that simple to say that the advent of science has made
metaphysical issues obsolete. That would be a childish observation.
We need to centre our discussion more on the question as to what were the factors
that led to the emergence of materialism as a school of thought in Europe, attracting
a large number of followers, even though the 20th century, in contrast to the 18th
and 19th centuries, saw a decline in the advance of materialism and in it materialism
even met with a kind of defeat?
This large-scale drift has a series of historical and social causes which require to be
studied. I have come across some of these causes during the course of my study
which I shall mention here. Perhaps those who have done a closer study of social
issues, especially in the area of European history, would identify other reasons and
factors. Here I only intend to discuss the results of my study. Inadequacies in the
Religious Ideas of the Church
The Church, whether from the viewpoint of the inadequacy of its theological ideas,
or its inhuman attitude towards the masses, especially towards the scholars and
freethinkers, is one of the main causes for the drifting of the Christian world, and
indirectly the non-Christian world, towards materialism.
We will analyze this factor in two sections:
1. Inadequacies in the ideas of the Church relating to God and the metaphysical.
2. The violent conduct of the Church. Section 1:
In the Middle Ages when the clerics became the sole arbiters of issues relating to
divinities, there emerged amongst them certain childish and inadequate ideas
concerning God which were in no way consonant with reality. Naturally, these not
only did not satisfy intelligent and enlightened individuals, but created in them an
aversion against theism and incited them against theist thought. Anthropomorphic
Conceptions of God:
The Church painted a human picture of God and presented Him to the people in an
anthropomorphic form. Those who were brought up to conceive God with these
human and physical features under the influence of the Church, later, with
advances in science, came to find that these ideas were inconsistent with scientific,
objective, and sound rational criteria.
On the other hand, the vast majority of people naturally do not possess such power
of critical analysis as to reflect over the possibility that metaphysical ideas might
have a rational basis and that the Church was wrongly presenting them.
Thus when they saw that the views of the Church did not conform to the criteria of
science they rejected the issue outright.
There is a book titled The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, consisting of
forty articles by forty scientists belonging to various fields of specialization, wherein
each scholar has presented arguments proving the existence of God in accordance
with has own specialized area of study. This book has been translated into Persian.
Among these scholars is Walter Oscar Lundberg, who presents a scientific
argument for the existence of God. In the course of his study he examines why
some people, including scholars, have developed a materialist tendency.
He mentions two causes of which one has been already mentioned by us,
inadequate ideas taught on this subject to the people in the church or at home.
Our singling out the churches in this regard does not mean to imply that those who
give instruction on religious issues from our pulpits (manabir) and mosques have
always been informed and competent individuals who know what is to be taught
and possess an in-depth knowledge of Islam. One reason why we mention only the
church is that our discussion is about the causes behind materialist inclinations and
these tendencies existed in the Christian world and not in the Islamic environments.
Whatever materialism is found in Islamic societies has been, and is, the result of
copying and imitating the West. Secondly, there existed in the Islamic milieu a
school of thought at the level of philosophers and metaphysicians, which satisfied
the intellectual needs of the researchers and saved the scholars from the fate of
their counterpart in Europe, while there existed no such school within the Church.
In any case this is what Walter Oscar Lundberg says
There are various reasons for the attention of some scholars not being drawn
towards comprehending the existence of God while undertaking scientific studies;
we will mention just two of them here. The first (reason) is the general presence of
oppressive political and social conditions or governmental structures which
necessitate the negation of the existence of God. The second (reason) is that human
thinking is always under the impact of some vague ideas and although the person
himself may not undergo any mental and physical agony, even then his thinking is
not totally free in choosing the right path. In Christian families the children in their
early years generally believe in an anthropomorphic God, as if man has been
created in the image of God. These persons, on entering a scientific environment
and acquiring the knowledge of scientific issues, find that this weak and
anthropomorphic view of God does not accord with scientific concepts.
Consequently, after a period of time when the hope of any compromise is dashed,
the concept of God is also totally discarded and vanishes from the mind. The major
cause of doing so is that logical proofs and scientific definitions do not alter the past
sentiments and beliefs of these persons, and it does not occur to them that a
mistake had taken place in the earlier belief about God. Along with this, other
psychic factors cause the person to become weary of the insufficiency of this
concept and turn away from theology. 
Summarily, that which is observable in certain religious teachings-and regrettably is
also found amongst ourselves, to a more or less extent-is that a characteristic
concept is projected in the minds of children under the name and label of 'God.'
When the child grows up and becomes a scholar, he finds that this concept is not
rational and such a being cannot exist, whether it be God or something else.
The child on growing up, without reflecting or critically concluding that perhaps
there might exist a valid conception, rejects the idea of divinity altogether. He
imagines that the concept of God he is rejecting is the same as the one accepted by
theists, and since he does not accept this creature of his own mind, which is the
product of popular superstition, he does not believe in God. He does not notice that
the concept of God which he is rejecting is also rejected by the theists, and that his
rejection is not the rejection of God but is the rejection of something that ought to
Flammarion in the book God and Nature observes: "The Church presented God in
this manner: 'The distance between his right and left eye is 12000 leagues.' " It is
obvious that persons with even a meagre knowledge of science cannot believe in
such a being. Auguste Comte's Conception of God:
Flammarion quotes a statement of Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism and
what is known as scientism, which offers a good view of the way God was pictured
by such scholars as Auguste Comte living in the Christian environment of that time.
Flammarion says: Auguste Comte has said: "Science has dismissed the Father of
nature and the universe from his post, consigning him to oblivion, and while
thanking him for his temporary services, it has escorted him back to the frontiers of
What he means is that earlier every event that took place in the world was
explained by relating it to God as its cause. For example, if someone got a fever, the
question why the fever had come about and from where it came had the answer
that God had sent the fever. That which was commonly understood by this
statement was not that it is God who governs the universe and that to say that He
had caused the fever implied that He was the real and ultimate mover of the world.
Rather, this statement meant that God, like a mysterious being, or a magician
engaged in sorcery, had all of a sudden decided to cause fever without any
preparatory cause, and so the fever came about. Later science discovered its cause
and it was observed that fever was not brought about by God, but by a certain
Here God retreated one step. Henceforth the theist was forced to say that we will
shift our argument to the bacteria: Who created the bacteria?
Science also discovered the cause of bacteria by identifying the conditions in which
they come to exist. Again God had to retreat one step, and the argument proceeded
by asking the cause of that cause. God's retreat continued, and, at last, with the
spread and expansion of science the causes of a large number of phenomena were
discovered. Even those phenomena whose causes were not yet discovered were
known for certain to possess causes belonging to the category of causes already
known. Thereat man had to dismiss God for good with an apology, because there
no longer remained any place and post for Him.
The state of God at this stage was that of an employee in an office in which he was
initially given an important post, but with the recruitment of more competent
individuals his responsibilities were gradually taken away, and eventually, when he
was divested of all his earlier responsibilities, there remained no post and place left
for him. At this time the manager of the office approaches him, thanks him for his
past services, and with an excuse hands him the dismissal orders and bids him
farewell once and for all.
Auguste Comte uses the term 'Father of nature' for God. His use of this term for
God shows the influence of the Church in his thought. Although he was against the
teachings of the Church, his own concept of God was derived from the Church's
ideas, from which he was not able to free himself.
Taken together, the observations of Auguste Comte suggest that in his opinion God
is something similar to a part and factor of this world, albeit mysterious and
unknown, by the side of other factors. Moreover, there are two types of
phenomena in the world, the known and the unknown. Every unknown
phenomenon should be linked to that mysterious and unknown factor. Naturally,
with the discovery of every phenomenon and its becoming known as a
consequence of science, the domain of influence of the unknown factor is
This mode of thinking was not characteristic of him, but it was the thinking that
prevailed in his environment and era. The Station of Divinity:
Hence the main thing is that we ascertain the station of Divinity and comprehend
the place, position and 'post' of God. Is the position of God and the Divine in the
realm of being such that we may consider Him to be one of the beings in the world
and a part of it? May we allot Him a certain function among the various functions
that exist in the world, thereby affecting a division of labour, and then, for
determining God's special function, examine the various effects whose causes are
unknown to us, so that whenever we come across an unknown cause we have to
attribute it to God? The consequence of such a mode of thinking is to search for
God among things unknown to us. Naturally, with an increase in our knowledge, the
area of our ignorance will continually diminish and the domain of our theism, too,
will diminish to the point where if some day, supposedly, all the unknown things
become known to mankind, there would remain no place for God or any theism.
In accordance with this line of reasoning, only some of the existing realities are
signs of God and manifest and mirror His existence, and they are those whose
causes are unknown. As to those things whose causes have been identified, they lie
outside the realm of signs and indications of the Divine Being.
Hallowed be God! How wrong and misleading this kind of thinking is, and how
ignorant it is of the station of the Divine! Here we should cite the words of the
Qur'an, which observes in this regard:
They measured not God with His true measure. (6:91)
The ABC of theism is that He is the God of the entire universe and is equally related
to all things. All things, without any exception, are manifestations of His Power,
Knowledge, Wisdom, Will, and Design, and are the signs and marks of His
Perfection, Beauty and Glory. There is no difference between phenomena whose
causes are known and those whose causes are unknown in this regard. The
universe, with all its systems and causes, is in toto sustained by His Being. He
transcends both time and space. Time and time-bound entities, and similarly space
and spatial objects, irrespective of their being finite or infinite-that is, whether they
are temporally limited or extend from pre-eternity to eternity, and regardless of
whether the universe is limited in its spatial dimensions or infinite, and, ultimately,
whether the entire expanse of existents is finite or infinite in time and space-all
these are posterior to His Being and Existence and are Considered among His
Hence it is extreme ignorance to think in a Church like manner and to imagine, like
Auguste Comte, that while looking for the cause of a certain phenomenon in some
corner of the universe we would suddenly discover the existence of God, and then
celebrate and rejoice that we have found God at a certain place. And if we do not
succeed and are unable to so find Him, we should become pessimistic and deny
God's existence altogether.
On the contrary, it is precisely in this sense that we must reject the existence of
God, that is, a God who is like any other part of the world and is discoverable like
any other phenomenon in the course of inquiry into the world's phenomena is
certainly not God, and any belief in such a God is aptly rejected.
In more simple terms, we should say that this kind of quest for God in the universe
is like the conduct of someone who when shown a clock and told that it has a maker
wants to find its maker within the wheels and parts of the clock. He searches for a
while and on finding nothing except its different parts, says: 'I did not find the
maker of the clock and this proves that he does not exist.' Or it is like one who on
being shown a beautifully stitched dress and told that this dress was stitched by a
tailor, says, 'If I find the tailor in the pockets of this dress I will accept his existence,
otherwise I won't.'
This kind of thinking is totally wrong from the Islamic point of view. From the
viewpoint of Islamic teachings, God is not on a par with the natural causes so that
the question should arise whether a certain external entity has been created by God
or by a certain natural cause. This kind of dichotomy is both wrong and
meaningless, because there cannot be a dichotomy or an intervening 'or' between
God and natural causes for such a question to be posed. This form of thinking is
anti-theist. Theism means that the whole of nature in its entirety is a unit of work
and an act of God in its totality. Hence it is not correct to ask concerning a part of it
whether it is a work of God or nature, and then to consider it to be a work of God
on failing to identify its cause, and as related to nature and with no connection with
God when its natural cause is known. Auguste Comte's Three Stages of Human
Auguste Comte suggests a classification of the stages of the historical development
of the human mind, which, most regrettably, has more or less been accepted,
though from the point of view of those acquainted with Islamic philosophy it is
mere childish talk. He says that mankind has passed through three stages:
1. The Theological Stage:
In this stage man explained phenomena by resorting to supernatural forces and
considered God or gods to be the cause of every phenomenon. In this stage man
discovered the principle of causality, but was not able to identify the causes of
things in a detailed manner. Since he had grasped the principle of causality, he
considered the cause of every event to lie within Nature. In this stage he postulated
the existence of forces in Nature with the judgement that certain forces exist in
Nature which are ultimately responsible for the occurrence of phenomena.
2. The Metaphysical Stage
In this stage, in view of the fact that man thought in metaphysical and philosophical
terms, he could not go beyond the assertion that a certain event had a cause
without having any answer to the question about the nature and character of the
3. The Positive Stage:
In this stage man identified in detail the causes of things in Nature. During this
stage, man turned away from thinking in general philosophical terms and adopted
the experimental approach to the study of phenomena, discovering the causal links
between them. It became completely evident to him that the phenomena are
related to one another in a chain. Today science considers this approach to be
correct, and, therefore, we call this stage 'the scientific stage.'
These three stages suggested by Auguste Comte could be possibly correct when
viewed from the angle of the common people and the masses, in the sense that at
one time the common people considered the cause of an event, such as a disease,
to be some invisible being such as a demon or a jinn, and there are such persons
and groups even today among educated Europeans. At a later stage they were able
to recognize the order present in Nature and henceforth they attributed the cause
of illness to the causes surrounding the sick person, believing that natural factors
were responsible for it. Also, all those who have not studied medicine and have no
medical knowledge but believe in the general order of nature have a similar kind of
During another stage the relationships between the various phenomena was
discovered by the means of scientific experiments. This was not a new thing in itself
and existed in the ancient period as well, although the eagerness to study natural
phenomena and their causal relations is greater in the modern era.
However, this manner of classification of human thought is incorrect, because if we
were to divide human thought into stages, our criterion should be the ideas of
thinkers and not the thinking of the masses and common people. In other words,
we should take into consideration the world view of outstanding individuals. Here it
is that we find the classification of August Comte to be wrong through and through.
Human thought, whose real representatives are the thinkers of every age, has
certainly not passed
One of the eras or stages of thought is the stage of Islamic thought. From the
standpoint of the Islamic method, a
Materialist,Responsible,Causes,The Causes,The Causes Responsible,for Materialist,Responsible for Materialist,Causes Responsible for Materialist,The Causes Responsible