According to Islamic thought, historiography is based on a form of historical determinism. History is a continuous flow of events that, like humans, is influenced by a dialectical contradiction—an ongoing struggle between two opposing and contradictory elements that have existed since the beginning of creation, which has occurred everywhere at all times, and the sum of which is history.
The flow of humanity along the predetermined path of time is history; and humanity itself is a small universe (Microcosm), the most perfect expression of existence, the clearest manifestation of creation. In the process of human development, nature itself gains self-awareness; and just as humans advance, nature also becomes alive, conscious, and alert, moving towards fulfillment.
In other words, man is the expression of God's manifestation, which is the ultimate expression and consciousness of all beings; and according to anthropology, man is God's representative on earth, His vicegerent on the surface of the planet. The history of humanity, which documents the becoming of man as 'man' and the formation of his essence, cannot be something sudden, constructed from a few trivial events, a plaything for the reckless, vile, futile, aimless, and meaningless.
Like other realities of the world, history is undoubtedly a reality. It began at a specific point and will inevitably end at a specific point. It must have a goal and a trajectory.
Where did it all begin? Just like humans, at the dawn of contradiction!
In discussions related to anthropology, we have seen that humans are a combination of earth and divine spirit; this is clear from the story of Adam. (1) The story of Adam is, in both literal and philosophical terms, the story of what it means to be human. The struggle between spirit and earth, God and Satan within Adam is where humanity begins. But where does history start? What is its starting point?— The conflict between Cain and Abel.
Both of Adam's sons were human, humane, and natural, but they became embroiled in conflict with each other. One killed the other, and the history of humankind began. Adam's struggle was a subjective, internal battle—one that took place within his own essence (or collectively within humanity); however, the struggle between his two sons was an objective battle that occurred in the external world. Therefore, the story of Cain and Abel is the source of our historical philosophy, just as Adam's story is the source of our human philosophy. The conflict between Cain and Abel represents a struggle between two opposing sides, which exists throughout history as a historical dialectic. Thus, history, like humanity, is formed through a dialectical process. The beginning of this contradiction occurs with Cain's murder of Abel.
Now, in my opinion, Abel represents the era of a pastoral-based economy, that is, the pre-private property primitive socialist era; on the other hand, Cain represents agriculture and private or monopolistic ownership. Then a permanent war began, where the killer Cain and his victim Abel became the stage for the struggle between the ruler and the ruled throughout history. The landowner Cain killed the shepherd Abel; the period of collective ownership of the means of production—the age of pastoralism, hunting, and fishing—came to an end, marking the conclusion of brotherhood and true faith; and in its place emerged agriculture and private ownership, along with religious deception and the violation of others' rights. Abel disappeared, and Cain stood at the forefront of history; and there he still stands.
The basis on which I have made this conclusion is that when Adam proposed to resolve the dispute between his sons (Cain had fallen in love with his brother's beautiful fiancée) by offering a sacrifice to God, Cain brought a handful of dried yellow corn to the altar, while Abel brought a young and valuable red-haired lamb. Therefore, I have considered the latter as a representative of animal husbandry and the former as a representative of agriculture. History tells us that during the age of animal husbandry—which was also the age of fishing and hunting—nature was the source of all production (and in the story, the lamb represents this production system). Forests, seas, deserts, and rivers—these resources were open for the entire tribe's use, and the tools of production were primarily the hands and arms of humans. Alongside this, although they had some other common tools, these were such items that anyone could be their craftsman and owner.
The sources of production (water and land) or the means of production (cattle, plows, etc.)—there was no concept of exclusive or private ownership of these. Everything was equally open to everyone. The principles and ideals of society, respect for elders, steadfastness in fulfilling moral obligations, complete unwavering loyalty to the limitations of communal life, innate purity and the authenticity of religious consciousness, a peaceful mindset of love and tolerance—these were some of the moral characteristics of people in that system of production, and we can think of Abel as their representative.
After coming into contact with agriculture, human life, society, and the entire structural existence faced a profound revolution, which in my opinion, is the most important revolution in history. It was a revolution that gave birth to a new man, a powerful and devilish man; it gave birth to civilization and a system based on inequality.
The agricultural system leads to the emergence of limitations on the sources of production that exist in nature. It results in the development of advanced production tools and complex production relationships; and since cultivated lands like forests and seas could not be used freely and openly by everyone, for the first time in human life, there arose a need to claim a part of nature for oneself and to deprive others of it—in a word, the need for private ownership.
Before this, there was no existence of the 'individual' in human society; the tribe itself was the 'individual'. But now, with the emergence of agriculture, that unified society, where all people lived together like brothers in the same family, has become divided. On the day when land— which everyone used collectively— was taken from nature, denying the rights of others, and turned into the sole property of one individual— on that day, there were no institutions called law, religion, or inheritance; it was all merely a matter of the display of power. In nomadic or pastoral ownership systems, the strength of the powerful members of the group protected the group and enhanced its social status, or helped secure livelihoods through hunting and fishing— in other words, this power played both roles in the interest of the group. But later, that very power became the sole basis for determining rights— it turned into the measure of personal enjoyment and the primary condition for acquiring private ownership. In this critical moment of history, the completely opposite truth of Marx's theory was revealed: ownership is not the main element of acquiring power, but rather the opposite— power and coercion initially granted the individual ownership. Power created private ownership, and that private ownership later ensured the stability of power and strengthened it as a 'legal' and 'natural' matter.
Private ownership divided a once-unified society. When self-acquisition and personal possession became the norm, no one wanted to be content with moderation according to their true needs. In any case, determining the amount of one's needs then became entirely a personal matter. As a result, people no longer acquired wealth out of necessity—they did so whenever they wished. In contrast, under the previous system—Habil's arrangement or cooperative ownership—people hunted and fished solely to meet their own needs.
Nature— free, generous, and abundant— has always been at their fingertips. Labor was merely a means to meet needs; and the more skilled one was in production, the more one achieved. But now that open and bountiful expanse of nature— its forests and seas— has been left behind; and people have gathered around the poverty-stricken and pitiful food obtained from agricultural land. In their greed and desire for acquisition, they became embroiled in conflict with one another. In this new social order, eagles and vultures— like the crows in the story of Cain— broke the wings of the weaker birds and drove them away. Previously, society was like a flock of migratory birds— moving in harmony and coordination along the desert, riverbanks, and coastlines of the ocean. But now, for the decaying corpse of private property, in the desire for exclusive possession, the birds— filled with mutual savage hatred— are pecking at each other, clawing at one another.
In the end, the human society that was once filled with freedom, peace, tranquility, and vitality transformed into two opposing and conflicting camps. On one side was a minority class that had more land than they needed, even more than they could cultivate themselves; thus, they required the labor of others. On the other side was the majority, who had only hunger and the strength to work, but had no land or means of production. The fate of this majority in the new social order was clear—slavery. The class that fell into slavery had nothing—no land, no water, no honor, no lineage, no morality, no dignity, no intellect, no art, no knowledge, no values, no rights, no truth, no soul, no sense of meaning, no education—in short, they had nothing in this world or the next.
Everything they were deprived of depended on land and soil—on the yields of gardens and fields. Thus, these became the sources of production (not only material but also in the immaterial realm) that were the exclusive property of the class that held them. The class that was not merely bound to physical labor was the one that gained the necessary opportunities and capital for education, abstract culture, literature, science, and artistic pursuits.
These two opposing classes once lived in the same society—imbued with the same spirit, the same feelings, the same sense of honor and self-respect in that collective tribal consciousness. They entered the forests and jungles together, going hand in hand towards the ocean. The resources of nature—such as the air surrounding them, which they breathed in together, or the landscapes that they enjoyed together—were open to both groups, open to the entire tribe. They were equal, and thus they were brothers. They were the two sons of Adam, and Adam was made of clay. But now—due to the decaying corpse of private property—they stand face to face, separated and hostile towards each other, and enmity has become predominant among them.
The bond of blood relations has turned into the chains of slavery; equality has become a sacrifice to inequality, and brotherhood has become a sacrifice to fratricide. Religion has become a means of deception and a tool for material gain—nothing more. Humanity, harmony, compassion—these have been replaced by hatred, rivalry, the worship of wealth, the lust for acquisition, the desire for monopolistic control, deception, coercion, oppression, self-worship, cruelty, a propensity for murder, violations of boundaries, the desire for dominance, claims of superiority, the creation of special privileges, contempt for humanity, killing the weak, trampling over everything and everyone for property, killing a brother, tormenting a father—even deceiving God Himself.
As a result, we can deeply understand the conflict between two types of human forms—Habil, who was faithful, peaceful, and self-sacrificing; and Qabil, who was a worshiper of desire, a transgressor, and a fratricide. Analyzing their environment, profession, and class through psychological analysis and based on scientific and sociological examinations makes this conflict's explanation even clearer.
We know that there were many similarities between the two of them— caste, parents, upbringing, family, environment, and religion. In that initial environment, we can assume that human society had not yet been fully formed, and different intellectual environments, diverse cultural atmospheres, or separate social groups had not yet emerged. Therefore, we cannot say that the two brothers grew up under different religious or educational influences— (their upbringing environment) was not so opposite that they would develop as completely opposite individuals, and each would stand as a symbol of a particular human form.
Both scientific and logical methods claim that if two events—though similar in every aspect—develop in different or contradictory directions, we should create a list of all the causes, elements, and conditions that influence each of the two events. Then, by excluding what they have in common, we can identify the elements or factors that create contradictions between them. In the story of Cain and Abel, the one element that distinguishes the two brothers is their different professions. These different professions place them in a specific economic and social position; their types of work, production structures, and economic systems were also contradictory.
Our theory is clearly supported by the truth that, on one hand, the nature of Abel's character and the era of primitive socialism— in the economy of free pastoralism, hunting, and fishing— there is a proper harmony between human class consciousness and social behavior; on the other hand, the nature of Cain's character and the class-based society, the era of slavery and lordship, shows similarities in human social and class characteristics.
However, the interpreters of the Quran and other religious scholars have explained the incident of Cain and Abel by stating that the reason for the revelation of this event (as a divine message) is the "condemnation of murder." This is a very vague explanation— it oversimplifies the matter. Even if my theory is not correct, the meaning and purpose of this story of the two brothers cannot be so trivial. Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, present this event as a serious occurrence at the dawn of human life. The main purpose of religions cannot simply be to draw the easy moral conclusion that "murder is a bad act" (through the incident of Cain and Abel)— this is not credible. Whatever the underlying meaning of the story may be, it certainly is not such a simplistic moral lesson that "it is now clear: murder is a bad act, so we must avoid it, especially in the case of brothers."
In my opinion, the murder of Habil by Qabil represents a significant change in human history, an abrupt turn in the course of history—one of the most important events in all of human life. This event carries profound explanations from scientific, sociological, and class-based perspectives.
The story is about the end of primitive communism or the early cooperative society—the extinction of that natural equality and fraternal system of humanity, which had developed in the production system of hunting and fishing (symbolized by Abel); and in its place, the emergence of agriculture-based production, the creation of private ownership, the rise of class-based society, systems of inequality and exploitation, the worship of wealth and the absence of true faith, enmity, rivalry, greed, plunder, slavery, and the initiation of fratricide (symbolized by Cain). The death of Abel and the survival of Cain is a real, objective, historical truth. From then on, religion, life, economy, government, and human destiny were entrusted to Cain—this is a realistic, critical, and progressive analysis of what has happened in history. Similarly, Abel died without leaving descendants, and today the entire human race is descended from Cain—this means that Cain's social system, government, religion, morality, worldview, and behavior have become universal in human society. As a result, the intellectual and moral instability and inequality seen in every era and society stem from this historical truth.
The story of Cain and Abel shows that the first day of the children of Adam's life on this earth (the day they married their respective sisters) was simultaneously a day of conflict, struggle, and ultimately the beginning of war and fratricide. This event confirms the scientific truth that the foundation of life, society, and history is conflict and struggle; and contrary to the ideas of idealists, the main determinants of these three things are economics and sexuality— which take precedence over religious beliefs, brotherhood, truth, and morality.
The source of the conflict between Qabil and Habil was as follows: Qabil preferred the sister designated for Habil more than his own fiancée. He insisted on wanting that sister and demanded the cancellation of the engagement that had been made with Adam (peace be upon him)'s consent. When the two brothers came before Adam (peace be upon him), Adam (peace be upon him) proposed that they both offer a sacrifice. Whoever's sacrifice is accepted will receive the sister, and the other will accept the outcome.
Kabil deceived; he took some dried corn as a sacrifice, using his cunning; naturally, it was not accepted. (Look, Kabil deceives whenever he feels the need—even with God! Every representative of the 'Kabilian system' behaves exactly this way.) Once again, Kabil resorted to deception, and prioritizing his own desires over God's word, he heinously killed Habil—who was not even the main accuser, wanted nothing from Kabil, and had dedicated his best camel, his most valuable possession, as a sacrifice in God's name—which was naturally accepted.
The dialogue that occurs between the two brothers at the moment of Habil's death is also instructive. Qabil threatens to kill him, but Habil responds calmly, gently, and humbly: “But I will not raise my hand against you.” In this way, Habil's representative society and system could not build any resistance against the aggressive and acquisitive system of Qabil; Qabil's system has completely subdued him without any fear.
While considering the story of Cain and Abel, I first thought, is the question of sexuality presented here as a stronger and more primary cause than economics? In this case, was Freud right? Because the first word of the conflict was 'woman'—just as in the case of their father Adam, the starting point of everything was Eve.
However, upon deeper reflection, it becomes clear that the matter is not so simple. It is true that the initial source of the conflict was Cain's attraction to the sister designated for Abel— at this point, Freud seems to be correct. But if Freud had acknowledged the existence of one or more causes and elements prior to sexuality (which he considers the primary and fundamental cause), he would also have to admit that this story cannot be explained solely on the basis of the predominance of sexual elements. Because before the question of sexuality arises, another question must be considered: it is true that Cain initiated this dispute due to his attraction to his fiancée, but why did only Cain behave this way among the two brothers? Since both of them share the same genetic traits and grew up in the same environment, it would be natural for their behavior to be similar— both were expected to display the same firmness and restraint.
However, even if it is scientifically possible that only one brother would behave in such a manner in such situations, the question arises: why did that brother have to be Cain? Another point is that when analyzing the text of the story, the dialogues and behaviors of the two brothers, and the perspective of the narrator of the story (i.e., the Quran, Christian and especially Jewish religious texts, commentaries, history, and Islamic folklore), the general conclusion that can be drawn is that Abel is presented as a model of good character, while Cain is presented as a model of evil character. I am using the term 'type' instead of 'character'; because if we say 'character', it would imply that the individual Cain possesses only evil traits, such as desire and materialism; and the individual Abel possesses only good traits, such as piety and sensitivity. But no, (the main point is that) one brother is the full manifestation of an evil person, and the other brother is the full manifestation of a good person.
Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that Abel is a person of sound mind; an inhumane and unbalanced social system, the nature of work, and economic life could not make him isolated, distorted, deranged, or filthy; these did not turn him into a diminished, flawed, in Marcuse's words, 'fractured', polluted, and burdened with various complexities. He was filled with love for his father, affection for his brother, faith in God, and steadfastness for justice; and he did not cling to lustful stubbornness like his brother Cain to fulfill sexual desires. Moreover, he was not completely indifferent or neutral towards beauty, not at all. Because despite the various sufferings inflicted by Cain—even the threat of death—Abel never once expressed a saintly detachment by saying, “Brother, I am letting her (the girl) go. She is not worth arguing over; here, she is yours.”
Habil is a man, a 'child of Adam', nothing more or less. All the texts of this story present him in this way. In my opinion, the reason for this is that he lived in a society where there was no conflict or inequality; his work was free and unimpeded— "he was not someone who sat on a camel, nor was he someone who pulled a burden like a donkey; he was not a master of slaves, nor was he a slave of a king or royal servant." (3) He was just a man—in a society where everyone enjoys equally and all the abundance of life—social, material, and spiritual wealth—belongs to everyone collectively, where everyone is naturally equal and brotherly, and the spirit of health, beauty, kindness, purity, honesty, love, and humanity flourishes.
Kabil is not inherently evil. His nature or essence is just like Habil's, and no person is inherently bad, because everyone's essence is like that of Adam. Kabil is made bad by an anti-human social system, a class-based society, a system of private ownership that gives rise to masters and slaves and transforms people into wolves, foxes, or sheep. It is an environment where hostility, rivalry, cruelty, and greed flourish; mockery and domination—some people's hunger and others' gluttony, greed, abundance, and deception; an environment where the foundation of the worldview is plunder, exploitation, slavery, indulgence, oppression, lies, and sycophancy; where the meaning of life is to oppress or be oppressed, selfishness, elite arrogance, accumulation of wealth, theft, and ostentation; where the basis of human relationships is to inflict or receive harm, to exploit or be exploited; where the mantra of human philosophy is the pursuit of maximum pleasure, maximum wealth, maximum desire, and maximum coercion; where everything revolves around personal interests and everything is sacrificed on the altar of personal interests—a vile, crude, and greedy personal interest.
These are the qualities of Cain— the good, kind, holy brother of Abel, the direct descendant of Adam— that shape his nature; transforming him into a creature ready to lie, deceive, consciously corrupt his faith, and ultimately kill his own brother; all to satisfy a sexual desire that is not an unstable or powerful passion, but rather a simple and fleeting craving. No, Mr. Freud, he does not do all this merely because his sexual instincts are stronger than others; rather, the reason is (and this is very easily understood) that human qualities are extremely weak within him, even weaker than the faintest expression of sexual desire. If Freud were correct, the sexual element within Cain would be so strong that he would be ready to do anything to satisfy his cravings, and it would be he who would offer that precious red-haired ram as a sacrifice, not Abel! If Freud were right, we would see Cain running through the fields, burning all his crops the moment he hears his father's words.
Yet we see that what Kabil is willing to do to gain God's satisfaction and win back his lost love is to offer a handful of grain as a sacrifice—grain that is yellowish and dry.
The purpose of analyzing this story in such detail is twofold: first, to refute the notion that the story's purpose is solely moral; because its subject matter is far more serious than that of a mere essay; and second, to clarify that this is not just a story of conflict between two brothers. Rather, it is a tale of two aspects of human society, two modes of production; it is a story of history, a description of humanity divided throughout all ages, the beginning of a war that has not yet ended.
Habil represents the side of the oppressed and the downtrodden; that is, the people who have been victims of the massacres and slavery created by the Qabilian system throughout history, and that system is based on private ownership, which has gained dominance in human society. The conflict between Qabil and Habil is a permanent war in history, which has occurred in every generation. The ruling class has always held high the flag of Qabil; on the other hand, the desire for revenge for Habil's blood has been inherited by subsequent generations from his descendants—these are the oppressed subjects who have fought for justice, freedom, and true belief in a struggle that has been ongoing in some form in every era. (In this struggle) Qabil's weapon was religion, and Habil's weapon was also religion.
As a result, the war of religion against religion is a permanent truth in human history. On one side is the religion of shirk—making others partners with God—which provides the justification for social shirk and class discrimination. On the other side is the religion of Tawhid—the oneness of God—which provides the justification for the unity of all classes and nations. The trans-historical struggle that took place between Abel and Cain is, in fact, a struggle between Tawhid and shirk; on one side is the fight for justice and human unity, and on the other side is the struggle against social and ethnic discrimination. Throughout the entirety of human history, a struggle has always been ongoing, and it will continue until the last day of history—a battle between the religion that produces arguments in favor of deception, unconsciousness, and the status quo, and the religion of consciousness, activism, and revolution. The end time will come when Cain dies and the 'system of Abel' is reestablished. That inevitable revolution will mean the end of Cain's history; equality will be established throughout the world, and unity and brotherhood among people will be established through justice and fairness. This is the inevitable course of history. A universal revolution will occur in all aspects of human life; the oppressed classes of history will take their revenge. This good news from Allah will be realized:
“And those who were oppressed and weak on the earth, I intended to show them favor and make them leaders and inheritors.” (Surah Al-Qasas, 28:5).
The inevitable revolution of the future will be the ultimate outcome of the dialectical conflict that began with the battle between Cain and Abel and still exists throughout human society between the rulers and the ruled. The inevitable result of history will be the victory of justice, equality, and truth.
It is the responsibility of every individual in every era to determine their position in the ongoing struggle between the two parties (the rulers and the ruled), and one should not remain a mere spectator. Even while believing in a kind of historical determinism, we hold faith in individual freedom and human responsibility, which lies at the very center of the historical deterministic process. We see no contradiction between the two, as history progresses based on a universal and scientifically demonstrable process of determinism; however, as a singular individual, 'I' must choose whether to advance with the power of knowledge and science alongside history and accelerate its determined course, or to stand before history with ignorance, arrogance, and opportunism, and be crushed.
Note:
(1) Another part of this lecture, Anthropology: The Creation of Man and the Contradiction of God and Iblis, or Spirit and Clay, has been referenced regarding its content.
(2) After killing Abel, Cain became worried about what to do with his body. Then he saw a crow digging in the ground with its beak to bury another crow. Seeing this, Cain also buried his brother Abel's body in the ground. These lines refer to those crows.
(3) A line from Sheikh Sadi's 'Gulistan' (This note has been taken from the English text translated by Hamid Algar).
[Note: From February to November 1972, Ali Shariati delivered 27 lectures at the Husseiniyah Irshad Center in Tehran, which were later compiled in three volumes (16, 17, 18) under the title 'Islamology.' In these lectures, Dr. Shariati reinterprets the epistemological tradition of Islam and various central concepts in light of Marxist historiography, sociology, anthropology, economics, etc., and presents a kind of historically deterministic dialectical revolutionary worldview (liberation theology) influenced by Islam.]
This text is primarily an excerpt from a lecture in the 'Islamology' series, which Ali Shariati delivered on February 11, 1972, at the Hussainiya Center. It was later compiled in the 16th volume of his collected works (Islamology-1). In 1979, several of Shariati's lectures were translated into English by Hamid Algar, titled: On the Sociology of Islam. The book was published by Mizan Press in Berkeley. The text of the work titled 'Philosophy of History: Qabil and Habil' is taken from Hamid Algar's English translation.