For several decades now, the theories that explain human behaviour have been dominated by Western thinkers. The paradigm of the human being has shifted too, from the study of the human soul to a recognition of the human being as determined by behaviour alone. This is not surprising, since Western thinkers such as Freud, Skinner, Adler, Fromm and Jung always thought with a logic that denies God — a stubborn logic, a dogmatic logic, a logic for the self. Eastern scholars such as Ibn Sina, who went to great pains in search of truth, were replaced by amateur scholars from the West who sought only to justify themselves. What for, you ask? Plainly for status, for recognition from academic circles, to produce a dissertation that many people will praise, to feel the pleasure of being listened to by a crowd, for a Nobel prize, for popularity, to worship their own thinking, to feel most right of all. If you should ask whether they gave any thought to the benefit of their theories, I will answer firmly: no! Why? Because to this day they go on quarrelling over their slogans, one defending his theory and another opposing it. Each shouts for his own interest. In truth the acceptance of their theories does not come from the majority of the world’s scholars either, but only from a few Western organisations that have set themselves up as the arbiters of right and wrong. Where does methodological validity come from? Where do the recognised schools come from? Where do the reference journals come from? From the West, plainly. At one moment they may endorse a theory with no strong methodological basis, such as Freud’s psychoanalysis; at another they exalt the importance of the experimental method, the laboratory, statistics and variables, as with Skinner. So in truth the method used is whatever suits them. I am sure you too would not want to take people like this as leaders.

Maslow was one of the scholars who developed humanistic theory in the 1950s. He was one of the moderate scholars who sought to mediate between psychoanalytic and behaviourist theory. Psychoanalysis holds that all human behaviour rests on the unconscious and on animal instincts, while behaviourism takes the human being as a product of environmental stimulus, no different from a machine that works only on command. Humanistic psychologists give weight to, and acknowledge, internal factors such as feelings, lofty values and hopes. Yet oddly they still do not acknowledge the existence of the soul! Perhaps because they are too extreme in their moderation. Maslow himself set out the concept of a hierarchy of human needs, and this hierarchy is the basis of motivation for human behaviour. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is universal in character, so it ought to be able to explain a whole range of human behaviour at every economic level, culture, era and geographical location. At the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are the biological needs, namely food and drink. According to Maslow, without these needs being met a human being will not be able to reach, and will never reach, the next stage. So each level is a precondition for reaching the level above it. To get past this stage a human being will do anything, and disregard any risk, to meet his biological needs! Very logical — and this is Maslow’s view. At the highest level is self-actualisation. What is a human being who has reached self-actualisation like? According to Maslow, the self-actualised person can accept himself and others too; he tends to behave spontaneously and creatively, can direct himself — is self-directed — both in solving problems and in forming interpersonal relationships, is not authoritarian, values experience, has a rich emotional life, tends to love nature, and so on. More singular still is that at this stage the individual is said to undergo peak experiences: mystical and spiritual feelings that make the individual sense a unity with something beyond the self. According to Maslow this stage is in truth never reached, because the human being moves continually towards self-actualisation. Hundreds of years ago Imam Ali A.S said, “Know yourself and you will know your Lord” — is self-actualisation not evidence for the existence of God? Maslow found evidence for the existence of God but was unwilling to acknowledge it, and yet he could not keep silent.

Returning to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: it has been said that at the lowest level are the biological needs and at the highest is self-actualisation; between the two lie the need for safety, the need for affiliation or social needs, and the need for self-esteem, the need to have confidence in oneself. I will not discuss them one by one in detail here, because the name of each level is enough to convey its meaning. This hierarchy of needs is often drawn as a pyramid, and I must stress again that each level is a precondition for the next. A person will not reach self-actualisation without his thirst and hunger being met, his social recognition, and recognition of his own qualities.

Abu Dzar al-Ghifari was one of the companions of the Prophet SAAW who took part in the expedition to Tabuk. Tabuk lies very far from Madinah, some four hundred miles. The Prophet’s party set out with what provisions and weapons they had. Along the way three men fell behind one by one, and each time one fell behind the Prophet SAAW was told, and each time the Prophet said, “If he is a good man, ALLAH will bring him back, and if he is not a good man, it is better that he does not come (does not follow).” Abu Dzar’s camel, thin and weak, was among those at the rear, and Abu Dzar was at last left behind. A companion said, “O Messenger of Allah! Abu Dzar has fallen behind too!” The Prophet repeated the same words: “If he is a good man, ALLAH will bring him back to us, and if he is not good, it is better that he goes.”

The army pressed on and Abu Dzar fell further behind, but there was nothing he could do; his mount remained helpless. Whatever he did, his camel would not move, and now he was several miles behind. He set his camel free and carried its load himself. In that blazing heat he went on through the hot desert. He felt he would die of thirst. He found shade among rocks sheltered from the heat by a hill. Among those rocks was a little rainwater standing, but he resolved not to drink it before his companion, the Messenger of Allah SAAW. He filled the water into a skin, shouldered it, and hurried after the Muslims, who were far ahead. In the distance they saw a figure. “O Messenger of Allah! We see a figure coming towards us!”

He SAAW said, may it be Abu Dzar. The figure drew nearer; it was indeed Abu Dzar, but his strength was spent and thirst seemed about to take his legs from under him. The Prophet SAAW feared he would collapse. The Prophet SAAW ordered that he be given water at once, but Abu Dzar said hoarsely that he had water. The Prophet SAAW said:

“You have water, yet you are nearly dead of thirst!”

“Indeed, O Messenger of Allah! When I tasted this water, I refused to drink it before my companion the Messenger of Allah”

Truly Abu Dzar has broken, struck and brought down Maslow’s theory for certain! Why? Maslow’s theory cannot explain this event; the pyramid of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs sinks before the person and conduct of Abu Dzar, which can only be seen multidimensionally. Maslow’s much-trumpeted theory is powerless to explain the conduct of Abu Dzar — self-directed, untouched by weariness and burning heat, loving nature in setting his camel free, forming a harmonious and satisfying interpersonal relationship with his noble companion the Messenger of Allah SAAW, and even sacrificing himself for His sake. All of that shows that Abu Dzar had reached the level of self-actualisation! So where does the weakness in Maslow’s explanation lie? When Abu Dzar felt hunger, thirst, weariness, even the threat of death! Standing before a pool of water he still did not think of his own biological need, but thought of the Messenger of Allah SAAW. That means Abu Dzar’s self-actualisation was reached without precondition, without passing through the foundational levels. Abu Dzar did not need his biological needs met — he was even willing to die; he did not need social recognition — left behind, he did not despair; he did not need recognition of his ability, did not need the support of others to give him confidence. Abraham Maslow’s theory is plainly wrong! Self-actualisation is not reached through a hierarchy, not like a ladder where to reach the top you must climb the rungs one by one. Abu Dzar found a faster and simpler way to reach self-actualisation: by loving the Messenger of Allah SAAW!