Every writer concerned with history, politics and, especially, philosophy has a topic of particular interest. For example, the eminent historian Arnold Toynbee devoted much of his life to the study of why civilizations rise and fall. An exponent of the theory of cycles, he believed the universal driving force of progress to be the response to challenges. The 11th-century Islamic theologian, mystic and philosopher Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali, known as “hujjat al Islam” (the proof of Islam), journeyed across the Muslim world driven by the desire to find out whether the human senses could attain knowledge of the existence of God. Meanwhile, Nietzsche’s world outlook was pervaded by his “caste of masters” theory, the belief in an ever-progressing elite up to the level of “superman,” and Karl Marx, who was and remains a philosopher before being a theoretician of economics, politics and sociology, had an all-encompassing philosophy based on his view of the dynamics of history, which stemmed from his basic ideas on the relation of matter (the infrastructure) to ideas (the superstructure). One of the most dominant figures of contemporary Arab thought, Abbas al-Aqad, focused on his fundamental idea that exceptional human beings are the driving force of human civilization, and history in general. Many of Aqad's disciples, and I am among them, have been saddled with the arduous task of researching the role of the individual in shaping human history. Anyone undertaking this line of research is bound to eventually find himself at the crossroads of major philosophical and political paths. He must then choose between them, difficult as this may be. Every single philosophical, political, economic and social school of thought has its own views on the matter, based on its carefully predicated tenets. I believe that extensive and careful readings for years can bring the reader to the first step on the path to a clear answer. Philosophical schools of thought, in general, are divided into idealistic, or moralistic, schools on the one hand, and materialistic schools on the other. All the answers to the major questions concerning the role of the individual in shaping history are also divided into two types of answers, one departing from idealistic philosophical premises, the other, in one way or another, from materialistic philosophical premises. The Dialectical Materialists (the disciples of Karl Marx who, like the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach before them, discarded the idealistic content of Hegel's philosophy of idealistic-dialectics) firmly maintain that the role of the individual and of heroes and eminent men in shaping history is a minimal one.They believe that human history is propelled by a purely material driving force, the class struggle, which is the inevitable result of the interplay of the forces and relations of production prevailing at a given time. As for heroes and eminent men, they are like puppets dancing to the tune written by the supreme composer: the class struggle. All historians who believe in a materialistic interpretation of history hold that it is socio-economic conditions that govern the movement of history and that these purely materialistic considerations also determine the role of the individual. Hence their view, for example, that when the age of slavery came to an end, it was because changes in the forces of production and relations of production tipped in favour of the slaves, bringing slavery to an end and heralding in the age of feudalism. Similarly, purely material factors brought feudalism to an end and introduced capitalism. This third socio-economic formation, according to the materialists, was the result of the devlopment of the forces of production. It was this development, culminating in the invention of the steam engine, that rang the curtain down on one phase of human history and ushered in a new one. Such momentous events as the French Revolution are also explained in purely materialistic terms by these exponents of the materialist school of thought, who dismiss the role of the individual and the impact of the presence of certain figures on the scene of historic events as being of little relevance. That is also the way they interpret the wars and revolutions of the nineteenth century, as well as the birth of nationalist movements in Europe, under the leadership of Mazzini in Italy and Bismark in Germany. It is also the principle guiding their interpretation of Europe's colonialist expansion and the major events of the twentieth century, like the Russian Revolution of February 1917, the Bolshevik takeover in October/November that same year under Lenin's leadership, World War I, the rise of the Third Reich, World War II and all the national liberation movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The materialist interpretation of history could appeal to the scientific-minded reader because it is surrounded by an aura of science and because of the rigour of its methodology. Without drawing the reader into the eddies of the philosophical battle between `matter' and `thought', I will say only that I for one believe that the history of mankind, indeed, life itself, is governed by an absolute, transcendental Idea, and that to think that matter alone is the mover does not stand to reason. In fact, the changes attributed by materialist determinists to matter alone are in fact changes brought about purely by `thought'. The invention of the steam engine, for example, was not the result of a materialist evolution, it was the result of intellectual evolution. From the beginning of recorded history up to the present time, certain individuals have played a major role in shaping events. They have left an indelible mark on our world and, had they not existed, events would have taken a different course. A superficial look that does not go beyond major historical events to analyze the personalities, characteristics and motivations of certain historical figures could lead one to deny the role of such individuals in influencing the course of history and to believe that the major waves of history were governed only by materialist factors. Such a view is totally refuted by the weight of such historical figures as Alexander the Great, without whom much of the history of the ancient world would have been different. And, had it not been for person of Napoleon Bonaparte, the history of France and of Europe would have followed a course different from the one we know in the ten years following the French Revolution (1789-98). That the reins of the Russian Revolution slipped from the hands of the Mencheviks nine months after they had overturned Tsar Nicolas II in February 1917 is due to the determining role of the man whom the Germans helped return to Petrograd, via Zurich, in a special military train, for they believed in his ability to change the situation in Russia. That man was Lenin who, in a matter of months, signed the Brest-Litovsk treaty by virtue of which the Germans obtained what they wanted of him. Had it not been for the role played by Adolph Hitler, the events of the 1930s and 1940s on the European scene and in the world at large would not have been the same, for they were the result of Hitler's “actions” and the `reactions' of his enemies, the allies, led first by Britain and, towards the end, by the United States. Actually, coincidences also play an important role in major historic events. To give but a few examples: If Corsica had not been annexed by France at a given point in time and had remained a part of Italy, Napoleon would not have been born French and would not have come to play the crucial role he did in the history of France, of Europe and of many other parts of the world ever since his star began to rise during the last five years of the eighteenth century until his ultimate fall in 1815. The personal role of King Henry VIII drove thousands of Englishmen into Protestantism, a fact which greatly influenced the climate of political and public life in Britain. Had it not been for the personal role of Gamal Abdel Nasser, internal events in Egypt, relations between Egypt and the Arab world and between the Arab states and Israel would have taken a completely different course. If it had not been for the role played by a handful of men during the last third of the nineteenth century and the first third of the twentieth, the Zionist movement would not have gone as far as it has done in the last forty years. It is thanks to the role played by one man, Lee Kuan Yew, prime minister of Singapore since 1965, that such a small country managed to develop so dramatically in just two decades. All the above does not imply a negation of the role and impact of socio-economic or material factors on history, nor a belief that history is made up of a series of consecutive events that, like soap operas, are not governed by a certain law or system. What it does say is that the two factors combined have a role to play: the material factor as the general trend, and the non-material factor -the role of individuals and coincidences- as an equally important law having the same impact as that of the material factor. Two references come to mind here: "The Heroes" by Plutarch and "Heroes and Hero Worship" by Thomas Carlyle. These brilliant works, together with Toynbee's extensive history, can clearly show the reader who wishes to pursue the subject further the effect of the two factors combined on the course of human history, with the predominance of the moral factor, as represented by the role of particular individuals, ideas and circumstances.