• Start
  • Previous
  • 19 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 7020 / Download: 3745
Size Size Size
Defending the Woman's Rights

Defending the Woman's Rights

Author:
Publisher: Unknown
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought


Notice:

This book has been published here and some other sites as Shaheed Mutahhari's book some years ago, but when we researched, it cleared that this book belongs to Muhammad Hakimi not Shaheed Mutahhari.

Chapter Eleven: Superiority

Discussing man’s superiority is necessary in defending woman’s rights, since this superiority means the absolute ruling of man in the family and his managing of his wife and children.

Man’s superiority or any other kind of superiority is a relationship among people based on the individual’s needs, desires, and opinions that are imposed on others paying no attention to others’ wants and ideas.

This kind of relationship resembles a tyrant oppressor’s relationship, since there are some hidden criteria in such relations that exist in the autocratic ruling.

One of the reasons behind superiority is the sense of self-admiration. It can be present in small- or large-scale social relations, between two people or one person and a group. Just as a ruler can rule in this way, a father or a mother can manage the family, imposing their own opinions on the other family members. Thus, the concepts of ‘tyrant’ or ‘despot’ mentioned in the Holy Qur’an aregeneralizable to any relationship based on one side’s self-admiration and oppression. It also includes any kind of disrespecting of other people’s positions and opinions.

The one, who considers her/himself better than others, humbles them, and considers their opinions wrong, is an oppressor and a tyrant in the Islamic teachings, whether s/he acts this way in the society or in his/her own family.

ImamSadiq (a.s .) said, “Anyone, who despises people and unduly imposes his power on them, is a tyrant.”134

Social or managerial self-admiration is rooted in the personal ethical vices. Pride is an inner cause of superiority-based relations, just as humbleness is a moral that respect other people and appreciate their personalities, achievements, opinions, and intellect.

We read in some tradition sources:

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “Avoid pride, because some slave may still be proud until Allah the Almighty will say: ‘Record my this servant among the tyrants.”‘135

Therefore, a proud person can be a tyrant even in the limited round of his/her affiliates, such as teacher, student, employee, employer, husband, wife, or friend.

The Holy Prophet of Islam (a.s .) is quoted to say, “Someone may be considered an oppressor even if he is in no charge except of his own family.”136

In fact, even the management of a family may be autocratic. Such Islamic teachings refer to superiority of one person in the family that is when man or woman acts autocratically and imposes his/her ideas and wants on others.

ImamSadiq said, “Be humble before your teachers and not be tyrant scholars, that your untruth may take away your truth.”137

Scholars and professors can have autocratic relations and behave superiorly with theirstudents that is unlike the humble nature of man.

The satanic self-admiring autocratic tendency (and its consequences that lead to the belittling of others) is somethingundivine and it results from the weak faith in Allah. In fact, the one, who knows the Creator’s greatness, accepts Him as the Creator of all the creatures and the Keeper of all these creatures in the future, does not consider himself independent ofand better than other people.

Imam Ali (a.s .) said, “One, who knows the greatness of Allah, should not see himself as great.”138

For avoiding any autocratic behavior when in power, one should think of Allah’s infinite Power, so that his ending power does not make him neglect Allah’s ever-lasting Might.

ImamKadhim (a.s .) said, “When you remember your power over the people, remember Allah’s Power over you tomorrow (on the Day of Judgment).”139

The inhumane autocracy may happen in the simplest forms of social life as well as in the most complex forms. We read in some tradition sources:

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “Beware of pride, because pride may exist in someone who even if has nothing but a cloak on him.”140

ImamSadiq (a.s .) has narrated a story from the Prophet’s life, which shows the conceptual variety of tyranny and oppression.

“Pride may exist in any race and kind of people...The Prophet (a.s .) was passing in some road in Medina when there was a black woman who was collecting dung. She was asked to clear the way, but she said, ‘The way is very wide.’ Some men wanted to push her away, but the Prophet (a.s .) said, ‘Leave her alone because she is arrogant.”‘141

SheikhMajlisi has explained this last phrase as: “... She is proud and arrogant.”142

If someone has not trained his/her own soul, he or she may become arrogant. Neither empty-handedness nor knowledge can prevent this vice. Of course, it is more limited in weaker people and more extended in powerful ones. This vice may even exist in some scholars and scientists, since their social relations are wider and they present their opinions in vaster managerial circles.

Imam Ali (a.s .) said, “Fear Allah, fear Allah for the bad end of pride; it is the greatest trap of Satan and his biggest plot that overcomes the hearts of men like fatal poisons. It does fail or leave no one; neither a scholar for his knowledge,nor a poor man with his rugged dress ...”143

So any relationship has a tint autocracy, arrogance, or self-deceit that lead to the degrading and belittling of people is rejected in Islam.

ImamSadiq (a.s .) narrated from the Prophet Muhammad (a.s .) his saying:

“I curse seven kinds of people whom Allah and every responded-to prophet curse (one of them is he) who rules with arrogance in order to honor those whom Allah hasdegraded, and to degrade those whom Allah has honored ...”144

Any kind of management should be away from seeking arrogance and superiority. Two individuals, regardless of their apparent scientific, religious, financial, and social differences, should have equal relations.

Islam has warned the people who think they can gain higher social positions and more supporters by autocratic methods. In fact, it is humbleness that raises man’s position, gains support for his opinions, and confirms his social base. Hence, those who want to gain more respect in their management realms, small or large, should replace autocratic behavior with humble one. Men, for instance, should avoid superior behavior in the family.

Imam Ali (a.s .) said, “Humbleness brings you gravity.”145

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “Surely, humbleness brings sublimity, so be humble that Allah may raise you high”146 .

By being humble and respecting others’ thought and character, all opinions are benefited from and everybody participates in all activities. This way, all the activities are done collectively and supported by public power, and thus the public power replaces the individual power.

Imam Ali (a.s ) stated, “With humbleness all affairs are carried orderly.”147

By humbleness and avoiding of arrogance and self-admiration, friendship and love spread among the people of a society (whether small or large), and the safety and soundness of the society become certain, and collective relations are stabilized.

Imam Ali (a.s ) said, “The fruit of humbleness is love, and the fruit of pride is curse.”148

Imam Ali (a.s ) also said, “Humbleness brings you safety.”149

Imam Ali (a.s ) said, “Try to put humbleness on your heads, throw the appearance of mighty under your feet, and take pride out of your necks ...”150

Equal, and even humble, relations is the sign of wisdom in Islam, because only wise people understand the human position well and believe in human greatness. They evaluate human beings by their humane characteristics, rather than temporary social, economic, or political status. Therefore, wise men and women avoid superiority in relations, which is the outcome of self-admiration. They treat all the people of all social classes humbly.

Imam Ali (a.s .) said, “A wise man humbles himself and he is raised high, and an ignorant one raises himself and he is lowered.”151

This is a great lesson of Islam to people that any kind of autocracy (that leads to superiority) prevents growth of the human wisdom. An arrogant self-admiring person trusts and relies only on his/her own mind, not consulting with others, thus s/he is deprived of more knowledge. This way, an arrogant one is always confused in solving the life problems. S/he is also deprived of new ways and solutions of wise people, because no one knows everything.

ImamKadhim (a.s ) said, “Surely, a seed grows in the plain and not in the hard rocks. So is wisdom; it grows in the heart of a humble person and does not grow in the heart of an arrogant proud one, because Allah has made humbleness as the tool of wisdom and made pride as the tool of ignorance.”152

Materializing the human rights -the base of social relations- is possible by right relations. Violation of the human rights, on the other hand, happens because of superiority and autocracy in relations.

ImamSadiq (a.s ) narrated from the Prophet (a.s .) his saying, “The greatest of pride is the despising of people and ignoring the truth.” The Prophet (a.s .) was asked what the meaning of the despising of people and the ignoring of the truth was, and he said, “It means ignoring the truth and criticizing its people ...”153

Because of the importance of this issue, another statement of the Prophet (a.s .) is mentioned here:

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “Pride is to desert the truth and seek other than it, and look at people and see that no one’s honor is like your honor and no one’s lineage is like yours.”154

The main reason for despising people and violating their rights is the disrespecting of the human personality of their persons, as is mentioned in some Islamic teachings:

ImamSadiq (a.s .) said, “Pride is the deserting of the truth and the despising of people.”155

Ignoring the truth and denying it is autocracy. Avoiding pride and superiority is the main factor of seeking the truth and avoiding the violation of others’ rights, either in a large society or a small society of family.

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “Be humble so that no one may oppress the other.”156

When man believes in other people’s personalities and positions, he regards himself less important and sees others better than him. Therefore, he respects their opinions, actions, and rights. This way, superiority and autocracy do not appear in the social relations. Such people believe that everybody has an opinion. Even in a family, everyone can talk about his/her opinion, so that the family members find out new solutions and guidelines, and thus they shall have a warm life.

The believing in the human personality and value has also a deep effect in worshipping Allah. The worship of autocrat and proud people is not accepted, since pride leads to the lack of belief in others and removes the essence of the loyalty to Allah.

ImamSadiq (a.s ) said, “Allah the Almighty has said: ‘Surely, I accept the prayer only of one who is not arrogant and proud towardsMy people.”‘157

These were instructions for the kind of social relation with all people. There are special teachings about the quality of relations between man and woman in the small society of ‘family’ as well. These teachings necessitate respect, mutual understanding, and avoidance of autocracy. They also indicate that neither man nor woman is superior in the family relations; the true criteria in personal and collective relations are understanding, consultation, value, insight, and knowledge. The family management should be based on understanding and capability.

When some woman asked him what the women’s rights over men were, the Prophet (a.s .) replied, “My brother Gabriel (a.s .) often and always recommends me about women, until I thought that a husband has no right to say to his wife even “ugh”. (He said to me), ‘O Muhammad! Fear Allah the Almighty as to women, for they are deposits in your hands. You have taken (married) them by the covenant of Allah the Almighty, and so they have obligatory rights on you for what you have get lawful of their bodies and enjoyed their pleasures, and for that they bear your children in their inners until they suffer bitter labor (of childbirth) because of that. Therefore, be kind to them and delight their hearts, so that they continue living with and assist you. Do not force them to do anything (they hate), do not make them angry, and do not take back anything from what you have granted to them, except with their satisfaction and permission ...”158

Some phrases of the Prophet’s statement said by Gabriel deny the imposition of husbands’ opinion upon the wives, such as ‘delight their hearts!’ or ‘Do not force them to do anything the hate!’ The ending phrase, too, rejects men’s superiority over women. Islam orders men to get permission from women for taking their property, so it is clear that their opinion, mind, and mood should be taken into account in all other issues, too.

In sum, these Islamic criteria are incongruous with the least amount of men’s superiority and autocratic behavior.

The ‘goodness’ principle was also discussed in previous chapters. This principle rejects any superiority of man in the family, since it is in contrast with the ‘goodness’, respect, and the value of woman’s personality.

Chapter Twelve: Additional Advocacy

In this last chapter of ‘supporting woman’s rights’ it is worth mentioning that the Islamic teachings have widely advocated woman, more than her legal rights and far better than the feminism movements. In fact, these teachings are ‘in addition to the rights’. All the cases of such rights are innumerable; only some are mentioned here:

Equality between children

Equality is a doubtless Islamic principle, which is applicable to all fields of life and all people. According to some traditions, equality should be considered even in paying attention to and looking at people.

Equality in the family and among the children is emphasized too:

One day, Prophet Muhammad (a.s .) saw a man with two kids. The man kissed one of his children and left the other. Then, the Prophet (a.s .) said to him, “Would it not be better to treat them equally?”159

The Prophet of Islam (a.s .) has emphasized the treating of family members equally:

The Prophet (a.s .) said a man who had granted something to one of his children, “Did you give the same to all your children?” That man replied, “No!” The Prophet (a.s .) said, “Fear Allah and treat your children justly!”160

Though equality is emphasized in Islam, the Islamic teachings sometimes permit to overlook the origin of equality in dealing with daughters and sons:

The Messenger of Allah (a.s .) said, “When one of you goes to the bazaar, buys something, and brings it to his children, let him first begin (in distributing it) with the daughters ...”161

We understand from this Prophetic speech that girls are more preferred.

It is also narrated in some traditions:

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “Treat your children equally in giving. If I wanted to prefer, I would prefer women.”

That is why the great author ofwasail al-Shi’a has called this chapter of his book: “The Chapter of the recommendation of buying gifts for wife and children and beginning (in distributing them) with daughters”.

Sentimental Treatment towards Daughters

The parents’ kind treatment to their children is recommended in Islam, but it is more recommended towards girls:

ImamRidha (a.s ) narrated from the Prophet (a.s .) his saying, “Allah the Almighty is kinder to females than He is to males no one delights a woman of his near kin, except that Allah will delight him on the Day of Judgment.”162

As a result, this chapter ofWasa’il al-Shia is entitled: “The Chapter of the Recommendation of being more kind and compassionate to girls (than to boys)”. And this is an evident privilege for woman and an exception to the law of equality.

Woman and the Position of Motherhood

In the Islamic teachings, father and mother have very high positions and should be honored. As for mother, this attention is more emphasized and that she has a higher position than the father’s.

The Prophet of Islam (a.s .) said, “If you are offering a recommendable (not obligatory) prayer and your father calls for you, do not cut it (the prayer), but you can cut it if your mother calls for you.”163

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “The Paradise is beneath the feet of mothers.”164

ImamBaqir (a.s ) narrated, “Prophet Moses (a.s ) begged Allah saying, ‘O my Lord, advise me!’ Allah said to him, ‘I recommend you about (being kind to) your mother.’ Moses (a.s ) asked again, ‘O my Lord, advise me!’ Allah said to him, I recommend you about your mother.’ The third time Moses (a.s .) asked, ‘O my Lord advise me!’ Allah said to him, “I recommend you about your father!’ ImamBaqir (a.s ) stated, “That is why two thirds of kindness and dutifulness should be for the mother and one third for the father.”165

ImamRidha (a.s ) said, “Know well that the right of mother is the most essential and most obligatory right on you, because she bears the hardships of pregnancy like no one else. She delightfully and wholeheartedly cares for her child and resists all the problems that no one can ever be patient with. She is satisfied to remain hungry but her child satiate and thirsty but he is quenched. She remains without clothes, but her child clothed. She puts him in the shadow and she remains under the sun. So let gratefulness, dutifulness, and kindness be to her as much as that; though you cannot satisfy the least of her due right except with the assistance of Allah.”166

ImamSadiq (a.s ) narrated that one day a man came to the Prophet Muhammad (a.s .) and said, “I had a daughter whom I brought up until she became adolescent. Then I dressed and adorned her with fine clothes and ornaments and took her to a well. I threw her to the bottom of the well. The last word I heard from her was ‘O father!’ What is the ransom of that?” The Prophet (a.s .) asked him, “Is your mother alive?” The man said, “No!” “Do you have a maternal aunt alive?” the Prophet asked. The man said, “Yes!” The Prophet (a.s .) then said, “Be dutiful to your aunt, because she is like your mother and this can ransom what you had done.”167

Allama Majlisi says, “This tradition shows the preference of the mother and her relatives to father and paternal relatives. It also indicates the importance of dutifulness to maternal aunt among other relatives of the mother.”168

This statement of the Prophet (a.s .) shows the greatness of motherhood and the most remarkable Divine position of woman. The major sin of killing one’s child, which seems too cruel and obscene to be forgiven, is forgivable only by doinggood to the mother or the maternal aunt. Making them happy is the compensation of this major sin. This shows the importance of the mother and then the aunt.if the mother is not available, the aunt replaces her, but not even the father, the paternal uncle, or any other male relative.

Another worthy point is that the only reparation for such a major sin is kindness and dutifulness to the mother or the aunt, and not their prayer. In other words, only their happiness makes up for this cruel sin and brings about Allah’s forgiveness.

ImamSadiq (a.s ) narrated, “One day, someone came to the Prophet (a.s .) and asked, ‘O messenger of Allah, to whom should I be pious?’ The Prophet (a.s .) said, ‘To your mother.’ The man asked, “then to whom?’ The Prophet (a.s .) said,To your mother.’ The man asked again, ‘then to whom?’ The Prophet (a.s .) said, ‘to your mother.’ Then the man asked, ‘then to whom?’ The Prophet (a.s .) said, ‘To your father.”169

Allama Majlisi says, “Due to this tradition, it is derived that three fourths of kindness and piety should be for the mother. It is also said that it is to exaggerate in being kind to the mother. The reason behind that is clear, because the mother tries and tolerates hardships for her children more than the father. Some verses in thesura ofLuqman confirm this fact.”170

ImamRidha (a.s ) narrated from his father from ImamSadiq (a.s ) his saying, “If Allah knew something less than (ugh), in order to give up theundutifulness to parents,He would surely mention it.”171

As it is clear, the holy Qur’an mentions the mother’s rights more than the father’s.

(AndWe have enjoined on man doing of good to his parents; with trouble did his mother bear him and with trouble did she bring him forth; and the bearing of him and weaning of him was thirty months.)172

“Doing of good to the parents is not dependent on their belief or religion; even if the parents do not follow the true religion, serving and respecting them is necessary according to the clear commands of the Qur’an.”173

This advocacy of woman, as mother, is an Islamic principle. Now, compare it with the claims of the western feminists and their method of supporting woman in the western society! The western society treats old men and old women in a bad way and teaches this to the society at large:

“... Today’s society is very indifferent to old people. To me, this is the first civil society in which old parents are not available in their grown-up children’s homes. Surprisingly, they do not condemn it. If we look at such bad and immoral behavior from a non-western point of view, we would find it so obscene ...”174

The outcome of the western capitalism’s behavior toward the old is their sadness and loneliness in the aging process, which may lead to horrible suicides, leaving a stigma on the face of the present century’s humanism of the western capitalist systems.

“... The suicide rate among old people is the lowest rate in Iran, compared to the same statistics of the West. The reason for this may be the strong family ties and the great respect to the old in the Iranian culture.”175

The western capitalism is based on capital and profit, and not on the human and spiritual values, and still boasts of defending the human rights.

Therefore, it is evident that a mother woman has more rights than the father man does. The question here is that: have the extremist supporters of woman’s rights really defined such rights for her? Or could women have reached the high position that Islam has taken them to?

‘Treating women kindly and taking much care of them’ is an Islamic advocacy, in addition to the original rights. The Holy Qur’an states:

(... And treat them (women) kindly.)176

As we have mentioned earlier, ‘goodness’ (or kindness) includes observing not only the legal rights, but also the humane-ethical values. If some people treat woman only as far as her legal rights, they do not follow theQur’anic command, because ‘goodness’ is more than the usual and specified legal rights.

The Last Will

Great men mention their best and most valuable experience at their last moments of life and recommend of the most important principles and most necessary matters of life. Therefore, it is very interesting that according to Imam Ali (a.s ) the last will of Prophet Mohammad (a.s .) was about women.

ImamKadhim (a.s ) narrated from Imam Ali (a.s ) his saying, “Fear Allah! Fear Allah as to women! Because the last word of your Prophet (a.s .) was: ‘I recommend you to be kind to women ...”177

Following the prophet’s way, Imam Ali (a.s ) emphasized advocating women’s rights and safety, using important phrases, especially the name of the Almighty ‘Allah’, which is above any other word. It means remember Allah or fear Allah in your behavior towards women and in observing their rights.

These two unique and divine figures mention the woman’s rights in their last wills. It shows the importance of the woman’s rights in Islam that are much more than the positive laws of defending the rights of woman of nowadays.

The Cause of Blessing

Women and girls are the cause of Allah’s blessing and mercy.

ImamSadiq (a.s ) said, “When a girl is born for a man, Allah sends an angel who spreads his wings over the girl’s head and chest... and one who spends on her is helped (by Allah).”178

Some families, especially in the past, considered daughters a burden, because they could not work and earn money. Sons then worked and daughters remained at home. The Infallible Imams (a.s ), however, stressed that though women or daughters remain at home and do not do economic activities, they bring about Allah’s blessing and mercy.

Once,Ishaq binAmmar asked ImamSadiq (a.s ): “Is the tradition narrated by people true that someone came to the Prophet (a.s .) complaining of his poverty and the Prophet (a.s .) recommended him to get married... until he ordered him of that for three times?” ImamSadiq (a.s ) said, “Yes, it is true. Livelihood comes when there are women (wives) and children (in one’s house).”179

Better than Jihad

The Prophet of Islam (a.s .) often declared that the serving of mother would be better than jihad (the holy war). Jihad and its value in Islamis beyond any doubt. It is the most valuable activity according to some traditions. Every worthy activity may have less value than another worthier one, except jihad and the martyrdom in the way of Allah, which is the best activity. However, one night of being with one’s mother and serving her is considered worthier than one year of jihad along with the Prophet (a.s .).

One day, a man came to the Prophet (a.s .) and said, “I am an active young man and I like to go to jihad, but I have a mother who hates that.” The Prophet (a.s .) said to him, “Go back home and stay with your mother. By AllahWho has sent me with the truth as prophet, her (the mother) delight with you one night is better than your jihad in the way of Allah for one year.”180

Gabriel and Women

Gabriel (a.s .), the Revelation Angel, always recommended about women. This is mentioned in this Prophet’s tradition:

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “Gabriel often and always recommended me about woman, until I thought that divorcing her would not be allowed at all, except because of a proved sin (adultery).”181

The word ‘always’ in this tradition is very clear; it means that Gabriel recommended about women’s rights any time he came down to the Prophet (a.s .), advocated them, and reminded the Prophet (a.s .) of their concerns. This was so much repeated and stressed that Prophet Muhammad (a.s .) thought that the divorcing of women was forbidden, except in case of an obvious adultery. And this is another case of the Islamic advocacy of women more than their usual rights.

The Criterion of Preference

The criterion of preference, value, and nearness to the position of the Prophet (a.s .) in the Hereafter is the doing of good to women and wives.

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “The nearest of you to me in my sitting place on the Day of Judgment is the best of you to his wife.”182

Prophet Muhammad (a.s .) also said, “The best of people in faith are those who are the kindest to their wives, and I am the kindest of you to my wife (wives).”

This behavior of the Prophet (a.s .) is the criterion for superiority and preference in Islamic.

The Great Reward

In the Islamic teachings, great reward is promised to be given in the afterlife to those who tolerate their wives’ anger and bad-temperedness, do not seek to avenge on them, and do not separate the family by divorce.

ImamSadiq (a.s ) narrated from the Prophet (a.s .) his saying: “One, who is patient with his wife’s bad temper seeking the reward of Allah, Allah will give him (as) the reward of the grateful servants.”183

Imam Ali (a.s ) mentions some behavioral, conversational, and thinking faults of some women in a sermon ofNahjol Balagha . He stresses the doing of good to such women:

He said, “Humor them (women) in any case and speak to them kindly that they may improve their behaviors.”184

As we see, kind and courteous treating is recommended even towards women with bad behavior and conduct, but not violence and revenge. The statements of the Commander of the Believers (Imam Ali) (a.s ) also indicate that ethical and humane treatment is an educational principle. This is a delicate point in the family relations for changing a bad behavior with logical speech and conduct.

Women’s Artistic Feelings

Husbands should respect their wives’ artistic feelings, not imposing their own mood on the family life.

SheikhKulayni in his book al-Kafi 185 narrates a tradition from ImamBaqir (a.s ) under the chapter “make up and ornament”. This constructive tradition is about the behavior of ImamHusayn (a.s ) towards his wife:

ImamBaqir (a.s .) said, “One day, some people came to (Imam)Husayn bin Ali and said to him, ‘O son of the messenger of Allah! We see some things in your house that we hate.’ There were simple carpets and cushions in his house. He (ImamHusayn ) said, ‘We get married to women and pay them their dowries by which they buy whatever they like that we have nothing to do with it.”‘186

It is clear that according to the Islamic criteria this kind of life is not luxurious extravagance, which is forbidden and not allowed for any Muslim. The phrase ‘simple carpets’ in the tradition implies the same thing, too.

Keeping away from the forbidden extravagance, the rest of lawful and moderate furniture is up to women’s taste and artistic feelings. They can decorate the house as they like and feel beauty. This is the most amount of respect to women’s thought, understanding, and taste in the family, denying any imposition and superiority of men.

When two different tastes exist in the family, sometimes men’s tastes and feelings overcome the women’s. This is in fact a non-Islamic moral, contrary to what was mentioned about the life of ImamHusayn (a.s ).

Woman’s opinions should also be taken into account concerning food and men should follow their family’s taste. This has been stated in the following Prophet’s tradition.

The Messenger of Allah (a.s .) said, “A faithful man eats as his wife likes, but as for a hypocrite, his wife eats as he likes.”187 This is another moral of true Muslims, who regard their wives’ artistic feelings and tastes, contrary to hypocrite people. Can we find such importance and value given to women in the western feminist movements? Do they really advocate women?

Love of Women and its Position in Faith

ImamSadiq (a.s ) said, “Whenever one loves his wife more, his faith increases.”188

ImamSadiq (a.s ) in another tradition has compared the love of the Divine leaders with the love of women. He said, “... whenever he (an adherent) loves us more, he loves women more.”189

Keeping in mind that Islam denies excessive lust as the only goal of marriage, the meaning of such traditions becomes clearer, proving the value of compassion to women. Loving women approaches people to the position of the Prophet (a.s .) in the Hereafter, too.

The Prophet (a.s .) said, “The nearest of you to me in my sitting place on the Day of Judgment is the best of you to his wife.”190

It was pointed out that one’s faith depends on the kind of one’s behavior toward women; serving and treating them kindly promotes one’s position. As was mentioned in part (the Criterion of Preference) of the same chapter, the Prophet (a.s .), the ever-best one in ethics, was the kindest of all to his family, and this is the criterion of the Islamic beliefs.

One’s religious perfection depends on marriage, too. The Islamic teachings emphasize marriage and the marital relations as perfection of one’s belief. Abandoning the marital relationship, on the other hand, is a destructive factor and a non-Islamic moral. In other words, leaving the society and living a life of loneliness is incongruous with the Islamic teachings. Only one tradition is sufficient in this regard:

ImamSadiq (a.s ) narrated from the Prophet (a.s .) his saying: “One, who gets married, preserves a half of his religion...let him fear Allah in the other half ...”191

Thus, the true faith is guaranteed by marriage and marital relations, while deserting marriage is a lack in faith. This completing role is a great position given to woman in Islam, and not in any other school of thought or other religion. The playing of this role is possible in two ways; either the woman completes her husband’s faith, or the marital relations develop and maintain the faith. Anyhow, the value of woman and her vital role in maintaining and strengthening the religious beliefs become manifest.

A Half of the Martyrs’ Reward

The human activities and attempts have different values and hence require different rewards. The highest value and reward belongs to the martyrs’ sacrifice of their lives.So few activities may have as a half of the reward of martyrdom. The Prophet (a.s .) has set such a reward for women’s work at home:

One day, some man came to the Prophet (a.s .) and said, “I have a wife who welcomes me when I come home, and escorts me when I leave. When I am sad, she asks me,Why are yousad ? If you are worried about your livelihood, know that our sustenance is not in your hands. And if you are worried about your Hereafter, may Allah increase your sadness.’ Prophet Muhammad (a.s .) said to him, ‘Surely, Allah has laborers, and this (wife) is one of His laborers. She shall get like the half of the reward of martyrs.”192

Woman’s work at home and her kind behavior to her husband is as working for Allah and it equals a half of the reward of martyrdom; a position far above the specified rights of women.

Instances of valuing and advocating women are numerous in the Islamic teachings, only some of which were mentioned in this cursory research. In these last lines, a tradition of the great Prophet of Islam (a.s .) deserves to be pointed out:

The Messenger of Allah (a.s .) was informed ofSa’d Ibn Ma’ath’s death. Hearing this, the Prophet (a.s .) hastened toSa’d’s house along with his companions. The Prophet (a.s .) ordered to washSa’d’s body while he (the Prophet) was leaning to the door (looking sadly).Sa’d’s body was washed, embalmed with camphor, enshrouded, and put in a coffin. Then the Prophet (a.s .) followedSa’d’s body (to the graveyard with others) without his shoes and cloak. He sometimes carried the right side of the coffin and sometimes the left side, until they reached the graveyard. The Prophet (a.s .) then came down in the grave, put the body inside it, placed bricks, and frequently said, ‘Give me some bricks! Give me some mud!’ He leveled the bricks by putting mud between them. Then, he poured soil on it and smoothed its surface. He said, “I know that this grave would become old and ruined, but Allah likes His servants when doing something to complete it properly ...’

ThenSa’d’s mother said, ‘OSa’d ! May you enjoy theParadise! ’ The Prophet (a.s .) told her, ‘Be quiet! Do not judge on your Lord’s verdicts!Sa’d is being afflicted by the pressing (of the grave) ...’ Prophet Muhammad (a.s .) returned and people followed him, asking, ‘O messenger of Allah! We saw that you did toSa’d what you have never done to anyone else; you followed his dead body with no shoes or cloak, ordered to wash his body, offered the prayer on him, and put him in the grave yourself. Then, you said thatSa’d was afflicted by the grave pressing! The Prophet (a.s .) said, ‘Yes, that is right, because there was something bad in his treatment toward his wife.”193

Such respect and valuation from the Prophet (a.s .) implies thatSa’d was certainly not sinful, disobedient, or oppressor servant, not violating the obligatory rights of his wife and family. If he was so, the Prophet (a.s .) would undoubtedly not regard him so highly or behave so respectfully in his funerals, but would behave normally as toward others.Sa’d was very pious Muslim and he certainly observed the rights of his wife and family. The words of Prophet Muhammad (a.s .), however, are about something more than the normal rights; it was the observing of ethical values in treating women. In fact,Sa’d was pressed in the grave because he was not good-tempered and humorous with his wife.

These delicate criteria exist in no other school, but in Islam. In the end, it would be fit to mention a high and valuable saying of SheikhSaduq , whose deep knowledge of Islamic sciences is manifest to everyone. The nearness of his age to the age of the infallible Imams (a.s ) makes his narrations still more authentic. In defining the obligations and criteria ofShiism , he says, “... from the conditions of theTwelver Shia are ‘certainty’ (absolute faith in the oneness of Allah) ‘trustworthiness to good and bad people (giving back deposits to their faithful and unfaithful owners)’ ‘and being kind to women’.”194

Those who claim to beShi’a should follow the principles ofShiism principles and treat women accordingly.

PART II.

I must own, CLEANTHES, said DEMEA, that nothing can more surprise me, than the light, in which you have, all along, put this argument. By the whole tenor of your discourse, one would imagine that you were maintaining the Being of a God, against the cavils of Atheists and Infidels; andwere necessitated to become a champion for that fundamental principle of all religion.But this, I hope, is not, by any means, a question among us. No man; no man, at least, of common sense, I am persuaded, ever entertained a serious doubt with regard to a truth, so certain and self-evident. The question is not concerning the BEING, but the NATURE of GOD. ThisI affirm, from the infirmities of human understanding, to be altogether incomprehensible and unknown to us. The essence of that supreme mind, his attributes, the manner of his existence, the very nature of his duration; these and every particular, which regards so divine a Being,* are mysterious to men. Finite, weak, and blind creatures, we ought to humble ourselves in his august presence, and, conscious of our frailties, adore in silence his infinite perfections, which eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. Theyare covered in a deep cloud from human curiosity: It is profaneness to attempt penetrating through these sacred obscurities: And next to the impiety of denying his existence, is the temerity of prying into his nature and essence, decrees and attributes.

But lest you should think, that my piety has here got the better of my philosophy, I shall support my opinion, if it needs any support, by a very great authority. I might cite all the divines almost, from the foundation of Christianity, whohave ever treated of this or any other theological subject: But I shall confine myself, at present, to one equally celebrated for piety and philosophy. It is Father MALEBRANCHE, who,I remember, thus expresses himself*.

One ought not so much (says he) to call God a spirit, in order to express positively what he is, as in order to signify that he is not matter. He is aBeing infinitely perfect: Of this we cannot doubt.But in the same manner as we ought not to imagine, even supposing him corporeal, that he is clothed with a human body, as the ANTHROPOMORPHITES asserted, undercolour that that figure was the most perfect of any; so neither ought we to imagine, that the Spirit of God has human ideas, or bears any resemblance to our spirit; undercolour that we know nothing more perfect than a human mind. We ought rather to believe, that as he comprehends the perfections of matter without being material........he comprehends also the perfections of created spirits, without being spirit, in the manner we conceive spirit: That his true name is, He that is, or in other words, Being without restriction, All Being, the Being infinite and universal.

After so great an authority, DEMEA, replied PHILO, as that which you have produced, and a thousand more, which you might produce, it would appear ridiculous inme to add my sentiment, or express my approbation of your doctrine.But furely , where reasonable men treat these subjects, the question can never be concerning the Being, but only the Nature of the Deity. Thesormer truth, as you well observe, is unquestionable and self-evident. Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever itbe ) we call GOD; and piously ascribe to him every species of perfection. Whoever scruples this fundamentaltruth, deserves every punishment, which can be inflicted among philosophers, to wit, the greatest ridicule, contempt and disapprobation.But as all perfection is entirely relative, we ought never to imagine, that we comprehend the attributes of this divine Being, or to suppose, that his perfections have any analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creature.Wisdom, Thought, Design, Knowledge; these we justly ascribe to him; because these words arehonourable among men, and we have no other language or other conceptions, by which we can express our adoration of him.But let us beware, left we think, that our ideas any wise correspond to his perfections, or that his attributes have any resemblance to these qualities among men. He is infinitely superior to our limited view and comprehension; and is more the object of worship in the temple than of disputation in the schools.

In reality, CLEANTHES, continued he, there is no need of having recourse to that affectedscepticism , so displeasing to you, in order to come at this determination. Our ideas reach no farther than our experience: We have no experience of divine attributes and operations:I need not conclude my syllogism: You can draw the inference yourself.And it is a pleasure to me (and I hope to you too) that just reasoning and sound piety here concur in the same conclusion, and both of them establish the adorably mysterious and incomprehensible nature of the Supreme Being.

Not to lose any time in circumlocutions, said CLEANTHES, addressing himself to DEMEA, much less in replying to the pious declamations of PHILO;I shall briefly explain how I conceive this matter. Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts,are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, weare led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man; though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind andintelligence.

I shall be so free, CLEANTHES, said DEMEA, as to tell you, that from the beginning I could not approve of your conclusion concerning the similarity of the Deity to men; still less can I approve of the mediums, by which youendeavour to establish it.What! No demonstration of theBeing of a God!No abstract arguments! No proofs a priori! Are these, which have hitherto been so much insisted on by philosophers, all fallacy,all sophism? Can we reach no farther in this subject than experience and probability? I will notsay, that this is betraying the cause of a Deity: But surely, by this affected candor, you give advantages to Atheists, which they never could obtain, by the mere dint of argument and reasoning.

What I chiefly scruple in this subject, said PHILO, is not so much, that all religious arguments are by CLEANTHES reduced to experience, as that they appear not to be even the most certain and irrefragable of that inferior kind. That a stone will fall, that fire will burn, that the earth has solidity, we have observed a thousand and a thousand times; and when any new instance of this natureis presented , we draw without hesitation the accustomed inference. The exact similarity of the cases gives us a perfect assurance of a similar event; anda stronger evidence is never desired nor sought after.But where-ever you depart, in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminishproportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty. After having experienced the circulation of the blood in human creatures, we make no doubt, that it takes place in TITIUS and MAEVIUS: But from its circulation in frogs and fishes, it is only a presumption, though a strong one, from analogy, that it takes place in men and other animals. The analogical reasoning is much weaker, when we infer the circulation of the sap in vegetables from ourexperience, that the blood circulates in animals; and those, who hastily followed that imperfect analogy, are found, by more accurate experiments, to have been mistaken.

If we see a house, CLEANTHES, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect, which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause.But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretensionwill be received in the world, I leave you to consider.

It would surely be very ill received, replied CLEANTHES; andI should be deservedly blamed and detested, did I allow, that the proofs of a Deity amounted to no more than a guess or conjecture.But is the whole adjustment of means to ends in a house and in the universe so slight a resemblance?Theoeconomy of final causes? The order, proportion, and arrangement of every part? Steps of a stair are plainly contrived, that human legs may use them in mounting; and this inference is certain and infallible. Human legs are also contrived for walking and mounting; and this inference, I allow, is not altogether so certain, because of the dissimilarity which you remark; but does it, therefore, deserve the name only of presumption or conjecture?

Good God! cried DEMEA, interrupting him, where are we? Zealous defenders of religionallow, that the proofs of a Deity fall short of perfect evidence!And you, PHILO, on whose assistance I depended, in proving the adorable mysteriousness of the Divine Nature, do you assent to all these extravagant opinions of CLEANTHES? For what other name canI give them?Or why spare my censure, when such principles are advanced, supported by such an authority, before so young a man as PAMPHILUS?

You seem not to apprehend, repliedPHILO, that I argue with CLEANTHES in his own way; and by showing him the dangerous consequences of his tenets, hope at last to reduce him to our opinion.But what sticks most with you, I observe, is the representation which CLEANTHES has made of the argument a posteriori; and finding, that that argument is likely to escape your hold and vanish into air, you think it so disguised, that you can scarcely believe it to be set in its true light. Now, however much I may dissent, in other respects, from the dangerous principles of CLEANTHES, I mustallow, that he has fairly represented that argument; and I shallendeavour so to state the matter to you, that you will entertain no farther scruples with regard to it.

Were a man to abstract fromeverything which he knows or has seen, he would be altogether incapable, merely from his own ideas, to determine what kind of scene the universe must be, or to give the preference to one state or situation of things above another. For as nothing which he clearly conceives, could be esteemed impossible or implying a contradiction, every chimera of his fancy would be upon an equal footing; nor could he assign any just reason, why he adheres to one idea or system, and rejects the others, which are equally possible.

Again; after he opens his eyes, and contemplates the world, as it really is, it would be impossible for him, at first, to assign the cause of any one event; much less, of the whole of things or of the universe. He might set his Fancy a rambling; and she might bring him in an infinite variety of reports and representations. These would all be possible; but being all equally possible, hewould never, of himself, give a satisfactory account for his preferring one of them to the rest. Experience alone can point out to him the true cause of any phenomenon.

Now according to this method of reasoning, DEMEA, it follows (andis, indeed, tacitly allowed by CLEANTHES himself) that order, arrangement, or the adjustment of final causes is not, of itself, any proof of design; but only so far as it has been experienced to proceed from that principle.For aught we can know a priori, matter may contain the source or spring of order originally, within itself, as well as mind does; and there is no more difficulty in conceiving, that the several elements, from an internal unknown cause, may fall into the most exquisite arrangement, than to conceive that their ideas, in the great, universal mind, from a like internal, unknown cause, fall into that arrangement. The equal possibility of both these suppositionsis allowed .But by experience we find, (according to CLEANTHES) that there is a difference between them. Throw several pieces of steel together, withoutshape or form ; they will never arrange themselves so as to compose a watch: Stone, and mortar, and wood, without an architect, never erect a house.But the ideas in a human mind, we see, by an unknown, inexplicableoeconomy , arrange themselves so as to form the plan of a watch or house. Experience, therefore,proves, that there is an original principle of order in mind, not in matter. From similareffects we infer similar causes. The adjustment of means to ends is alike in the universe, as in a machine of human contrivance. The causes, therefore, mustbe resembling .

I was from the beginningscandalised , I must own, with this resemblance, which is asserted, between the Deity and human creatures; and must conceive it to imply such a degradation of the Supreme Being as no found Theist could endure. With your assistance, therefore, DEMEA,I shallendeavour to defend what you justly call the adorable mysteriousness of the Divine Nature, and shall refute this reasoning of CLEANTHES; provided he allows, that I have made a fair representation of it.

When CLEANTHES had assented, PHILO, after a short pause, proceeded in the following manner.

That all inferences, CLEANTHES, concerning fact, are founded on experience, and that all experimentalreasonings are founded on the supposition, that similar causes prove similareffects, and similar effects similar causes; I shall not, at present, much dispute with you.But observe, Iintreat you, with what extreme caution all justreasoners proceed in the transferring of experiments to similar cases. Unless the casesbe exactly similar, they repose no perfect confidence in applying their past observation to any particular phenomenon. Every alteration of circumstances occasions a doubt concerning the event; and it requires new experiments to prove certainly, that the new circumstances are of no moment or importance. A change in bulk, situation, arrangement, age, disposition of the air, or surrounding bodies; any of these particulars may be attended with the most unexpected consequences: And unless the objects be quite familiar to us, it is the highest temerity to expect with assurance, after any of these changes, an event similar to that which before fell under our observation. The slow and deliberate steps of philosophers, here, ifany where , are distinguished from the precipitate march of the vulgar, who, hurried on by the smallest similitude, are incapable of all discernment or consideration.

But can you think, CLEANTHES, that your usual phlegm and philosophy have been preserved in so wide a step as you have taken, when you compared to the universe houses, ships, furniture, machines; and from their similarity in some circumstances inferred a similarity in their causes? Thought, design, intelligence, such as we discover in men and other animals, is no more than one of the springs and principles of the universe, as well as heat or cold, attraction or repulsion, and a hundred others, which fall under daily observation. It is an active cause, by which some particular parts of nature, we find, produce alterations on other parts.But can a conclusion, with any propriety, be transferred from parts to the whole? Does not the great disproportion bar all comparison and inference? From observing the growth of a hair, can we learnany thing concerning the generation of a man? Would the manner of a leaf's blowing, even though perfectly known, afford us any instruction concerning the vegetation of a tree?

But allowing that we were to take the operations of one part of nature upon another for the foundation of ourjudgement concerning the origin of the whole (which never can be admitted) yet why select so minute, so weak, so bounded a principle as the reason and design of animals is found to be upon this planet? What peculiar privilege has this little agitation of thebrain which we call thought, that we must thus make it the model of the whole universe? Our partiality in our ownfavour does indeed present it on all occasions; but sound philosophy ought carefully to guard against so natural an illusion.

So far from admitting, continued PHILO, that the operations of a part can afford us any just conclusion concerning the origin of the whole, I will not allow any one part to form a rule for another part, if the latterbe very remote from the former. Is there any reasonable ground to conclude, that the inhabitants of other planets possess thought, intelligence, reason, orany thing similar to these faculties in men? When Nature has so extremely diversified her manner of operation in this small globe; can we imagine, that she incessantly copies herself throughout so immense a universe?And if thought, as we may well suppose, be confined merely to this narrow corner, and has even there so limited a sphere of action; with what propriety can we assign it for the original cause of all things?The narrow views of a peasant, who makes his domesticoeconomy the rule for the government of kingdoms, is in comparison a pardonable sophism.

But were we ever so much assured, that a thought and reason, resembling the human, were to be found throughout the whole universe, and were its activity elsewhere vastly greater and more commanding than it appears in this globe: yet I cannot see, why the operations of a world, constituted, arranged, adjusted, can with any propriety be extended to a world, which is in its embryo-state, and is advancing towards that constitution and arrangement. By observation, we know somewhat of theoeconomy , action, and nourishment of a finished animal; but we must transfer with great caution that observation to the growth of afoetus in the womb, and still more, to the formation of an animalcule in the loins of its male parent. Nature, we find, even from our limited experience, possesses an infinite number of springs and principles, which incessantly discover themselves on every change of her position and situation.And what new and unknown principles would actuate her in so new and unknown a situation, as that of the formation of a universe, we cannot, without the utmost temerity, pretend to determine.

A very small part of this great system, during a very short time,is very imperfectly discovered to us: and do we thence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?

Admirable conclusion! Stone, wood, brick, iron, brass, have not, at this time, in this minute globe of earth, anorder or arrangement without human art and contrivance: therefore the universe could not originally attain its order and arrangement, without something similar to human art.But is a part of nature a rule for another part very wide of the former? Is it a rule for the whole? Is a very small part a rule for the universe? Is nature in one situation, a certain rule for nature in another situation, vastly different from the former?

And can you blame me, CLEANTHES, if I here imitate the prudent reserve of SIMONIDES, who, according to the noted story, being asked by HIERO, What God was?desired a day to think of it, and then two days more; and after that manner continually prolonged the term, without ever bringing in his definition or description? Could you even blameme , if I had answered at first, that I did not know, and was sensible that this subject lay vastly beyond the reach of my faculties? You might cry outsceptic andrallier as much as you pleased: but having found, in so many other subjects, much more familiar, the imperfections and even contradictions of human reason,I never should expect any success from its feeble conjectures, in a subject, so sublime, and so remote from the sphere of our observation. When two species of objects have always been observed to be conjoined together, I can infer, by custom, the existence of one,where-ever I see the existence of the other: and this I call an argument from experience.But how this argument can have place, where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel, or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.And will any man tell me with a serious countenance, that an orderly universe must arise from some thought and art, like the human; because we have experience of it? To ascertain this reasoning, it were requisite, that we had experience of the origin of worlds; and it is not sufficient surely, that we have seen ships and cities arise from human art and contrivance.........

PHILO was proceeding in this vehement manner, somewhat between jest and earnest, as it appeared tome ; when he observed some signs of impatience in CLEANTHES, and then immediately stopped short. WhatI had to suggest, said CLEANTHES, is only that you would not abuse terms, or make use of popular expressions to subvert philosophicalreasonings . You know, that the vulgar often distinguish reason from experience, even where the question relates only to matter of fact and existence; though it is found, where that reason is properly analyzed, that it is nothing but a species of experience. To prove by experience the origin of the universe from mind is not more contrary to common speech than to prove the motion of the earth from the same principle.And acaviller might raise all the same objections to the COPERNICAN system, which you have urged against myreasonings . Have you other earths, might he say, which you have seen to move? Have.

Yes!cried PHILO, interrupting him, we have other earths. Is not the moon another earth, which we see to turn round its centre? Is not Venus another earth, where we observe the same phenomenon? Are not the revolutions of the sun also a confirmation, from analogy, of the same theory? All theplanets, are they not earths, which revolve about the sun? Are not the satellites moons, which move round Jupiter and Saturn, and along with these primary planets, round the sun? These analogies and resemblances, with others, which I have not mentioned, are the sole proofs of theCOPERNICAN system: and to you it belongs to consider, whether you have any analogies of the same kind to support your theory.

In reality, CLEANTHES, continued he, the modern system of astronomyis now so much received by all enquirers, and has become so essential a part even of our earliest education, that we are not commonly very scrupulous in examining the reasons, upon which it is founded. It is now become a matter of mere curiosity to study the first writers on that subject, who had the full force of prejudice to encounter, and were obliged to turn their arguments on every side, in order to render them popular and convincing. But if we peruse GALILAEO's famous Dialogues concerning the system of the world, we shall find, that that great genius, one of thesublimest that ever existed, first bent all hisendeavours to prove, that there was no foundation for the distinction commonly made between elementary and celestial substances. The schools, proceeding from the illusions of sense, had carried this distinction very far; and had established the latter substances to beingenerable , incorruptible, unalterable,impassable ; and had assigned all the opposite qualities to the former. But GALILAEO, beginning with the moon, proved its similarity in every particular to the earth; its convex figure, its natural darkness when not illuminated, its density, its distinction into solid and liquid, the variations of its phases, the mutual illuminations of the earth and moon, their mutual eclipses, the inequalities of the lunar surface, &c. After many instances of this kind, with regard to all the planets, men plainly saw, that these bodies became proper objects of experience; and that the similarity of their nature enabled us to extend the same arguments and phenomena from one to the other.

In this cautious proceeding of the astronomers, you may read your own condemnation, CLEANTHES; or rather may see, that the subject inwhich you are engaged exceeds all human reason and enquiry. Can you pretend to show any such similarity between the fabric of a house, and the generation of a universe? Have you ever seen Nature in any such situation as resembles the first arrangement of the elements?Have worlds ever been formed under your eye?and have you had leisure to observe the whole progress of the phenomenon, from the first appearance of order to its final consummation? If you have, then cite your experience, and deliver your theory.

PART III.

HOW the most absurd argument, replied CLEANTHES, in the hands of a man of ingenuity and invention,may acquire an air of probability! Are you not aware,PHILO, that it became necessary for COPERNICUS and his first disciples to prove the similarity of the terrestrial and celestial matter; because several philosophers, blinded by old systems, and supported by some sensible appearances, had denied this similarity? But that it is by no means necessary, that Theists should prove the similarity of the works of Nature to those of Art; because this similarity is self-evident andundeniable? The same matter, a like form: what more is requisite to show an analogy between their causes, and to ascertain the origin of all things from a divine purpose and intention? Your objections,I must freely tell you, are no better than the abstruse cavils of those philosophers,* who denied motion; and ought to be refuted in the same manner, by illustrations, examples, and instances, rather than by serious argument and philosophy.

Suppose, therefore, that an articulate voice were heard in the clouds, much louder and more melodious than any which human art could ever reach: Suppose, that this voice were extended in the same instant over all nations, and spoke to each nation in its own language and dialect: Suppose, that the words delivered not only contain a just sense and meaning, but convey some instruction altogether worthy of a benevolent being, superior to mankind: could you possibly hesitate a moment concerning the cause of this voice? and must you not instantly ascribe it to some design or purpose? YetI cannot see but all the same objections (if they merit that appellation) which lie against the system of Theism, may also be produced against this inference.

Might you not say, that all conclusions concerning fact were founded on experience: that when we hear an articulate voice in the dark, and thence infer a man, it is only the resemblance of the effects, which leads us to conclude that there is a like resemblance in the cause: but that this extraordinary voice, by its loudness, extent, and flexibility to all languages, bears so little analogy to any human voice, that we have no reason to suppose any analogy in their causes: and consequently, that a rational, wise, coherent speech proceeded, you knew not whence, from some accidental whistling of the winds, not from any divine reason or intelligence? You see clearly your own objections in these cavils; andI hope too, you see clearly, that they cannot possibly have more force in the one case than in the other.

But to bring the case still nearer the present one of the universe, I shall make two suppositions, which imply not any absurdity or impossibility. Suppose, that there is a natural, universal, invariable language, common to every individual of human race, and that books are natural productions, which perpetuate themselves in the same manner with animals and vegetables, by descent and propagation. Several expressions of our passions contain a universal language: all brute animals have a natural speech, which, however limited, is very intelligible to their own species.And as there are infinitely fewer parts and less contrivance in the finest composition of eloquence, than in the coarsest organized body, the propagation of an Iliad orAeneid is an easier supposition than that of any plant or animal.

Suppose, therefore, that you enter into your library, thus peopled by natural volumes, containing the most refined reason and most exquisite beauty: could you possibly open one of them, anddoubt, that its original cause bore the strongest analogy to mind and intelligence?When it reasons and discourses; when it expostulates, argues, and enforces its views and topics; when it applies sometimes to the pure intellect, sometimes to the affections; when it collects, disposes, and adorns every consideration suited to the subject: could you persist in asserting, that all this, at the bottom, had really no meaning, and that the first formation of this volume in the loins of its original parent proceeded not from thought and design? Your obstinacy,I know, reaches not that degree of firmness: even yoursceptical play and wantonness would be abashed at so glaring an absurdity.

But if there be any difference, PHILO, between this supposed case and the real one of the universe, it is all to the advantage of the latter. The anatomy of an animal affords many stronger instances of design than the perusal of LIVY or TACITUS: and anyobjection which you start in the former case, by carrying me back to so unusual and extraordinary a scene as the first formation of worlds, the same objection has place on the supposition of our vegetating library.Chuse , then, your party, PHILO, without ambiguity or evasion: assert either that a rational volume is no proof of a rational cause, or admit of a similar cause to all the works of nature.

Let me here observe too, continuedCLEANTHES, that this religious argument, instead of being weakened by thatscepticism , so much affected by you, rather acquires force from it, and becomes more firm and undisputed. To exclude all argument or reasoning of every kind is either affectation or madness. The declared profession of every reasonablesceptic is only to reject abstruse,remote and refined arguments; to adhere to common sense and the plain instincts of nature; and to assent, where-ever any reasons strike him with so full a force, that he cannot, without the greatest violence, prevent it. Now the arguments for Natural Religion are plainly of this kind; and nothing but the most perverse, obstinate metaphysics can reject them.Consider ,anatomize the eye : Survey its structure and contrivance; and tell me, from your own feeling, if the idea of a contriver does not immediately flow in upon you with a force like that of sensation. The most obvious conclusion surely is infavour of design; and it requires time,reflection and study to summon up those frivolous, though abstruse objections, which can support Infidelity. Who can behold the male and female of each species, the correspondence of their parts and instincts, their passions and whole course of life before and after generation, but must be sensible, that the propagation of the speciesis intended by Nature? Millions and millions of such instances present themselves through every part of the universe; and no language can convey a more intelligible, irresistible meaning, than the curious adjustment of final causes. To what degree, therefore, of blind dogmatism must one have attained, to reject such natural and such convincing arguments?

Some beauties in writing we may meet with, which seem contrary to rules, and which gain the affections, and animate the imagination, in opposition to all the precepts of criticism, and to the authority of the established masters of art.And if the argument for Theism be, as you pretend, contradictory to the principles of logic; its universal, its irresistible influence proves clearly, that there may be arguments of a like irregular nature. Whatever cavilsmay be urged ; an orderly world, as well as a coherent, articulate speech, will still be received as an incontestable proof of design and intention.

It sometimes happens,I own, that the religious arguments have not their due influence on an ignorant savage and barbarian; not because they are obscure and difficult, but because he never asks himself any question with regard to them. Whencearises the curious structure of an animal?From the copulation of its parents. And these whence?From their parents? A fewremoves set the objects at such a distance, that to him they are lost in darkness and confusion; nor is he actuated by any curiosity to trace them farther.But this is neither dogmatism norscepticism , but stupidity; a state of mind very different from your sifting, inquisitive disposition, my ingenious friend. You can trace causes from effects: You can compare the most distant and remote objects: and your greatest errors proceed not from barrenness of thought and invention, but from too luxuriant a fertility, which suppresses your natural good sense, by a profusion of unnecessary scruples and objections.

HereI could observe, HERMIPPUS, that PHILO was a little embarrassed and confounded: But while he hesitated in delivering an answer, luckily for him, DEMEA broke in upon the discourse, and saved his countenance.

Your instance, CLEANTHES, said he, drawn from books and language, being familiar, has,I confess, so much more force on that account; but is there not some danger too in this very circumstance; and may it not render us presumptuous, by making us imagine we comprehend the Deity, and have some adequate idea of his nature and attributes? WhenI read a volume, I enter into the mind and intention of the author: I become him, in a manner, for the instant; and have an immediate feeling and conception of those ideas, which revolved in his imagination, while employed in that composition.But so near an approach we never surely can make to the Deity. His ways are not our ways. His attributes are perfect, but incomprehensible.And this volume of Nature contains a great and inexplicable riddle, more than any intelligible discourse or reasoning.

The ancient PLATONISTS, you know, were the most religious and devout of all the Pagan philosophers: yet many of them, particularly PLOTINUS us, expressly declare, that intellect or understanding is not to be ascribed to the Deity, and that our most perfect worship of him consists, not in acts of veneration, reverence, gratitude or love; but in a certain mysterious self-annihilation or total extinction of all our faculties. These ideasare, perhaps, too far stretched ; but still it must be acknowledged, that, by representing the Deity as so intelligible, and comprehensible, and so similar to a human mind, we are guilty of the grossest and most narrow partiality, and make ourselves the model of the whole universe.

All the sentiments of the human mind, gratitude, resentment, love, friendship, approbation, blame, pity, emulation, envy, have a plain reference to the state and situation of man, andare calculated for preserving the existence, and promoting the activity of such a being in such circumstances. It seems therefore unreasonable to transfer such sentiments to a supremeexistence, or to suppose him actuated by them; and the phenomena, besides, of the universe will not support us in such a theory.All our ideas, derived from the senses are confessedly false and illusive; and cannot, therefore, be supposed to have place in a supreme intelligence: And as the ideas of internal sentiment, added to those of the external senses, compose the whole furniture of human understanding, we may conclude, that none of the materials of thought are in any respect similar in the human and in the divine intelligence. Now as to the manner of thinking; how can we make any comparison between them, or suppose them any wise resembling? Our thought is fluctuating, uncertain, fleeting, successive, and compounded; and were we to remove these circumstances, we absolutely annihilate its essence, and itwould, in such a case, be an abuse of terms to apply to it the name of thought or reason.At least, if it appear more pious and respectful (as it really is) still to retain these terms, when we mention the Supreme Being, we ought to acknowledge, that their meaning, in that case, is totally incomprehensible; and that the infirmities of our nature do not permit us to reach any ideas, which in the least correspond to the ineffable sublimity of the divine attributes.


3

4

5