exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are
called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward
existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an
intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man's
characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not
sensible.
Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and
admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply
their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the
want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the
want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is
due to their nonexistence--that is to say, blindness is the want of sight,
deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is
the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of
strength.
Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind--that is, scorpions and serpents
are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a
scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man;
but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their
weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of
their poison do not agree with our elements--that is to say, as there is
antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is
evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in
relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of
its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no
evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is
nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives
life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light,
there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is
nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists;
evil is nonexistent.
75: TWO KINDS OF TORMENT
Know that there are two kinds of torment: subtile and gross. For example,
ignorance itself is a torment, but it is a subtile torment; indifference
to God is itself a torment; so also are falsehood, cruelty and treachery.
All the imperfections are torments, but they are subtile torments.
Certainly for an intelligent man death is better than sin, and a cut
tongue is better than lying or calumny.
The other kind of torment is gross--such as penalties, imprisonment,
beating, expulsion and banishment. But for the people of God separation
from God is the greatest torment of all.
76: THE JUSTICE AND MERCY OF GOD
Know that to do justice is to give to everyone according to his deserts.
For example, when a workman labors from morning until evening, justice
requires that he shall be paid his wages; but when he has done no work and
taken no trouble, he is given a gift: this is bounty. If you give alms and
gifts to a poor man although he has taken no trouble for you, nor done
anything to deserve it, this is bounty. So Christ besought forgiveness for
his murderers: this is called bounty.
Now the question of the good or evil of things is determined by reason or
by law. Some believe that it is determined by law; such are the Jews, who,
believing all the commandments of the Pentateuch to be absolutely
obligatory, regard them as matters of law, not of reason. Thus they say
that one of the commandments of the Pentateuch is that it is unlawful to
partake of meat and butter together because it is taref, and taref in
Hebrew means unclean, as kosher means clean. This, they say, is a question
of law and not of reason.
But the theologians think that the good and evil of things depend upon
both reason and law. The chief foundation of the prohibition of murder,
theft, treachery, falsehood, hypocrisy and cruelty, is reason. Every
intelligent man comprehends that murder, theft, treachery, falsehood,
hypocrisy and cruelty are evil and reprehensible; for if you prick a man
with a thorn, he will cry out, complain and groan; so it is evident that
he will understand that murder according to reason is evil and
reprehensible. If he commits a murder, he will be responsible, whether the
renown of the Prophet has reached him or not; for it is reason that
formulates the reprehensible character of the action. When a man commits
this bad action, he will surely be responsible.
But in a place where the commands of a Prophet are not known, and where
the people do not act in conformity with the divine instructions, such as
the command of Christ to return good for evil, but act according to the
desires of nature--that is, if they torment those who torment them--from the
point of view of religion they are excused because the divine command has
not been delivered to them. Though they do not deserve mercy and
beneficence, nevertheless, God treats them with mercy and forgives them.
Now vengeance, according to reason, is also blameworthy, because through
vengeance no good result is gained by the avenger. So if a man strikes
another, and he who is struck takes revenge by returning the blow, what
advantage will he gain? Will this be a balm for his wound or a remedy for
his pain? No, God forbid! In truth the two actions are the same: both are
injuries; the only difference is that one occurred first, and the other
afterward. Therefore, if he who is struck forgives, nay, if he acts in a
manner contrary to that which has been used toward him, this is laudable.
The law of the community will punish the aggressor but will not take
revenge. This punishment has for its end to warn, to protect and to oppose
cruelty and transgression so that other men may not be tyrannical.
But if he who has been struck pardons and forgives, he shows the greatest
mercy. This is worthy of admiration.
77: THE RIGHT METHOD OF TREATING CRIMINALS
Question.--Should a criminal be punished, or forgiven and his crime
overlooked?
Answer.--There are two sorts of retributory punishments. One is vengeance,
the other, chastisement. Man has not the right to take vengeance, but the
community has the right to punish the criminal; and this punishment is
intended to warn and to prevent so that no other person will dare to
commit a like crime. This punishment is for the protection of man's
rights, but it is not vengeance; vengeance appeases the anger of the heart
by opposing one evil to another. This is not allowable, for man has not
the right to take vengeance. But if criminals were entirely forgiven, the
order of the world would be upset. So punishment is one of the essential
necessities for the safety of communities, but he who is oppressed by a
transgressor has not the right to take vengeance. On the contrary, he
should forgive and pardon, for this is worthy of the world of man.
The communities must punish the oppressor, the murderer, the malefactor,
so as to warn and restrain others from committing like crimes. But the
most essential thing is that the people must be educated in such a way
that no crimes will be committed; for it is possible to educate the masses
so effectively that they will avoid and shrink from perpetrating crimes,
so that the crime itself will appear to them as the greatest chastisement,
the utmost condemnation and torment. Therefore, no crimes which require
punishment will be committed.
We must speak of things that are possible of performance in this world.
There are many theories and high ideas on this subject, but they are not
practicable; consequently, we must speak of things that are feasible.
For example, if someone oppresses, injures and wrongs another, and the
wronged man retaliates, this is vengeance and is censurable. If the son of
'Amr kills the son of Zayd, Zayd has not the right to kill the son of
'Amr; if he does so, this is vengeance. If 'Amr dishonors Zayd, the latter
has not the right to dishonor 'Amr; if he does so, this is vengeance, and
it is very reprehensible. No, rather he must return good for evil, and not
only forgive, but also, if possible, be of service to his oppressor. This
conduct is worthy of man: for what advantage does he gain by vengeance?
The two actions are equivalent; if one action is reprehensible, both are
reprehensible. The only difference is that one was committed first, the
other later.
But the community has the right of defense and of self-protection;
moreover, the community has no hatred nor animosity for the murderer: it
imprisons or punishes him merely for the protection and security of
others. It is not for the purpose of taking vengeance upon the murderer,
but for the purpose of inflicting a punishment by which the community will
be protected. If the community and the inheritors of the murdered one were
to forgive and return good for evil, the cruel would be continually
ill-treating others, and assassinations would continually occur. Vicious
people, like wolves, would destroy the sheep of God. The community has no
ill-will and rancor in the infliction of punishment, and it does not
desire to appease the anger of the heart; its purpose is by punishment to
protect others so that no atrocious actions may be committed.
Thus when Christ said: "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek,
turn to him the left one also,"(161) it was for the purpose of teaching
men not to take personal revenge. He did not mean that, if a wolf should
fall upon a flock of sheep and wish to destroy it, the wolf should be
encouraged to do so. No, if Christ had known that a wolf had entered the
fold and was about to destroy the sheep, most certainly He would have
prevented it.
As forgiveness is one of the attributes of the Merciful One, so also
justice is one of the attributes of the Lord. The tent of existence is
upheld upon the pillar of justice and not upon forgiveness. The
continuance of mankind depends upon justice and not upon forgiveness. So
if, at present, the law of pardon were practiced in all countries, in a
short time the world would be disordered, and the foundations of human
life would crumble. For example, if the governments of Europe had not
withstood the notorious Attila, he would not have left a single living
man.
Some people are like bloodthirsty wolves: if they see no punishment
forthcoming, they will kill men merely for pleasure and diversion. One of
the tyrants of Persia killed his tutor merely for the sake of making
merry, for mere fun and sport. The famous Mutavakkil, the Abbasid, having
summoned his ministers, councillors and functionaries to his presence, let
loose a box full of scorpions in the assembly and forbade anyone to move.
When the scorpions stung those present, he burst forth into boisterous
laughter.
To recapitulate: the constitution of the communities depends upon justice,
not upon forgiveness. Then what Christ meant by forgiveness and pardon is
not that, when nations attack you, burn your homes, plunder your goods,
assault your wives, children and relatives, and violate your honor, you
should be submissive in the presence of these tyrannical foes and allow
them to perform all their cruelties and oppressions. No, the words of
Christ refer to the conduct of two individuals toward each other: if one
person assaults another, the injured one should forgive him. But the
communities must protect the rights of man. So if someone assaults,
injures, oppresses and wounds me, I will offer no resistance, and I will
forgive him. But if a person wishes to assault Siyyid Man_sh_adi,(162)
certainly I will prevent him. Although for the malefactor noninterference
is apparently a kindness, it would be an oppression to Man_sh_adi. If at
this moment a wild Arab were to enter this place with a drawn sword,
wishing to assault, wound and kill you, most assuredly I would prevent
him. If I abandoned you to the Arab, that would not be justice but
injustice. But if he injure me personally, I would forgive him.
One thing remains to be said: it is that the communities are day and night
occupied in making penal laws, and in preparing and organizing instruments
and means of punishment. They build prisons, make chains and fetters,
arrange places of exile and banishment, and different kinds of hardships
and tortures, and think by these means to discipline criminals, whereas,
in reality, they are causing destruction of morals and perversion of
characters. The community, on the contrary, ought day and night to strive
and endeavor with the utmost zeal and effort to accomplish the education
of men, to cause them day by day to progress and to increase in science
and knowledge, to acquire virtues, to gain good morals and to avoid vices,
so that crimes may not occur. At the present time the contrary prevails;
the community is always thinking of enforcing the penal laws, and of
preparing means of punishment, instruments of death and chastisement,
places for imprisonment and banishment; and they expect crimes to be
committed. This has a demoralizing effect.
But if the community would endeavor to educate the masses, day by day
knowledge and sciences would increase, the understanding would be
broadened, the sensibilities developed, customs would become good, and
morals normal; in one word, in all these classes of perfections there
would be progress, and there would be fewer crimes.
It has been ascertained that among civilized peoples crime is less
frequent than among uncivilized--that is to say, among those who have
acquired the true civilization, which is divine civilization--the
civilization of those who unite all the spiritual and material
perfections. As ignorance is the cause of crimes, the more knowledge and
science increases, the more crimes will diminish. Consider how often
murder occurs among the barbarians of Africa; they even kill one another
in order to eat each other's flesh and blood! Why do not such savageries
occur in Switzerland? The reason is evident: it is because education and
virtues prevent them.
Therefore, the communities must think of preventing crimes, rather than of
rigorously punishing them.
78: STRIKES
You have questioned me about strikes. This question is and will be for a
long time the subject of great difficulties. Strikes are due to two
causes. One is the extreme greed and rapacity of the manufacturers and
industrialists; the other, the excesses, the avidity and intransigence of
the workmen and artisans. It is, therefore, necessary to remedy these two
causes.
But the principal cause of these difficulties lies in the laws of the
present civilization; for they lead to a small number of individuals
accumulating incomparable fortunes, beyond their needs, while the greater
number remain destitute, stripped and in the greatest misery. This is
contrary to justice, to humanity, to equity; it is the height of iniquity,
the opposite to what causes divine satisfaction.
This contrast is peculiar to the world of man: with other creatures--that
is to say, with nearly all animals--there is a kind of justice and
equality. Thus equality exists in a shepherd's flock and in a herd of deer
in the country. Likewise, among the birds of the prairie, of the plain, of
the hills or of the orchard, and among every kind of animal some kind of
equality prevails. With them such a difference in the means of existence
is not to be found; so they live in the most complete peace and joy.
It is quite otherwise with the human species, which persists in the
greatest error, and in absolute iniquity. Consider an individual who has
amassed treasures by colonizing a country for his profit: he has obtained
an incomparable fortune and has secured profits and incomes which flow
like a river, while a hundred thousand unfortunate people, weak and
powerless, are in need of a mouthful of bread. There is neither equality
nor benevolence. So you see that general peace and joy are destroyed, and
the welfare of humanity is negated to such an extent as to make fruitless
the lives of many. For fortune, honors, commerce, industry are in the
hands of some industrialists, while other people are submitted to quite a
series of difficulties and to limitless troubles: they have neither
advantages, nor profits, nor comforts, nor peace.
Then rules and laws should be established to regulate the excessive
fortunes of certain private individuals and meet the needs of millions of
the poor masses; thus a certain moderation would be obtained. However,
absolute equality is just as impossible, for absolute equality in
fortunes, honors, commerce, agriculture, industry would end in
disorderliness, in chaos, in disorganization of the means of existence,
and in universal disappointment: the order of the community would be quite
destroyed. Thus difficulties will also arise when unjustified equality is
imposed. It is, therefore, preferable for moderation to be established by
means of laws and regulations to hinder the constitution of the excessive
fortunes of certain individuals, and to protect the essential needs of the
masses. For instance, the manufacturers and the industrialists heap up a
treasure each day, and the poor artisans do not gain their daily
sustenance: that is the height of iniquity, and no just man can accept it.
Therefore, laws and regulations should be established which would permit
the workmen to receive from the factory owner their wages and a share in
the fourth or the fifth part of the profits, according to the capacity of
the factory; or in some other way the body of workmen and the
manufacturers should share equitably the profits and advantages. Indeed,
the capital and management come from the owner of the factory, and the
work and labor, from the body of the workmen. Either the workmen should
receive wages which assure them an adequate support and, when they cease
work, becoming feeble or helpless, they should have sufficient benefits
from the income of the industry; or the wages should be high enough to
satisfy the workmen with the amount they receive so that they may
themselves be able to put a little aside for days of want and
helplessness.
When matters will be thus fixed, the owner of the factory will no longer
put aside daily a treasure which he has absolutely no need of (for, if the
fortune is disproportionate, the capitalist succumbs under a formidable
burden and gets into the greatest difficulties and troubles; the
administration of an excessive fortune is very difficult and exhausts
man's natural strength). And the workmen and artisans will no longer be in
the greatest misery and want; they will no longer be submitted to the
worst privations at the end of their life.
It is, then, clear and evident that the repartition of excessive fortunes
among a small number of individuals, while the masses are in need, is an
iniquity and an injustice. In the same way, absolute equality would be an
obstacle to life, to welfare, to order and to the peace of humanity. In
such a question moderation is preferable. It lies in the capitalists'
being moderate in the acquisition of their profits, and in their having a
consideration for the welfare of the poor and needy--that is to say, that
the workmen and artisans receive a fixed and established daily wage--and
have a share in the general profits of the factory.
It would be well, with regard to the common rights of manufacturers,
workmen and artisans, that laws be established, giving moderate profits to
manufacturers, and to workmen the necessary means of existence and
security for the future. Thus when they become feeble and cease working,
get old and helpless, or leave behind children under age, they and their
children will not be annihilated by excess of poverty. And it is from the
income of the factory itself, to which they have a right, that they will
derive a share, however small, toward their livelihood.
In the same way, the workmen should no longer make excessive claims and
revolt, nor demand beyond their rights; they should no longer go out on
strike; they should be obedient and submissive and not ask for exorbitant
wages. But the mutual and reasonable rights of both associated parties
will be legally fixed and established according to custom by just and
impartial laws. In case one of the two parties should transgress, the
court of justice should condemn the transgressor, and the executive branch
should enforce the verdict; thus order will be reestablished, and the
difficulties, settled. The interference of courts of justice and of the
government in difficulties pending between manufacturers and workmen is
legal, for the reason that current affairs between workmen and
manufacturers cannot be compared with ordinary affairs between private
persons, which do not concern the public, and with which the government
should not occupy itself. In reality, although they appear to be private
matters, these difficulties between the two parties produce a detriment to
the public; for commerce, industry, agriculture and the general affairs of
the country are all intimately linked together. If one of these suffers an
abuse, the detriment affects the mass. Thus the difficulties between
workmen and manufacturers become a cause of general detriment.
The court of justice and the government have, therefore, the right of
interference. When a difficulty occurs between two individuals with
reference to private rights, it is necessary for a third to settle the
question. This is the part of the government. Then the problem of
strikes--which cause troubles in the country and are often connected with
the excessive vexations of the workmen, as well as with the rapacity of
manufacturers--how could it remain neglected?
Good God! Is it possible that, seeing one of his fellow-creatures
starving, destitute of everything, a man can rest and live comfortably in
his luxurious mansion? He who meets another in the greatest misery, can he
enjoy his fortune? That is why, in the Religion of God, it is prescribed
and established that wealthy men each year give over a certain part of
their fortune for the maintenance of the poor and unfortunate. That is the
foundation of the Religion of God and is binding upon all.
And as man in this way is not forced nor obliged by the government, but is
by the natural tendency of his good heart voluntarily and radiantly
showing benevolence toward the poor, such a deed is much praised, approved
and pleasing.
Such is the meaning of the good works in the Divine Books and Tablets.
79: THE REALITY OF THE EXTERIOR WORLD
Certain sophists think that existence is an illusion, that each being is
an absolute illusion which has no existence--in other words, that the
existence of beings is like a mirage, or like the reflection of an image
in water or in a mirror, which is only an appearance having in itself no
principle, foundation or reality.
This theory is erroneous; for though the existence of beings in relation
to the existence of God is an illusion, nevertheless, in the condition of
being it has a real and certain existence. It is futile to deny this. For
example, the existence of the mineral in comparison with that of man is
nonexistence, for when man is apparently annihilated, his body becomes
mineral; but the mineral has existence in the mineral world. Therefore, it
is evident that earth, in relation to the existence of man, is
nonexistent, and its existence is illusory; but in relation to the mineral
it exists.
In the same manner the existence of beings in comparison with the
existence of God is but illusion and nothingness; it is an appearance,
like the image reflected in a mirror. But though an image which is seen in
a mirror is an illusion, the source and the reality of that illusory image
is the person reflected, whose face appears in the mirror. Briefly, the
reflection in relation to the person reflected is an illusion.
Then it is evident that although beings in relation to the existence of
God have no existence, but are like the mirage or the reflections in the
mirror, yet in their own degree they exist.