لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Lesson Six
The
Need of the World for One Without Need
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and
foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his
customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon,
whether natural or social, arise from the belief that no phenomenon originates in and of
itself without the intervention of causes and agents. The researches of thinkers throughout the world have given them the
ability to know better the powerful order of nature; the farther they advance on the path
of knowledge, the more devoted they are to the principle of causality. The link between
cause and effect and the principle that no phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being
without a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as
indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and
primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds. Even prehistoric man was inclined to discover the
causes of phenomena, and, in fact, philosophers derived the living concept of causality
from the very nature and disposition of man before they placed it in a philosophical
mould. Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we never encounter anything
accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an
accident not arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for
regarding the universe as accidental in origin. What kind of accident might it be that
from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things,
in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion? Can the order we perceive be the reflection
of mere accident and happenstance? ***** Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the
darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It cannot pierce the darkness
of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing until the powerful
hand of causality sets to work. The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship
between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is dependent
on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony
with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific
relationship cannot be destroyed or replaced by another. Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical
relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it,
that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is
nothing within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own
essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is impossible. Finally, if being
emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as
dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is
an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its
existence is the source of all other beings, while it is not subject itself to any need or
condition. It should be added that material existence cannot in any way acquire
the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material
entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on
its own parts both for its origin and for its survival. Matter has different aspects and dimensions; it is
immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of
attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is free of all such
properties. ***** All the phenomena that once did not exist and then came into being
once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the
point of being, this was as a result of a cause that impelled them in that direction. It
was an impulsion, an external factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the
other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the
non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being. Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the
existence of a cause never loses its essential neediness; it will always remain a being
characterized by need. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent
and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will never be severed for an instant.
Were the relationship to be severed, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately
yield to non-existence, in just the same way that the very instant an electricity
generator stops working, all the bright lamps connected to it fall dark. It is for this
reason that cause and effect, freedom from need and subjection to need, are in constant
relationship with each other; were the relationship to be severed nothing would remain but
darkness and non-being. Thus, no phenomenon becomes manifest in the world until a certain
power is bestowed on it by one whose essence is free from need and is itself the very
source from which being gushes forth. Were being inherent in the essences of phenomena,
they would never follow the path of cessation and non-being. But it is neediness that is
inherent in their essences, so that even after their being is established in the order of
creation, their attribute of neediness continues under all circumstances. They are never
free of need for a cause; it is impossible that an effect should enjoy existence
independently or continue to exist for a single instant without relying on a cause. It thus becomes apparent to us that all phenomena—all
contingent beings—derive at all times and in every instant from an infinite essence
that bestows being—i.e., the Necessary Being, the Unique and Almighty
Creator—the power and sustenance that permit them to come into being and remain in
being. The Noble Quran says: "He it is Who from the plenitude of
His essence has bestowed on us the capital of being." (53:48) "O mankind,
you are in need of your Lord; it is only His unique essence that is free of need and
worthy of praise." (35:15) Let us pay heed, too, to this Quranic summons: "Do they
imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are
their own creators?" (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth
? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord
other than God? No, it b not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to
him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is a11 sovereignty and Who
has power over an things." (67:1) The Source of All Being is Free of Need for a Cause The followers of materialism pay much critical attention to the
principle that God does not stand in need of a cause. They say if we suppose the Creator
to be the origin of the world and the one who bestows existence upon it, all phenomena
deriving their origination and continued existence from him, what cause has freed him of
need for having a creator; what agent has caused him to come into being? In a lecture given to the London Atheist Society, the wellknown
writer, Bertrand Russell, said: "One day, when I was eighteen years of age, I was
reading the autobiography of John Stuart Mill. One sentence in particular caught my
attention: Mill wrote that one day he asked his father who had brought him into existence,
and his father had been unable to answer." The reason for this was that he
immediately posed the question: who brought God into being? Russell then adds: "I am still convinced that that simple
sentence exposes the sophistry of the primary cause. For if everything must have a reason
and cause, the same must apply to the existence of God. If, on the contrary, something can
exist without reason or cause, that thing might be either God or the world, and the whole
discussion becomes meaningless." Unfortunately, certain Western philosophers who accept the existence
of God have been unable to solve this problem. The English philosopher Herbert Spencer has
said the following in this connection: "The problem is that, on the one hand, human
reason seeks a cause for everything and, on the other, refuses all circularity. It neither
perceives nor comprehends an uncaused cause. When the priest tells a child that God has
created the world, the child asks who has created God." Elsewhere he says: "The materialist tries to convince himself
of a world that exists in and of itself, eternally and without cause. However, we cannot
believe in something that has neither beginning nor cause. The theologian takes matters
one step further back by saying that God created the world. But the child asks him the
unanswerable question: who created God?'' We can raise precisely the same objection against the materialists
and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the
primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary
matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate
cause of all things, what is the cause of matter? You say that the source of all phenomena
is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?" Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can
answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be
posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within
its own nature. This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity
and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that
being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator. Russell openly states this belief in the lecture quoted above. He
says: "There is no proof that the world ever had a beginning. The idea that things
must once have had a beginning results from the poverty of our imagination." In just the same way that Russell regards matter as eternal,
believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to
materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause,
but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the
power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has
neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the
removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being. Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion
is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with
eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that
cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot
accept movement and change within that essence. How do Marxists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its
antithesis, justify the eternity of matter? Eternity means stability and immutability of
essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of
forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and
dying. Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter
and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have
faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of
his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and
remote from the properties of matter. The very nature of matter refuses permanence,
eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and
it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent. It will be useful here to relate the discussion of Imam Sadiq, upon
whom be peace, with one of the materialists of his age. The materialist: "Out of what
were beings created?" The Imam: "They were created out of nothing (i.e., they were
originally non-beings)." The materialist: "How do they grow and emerge from
nonbeing?" The Imam: "Did I not say that all things in the world were
created out of nothing? My purport is this, that all beings were originally non-beings;
they were non-existent, and then they became existent. You wish to say that the world is
eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons: "First, if the material world is eternal, it follows that an
eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible. "Second, if the elements comprising the world are eternal by
virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death
and disappearance? And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life
surge forth from them? "If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and
inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that lacks life in and
of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life." The materialist: "If matter is as you say, why are beings said
to be eternal?" The Imam: "Belief in the eternity of the
universe is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation,
reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients,
and concoct beliefs pleasing to themselves." ***** We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without
a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose
permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that
is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation. The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing
perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need,
condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change. When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God
is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created
beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of
causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause; He is not a
phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestations and
phenomena of being derive from Him, the eternal source of being. The law of causality
applies uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their
existence. Similarly, the meaning of the first cause is not that God originated
Himself, that He was His own cause. The need of the effect for the cause lies in the type
of existence that the former possesses; it exists not because it is essentially existent
but as a result of the derivative and dependent existence it acquires from the cause. But
a being whose nature is subject to no condition and exhibits a complete absence of
dependence and connection is totally removed from the sphere in which the law of causality
operates. If a being, by virtue of the perfection and freedom from need of its
essence, stands in no need of a cause, it follows that no cause has fixed it at a given
degree of being and that no cause can intervene in it. The chain of causality cannot be extended indefinitely backwards,
and an absence of connection is inherent in the very concept of the first cause. The
question, "Whence did the first cause arise?" does not, therefore, arise;
questions such as this apply only to the origins of phenomena and their dependency. The existence of the first cause is identical with its essence; its
being the first cause is, indeed, also identical with its essence. Both these properties
imply freedom from need, whereas things whose existence is borrowed stand in need of a
cause, because they are characterized by transformation and change, by emergence from
non-existence and entry into existence. How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the
acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as
matter is not contradictory? We live in a world where all things are exposed to change and
destruction; there is the mark of impermanence, subjection and indebtedness imprinted on
each one of its particles. Need and dependence are firmly rooted in the depths of our
being and that of everything on earth and in heaven. Our existence is not eternal and has
not emerged from within our own essence; we were not, and then we were clothed in the garb
of existence and came into being. In order to come into being, creatures such as us must
beseechingly reach out to the bestower of existence. But He Who is eternal and everlasting, Whose existence emerges from
within His own essence, and Whose appearance is outside of time, manifestly has no need of
a cause. The meaning of a cause in philosophy is that which brings forth an
effect from non-existence into existence and cloths it in the garb of existence. This
creativity cannot be posited for material causes, and the only role of matter is to
abandon one form in order to become receptive to another. It is true that every material being acquires each instant a new and
different character as a result of internal development. However, the innate motion of the
world and the processes of generation and corruption proclaim a lasting need for a hand to
that Who creates the motion, a hand that both nurtures the swift caravan of being and
impels it forward.
