out
sleep, an exigency of nature; he must partake of food and drink, which
nature demands and requires. But in his spiritual being and intelligence
man dominates and controls nature, the ruler of his physical being.
Notwithstanding this, contrary opinions and materialistic views are set
forth which would relegate man completely to physical subservience to
nature's laws. This is equivalent to saying that the comparative degree
exceeds the superlative, that the imperfect includes the perfect, that the
pupil surpasses the teacher--all of which is illogical and impossible. When
it is clearly manifest and evident that the intelligence of man, his
constructive faculty, his power of penetration and discovery transcend
nature, how can we say he is nature's thrall and captive? This would
indicate that man is deprived of the bounties of God, that he is
retrograding toward the station of the animal, that his keen
superintelligence is without function and that he estimates himself as an
animal, without distinction between his own and the animal's kingdom.

I was once conversing with a famous philosopher of the materialistic
school in Alexandria. He was strongly opinionated upon the point that man
and the other kingdoms of existence are under the control of nature and
that, after all, man is only a social animal, often very much of an
animal. When he was discomfited in argument, he said impetuously, "I see
no difference between myself and the donkey, and I am not willing to admit
distinctions which I cannot perceive." 'Abdu'l-Baha replied, "No, I
consider you quite different and distinct; I call you a man and the donkey
but an animal. I perceive that you are highly intelligent, whereas the
donkey is not. I know that you are well versed in philosophy, and I also
know that the donkey is entirely deficient in it; therefore, I am not
willing to accept your statement."

Consider the lady beside me who is writing in this little book. It seems a
very trifling, ordinary matter; but upon intelligent reflection you will
conclude that what has been written presupposses and proves the existence
of a writer. These words have not written themselves, and these letters
have not come together of their own volition. It is evident there must be
a writer.

And now consider this infinite universe. Is it possible that it could have
been created without a Creator? Or that the Creator and cause of this
infinite congeries of worlds should be without intel