We do not think a horse perfect because of eating a large quantity of fodder.

We do not think a horse perfect because of eating a large quantity of fodder. Nor do we call an apple perfect because of its getting more air, water and light. Secondly, it is hard to conscientiously agree that the most perfect man is one who benefits most from nature For it implies that a defective man is he who benefits less or least! Let us compare two human beings: Muawiyah enjoyed maximum benefits in his eighty years of life.

He was ruler of Syria for forty years (Twenty years as a powerful governor, and another twenty as a powerful Caliph). Then there was Ali (a) who lived an ascetic life, with a philosophy for it, whether this philosophy was to be free, or generous or humane, or not to be taken in by the world, but to give his heart to spiritual things, Whatever it was, his share of this world's gifts was a few loaves of bread, Should we then call him imperfect on account of his benefiting least from the world?

If we say this, we are making out man to be less than an animal, for, we do not evaluate any animal by the standard of its benefiting from the world, even though some people have no other thought but this in evaluating human beings. But there is no one who believes this to the extent of negating every spirituality. Here another point comes up, that is, if such benefiting is not human perfection in this world, what about the next one?

This would mean the perfection of man is to deserve and benefit from God's gifts. However, this is not possible in its utmost measure in this world, so people pray for securing maximum benefit in the next world.