But many powerful, eloquent voices are giving expression to what sincere conscience must feel both in view of what our history tells us-which is full of lessons and warnings, sometimes ennobling and dignifying for us to recall, sometimes a cause for shame-and in view of contemporary reality which, likewise, can be encouraging or frightening. They speak because they are aware of the momentous changes and developments that are beginning to take shape and will emerge in the future. The Fountain as a small, young voice, humbly joins this great chorus, in the hope of playing its part in the enlightenment of mankind.

Destruction, spilling of blood, hunger and misery, are indeed pouring in around us from every direction. In spite of this, The Fountain firmly believes, trusting in the Might of the Creator and in the power of faith which can never be defeated, and because of the truth and sublimity of what it aims at, that the spirit of Islam will rise up among Muslims and that, thereafter, an awakening will follow in every sphere of individual and collective life-moral, social, scientific, literary. The Fountain firmly believes that the darkness which threatens to prevail in the world will not prevail, rather, it will be defeated and the horizons now appearing dark will be lightened. Its aim then is to be a sign of, and a voice for, that change which must come.

We consider that The Fountain’s first appearance at just this time, in the midst of most troubled times which are nevertheless brimful of hopes and bright possibilities, is itself a sign of the first dawning of that possible future. And we thank those who have supported and contributed to its publication.

In spite of their long history and culture, and except for the period of the Crusades, the Turks hardly figured in Western consciousness until the conquest of Constantinople. Most of the West’s information about them came from the travel or diary recollections of merchants and traders who travelled to the Middle East and the Levant. Later, more copious publications appeared: journalistic or pamphleteering papers; formal studies aiming to describe the history, government, manners, religion, etc. of the Turks; books specifically about Islam as the West wished to have it portrayed, and (later still) plays and operettas with lavish ‘Oriental’ settings with important roles for ‘Turks’ or ‘Moors’ (Aksoy, n.d., p.344).

The earliest English book on Turkish history, the General History of the Turks (1603), was widely used as a standard reference work in Europe. Despite the fact that it was praised by many literary figures like Johnson, Southey and Lord Byron, the work has subsequently been criticized as an outrageously prejudiced collection of bits and pieces. As Bisbee remarks (1951, p.7) ‘whenever an educated Turk (looked) into Western histories of civilization or books on Turkey, he ran into unpleasant passages about his own people.’

Increasing Western interest in the Ottoman system of government, Ottoman culture, traditions and religion, occasioned further studies: for example, The Present State of the Ottoman Empire (1668), A Compendious History of the Turks (1660), Political Reflection Upon the Government of the Turk (1656). In seventeenth-century France too there were several publications which influenced opinion throughout Europe; the Ottoman Empire was at this time a still powerful entity and perceived by Christian Europe as a real threat.

During the eighteenth century, Ottoman decline allowed European powers to play the Ottoman government for their own (often conflicting) political interests. At the same time, literary attentions turned to the Ottoman territories as it became easier than before for travellers to go to Ottoman regions, particularly Istanbul, to satisfy their curiosity and fantasies about the ‘mysterious East’. A distinct fashion in literature became clearly established around 1775-1825 (Brown, Wallace, Cable 1936, pp.70-80). Among other well-known English travel writers of the period were Lady Mary Montague, Charles Thompson, Richard Pococke, Lord Baltimore, Richard Chandler, Elizabeth Craven, and Rev James Dallaway.

The negative image of the Turk in the West derived from the religious fanaticism of Crusaders who were taught to see Muslims as children of the devil or heretic followers of an impostor.

The word ‘Turk’ was thus mainly used either as a generic name for an Islamic state with its characteristic military and government institutions, or as a description of negative character type, of someone by instinct cruel, heartless, etc.

The best known literary images of Turks appeared in Elizabethan plays which used Turkish history as source material, generally turning on conflict or opposition between Christians and Turks. Simon Shepherd (1986, p.142) makes this interesting comparison between the ‘Turk’ and the ‘father’ figure in what he calls the Marlowe period.

There was a fashion for plays about the Turks (and other Islamic nations) in late Elizabethan drama. Similarly, many plays centred on the figure of a father, whereas after the 1590s young men became central. Turks and fathers are topics specific to the Marlowe period, although they are not necessarily connected…

Another significant analogy in those plays is made between Catholic cruelty and Turkish. In other words, Protestant propaganda could designate the alleged cruelty of Catholics in general and Spaniards in particular as Turkish. This contrasts with Foxe’s address to Protestants when he spelled out the true reality of religious intolerance among Christians: The Turk with his sword is not so cruel but the Bishop of Rome on the other side is more fierce and bitter against us…. Such dissension and hostility Satan had sent among us that Turks be not more enemies to Christians than Christians to Christians, Papists to Protestants… (quoted in Shepherd, 1986, p.144)

In most plays sensuality seems to be the dominant characteristic of the Turks. The plots of tragedies in particular turn on various ‘Turkish’ characteristics such as cruelty, revenge, intrigue, pride, passion, terror, treachery, and the like. The Turks are portrayed as the embodiment of such excesses in, for instance, Marlow’s Jew of Malta in John Mason’s The Turks, in Grevilles Mustapha, etc.

In other plays, a somewhat different Turkish stereotype is the figure of the wicked tyrant who is always either a Turkish Sultan or Pasha or general. He usually separates two virtuous lovers (the male character is the Christian Westerner, and the female one is a naive Turkish beauty) after becoming infatuated with the girl he has kept in his possession through force. The strength of the woman’s fidelity to her true lover is either rewarded by God with a happy reunion with him, or she prefers death to the tyrant’s love. Yet another stereotype is the intriguing woman who provokes rivalry among the courtlers enamoured of her. These rivals vie with each other to obtain her love but all fail, losing their lives in the struggle. (Aksoy n.d.,pp.343-8)

In the course of the nineteenth century as more and more people of different occupations and with different objectives travelled to Turkey, the use of these images and myths about the Turks in literary texts reached its height. It was quite the fashion to visit Ottoman lands in order that the travellers might, as it were, confirm for themselves, myths already mediated to them about the Turkish people, their culture, religion, language, etc.

Vathek, originally composed in French and published in London in 1786, was written by Beckford, who had not even once visited the region he was writing about. He used his own family home as the primary setting for his Eastern tale, colouring and transforming it with the resources of a vivid imagination; he is reported to have said: ‘I had to elevate, exaggerate, and orientalize everything’ (Beckford, n.d., p.9). The work reflects the characteristic themes of ambitious quest for power, sadistic sensuality, sexual perversity, etc., developed through a number of scenes and episodes and all wholly imaginary.

Having regarded Vathek as a model for his own work Byron chose a Turkish setting when telling a tale of horror during a contest with Shelley, Mary Shelley and himself. He set his story about a vampire in Izmir: this betrays all too clearly his association of Turkey with crime, horror and cruelty (Prothero, 1902, Appendix IX).

The Western image of the Ottoman world would, of course, be quite incomplete without the various feminine motifs of the veil and the harem and their associations of secret and/or forbidden eroticism, alongside vague notions of something religiously and culturally bizarre. The overwhelming impression from the nineteenth century travellers’ and Orientalists’ writings is that the women of the country were lecherous and voluptuous under despotic repression. In Byron, again, the heroines of the Turkish Tales, Leila, Zuleika, and Gulnare are represented as the beautiful, helpless victims of a despot for whose sake the Western protagonist, or the Byronic hero, confronts his antagonist. The romance turns upon ‘rescue’ from the ‘veil’ (the hidden) and the ‘harem’ (the forbidden).

During the year of the war (1854) and after, many Europeans of diverse professions came to Istanbul and witnessed the Ottoman Empire at the moment of its complete helplessness and (despite the rhetoric of modernizing reforms) inefficiency and administrative incompetence. All of which contributed to the final disenchantment with the myth of the powerful Turk. The books written at the time express a general disenchantment with the East, but particularly with the Turks, which was largely brought about by the defeat. Istanbul, once the fairy-tale location of the East, became the focus of that disenchantment.

Almost as a natural consequence of the Turks defeat, their image in the West shifted into often contemptuous, demeaning caricature. This is particularly noticeable among some Victorian writers such as Thackeray and Charles Dickens.

Thackeray satirizes the Oriental romance and the realities of travel in ‘Punch in the East’, a series of articles he contributed to Punch, and mocks the Byronic romanticization of Turkish themes in ‘Mehmed Ali and the Sultan’ (Spielmann, 1899). Dickens, in his ‘Roving Englishmen’, debunks the sea voyage to Istanbul through his description which ends ‘Oh no! we should have been off anywhere but in Turkey’ (Household Words, 1854-56, IX, p.143). Also (p.142) he describes Turkish soldiers–once powerful, barbarous, cruel, etc.–thus: ‘There is no enthusiasm in martial ideals of glory. Our friends will go listlessly into the battle and listlessly out of it.’ He adds; I know that in saying this, I am not according to popular or agreeable sentiment. The romantic notions of a Muslim warrior are very different; but I know the Turkish soldier pretty well, and pity him sincerely for I know the causes which have sunk him so low.

References

• Aksoy, Yildiz (n.d.) ‘The Turks in 18th Century English Theatre’ unpub. diss. Erzurum: Ataturk Unýversity, Dept. of English Language and Literature.
• Bisbee, Elenor (1951) The New Turks: Pioneers of the Republic (1920-1950), Philadelphia: Unýversity of Pennsylvania Pres.
• Brown, Wallace, Cable (1936) ‘The Popularity of English Travel Books About the Near East; 1775-1825’, Philological Quarterly, 15, p. 70-80.
• Shepherd, Simon (1986) Marlowe and the Politics of Elizabethan Theatre, UK: Teh Harvester Press.
• Beckford, William (n.d.) The Episode of Vathek, London: Stephen Swith.
• Prothero, Rownland (ed.) (1902) Byron’s Works: Letters and Journals; London: John Murray.
• Curzon, Robert (1897) Monasteries of the Levant, London :Georoge Newnes.
• Spielmann, Marion H. (ed.) (1899) Contributions of W.M. Thackeray to Punch from 1843 to 1848, London: Harper and Brothers.
• Dickens, Charles, (1854-1856) Household Words; IX.

But direct vision is very limited and could never be an appropriate way of seeking the Unlimited. Let us explain:

There are innumerable bacteria in the human body, indeed innumerable bacteria in so small a space as a human tooth. These creatures are quite unaware of the tooth in which they live. To become aware of it, they would have to somehow situate themselves out of the tooth, and then, through the use of artificial means (telescopes and microscopes and the like) they might, conceivably, obtain some very approximate notion of the dimensions of the tooth, and then, perhaps, of the larger body to which the tooth is attached. Only through such an effort, which is scarcely imaginable, could the bacteria become aware of the human body which makes up the large ground or sustaining environment of their life. And this scarcely imaginable awareness is itself an immeasurable distance away from anything remotely resembling what we would call understanding.

Though on a very different scale, the sense-awareness of human beings is similarly limited. It may indeed be that, with the assistance of telescopes and other instruments, we can ‘see’ across distances of millions of light years. But all that we ‘see’ in this way is insignificant compared to the dimensions of the whole of which it is a minute fragment. In fact, allowing for the difference in scale, what human beings can ‘see’ is as insignificant as the bacteria’s awareness of the living tissue within which they exist and perish, when compared to the dimensions of the body of which that tissue is a minute fragment.

Further, if we consider the matter closely, we soon realize that our ‘seeing’ (or hearing or any other mode of perception) is conditional upon our understanding. We need to have some general ideas about what we ‘see’ in order to distinguish it and recognize it. If we did not have some idea, however vague at first, of what, for example, a tree is, we should be literally unable to make sense of that object before our eyes which we know as a tree. If our ‘seeing’ is as limited as it is, and if–even for the objects within creation, and within the reach of our ‘seeing’ or our ‘seeing’ instruments–we need some general understanding so that we can make sense of what we ‘see’, how improper a demand it is, how absurd a demand, to ask why we cannot directly ‘see’ or directly ‘know’ the Creator of the whole.

We are created beings, that is, finite, limited in our possibilities and our capacities. Only the Creator, God, is Infinite. By His Mercy, the Creation is available to us as the ground or environment within which we exist and perish, strive for understanding and virtue, and seek our salvation. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said: compared with the Seat of Honour (kursi), the whole universe is as little as a ring thrown upon a desert. Similarly, compared with the Throne (arsh), the kursi is as little as a ring thrown upon the desert.’ From that comparison we gain some understanding of how far the Infinitude of the Creator exceeds our power of apprehending it. How can we even begin to conceive of the reality of the kursi and arsh from which the All-Mighty in His Infinite Majesty sends out His Will and Command and sustains His Creation, let alone begin to conceive of God Himself? 

Why can’t we see God?

The Qur’an teaches: ‘Vision comprehends Him not, but He comprehends all vision’ [6:103].

After the Prophet’s ascent to the heavens, peace be upon him, his Companions asked him:‘Have you seen God?’ It is reported on the authority of Abu Dharr that, on one occasion, he answered: ‘He is the Light, how do I see Him?’ and on another occasion, he answered:’I have seen a Light.’ These statements clarify the well-known saying, ‘The light is the limit or veil of God’. Between us and God is the light which He created. All that we see by that light, within that light–the light is the ground and environment and the limit of our seeing, and that light shields or veils us from God. In fact, we see but a part of that light of creation, we see but a part of what veils Him.

Let us consider the matter from another direction. Ibrahim Haqqi says: ‘In the whole universe of creation there is nothing that is either the like or the equal or the contrary of God. God is Exalted above all form, indeed immune to and free from form.’

It is only because existing things have a like or an equal or a contrary that we are able to distinguish them and perceive them. We know what is ‘long’ only against what is ‘short’ by comparison or contrast; similarly, we know ‘light’ only against what is ‘dark’. How then should we distinguish or perceive One who has neither like, nor equal, nor contrary? This is the meaning of the statement that God is Exalted above form.

The reader will certainly have understood that the question of those who ask to directly perceive God is but an image of the question of those who ask to directly ‘think’ or ‘know’ His Being. But, in truth, we can no more ‘think’ or ‘know’ His Being, than we can ‘see’ Him. Just as He is beyond all measures of form or quality or quantity, He is also beyond all our powers of conception or reasoning. As the Muslims learned in kalam (theology) put it: ‘Whatever conception of God we form in our minds, He is other than it.’ And the Sufis say: ‘God is beyond; and beyond all our conceptions; and we are surrounded by thousands of veils.’

Men of wisdom have said that God exists and He cannot be comprehended by human reason, nor perceived by human senses. The only means to knowledge of Him is through the Prophets, that is, the men whom God appointed as bearers of His Revelation. Where perception and reason have no access, we need to, indeed we must, accept the guidance of Revelation.

Imagine that we are in a closed room and hear a knocking at the door of that room. We may well form some vague impressions about who is knocking, but we can no more than guess at his attributes. We know for certain only that there is knocking at the door, and that we are free to go to the door and, on opening it, ask the person to make himself known to us so that we obtain thereby a more secure knowledge of his true attributes.

This poor analogy may help us to more usefully approach the question of how to seek God. The fact of Creation, the immensity of it combined with an essential unity of form, the sheer beauty and harmony of it, and its usefulness to us as well as its demands upon our labour and our understanding, all make us aware of the existence of the Creator. In just the same way as we deduce from the manufacture of a wonderful diversity of fabrics out of a single material that there is certainly an agent who spins and mixes and dyes and weaves and otherwise prepares the final product, so we deduce from the stunning evidence of the Creation that there is a Creator. While a manufacturer of fabrics can be got hold of and may be persuaded to make himself known to us, no such impertinent curiosity can be addressed to the Creator. Indeed, it would be most incorrect to do so–as well as being impossible–just as impossible as it would be for the fabric to address such curiosity to the fabric-maker. Thus, without assistance from the Creator himself, we can get no further than when, hearing the first knocking on the door, we began to indulge hopelessly vague surmises about who was knocking.

But the reality is that, by the Mercy of God, the Creation of mankind was accompanied by Revelation. Through God’s Revelation to the Prophets and their teaching of us, the door is held open for us. We are enabled to respond to the Creation around us as signs manifesting not only the fact of the Creator’s existence but also His Attributes. Through the Prophets we learn to contemplate His Attributes and to call them–the One, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate, the All-Knowing, the All-Powerful, and so on. A true understanding of these Attributes requires inward experience and contemplation, which are achieved only after sincere and total observance of the Divine decrees, objective study and long, profound meditation, according to the pattern of the Prophets. Only if a person has developed the inward faculties will he be able to grasp the meaning of the Divine works, that is, the Creation, and then rise to contemplation of the Divine Attributes manifested in it.

Even then, it is by no means possible for any person to comprehend the Divine Essence. That is why it is said–‘His Names are known, His Attributes are comprehended, and His Essence exists.’ In the words of Abu Bakr as Siddiq, may God be pleased with him: ‘To comprehend His Essence means to confess that His Essence can not be comprehended.’

What falls to us is to remain committed to our covenant with God, and to beseech Him in this way: “O You who alone are worshipped… It needs no saying that we are unable to attain to true knowledge of You. Yet we believe that You are indeed “nearer to us than our neck-veins”. We feel Your existence and nearness in the depths of our hearts through the universe which You have created and opened to us a like a book, and through the wonderful harmony of form between the least and the largest of what You have brought into being. We come to perceive that we are integrated into the whole realm of Your theophanies, and by that perception our souls are rested and consoled, and our hearts find serenity.’

But there are some who do not seek any such serenity or indeed any inward life at all. They are of a mechanical turn of mind and readily fall into a mechanical kind of sophistry which entraps and paralyses their reason, They ask: 

Given that god created every thing, who created God?

When I first heard this question, I straightway confessed again ‘and Muhammad is His Messenger’, for the Prophet, peace be upon him, predicted that this question would be raised. Indeed, he predicted a great many future events of importance-all have come true and will continue to do so as time unfolds. On one occasion he said: ‘A day will certainly come when some people will sit with their legs crossed and ask: ‘Given that God created everything, who created God?’

Of course, those who put such questions are atheists or inclined to atheism and seek to lead others astray also. The purpose of their question is to avoid the responsibility owed by a creature to the Creator, to avoid belief and worship. At best, the question is derived from the observation of (what are taken to be) ‘cause and effect’ relationships. Every circumstance can be thought of as an ‘effect’ and attributed to an antecedent circumstance or ‘cause’ which, in turn, is attributed to some circumstance antecedent to it, and so on. In the first place, it is obvious to anyone who reasons objectively that the notion of ‘cause’ is only a hypothesis, it has no objective existence: all that objectively exists is a particular, often (but not always) repeated sequence of circumstances. Secondly, if this hypothesis is applied to existence as a whole, we cannot find a creator of it because each creator must have a creator before that creator, in a never-ending chain. (In fact, the futile notion of a never-ending chain of creators was one of the arguments used by Muslim theologians to explain the necessity of believing in God).

It is self-evident that the Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal. If any created being can be said to ‘cause’ anything, that capacity to ‘cause’ was itself created within that being. Thus, no being in the universe can be said to be self-existent; rather, it owes its existence to the Creator who alone is Self-Existent as well as Self-Subsistent. It follows from the fact that the Creator alone truly creates that for each and every being He has determined all possible ‘causes’ and ‘effects’, all things whatsoever that come before or after it. Therefore we speak of God as the Sustainer, who holds and gives life to His Creation from first to last. All ‘causes’ have their beginning in Him, and all ‘effects’ find their ending in Him. In truth, created things are no more than so many ciphers or zeros which, no matter how many we put in a series, add up to nothing, unless a positive ‘one’ is placed before the series to give it value. In just this way the creation could have no real existence nor any value except by God.

What we call ‘causes’ have no direct or independent influence in existence, no direct or independent ‘effects’. It may be that we need to speak of ‘causes and effects’ in order to understand how, in a short space and over a little period of time, some part of the Creation is made (by the Mercy of God) intelligible to us and available to us for our use. But even this but confirms our dependence upon God and our answerability before Him. It is not God who needs ‘causes and effects’ to create; rather it is we who need ‘causes and effects’ to understand what He has created. He alone is the First and the Last, the Eternal, the Initiator and the Determiner–and all our busy little efforts after cause and effect are but veils between ourselves and His Majesty.

Let us and then affirm once more: He, God, is One, the Self-Subsistent and Enternally-Besought of-All, He neither begets nor was begotten, and nothing whatever is like unto Him.

The natural environment contains a mosaic of species (groups of interacting organisms). They do not live in isolation but live in association with one another. It is the arrangement of a particular set of living organisms (plants, animals, bacteria, etc.) and their interaction with each other and with their environment which forms the ecosystem. An ecosystem can be identified on different scales.

On a large scale, the whole world can be considered an ecosystem, while on a smaller scale an ecosystem can be a pond or a wood. The components of an ecosystem (organisms, plants, soil) are linked together by transfers of energy and nutrients (ions).

The environment touches everyone. The air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink and bathe in, the countryside we walk in–all these are affected in one way or another by mankind’s polluting activities. As the results of these activities come to light and the pressures on the environment increase, so does the concern with which we view the world about us.

What are the most important of our common environmental problems?

The greenhouse effect is the greatest environmental threat facing mankind and there are only a limited number of strategies that can be adopted to delay its onset and attempt to reverse the trend. One lesson, which is being recognized increasingly, is that the world uses too much energy of the wrong sort. The most obvious way of attempting to combat global warming is to cut down on our use of fossil fuels. For it is this major source of energy, with its release of carbon into the atmosphere, which is the single biggest cause of the greenhouse effect.

The hole in the ozone layer is not something which most people can witness for themselves and so they rely on experts to tell them it is important. But one aspect of the pollution of the atmosphere, of which people are all to aware, is the smoke and gasses that come from power stations, factories, and car exhausts. Air pollution is a danger which affects us all. Worldwide, more than a billion people–a fifth of the world’s population–live in communities which do not meet the basic air quality standards set by the World Health Organisation (WHO). For example, in Bombay, simply breathing is equivalent to smoking ten cigarettes a day. In the United States of America it is said that air pollution causes as many as 50,000 deaths a year.

Indeed, there are serious environmental pollution problems in many countries in the world caused mainly by the burning of coal by heavy industries. The discharge from these coal-burning plants goes into the air and water without treatment. Technology for environmental protection is not advanced and legislation, where it exists, is either poorly operated or not operated at all.

Air pollution is not only a problem of industrialised countries. In the Third World, air pollution of a different sort is causing ill-health. In some regions–for example, in Africa– smoke from indoor cooking fires causes severe lung disease in infants. Carbon monoxide in the air reduces the blood’s ability to carry oxygen and this is liable to pose a risk for people suffering from heart disease. Another component, the oxides of nitrogen, are powerful lung irritants and can reduce resistance to infections like flu. In addition, one of the most important consequences of air pollution is the production of acid rain.

In one way or another man is now producing so much waste that he is in danger of being swamped by it. New York has the world’s biggest rubbish dump. Cranes as tall as six storey buildings work round the clock emptying barges of waste from the city–26,000 tonnes of it a day–creating literally a mountain of rubbish. Also, the United Kingdom is producing 80 million tonnes of rubbish each year. In theory, one tonne of rubbish can produce 400 cubic metres of landfill gas–60 per cent of it is methane and around 40 per cent carbon dioxide with a few other trace gasses like nitrogen and hydrogen. Typically, landfill gas is produced fairly quickly over the first few years and then production slowly tails off. On average it takes about 15 years for about a quarter of the waste to rot down, so the danger is long lasting. At most landfill sites the methane and carbon dioxide diffuse into the air. But landfill gas can represent a real hazard. Methane, for example, can explode when concentrations in air reach 5 to 15 per cent. However, if waste tips were properly managed it would be possible for more energy to be extracted from them but that would mean controlling more precisely what goes into them. There is another reason why collecting and burning the gas from landfill sites is worthwhile and environmentally friendly: it reduces the greenhouse effect. Methane is about 27 times less effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That means that if the methane is collected and burnt to form carbon dioxide the net impact on the greenhouse effect is reduced. Burning the landfill gas also breaks down some of the CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) which are in the rubbish and so reduces still further the greenhouse effect.

Methane is not the only problem associated with rubbish tips. Another risk is that noxious substances can leak away, poisoning rivers and aquifers.

Dumping waste is not the only option. There are two other possible ways of dealing with it; it can be incinerated or recycled. Though currently only a small proportion of waste is dealt with that way.

Water is one of the most basic necessities of life. We drink it, wash in it and cook in it. Animals and plants cannot do without it. But increasingly over the last hundred years water has become prone to pollution as the effluent from towns and cities, from industries and from agriculture is discharged into rivers, seas and lakes and contaminations seep down to underground aquifers. Over the years pollution has killed animals and plants and has left many rivers biologically dead. River-borne pollution has brought with it disease and death for man.

In the last twenty years or so man has woken up to the damage being done and slowly, national and international controls over what can be allowed into rivers, seas and lakes are being implemented. Cleaning up the world’s rivers and seas will be a painfully long and expensive business but all those who have studied the problem agree that it is essential. The three main materials dumped at sea are dredgings, industrial waste and sewage sludge. In addition to the accidental contamination of water-ways and land with chemicals from waste disposal, there have been serious problems in some countries as a result of chemicals which have been purposely used on the land–notably pesticides and fertilisers. Both nitrate containing fertilisers and chemical pesticides can contaminate water, and pesticides can contaminate food. There has been increasing concern among environmentalists about the effect of nitrates and pesticides on people. Though the concern about nitrates may be overstated, the problem of pesticide use, notably in developing countries, is very worrying.

One of the prime concerns is the destruction of tropical forests. In 1950 tropical forests covered nearly 25 percent of the world’s land masses. Today they cover less than 7 percent.

Having reviewed some of the significant threats to the environment, the question has to be posed: Is it too late to save the planet? The message is clear. We must act now if we are to attempt to correct the damage which has already been done to our environment. We must reassess our values and priorities before it is too late. We must, in fact, heed the warnings. Today, we must start to choose clean and green technology. Clean and green technology does not mean only clean-up technology. We will try to develop our technology but it should be environmentally friendly.

If we look carefully at the universe, we see in it an ecological balance, a harmonious interrelation and interdependence. Do you believe that this is random? So the balance of the universe created by God must be preserved. ‘Everything with Him is measured’ (13:8). Also, ‘There is not anything, but its stores are with Us and We send down each thing in an appointed measure’ (15:21). ‘God is the One who created everything in due proportion’ (54:49).

Environment is not merely an inheritance from our forefathers, for us to waste; it is a trust and an investment we make for our children. Protection and conservation of the environment is an important and vital human issue. As such, it is also an Islamic issue because the human being is the answerable creature of God, who carries the burden of using and understanding the resources of the creation; within the creation, the human being is both means and end. No other creature can perform the task of protecting the environment.

God gives us some guidance in the Qur’an:

‘He has created you from earth and made you dwell in it’ (11:61).

‘And do not withhold the things of the people unjustly and do not make mischief on the earth’ (26:183).

‘Corruption has overtaken [them] in hand and sea, for what the hands of the people have earned, that He may let them taste some of what they have done, in order that they may return’ (30:41). 

References

• Peter H. Collin (1989), Dictionary of Ecology and Environment, Collins, Middlesex, UK.
• James Wilkinson (1990), Green or Bust, BBC Books, London.
• Jonathon Porritt (1990), Friends of the Earth Handbook, MacDonald Optima, London.
• World Commission on Environment and Development (1989), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
• Ahmet Zidan and Dina Zidan (1991), Translation of The Glorious Qur’an, Biddles Ltd., Guildford, UK.

The Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chinese, Indian, Greek, Roman, Mexican and Peruvian are the known ancient civilizations. The Egyptian civilization, for example, made a monumental contribution to the advancement of knowledge and technology. They left behind them huge constructions such as their pyramids and palaces which are wonders of technology. They also left their knowledge in other fields which influenced the civilizations that came after them. In particular, the ancient Greeks directly and through the Phoenicians were indebted to them. The Greeks learnt the craft of ship-making and see travel from the Phoenicians and also adopted their alphabet. They in turn created a distinct civilization. The Hellenic civilization encompassing the Greeks influenced the Romans, even though the Romans were their political and military masters. The Romans took over the Hellenic civilization but unfortunately, like their predecessors, they could not get rid of their prejudices or their superstitions. Therefore, they failed to prevent the monopolization of knowledge by a privileged class. Instead of using religion for general enlightenment, their priests used it to create and manipulate prejudices. Their general philosophy and attitudes were racist, their patriotism was cruel and exclusivist. It is not surprising that some of the wisest of the Greek philosophers were indicted by their priests, who were representing a paganistic religion, and the privileged class, put in prison, even executed. In contrast to Greek or Roman civilization, the Islamic civilization which provided a great portion of mankind with a long period of peace and prosperity was guided by the Divine revelation. All the positive developments within Islamic civilization were achieved by the Grace and the Mercy of God. The rise of Islamic civilization is looked upon as a ‘miracle’ by many historians(1) because they cannot otherwise explain so rapid a spreading of knowledge and learning in the Muslim world. The secret of it lay in the Quran.

First and foremost the Qur’an teaches the unity of God, explains its importance and its infinite scope. It invites man repeatedly to think, to use the gift of intellect given him by God. It encourages him to contemplate the universe and the events taking place in it to discover the secret behind them and use his knowledge for the general good of humanity.(2)

The Qur’an also invites man to ponder nature as the wonderful creation of God. (3) Again and again it appeals to in man’s feelings and other faculties and invites him to ponder his own being and nature, and his environment. (4) According to the Qur’an. the knowledge and justice must be one and go together. (5) It gives glad tidings of the highest states to those who lead virtuous lives with steady faith.(6) From the Qur’anic injunctions it is obvious that the prosperity of a man in this world depends upon his knowledge and upon his ability to use it to harness the resources of nature created by God, the Enricher. This, of course, depends upon research, keen observation and experiment. (7) The Prophet Muhammad (peace he upon him) in the light of the Qur’anic teachings demonstrated the Qur’anic precepts in his words and deeds. He commended the pursuit of knowledge to the believers in the modern sense of the term knowledge. That is why the early Muslims leapt forward with such courage and strove to unite their faith with their knowledge and their deeds. As a result, in a short period of time, the Muslims amazed the world with their enterprise and achievement in every field of learning, science and technology, as well as in new general principles and ideas. The world has rightly seen this development as a ‘miracle’.

In the past knowledge and learning were the preserve of the privileged ruling classes and priests or religious intermediaries of some kind. Earlier civilizations were unable to break the monopoly of the exclusive, privileged few. For the first time in the history of mankind, Muhammad (peace be upon him) advanced the idea of the universality of knowledge in the light of the Qur’an (8) and put this idea into practice. Mankind was freed from the tyranny of priesthood, from the monopoly of knowledge by a few. The Scripture of Islam is not for the few–it is the right of all and the duty of all. According to Islam, to seek knowledge is obligatory for every woman and every man. (9) Later, when Islamic rule extended from the gates of India to the Iberian peninsula in Europe, because of this Islamic attitude towards knowledge and learning, the number of Muslim scholars increased rapidly. In this way, the road to learning was opened to ordinary people, and did not remain the preserve of their rulers. The Qur’an (by ridding the minds of men of false gods and by urging them to study and utilize the good things in the creation) opened the road to the astounding innovations and achievements introduced by the Muslims in many scientific fields such as astronomy, chemistry, and medicine, and irrigation and agriculture. Also the same Qur’an urged the Muslims to institute the first ever programmes for public literacy and public hygiene. Because every Muslim had the duty (and the right) to read the Qur’an, and because through tawhid all knowledge was united to the Word of the One God, commoner’s were enabled to enter the distinguished class of scholars through education which had to be made available to everybody. Muslim rulers aimed to guarantee universal education to all their subjects without distinction. In addition, they made personal efforts to learn, and to enable and dispense learning (by setting up libraries, observatories and botanical gardens, for example) to the people. It was the first time that human history witnessed so wide and free exchange of ideas and intercourse amongst scholars from all nations and from every part of the Islamic world: Non-Muslims were not excluded from this achievement since Islam was from the outset a tolerant civilization.

Submission to God and following the tradition (sunnah) of the Prophet (peace be upon him), proved to be the keys to Muslim advancement in every field of life. Islam does not regard virtue and happiness as inevitably and permanently in conflict, nor does it look favourably upon that self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing spirituality which shuns the world altogether. Equally, Islam does not commend a quest for material progress without a moral and spiritual dimension; indeed for such progress to bring real happiness it must be rooted in faith and prayer. Islam attaches great importance to man’s reason and other faculties by which he may understand nature and discover the secret of the creation and so affirm and glorify his Creator, God. According to Islam, neither the pursuit of knowledge, science and technology, nor material prosperity, are ends in themselves. They are means to earn the pleasure of God. These means are legitimate as long as they do not conflict with the framework of precepts which the Qur’an proclaims as the proper environment for man’s moral and spiritual improvement.

Muslim scholars always began their treatises and books with the praises of God the All-Mighty and with salutations to the Prophet (peace be upon him). They always substantiated and supported their explanation of any problem, with verses of the Qur’an and with sayings (Hadith) of the Prophet (peace be upon him). When they put forward their own findings or ideas, they always added in conclusion ‘and God knows best’. In this way they expressed their humility before God and acknowledged that the full truth and complete knowledge of any thing is only with God, the All-Knowing. Therefore, Muslim scholars never idolized or defied knowledge. A leading scholar Al-Biruni (973-1051) wrote in his celebrated work, Kitab-al-Hind: We ask forgiveness of God for our mistakes. For, our every endeavour is for His pleasure. We pray Him to give us sense to distinguish between wheat and chaff. (10)

Modern science, together with its results, may be approved with respect to its contributions to life, understanding of nature, and man himself, and to the solution of man’s vital problems, whether material or spiritual. Besides, because of its true nature, science should be the means to attain true happiness in both worlds by enabling man to recognize his Creator. Otherwise, as witnessed in this last phase of human history science can be too deadly a weapon in the hands of an irresponsible minority. For knowledge devoid of spiritual and moral values may cause degeneration in the social life of man. One may ask, but what do Muslims expect to gain by knowledge? By way of answer, let us quote the views of Al-Ghazali on knowledge: Knowledge is the source of happiness in this world and the world Hereafter because it is knowledge which leads man to believe in God and instills in him moral responsibility. Again it is knowledge which leads him to the love of God. Like a flood which levels and removes the unevenness of the ground, knowledge removes pride from the hearts of men.

A learned man is knowledgeable as long as he feels the need of learning. When he thinks he knows everything he falls into ignorance. (11)

No doubt the Muslims led mankind during what Europeans call the Middle Ages and introduced new ideas and thoughts and a new outlook on life. There is no field of life which was not affected and affected profoundly by Islamic thought and culture. This influence is one modern civilization ought to acknowledge rather than cover up. (12)

It is unfortunate that the modern world appears so unwilling to acknowledge the Islamic contribution to modem learning and scholarship. By the light of Divine Revelation the Muslims developed, under enlightened Muslim rulers, with increasing vigour from the eighth to the thirteenth century slowing down thereafter for a variety of reasons, some internal, some external. Islamic civilization established the value of reason and experiment the study of nature, an explanatory attitude to other cultures, the usefulness of travel and just commerce; it introduced the enduring concepts of public welfare, of ordered and beautiful public spaces, of well-organized and administered markets and libraries and gardens; it proved that slaves have a right to become masters and need not remain slaves; it established a tolerant, enlightened space where people of different nations and races but of different religions could live together and enrich each other’s lives. Why should this not he widely acknowledged and understood?

History bears ample witness to the fact that Islam has never been a hindrance to the advancement of knowledge in arts or sciences. It could not be, because such a magnanimous religion could not be against any activity which is beneficial to man. Any land where Islam was sincerely practised was never backward in learning and knowledge or in science and technology. Unfortunately the present backwardness of the Muslim world is blamed by Islam’s enemies upon and even attributed to Islam–especially by some Western scholars who fear the revival of the Muslims. The truth is quite the opposite. The backwardness of Muslims is due to their neglect of Islamic teachings and the Qur’an. Muslims must return to their own true selves, re-possess their own minds as well as regain control of their own resources. Then, with serious effort and hard work in the field of learning and scholarship they may, by God, recover the high ground and lead the world to a more humane and just future. If they do not do so, the humanity of human beings, perhaps even the fabric of this earth may be irretrievably damaged. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: ‘If anybody goes on his way in search of knowledge, God will make easy for him the way to paradise’ (Sahih Muslim). Let those Muslims who desire to please God and to work for the glory of Islam mobilize their hearts and minds to the task of putting the available human knowledge into forms, and setting it in directions, which will regain for mankind the true purpose of knowledge-namely, the benefit of the creation as a whole (not a handful of privileged nations) and the affirmation and glory of the Creator.

References

1 George Sarton, Lecture on Islam Middle East Institute ‘Islamic Contribution to civilization’, p. 47.

2, 3, 4. The Qur’an 12:109; 22:46; 30:9; 20-25; 36:33-34, 71-73, 78-83; 67:1-5, 15-19;78:4-16.

5 ibid: 3:18; 42:15; 57:25.

6 ibid: 2:25; 4:124; 24:55.

7 ibid: 2:151; 18:66; 29:43; 30:22; 35:28; 17:36.

8 ibid: 10:5; 12:76; 17:36; 39:9.

9 Ibn Majah Muqaddimah p.17.

10 An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrine by Siyyid Husseyin Nasr Cambridge: 1964, p.174.

11 Imam Ghazali, Ihya-i Ulumuddin, Beirut, p.12, 13, 50, 75, 82, 59.

12 The Making of Humanity, Briffault, R. and “Islam Peygamber” Maududi, Lahore, p.20.

American Indians applied its leaves as a poultice to heal wounds, and brewed a cough mixture from its roots. Now its seeds are claimed to have medicinal uses ranging from relieving pre-menstrual syndrome to management of multiple sclerosis, alcoholism and atopic eczema.

The seeds contain approximately 15% protein, 24% oil and 43% cellulose and lignin. The fatty acids in the oil are thought to be important to health because the oil contains 65-85% linoleic acid (LA) and 7-15% gamma linoleic acid (GLA): LA is an essential fatty acid for the body which it cannot make but which it converts to GLA. GLA is one of the components of cells and a precursor of prostaglandins which regulate many body functions. However, the LA GLA conversion step may be blocked by a range of factors including excessive levels of blood cholesterol, a high proportion of certain fatty acids in the diet, ageing, alcohol intake and diabetes.

Supplementing the diet with evening primrose oil (EPO) by-passes the conversion step, thus providing for the presence of GLA in the body. A recent World Health Organisation report suggested that 3% of the total calorific intake of adults should be in the form of essential fatty acids, this figure rising to 5-6% for children and pregnant and lactating women. GLA can be provided by several other sources as well, e.g. borage oil and blackcurrant oil, both of which contain a higher concentration of GLA than EPO but not as much LA.

The quality and composition of EPO used in commercial manufacturing is currently the subject of much research and monitoring work. In the UK research is concentrated on obtaining GLA from other sources e.g. by fermentation from the fungus mucor javanicus.

A concentrated oil from evening primrose, borage and blackcurrant seeds, is now undergoing clinical trials and may be used in second generation oil products of the future. EPO is already used in a variety of beauty and hygiene products, including cosmetic and skin care products, shampoos and soaps.

Trials have been curried out to investigate claims of the effectiveness of EPO in treating many diseases and conditions, including multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disease, asthma, atopic eczema, cancer, obesity and premenstrual syndrome. So far the results have been variable but some genuine clinical effects have been seen.

Millions of dollars have been and are being spent on developing new methods of extracting useful natural products for the benefit of mankind. We are now seeing a widespread desire to return to natural resources to cure various ailments. Let us hope that, before mankind destroy their environment, they will come to realize the importance of nature’s medicine-cabinet, and give thanks where it is due. Without that giving of thanks, mankind will not practise the humility and compassion necessary if our common resources are to be preserved both for ourselves and for future generations.

Those who have been detained half-way have been hindered by conjectures.

Who truly seeks will truly find Him, while the indolent can do neither.

For His slaves on their spiritual journey, He is the final destination.

The souls who do not recognize Him as Friend, who do not die to themselves to be raised again in Him,

The souls who did not live nor will die for His sake are utterly bereft and destitute.

Come, friends, let’s set out to reach the realm of the Beloved;

And let us see the rose of His beauty for a moment in light.

The world is pitiless and cruel, all around is fog and cloud;

It is but a loss and waste of time to stay here even for a short while.

We are travellers, and our home coming is with Him alone

What an honour to reach Him; and

Faith is the only means of arriving, this aim by His leave and grace.

Once upon a time, there are two brothers who set off on a long journey together. One is self-indulgent and clever. The other is self-disciplined and wise. After a while they come to a fork in their road where they see a wise old man. They ask him which way to take. He tells them that the right fork requires obligatory observance of the law which governs both roads, but that this burden of observance brings with it a certain security and happiness; while the left fork promises a certain kind of freedom it represents also certain danger and distress. Now the choice is yours, says the old man.

On hearing this, the well-disciplined brother, by relying on God, takes the right fork saying that he accepts dependence on law and order. The other brother takes the left fork just for the sake of freedom. Seemingly, he is comfortable but in truth he feels no tranquillity inside. He reaches a desert. Suddenly he hears the terrible sound of a beast, about to attack him. He runs away and, happening to come across one, jumps down a dried well which is sixty metres deep. Half-way down, he tumbles upon some branches of a tree and grabs on to these to save himself from falling further. He also notices that the tree protruding from the wall of the well has two forks. He hangs down from the branches. Meanwhile, two mice, one white and the other black, are gnawing away at the two roots. The man looks up and sees that the beast is still there. He looks down and there is a horrible dragon almost at his feet, with its large mouth gaping to receive. Having time to do so, the man looks more closely at the wall of the well and notices that it is all covered with labouring insects. He looks again at the tree. It is actually a fig tree but it is a miracle of a tree in that it has a great variety of fruits growing on it, such as walnuts and pomegranates.

There, hanging in the well, he cannot understand that all that has happened to him is in any way special or meaningful, that the scene and the events upon it cannot be merely coincidental. That there should be, must be, some secret to it all, that behind the scene and the events there must stand an arranger and doer of all-none of this, alas, even occurs to him.

Now although this man is well aware of the danger all around him, he gets used to his state of suspense, more or less, and pretends to himself that he is in a garden, having a nice time, eating all kinds of fruits for free but which, it will turn out, are poisonous and harmful to him to consume in this way.

In some of the sacred sayings, God addresses mankind. The meaning of one of those sayings is: I will treat my servant in the way he thinks of Me. This wretched man in the well sees every event that befalls him as no more than itself, as having no further weight or significance and, for him, so it is. He does not die but he does not live well either. He persists merely in an agony of suspense.

Let us now recall the other brother. He is the wiser of the two and, because well-disciplined, not suffering anxieties. He always thinks of the good; affirms the law, and feels himself to be secure and free within it. Whenever, on his journey, he enters a garden and comes across ruined or ugly things in it, he is able to turn his mind to that which is good and beautiful. His brother cannot and does not do the same; he has concerned himself with evil and therefore cannot find ease in such a garden. The wise one lives according to the saying: Take the good not the evil. He is therefore generally happy with everything.

On his way he too reaches a desert, just as his brother did, and the same beast shows up. He too is afraid but not as much as his brother, because he is sure that the beast must be in the service of a certain master. This disciplined man also jumps down a well that happens to be there and, half-way down, catches hold of the branches of a little tree. He too notices the pair of mice gnawing at the two roots of the tree. Looking down, he sees the dragon and, up above, the beast still waiting for him. Just like his brother, he finds this suspense a strange situation to be in. But because he is wise and self-disciplined, he infers that all these strange happenings are arranged by someone, and constitute a sign. He thinks he is not alone and that he is being watched and examined by someone. He understands that he is being directed and guided in some way.

He is curious about the one who arranged all these events and asks: Who is it that desires to make me know him? Even in his curiosity he is patient and self-disciplined, and so this curiosity changes into a sort of love for Him who arranges all these events. And this love causes him a desire to open the secret sign of these events and that desire drives him to be approved by the owner of the sign.

He observes that the tree from which he is suspended is a fig tree but one that bears almost every kind of fruit. He is no longer afraid; he understands that this tree is actually a sort of catalogue of samples of the fruits the owner has. Otherwise, one tree would not bear so great a variety of fruits as this one does. He desires more earnestly and the key to the secret is inspired in him. He declares:

Oh Owner of all this scene and these events, I am your servant and I desire your approval and I desire to know you.

Following this prayer, the wall of the well changes into a door to a wonderful garden. The dragon and the beast become two servants inviting him in. The beast even changes into a horse for him to ride on.

Now, let us compare the positions of these two brothers and see how good brings with it good and evil causes evil:

The unfortunate traveller who took the left way, the way of self-trust and self-willed freedom, is about to fall into the mouth of the dragon; he is continually anxious. He suffers loneliness and considers himself a prisoner facing the attacks of wild beasts. Furthermore, he adds more to this distress, eating apparently delicious but actually poisonous fruits which are only presented as samples, not intended to be consumed for their own sake. This unfortunate one changes his day into darkness; he himself does injustice, changing his situation into a hell-like one.

In contrast, the traveller who took the right way is invited to a fruitful garden with servants all .around him. He studies every strange incident in awe, and enjoys himself. He does not eat up the fruits on the fig tree, only samples them, curious as to why they should be there at all-which is how they are intended to be used.

The other is just like a man who, by not being content with what has been served for him and intoxicating himself with alcoholic drink, denies his favoured situation in a summer garden surrounded by friends, and instead imagines himself to be among wild beasts in winter time, and complains thereof. He does himself injustice and deserves no mercy. The brother who took the right way, the way that accepts trustingly what is given and observes the law, sees and accepts the whole reality and for him it is beautiful. In doing this he respects the One who possesses reality, and that is why this brother is deserving of mercy. By this we may understand, at least in part, the meaning of the Qur’anic phrase: Know that evil is from yourself but goodness is from God.

When we reflect upon the differences between the two brothers we see that the inner-self of one prepared a kind of hell-like situation for him, corresponding to his own attitude to reality, whereas the other’s potential goodness, positive intention and good nature led him to a very favoured and happy situation.

Now, I say to my own inner-self as well as to the inner-self of anyone who has read thus far:

If you desire to be like the luckier of the two brothers, follow the guidance of the Qur’an. The details of the allegory could be explained at very great length, but the gist of it, roughly, is this:

One of the brothers is a believer who is good-hearted and the other is a blasphemous unbeliever. Of two ways the one on the right is the way of the Qur’an and faith, whereas the other is the way of unbelief and heresy. The garden on the way is human society and civilization which has in it both good and evil, cleanliness and pollution. The wise one is he who acts according to the law of this road and so travels peacefully.

The desert in the story is the earth, and the beast who turns up unawares is death. The well is life and the body of man, and sixty metres in depth because that is our average life span. The tree in the well is life itself, the two mice gnawing its roots are day and night. The dragon in the well is the opening to the hereafter and, for a believer, becomes a door to the Garden. The insects on the walls of the well are the troubles people face on this earth. However, these troubles are but little warnings for a believer, to remind him of God. And the fruits on the tree, as we have already indicated, are samples from the blessings of the hereafter.

(There is only one tree in the well but there are various fruits on it. This shows the seal of divinity whose unique virtue is to create everything out of one thing and to change everything into one thing, to make various plants and fruits from one soil only; to create all living things from one drop of water; to make a simple skin for each species from a variety of foods, to nourish and sustain all alike living things and make all parts of body from a simple food.)

To return to the allegory, the sign shows the secret will and purpose of God in creating; this sign is opened with faith and there the key is:

God, there is no god save God. God, there is no god save Him.

For one of the brothers, the mouth of the dragon changes into a door to the Garden. For the other, as for all unbelievers, the grave is the door to a place of trouble, the belly of a dragon, whereas for believers it is the door to the eternal Garden which is the blessing of God for the faithful followers of the Qur’an.

The beast changes into an obedient servant. This means that, for unbelievers, death is a painful detachment from loved ones, a kind of imprisonment after leaving (for them) the paradise-like earth. For believers on the other hand, it is just like going forward to meet friends and companions, it is like going into their eternal home. It is for them a formal invitation to pass into the eternal gardens from the prison of the earth, a kind of retirement from the burden of life.

In sum, the one who chooses the transient life as his aim puts himself into hell even though he stays in what appears to him paradise on earth. By contrast, the one who aims at the eternal life will find peace and happiness in both worlds. Despite all troubles, he still thanks God and will patiently conclude his stay on the earth which, as he properly comes to understand, is merely a waiting room opening up to heaven.

R. Nur Collection (Eight Word)

At primary school, when our teacher first brought a microscope into the class and gave us the chance to see the delicate legs and wings of a fly I become for days enthused with the extraordinary grandeur of art in so tiny a creature.

At secondary and upper secondary schools we received more comprehensive courses in biology. Now though, everything began to be explained as the handiwork of mother nature. I couldn’t help wondering how this ‘mother nature’ was managing and doing so many things in their proper places; and whether the teachers really meant the Creator. But following the rest of what they said, and their train of thought generally, it became clear to me that they did not wish to say God.

In my family by contrast, it was always understood and always said that everything was created by God. Although my parents were not well-versed in religion, nor able to convey thoroughly what they did know, although none of us could have given clear answers to questions about God, His Power, His Essence, and Attributes, we nevertheless were aware of His existence and of the importance of belief in Him as our Creator.

Once, at the mosque on our street, I heard the preacher say that the Prophet Adam was the first man on earth. However, my biology tutor at the high school said that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter; then as it reproduced it changed of itself into different kinds of living organisms, ultimately producing plants, and animals. She talked also about certain prehistoric men who came into being through a long chain, by gradual, progressive evolution, of freaks and monstrosities. She narrated to us how fossil remains of these ‘men’ had been found. She seemed quite sure that fossil records provided a very important part of the argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life on earth. She argued that the Prophet Adam and his life story was but a tale and that belief in such tales had no place and was of no use to us in the age of space exploration and space travel.

When I told my father what the tutor had said and asked if it was true, he said:

Take no notice of it. Don’t bother about such views. Could it ever he possible that monkeys would turn into man? He meant to comfort my doubts. But in fact what he said did not satisfy the need in me for sound knowledge. He was sure of what he said; so was my tutor. I, in the middle, was left in conflict and struggle.

My father was not able to discuss such issues because he had not read anything about them. On the other hand, the biology tutor was knowledgeable, and a capable person who had learnt how to deploy arguments convincingly. So what must happen to my belief in God? The only way seemed to be to blend belief in God with some sort of acceptance of evolution. Believing in God, at the same time accepting brute beasts or half-apes as my ancestors, and not thinking too much, nor bothering too much about how to reconcile the two. Aware that I was not the one person in the world who had such problems to resolve, I escaped to the football field and played so hard that I became too tired to think about the problems.

I had ambitions to be a doctor but, by a few points, failed to get the average for the Faculty of Medicine. My second choice was to enter the Faculty of Biology, which I did. I realized much later how great a blessing this would prove to be–it is something for which I have been thanking God for years.

I felt quite happy before 1 started the courses, expecting to find the answers to my many questions. However, two years passed, and I did not find the answers, only improved my style and techniques in football. What we were taught in the courses was the theory of evolution from the simple and crude to the complex and excellent. The words which always highlighted the arguments were ‘by chance’, ‘mutation’, ‘atrophy’, ‘evolution’. No one even uttered the word creation. I sometimes tried to discuss the subject with my friends. While some of them did not have enough knowledge to pursue the argument, others did not hesitate to reject creation. They said, that all had been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator; that what I believed in was tales, conjecture, self-delusion; the questions troubling me would he re-formulated in a way such that, in time, the progress of science and technology would resolve them; in short, there was no longer any need to worry over such issues.

If I followed this approach what would happen to all that I valued so much; belief in God, His Prophets, the practice of prayer, fasting, and so on? I decided to be resolved one way or the other, to either believe or disbelieve, because it was really distressful to be in between. How? I planned to see the most fervent atheist in my class, Kaya. If Kaya convinced me I would become like him; if I could make him say, ‘yes, there is really the One, the Supreme Being, who creates all’, I would be at ease with what I knew and believed.

I discussed matter, biology, physics and metaphysics, with Kaya for two hours. He was well versed in disbelief and explained everything in materialist terms. Once or twice I tried to cite examples from the micro and macro cosmos; from the balance harmony, order, and splendour in atoms, in living cells, and in space, but he was so expert in tackling those issues that he always had something to fire back with. I was not able to convince him. Rather he managed to raise many more doubts in me. Seemingly uncontrollable waves of disbelief began to swell within me. Everything I had somehow held to, now seemed about to fall to pieces. Were all the religious duties, my prayers and fasts, all for nothing now? Was even the pleasure I had taken in them merely self-deception? The business of living had no ultimate purpose–I was only one among billions of moving bits and pieces, now here, now there, then forgotten eternally? To be rid of those thoughts and agonies, I was drawn to contemplate suicide.

That was the turning point in my life. Ahmed, who observed us talking, had watched and listened from a distance. After Kaya had left, he approached me. He saw the gloom in me and asked the reason for it. I mentioned how Kaya had drowned me in doubts.

I had known Ahmed for two years. He was studying mathematics. We only chanced to see each other in the language laboratory once a week, and occasionally talking. He was a good, kind fellow, someone I had always felt at ease with. He started talking now as we had never talked before.

For everything, including man, that has a beginning and an end in time, there can be only four ways of trying to explain how it came to be.

1) It was made, or created, or caused by nothing at all. In other words, it came out of nothing. 2) It created itself. 3) Nature, according to generative principles like those given in nature, created it after a random series of chance coincidences. Or, 4) it has a creator, cause, or maker outside itself. The first three explanations are obviously impossible. It is inconceivable for something that has a beginning in time to come out of, or be made of, nothing at all. It is also inconceivable that it should bring itself into being. The universe and all that is in it could not have created itself nor did it come about by mere chance. He took a booklet from his inside pocket and referred to some examples to illustrate his argument. Some of them were as follows. If a number of bottles in a pharmacist’s, containing a variety of different elements fell off a shelf and mixed on the ground what is the chance that some wonder drug would result? If earth and stones fell from a mountain could the pieces organise themselves, even over infinite stretches of time, into a splendid palace?

Nature is effect but not the cause; it is a work but not the artist; if a clock is an evidence of intelligent design how much more so is the far more vast and complicated universe? Camel droppings imply the presence of a camel. Human footprints on the sand tell of a traveller having passed that way. The heaven with its stars, the earth with its mountains and valleys, and the sea with its waves, do they not point to the Maker, All-Powerful, Knowing, Wise and Caring? The conclusion is clear. The universe and all that is in it owe their existence to a Maker or Creator outside itself. You as a human being are a part of the universe, a tiny speck even in the context of this planet, and you owe your existence to such a Creator. To suppose that man evolved by random chance from other creatures, does not really answer the question about the origin of the universe and all that is in it, including human beings. Such suppositions are grounded in a wholly false world-view.

As Ahmed settled all my doubts, the seeds of disbelief and the temptation of suicide withered away. I felt considerably relieved. I gave thanks to God who sent me Ahmed and such a book in time to cure me of my doubt and suffering, and yet the gratitude I felt could hardly be expressed in words.

Later on, Ahmed introduced me to some of his friends, with them he shared a flat. Some of them were, like myself, first-year biology students. We went home, talked about and read from Ahmed’s booklet, the chapters on the existence of and belief in God, each of which effected a different cure.

At the faculty, the courses on genetics and evolution were presented in the context of, and in favour of, atheism. I no longer had any real doubts as to creation, nevertheless the Darwinian theory continued to worry me. The lectures were certainly one-sided. Whoever tried to say something in favour of creation was ridiculed as backward or reactionary by pro-Darwinian and atheist students. Those who tried to question the theory were even snubbed and silenced by the lecturers for seeking to introduce what they dismissed as irrational ways of thinking. Some students tried hard to compromise belief in God with evolution, saying that God created through evolution, that He brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that the higher forms, including man, evolved from them.

One day Ahmed and his friends came to the class and invited us to a lecture on Darwinism and Creation which would be given by an imam. Some students straightaway expressed their willingness to attend. Predictably the atheists in the class tried to discourage others from attending: “The speaker is a man of religion! How could an imam know such a subject better than professors of science!” That this opinion was prejudiced, not objective, certainly determined us even more to go.

It was a pleasant evening. The lecture was being held in a large hall usually used for public entertainment. As well as students, I was pleased to observe many scientists and scholars there also. At last the imam, whom by now every one was curious to see, came onto the stage and delivered his lecture. As he began, and as he proceeded, I felt the last, fluttering palpitations of Darwin’s theory in my mind. Among the things I remember from that evening are the first clear statement I ever heard of the simple truth that evolution is only a theory, an hypothesis, not an established scientific fact. To claim otherwise, as many who teach it do, is itself most unscientific. An increasing number of scientists, including a growing number of evolutionists, now argue that the Darwinian theory is not a properly scientific theory at all, that is, not capable of experimental testing. Many of its critics have the highest scientific or intellectual credentials, and of them many hold that creation is a for more plausible and acceptable explanation. Those who advocate evolution maintain their position but because the evidence is inconclusive disagree about the meaning and usefulness of it. Even among their number, one school of thought urges major modifications in the theory. It is not only so-called fundamentalist Christians but also reputable scientists who question the theory. There is growing dissent, especially, among palaeontologists whose speciality it is to study fossil records. Darwin himself acknowledged that if numerous species can be shown to have emerged simultaneously, that demonstration would be fatal to his theory very large quantities of fossils have been unearthed since Darwin’s time: they do not constitute a significant support for Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. The evidence is precisely that a large number of species did emerge simultaneously; the evidence does not demonstrate gradual development, as the theory of evolution requires. All the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates appeared in the Cambrian period and spread for about ten million years; scientists have not found the progenitors of the Cambrian forms in the vast depths of sediments below the Cambrian period, and admit that there is little prospect of their ever being found. Contrary to most people’s belief the fossil evidence could perfectly well be said to be consistent with the idea of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established. The evolutionary process cannot be accounted for by mutations, because most mutations are damaging to the organism; they seem to be destructive rather than constructive processes. Those artists sketches of ape-men, depicted in text-books, encyclopedias and museums, are based more on mythologizing imagination than scientific reality. The first of mankind, said the imam, were neither brutes nor beasts, not ‘half’ man and ‘half’ ape. Those who persist in their belief in evolution, against the evidence are not the friends of scientific knowledge nor encourage a scientific attitude to such questions.

Many times, the speaker made reference to Islamic sources and quoted from them. I was filled with both wonder and joy. I felt a great blessing was granted to us that night which extended even to the hall itself, so that all the misuse of time and resources in idle entertainment with which the place was associated seemed to be undone. As I left, I could not help but say to myself: “Well, Mr Darwin, you have been a nuisance to mankind for a hundred years or so, but your account has surely been settled here-in a short lecture, in a couple of hours. Your followers, and even those who carry the word ‘professor’ in front of their names, could not save you. In the end, we have come to believe an imam, one whose learning and clarity of thought they would never have given credit to before…’

I liked and fastened to Ahmed, his friends, their books and to this preacher, and have stayed with them ever since. Of course, the argument has been carried further in my mind since then. Precisely because the theory of evolution has been a part of the mythology of modern Western civilization for so long, and because this civilization continues to enjoy enormous prestige and power, the theory persists and is believed by great numbers of people almost without question. It is still necessary therefore to keep up a mental struggle against the tyranny of the idea that human beings are descended from apes. We are not. Consider what it is that distinguishes us so decisively from all other living organisms on this planet. We give particular names to some species to acknowledge that they share with us certain characteristics: for example, we speak of weaver birds, farmer ants, and so on. Living and working together inlarge organized groups clearly is not what distinguishes us from the rest of creation. Nor is it our ability to build elaborate, even beautiful homes for ourselves: allowing for scale, termites build larger cities with even larger skyscrapers than we do. Our cunning and intelligence likewise are matched, perhaps exceeded, by many animals: spiders, for example, construct traps to catch their prey as subtle and delicate as any we might devise. Perhaps then, our special characteristic is that we use tools? Again, not true: several animals, notably primates, not only use tools (admittedly very simple ones), they teach the use of them to their young. Perhaps it is our emotional or psychological life that distinguishes us? Again, where we have had the means and the patience to study animal behaviour over a sufficiently long period, it is demonstrable that the animals experience and express happiness, sadness, tenderness, curiosity, impatience, bitterness, that some individuals can suffer inwardly to such a degree as a result of some traumatic loss (for example the loss of a friend or a father-figure) that they lose the will to live, failing to join with the rest of their group in eating or playing until, eventually, they die. So, if it is not intelligence, not our social skills, not our affective or emotional life, what is it that makes us special?

The answer is that what makes us unique is our use of language. No other living organism uses true language, that is a coherent and flexible system of signs, governed by a body of logical rules which we call grammar. Animals communicate but they do not use, nor, despite years of assiduous effort to do so, can they be taught to use, even the simplest sentence. By contrast, all human beings without exception enjoy this faculty, young and old, male and female, of any and every race, whether so-called civilized or so-called primitive; even the deaf, given the opportunity, can communicate fully using a true language. There is no early or primitive form of language from which true language evolves; one language is not more primitive than another; every true language is as truly a language as any other: that is why children brought up in any environment acquire competence in whatever language they hear around them, regardless of their parents’ language.

How does the theory of evolution cope with this fact? The truth is that it does not cope at all. It simply ignores it. And yet this is the decisive characteristic of our being human. If the theory that we are descended from apes has any validity at all, surely it must account for, or at least attempt to account for, this very large and obviously important fact. Historically the theory only emerged at a time when Western Europe was obsessed with the twin myths of human progress and the superiority of its own civilization.

The theory has rather more to do with the social and political ideology of a culture anxious to justify and rationalize its exploitative attitudes to all other living forms, including human beings, than it has to do with any objectively, scientifically observed reality.

I am glad therefore to abandon any temptation to base my understanding of the dignity or meaning or purpose of human life on a theory that is, as a scientific explanation of relevant facts, so very incompetent. And yet, even now I cannot help but tremble at the memory of how near I came to being seduced by it. Nor can I help but tremble at the thought of what arrogant darkness I might still be wandering in if I hadn’t met Ahmed when I did if I hadn’t attended that lecture by that preacher when I did. I give thanks therefore where, ultimately, it is always due: al-hamdu li-llahi rabbil alamin.

O believers, when you stand for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads, and wash your feet up to the ankles. If you are unclean, bathe and purify your bodies fully. But if you are ill or in the middle of travelling or … you cannot find water, then take wholesome dust and wipe your faces and hands with that. For Allah does not wish to burden you, rather He desires to purify you and to complete His blessing and favour upon you so that, perhaps, you may he grateful.[5:6]

Here is a grand prescription from among the many marvels of the Qur’an. The day will come when even non-Muslims will imitate the Muslim wudu or washing before prayer, a privilege and favour Muslims have enjoyed for more than fourteen hundred years. And they have done so, more or less, unawares, as it is only through the discoveries of biologists in the last twenty years that we have come to understand fully the wonderful effects of wudu. The three principal benefits that human health derives from washing are related to the circulatory system, the immune system, and the electrostatic balance of the body.

a) The circulatory system

The circulatory system is twofold. First, the heart pumps blood out to the tissue cells in every part of the body. Second, it collects back the biologically used blood. If this reverse circulation in particular is disturbed, diastolic blood pressure increases and ageing, even the onset of death, may be precipitated.

The healthful condition and functioning of the blood vessels is essential to this twofold circulatory system. Blood vessels resemble flexible tubing, dividing into thinner branches as the distance from the heart increases. If the thinner tubes in particular become hardened and lose their elasticity, pressure and workload upon the heart are increased. This is known in medical jargon as arteriosclerosis.

Various aspects of our lives cause the blood vessels to harden and become constricted. This problem, considered to be the basis of ageing and bodily deterioration, is now a distinct field of medicine on its own. Improper nutrition and nervous reactions can have a serious effect on the condition of the blood vessels. If sclerotic development is observed in a blood vessel, what practical measure can be taken against it?

The hardening and narrowing of blood vessels does not happen all at once, but over a long period. The vessels furthest from the heart, such as those in the brain, feet and hands, are more vulnerable to the process which begins slowly in these locations and goes on continuously with the passage of time. However, there is an application in our daily routine which, in a sense exercises blood vessels by alternately contracting and dilating them. Its agent is water, which gives rise to temperature gradients. Water ensures flexibility and visor of vessels distant from the heart by dilating them when hot and contracting them when cold. It also forces nutrients, deposited in tissues as a result of sluggish circulation, back into the bloodstream by virtue of the temperature difference.

In view of these facts, is it possible to understand the verse commanding Muslims to wash the hands, feet and face in the wudu rite as anything short of a marvel, particularly in the light of the conclusion of the verse: He desires to…. complete His blessing and favour upon you. Circulation of the blood is a favour to us from the Creator. The command to do wudu completes that favour by maintaining the blood vessels and the circulatory system generally in a healthy state. This is the first of the many blessings of wudu. It is impossible to deny the fact that washing protects against senility which is the way the hardening of blood vessels reflects on the circulation in the brain of a person who has been doing wudu regularly since childhood.

b) The immune system (lymphatic circulation)

In addition to the circulation of red blood cells in the body, there is also the circulation of white blood cells or leucocytes. The vessels of this system are ten times thinner than those which conduct red blood cells. We sometimes see its colourless fluid oozing from the skin walls in some abrasions or wounds. It is this lymphatic circulation which keeps all points of the body within the protection of the immune system. Any bacterium, alien object, or cancer cell (the cause of which is not known), which may have invaded the body is destroyed by the warrior cells or leucocytes in the lymphatic circulation. The appearance of an infectious disease or cancer in the body is always contingent on the malfunctioning of the immune system.

Exactly how this system of vessels expands and contracts has not yet been fully clarified. It is known, however, that heat and cold influence the system. Catching an infectious disease such as a common cold is ascribed to the inability, due to contraction of these vessels, to dispatch leucocytes in sufficient numbers to the afflicted area. Now the proper functioning of this system and its thin vessels, like that of the circulatory system in general, is closely linked with the invigorating effect of washing. The structure of the immune system, which provides resistance against all diseases, is reinforced through the wudu, and the divine favour mentioned in the verse is realized.

Now someone might claim that, while the lymphatic system is indeed invigorated by washing, it is just a coincidental and unintended side effect. However, the precise form of the command to do wudu disposes of this incorrect claim. I would argue, on the contrary, that the way in which the wudu is commanded to be done specifically aims at the lymphatic system as well. The reasons are as follows:

1. For the lymphatic system to function properly, even a single point in the body must not he neglected, which is assured by the full ablution or ghusl.

2. The most important centre for stimulating the lymphatic system is the nasopharyngeal region behind the nose and tonsils, and washing these spots is especially enjoined.

3. Stimulation of both sides of the neck has great influence on the lymphatic system, and this is also present in the wudu.

The most formidable warrior cells of the body, the lymphocytes, are transported to the farthest reaches of the body and, after passing through intensive biological training, patrol each point in the body many times a day. If they meet a bacterium or a cancer cell, they destroy it. Is this not a divine blessing of the first quality? If a circulatory disorder occurs once in a while and you are able to avert or mitigate its effect by means of regular wudu, is it not proper to regard the command as the promised fulfilment of divine favour for which mankind are required to give thanks?

c) Static electricity

The body normally has a balance of static electricity, and the physiology of a healthy body is closely related to this electrostatic balance.

Atmospheric conditions, as well as plastic clothing and products common in our time can adversely affect this balance. Painful illnesses, irritability and facial wrinkles are the best-known results. Most of us have become aware of this electricity when climbing out of a car or after sitting in a plastic chair. Stormy weather has a comparable effect. Healing by acupuncture and, in certain respects, physiotherapy, can redress this imbalance of static electricity; but we can avoid the effect entirely, simply by doing the wudu several times a day.

There are many psychosomatic illnesses arising from electrostatic imbalance. I shall not dwell on these here. I shall address only the question of skin care, which has become such a fashionable subject now.

The worst influence of static electricity is exerted continually on the small subcutaneous muscles (under the skin), finally rendering them inoperative, which is why wrinkles set in, starting with the face, though the skin is affected over the whole body. At this point, many of my readers will have divined at least one of the reasons for the radiant appearance of those who have done wudu all their lives. Whoever maintains the habit of regular washing inevitably has the more healthy, and therefore the more beautiful, skin. How remarkable it is that in our time, when millions are spent on cosmetics, a tenfold increase in expenditure would still not properly substitute for simple washing.

Doubtless, the sceptic will ask, but does wudu really have anything to do with static electricity?

Of course it does. The part of the verse pertaining to tayyamum when water is not available for wudu, underlines the fact. For this substitute for wudu also disposes of static electricity to a significant extent. Indeed, the importance of it has hitherto gone unrecognized, and no-one has tried to explain why, tayyamum can take the place of wudu when the necessity arises.

As the verse clearly states, the sanitary aspect of wudu is a great blessing which we can now partially explain in medical terms. A person might well say: But I already wash my face and hands anyway. Let us recall, however, that as a widespread public habit, this practice has a very short history (barely seventy years or so) even amongst nations who have a tendency to claim to be the most civilized in the world. More important, cleanliness based on a sort of general good advice can never be sustained with the steadiness of discipline which, in Islam, it has by virtue of its association with worship.

To be sure, the worth and significance of wudu does not end with these medical observations the sense of well-being and dignity derived from wudu also contribute to the general health of the practising Muslim but here my aim has been to make widely known precisely those additional medical benefits.