A: The Qur’an was revealed to make us aware of the Creator, affirm that He is known through His creation, direct us to belief and worship, and order individual and social life so that we attain happiness in both worlds. Today, many Muslims pursue science to obtain a better understanding of Him and His creation. Keeping this in mind, consider the following Qur’anic allusions to scientific facts:

Soon We shall show them Our signs on the furthest horizons, and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is truth. Is it not enough that your Lord witnesses all things? (41:53)

Our thinking and research affirms the Creator’s Oneness, as the true nature and interrelationship of microcosm and macrocosm are further disclosed and better understood. Scientists seem to be very close to proving this Divine truth. Even now we feel that soon we shall hear and understand creation’s testimonies and praises to God, as mentioned in 17:44.

O humanity, if you doubt the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like cloth, then out of a lump of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (what We will) to you… (22:5)

We created man from a quintessence (of clay). Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed. Then we made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood. Then of that clot We made a lump (embryo); then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh. Then We developed out of it a new (distinct, indi-vidual) creature. (23:12“14)

He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness … (39:6)

These three veils of darkness are the parametrium, miometrium, and the endometrium, three tissues enveloping three water-, heat-, and light-proof membranes (the amnion, corion, and the womb’s wall).

In cattle will you find an instructive sign. From what is from their bodies, between excretions and blood, We produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it (16:66)

The Qur’an details this process: food’s partial digestion and absorption, followed by a second process and refinement in the glands. Milk is wholesome and agreeable for people, yet is rejected by the cow’s body and bloodstream as useless.

Glory be to God, who created in pairs all things, of what the soil produces, and of themselves, and of what they know not. (36:36)

We know that people, animals, and certain plants have counterparts. But what about the pairs in all things and of what they know not? This may refer to a whole range of inanimate and animate entities, subtle forces, and principles of nature. Science confirms that everything occurs in pairs.

Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and Earth were joined together (as a single mass) before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:30)

Every living thing was created of water. What is important here is that the universe is a single miracle of creation, not how life came about. Everything in it is an integral part of that miracle, bears signs that prove it, and is interconnected. The verse emphasizes water’s vitality and significance.

The sun runs its course (mustaqarr) determined for it. That is His de-cree, the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing. (36:38)

In fact, mustaqarr here may mean a determined orbit in space or time, a fixed place of rest or dwelling. Thus the sun has a specific orbit, moves to-ward a particular point, and will rest when its task is finished. Such words were spoken at a time when people thought the sun orbited Earth.

The firmament: We constructed it with power and skill, and We are expanding it. (51:47“48)

This verse reveals that the distance between celestial bodies is increasing, for the universe is ex-panding. In 1922, the astronomer Hubble claimed that all galaxies, ex-cept the five closest to Earth, are moving further into space at a speed directly proportional to their distance from Earth. Le Ma tre, a Belgian mathematician and priest, later proposed and developed the theory that the universe is expanding.

God raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see… (13:2)

All celestial bodies move in order, balance, and harmony. They are held and supported in this order by invisible pillars, known to science as the balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces: He holds back the sky from falling on earth except by His leave… (22:65)

By the moon’s fullness, you shall travel from stage to stage (84:18“19)

Some earlier commentators thought that this described one’s spiritual ascent or a process of change. Later Qur’anic interpreters thought that it could not be taken literally. But given the context, this really means travelling to the moon, whether literally or figuratively.

Do they not see how We gradually shrink the land from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will be victors? (21:44)

The reference to shrinking could reflect Earth’s being compressed at the poles, rather than to such earlier theories as the erosion of mountains by wind and rain, of the sea-shores by the sea, or of the desert’s encroach-ment of cultivated lands. The Qur’an’s depiction of Earth as egg-shaped (79:30-32) is also borne out by science.

We have made the night and the day as two signs; the sign of the night We have obscured, while the sign of the day We have made to enlighten you… (17:12)

According to Ibn Abbas, the sign of the night refers to the moon, and the sign of the day to the sun. Therefore, from the words the sign of the night We have obscured, we understand that God removed the moon’s ability to emit light, thereby causing it to darken or become obscured. While the verse thus accurately re-counts the moon’s past, it points to the future destiny of other heavenly bodies.

The Qur’an, although it contains many more such allusions, must not be considered a science textbook. Its only purpose is to guide us to right belief and right action. We must ensure that it, and not our arrogance, insolence, and vainglory, directs our pursuit of knowledge.

When modern science agrees with the Qur’an

Science is the language that most people speak and understand today. Thus Muslims should be well-versed in it to refute the claims of materialists and atheists. The Qur’an encourages us to pursue such knowledge, provided that we seek only to earn God’s good pleasure and ensure understanding among the people.

Moreover, how can the eternal and unchanging Qur’an be proven by science, which is subject to change? Science only serves to awaken sleeping or confused minds. It cannot establish the truths of faith in our conscience, for faith comes only by Divine guidance. Our faith, not our knowledge, makes us believers. Objective and subjective evidence must eventually be dropped, so that we can make spiritual progress by following our heart and conscience within the Qur’an’s light and guidance.

Diana Eck, leader of Harvard University’s Pluralism Project, introduces readers to America’s new religious landscape of mosques, temples, and monasteries. Focusing mainly on the period after the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, she calls this change very subtle and largely unnoticed.

She discusses the meaning of religious diversity and freedom. Basing herself on the Great Seal of the United States ”E pluribus unum (From Many, One) ” she asks: What is the measure of our manyness? What is the meaning of our oneness? Each religion and culture, she asserts, has its own way of addressing these questions.

For example, a Muslim imam referred to Qur’an 49:13 in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives: Do you not know, O people, that I have made you into tribes and nations that you may know each other? Hinduism’s Rig Veda (I.64.46) says: Truth is One. People call it by many names.

The author defines pluralism as the dynamic process through which we engage with one another in and through our very deepest differences. Some of its manifestations are Nikes and Reeboks adorning shoe racks in gurdwaras, mosques, and temples; a Muslim Girl Scout who promises to serve Allah and my country; and consecration rituals at a Hindu temple using a mixture of sacred Ganges river water and regular Mississippi river water.

This well-written and thought-provoking book provides an historical context, describes legal battles and pivotal court cases, and addresses stereotypes, religiously motivated hate crimes, how some communities have welcomed religious pluralism, and appropriate models for engagement.

The author, one of Turkeys most respected Islamic scholars, discusses Islams core beliefs. After giving brief summaries of traditional arguments for Gods Existence and Unity, Gulen analyzes modern theories related to nature, natural laws, and causes, as well as matter and chance. Supporting his arguments with accounts of scientific experiments, he also appeals to common sense by asking if any person or thing can be created without an author or by itself.

The second chapter analyzes angels, jinn, the spirit, death, Satan, and other spiritual topics. The third chapter, dealing with Destiny and free will, refutes the idea that Islam teaches predestination. According to Gulen, we œreap what we sow, for we have been given the Truth and told that we will be rewarded or punished according to how much we live our lives by it. Besides, fatalism is based upon a mistaken belief: that our human and therefore artificial division of time into past, present, and future somehow affects God. It does not.

The fourth chapter provides the Quranic and general arguments for the resurrection and the afterlife, while the fifth chapter discusses how Muslims understand Prophethood and Muhammads Prophethood. Gulen presents both sides of the Prophets life: spiritual and material. He also mentions the Bibles references to Muhammad, and deals with his miracles and polygamy. The final chapter presents the Quranic view of Prophet Muhammad and why the Quran and science are compatible.

The author is to be commended for relying upon Muslim sources, as well as his own practice and study. He presents Islam as devout and practicing Muslims understand it. It is a refreshing break from books by scholars who seek to explain a religion that they do not follow, and whose sacred language they often do not know, to others who want to learn about it.

This book should be read by all those who want to understand how Muslims understand Islam and view themselves.

Yes, we are responsible for fulfilling the duties of being human. If, as believers, we trust that we are on the right path and perform our tasks accordingly, there is no need to worry. Since a life dedicated to faith, worship, and serving humanity is exempt from material and status gain, these duties cannot be affected by conflict and political confrontation.

In fact, people may have different thoughts and behaviors due their human nature. But the responsibilities of being God’s servant keep them from going astray. Since the path and its requirements are determined, the goal is known: to observe everything as a sign of Divine Wisdom, search for the Divine reasons behind events, and draw lessons from them. Just as physics, chemistry, astronomy, astrophysics, and biology’all titles of God’s creation in the universe’have laws, history also has laws. God has made these laws known to us through His Prophets and Books. Thus, every event is a message from Him, a light on our path, a source of excitement in our hearts.

Negative consequences of technological advancement

Since the Renaissance, humanity has designed amazing innovations in science and technology. Especially in our age, information technology and transportation have advanced to incomprehensible speeds. This is an age of speed. For some, the time between happiness/comfort and thought/action decreases as distances shrink. They reach the targets promptly or are unexpectedly prevented from doing so. Perhaps in the future we will confront a world in which events occur too quickly. We cannot comprehend the advantages and disadvantages of such a world, and for now they are topics for science fiction movies and books. Yet we have to admit that such possibilities make us shiver, even though we have total trust in God and His justice.

Science and technology

We must praise scientific research, the wonders of civilization, and the outcomes of technological innovation. However, could speed and globalization, the product of so much effort and intellectual striving, be made to serve a higher goal? Could time and space, as they are squeezed more and more everyday, serve a loftier purpose? Or have they become ends and goals in and of themselves, serving the material betterment of the patent-holders? If finding out the most secret things and knowing about every single town in the world has priority over our moral values and needs, would not a world without these advancements, but one in which people would be far happier, be more desirable?

Although science and technology have never been humanity’s first need, it is wrong to reject them in favor of some idealistic philosophies. At most, doing so would be a utopian rejection. What is important here is who controls science and technology and what goals they are serving. In the hands of a few irresponsible individuals, science might make the world into a hell, whereas no one has ever been hurt from a gun in the hands of an angel. Science and technology are desirable as long as they serve human values, bring peace and happiness, contribute to international harmony, and help solve humanity’s material and spiritual problems. If they move away from these goals and serve the interests of a few people, the world is better off without them.

Science and technology have to be evaluated from this perspective. What is science serving in our day? Relations between individuals and states, mutual respect, love, truth, and understanding; deception, corruption, slander, seeking others’ faults, and invading one’s privacy; or capital and the powerful?

If science and technology serve negative values, they will cause a global nightmare. If globalization is based on these values, than one-fourth of the world’s population will continue to lack drinkable water, the spread of AIDS will increase, health services will become an industrial sector, and global pollution will worsen. A significant part of the world’s population will continue to be deprived of democratic rights, and widespread terrorism will prevail.

Fundamentals of Social Life

The fundamentals of social life consist of four aspects: religion, law, moral values, and power.

Religion: A person or a society without a religion cannot survive long or benefit others. Essentially, religion is a phenomenon that is determined independent of us and has been made part of our lives. Therefore, it is a crucial element that provides for our material and spiritual needs and shapes our personal and family lives.

Even if we were perfect, uncontrollable elements would still shape our lives. For instance, the time and place of our birth and death are determined. We have no say in choosing our parents and siblings, place of birth and childhood, language, race, and physical features. Our body functions without our will, for we cannot control even our becoming hungry, thirsty or sleepy. We do not determine our essential needs and the way to acquire them. Our input in such daily functions as eating and drinking consists only of working to obtain and then eat the food. Regardless of what we wish, we are surrounded by binding conditions.

Laws: Religion also has an important role in determining the laws that shape our lives. Since laws are not goals in themselves, they are valuable only to the extent that they serve individuals and society. In order to have a healthy society, therefore, laws should not contradict nature and the laws of creation. They also should take into consideration the nation’s religion, history, sociology, anthropology, as well as the natural laws of physics and chemistry, for law is not an independent science but one that encompasses everything. If this were not the case, the laws would not match the nation’s essentials and therefore would be more detrimental than beneficial.

When drafting laws, it is crucial to know humanity perfectly, consider people’s fundamental nature, understand their needs and search for ways to meet them, and to analyze interpersonal relations and society-member dynamics. While power has a role to play in law enforcement, religion’s role is also significant. Religion is defined as having faith in the existence of a Supreme Being who is constantly aware of our actions, intentions, and thoughts. Thus, religion teaches us that even if we manage to bypass the law and escape punishment in this life, we will be called to account for all of our acts in the afterlife.

Moral values: Religion and the moral values that construct its basis have been universally accepted throughout history and are independent of time and place. The impact of moral values on an individual depends upon one’s religious beliefs and how they are lived. In addition, they play a significant role in educating people, enforcing the law, and obtaining the desired effects. The possible argument that religion and moral values have no place in developed societies is mistaken, for people in many developed countries are highly dedicated to their religions.

Despite the more than 200 years of corruption in religious values worldwide, people are once again turning toward religion. In many developed countries, leaders are religious even though the population might be ignorant of religious values. Even though these countries are secular, there has never been an attempt to take advantage of religion for individual or social life or to control it. Furthermore, religion has a say in domestic and foreign policies. For example, we can see religion’s influence upon their criminal codes.

Even Western historians state that Christianity is the most important element in shaping the West’s modern social structure. According to them, Christianity has always played a crucial role in determining laws, religious holidays, public prayers, and many other aspects of social and political life.

Power: This is a very important aspect of social life, for laws cannot be enforced, and internal and external security cannot be established, without it. But power is not’and should not be’a goal in itself. It is valuable only as long as it serves the law, justice, and righteousness.

Humanity still faces a long-standing problem: What to do when individuality overrides all values, racism overpowers universal principles, and settling international disputes is decided by power. We cannot talk about rationality and justice when problems are addressed only with sheer power. Power is a potential strength that might help solve some problems if used rationally. If power is driven by emotions, it is a harmful instrument. What made Alexander the Great feel dizzy, destroyed Napoleon’s genius, and made Hitler such a monster was the insanity of replacing justice with power. It seems that our present troubles will continue until the powerful decide to adhere to justice and the people will judge with justice while moving beyond their daily concerns.

God willing, you are to be an expert hardware specialist or a good-quality programmer or a first-class network builder or a high-quality system administrator by now

But ever bear these important points in your mind: This Universe has such a Hardware Engineer who created all beings and the Earth as well; He made Sun a Power Source, Moon a System Clock. Such an Uninterrupted Power Source and such a System Clock that never goes astray and is never confused, so as to show the vast knowledge and the art of that Hardware Engineer.

This Person, at the same time, is such an Exalted Programmer who composed and assembled the gigantic Software called Life in the best way to operate on this vast globe, and has been operating it for millions of years; error-free, bug-free and devoid of any system crash. If you want to know how an Exalted Programmer He is, take a good look at yourself at the outset:

He saved your entire life code into one of your microscopic, infinitesimal cells, which you cannot see with naked eyes, and He too executes that code in that same minuscule cell of yours. Since it is obvious as clear as the daylight that the DNA is a program, and a program cannot exist without its Programmer, therefore your programming is like a mirror to that Exalted Persons Art of Programming.

Again, as he makes those cells communicate through innumerable protocols within your network which He made up of your entire cells, and since He also bestowed on you the essential hardware along with you to enable you to converse with another people in various languages and protocols, he also makes you see, talk and listen as before. And since, He prepared and enabled you to use various media such as light and sound, so that you can come to know about the things around you “ and you can discover and utilize those things, but you cannot add a new component “ hence there is such a Great Network Resource Person who knows what you need and gives your equipments as per your requirements. Your flair of networking is only a little piece bestowed on you by Him out of His infinite knowledge and a great blessing.

O my friend, do not be deceived! This beautiful World Life Software is just a trial version, as you can see; in any case you cannot save the properties and treasures that you hoarded so far. Therefore, know the Writer of this Beautiful Software of the Universe. Is it ever possible that a programmer to build up such a beautiful program, and never include an about file to introduce Himself? Therefore; see and learn the About files, which have been included by the Greatest Programmer, Hardware Expert, Network Professional and the System Administrator of this Universe, and work for acquiring the Full version of the Software. Do not forget, without skipping any of your actions, log files are being carefully saved in the background. These log files are going to be checked by that System Administrator, whose Power envelopes every being. O Man: If you are a Human, do not mix nature, coincidence, absurdity, and unbelief into these beautiful tasks; do not make it ugly, do not perform it ugly and do not be disgusting!

Modern theories of creation are built upon quantum theory and Einstein’s theory of gravity. The question is what happened before the Big Bang? Einstein’s equations break down at the enormously small distances and large energies found at the universe’s origin. At distances 10-33cm, quantum effects take over from Einstein’s theory. For questions involving the beginning of time, one must invoke the ten-dimensional theory. The Big Bang probably originated in the breakdown of the original ten-dimensional universe into a four- and six-dimensional universe. Therefore, the history of the Big Bang represents the breakup of previously unified symmetries, and the split universe was no longer symmetrical. Six dimensions have curled up.

Quantum physics abolishes time close to the Big Bang. How did the universe come into existence? Why does time vanish in the black hole? Did time exist before the universe came into being? These questions and realities point to the existence of a Creator.

Unfortunately, quantum theory and Einstein’s theory of gravity are mutually incompatible. In this new millennium, superstring theory, or simply string theory, resolves this tension. Three particle theorists (Yoichiro Nambu, Leonard Susskind, and Holger Nielsen) independently realized that the dual theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also describe the quantum mechanics of an oscillating string. This marks the official birth of string theory in 1970, according to which the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but also inevitable. Brian Greene writes in his The Elegant Universe: String theory has the inherent capability to show that all of the astonishing happenings in the universe”from the frenzied dance of subatomic quarks (components of protons or neutrons) to the stately dance of orbiting binary stars, from the primordial fireball of the big bang to the majestic whirl of celestial galaxies”are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation.

Fundamental forces

During the past hundred years, physicists have proven the existence of four fundamental forces in nature: Gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force. Gravity, the most familiar force, keeps Earth revolving around the sun and our feet planted firmly on the ground. Electromagnetic force, the next most familiar force, is the driving force for such things as lights, TVs, computers, and telephones.

The strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces are less familiar, because they operate in the atom’s nucleus. The strong force (mediated by gluons) keeps quarks glued together inside protons and neutrons, and keeps protons and neutrons tightly crammed together inside atomic nuclei. The weak force (mediated by W and Z particles) determines the radioactive decay of such radioactive materials as uranium, plutonium, and tritium.

Gravitational force is mediated by graviton (the concept of graviton was introduced in 1974), photons for the electromagnetic force (a photon is the smallest EM force or the smallest packet of energy for light). In Einstein’s day, the strong and weak forces were unknown. For 30 years Einstein sought to unify the two distinct forces of gravity and electromagnetism.

String theory

Matter is composed of atoms, which in turn are made of nucleons (protons and neutrons in the nucleus) and electrons orbiting around the nucleus. Nucleons are made of three quarks each. Quarks are made of string. According to the standard model of particle physics, the universe’s elementary constituents are point-like ingredients with no internal structure. However, this standard model cannot be a complete theory, for it does not include gravity. But according to string theory, atomic and subatomic particles are not point-like; rather, they consist of tiny one-dimensional filaments somewhat like infinitely thin rubber bands. Physicists call these vibrating, oscillating, and dancing filaments strings.

String theory takes its name from this point of view. Unlike an ordinary piece of string, which itself is composed of molecules and atoms, the strings of string theory are alleged to lie deeply within the heart of matter. They are so small”on average about as long the Planck length (10-33 cm, or about 100 billion billion [1020] times smaller than an atomic nucleus)”that they appear point-like even when examined with our most powerful equipment. String theory offers a far fuller and more satisfying explanation than that of the standard model.

Moreover, this theory shows the harmonious union of general relativity and quantum mechanics”a major success. In this new millennium, the excitement in the physics community is that string theory may provide the unified theory of all four forces and all matter. For this reason, string theory sometimes is described as possibly being the theory of everything.

String theory proclaims that the observed particle properties (i.e., mass, charge, and spin) are reflections of a string’s various vibrations. Each preferred pattern of a string’s vibration in string theory appears as a particle whose mass and force charges are determined by the string’s oscillatory pattern. All fundamental particles can be described as resonant patterns of these string vibrations. There is even a mode describing the graviton. The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Hence everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the microscopic string oscillations”the notes that strings can play.

Extra Dimensions

Our universe has three spatial dimensions: length, width, and height. In formulating the general theory of relativity, Einstein showed that time is another dimension. According to the general theory of relativity, space and time communicate the gravitational force through their curvature. The special theory of relativity is Einstein’s law of space and time in the absence of gravity.

In 1919, the mathematician Theodor Kaluza unified Maxwell’s electromagnetism and Einstein’s theory of general relativity by adding a fifth dimension. Thus Kaluza was the one who suggested that the universe might have more than three spatial dimensions.

For example, a garden hose viewed from a long distance looks like a one-dimensional object. When looked at closely, a second dimension, one shaped like a circle and curled around the hose, becomes visible. The direction along the hose’s length is long, extended, and easily visible. The direction circling around its thickness is short, curled up, and harder to see. Hence spatial dimensions are of two types: large, extended, and therefore directly evident, or small, curled up, and far harder to detect. As for the garden hose, the curled-up dimension encircling its thickness is detected either moving closer to the hose or using a pair of binoculars from a distance. If the hose is as thin as a hair or a capillary, its curled-up dimension is more difficult to detect.

In 1926, the mathematician Oskar Klein applied Kaluza’s theory to quantum theory, which is used in modern string theory. Klein showed that our universe’s spatial fabric may have both extended (the three spatial dimensions of daily experience) and curled-up dimensions. The universe’s additional dimensions are tightly curled up into a tiny space, a space so tiny that it has so far eluded detection. These extra dimensions are believed to be minuscule, somewhere between 10-35 meters and 0.3 millimeters in size.

The equations of string theory show that the universe has nine space dimensions and one time dimension. At present, no one knows why the three space and one time dimensions are large and extended, while all of the others are tiny and curled up.

Supersymmetry

Symmetry is a physical system property that does not change when the system is transformed. For example, a sphere is rotationally symmetrical, since its appearance does not change if it is rotated.

In 1971, supersymmetry was invented in two contexts at once: in ordinary particle field theory and as a consequence of introducing fermions into string theory. It holds the promise of resolving many problems in particle theory, but requires equal numbers of fermions and bosons. Thus, it cannot be an exact symmetry of Nature.

Supersymmetry, a mathematical transformation, is a symmetry principle that relates a particle’s properties of a whole number amount (integer) of spin (bosons) to those with half a whole (half-integer or odd) number amount of spin (fermions). Bosons tend to be the mediators of fundamental forces, while fermions make up the matter experiencing these forces. Bosons can occupy the same space and have an integral spin (0,1, .), while fermions cannot occupy the same space and have a half-integral spin ( 1/2, 3/2,.). Bosons transmit such forces as photons, gravitons, W and Z particles, mesons, and gluons. Many bosons can occupy the same state at the same time. Fermions (e.g., electrons, muons, tau, protons, neutrons, quarks, and neutrinos) cannot share a given state at a given time with other fermions. The fact that fermions make up matter explains why we cannot walk through walls: the inability of fermions (matter) to share the same space the way bosons (particles of force or energy) can.

Supersymmetry treats all particles of the same mass as different varieties of the same superparticle. This means that there is an equal matching between bosons and fermions. A supersymmetric string theory is called a superstring theory. The original string theory only described bosons, and hence became known as bosonic string theory (BST). Thus it did not describe fermions or, for example, include quarks and electrons.

Introducing supersymmetry to BST engendered a new theory that describes both the forces and the matter making up the universe: the theory of superstrings. String theorists have shown that all string theories are different aspects of a string theory that has not 10 but 11 spatial dimensions. This was called M-theory. The M might stand for the mother of all theories or mystery, magic, matrix, or membrane. The last two refer to mathematical techniques used in science. There is no space or time in M Theory. Furthermore, our space-time is not four-dimensional after all. M theory unites the four forces of nature (e.g., gravity, quantum mechanics, strong force, and weak force) and, remarkably, is a mathematical and geometrical theory. It is attractive because it can explain gravity and an atom’s inside at the same time and thus resolve the contradiction between current theories.

Summary and Conclusions

String theory gives a theoretical description of elementary particles and treats them as one-dimensional curves (strings). Traditional models of interactions between elementary particles are based on quantum field theory, which treats particles as dimensionless points. Theoretical physicists have not developed a workable theory of gravitation that is consistent with quantum mechanics’ principles.

However, treating elementary particles as strings permits the derivation of a quantum theory that encompasses all four forces. Superstring theory, a combination of string theory and supersymmetry, treats particles as very short (10-33 cm along its single dimension, which is 1020 smaller than a proton’s diameter) closed strings (string loops). All of the masses, charges, and other properties of elementary particles result from the vibration of these superstrings at different frequencies. The complex mathematical basis of superstrings involves 10 dimensions: 9 spatial dimensions, 6 of which are invisible, and time. Since superstring theory provides a unified description of all elementary particles and fundamental forces, it is sometimes called the theory of everything.

Some major unsolved problems of string theory are how to condense, 10 dimensions to 6 (spatial) plus 4 (space and time) dimensions, and what is happening at distances smaller than 10-33 cm. In addition, the experimental verification of the existence of strings in the near future poses quite a challenge. Since they are thought to be less than a billionth of a billionth the size of an atom, we cannot use current technology to detect them directly. An indirect test, however, will be carried out within the next decade or so by the Large Hadron Collider, a huge atom smasher being built by CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research, located in Geneva, Switzerland). There also is an urgent need to develop new mathematics in areas of Riemann surfaces, algebraic geometry, singular geometries, number theory, and other related fields. 

Footnotes

1. K stands for Kelvin, a measurement of degree relating to, conforming to, or having a thermometric scale on which the unit of measurement equals the centigrade degree and according to which absolute zero is 0A , the equivalent of “273.16A C.

References

• Adams, Steve. A Theory of Everything. New Scientist 161 (20 Feb. 1999).
• Arkani-Hamed, Nima et al. The Universe’s Unseen Dimensions. Scientific American 283 (Aug. 2000): 62-69.
• Davies, P. C. W. and Julian Brown, Eds. Superstrings: A Theory of Everything? Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Duff, Michael J. The Theory Formerly Known as Strings. Scientific American 278, (Feb. 1998): 64-69.
• Green, Michael M., John H. Schwarz, and Edward Witten. Superstring Theory. 2 vols. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
• Greene, Brian. The Elegant Universe. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.
• Gribbin, John R. The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything. Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1998.
• Kaku, Michio. Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
• Mukhi, Sunil. The Theory of Strings: An Introduction. Current Science 77 (25 Dec. 1999): 1624-34.
• Peat, David F. Superstring and the Search for the Theory of Everything. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1988.
• Polchinski, Joseph G. String Theory. 2 vols. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

The specific neurobiological processes, brain structures, genes, and other factors involved in human intelligence are still largely unknown. Current research on brain anatomy and physiology suggests that various levels of intelligence may be associated with such things as the number of connections between neurons or the degree of branching in cortical neurons. Important factors may include brain metabolism and how fast nerves conduct signals.

Types of intelligence

Measuring intelligence depends on which of the three intelligences one relies on and uses the most. For example:

Static Intelligence: The accumulated knowledge measured by IQ (Intelligence Quotient) tests. Psychologists call it cognitive content. Standard IQ tests have changed very little since their first appearance over 100 years ago, while cognitive psychology’s understanding of how the brain and mind function has made great progress over that same time period.

Fluid Intelligence: How quickly the mind learns and adapts to new problems and conditions. Also known as practical or dynamic intelligence, this important aspect is hardly ever measured.

Brain Intelligence: Also known as BrainQ or cognitive capacity, this is the speed and efficiency at which the brain processes information. In electronics, Q is how efficient and well-tuned the circuit or system is. So BrainQ is how tuned the brain is, which is reflected in mental quickness, memory, and concentration powers. It is fluid and variable, as it is e very sensitive to environmental and lifestyle conditions.

Both static and fluid intelligence depend on BrainQ. Academic, professional, and even personal success depends mostly on BrainQ. In fact, studies have shown very little correlation between one’s IQ score and monetary success. Most importantly, BrainQ (also known as brainpower) is highly trainable (improvable) with the appropriate type of exercise.

Emotional Intelligence (E-IQ) and BrainQ are correlated. According to Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey, emotional intelligence is composed of being able to identify, perceive, express, and understand emotions in different contexts; emotional understanding; and emotional management.

Measuring intelligence

Abundant research proves that thinking about and testing for human intelligence is no small matter. Yet, Robert J. Sternberg, professor of psychology at Yale University, says that, in many ways, we have it all wrong: There are major problems with conventional thinking about intelligence at best, our notions are incomplete, and at worst, simply wrong.

The dominant psychometric approach to studying intelligence claims to measure intelligence through IQ tests. One’s IQ is the result of dividing a person’s mental age by his/her actual age. This procedure has been dropped, but IQ is still used to refer to the scores obtained on intelligence tests and to the tests themselves. Such scores are normally scaled so that the mean is 100 and standard deviation is 15. Ninety-five percent of the population scores within two standard deviations around the mean (between 70-130).

Many IQ tests exist to measure verbal, spatial, mathematical, and analytical skills, while others depend on reaction or recognition time to a visual stimulus. Several IQ tests combine multiple subtests, each testing a specific skill. Regardless of the test’s nature, many researchers believe that factor analysis can extract a general statistical factor (g) from thes results of to obtain a general measurement of intelligence. There is evidence suggesting that g correlates with academic success and, to some extent, with measuring non-school accomplishments.

Despite its wide acceptance, not all researchers agree with the concept of a general, measurable intelligence factor. Some experts believe that g measures some types of intelligence (e.g., analytical problem solving) but not others (e.g., creativity and practical intelligence). Other theorists have abandoned the idea of accurately measuring intelligence, saying that there are multiple kinds of intelligence that cannot be measured with pen-and-paper tests.

Sternberg has proposed a new definition of intelligence that includes analytical skills (the ability to analyze and judge, compare and contrast) and creative and practical abilities. He adds the second and third factors to make the definition of intelligence more meaningful, although he acknowledges that analytical intelligence is an important component of intelligence. Creative intelligence is measured by problems assessing how well an individual copes with relative novelty and can create or invent new products, while practical intelligence measures the ability to handle daily problems.

Increasing IQ?

Some studies have shown that young children exposed to stimulation-rich environments in kindergarten had higher IQ scores than their non-exposed classmates. However, such increases were mostly gone upon graduating from elementary school. Despite this temporary improvement, evidence suggests that the exposed children tended to perform better in school, were less likely to need special education, and were more likely to finish school. Thus, some cognitive functions as well as one’s quality of life were enhanced.

The results of such test suggest that stimulation is a key factor in increasing cognitive performance. Could this positive effect be prolonged by continued exposure to enriched environments? Recent studies in neuroscience show that neuronal synapses in a highly stimulated environment tend to grow and expand, at least in the visual system, compared to those that receive only background static (white noise) input. Also, synapses tend to grow stronger with regular stimulation, which suggests that cognitive function may be improved by a variety-rich environment, stimulation, and activity.

Another suggestive study is the Mozart effect. Researchers picked his Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major for its complexity, and showed that college students who listened to it before taking a spatial-temporal reasoning test performed better than control subjects. However, the effect only lasted 15 minutes and seems to be specific to the piece of music and to experimental conditions.

Although these results are limited to specific circumstances, they still have promise. The results are temporary, but one can make an analogy between these effects and those of physical exercise, which are also usually temporary. The key in maintaining and potentially improving cognitive function may be the forms of mental exercise. Solving puzzles, reading, learning new language or a musical instrument may have positive effects. Again, the important point may be in optimizing overall cognitive function rather than in increasing measured IQ scores, which research shows to be relatively stable after childhood.

Physical exercise clearly provides optimal results when combined with a proper diet. The same is likely to hold for mental exercises. Severe malnutrition while a child can have negative effects on intelligence, and the brain requires nutrients to function properly on a daily basis. Also, physical exercise seems to have a positive effect on mental performance. For example, aerobic exercise appears to increase memory retention, improve some types of creative problem solving, and has positive effects on general well-being. Also, exercise can help relieve stress, which has a negative impact on learning and memory. Various relaxation techniques are also beneficial.

Overall, it does not seem likely that measured IQ can be increased permanently. But other supporting factors of cognitive function might be enhanced, thereby optimizing overall mental performance. The best ways to do this seem to be combining physical and mental activities to create a stimulating environment, and to get enough nourishment.

Sternberg’s theory of intelligence

Sternberg has made some interesting points that have been borne out by research results. For example, he has demonstrated that people can handle cognitive challenges in real-life situations. For example, housewives and Brazilian street children have difficulty calculating in a classroom, but not in a supermarket or while making a deal on the street, respectively.

Another consideration is the importance of family expectations on children’s learning. For example, Kenyan families typically do not value formal Western, but do value knowledge of the indigenous environment. He found that when Kenyan children were tested on their knowledge of the indigenous environment, those who scored high on the indigenous tests scored low on conventional IQ tests.

Sternberg also has shown, in a study of Yale students, that students in the high-analytical group were much less diverse in terms of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and educational backgrounds than those in the high-creative and high-practical groups.

Sternberg’s research has critical impacts on teaching. He asserts: First of all, it is important to note that all three abilities analytical, creative, and practical can be taught. When students are taught in a way that best fits how they think, they do better in school. Children with high levels of creative and practical abilities, who are almost never taught or assessed in a way that matches their pattern of abilities, may be at a disadvantage in course after course, year after year.

Abusing IQ test scores

However, Sternberg is aware that resistance to change in measuring intelligence is great and widespread. He adds: The U.S. has developed a multi-million dollar testing industry whose tests are based on conventional notions of intelligence. The modern version of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence tests or the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales have not evolved much over the years. Whereas old computers and old VCRs and old telephones rapidly go out of date, old tests never seem to die, except for updating of norms and cosmetic changes.

Sternberg is confident that conventional notions of intelligence can be surpassed, despite the reluctance and opposition to change, and that doing so will benefit everyone. He concludes: In fact, the most important abilities for science are creative abilities, and if we continue to measure students with conventional tests and do not value creative abilities in training, the result may be that we are picking the wrong people. People who are highly creative may be denied the opportunity to go into science, and science may lose its best potential to advance.

The current misuse of IQ or similar tests is not as problematic as the ones in past. Murray and Herrnstein’s controversial The Bell Curve summarizes research allegedly purporting that blacks are innately less intelligent than whites. This conclusion depends on culturally biased IQ tests or content-oriented SAT tests. However, these conclusions neglect the social limitations, unequal conditions, underprivileged situations, low-quality education, malnutrition, and poverty. The famous Milwaukee Project of the 1970s showed that nurturing plays a vital role in a child’s intelligence. And Goddard’s results, obtained in the early 1900s and based tests given to newly arriving immigrants who had spent months on a boat, who were mainly laypeople, and often had little if any grasp of English, has been disproven by those very people and their descendants, many of whom went on to build quite successful careers in America.

IQ tests are culturally biased. However as Reynolds points out: The argument is whether the brain’s processing speed determines how well one can do in an IQ test. The IQ tests and SATs are very content-oriented. If you weren’t taught some important element, you’d be at a disadvantage (Report From Biomedical). Rather than this, an IQ test should check how quickly one’s brain can process information.

Conclusion

In conclusion, intelligence depends on many things: daily diet, physical and mental exercise, emotional state, stress, and so on. It is not fixed or static, so one can improve it by a combination of techniques that suit the individual. In spite of the developments in cognitive science and medicine, measuring intelligence is still in its crawling stage and open for research. One can be filled only with awe before such a vital yet mostly unknown organ, whose functions have tantalized humanity for centuries. Thus, each person should appreciate having such a distinguishing feature and thank the Creator.

References

• Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Free Press: 1996.
• Mayer, J. D., D. Caruso, and P. Salovey. Selecting a Measure of Emotional Intelligence: The Case for Ability Scales. (Second submission version), 11 January 2000. Chapter in: R. Bar-On and J. D. A. Parker (eds.), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. Jossey Bass: 2000.
• NIH Behavioral and Social Sciences, NIH Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Seminar Series, 1999.

Perhaps the discovery of consciousness will begin with a simple assumption like: Humans are self-aware; animals are not. Although at first this seems to be valid, it will be very hard to support it with examples. Nobody ever saw a monkey crying and looking at mirror while thinking about its self-origin; or a fish committing suicide because of something it did; a snake becoming depressed, or a bird fearing God. However, just because we cannot see such things does not mean that they do not exist. Moreover, we hardly see such behavior among people. Perhaps they will say that self-awareness is a condition of the human brain and soul that lasts for a few seconds, during which people experience their own consciousness and thus realize their place in the universe, that death is inevitable, that they are responsible for their actions, or, in principle, that their existence has no meaning if they do not invent one.

Such statements, which seem dull to today’s freshman philosophy students, will be welcomed with great enthusiasm in the scientific community. Although nobody can argue for the above human-animal assumption, empiricism, which always has been biology’s main path, will cause researchers to compare the differences between animal and human brains, cell molecules, neural connections, and all other aspects.

It seems almost certain that the faculties of consciousness controlled by our souls will remain completely unknown to us until the end of time. However, the materialistic part of self-consciousness probably will turn out to be a group of cells connected to each other in a very special way, hopefully in a localized area of the brain. When this discovery is made with certain electrodes or other receptors, maybe we will be able to observe our free will’s decision-making process. In fact, although our free will and self-awareness are somewhat related, it is easier to trace the free will. It will really be something when an article relates that a scientist will ask a human subject to put a knife in his hand without reason. He might do it, but a monkey would never deliberately hurt himself. It is quite possible that some form of communication between the neurons making up the consciousness will occur when the free will is deciding what to do.

Transplanting the consciousness

Once the group of neurons that make up self-awareness are determined, work will start on clinical trials to learn how to transplant consciousness (c). Since c and memory are two different things, it will be argued that, in principle, it is possible to transplant c from a dead person to another and thereby increase the recipient’s quantity of self-awareness. It is almost trivial that one’s memory is also one’s self. A person begins with no memories, acquires them while alive, begins losing them as death approaches, and then loses all of them through death.Only a deep perception of these memories by c can give a person a view and idea of the world. Given this, it follows that a person with more c will understand life and the world better, and will find more accurate solutions to problems regarding existence. Obviously, this person would need a certain memory that the c can work on”in other words, education. In summary, with c-transplantation studies, humanity will be able to produce individuals that can perceive the world from a higher perspective.

When c-transplantation surgeries are considered safe and that patients start seeing the world from a very different angle, most likely the organization that holds the rights to and carries out c-transplantation operations will become the richest medical company on Earth. Who would not want to be more intelligent, to lie down a normal person and stand up an ubermensch? There might even be government-funded research projects designed to see if more c will allow people to answer such questions as the meaning of life or the simultaneous existence of fate and free-will. This c-trade will make its founders rich, but only for a very short time.

Sadly, one of the fastest financial growth curves in history will end unexpectedly and very rapidly. The idea that a person with more self-awareness can understand life and the world better will still be valid, but after a couple of years people will not want it. This might be hard to 

believe, for we have never been given such a choice. Consider this: Do we really want to live our own self-awareness now? Or is it that whenever our c finds us alone thinking about life, the universe, God, death, and so on, we run away from it like we saw a beast? Even though this makes us a lesser human being, do we really care about all that or do we just want to forget?

Remember the adventure of European philosophy, in which the Middle Age’s ignorance was disrupted by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment’s philosophical proceedings. Moreover, advances in science and positivism have augmented the self-awareness of intellectuals and of society in general. However, at the height of this awareness, we see the emergence of a pessimistic worldview, modern philosophy, and even ignorance”an intentional escape from thinking in the shape of postmodernism. The story of c-trade will closely resemble that of philosophy: Stocks will lose their value in a single day, and nobody will want any more self-awareness than they already have.

However, one day, when everybody has forgotten about c-trade, a person will emerge and lead humanity to everlasting happiness. This person will first perform a c-transplantation surgery on a living person to remove the c as if it were a tumor that does not kill but sometimes gives unbearable pain. And he will not transplant that c to someone else, but just throw it away.

Collective responsibility

But just acknowledging this shared responsibility is not enough. Frequently, the real problem is group inaction, for harm can be prevented if enough people form a group to prevent it. Collective responsibility often can be ascribed to those people who have the ability to form such groups but do not do so. To the extent that this is the case, they are collectively responsible for their collective inaction.

Members of the dominant Western culture may consider it overly severe to assert that all of us are collectively responsible for our failure to do something about the world’s many problems. While not saying that people who do not form groups are guilty due to their inaction, I do feel that our inaction should provoke a sense of shame within us.

Goodin describes his approach as putting consequences to the fore, meaning that consequences quickly take up the whole stage, not just its front and center. He preserves a central link between responsibility and causality, and claims to make better sense of our present practices of responsibility. Larry May sets out to expand significantly our sense of responsibility within groups. The keystone of moral responsibility here is that for who one chooses to be. Attitudes and habits, states of mind and character, roles and affiliations, and the professional, institutional, and social climates shaping our interests, perceptions, and values are reviewed even as we continue to shape them.

A welcome but difficult result is that we are responsible for failures of awareness and insensitivity, as well as unexamined habits, traits, allegiances, and identifications that predispose us to moral failure. Another result is that people should see themselves as responsible for certain harmful events occurring within their communities, even if they are not direct participants or cannot prevent them. We are”and should feel”accountable for tolerating our own morally flawed character, contributing to a morally irresponsible attitudinal climate, or failing to reckon adequately with our institutional roles. These enriched bases of responsibility are not intended as new bases for subjecting people to punishment. I suggest that shame and taint, not just guilt, are appropriate individual reactions to expanded responsibility.

My concern is the collectivities, attitudinal climates, and expectation of groups that shape what people think is up to them and what they become used to ignoring. This has implications for all people who function within institutions where the most significant outcomes are the work of many minds and hands. A group’s responsibility is a fundamental moral issue. Therefore, groups are responsible for events and should be held responsible for them.

Shared responsibility

People should see themselves as sharing responsibility for the harm experienced by their communities far more often than they do. There is a distinction between shared responsibility and collective responsibility. Collective responsibility applies to a group as such (not necessarily to individual members), whereas shared responsibility applies to individuals within groups because of their membership relation with the group. We live in a world of groups. Groups affect our daily life, attitudes, and character, and greatly increase our power to act. Individuals receive great benefits from group membership. Those increased benefits and power should come with increased responsibility. Yet, although groups cause more and greater harm than individuals and have a greater capacity to correct large-scale social problems, individuals typically identify less with harm caused by groups and less often assume responsibility for them.

People share responsibility for harm done by groups, including those that result from omission. More harm occurs collectively than individually, and yet people take less responsibility for it for two reasons: Groups break problems into pieces, responsibility gets diffused, and groups allow individuals to assume that someone else will”or at least could”act. An expanded notion of moral negligence, the idea that since individuals within groups and the group’s structure and policies influence one another, and since group membership structures its members’ values and tends to desensitize them, individual members should be aware of this and responsible for reducing the risk of harm perpetrated by their group. Since there is a duty to act, the failure to do so may constitute negligence. This makes group members responsible for group values and, derivatively, for whatever harm the group does.

Shared responsibility is particularly appropriate for the value transformations that occur within groups. Since people affect one another’s conduct more, and attitudes are more closely shared, people should feel a heightened sense of responsibility to offset any risks associated with misconduct, including negligent omission or inaction. Of course, there is always the problem of defining the scope of negligence. This problem can be handled by using a reasonable person standard to ascertain what our roles would commit us to. We are not negatively responsible for all of the world’s failures, but only what a reasonable group of fellow citizens would expect of someone in our circumstances. Recognizing negative responsibility, including responsibility for omis-sions that allow an unreasonable risk of group harm, helps people lead lives that are more integrated with their moral values, because that involves both acts and omissions. To be in harmony with ourselves, we need to integrate principles with behavior that promotes moral integrity.

Conclusion

Shared responsibility, by focusing the issues of responsibility in a different light, provides us with the beginning of an account of how people, as moral agents, are connected to and function within groups and institutions. This analysis also provides a picture of the nature of informal groups and social relations. Most human relations influence the daily life, attitudes, assumptions, aspirations, and acts of individuals everywhere, such as in voluntary associations. We should remember the team’s perception of the Challenger space shuttle disaster: It is time to take your engineer’s cap off and put on your manager’s cap.1 An aggregate approach or something like it is necessary here, making shared and vicarious responsibility particularly appropriate. 

Footnote

1. Amy Gutnam and Dennis Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997), 189.

References

• Goodin, Robert E. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• Gutnam, Amy and Dennis Thompson. Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997.
• May, Larry. Sharing Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
• Thampson, Dennis E. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Jalal: Let me begin first. Basing myself on the Islamic viewpoint, I argue that in an Islamic political regime, sovereignty can belong only to God. However, given that democracy means popular sovereignty, democracy is anti-Islamic.

Jamal: Your argument is based on your reductionist worldview. There is only right or wrong for you. Your world is black and white, and has no room for any gray area. Real life is fuzzier than your rigid opinions.

Contrary to your claim, God’s ontological sovereignty and the people’s political sovereignty are not contradictory. I believe that God, in His capacity as the ultimate Creator, created everything. Therefore, God is sovereign in the universe.

However, His creation in the material universe is different from His creation in social life. He has given each person the freedom of choice and free will; no other member or part of creation has these abilities. Given this, God can create something in social life even though it does not seem appropriate. For instance, He creates heroin and creates the people’s actions when they use it. However, God does not like the people to use it. In other words, He orders them not to use it but does not force them not to use it. God provides the people with free will and thereby makes them responsible for own decisions.

So, God creates whatever happens. Therefore, electing a leader is ontologically a creation of God and cannot contradict His sovereignty, although we cannot know whether this is an appropriate election in His sight.

Jalal: I still think that any popular vote is incompatible with Islam. Think about the designations of Prophethood. God is the ultimate decision-maker Who chooses the Prophets, regardless of what the people think.

Jamal: Perfect example! Of course, the people cannot elect a Prophet through voting, because by definition a Prophet is God’s messenger. Political leaders, however, are the people’s representatives, not God’s. Also, the Qur’an states that no Prophet will come after Prophet Muhammad. Thus, the people are free to elect their own leaders.

Furthermore, democracy based on popular sovereignty is an alternative to monarchy and oligarchy, not to God’s sovereignty. Why don’t you accept that monarchical and oligarchic sovereignties also contradict His sovereignty? Can you really claim that the various royal dynasties received their right to rule from God? Similarly, are the militaristic regimes the shadow of God upon Earth? I don’t think so.

Jalal: Frankly, I never thought of that. But I’m still curious about what you would say if a man-made rule happens to contradict a Divine rule. In Islam, the Qur’an and the Hadith reflect God’s commands and so are accepted as absolute truth. In a democracy, however, ideally the people have the absolute power and legitimacy to create the law.

Jamal: But there is no paradox here. First, Muslim populations normally do not support laws that contradict the Revelation. Second, the Qur’an or Hadith contain no concrete and fixed political principles. Politics deals with temporary and mundane issues, which are subject to change according to time and place. Thus, the people can pass laws that are compatible with the constant, general, and universal principles of Divine rule on one hand, and with changeable sociopolitical contexts on the other. Third, it is more likely that the sovereignty of dictators, dynasties, or oligarchies will contradict the Divine rule than the sovereignty of the people will.

Finally, democracy has different forms, such as direct and representative. In direct democracy, the people vote directly in referendums for almost every political issue. In representative democracy, however, politics is conducted by the people’s representatives. Moreover, some representative democracies (e.g., the U.S.) have a Supreme (or Constitutional) Court to restrict law-making. In sum, possible contradictions between popular sovereignty and Divine rule can be minimized by creating institutions (e.g., a representative system and a Supreme Court) that include some Divine rules as pillars of the constitution.

Jalal: You try to show that democracy is compatible with Islam

Jamal: Moreover, I accept democracy as being more compatible with Islam than with non-democratic systems. The Prophet’s statement that my community will never agree upon an error reveals that the people are the source of political legitimacy. Moreover, the fact that the four Rightly Guided Caliphs were elected shows that election is a more suitable political institution for Muslims than any monarchic or oligarchic alternatives, despite the fact that such elections may not necessarily be considered purely democratic according to modern standards.

Jalal: If everything is so smooth, why did classical Islamic thinkers oppose democracy?

Jamal: First, evaluating classical thinkers by modern paradigms is an anachronism. Historical ideas need to be examined in their historical contexts. Don’t forget that until the French Revolution, monarchy was the dominant political institution. Second, many classical Islamic thinkers (e.g., al-Baqilani and al-Mawardi) generally emphasized the necessity of elections in determining a new caliph. They did not legitimize hereditary systems. Finally, the non-democratic components of classical thought are the results of historical sociopolitical contexts instead of the essence of the Islamic thought. Therefore, Islamic political thought can easily adapt, adopt, and legitimize democratic systems.

Jalal: If Islam and democracy are so compatible, why are so many Muslim countries non-democratic?

Jamal: As I have tried to demonstrate, Islam does not necessarily oppose democracy and is not the only cause of non-democratic regimes in the Muslim world. While discussing the lack of democracy in Muslim countries, one should consider such other factors as the economic, cultural, and international conditions that shape these countries’ political systems.

Second, Islam can be interpreted from different political viewpoints. While Islam encourages obedience to the rulers (4:59), it also encourages resistance. For example, the Prophet said: The best jihad is to say the truth to a tyrant’s face. Non-democratic Muslim rulers have their own interpretations of Islam, which have been shaped by their particular conditions. Therefore, their practices cannot represent Islam’s theoretical principles and essentials and its relations with democracy.

Jalal: Sounds interesting. Are you saying that democracy is the only political system compatible with Islam?

Jamal: No. Muslims may have changeable opinions, although Islam has absolute and universal values. The essentials of Islam are unchangeable and eternal truths. Political ideas, however, depend upon circumstances. Thus they are not absolute and change along with the sociopolitical and economic transformations. For that reason, Muslims could accept multiple political arguments. At this point in time, I personally prefer democracy to other political systems. However, if another system proves to serve humanity better, I might favor that one.