Fethullah Gulen is affectionately and respectfully called “Hodjaefendi” in the Muslim world. In the rest of the world he is a welcomed as a well-respected contemporary thinker, better known as a democratic figure and social renovator who appeals to the common sense of large masses. The Messenger of God: Muhammad by this respected author has been translated in due time addressing the needs of Russian readers.

Modern civilization calls for new ideas to be thought up and new words to be uttered. It seems as if Fethullah Gulen has been sent to our irresolute and apprehensive world by God Almighty to pronounce these.

It is well-known that the Qur’an names Christians and Jews, together with Muslims, as the People of the Book, i.e. believers of one God. Members of monotheistic faiths will embrace this book as a renewed confirmation of this truth, which is a common property of all of humanity. God Almighty has embedded in the essence of humankind a natural inclination to search for the deeper aspects of things and events, to look for love and beauty, and to reach perfection. Religious belief has been genetically injected into the nature of human beings, as the author of this introduction, as well as his colleagues concerned with natural sciences, have written countless times. The essentials of faith and practiced religious duties are in perfect harmony with the needs of human nature.

The Messenger of God is overflowing with faith in God Almighty, the One and only Creator of everything, and it is woven with a deep love of humanity, along with a complete trust in the triumph of “goodness” and “faith.” These two concepts have always been indispensable constituents that make up the basis for the continuity of life. Other works of the prominent scholar Fethullah Gulen need to be considered within the scope of the significance attributed to this work.

Until the end of the 20th century, everything about Islam, the Qur’an and its teachings, God’s final Messenger Muhammad-peace and blessings be upon him-and everything related to him and his Sunna have been faced by various kinds of opposition. Clear truth is obscured where there is oppression and persecution. Deliberately or not, the casual interpretation of anything related to the Prophet and the Qur’an from time to time has paved the way for replacement of Qur’anic truths with exaggerated slogans.

This book by Gulen is a satisfactory work for Muslims who are well aware that such casual interpretations of the Qur’an not only harm individuals but the entire society. The situation is even more critical for Muslims in Russia. This book will surely help people to comprehend the Qur’an more deeply and reflect on it in parallel with modern science, thanks to its academic qualities, carefully chosen expressions, and clear style.

Hopefully, this work by Fethullah Gulen will be a means to feel the Divine Revelation in our hearts and minds, to comprehend it better. I see The Messenger of God as a book to be read by different generations in a family, which will teach them the moral principles of Islam, contribute to the birth of a healthy society, and spread tolerance among them.

As for the non-Muslim audience, the readers can find various positive remarks and the true values of Islam undistorted by political considerations. As a person of a special position and deep spirituality, Fethullah Gulen presents how dialogue, a dialogue between people who give credit for different opinions and give others a chance to speak, but lead their own lives according to their free will and conscience, yields wonderful fruit.

Fethullah Gulen does not tell us to tolerate everything and that we should reach an absolute consensus on every subject. The non-Muslim audience will find various reasons that push them to have arguments with the author in their minds. At the same time however, the reader will see how removed Islam is from terror and other similar vices which endanger human life and make life more difficult for us. On the other hand, there have always been good on one side, evil on the other. The choice depends on individuals. This work will be a means for the human spirit to meet the Absolute Truth, in other words, God Almighty. Dear reader, all that I have said so far makes me dare to say, the book you are going to read is a book of “goodness.”

Translated from the foreword by Vitaliy Ivanovich Sheremet, for the Russian edition of the book.

Dr. Vitaliy Sheremet is a professor at the Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences. 

We dream of a generation who will embrace and build the future upon interpreting problems not according to the sources or reasons from which they arise, but with respect to their ideals. If we are passengers who are on different paths and using different strategies, but all heading for the same destination, then why should we defame the others who are with us on this sacred journey that has such a lofty goal?

The circumstances that will shape humanity in the future, in particular current world affairs, are forcing us to act with utmost care and alertness; in fact, they are forcing us to do so to such an extent that any decision hastily taken for temporary measures will result in errors that have no compensation. The architects of the future are obliged to build their world on the foundations of what human love and respect stand for and what they appear to be.

With its many dimensions, the modern world has pushed humanity into many dark alleys. And we have come face to face with many problems, the nature of which we have no idea. We are trying to cope with these problems, but they are extremely slippery and inconsistent, and in due proportion the outcomes are full of contradictions. There are thousands of Khidrs who are committed to fetch the water of life from Mount Qaf for humanity, but none of them possess any sign of the elixir of immortality. Despite all the efforts of these people who are “apostles-to-be,” respect for the human soul has been severely challenged by real dangers.

We have struggled for many years in this way; nevertheless, we have not accomplished any synthesis that will constitute the pillars of tomorrow. This has indeed been impossible. Our feelings and thoughts have promised and brought about discrete things, and we were like musicians with a broken record and an incomplete composition, swaying from one door to another, looking for a producer. When every individual denies all the other truths because of the portion of truth which they hold in their hands, and when they compel others to stick to their respective portions, will it ever be possible to have ideas line up one after another, to attain new syntheses, or to discover remedies that save? Can this ever be possible while some are harassing others with accusations of unbelief and sinning, or even physically assaulting them?

The present situation that we have reached today is very dramatic and thought-provoking. Those who walked side-by-side in the past are strangers to one another today. The truths and untruths have been shifted, in accordance with group preferences, from their foundational pillars to rest on slippery rails. Under such chaotic conditions, it is impossible to discern either the loftiness of the goal or the differences of the means to attain it.

Humanity today appears to have become fixated on a single flower alone, although they had set out to enjoy the spring. They have lost all their hopes for reaching the goal that is on this path; the means to do so are what they have been fighting for. Their efforts and actions are merely to engage in effort and action. Just like a guide who has forgotten the responsibility of serving the temple and their servanthood to God, who is absorbed by trying to entertain the visiting tourists, so too have those who devoted themselves to a clique or a party today become foreign and indifferent to the ideal and the goal.

The humanity of our time has been imprisoned by focusing on one flower on the way to the spring, and has been deceived by a drop while chasing the ocean. I feel that such slavery will be impossible to overcome until we have liberated humanity and given them a new outlook. We are burdened with the task of expressing the truth . . I wish that we had been able to have done so!

No matter how charming and enchanting the atmosphere that catches the eye or fills the heart is there is no permission for us to forget the truth to which we are committed. We cannot stay alien toward each other while we are in the same camp. We do not have a monopoly of the good and the beautiful; therefore we cannot be allowed to wage a war with the passengers who are heading to the same destination but on a different path.

We may have some criticisms about the path and system of someone who thinks differently from us; this is an expression of minds that operate in different ways. But, if we are striving to reach the same horizon, we must at least respect the way others think. This is a prerequisite of heading in the same direction, sharing the same belief, utilizing the same terminology, and finally and above all, of respecting the sacred meaning glorified by God Almighty.

Let us be respectful to humankind! Let us respect the exalted truths they possess. Let us love them because of their Almighty Creator. If we can raise a community upon this perspective, people will eventually recover and they will manage to compensate for whatever they have lost.

The name of God is different in different languages of the world and in the minds of those who accept the Creator as the only God; the Christians, Muslims, Jews and other believers, around 60-70% of the global population. Yet this name corresponds for them with the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur’an. In all these instances, there is a Holy Word, in one form or another. The task of every believer is to recognize the very form that the Creator uses to call His Creation. This is a personal issue that originates from the religion that one worships.

So, what is the problem that faces genetics at the beginning of the 3rd millennium and how does it correspond with the Creator’s expressed will and His call to us?

It is here where there is a prospect for a remarkable breakthrough in knowledge, if only… This “if only” can be connected to academic achievements and issues.

In fact, over the last three or four years scientists have discovered by very sophisticated means and through careful research that the genetic code that governs the human body-and, in a broader sense, everything that is alive in Nature-accounts for no more than 1% of the DNA molecular length of the structure that determines the development of all living species. This discovery was as shocking for scientists as the deciphering of the genetic code had been. They concluded that the genetic programming occurred in the DNA molecular “free zone.” Here, scientists-among them the Russian naturalists A.G. Gurevitch and V.I. Vernadskiy, who some 50-70 years ago claimed that a purely materialistic understanding of the gene was the limit to which non-believing science could go-were proven to be right.

The new discoveries are most certainly related to the emergence of such sophisticated physical instruments as the laser, holography, sol tonics and even powerful computers. Modern technology has proved, without a doubt that the program in space and time for the creation of the human organism is not based on random accident, but rather is predetermined from “above.” The protein molecules and the amino acids that comprise the gene (to date, more than twenty different types of amino acids have been discovered) are placed in a particular order. A single fitting lock-and-key relation exists in the composition of the genetic code components. In addition, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the genetic code of species that live on the Earth has not changed in three billion years, i.e., there is no room to talk about evolution, the principal postulate of materialists. Then, who or what has created the origin for everything that exists today on our planet several billion years after the creation of the Earth?

Then there is another puzzle: Why does the genetic code have such a small place, only taking up 1% of the DNA?

Scientists in Russia have learned that 99% of DNA-which was previously considered to be useless-hides within itself the so-called “genetic computer” that comprises the programs needed to make living organisms into a variety of species and these mask the genetic features that are unique to a particular species. It is not completely clear how the mechanism of this so-called genetic computer works, but it does work. The concept of a holographic mechanism for the storage, transference, and recovery of information was developed as the result of an experiment.

Scientists took a freshly cut leaf, chopped off part of it, and put this between two slides and two photo plates. As the picture developed, it became clear that the leaf was depicted whole. In short, an idea or a phantom had been photographed. These first experiments were conducted in Russia in the 1960s.

Russian, American, and British genetic scientists continuously repeated the experiment, taking phantom photographs of different objects, and came to the conclusion that science was dealing with a multidimensional picture of the leaf, or its hologram.

Based on this, some other puzzles were solved. The “genetic computer” manages the development of holograms by means of special static waves, called sol tones (the name sol tonics, a special scientific branch, is derived from this term) that function in the DNA embryo cells.

Scientists have long since established that out of one single fertilized ovule other ovules start to instantly develop, as if on command; these are responsible, for instance, for making bone, muscle, nerve and other systems within the human body. And over this totally material process there floats a totally immaterial phantom that dictates and shows the embryo the way to develop.

In other words, there is a certain image according to which development proceeds. The DNA is the text that controls this creation, with its inherent rules of composition; it is possible to perceive the DNA as being made up of letters, i.e. a word. At first there was the Word! This is a quote from the Bible. In Islam, Almighty Allah gave the Word by means of the Qur’an (reading) to Muhammad. A phrase from the Qur’an describes the above process in an amazingly simple and pertinent way:

It is He Who fashions you in the wombs as He will. There is no deity but He, the All-Glorious (with irresistible might), the All-Wise. (Al Imran, 3:6)

The Word of the Creator, according to which the genome “works,” is registered with greater security in the bio-system apparatus. It will only disappear in conjunction with the last of the human beings. This may be the very idea behind what is called the Day of Judgment, or Doomsday in Islam and other religions.

In the context of Einstein’s principles of a single field theory, as well as in Shipov’s physical vacuum theory, it may be possible to find clarification of the phenomenon, when in one case a wave matrix (copy) remains “clean,” but distorted in another.

It is worth discussing here those things that have already been proven. The programs written in the DNA cannot have emerged as a result of simple evolution, in the very least as, due to the huge volume of information contained here, the time required would have exceeded the time that the Universe has existed, that is around 15 billion years. We have established an approximate time that would be required for the genetic transformations that determine the essence of human beings to occur. It is substantially less…

Another study has been carried out that does not fit into the traditional materialistic frames. It seems that the internal structural information of DNA alone is not enough to develop an accurate replica of the image organism from the composition of the protein elements. Numerous experiments carried out by Russian scientists (in particular, from the Moscow Scientific and Cardiology Center) have proved that a frog embryo that has been purposefully protected to a great degree from external influences, distorts, suffering from malformation and finally dying. This means that a DNA has to be connected-maybe by means of sol tones waves or other contacts still unknown to us-with an “external source” that guides the genome-bio-computer work from somewhere in Space. One cannot but recall Muhammad here, the last of the Greatest Prophets, who categorically rejected the possibility of not only seeing, but even imagining the Almighty.

There are few people who still argue about the existence of the soul. The time when the soul departs from the body has been well-documented by scientists, doctors, and naturalists. As a matter of fact, the soul emerges when the heart cells die, that is, when the organism as a whole dies. It is at this time that a certain phantom of the genetic apparatus is formed, similar to the one described above in the phenomenon of the phantom leaf. It is interesting to contemplate the idea that the phantom of a human genetic apparatus that has lost their life by force would possess a high biological reaction and would therefore be in a position to distort and destroy any healthy molecules that may be close by. One cannot but recall the imperative ban on killing the innocent that is contained both in the Old Testament and the Qur’an, a call to leave retaliation to Him and to Him only.

In conclusion to my brief essay on the necessity of belief in today’s science, the common scientific way tries to explain “how,” but it fails to answer the question of “why” that lies behind the mystery of existence. Any scientific approach rejecting faith is doomed to fail; for faith is an inherent need for us. The belief in Him, the Single and Almighty, is genetically programmed. In a hadith reported in Sahih al-Bukhari, God’s Messenger states that every person is born in the primordial nature (fitra) of Islam.

Here, at the beginning of the 3rd millennium, at the height of our scientific achievements, we have come to understand God as a natural phenomenon. We must follow His guidance and not distort the Word or the Image of love that has been implanted by the Creator in our genetic code with mindless acts and evil speeches.

Dr. Vitaliy Sheremet is a professor at the Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.

When we look at our bodies, we see that everything is taken care of already: respiratory systems, nervous systems, and all others work without our control. It is as if we dwell in a palace where everything is already optimized and automated for our living conditions³ Therefore, being the resident of this palace, the ego is responsible for using these given faculties in a way to keep harmony between inside and outside. This tells us that it is the ego that must emulate the concept of “accelerated motion.” If we rephrase this concept, we can say that it is the ego that must undergo a continuous change in order to achieve beauty and order inside and establish harmony between inside and outside. Considering that our knowledge of ourselves and of the world around us is limited, how can we educate our egos to achieve this harmony? Let’s make a journey into the major human to answer the question concerning the minor universe.

First observation

We see that everything in the universe changes, and nothing remains unchanged. Slow or fast, nature is in a continuous motion and change. Thus nature is never the same twice. Interestingly, within this continuous change, we see periodicities. Although things are never the same on a small scale, we see repeating epochs on a larger scale, such as the alternation of day and night, the cycle of the seasons, and the birth-growth-death period in all living things.

Second observation

We also observe that the great cycles of change that take place in the universe conceive a criterion or a point around which they rotate. For example, the planets assume the sun as their axis of rotation; the stars take the galaxy center as their axis of rotation.

Third observation

When we look at nature, we see that there is solidarity between the living and non-living things through which non-living ones become sustenance for the living ones. We also see solidarity among living things⁴ to sustain each others’ existence on Earth so that none of the species leave the stage.

Fourth observation⁵

Another fact that catches the eye is multi-tasking in nature. For example, we see air as a conductor of light, sound and heat; we see it entering our lungs and participating in our bodily reactions. Again the same air goes into other living things and functions in those systems in harmony. Soil is another example. We see the soil as a nest for all kinds of seeds, which function differently from each other; and the same soil is used for the construction of the bodies of living things and even their homes.

In order to have the beauty and the order of the major universe reflected on the minor one, i.e. human, the change and periodicity, the assumption of a criterion (an axis of rotation), the solidarity, and the multi-tasking must be represented in the human ego, which is responsible for the body it is dwelling in.

Role shift⁶

In our daily lives, we take on different roles depending on our positions. A successful person is the one who recognizes the requirements of each of these roles and, therefore, is able to adjust himself according to these requirements. A person who is a boss at work is not supposed to act like a boss at home. Either a parent role or the spouse role must be recalled. However, the following two mechanisms may prevent such a role shift: the resistance of the ego to change (inertia) and the strong desire of ego to become the axis of rotation for its surroundings.

Axis of rotation

Some of our attitudes imply rejection of any ties to a Supreme Power. This leads to a sub-conscious assumption by which we consider ourselves as the axis of rotation for everything and everybody else. However, the universe is not created according to our selfish comfort; and other people also have their own ego which tempts them to the same sub-conscious assumption by which they may consider themselves as the axis of rotation. It is obvious that in a family or in a society where everybody wants to be the axis of rotation, conflicts will arise, and soon the unity will collapse. A dynamic ego, on the other hand, would recognize a Supreme Power and try to change according to the manners described by Him. Recognition of the Supreme Power also requires introspection and self-criticism according to the criteria explained by that Power. As a result of this introspection and self-criticism, a dynamic ego will apologize for its transgressions, leading to self-change.

Sometimes it is possible to gain by losing

The solidarity embedded in nature represents itself in two main ways. One involves directly helping each other for survival, such as between a mother and her children. The other is by self-sacrificing for others’ survival, such as plants becoming food for animals, and animals becoming food for plants in a cyclical manner, etc. Based on these two solidarities, life on Earth has continued for thousands of years. Similarly, in a healthy relationship, people not only help each other but also self-sacrifice for others. If any of the members of this relationship tries to fix himself/herself as the center and incessantly ask for sacrifice from the other, the relationship collapses sooner or later. An example of such a collapse is the current state of the environment. The excessive and irresponsible actions of human beings towards nature in the recent centuries has led to human comfort at the expense of the strength of life on Earth.

The superheroes: soil, water, fire, air

In terms of multi-tasking, we observe in nature superheroes that do everything but do not get credit: soil, water, fire, air. None of these has an ego. They do not have a conscious mind, either. Somehow, they are working everywhere we see, doing miraculous things. Furthermore, they are obedient to us; we can use them however we want. The coexistence of super-powers and obedience is something that is in complete contradiction to the superhero picture we have in mind.

According to our perception, a superhero can do everything, solve every problem, etc., but most of all, a superhero works alone and has his own rules. Unfortunately, in real life, we hardly observe a superhero that is, say, a good family member or a good teacher who can educate new superheroes. This is because real life and super-powers have opposite requirements: patience vs. speed, self-sacrifice vs. self-realization, giving birth to multitudes vs. remaining as “The Hero.” Without proper education, super-properties will eventually lead to a super-ego that idolizes itself. This type of a character does not make up a healthy personality and is a threat to the survival of the society. From this, it can be deduced that self-improvement and self-realization, if not motivated properly, lead to self-idolization, which is not the way to go for an ego. So, what is the ultimate motive for an ego?

Based on the example of the supers of nature, a suggested statement of the ultimate goal or motive for the ego is being of use as much as, and as best as, possible without gaining credit. However, this statement is not going to satisfy and/or motivate the ego. This is because the ego’s nature requires some “food” for survival. We would not be humans without our egos. So what is the food of the ego? Some people feed their egos with self-satisfaction, which leads to arrogance or pragmatism. Some others choose to take other people’s pleasure as their ego food, which does not work in the long run, since nobody has the power to give all the time without receiving. As a third choice, some people prefer to choose God’s pleasure as a survival for their ego, which looks more promising compared to the other two in terms of self-satisfaction and service to other people.

Challenge in the ego education: Inertia

As human beings, the more we grow, the more we build our own personality/ego and show a sub-conscious resistance to change. This is similar to a train that has already accelerated and which will require a great force to change direction and/or slow down. In another way, it is similar to a piece of brittle solid, like ice, which will break into pieces when hit by a hammer. This solid form of ego is the result of lack of education and sincere love; it eventually becomes a thick, opaque veil in front of the eyes of its carrier, and filters all the warnings coming from outside that point to a need for change⁷ So, how are we going to keep our egos ready for change?

Based on the examples of the train and ice given above, two principles can be seen in order to facilitate the change for ego: obedience and love. The train is subject to the train tracks, therefore it is obedient to the direction shown by the track; it does not go as its inertia requires. Also a piece of ice will not shatter into pieces when hit by a hammer, if that ice is melted⁸ What melts the ego is the heat of love and affection sourcing from the heart. So, to keep our egos ready for changes, we must find a reliable track to obey and the heat of love to melt our egos.

The scenic view

The big picture drawn in this article is based on an alternating motion model with respect to a reliable point of reference. This vision is similar to the rotation of the Earth, both around its own axis and around the sun, which leads to the change of day and night and the alternation of seasons. This continuous change gives birth to the continued existence of life on Earth, where incredible beauties are displayed everyday, every moment. It is up to us to use the free will given by our Designer to preserve the dynamic character of our ego by which we can become the best of creation. It is also our free choice to give in to the inertia that is inherent in it.

Notes

1. Nursi, S., Epitomes of Light, Kaynak, p. 439.
2. Nursi, S., The Letters, Kaynak, Vol. II, p. 16.
3. Nursi, S., Epitomes of Light, Kaynak, p. 258.
4. ibid.
5. Nursi, S., The Words, Vol. I, Kaynak, pp. 211-214.
6. ibid, pp. 251-253.
7. ibid, Vol. II, pp. 238-239.
8. Nursi, S., Flashes Collection, Sozler Publications, p. 220.

Most Christian faith groups teach that Jesus was conceived by his mother Mary while she was still a virgin. This is believed to have been accomplished without an act of sexual intercourse. This doctrine is usually called the “virgin birth,” although the term “virgin conception” would be much more accurate. Biblical references commonly cited about the virgin birth are Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. Various polls have found that about 80% of American adults believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. This exceeds the total number of American adults who identify themselves as Christian or Muslim. The Qur’an, the direct words of God, dictated by an angel to Prophet Muhammad, has two main references to Mary’s virginal status at the conception of Jesus: 19:16 to 22 contains a birth narrative, while 21:91 confirms her virginity. Almost 100% of Muslim adults in the world believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

The question that frequently comes up in the minds of many is the same: How did Mary conceive? There have been different ways of explaining this. For some people, the natural phenomenon of parthenogenesis provides such an explanation. Some animal species can reproduce from an unfertilized oocyte, in a process called parthenogenesis. Although this phenomenon is quite common in plants and insects, it does not appear in any creature above the level of the amphibians. No verified case of parthenogenesis has occurred in humans, and it is considered impossible for species as complex as the higher apes or humans³ An additional complexity would be that Jesus would have been female after the parthenogenetic division of an XX oocyte, since he would have lacked the Y chromosome normally contributed by a human father. Parthenogenesis is not, therefore, a logical explanation to account for the virgin birth of Jesus.

The birth of Jesus without a biological father, in fact, should be viewed as a supernatural event-a miracle, to be more accurate. It would be useful to define here what we mean by miracle. Although a miracle is a supernatural phenomenon, there is a minimal natural cause for the miracle, which is then caused to happen by God, as appropriate. Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, touched a small portion of food with his blessed hands; and this food became sufficient for an entire army. Likewise, he poured water from a flask onto his hands, and the water was made enough to satisfy hundreds of people. Even though God Almighty assigns a duty to natural causes-even if the influence of the natural cause is not more than 1-3%-we should accept that in miracles it may not always be possible to have a materialistic interpretation for everything. By definition, miracles are extraordinary events that God Almighty grants to His messengers to prove their prophethood and strengthen the believers’ faith. To insist on their essential rationality is to deny their existence as miracles, and hence an objection to the revelation at some level. The universe operates according to God’s fixed laws, which allow us to discover the divine laws of nature and make scientific progress. However, God has determined these laws and therefore He is not bound by them. He may sometimes annul a law or change the ordinary flow of events to allow a Prophet to perform what we call a miracle⁴

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi comments on the miracles in his magnum opus, The Words, as follows:

By relating the prophets’ spiritual and moral perfections, the Qur’an encourages people to benefit from them. By presenting their miracles, the Qur’an urges people to achieve something similar through science. It may even be said that, like spiritual and moral attainments, material attainments and wonders were first given to humanity as gifts through prophetic miracles. . . . [Miracles] comprise numerous indications of guidance. By relating these miracles, the Qur’an shows the ultimate goal of scientific and technological developments, and specifies their final aims, toward which it urges humanity⁵

So what else can we learn from the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus? Does it indicate any specific scientific discovery? In this respect, we may refer to at least one other explanation by which a virgin conception could have been occurred, turning again to the Qur’an for an answer, as there is no contradiction between the Qur’an, the Word of God, and laws of nature, which have been designed by God. In verse 3:37 “… her Lord accepted her with gracious favor and enabled to her a good growth” the word nabat is used to describe Mary’s growth, literally meaning “plant” in Arabic. Alongside the miracle of Mary’s sustenance, could this verse be encouraging us to study the plant world to observe how plants reproduce?

Many flowering plants can reproduce by self-fertilization because a single flower produces both eggs and sperm cells. Flowers contain two sets of structures that are important for fertilization. The first is an organ that contains pollen grains, each of which contains two male sperm cells. The second is an organ that contains one or more ovaries, each of which contains egg cells (oocytes) (Fig.1). At fertilization, the pollen delivers two sperm cells to the ovary, where one sperm cell fuses with the egg cell, and the fertilized egg grows to form an embryo⁶ A question naturally arises at this point. Could a human being have two different reproductive cell types (both oocyte and sperm) at the same time? The simple answer is “yes.”

In some persons, both ovarian and testicular tissues are present, either in the same or in opposite gonads⁷ About 13% of these persons are derived from more than one zygote and are known as chimeras (chi 46,XX/46,XY)⁸ Cases with normal male and normal female phenotypes have been ascertained as an incidental finding⁹ Chimeras are the result of the fusion of two zygotes to form a single embryo and they contain cells from two separate zygotes in a single organism¹⁰ The fusion of two zygotes may occur soon after fertilization, producing an individual with genetically different kinds of tissue. If the fused zygotes are of different sexes, then the individual develops both ovarian and testicular tissues¹¹ The majority of these people are best reared as females and many pregnancies with living offspring have been reported in persons reared as females;¹² in contrast, only one person has apparently fathered a child¹³ The wisdom of the Qur’an is no doubt beyond the current level of scientific development and the human mind, and what we may deduce from verse 3:37 and scientific research, in fact, is little more than mere speculation. We certainly do not mean to suggest that Mary was a hermaphrodite; the Qur’an clearly states that she was a woman (5:75). Rather, it may be possible that she could have been a woman who had been derived from the fusion of two different embryos; i.e. a chimera.

The statement in the Qur’an (3:37) may demonstrate that Mary could have been a chimera of XX/XY type, and she might have been created by the fusion of two embryos to become one. Of course, God Almighty knows best. And whatever our limited explanation may be, it is clear that Mary co-operated in the formation of Jesus’ body just as every other mother co-operates in the formation of the body of her child. In the end, whether one looks to science or not for an understanding of the deeper mysteries of life, there is consensus among the great majority of Christians and Muslims that Jesus came to earth by means of a virgin birth. And the virgin birth of Jesus was a miracle.

Notes

1. Moore KL, Persaud TVN, The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed. Saunders, Philadelphia, 2003, p. 16.
2. ibid.
3. ibid.
4. M.Fethullah Gulen, The Essentials of the Islamic Faith, The Light, Inc., NJ:2005, pp. 193-4.
5. Said Nursi, The Words, The Twentieth Word, The Light, Inc. NJ: 2005, p. 267.
6. Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P. Molecular Biology of the Cell, ed Gibbs S. 4th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2002, pp. 1243-1246.
7. Behrman RE, Kliegman RM, Jenson HB. Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics 17th ed. Saunders, Philadelphia, 2004, p. 1945.
8. ibid.
9. Tanaka Y, Fujiwara K, Yamauchi H, Mikami Y, Kohno I. Pregnancy in a woman with a Y chromosome after removal of an ovarian dysgerminoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 79: 519-521.
10. Strachan T, Read AP. Human Molecular Genetics. 3rd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2004, p. 110.
11. ibid.
12. Haqq CM, Donahoe PK. Regulation of sexual dimorphism in mammals. Physiol Rev. 1998; 78: 1-33.
13. Krob G, Braun A, Kuhnle U. True hermaphroditism: geographical distribution, clinical findings, chromosomes and gonadal histology. Eur J Pediatr. 1994; 153: 2-10.

Montaigne says that the main motivation for writing his famous Essays was to end his great solitude. Why was he lonely? Why did he feel alone and prefer conversing with his readers in an attempt to reduce his isolation? The answer to this question again can be found in his writings. He came from a wilder region of France, from behind the Alps that divided Western Europe. Thus, he was protected from the ills that the Italian Renaissance had imposed on European mentalities. What made him feel lonely was the meeting of his country with these new ideas and sects, the murder of thousands of people in the war of Saint Bartholomew (1572) on religious pretexts, and the arrival of this “European” attitude to his hometown²

This isolation preserved Montaigne from the mental crisis that his contemporaries were experiencing. He looks at both the past and the present and future within the possibilities that exist in the “thought from the wilderness.” It is for this reason that he has no prejudices. He is a free man of the world. This fact is demonstrated in his attitude toward the Orient and in particular to the Ottomans, whose images had been so distorted because of established prejudices.

Islam in European Culture

The thesis that supports the idea that there were vital differences between European and Ottoman societies and cultures and the politics of positioning them as opposites who were not willing to come to an agreement should give way to the thesis that there are more complicated and closer relationships between them. A deeper investigation will even allow us to trace signs of a “modern” mentality in the Ottoman culture that reaches all the way back to the beginning of the sixteenth century³ The Ottomans were interested in European affairs. Many historical readings bring us to a point that the survival of Protestantism owes itself to Ottoman support. It is not too difficult to find other examples.

It is known that Postel and Jean Bodin admired the Ottoman state and its administration in the sixteenth century and they were desirous to transmit these thoughts to their political theory. Likewise, Alan Grossrichard had already demonstrated that the image of the East, which was the “tour de force” of Montesquieu in his Persian Letters, was the representative of a popular ghost-that of despotism-in Europe during the seventeenth century. There are many researchers, from Bryan S. Turner to John M. Hobson, who have stated that both the negative side of European thought, like Hegel, Engels, and Marx, and the positive side, like Max Weber, shared the viewpoint of Orientalism that was against the East and Islam, particularly against the Ottomans. Even now it is questioned whether there is implicit Orientalism in the writings of European travelers-including Lady Montague, who was a most objective person. This list can be easily extended: despite his play Mahomet, which took a very negative view of the East, Voltaire was an admirer of the morality and discipline of the Muslims and the Ottomans. Lord Byron was a lover of Ottoman and Istanbul civilization, despite his political animosity that derived from his love of Hellenism. The “poet of the lakes,” Lamertine was awarded with a farm house by Sultan Abdulmecid, as a sign of appreciation for his book A History of the Turks. The father of Jean Jacque Rousseau was a repairer of clocks in Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. Goethe learned to read the Qur’an and pray from the Bashkird Turks, who were among the Russians who invaded Germany. Campanella said in his La Citta del Sole (The City of the Sun) that the utopia he had fictionalized had been realized in this world by the Ottomans. The writer of Don Quixote, Cervantes, lost one of his arms in the war of Lepanto, which he fought against the Ottomans; he wrote his novels during his imprisonment after this war inspired by Algerian scholars. The philosopher Leibniz presented a treatise of conquest to the French King in which he discussed how to destroy the Ottomans.

Montaigne

We have to add a new name to this list: Michel de Montaigne. In spite of having a few prejudices, Montaigne was one of the few modern writers who did not let prejudices dominate his view. In the first sentence of his Essays he promised that this book was going to be an honest one. Indeed, he continuously revised and edited his books before each new edition was published, including his essays on the Ottomans. He questioned his thoughts with reference to new sources he read and added new essays⁴

In the revised and extended 1595 edition of his book, which was published after his death, he advised French soldiers, whose laxity he had observed during the civil war in Perigord, to take Turkish soldiers for their model. He said that all young French soldiers should learn discipline from the Turkish armies:

Their discipline is very different from and superior to ours. At times of war, our soldiers are more irresponsible and disorderly than at times of peace; on the other hand, Turkish soldiers are moderate and reluctant to behave so, because stealing from the poor is punished with a few lashes in peace time, but very severely at war. Taking away an egg by force without paying money for it is punished with 50 lashes. Moreover, those who steal the most insignificant thing that does not even satisfy hunger nor have any value whatsoever are sentenced to death. I am surprised to read about Selim that when he conquered Damascus on his campaign to Egypt none of his soldiers took anything from the peerless gardens of this city, even though they were unprotected⁵

Montaigne, then, was not aware of “Eastern despotism,” a thesis that had been influential since the seventeenth century. Distanced from the influence of this thesis, he mentions how the philanthropic activities of the Turks extended to include fauna and flora, stating that the Turks had charities and hospitals even for animals.

Montaigne was influenced by the unfavorable winds that blew against the Ottomans through France, but he desired to use the Ottomans against his own despots as a mirror. In other words, he used a method that was similar to that of most other French intellectuals, like Montesquieu, after him.

He was aware of the power of habits and how they can capture people and he emphasized how wrong it was to label everything that is opposed to local habit as barbarism. To quote Dr Zeynep Sayin of Istanbul University:

The universal certainty that Descartes tried to find seems impossible for Montaigne because he is not in favor of certainty that is independent from conditions. On the contrary he analyses humans and societies in their differences. “I am not mislead to think that everybody should be like me…It seems reasonable to me to think that there are thousands of different lives.”⁶

Finally, Montaigne was aware of the fact that judgments do not carry the claim of universality; they are limited to the conditions in which they emerge. He was not bounded by Eurocentrism and was aware that there are different worlds and different life-styles. He did not try to regulate world according to himself, but rather realized that it is essential to recognize differences. It is probably because of this attitude that Montaigne stands in an exceptional place in Western thinking and why he does not find a place in books of “history of Western philosophy.”

Montaigne and the Ottomans

It is thanks to the magnificent study of Clarence Dana Rouillard⁷ that we learn that in the great world of Montaigne the Orient was identical with the “Turk,” i.e. the Ottomans. We are able to see that the Ottoman grew like a flower in Montaigne’s works and that he revised his thoughts and prejudices with new contributions and information with every new edition.

According to Rouillard, Montaigne-like P. Villey who prepared Essays for publication-believed in the necessity of knowing something well before judging it. More importantly, the Orient he identified with the Ottomans played a significant role in terms of widening his vision as it broadened the horizons of his era. According to Rouillard, Montaigne owes the wide vision and pluralism in his essays to the Ottomans to a great extent.

Rouillard, who surprised us with this striking information, firstly analyses Montaigne’s acquaintance with the Ottomans. According to him it is very interesting to observe the development of Montaigne’s knowledge about the Ottomans. Prior to the first publication of Essays in 1580, the only information that we get about Montaigne’s readings is that he got his information on Turks from the Italian history of Guichardin, not from the classics or chronicle writers and historians like Joinville or Froissart. The only reference to the Turks in the 1580 edition was that they partook of food by reclining on comfortable sofas and their belief that Paradise was a sensual abode. However, Montaigne’s curiosity was not confined to the borders of Western Europe and was open to all human activities experienced in modern history.

It seems that Paul Villey, a Montaigne specialist, did not study the 1582 edition of Essays attentively enough. Though rare and insignificantly small, there are some new additions to this edition. We are able to conclude from some points in this new edition that Montaigne read a new study that had been written directly about the Ottomans. Thus we got a clue that Montaigne’s interest about the Ottomans had increased.

As a matter of fact, the number of these clues increases in following editions. For the first time Montaigne encounters direct material concerning the Ottoman world in a Polish history book that he studied and used in the third edition. In this book was an engraving that displayed the celebration held on the occasion of the circumcision of Murad III’s sons. This engraving made Montaigne to think of the Ottoman world, their costumes, and context in a different way. In the last edition to be prepared before Montaigne passed away, his interest in foreign places was at its peak. In this last edition, Montaigne found, read, and analyzed books in Latin that had been written, directly or indirectly about Ottoman history, including the book of Halkokondil on the foundation and rise of the Ottomans and Postel’s De la Republique des Turcs. (He knew Postel-one of the significant intellectual of his time-personally.) There were nearly 50 references to the Ottomans in the last edition of Essays.

“The Turk the warrior!”

It seems clear that Montaigne did not believe in theological explanations concerning the defeat or victory of the Christians against Muslims. For example, he commented very dryly-which is not what one would expect from a European-on the war of Lepanto in 1571 in which the Christians won and which was followed by days of festivities:

A maritime war was won against Turks in the preceding months under the commandership of Don Juan d’Austria; but God was pleased when we saw the reverse many times in the past.

Montaigne desired that his fellow countrymen not put so much importance on this victory because the Turkish army was still standing. He recognized explicitly that the Turks had developed a considerable military force that could only be explained on the basis of material and human power. He related the Turkish ability to establish such a great army to their discipline. According to him, the Turks knew how to use their minds as much as they knew how to fight and this is what made them different from an army of barbarians.

Montaigne thought the acts of the Turks were not restrained merely because of the heavy punishments that were imposed. They were also accustomed to rigid physical discipline and sobriety. This quality made them superior to Western soldiers. He expressed his thoughts as follows:

In order to verify to what extent Turkish armies are more intelligent and behave more reasonably than ours it is enough to say that besides their other virtues they drink only water and eat rice and salty meat. Thus, each of them can carry one month’s provisions with them.

Montaigne explained another influential factor in the success of the Turks which was the Sultan being in command of their armies. Selim I thought that victories that had been won without the sultans leading the armies were not complete and thought it was shameful to be proud of such a victory. However, Montaigne did not treat all sultans identically; he did not have a holistic perspective. He was well aware of the fact that all sultans had different tendencies. According to him, surprisingly, Beyaz›d II and his contemporary Murad III’s excessive fondness for natural sciences (s’amusants aus sciences) caused harm to their countries; they not only failed to lead their country, but also caused harm.

Montaigne was closely interested in the opinion that espoused that warriors should abstain from the fine arts. He returns to this subject again in his essay “On Pedantry” in which did not only criticize the mistakes and uselessness of a few scientists, but also went further to argue that all kinds of education are useless, if not fatal, especially if education goes beyond the scope of a very few aristocratic minds to reach the general public:

Examples show us that learning the sciences does not make hearts rigid or inclined to fight, but rather more effeminate. The most powerful state nowadays seems to be that of the Turks, and they value weapons and humiliate the arts and sciences.

Montaigne can be excused for this mistaken final sentence, as he was then too distant from the time when samples of Ottoman-Divan literature were to be made available to the European public.

While his contemporaries were calling this so-called aspect of the Turks barbarism-we will not discuss whether this argument was valid or not-Montaigne looked at the issue from a very different perspective, which he claimed was essential for a people to survive. This is an example of Montaigne’s contradictory opinions.

In his essay “On Virtue” Montaigne wrote about the story of a young Turk who dared to challenge the Hungarian King Hunyadi Janos at war, despite lacking experience. This youth, when questioned by Sultan Murad, answered that he learned to be courageous from a rabbit. Fate protected the rabbit from 40 arrows he had shot and allowed it to escape the hunting dogs. The young man believed that the arrow and sword could only function if this was written in fate, and thus fought fearlessly in wars from that day on. A belief in fate was widespread among the Turks. Turkish historians wrote that soldiers felt secure against danger because they believed that the days which they would live were immutable and had already been established.

What Montaigne did was not to accumulate systematic information on a certain topic, but rather he involved in mental exercises. He lists these as the basis of the Turk’s successes in the sixteenth century.

Moral aspects of the Ottomans and Islam

Montaigne preserved his objective standing toward the Ottomans at different times. Although he was critical of many aspects of Turkish society and character, he still did not adhere to extreme definitions or popular descriptions, like the “Barbarous Turk,” or the “Lover Turk.” He even tried to alter the image of the cruel Turk in his other essays. He emphasized, for instance, that the Turks had established charities and hospitals for animals.

The only reference to Islam in the first edition of the book is concerned with worldly heaven. Montaigne was an intellectual whose eyes had not been blinded by religious prejudices and he did not refrain from calling some of their religious bigotry “stupidities.” Even when he wrote about the superstitions of the Turks he did not explain the issue in defense of Christianity, but saw such things as errors that could be found on both sides. Thus he was able to preserve the balance that he wanted to establish in his book.

Montaigne was a devout Catholic. He not only dealt with Islam, but also Calvinism and Protestantism, which came to his country from behind the Alps and he criticized the translation of the Bible into local languages, praising the Turks for their respect of the original language of their sacred revealed text. In the end, in one of the best examples of tolerance in Essays, he reminds his countrymen that the Ottomans outstripped them in terms of some Christian values.

Do you want to see it with your own eyes? Compare our traditions and customs with those of a pagan or a Muslim. [You will see that ours is beneath theirs] Although his doctrine is superior, a Christian has to accept the fact that a Muslim we underestimate can teach him many things in terms of justice, affection, and virtues.

The references to Turks increase in later editions of Essays. An interesting letter sent to Mehmed the Conqueror by Pope Pius II and the response sultan gave him is contained in one of them. Another example is Bayezid I’s and Timur’s rejection of mutual gifts. As an example Montaigne shows the pride of Turks in the leader of the Janissaries Hasan Agha, who preferred to die after he had been severely reproved by Sultan Mehmed.

The virtue of the “eye of the wilderness”

What are the results that we may extract from Essays?

First of all, Montaigne was not looking at the problems within a fixed framework. He examined the Turks, arriving at rich observations and interpretations. He was basically interested in human nature, not religious doctrines. Was he not a believer then? Since it is impossible to call anyone who fought for the Catholic cause an unbeliever, we should rather say that Montaigne did not look at Islam and the Ottomans from the perspective of the prejudices of popular theology and religion. Though there are some fictive and incorrect statements in his essays, his perspective about the Turks and Ottomans is not derived from a single source. He was not bound with a systematic connection to a doctrine and he did not have an idae fixes. He came with a new perspective and a new interpretation every time. He learned long before Nietzsche not to look at information as natural facts. According to him there are only interpretations and the interpretations of these. He approached his subject knowing that most of the information he took in his book concerning Islam was not facts, but rather interpretations.

This is the privileged standing that differentiates Montaigne from others. Maybe this was the point that made him so alone-he had no one except his friend La Boetie. We owe Montaigne’s Essays to this solitude. Though he thought that his loneliness derived from his melancholic psychology, his seclusion could have been caused by his differences in his mode of thought and perception. He refrained from lies, i.e., the knowledge of his contemporaries, which he said were interpretations of interpretations, he focused on the knowledge of objects and directed his attention to the truth. He said that “we are making interpretations of the interpretations of objects.” He transmitted the information written in the books on the Ottomans, their histories, cultures, and moral qualities, but he did not adopt them, calling them rather “our stupidities.” He tried to pass beyond this wall of information that he felt had been built around him and to hear the voices of objects. This should be one of the virtues of the eye from the wilderness that he possessed.

Notes

1. Tugrul Inal, “Denemelere bir giris denemesi” (An Introductory Effort to Essays), Frankafoni, n. 5, 1993, p. 12.
2. Semiramis Kantel, “Montaigne ve dil” (Montaigne and Language), Frankafoni, n.5, 1993, p. 33.
3. Cemal Kafadar, “The Ottomans and Europe” in Handbook of European History, 1400-1600, v.1, ed. H. Oberman and others. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), p. 622.
4. Montaigne published his Essays four times with different and extended versions each time. Corrections and editions in the fifth edition (1595) were made by his adopted daughter after his death in 1592. Thus, the book extended to 3 volumes. See J.M. Cohen, “Introduction” in Montaigne, Essays, (London: Penguin books, 1966), p. 20.
5. Ali Celebi, “Montaigne’de Turkler” (Turks in Montaigne), Frankafoni, n. 5, 1993, p. 26-27. This article uses Rouillard, whom we will touch upon in depth in the following pages. Unfortunately, this study cannot go beyond a mere translation to become an original study.
6. Zeynep B. Sayın, “Yenicağ: Descartes ve Montaigne,” Cogito, n. 10, 1997, p. 158.
7. Clarance Dana Rouillard, The Turk in French history, thought and literature (1520-1660), Ancienne Libraire Furne, Paris: 1938.

The Madina Charter is a constitution that essentially established the Madina city-state. The Charter was the first written constitution in Islam and arguably the first constitutional law in society. Before Prophet Muhammad’s arrival from Makka, Yathrib (later known as Madina) had a population of 10,000 that was organized into approximately 22 tribes. Approximately half the population was Jewish and half was Arab. Regardless of religion, tribes sought power through military dominance over other tribes, with the numerous alliances forged between warring tribes greatly contributing to the aggression. Constant warfare was taking a toll on the tribes. While some sought external military assistance for the conflicts, many were making preparations for the enthronement of a leader from one of the tribes. However, it was unclear whether each tribe would acquiesce to the leadership of a single leader from one of the tribes and if such a leader would be able to establish political organization, create military defense for the city, reconcile tribal hostilities, and define local rights and obligations as well as address the issues of the growing immigrant refugee population from Makka.

God’s Messenger was requested by the tribes in Yathrib to act as a third-party mediator to try and help resolve the on-going conflict between them. He had a reputation for being an able mediator as he had helped to resolve conflicts in Makka and was able to fill the leadership void that existed in the area. It was also common practice of Arabs at that time to refer their conflict to outsiders, and the Prophet had already been given the title, “The Trustworthy” by the residents of Makka. Finally, while drafting the Charter, he consulted the leaders of each tribe, thereby demonstrating his willingness to listen to the needs of all tribes.

The methods God’s Messsenger made use of in the creation of the Charter are similar to trends that have emerged in modern conflict resolution techniques. These methods provide an important source for understanding the concepts of mediation and conflict resolution in Islam, and subsequently, can also offer effective means with which to approach dialogue with and within Islamic societies and among non-Islamic societies.

The Charter, which was the first declaration of the area of Madina as a city-state, established rules of government and addressed specific social issues of the community in an attempt to put to an end the chaos and conflict that had been plaguing the region for generations. The Charter outlined the rights and duties of its citizens, provided collective protection for all citizens of Madina, including Muslims and non-Muslims, and provided the first means of seeking justice through the law and community instead of via tribal military actions.

The Madina Charter, which contains 47 sections in total, addresses the power structures that contributed to the conflict in Yathrib. The Charter expressly identified the parties involved in the conflict; the first 23 sections of the Charter address the Muslim immigrants from Makka and the Muslims of Yathrib, while the second half of the document is directed towards the Jews of the community. Prophet Muhammad also identified immediate physical issues in Yathrib. In the second section, the people of Yathrib are defined as one community to the exclusion of all others. Prior to this proclamation, the boundaries of Yathrib were indistinct, each tribe occupying a certain territory, with the whole of the tribal territories in the area not being considered as one, united city. Once Yathrib was established as an integrated community, The Prophet addressed issues of community justice and protection. The Charter established the course of law for Yathrib. The right to seek justice was shifted from individuals to the central community. The Prophet’s arrangements for community justice and protection encouraged collective responsibility. The Madina Charter was also the first acknowledgement of religious divisions within the Yathrib tribal system. Though he did little to change the organization of inter-religious tribes, the Prophet called upon the deeply instilled values of Islam and Judaism to fortify the agreement. These stipulations enabled the participants of the agreement to look once again beyond tribal alliances, thus making tribal lines indistinct.

Along these same lines, the Charter focused on relationships rather than group dynamics: the Madina Charter eliminated tribal hostilities by realigning residents, shifting the focus from militaristic rivals to allied religious followers. In the event of religious dispute, the document continued to decree that the participants of the agreement must act in good faith with one another Finally, interaction goals, including specific desires to maintain one’s sense of self-identity, were left intact by shifting the alliance from tribes (which were hostile) to religion, enabling participants to abandon tribal hostility without loss of face.

Before the Charter, Yathrib was a community of constant tension between independent, hostile tribes. The Prophet addressed these power struggles by establishing common goals that would serve the whole community. The Charter specifically advises mutual influence with the declaration that the Muslims and Jews “must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery.” The Charter binds the parties of the agreement to helping one another against any attack on Yathrib. It dictates behavior for a specific instance of mutual influence. If the Jews “are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out.” Also, reference to a higher authority was repeated in both sections. The Charter also explicitly pronounces that future disputes “must be referred to God and to Prophet Muhammad.” The participants had placed a power that was external to their group that they would be able to draw upon in the event of their own power being or seeming insufficient. The power of the agreement was uniquely balanced due to its direction towards God. The Madina Charter addressed potential power complications by focusing the participants on their interdependence. The Madina Charter prohibited independent contention by participant groups that claim God’s protection, and states that the peace of believers is as one. Once again, the idea of being one community was emphasized and the participants of the agreement were made to recognize their power as a unit.

The solutions presented in the Madina Charter can be applied to questions concerning dialogue and conflict of today’s world: the Charter was created to address problems present in and created by a pluralistic society, the main characteristic of today’s globalized system. The constitution of the Charter created a federal-type structure with an authority that was centralized in matters of state security, yet provided the tribes a certain level of autonomy in social and religious issues. Prophet Muhammad only made final decisions in cases where tribes could not resolve disputes between themselves, and these decisions were based on the laws laid out by the Charter. The Madina city-state, while granting every citizen equal rights, protection against oppression, and a voice in the government, declared itself a brotherhood of believers, extending financial help to its citizens. Laws were also enacted to punish criminals, such as prohibiting help being given to a murderer. Finally, as prescribed in the teaching of the Qur’an, freedom of religion was guaranteed for each member of the community.

For a peaceful world, individuals must live within the boundaries of the lawfully created universe. In this modern age of science and technology, the Madina Charter could be a source for answers to questions about how to live together and how to solve and prevent conflicts between groups based on differences in culture and belief. The Madina Charter represents the principles of law and good and right reason, which is higher than any individual man. On the charter, God’s name comes first, as God represents the highest good and the highest principle of right reason. Thus, the Madina Charter can be a good model of ways to create and sustain dialogue in a pluralistic society, and of ways to build and conduct political and social relationships among different groups.

With the full extent of its use not being understood at the time of its establishment, the project emerged mainly with the pharmaceutical mission to predict, detect, treat, and cure diseases that were caused by genetic anomalies by identifying the genetic information in the human organism.

The desire for such a project was something akin to, or even beyond, the desire to climb Mount Everest, for it aimed to find out something that was unknown at the time. In such fields of biology as cell biology, immunology, and neurology the specialists need genetic information from human organism. The genetic information that an individual organism inherits from its parents can open a door to answer the questions of how an individual develops, how long an individual will live, or how the various species on Earth have lived over many generations.

New developments followed one upon another with the emergence of the Human Genome Project. When the famous Scottish sheep, Dolly, was cloned in 1997, it still seemed to be theoretically impossible to clone a human being. American scientists cloned an ape named Tetra which shared 98 per cent of the same genetic information as human beings. Soon after this, the scientists began to suggest that that all that remained to be cloned was humans.

Dr. Richard Nicholson, the editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, noted that there is no danger in cloning humans, as long as the techniques of doing so are kept under control. If a dictator, however, were to get hold of this information, they would be able to produce an army of genotypically identical soldiers.

The most exciting scientific study of recent years of the Genome Project is that it is trying to develop a complete gene map of an individual organism. According to scientists, a human body has between thirty thousand and fifty thousand genes. All genetic features identifying an individual are found in the gene sequences of the DNA molecules. Eye color, character traits, IQ, and all the illnesses a person may possibly develop are all hidden in the genes. The genome carries all the hereditary features that determine all of life’s diversity, determining whether an organism is human or another species, or ape; all living things have their own genomes. The human genome, which is the full complement of genetic material, and which resembles large tablets recording the history of ancient civilizations, is distributed among 23 sets of chromosomes. It is comprised of approximately three billion letters and is the biological record of our destiny.

Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues

In H. G. Wells’ classic novel The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), Dr. Moreau conducts hybrid experiments on animals that result in twisted masses of flesh, half-man, half-animal. When the European Patent Office allowed the Australian company Amrad to obtain new embryos by combining human and animal cells, this led to a revival of genetic fears, more than a hundred years after the story of Dr Moreau was published. Not surprisingly, this event alarmed several civilian organizations, including Greenpeace. In a press statement made in Hamburg, Greenpeace drew attention to the fact that we might face “dangerous creatures” in the future that would be created from such techniques. Probably one of the most disturbing facts was that the patent did not disclose how these creatures were to be used. Greenpeace voiced opposition to this for the following reason: “A patent grants its owner the exclusive control over his/her invention. Therefore, patents on life fundamentally change our perception and understanding of living nature and our relationship towards it. Living organisms, which have been ‘created’ by industry and which can be patented cannot have a value of their own, since they are only considered an invention of human beings. Thus they can be exploited without any ethical concerns.”

According to the patent, the embryonic stem cells derived from humans, mice, birds, sheep, pigs, cattle, goats, or fish could be used. The patent covers a “method of producing a non-human chimeric animal” by mixing human and animal embryonic cells: human stem cells are integrated into animal embryos. As a result, the created chimeras are non-human, but they may contain human organs, body parts, nerve cells, and even human genetic codes.

Experts state that the system of producing chimeras is completely different from that of cloning and they drew attention to the risks involved. For example, a virus like the one that caused mad-cow disease could easily pass from one species to another.

The Media Joins the Issue

Thanks to the great interest people have shown in the future of genetic studies, we frequently come across news reports that deal with the topic. However, we would like to note that titles like “the homosexuality gene has been found” or “genetic solution to talkativeness discovered” infuriate genetic scientists. Dr Arnold Munnich says that media aims to raise interest by misinforming the public with subjects like “obesity gene” or “laziness gene”; they merely oversimplify the issue. Dr Munnich emphasizes that a gene means nothing by itself.

The Danger of Abuse

The researches who have worked toward improving gene technology have performed some good for humanity; this is without a doubt. However, there is the risk of abuse. The discoveries in this field may be worth a great deal financially; when we add the rivalry between companies and countries, it seems highly likely that legal bans and ethical rules will be ignored. Some people even object to all kinds of genetic research, not only their abuse. They say that the abuse of seemingly useful genetic technology practices in the future is possible, as has happened in other fields of technology; nuclear researches and laser technology also used to be innocent studies at the very beginning. But we cannot object to the use of electricity just because it is also used for executing people with electric chairs.

Governments and international organizations are quite sensitive to ensure that gene technology will only be used for the good of humanity. There are several international organizations interested in the ethical dimension of the issue. There are certain rules and regulations that establish the fundamental principles that will prevent the abuse of genetic studies, and protect the biodiversity and ecological balance. It is forbidden to carry out research on human cloning and altering human embryos. In the past, dictators like Adolf Hitler attempted to abuse gene technology in this respect. The ruthless Dr Joseph Mengele tried to clone his Fuhrer from the epitel cells he took from him.

Will Confidentiality be Respected?

Another concern brought about by new diagnosis methods and tests is that the principle of patient confidentiality, which has existed for centuries like a secret agreement between doctors and their patients, has begun to be debated, even violated. We usually talk about such “confidentiality” when the information is likely to be harmful for the patient if publicized. From this perspective, the results obtained by genetic tests can be evaluated as such. It is one of the duties of doctors to maintain patient confidentiality. On the other hand, if the relevant data is also likely to harm society, the hospital staff, and those around the patient, then the doctor can face a dilemma.

Some of the possible problems that may be faced due to the mapping of human genome will be that employers could be provided with forehand knowledge about the potential genetic diseases of applicants; they may know whether the person to be employed will be a future financial burden to the company if they carry such genetic risks as cancer or Parkinson’s. In this way new standards of employment will be developed. Even though systematical public surveys do not indicate any significant dangers at hand, it would be nearly impossible to stop rumors. Several people may be denied insurance if they have the genes for a fatal disease. Another may be dismissed from their job for the same reason. In the USA, it is illegal in 39 states to issue insurance policies according to genetic test results, and it is also illegal in 15 states to expel employees according to these. However, employers and insurance agents take advantage of the gaps in relevant laws and they secretly make use of genetic tests. According to research carried out in 1999, 30% of medium-sized or small businesses use such tests to promote and dismiss their employees.

Psychologically, it does not seem likely that people would consent to their status being determined by genetic tests. Would you really like to face your genetic disadvantages? A survey made with cooperation of Time magazine and CNN revealed that half of the participants did not want to know.

The Fate of an Unborn Baby

Deciphering the book of life unfortunately brings along ethical problems. The discovery of our genetic codes can also lead to other humans controlling the future of the human race. The critical question is “Can scientists produce human beings with the desired physical and mental qualities?” If so, genomic science may enable biologists to prepare a list of spare parts, parents may “order” a baby, and as altering our children or ourselves gets easier, we may be less tolerant against those who have not been altered. Lori Andrews of Kent University wonders if we were to be informed of mental defects, obesity, shortness or other undesired characteristics beforehand, whether the parents of those babies would still allow them to be born into a society that scorns such qualities. Even now, it is not uncommon to see some doctors and nurses criticize the parents of babies who are born with pre-detectable defects. If we assume that all parents have “ordered” babies, God knows what kind of a world we will have.

What Should the Aim of Such Practices Be?

Genetic studies should aim to prevent or treat illnesses, not to “enhance” genes. The opportunities offered by genetics should not be a mass elimination medium used by employers or a mechanism of spotting potential criminals in the hands of oppressive regimes. The Almighty One Who has been running the order of our universe so perfectly has granted us some keys to its mysteries. Why should we not do our best and use them for the good of humanity?

References

• Sasson, A., Biotechnologies in Developing Countries: Present end Future, UNESCO Publishing, Paris: 1993.
• McKusick, V.A., “First South-North Human Genome Conference”, Genomics 14, 1121-1123 (1992).
• Barnhart, B. J., “The department of energy (DOE) human genome initiative,” Genomics 5: 657-60,(1989).
• Ferguson-Smith, M. A., “European Approach to the Gene Project,” The Taseb J. 5:61-5 (1991).
• Malakoff, D., Service, R.F., Science, 16 Feb. 2001.
• Dulbecco, R., “The Italian genome project,” Genomics 9:404-5, (1991).
• McKusick, V. A., “Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome,” J. Med. 320:910-15, New England: 1989.
• Murray, R.K. et al, Harper’s Biochemistry, Appleton & Lange, 1993.
• Neyzi, O., Ertugrul, T., Pediatri, Nobel T›p Kitabevi, Vol. II, Istanbul: 1993.
• Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, International Edition.
• Nature Medicine, Vol. 7, No.4, Apr. 2001.
• Science, No.290, 1 Dec. 2000.
• Nature Reviews, Genetics, Jan. 2001.

Contrary to the practice of religious scholars at that time, Bediuzzaman himself studied and mastered almost all the physical and mathematical sciences, and later studied philosophy, for he believed that it was only in this way that Islamic theology (kalam) could be renewed and successfully answer the attacks to which the Qur’an and Islam were then subject.

In the course of time, the physical sciences had been dropped from madrasa education, which had contributed directly to the Ottoman decline relative to the advance of the West. Now, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Europe had gained dominance over the Islamic world, and in efforts to extend its dominance, was attacking the Qur’an and Islam in the name of science and progress in particular, falsely claiming them to be incompatible. Within the Empire too was a small minority which favored adopting Western philosophy and civilization. Thus, all Bediuzzaman’s endeavor was to prove and demonstrate the falseness of these accusations, and that far from being incompatible with science and progress, the Qur’an was the source of true progress and civilization, and in addition, since this was the case, Islam would dominate the future, despite its relative decline and regression at that time.

Nursi on God

The modern world’s rejection of God is one of the most harmful aspects of the so-called “modernity”. This philosophy has become to be known as the existential approach to life, which denies and rejects the religious and spiritual side of ethics and moral values.

If we consider it from the point of view of neo-liberalism, do such problems express any meaning for an individual or society which espouses a world-view dominated by a mass of hypotheses which do not accept that there is an order and harmony in nature or any ecological system and balance; which take its fundamental principle to be conflict and transgression against the weak, deem self-interest to be the most important principle in life, and consider it licit and fair to sacrifice not only the environment, but people even, for these benefits and interests? Can it be expected of someone who does not believe that he comes only once to this world and then will depart for the next world; considers force to be the sole measure of right and truth; and that the only purpose of life is the unlimited satisfaction of the limitless desires and needs of his/her soul – can it be expected that he/she should feel concern at environmental problems or bother himself with the rights of forthcoming generations, or with extinct species, or injustices, poverty, etc; for example? These questions are debatable.

But the answer given by the contemporary thinker and historian Arnold Toynbee was negative. Toynbee describes this as follows:

People, carried away by greed and materialism, narrow-mindedly say: after me the storm. They should know that if they cannot limit their greed, they are condemning their children to extinction. They may love their children, but their love may be insufficient to allow them to sacrifice a part of their wealth in order to guarantee their children’s futures. In my opinion, so long as this goal is not bound to a form of religious belief (using the word religion in its widest meaning), it will not be possible to persuade the modern generations of the advanced countries to make any sacrifices to their own cost (ecosystem).

It was for these reasons that in order to be saved from the nihilist, absurd world-view which takes force as its absolute point of reference, and to have a meaningful life, Said Nursi declared: “Knowledge of the Maker is man’s sole refuge and point of support.” In the early period of his life, he said:

If man does not believe in the All-Wise Maker, Who performs everything wisely and with order, and unthinkingly attributes everything to chance; and if he thinks of the inadequacy of his power in the face of those calamities; it will result in a hellish and heartrending state for him, of compounded fright, fear, alarm, and anxiety. Being the noblest and best of creatures, he will be more wretched than anything, thus opposing the reality of the perfect order of the universe.

In the Risale-i Nur, Said Nursi on the one hand attempted to reply to the challenges of modernity, and on the other, offering a new understanding of Divine revelation, he emphasized above all else the order, harmony, measuredness, and beauty of the world, which he called the book of the universe, and in this way set out to demonstrate God’s existence together will all His Most Beautiful Names. Thus, in the very place that modern materialist philosophy attacks belief and instills doubts, he demonstrates convincingly foremost God’s existence, the hereafter, and prophethood.

In Nursi’s philosophy, as it has been noted, this world in the sheer sense is a clean being. The reasons for this may be reduced to two:

• This world is the work of God. It receives its existence from Him. It is also evidence for His existence.

• This world was given to men by God so that they might win clean livelihoods from it.

This article has been extracted from Dr Kamran Mofid’s paper “To Heal Our Broken World: Bringing Economics, Religions and Spirituality together for the Common Good” presented at the International Conference on Spiritual Dimensions of Said Nursi’s Risale-i-Nur, in Istanbul, August 2005.

What would it have to fear of the dogs or their barking?

The dogs continue to do what they are supposed to do

And the moon continues to beautify the face of the night.

A bit of weed floats on water

Yet the water does not lose its purity.

Mustafa¹ splits the moon in half

While Abu Lahab² utters silly curses.

Jesus revives the dead

While his enemies pull their beards out of hatred.

The sound of the dog never reaches the ear of the Moon,

If that moon is a friend of God”³

— M.J. Rumi, Mathnawi, “The Candy Seller Child (The Debtor Sheikh).”

The true “friends” of God reflect His light in their hearts, which have become like mirrors. Like the full moon on a bright night, they illuminate everything within their reach. They do not discriminate anyone; they can be called “champions of compassion without frontiers.” It is so difficult to contain light in a closed place, it seeps out and illuminates. Likewise, it is hard to confine the compassion of such people when they come in contact with others, their compassion and love touches, affects and transforms them. You cannot find any trace of the stereotypes of the idle or the harsh reactions of the conceited in them. They reach out and embrace. And the hatred, the misdemeanors, the biases, the bad habits, the doubts all dissolve and disappear within this embracing. In this article, we will present two examples of radiating compassion and love from the life of a famous scholar of Islam and a person of devotion, Bediuzzaman S. Nursi, and then turn to his inspiration for such outpourings.

Who was Bediuzzaman?

Said Nursi, also known as “Bediuzzaman” or “the wonder of the age” by his contemporaries, was born in eastern Anatolia (in modern Turkey) in a turbulent era towards the end of the nineteenth century.⁴ Earlier in his life, he was noted for his genius, unmatched scholarship and his balanced combination of Islamic spirituality with the duties of contemporary life. Over the course of his life, he inspired hundreds of thousands of students. Since his passing away in 1960, he has continued to inspire millions and his books remain as the bestsellers of all times in Turkey, as well as being translated into several languages. His main work, Risale-i Nur Collection (The Treatises of Light) is a collection of books that consists of more than 6,000 pages. This collection deals with topics such as logical arguments concerning the pillars of faith, the importance of worship, the significance of the Prophetic Tradition, the miracles of the Qur’an and the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him), consolation for the sick and elderly, treatments of perceived conflicts between science and religion, reflections on natural phenomena and the signs of the Hereafter, as well as perspectives of the believer and the disbeliever on the world and the consequences of these, among other matters.

The noteworthy stances of Bediuzzaman include his championing of representative democracy over monarchy and despotism among the tribes in Eastern Anatolia, as well as his support for republicanism, the marriage of natural sciences and theology, the complete rejection of gifts or donations, and his advocacy for dialogue among people of different faiths. He succeeded in securing funds from the Ottoman government of Sultan Reshad, as well as the subsequent Turkish Republican parliament, for the establishment of a university in eastern Turkey where theological and natural sciences would be integrated in a single curriculum.

Although Nursi supported the Anatolian resistance through his efforts in Istanbul, during the early years of the Turkish Republic, he was exiled by the government in fear that he might exert his influence on the people around him against the government. Though subsequent investigations failed to show any evidence for such political intentions, he ended up spending 25 years of his life in jail or in exile. In a piece he wrote later about these painful years, he said that he would not seek justice from God in the Divine court of the Hereafter if the people who had inflicted suffering on him had benefited from his works and died as believers.⁵ During these years, neighbors and witnesses reported in a collection of interviews published in Turkish that he used to spend most of his nights in prayers and remembrance, sometimes crying. In the prisons where he was held it was noticed that former criminals and killers, such as the so-called “Butcher Tahir” in the city prison of Afyon, were transformed into individuals who took care not to step on ants.⁶

In the following two stories, we will see examples of how this friend of God embraced people of diverse backgrounds and led them to become friends and fellow worshippers of God.

Bediuzzaman and the Two Famous Outlaws

During his exile in the city of Kastamonu, Bediuzzaman and his student from that town, Mehmed Feyzi, were climbing the skirts of the Karada€ (Black Mountain). Two famous outlaws had stopped to have something to eat by the road. Although these persons had been born into a Muslim community, they were living a wretched life full of crime and harassment. Mehmed Feyzi knew these people. They were notorious for their crimes around the city. Nobody dared say anything to them. Mehmed was worried about the safety of Bediuzzaman; so, he was praying silently for God to protect him.

Bediuzzaman walked by the men slowly, without saying anything to them.

The two outlaws looked at each other in surprise and one of them spoke:

–”Do you recognize this scholar?”

–”I do, indeed. I have heard that he is fearless. He is known for telling all the commandments of the Qur’an without hesitation.”

–”If that’s the case, how come he did not say a word to us?”

–”I think he thought it is of no use to try to teach anything to us. What does that tell you my friend? We are finished. We are doomed.”

The other one immediately grabbed the table with the liquor on it and threw it with all his power towards the mountain. And he proclaimed:

–”No my friend! We are Muslims and we will remain Muslims. We will clean ourselves of these sins; we will turn to God and obey His commandments. We will never mix in such dirty affairs again. Come, let’s go.”

The two men stood up and went to the public baths. After cleaning themselves they went straight to a mosque and sat down.

The members of the congregation were puzzled. They were pointing to the men and asking each other silently: “What are these guys doing here? What are they up to?” One of them asked the muezzin about them. The muezzin had heard about the incident on the mountain. He calmed them down and said: “Don’t worry. They have repented. They saw Bediuzzaman on his way to the mountain. They regretted what they have done and have come here to worship.”

Upon hearing these words, the congregation calmed down and continued with their duties. They had thought originally that these criminals had come to the mosque to kill people; they had not realized that the men had changed their lifestyle.

Bediuzzaman and the Gypsies

Bediuzzaman was exiled to the town of Emirda€. As they did every spring, the gypsies came from their dwelling places to the town and knocked on the doors, begging. Some of them were offered plastic utensils for laundry or household chores, goods that were no longer needed. They knocked on every door and asked, “In the name of God, please give us something.” They knocked on Bediuzzaman’s door as well. They did not know that the man who lived here was an old man exiled to the town with very little to live on.

Bediuzzaman opened the door and upon seeing who was there, he smiled. He gave them a piece of bread.

The next day, he was walking in the countryside with one of his students. He saw the gypsy tents and approached them. They immediately surrounded him and tried to kiss his hands. Some of them knew who he was. An older man among them approached Bediuzzaman and said: “Our teacher! We heard that you are a guest in this town. Please pray for us. We love you.”

Bediuzzaman replied: “Yes my brother. Indeed I love you too.” He put his hand on the old man’s back and continued: “You are among those who understand that this world is transitory. As nomads, you are my fellow travelers. I am a nomad like you.”

Upon reading incidents like the ones here, one wonders: Was Bediuzzaman the first devout Muslim to display such acts of compassion? Or did he have a teacher? And the answer is simple: He valued and championed the importance of the prophetic tradition of Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him; it was that very tradition⁷ that provided him with the source of his compassion that had no frontiers. Here is a striking example from the life of Prophet that shows the depth of this compassion:

The Mock Call to Prayer

Abu Mahzura tells his story:⁸ We were a group of 12 people and came across God’s Messenger on the road to Hunayn. When the time for prayer came, a muezzin began to recite the call for prayer. As he was reciting the words, we mocked him by repeating his words in a funny manner. I was leading the ridicule. The Prophet heard us and summoned us.

“Whose voice was it that I heard?” he asked. Nobody answered. He then listened to each of us individually and discovered that mine was the leading voice. He signed to the others to leave. He then turned to me and said: “Go ahead and recite the call to prayer.” I stood up with my head bowed down, but could not say anything as I did not remember the words. At that moment the Prophet was the worst person in my mind and the thing he was asking me to do was the worst thing to do. After seeing my silence, the Prophet taught me the words of the call to prayer, one by one. Then he gave me some money. He caressed my forehead, my face and breast and prayed “May God bless and protect you.” Then I asked, “O Messenger of God, would you allow me to make the call to prayer in Makka?” he answered, “I give you that permission.” At that moment, he was the most beloved person on earth to me.

This story illustrates beautifully the transformation of a man who was ridiculing something sacred to the believers into a different man devoted to serving the faith. With his compassion and patience, God’s Messenger had no trouble discovering and polishing a jewel. We can see a similar transformation in the incident of the man who urinated in the Prophet’s mosque.

The Man Who Urinated in the Mosque

In the Qur’an, God tells His Messenger: If you had been rough and hard-hearted with them, they would certainly have dispersed from around you (Al Imran 3:159). Indeed, the Prophet was known as the most compassionate and loving member of the community, and was able to balance these traits with his other roles as community leader and statesman. Abu Hurayra reported:⁹ A bedouin urinated in the mosque and some people rushed to beat him. The Prophet said: “Leave him alone and pour a bucket of water over it. You have been sent to make things easy and not to make them difficult.’’ Afterwards the Prophet called the man and gently explained to him that this was a place of worship and that it should be kept clean. Apparently, this person understood the point, for he was later observed in the mosque in his best clothes.

Conclusion

We have seen two examples of radiating compassion and love in a 20th century student of an eternal teacher and two examples from the life of his teacher. These examples are intended to show only the tip of an iceberg for those who are interested in exploring the spiritual dimension of Islam. At a time when this faith is associated with heinous crimes against humanity, it should be the duty of the inquisitive mind to transcend common stereotypes and explore the depth of spiritual richness in this source, which has produced world-renowned spiritual masters such as Rumi, the author of the verses at the beginning of this article, and continues to inspire hundreds of millions of people.

Notes

1. Referring to Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, whose other name is Mustafa, or the chosen one, and to his miracle of splitting the moon in half, as mentioned in the chapter “The Moon” of the Qur’an.
2. Referring to the uncle of the Prophet who was one of the fierce enemies of Islam, and who strove in vain to undermine the Prophet’s mission.
3. Translation by the author from original in Turkish.
4. Vahide, S., Islam in Modern Turkey, State University of New York Press, New York: 2005.
5. ibid.
6. Necmeddin Sahiner, Son Sahitler Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’yi Anlat›yor (Last Witnesses Tell of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi), Nesil Yayinlari, Istanbul: 2005.
7. Gulen, M. F., The Messenger of God, The Light, Inc., Izmir: 2005.
8. Hadith Encyclopedia, Harf Information Technology, Cairo: 1996.
9. Khan, M., Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, Darussalam Publishers, 1997.

References

• E.H. Whinfield (Translator), The Mathnawi: The Spiritual Couplets of Maulana Jalalu-D-Din Mahammad I Rumi, Watkins Publishing Ltd., 2002.
• Reynold A. Nicholson (Editor), Mathnawi of Jalaluddin Rumi, Gibb Memorial Trust; Set of 3 Books edition (June, 1990).
• C.Barks, Essential Rumi, Harper San Fransisco, 1997.
• Abdulbaki Golpinarli, Mesnevi Tercemesi ve Serhi (In Turkish), Inkilap Kitabevi, Istanbul, 1990.