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.

Qur’anic Perspective

At this point it would be interesting to look at what Ali Unal has to say as to why no past civilization could resist decadence and time’s corrosive power. His approach refers more to the individual and free will, rather than visible causes:1

. . . [C]ontrary to the fatalism of all other philosophies, including even Ibn Khaldun’s, the Qur’an stresses the individual’s free choice and moral conduct. Although the Divine Will, as emphasized in the Qur’an, could be regarded in some respects as the counterpart of Hegel’s Geist or as other philosophies’ absolute and irresistible laws of history, the Qur’an never denies human free will

. . . . Ibn Khaldun, Toynbee, Spengler, and other philosophers of history formed a mistaken conception of history because they did not try to discover the real dynamics of historical movements. Rather, they sought to explain the apparent causes behind a civilization’s establishment, flourishing, and decay. Whoever looks to the past will arrive at the same conclusions. But just because no community has remained at its peak this does not mean that this is an inevitable end or a determinist grip on the fate of each nation. Past civilizations collapsed because they did not heed the warnings of what had happened to earlier peoples. Accepting historical determinism causes us to nullify free will and consider the warnings and advice found in the Divine Scriptures and social sciences as useless and absurd.

This is strongly confirmed by the Qur’an in the following verses:

. . . surely God does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition. (Rad 13:11)

. . . God never changes the grace He has bestowed on any people until they first change that which is in their hearts. (Anfal 8:53)

Theories concerning the collapse of civilizations

There are many theories concerning the collapse of civilizations, but of course, if a theory does not conform to reality, it is worth nothing. In this article, I will first give a brief account of widely held beliefs about the collapse of civilizations, explain the weaknesses of these theories, and then give a rationale that I believe better explains the historical data we have. As for most social problems, we will perhaps never know the truth about why societies collapse. However, the stakes at hand are so high that we must make every effort to understand, and to an extent, solve this problem.

The most common explanation for such collapses is some insurmountable natural disaster, like an epidemic, hurricane, drought, or earthquake that leads to the demise of a civilization by killing the population and crippling the economy. Widely-cited examples are the eruption of the volcano in Thera that preceded the collapse of the Minoan civilization, the malaria epidemic in the Roman Empire or earthquakes in Mesoamerican societies. These arguments, which are very appealing to our human nature, that desires simple explanations for all questions, are in fact very unsound. Societies constantly experience such disasters, yet survive them. The potato blight in Ireland in 1845 halved the island’s population but there was no cease of sociopolitical complexity as a result of the disaster. It is strange to think that the Roman Empire, which survived many disasters before, including the eruption of Pompei in AD 79, fell to malaria. We should consider that complex civilizations are designed to absorb such disasters, and they do. Just recalling the constant earthquakes in Japan added to the loss of a world war with two nuclear bombs exploding in the heart of two large cities will sufficiently prove this notion. Japanese civilization did not collapse. On the contrary, it is one of the strongest economies in today’s international arena. It is peculiar then that some civilizations are no longer able to fight such disasters. However, an act of God can certainly collectively destroy any civilization, as it did in the past like Sodom and Gomorrah. This is clearly narrated in the divine scriptures.

The other common explanations for such collapses are intruders and competition with other civilizations. The barbarian tribes, which brought the end of Rome in the fifth century, and the Mongolians that invaded Baghdad in the thirteenth century are clear examples of the intruder argument. This argument suffers from the realization that civilizations are attacked by outsiders throughout their existence, yet for some reason they cannot defend themselves near the time of their collapse. Competition with other societies however, is in principle expected to lead to growth and expansion instead of collapse. There is no end to the examples from this category too, like the competition of the Ottoman Empire with Persia, which indirectly weakened its western front. But the competition argument is both intuitively confusing and it fails to account for major cases, like the fall of the Roman Empire.

Another widely held belief about such collapses is that at a certain point in the life of a civilization a resource is depleted and the civilization that depends on this resource is prone to collapse. The Romans and the Ottomans both depended on military expansion for their economy, and when the relatively weak nations around them were engulfed or when they were barred from further expansion by geographical limitations, such as seas or large mountains, they were no longer able to use this resource. There seems to be some truth and lessons in this argument. To the uninformed, it is a very curious fact that the cradle of civilization was Mesopotamia, where modern day Iraq is. How is it possible that the superpowers of that era, the Sumerians (~3000 BC) and the Babylonians (~1000 BC) chose to live in these deserts? How is it possible that they irrigated the land, raised armies, and built world wonders in these sand dunes? These questions actually are easily answered when we realize that Mesopotamia was not a dessert in that era after all. It is now a generally accepted theory that this place had a fragile ecosystem, which was destroyed after thousands of years of environmental pressure. The potential for these lands to accommodate great civilizations was lost after this fragile ecosystem was slowly destroyed by its inhabitants.

However, the argument of resource depletion inherently asserts that the elite of a civilization facing resource depletion passively waits for the predictable demise. I will argue below that this case, although strange, is true. Another difficulty of the resource depletion argument is that in some instances of collapse resources were never depleted. The fertile lands of Mesopotamia still remained green until later than 1000 AD, while many civilizations experienced collapses. The Romans, who used irrigation as a resource, kept farming till the very end. Finally, one may wonder why societies aim at possessing a higher amount of resources all the time. Population increase is only a partial answer to this question. We can easily imagine a society whose population stays the same; it is not a far-fetched hypothesis that this society will naturally also try to increase its resources to fend off a variety of calamities it may experience, such as intruders and catastrophes. I believe herein lies an interesting rationale that brings together the mentioned theories that are flawed. To understand this, we first have to appreciate a law in economics, called the “law of diminishing returns.”

It is very rare in economics and in general social sciences that some series of observations can be identified as a “law.” However, the “law of diminishing returns,” first put forward in 1965 by Ester Boserup, is so comprehensive in its nature and explains such a variety of trends that it is now universally accepted. It goes: The return for an investment in a particular activity is great at the beginning, and then it gradually decreases. At a point, further investment brings no further benefits. At this point, the facility (a person, a group, a society, a factory) can no longer increase its returns, however much they would invest in that activity.

A simple example will clarify the law. Suppose we have a piece of land that we want to use for irrigation. In the beginning, we would just disperse seeds and wait for the crops to grow. Notice that our investment is minimal (say 1 unit of investment), and we get some food for our investment (again define this to be 1 unit of return). Then, if we want to increase the amount of crops we have, we may dig some canals for watering. It is straightforward to recognize that the canal digging is a lot harder than just dispersing seeds (say 5 times harder). However, it is again straightforward to recognize that although now we make 6 times more investment, we probably will not get 6 times the crop. Nevertheless, we want to maximize our return, so we still dig the canals. The next step would be to use motorized vehicles, which is maybe a 10 times increase in investment, but everybody will surely accept that it is not possible to get a crop that is 16 times greater than our original from the same plot of land. (Readers who may object that once the investments of canals and vehicles are made they will provide constant returns are reminded of the maintenance costs of these investments.) A further increase in returns may require genetically engineered crops that will require years of expensive research (more investment). The return per investment will always decrease for a certain type of activity, in this case irrigation.

This law is everywhere in life: If one week of studying suffices a result of 80 on one exam, in order to get 90, you need to study two more weeks. Most healthy people can run 100m in 20 seconds; to run it in 10 seconds you need years of exercising. Depending on one’s abilities (which determine an individual’s possible investment) these may even be impossible for many people. A vivid example is the heating problem in England during the nineteenth century. Heating, which was primarily carried out by burning wood from forests, with the increase in population had to be switched over to the burning of coal. The mining and distribution of coal, which is much more difficult than simply getting some wood from a nearby forest, was made even more difficult when the easily mined surface coal was rapidly depleted and deeper tunnels with lighting and airing problems had to be developed. It is intuitive why this law is in effect: Obviously, always, the easier solutions are adapted first, then the harder ones. Mining coal when you have easily available and plentiful wood is not reasonable. Consequently, we have a decline for our returns per investment.

The resources that civilizations use are no exception. A civilization that uses irrigation as a resource is bound to be limited by a certain level of return. Resource does not have to be depleted; it just cannot produce a return more than at a certain level. Another civilization that is dependent on taxation, mercenary or military expansion can achieve no more return after a certain level, no matter what adjustments it makes to its existing policy. Having said this, we can understand why a civilization that depends on a certain type of energy or resource cannot expand its influence beyond a certain level. Moreover, when energy becomes scarce, the civilization can become less agile in terms of trying new resources and new ways to produce returns, since agility and innovation mostly depend on using some of the surplus resources on strategies that will most probably yield no returns. Hence the rise of large architectural structures and many inefficient military operations are carried out during the ascent of a young civilization. These activities, which are easily buffered by the large returns that come from initial investment on the main resource of a civilization become impossibly costly later when the returns from the same investment is declining.

One last piece of the puzzle completes the rationale as to why civilizations collapse, and this piece is an easily accepted assumption: A civilization is like a dinosaur. It is large and strong, but it is adapted to the conditions into which it was born. The conditions change, however, the dinosaur cannot change its behavior. It helplessly tries to maximize the returns for the type of resource that it is adapted to use, and after a point, it simply cannot, thanks to the universal and unforgiving law of diminishing returns. At this point, another civilization, that primarily uses another superior resource, will have larger returns, build a larger army to invade the former civilization, build larger ships to cut off the trade routes, and produce goods to cripple its economy… This is just a matter of time, and it is unavoidable (see Figure 1b). The strength of the civilization in its golden age is now its weakness. In such a weakness, since there is no extra resource to fight new problems-all resource is either used up by the population, or goes toward defense costs-even a natural disaster can bring an end to a civilization that once seemed to be indestructible.

The Ottoman Empire’s strength in its rise was its perfect hierarchical organization which led to the accumulation of all power under the Sultan. Its main resource was military expansion and taxation of trade. These adaptations, which were ideal for the time between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, led to one of the most powerful empires that have ever reigned. However, by the sixteenth century, these strategies had become burdens: Due to the strong hierarchy, an intelligentsia that supported science and art as in the West could never develop. Military expansion had to stop. Taxation could no longer work since the Mediterranean Sea was no longer used for trade. The strategies were not abandoned though, instead, more investments were made in order to increase the returns, which as we saw above is a nonviable alternative. Eventually, other civilizations that used better resources brought about the end of the Empire. A similar order of events can be observed for other civilizations that collapsed. The great Arab historian Ibn Khaldun of the fourteenth century likens the lives of civilizations to the natural lifespan of individuals. They are born, they grow old, and they die. In my view, a civilization does not die because it gets old; it dies because it cannot compete with a stronger civilization.

The natural question to ask is if our current civilization will collapse. From the analysis above, we can conclude that there are two reasons for the collapse of a civilization: 1) Dependence on a certain type of investment and failing to adapt to the new conditions. 2) The invention by another competitor civilization of a new type of investment with higher returns. In today’s world, both of these reasons are in some ways different than those that existed in the past. First, with the advancement of science, the current civilizations are flexible in the resources they utilize, the options are constantly evaluated, the heating in United Kingdom does not collapse when wood is depleted; instead, coal, then gas, then nuclear power is used. The return for the investment made for some utility is similar to the curve shown in Figure 1c: whenever the return for a type of investment declines, we can shift to the next resource. Second, by the immense advancement in information processing and communication, the whole world is aware of the types of investments other societies are using, and a leading civilization that follows the developments in other countries is very unlikely to be threatened by a sudden development in a rival civilization. Third, because of progress in international trade, the old sense that any other civilization is an enemy has lost its significance.

Notwithstanding these reasons, only a few decades ago, at the height of the cold war, we witnessed the possibility of the immediate collapse of our civilization. Global warming and the depletion of petrol reserves were only two of the many alarming cues that we may have turned to declining returns for our investment curve. It is imperative to remember again that the stakes are very high. The next civilization to fall may bring about the fall of the human species.

Notes

1. Tainter, J. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1988.
2. Grigg D. Ester Boserup’s theory of agrarian change: a critical review. Prog Hum Geogr. 1979; 3 (1): 64-84.
3. Unal, Ali, Islam Addresses Contemporary Issues, Kaynak, Izmir:1998, p. 142.

God does not forbid you as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your religion, nor drive you away from your homeland, that you should be kind to them, and act towards them with full equity. Surely God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you from taking as confidants and guardians those who make war against you on account of your religion and drive you away from your homeland, or support others to drive you away. Whoever takes them for confidants and guardians, such are the wrongdoers. (Mumtahana 60:8-9)

Non-Muslims who are at peace with Muslims and do not fight them for reasons of faith and do not drive them from their homes, then God has not forbidden Muslims from treating them kindly and justly, for God loves those who are just. The Arabic word qist means justice, that is, to give to each according to his right. As for kindness (al birr), this exceeds justice, for it is the act of doing good (ihsan), meaning that you give somebody their right or more than their right. Kindness (al birr) is to take what is your right and to forgo something that it is your right to take.

Indeed, God chose to use the same word to express the greatest right after the rights of God in Islam, namely the rights of parents: the kindness due to parents (birrul walidain). God Almighty has commanded us to be kind to our parents. Likewise God has not prevented us from being kind to non-Muslims. A part of kindness is to be able to co-exist, and a part of co-existence is to offer greetings to others on their holidays, as they greet you on yours. Hence, this stems from kindness and co-existence, two things which God has not prevented us from doing, especially in the case of Christians with whom we associate. If that person is a neighbor, then there are rights due to neighbors, even if your neighbor wrongs you or is a disbeliever.

Once, in one of the festivals, Abdullah bin Omar said to his servant: “Don’t forget our Jewish neighbor when you slaughter a sheep, or a similar action.” Each time he entered or left the house he would repeat the saying, “Don’t forget our Jewish neighbor.” The servant replied: “Truly you have exceeded in your exhortations concerning this Jew.” To which he replied: “Indeed, I heard the Prophet-may God bless him and grant him peace-say: “The Angel Gabriel kept exhorting me with regard to (the rights of) neighbors until I thought that he would give them the right to inherit.” Thus, it is clear that neighbors have rights over us.

Respond a greeting with a better greeting

A fellow student has rights over you. If you are at school or in university, maybe there is a classmate who sits next to you, or for those students who are studying in European countries or other non-Muslim countries, you study with students, professors, or supervisors from other religious backgrounds; should a Muslim treat such people coldly, with a lack of sensitivity, ignoring the religious holiday of their fellow students, not offering any holiday greeting to the person who is celebrating in the customary manner?

I believe that Islam does not prevent or forbid this courtesy, particularly when others offer us this same courtesy on our holidays. Indeed God Almighty says:

If you are greeted with a greeting, respond with a better greeting or return it (with the same one). (Nisa 4:86)

Once, a Zoroastrian man passed by Ibn ‘Abbas and said to him: “Peace be upon you!” to which he replied with the words: “And upon you be peace and the mercy of God!” Some of his comrades questioned him saying: “You say to him (and the mercy of God?” He replied: “Does he not live through the mercy of God?”

Greeting Christians at Christmas Time

There is no harm in Muslims expressing congratulations to their Christian neighbor, colleague, or relation, especially when we know that Islam elevated the relationship with the People of the Book to the extent that it permitted inter-marriage. This is the peak of tolerance to which no other religion has reached. Christianity does not permit a Christian man to marry other than a Christian woman and Judaism does not permit a Jewish man to marry other than a Jewish woman.

. . . And (lawful to you) are, in wedlock, chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before… (Maida 5:5)

This means that the mother of a Muslim can be a non-Muslim. Supposing a person is Muslim and his mother is Christian, is it permissible for him not to wish his mother happiness on this occasion? This relationship of marriage would imply that the grandfather of the children of such a marriage would be Christian and likewise the children’s grandmother, their maternal aunts and uncles and cousins would all be Christian. In this situation, we find that there are mutual ties of kinship that carry rights, for blood relatives have prior rights over each other in the Book of God, so how then is it not permitted for a Muslim to show kindness to their relations by wishing them a happy and blessed holiday?!

I am aware that Ibn Taimiyya took a hard line concerning these occasions and he stated that a Muslim should not greet non-Muslims on the occasion of their religious holidays on the grounds that this implies acceptance of their religion, beliefs, and rites. However, I do not consider his opinion on this matter to be sound. Just because a Muslim wishes a Christian a happy Christmas or Easter, this does not mean that they are accepting their creed or declaring it to be sound; that is another matter altogether. Greeting someone on a holiday does not necessitate accepting their creed. This is why this form of relating to one another is permitted as long as there are relationships that require such co-existence. This is how such matters should be handled.

Muslims believe in Jesus, peace be upon him, and the Gospel; they also believe in the Torah and all the prophets, just as God Almighty has said:

We make no distinction between any of His Messengers (in believing in them). (Baqara 2:285)

We make no distinction between any of them (in believing), and we are those who have been submitted to Him wholly. (Baqara 2:136)

Indeed, the faith of a Muslim believer is unacceptable unless they believe in all the Books of God and all of His prophets; that is to say, unless they believe in every book He revealed and in every prophet He sent. Thus, Islam considers any person who does not fulfill this tenet to be a disbeliever.

(For there are) those (deserving punishment,) who disbelieve in God (by not recognizing Him at all or as He should be) and His Messengers (by denying Messengership or some of the Messengers), and who seek to make a distinction between God and His Messengers (by claiming belief in God but denying the Messengership or some of the Messengers), and say, “We believe in some and deny others,” seeking to take a way in between. Such are those who are the unbelievers in truth, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a shameful, humiliating punishment. (Nisa 4:150-1)

Therefore, Muslims have to believe in all the prophets, and whoever rejects one of the prophets or messengers has rejected all of prophets. We can see this in chapter Shu‘ara of the Qur’an where it is stated that: “The people of Noah rejected the messengers” “The (people of) ‘Ad rejected the messengers” “The (people of) Thamud rejected the messengers.” Here the plural is used, although in actual fact they only rejected one messenger. However, the rejection of one messenger implies the rejection of all the messengers.

Tolerance has been established with non-Muslims

The difference between people regarding their religions is in accordance with God’s will and His will is connected to His wisdom.

If your Lord had so willed (without granting humanity free will,) He would have made all humankind one single community (with the same faith, worldview, and way of thinking and life). But (based on their free choice,) they never cease following paths divergent from the Straight Way, save those on whom your Lord has special mercy (and guides to the Straight Way because of certain merits they have) This is the line followed by humankind that God has created with special disposition. (Hud 11:118-119)

The verse clearly suggests that God granted humanity a mind and a will that meant that He left them with the freedom to choose the religion they wish. Furthermore, if He had wanted to unite them in one religion He would have made them like the angels who are created for faith and obedience. However, he created them with minds and differing wills and as a result there are different religions. This is all according to the will of God.

The second point with regard to Islamic tolerance and the reason behind this tolerance is that the reckoning for disbelief and error will not be administered in this life. Rather, the appointed time for this is in the Hereafter, just as God has said:

If they argue with you, say only: “God knows well what you are doing, (To me is accounted my deeds, and to you, your deeds. You are quit of all that I do, and I am quit of all that you do.)” (Hajj 22:68)

God is our Lord and your Lord. To us are accounted our deeds, and to you, your deeds. Let there be no contention between you and us: God will bring us all together and settle the matter between you and us. To Him is the homecoming.” (Shura 42:15)

Thus, in the Hereafter God brings to account the misguided for their error and the righteous for their guidance.

The third point is that Islam respects the humanity of each person, disregarding religion. For this reason Bukhari narrated from Jabir that when a funeral procession carrying the bier of the deceased passed by the Prophet-may God bless him and grant him peace-he stood for it (out of respect). They said to him, “O Messenger of God, it is a Jewish funeral,” to which he replied: “Is it not a soul.” This implies that every human soul has sanctity, even if the deceased in question be a non-Muslim. What an admirable gesture and a beautiful explanation!

Islam brought justice for all people, not only for Muslims. God Almighty says:

…never let your detestation for a people move you to commit the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is nearer and more suited to piety.. (Maida 5:8)

A Muslim should deal with all of humanity by understanding these meanings and these principles, treating both those who disagree and those who agree with them cordially. This is why Muslims should continue to maintain a dialogue with the People of the Book. God says:

Do not argue with those who were given the Book save in the best way possible, unless it be those of them who are given to wrongdoing and therefore not accessible to friendly argument. Say to them: “We believe in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you, and your God and our God is one and the same. We are Muslims wholly submitted to Him. (Ankabut 29:46)

The Qur’an commands us to mention that which unites us and things which we share in common. We should focus on points of agreement and not points of difference. We say: we and you stand on one and the same Earth. We all believe in God, we believe in the Hereafter, we believe in worshipping and serving God, and we believe in moral values.

Non-Muslims living under Muslim protection

Islam taught the practice of tolerance toward the People of the Book in general and toward the people of dhimma (non-Muslims living under Muslim protection) in particular. The “people of dhimma” refers to those who live in Muslim lands. In Islamic jurisprudence such people are called “people of the house of Islam” (ahl al-dar al-Islam), while nowadays we would use the term “citizens”; that is, non-Muslim citizens. They share the same rights and duties as Muslims except those that pertain to religious differences. Just as we have no right to impose our religious duties upon them, we do not tolerate them to confront us in the expression of our religious duties. This is what Islam asks of us. I told some of them, especially Christian Arabs: “You are not Muslim by creed and religion, but you are Muslim in your culture and civilization. Indeed, the Coptic leader, Mukrim ‘Abid in his time as one of the heads of the Coptic Church in Egypt said: “I am a Christian by religion, but a Muslim by country.” What he meant was that he lives in a land belonging to Daril Islam. So, he regards himself as Muslim in his homeland and country. In these terms he is Muslim; that is culturally he is a Muslim. This is what I wish Muslims to know concerning a matter that has been the cause of much confusion, causing some to take up a position on the extreme right and others on the extreme left. But goodness, all goodness is in the middle way.

We have made you a community of the middle-way, so that you may be witnesses (to the truth) for the people and on behalf of them concerning the ways they follow, and that the (most noble) Messenger may be a witness for you and on your behalf. (Baqara 2:143)

I started early, as I was offered wine with family dinners, and I watched my parents consume three to five drinks of alcohol every week day-more on weekends. A large bottle of alcohol lasted two or three days in my home-less if friends dropped by. In fact, the Canadian national average age for trying alcohol is 12 years of age, and about 73% of Canadians over age 12 drink alcohol. Only 3-4% are visibly dependent; the rest are “normal” people-going to jobs and coming home to their families. However, they just can’t function for any length of time without alcohol. They “miss” a drink if they don’t have it-and they make every effort to plan weekly routines around it. They talk about brands, plan visits to bars, clubs, and parties, and may even make their own. They don’t feel “right” until they’ve had a drink-and if they can’t get any, they become depressed or aggressive. Over the months and years, they tend to use it like prayer to meditate on the best and worse moments of their lives.

My family was very typical of Canadian families. On average, Canadians consume 7.6 liters of alcohol per person per year. The industry itself reports sales in 2001 of over 14.5 billion cases (12 X 750 ml bottles). Every single one-every one-of my relations drinks alcohol, and I sadly have several close relatives who have crashed cars, lost their jobs or families, or embarrassed themselves in public-all under the influence of alcohol. Did you know that in a typical year in Canada, more than 6,500 people die in alcohol-related accidents, and more than 81,000 people are hospitalized? Among all injured drivers in Canada, over 77% have alcohol in their bloodstream.

What is the big attraction anyhow? Alcohol doesn’t taste as good as people say it does. It’s often too spicy, sweet, dry, or bitter-depending on what kind of alcohol-and it can burn your throat when it goes down. Most people actually “mix” it with soft drinks or juice to hide the taste. It makes you gain weight through useless calories and lethargy. Drink a lot and you will vomit, sometimes for two or three days. Drink even more, and you may go blind or die. And once you start, it’s hard to stop. People who drink know all of these things, but still they drink. My Muslim friends often ask me, “Why do people drink if they know that there are all these dangers and problems with it?” This question bothered me enough in the past to make me stop drinking for years at a time. My family’s response was no big surprise-they accused me then, like now, of “not being very much fun.” This concept of “fun,” in fact, is at the very heart of the issue.

First, “fun” is what you do to “let go” of “the stresses of the week.” For drinkers of any caliber, life is divided into work days and non-work days. On work days, drinking must be limited-drink too much and your breath and skin smell tart in the morning, detectable to any other drinker, such as an employer. But on weekends, drinking is unlimited. This leads to the birth of a national phenomenon-the race to weekends. People will talk about the coming weekend beginning on Wednesdays. Then, on Mondays and Tuesdays, they talk about the previous weekend. And so, the life of the average Canadian quickly becomes a monotony of alternating days, five plus two, five plus two. The only concept of “future” and “hope” is the hope for what will happen during future weekends. The main bond between members becomes the alcohol itself, as discussions of which beer is better, which bar is better, and which party was the best fill lives quickly and easily and the weeks pass by. Horrible jobs with little meaning are tolerated because “it’s almost Friday,” and it isn’t important anymore to think about how time in this life should really be spent. Any occasion is cause for an alcohol-driven celebration, and many capable people who have the potential to really benefit this world are “dulled” into submission by the monotony of this pointless social and economic cycle.

Second, fun is what happens when you “don’t take life too seriously.” I personally can’t count the number of times I have been told to just “relax.” It seems that not taking life seriously is a fervent goal of the majority of people. They believe that life is meant for pleasure; some will actually tell you that “God gave them the gift of this life strictly for their enjoyment.” In fact, if you begin to think too deeply about the meaning of life, you quickly become a social outcast in this culture. Dare to suggest that someone should slow down their drinking and you will find yourself socially adrift. You may think that’s alright-after all, who needs friends who drink alcohol all the time? However, the reality is that you will have almost an impossible time finding friends who don’t drink alcohol in this culture. Only 12% of all Canadians over age 12 report that they abstain from alcohol, and many of these are from among the younger and older generations. As an adult, you will have to content yourself with being alone, and without a strong faith it is almost impossible to bear the loneliness. Sadly, eventually, one submits to the culture instead of God.

Third, “fun” means acting without due care of the consequences. Every week, all over this country, people apologize to loved ones for inexcusable behaviors they committed when they were drunk-fornication, domestic violence, gambling and financial recklessness, dangerous driving, immoral business practices-and so on. It’s a “perfect excuse” because other drinkers understand, so you are likely to be forgiven. Ultimately, acting carefully becomes quite unimportant. More than 60% of Canadians report problems from their own or someone else’s drinking, and alcohol abuse costs Canada over 2.7% of its gross domestic product annually. That’s over 18.5 billion dollars a year-money that certainly could be better spent. Beyond the inexcusable acts committed under the influence of alcohol, there are the unforgettable ones-telling loved ones hurtful things, divulging long-held family secrets, becoming sexually explicit, acting in embarrassing way with employers, and so on. The reason is that alcohol brings a sense of slowness and confusion-a lot like what you feel just as you wake up in the morning and are still half dreaming. Typically, problem behaviors happen often over a lifetime until life feels “out of control” so that it becomes easier to continue drinking to “numb” the spiritual pain. And so, many give up the power of their will, given to them by God, and begin to believe in what is sometimes called “the Gospel of now”; having no faith in the hereafter and little faith in their ability to control and change their lives for the better, they live only for today.

As believers, we hold the biggest truth of all-belief in the afterlife. Without it, time, pleasure, and reward are measured completely differently. If time is defined only by what is on the calendar this week, why should I care about my spiritual condition at the time of my death? If community is counted only as whoever will accept me in this life, why do I need to care if my life is acceptable to my Maker? If now is all that matters, what is the point of improving myself? Clearly, alcohol creates a powerful distortion-subtle yet persistent throughout the user’s life-that the meaning of life is negotiated here and now on this earth alone. Alcohol users suffer what researchers call “reward deficiency syndrome” –they want instant gratification at all times. So how can they be expected to believe in-or even understand-the afterlife? Thus, alcohol robs users of the belief which is the key to understanding the purpose of our lives. And in shielding believers from alcohol, God protects our faith.

Many times I have walked away from a party by myself on a cold night, disgusted with people’s behavior there, feeling pity for them, staring up at the night sky, feeling completely alone. Thanks to God for the angels that kept me safe through a difficult, dangerous life. Truthfully, I wish I had known then that somewhere throughout the world, in thousands of vibrant communities, over a billion people abstained from alcohol deliberately. Muslims have a duty to tell everyone that they don’t drink because of their faith. Someone, somewhere, some day will hear the message as the voice of his own soul, and perhaps change for the better. We all come from God at the start. God willing, we will all be with Him in the end.

The earliest records belong to ancient China. In 1235 Sung Tz’u, a Chinese “death investigator,” wrote a book entitled The Washing Away of Wrongs (translated by McKnight, 1981) in which what was known in forensic science at that time was detailed. In this text, an actual forensic entomology case was recounted, with the best known historic case being given. A murder had been committed in a little village in China. A man had been hacked to death with a rice-harvesting sickle. Because the village was one where rice was grown, everyone possessed a sickle, which meant that there were therefore many suspects. A professor at UC Davis, Robert Kimsey, explains how the murderer was caught; “The local magistrate very cleverly lined up every one of the farmers with their sickles out in the field. He walked up and down the line and pointed to the man who had committed the murder. The evidence he used to identify this man as a murderer-who later confessed, by the way-was the fact that green bottle flies were attracted to this man’s sickle. And nobody else, of course, had green bottle flies on their sickle because the flies were only attracted to a surface that had blood on it. No matter how rigorously you cleaned your sickle, you would still have remnants which these flies would be able to detect.”

Since those times, forensic entomology has made great progress. The way insect evidence helps justice works through the successive colonization of a corpse by a predictable succession of arthropod species. Different types of insects start coming right after death occurs. Organic remains, like flesh, blood, waste material, bone marrow, and hairs all attract certain types of insects. Owing to the time difference between the decaying body parts, the flies arrive at different times. They consume the parts that are nutritious for them and leave the body for another group.

As a manifestation of the divine name Quddus (the All-Holy), dead bodies decompose and nature is kept clean. Thus, the process started by microorganisms is made faster by the insects. Blow flies are among the first group of workers in this respect, whereas the dermestids, for instance, do their duty in the later stages of decomposition. The larvae of dermestids are not found before the body dry outs. The larvae and adults feed on dry skin and hair, as well as other dry dead organic animal matter. Dermestids are a common pest in homes, as well as being undesirable in insect collections and taxidermists collections at museums.

The first month after death is the most effective time for the application of forensic entomology. When death takes place, the insects start to arrive within minutes. However, it should be noted that insect evidence does not always tell us about the exact time of death. But at least we can infer that death occurred at a time that is greater than the age of the larvae that are developed in the body. If we have sound knowledge about the life cycles of the relevant insects, we can make more accurate predictions.

Another thing entomology helps us find out is the location of a murder. Sometimes a victim is moved after a murder in order to get rid of important evidence. For instance, a victim can be taken to a mountainous area after being killed in a town at low altitude. Entomologists can tell you about the habitat of the insects found on the body and give one a good idea about where the murder took place. Many insects live in very special geographical conditions. The altitude, temperature, and vegetation all affect the types of insects that live in the area. Furthermore, a meticulous entomological study will tell you whether the body has been, moved, the season in which it was killed, and whether the murder was committed indoors or outdoors.

Entomologists even help forensic experts with the cause of death. Particularly when the body has already decayed, it can be difficult for the police to determine the cause of death. In normal conditions, insects lay their eggs in certain parts of a body. If there are open wounds however, they will also lay their eggs there. So, if any eggs are found in unusual spots they indicate a probable wound.

When a murder or suicide is suspected to have resulted due to poisoning and if the body is decomposed, toxicological analyses that are made on the insects or the larvae taken from the body can help.

Bergeret (1855), who resided near Paris was the first westerner to use insects as forensic indicators. The body of a baby was found behind the plaster mantle in a house, and an investigation was begun. Bergeret determined that the assemblage of insects associated with the corpse pointed to a state of decay that dated back several years; consequently, the question of guilt was thrown upon the earlier occupants of the house, and not upon the current ones.

Case histories have documented the utility of medicocriminal entomology and point out the unique contributions that this field of science has made. Nuorteva et al. (1967, 1974) presented a series of cases from Finland in which blow flies were used as indicators for indoor as well as outdoor death scenes, and where the immature (larval) or adult stages were used for identification. Leclercq (1969) provided a typical case scenario and outlined how insect data were used to corroborate information obtained from other sources. Bernard Greenberg (1985) outlined several cases, including a description of how laboratory fly-rearing data were used to calculate the number of accumulated degree hours (ADH) required for certain blow fly species to develop, and how such data were applied to the solution of a murder case in Illinois. In another recent case, Greenberg described how the absence of insects in a seemingly straightforward death scene led to a killer’s confession. A window next to the victim had been open when the body was found, thus giving the impression that the murderer had forced entry into the room the night before. However, the air conditioned room was cool, even though it was very hot outdoors. In reality, the killer was known to the victim, had a key, and had returned to “set the stage,” opening the window just prior to feigning discovery of the corpse. The insects thus had insufficient time to colonize the body as the window had been closed prior to the return of the killer. When confronted by this biological reality as pointed out by medicocriminal entomology, the killer confessed.

A Hungarian ferry skipper had been condemned to life imprisonment for the murder of a postmaster, whose stabbed body had been found one evening in September on the ferry. The ferry skipper had arrived at 18:00 that day, and the body of the murdered postmaster had been found some hours later. The autopsy was performed the next day at 16:00. Masses of yellowish fly eggs and numerous newly hatched larvae of 1 to 2 mm in length were present, and the findings were recorded in the autopsy report. No attention was paid to this observation at the trial, however. On assumed evidence, the ferry skipper was condemned to life imprisonment in spite of his swearing that he was innocent. Eight years later the case was reopened. At the new trial, Dr. Mihalyi pointed out that no sarcophagous flies are active in Hungary after 18:00 in the month of September. He also recalled some of his experiments indicating that, at a temperature of 26 degrees Celsius, the yellowish eggs of Lucilia caesar (L.) hatch after 13 hours, those of L. sericata (Meigen) hatch after 10-11 hours, and those of Phormia terranovae Robineau-Desvoidy 14-16 hours after oviposition. These data, when applied to the case of the ferry skipper, led to the conclusion that it was not possible for the eggs to have hatched if they had been laid during the day the autopsy was performed, and that they must have been laid during the previous day before 18:00, since the flies are not active after this time. Dr. Mihalyi’s data on oviposition was verified and, on the basis of this and other evidence, the ferry skipper was released from prison.

Entomology, along with other sciences whisper in our ear that in “the Book of the Universe” there are different signs that lead us to the truth; they are there for us to use if we search for them and fulfill the requirement of causes. This is when the world will open its mysteries to us.

Reference

• http://www.ucdmag.ucdavis.edu/su99/Feature_Bugs.html
• http://www.research.missouri.edu/entomology/chapter1.html#history
• http://folk.uio.no/mostarke/forens_ent/casehistories/ferry_skipper.html
• The illustration is taken from the poster of the annual Insect Fear Film Festival at the University of Illinois, Feb. 2005.