This article will focus specifically on Muslim-Christian dialogue by pointing out that in the inspired vision of our great and holy founders, Jesus and Muhammad, there is far more that we share in common than there is that divides us. If Jesus and Muhammad had lived at the same time and had actually known each other, it seems from what we know of them that they would have recognized each other not as rivals, but as friends. There are four themes that I find in the gospels and the holy Qur’an that convince me that their teachings were inspired by the same fundamental faith and vision for humanity.

First of all, it is clear from the New Testament and the Qur’an that both Jesus and Muhammad were the beloved of God. In Islamic tradition there are several titles of honor by which Prophet Muhammad is known. For example, he is known as Abdullah – “the servant of God;” he is also known as Mustafa, “the chosen one;” Ahmad, “the one who is praised,” is another commonly used title. Most often, he is known as rasool or “the messenger.” In addition to these titles, Muhammad is also known as habib or “the beloved of God.”

Likewise, Jesus in the New Testament is also referred to as the beloved of God. For example, in Matthew 3:16 as Jesus is being baptized by John, we read:

And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased.”

This same scene is repeated in the gospels of Luke and Mark, and it serves to reinforce the conviction that Jesus is indeed the beloved of God. So, for both Christians and Muslims, their founders are recognized as God’s beloved. It follows then that for those who love God, whether they be Muslims or Christians, it is important to love Jesus and to love Muhammad. For God, there is no rivalry between them. They are both the beloved of God. Those who would claim to be their followers must then have the same respect and love for both of them.

Historically, Muslims have shown much greater respect for Jesus than Christians have shown for Muhammad. Muslims are very knowledgeable about the life of Jesus, and he is spoken of with great respect throughout the Qur’an. The same has not been the case for the traditional attitude of Christians toward Muhammad in history. Sadly, some of those prejudices continue in some circles today. This is largely because of insufficient or inaccurate information about Muhammad and his life. A better knowledge of the life of Prophet Muhammad can serve well to help Christians understand why he also is known as “the beloved of God-al habib.”

Another similarity between Jesus and Muhammad is evident in their strong and uncompromising vision of social justice. They both recognized the inequalities and injustices that existed in their respective societies, and both of them were passionate defenders of the poor, widows, and orphans. For example, in the Qur’an, God speaks through his messenger, Muhammad, these words:

Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. (Qur’an 9:60)

It is on the basis of passages such as this one that the concept of zakat became one of the five pillars of Islam and thereby an obligatory act of devotion for all Muslims. The sense of equality of all people that is derived from this principle is one of the central tenets of Islam. It is also exemplified in the various sunnah and hadith of Prophet Muhammad; for example, the honor he gave to Bilal in inviting him to be the first to chant the words of the adhan calling Muslims to prayer. This gesture was nothing less than revolutionary for that time and place.

Another example from the sunnah, as recounted by Karen Armstrong in her book Muhammad, is the story of a poor man who had committed a minor crime and is told to give alms to the poor as a penance for what he did. Just as the man was telling the Prophet that he did not have anything to give away, a basket of dates was brought into the mosque by someone as a gift for Muhammad. The Prophet, in turn, gave the basket to the poor man and suggested that he use those dates to distribute to the poor. The man replied that he didn’t know anyone who was poorer than he was. Muhammad laughed at his response and suggested that he give the dates to his family as his penance.

Like Muhammad, Jesus spoke out frequently on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged. The famous teaching of the beatitudes, which were part of the Sermon on the Mount, are one example, and another is found in the Gospel of Luke, chapter four, where Jesus uses the words of Prophet Isaiah to refer to himself as he reads from the scroll:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” And he closed the book, …and began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

Not only did Jesus preach this powerful message of love and justice for all the most marginalized members of society, but in his own actions he brought these words to life. The four gospels frequently make reference to Jesus’ special compassion for the sick, the poor, and the forgotten and neglected members of his society. In Matthew, 25: 31-46, he further suggests that his disciples will be known and judged by their actions of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick and imprisoned. In fact, whenever one performs one of these actions to the “least” of his brethren, it is as if he were performing it for Christ himself. It is perhaps for this very reason that the Qur’an honors and respects Jesus. His sense of charity and justice, which is very much rooted in the justice proclaimed by the Hebrew prophets, is totally in sync with the vision of justice taught and practiced by Prophet Muhammad.

A third trait shared by both Jesus and Muhammad is their love for God. Jesus referred to God as abba, an Aramaic word which means “father” (or most closely translated, “daddy”), and Muhammad addressed God as Allah, the Arabic word for God. For both of them, God was the center of their lives. They lived their lives always deeply conscious of God’s power and presence and of themselves as the beloved of God. The gospels speak frequently of Jesus going off by himself to pray-either into the desert, or to a mountain, or to a garden (such as the Garden of Olives where he prayed the night before he died). The spiritual writer Anthony Padavano reminds us:

He prays at every turn, on any occasion, each day, during the night, while on the water, lost in the mountains, alone in the temple, forsaken in the garden, at supper with his friends, throughout the ordeal of the cross. (from his book, Dawn without Darkness)

The strength of Jesus’ ministry was the relationship that he cultivated with God in prayer. Jesus was a man of God because he was a man of prayer.

Likewise, Prophet Muhammad was recognized by all of his followers as a prayerful, deeply God-conscious person. The very revelation of the Qur’an came to Muhammad while he was praying on Mt. Hirat, and the two great moments of epiphany that Muhammad was privileged to receive, the Night of Ascent (laylat al- miraj) and the Night of Power (laylat al- qudr), are examples of his deep devotion to prayer and the deep intensity of his prayer. Indeed, of the night of power the Qur’an says: “The Night of Power is better than a thousand months.” The practice of salat five times daily is meant to keep each Muslim aware of God throughout the hours of the day, following the example of Prophet Muhammad in his deep devotion to God and all-encompassing God-consciousness. In addition to the five times of daily prayer, there is the prayer known as du’a, which corresponds more to the Christian understanding of prayers of petition. From the sunnah and hadith there are many traditions relating Muhammad’s devotion to prayer on many different occasions of the day and the long periods of time he often spent in salat. As with Jesus, the rhythm of Muhammad’s daily life was one of prayer and devotion to God-God-consciousness. Peace and praise be upon them both.

A fourth characteristic that Jesus and Muhammad shared was respect for the equality of women. Both of them lived in a highly patriarchal culture in which women were highly subjugated, had few rights, and were often treated unjustly and harshly. In speaking out on behalf of the rights of women, Jesus and Muhammad went against the prevailing norms of their respective cultural and religious heritage. We see, for example, in the ways that Jesus related to women a teaching that was quite revolutionary for his time. He would talk to women, and always treated them with the respect and dignity that they deserved. It is a woman, Mary Magdalene, who is recognized as one of his closest followers, and it was she to whom Jesus first appeared after his resurrection, entrusting to her the task of telling the other disciples that he had risen from the dead. In Jesus’ understanding of the Kingdom of God, men and women were equals.

Prophet Muhammad also courageously opposed the prevailing norms of his time with regard to women. In the fourth chapter of the Qur’an, Allah reminds believers:

“O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-lord, Who created you from a single Person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women; reverence Allah, through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (that bore you): for Allah ever watches over you. (4:1)

In addition to this ayat from the Qur’an, there is a hadith in which Muhammad says that “women are the twin halves of men.” These teachings taken together are compelling evidence of the essential equality that exists between men and women, as it was revealed to Muhammad. It is this recognition of equality that forms the basis for the various laws of the Shariah which protect the rights of women. There are, for example, laws that protect women’s right of inheritance, their right to divorce, their right to vote and run for office, their rights to alimony and palimony, and strict laws limiting polygamy. Indeed, one of the principle reasons for the limited conditions under which polygamy could be practiced was the protection of the many widows and orphans that lived without a husband or father in the often violent society of 7th century Arabia.

Though Islam is often criticized as being oppressive to women, the fact is that the teaching and example of Prophet Muhammad demonstrate something quite the opposite. Muhammad, like Jesus, was very counter-cultural in championing the rights of women. Yet it has often been the followers of Muhammad and Jesus who have misunderstood or misrepresented the true nature of their view of women and their rightful roles in society and in their respective religions.

Certainly, there are other convergences that can be pointed out between the lives of these two great messengers of God, and certainly there are some differences, but the four that we have mentioned-being the beloved of God and defenders of the poor, their devotion to prayer and speaking up on behalf of women’s rights-serve to highlight how much Muhammad and Jesus had in common. They lived several centuries apart, though they emerged from the same part of the world. One cannot help but wonder and speculate that if they lived at the same time and knew each other how they would have responded to each other. It is surely a hypothetical question, but the evidence would seem to indicate that they would not have seen each other as rivals, but would rather have had nothing but the highest respect for one another. The famous Night of Ascent in which Muhammad was mystically transported to heaven (laylat al-miraj) bears remarkable resemblance to the gospel account of Jesus’ Transfiguration, where he was joined by the prophets Abraham and Elijah. In Muhammad’s ascension he was also joined by Jesus. What a beautiful image. What would they have said to each other? It is a fascinating question to ponder.

It is not hard to imagine them being glad to see each other, embracing each other as friends, and becoming engaged in deep and genuine dialogue. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine Jesus and Muhammad as friends, linked by their love of God and their vision of a world characterized by justice, compassion, and equality-a world where people lived in awareness of and submission to God. They would have recognized each other as friends because they were friends of God. They would have the same hope and expectation for their followers. May we, their followers, learn from them.

Thomas Petriano, PhD, is a faculty member at Religious Studies Department, St. Joseph’s College, New York.

When you were a mere nineteen-day embryo, my creation began from a special mass of cells. At first, I looked like a tube, then I twisted, turned, and gradually the creation of my chambers and my neighboring veins began. Together with the other cells of the body, we developed to serve as different parts, such as nerves, skin, cartilage, muscles, and so on. And the cells which make me up are very specially programmed. When they reached a certain number and mass on your twenty-second day, they were commanded to march, and only God knows for how long. When all my cells contract together to beat, you feel it as your pulse. Though I operate in your body, Peter, you do not think much about my beats, but when you run fast, I just have to beat faster for your legs require more blood. Only then, Peter, do you notice me, but you do not give me a second thought anyway. You are so heedless, as if I will carry out this duty forever and will never get tired. Let us admit that is not so unusual for a young man, but the worst is you do not ever think of who blessed you with such a gift, and that really makes me sad. Nowadays you go to high school, and there they occasionally talk about me in biology lessons. Peter, you are not to blame, actually-teachers talk about me as if I were a simple pump. However, you cannot even move a finger if I do not pump blood into your brain. But today, I will let you know that I am not just a simple mass of flesh. I am going to tell you today that you should care about me both physically and spiritually, otherwise, you will truly regret it. I am just a friend, warning you about the bitter truth; you still have a chance to make it up.

All the cells, the building blocks of your body (maybe 100 trillion of them) need me for their nutrition, breathing, digestion, waste disposal, and to carry out their particular duties. You wonder why? Well, all their needs are met thanks to my being created to work ceaselessly. This is why I start working before any other organ at the embryonic stage. Even I do not know how long exactly I will work; sometimes, in spite of being in sound health, the appointed hour comes and I leave my duty obeying the divine command. For the most part, the Angel of Death does not tell me to stop for no reason-he somehow uses an apparent cause. There are so many causes to make me leave my duty, in such an age where accidents, bad habits, and suicides are tremendously high.

In fact, even I marvel at how I work. I am equipped with certain precautions against blood losses which occur as a result of injuries, but if the blood loss is not made up for and the bleeding is not stopped, I may get tired and stop functioning after a certain time. I can be easily affected by certain types of poisoning. This does not matter much, but what really upsets me is your living irregularly, unhealthy eating habits, inactivity, laziness, and especially your leading a stressful life quarrelling with everyone. I endure these for a while, but sometimes when I cannot take it anymore, I just quit or pretend to quit in order to draw your attention. Right after that, you have people screaming, calling the doctor in panic, demanding pills, adrenalin or heart massage… All of these are fine my dear, but why on earth do you wait until I become like that! Listen, Peter, I am telling you again, it is you who does me the greatest harm. So do not be offended if I one day get tired and quit! You just keep gulping down fatty foods, my downstairs neighbor, the stomach, keeps complaining that you are filling it up too much. When it is filled up, it starts putting pressure on me naturally. Haven’t you heard about the hadith counseling people to leave one third of their stomach empty and rise from the table before they are full? I can understand the vegetables, but what about the fast food, fried things, and other unhealthy stuff you eat? Be careful, you will have to pay for it before long, and it will be too late. Well, one has the right to benefit from the blessings in this world, but one should know where to stop. If you go on like that, my valves will be disabled by fat and my main arteries will be clogged. As for my coronary arteries, they are already created narrow and they can be clogged in a short time and lead to a heart failure.

You are just a couch potato lying before the TV all day without moving at all. I would not be surprised if you started going to the corner shop by car. If only you did exercise for a little part of the day. Some of your friends do the daily prayers and kill two birds with one stone. They fulfill their duty to their Creator and relieve their hearts with the bodily exercise. In addition, their hearts are at ease thanks to their faith. Another welcome relief for us is their fasting for a whole month once a year. Staying hungry for a certain part of the day comforts me and gives me a chance to burn some fats.

The muscle tissue which makes up my main structure is designed as an intricate ball of fibers and so I am able to function properly without changing my shape too much as I contract and relax. The surface of my walls is wrapped up in a double layer in order to prevent harm from rubbing against the ribs, which are set around me as a protective cage. Also, there is a special liquid between the two layers of the membrane and this lowers the friction even further. C’mon Peter! Who can arrange so many precautions so splendidly?

Like car engines with four cylinders, I also work like a pump with four chambers. My upper chambers are called atriums. The one on the right takes in the waste-rich venous blood, and the one on the left takes in the oxygen-rich arterial blood. The muscular strength of these chambers is relatively low, but it is good enough to pass the blood they take to the lower chambers. As for my lower chambers, named ventricles, they have thicker walls and stronger muscles. They are given the ability to contract and pump blood with great pressure. Moreover, the lower chamber on the left has even stronger muscles and thicker walls since this very chamber enables me to send blood to the entire body with great pressure and speed. Thanks to the large vein named the aorta, I send blood to each organ in the required amount and at the right speed. Precise timing is vital for my four chambers to contract successively, to open of the valves at the exact moment they should, and to send blood to the neighboring chamber or to the two main arteries. The closing of the valves also requires perfect timing to prevent the blood from flowing back. The coordination of this timing mechanism is obtained through the regular production of electricity by the atrioventricular bundle. If there is something wrong with the timing of my valves, or if they cannot close properly because they are blocked with fat or calcification and so let blood leak, you diagnose this situation as a disease. As a precaution against blood flowing backwards through the valves between the atriums and ventricles under heavy pressure, some cords are tightly fixed under them. You are not aware of any of these, but I keep working even when you are asleep. Naturally, I may change my speed at different times, according to what you do. While you are asleep, I work at an easier tempo. I work faster than normal while you are running or doing heavy exercise and I send the necessary amount of blood to every organ. My energy source? Well, the fuels I mostly make use of are fatty acids, lactic acid, and sugars. In addition, thanks to my special metabolism, I never get tired. There is only a very short period of rest of one tenth of a second between every contraction and relaxation I make. The stimulating command must come with perfect precision so that all my muscles start to contract and relax simultaneously and so that I can generate an efficient pumping force. Actually, I am not quite sure how this timing is arranged during different activities. A tiny automatic center on me produces electrical signals; the activities of upsetting and then resetting the ion balance inside and outside the cells in order to produce these signals is carried out with reactions happening in a time as short as one thousandth of a second. Even though these cells make me work with the electricity they produce, I am not really independent. The foremost among the factors that affects my functioning is the nerves from the brain. Therefore, the fear, anger, and sadness you experience upset my functioning as well. This must be why people have taken me as the center of emotions; although anger and sadness take place in the brain, I was located as the emotional center, as the effect surfaced in me.

Peter, I will ask you a simple question: is there some engineer who made the TV set you lie before? Are there people who write the articles in the magazine you are holding or who lay out the letters and pictures? There are some agents right? So, more perfectly than all of these, should there not be One who has created me and my system of blood vessels, and then placed me in your chest cavity? Well, it is high time you switched off that TV set. Now Peter, just as I fulfill my duty regularly to keep you alive, you should also spare just ten minutes to pray for and praise your Lord Who has created your body so perfectly. In the meantime, I will have found a chance to get rid of the strain you put me under because of your hurry and stress.

Within these few pages, I have probably told you only a thousandth of my splendid structure and the precision of my functioning. Neither I, nor physicians have the proper knowledge to explain all about me completely. So, my friend Peter, you need to learn to say, “How beautifully it has been made,” instead of “How beautiful it is.”

One recent example of such phenomena is the Schrödinger equation that explains the behavior of matter at the atomic level. This relation just happens to work, and its derivation is intuitive rather than rational. It also has the simplest mathematical form among its possible competitors in terms of expressing nature.

We will now look at another example of such axiom-like relations that we usually ignore, although it is frequently encountered in our everyday life. Before revealing it as fully as we can, let us relate one situation where this effect is very apparent.

We usually move objects by pushing or pulling them. Suppose now we are on a motorboat and we have run out of gas in a place very close to the shore. We (the strong crew members) surely do not want to be carried away from the shore by the backwash from the waves. One of us has the brilliant idea to push on the sides of the boat until we reach harbor. What would you suggest? Some of us think that it is not a good idea because the boat is very heavy and our pushing will be negligible. It is true that the boat will not move. However, the failure has nothing to do with the weight of the boat. On the other hand, some other crew members suggest using oars, which will obviously work, but why? (Personally, with all my respect to other opinions, I would suggest using the phone to call the beach police to get some help; but this would distract us from our subject matter.)

Impulse, direction, and momentum

If you think about the “why” question above, you will guess that we are talking about impulse in the loose meaning of the word. In physics, impulse has a more precise definition. This definition arose from the need to describe an object’s ability to have an impact on other objects, but the idea is still vague: How do we quantify this ability in order to put some flesh on this notion? Let us try to figure out an answer to this question.

Now, let us consider a few possible ways of defining impulse that look reasonable. We may decide intuitively that an impact should be related to an object’s speed: the higher the speed the greater the impact. If you ever played marbles in your childhood, you will recall that the easiest way to dislodge the marbles in the targeted row is to cast your own marble as fast as you can. Impulse should also have a relation to mass. Certainly, the impact of as many as a thousand bullets aimed at a train will not move the train even a meter. These are some simple observations anyone can experience or have a feeling of from their daily life.

We also expect that this strange quantity should somehow be transferred by the interaction of two objects. One object colliding with another stationary object transfers something that causes the latter to travel in a direction. With this example, another important feature of our impulse idea emerges: direction. Those who like to play the game of American pool or billiards know this very well. (I am sure everyone does it for the noble reason to experiment the laws of physics.) It makes a significant difference in a collision of two masses if they hit each other at an angle.

Wait a minute! We have been talking about the effect of an object’s impact, but the object has something that it is carrying even before the impact, and this “something” is the reason why we have an impact in the first place. So, what is this “something”? Let us call it momentum so as not to violate the traditions of physics.

All this stuff so far is good, but we are not done yet: how should these ideas appear in our equations? Now, let us bring together all our findings. We know momentum manifests itself as the impact (P) of one object on another. From its effect (impulse), we understand that momentum is related to the mass (M) of the object and its velocity (V). We also know that momentum has a directionality, which is termed vectorial. Then, perhaps momentum is something like:

P = a x M + b x V

where a and b are constants. This seems acceptable since it satisfies our observation: the more the mass, the more the momentum. But for a stationary object (V=0), there is no point in talking about impulse; so the axM terms looks unnecessary. If there is no good reason for a physical quantity to appear in a physical equation, then the simplicity principle says it should be removed. Therefore, we look for a simpler alternative relation with only one term like below:

P = c x M2 x V5

where c is a constant. But this one is a highly non-linear relation with exponential terms, so it is really not looking good. Another problem with this equation is that it does not fit our daily experience very well. If we reconsider our train example, with a high velocity power term like this, even the very small bullets can have a considerable effect on a train, enough to move it in fact. As a simple example, let c be equal to 1, take 0.1 kg as the mass of a bullet and 105 kg (100 tons) as the mass of the train, and give 400 m/s velocity to the bullet. Assuming that the impulse of the bullet is transferred to the train (conservation of momentum), we roughly get:

Pbullet = c x m2 x Vb5 = 1011

Ptrain = c x M2 x Vt5 = 1010 Vt5

By equating both sides we roughly get, 1.6 m/s (5.7 km/h) for the train velocity.

A single bullet moving a big train at such speed? This is a very counter-intuitive result. However, we will not give up easily. How about if we try an expression which is more familiar?

P = d x MV2

where d is a constant. This relation also agrees with our intuition (i.e. it has mass and velocity terms proportional to P.) I can already hear some objections from those who are acquainted with physics saying “No! This is the energy formula of a body with mass M and velocity V.” Indeed, this equation is reserved for energy which is a non-vectorial quantity. As a matter of fact, none of the above is a correct description for momentum. The actual expression is, interestingly, the simplest of all possibilities:

P = MxV

So, why not the more complex ones but this, the simplest one? The rigorous answer is subtle and requires a thorough analysis of linearity and homogeneity of space, which could be the subject of another essay. But we repeat the remark that we made in the beginning: if there is a simpler and more beautiful way of describing a natural law, then that description often turns out to be the correct one in the end. In fact, for some giants of physics like Paul Dirac, the beauty of a theory is more important than its results and is a better indication of the theory’s correctness. There is more to it than that. There are whole theories like Dimensional Analysis which are implicitly based on the idea of writing down the equations in the simplest (and most beautiful) form.

So, the final point is that, like other fundamental relations in physics, the idea of impact or momentum is best described in the simplest and most intuitive way: P= MxV. And behold! This gives us exactly the relation that has passed all the scientific tests in the range of classical physics. This result implies that the beauties we see in nature can be explained in terms of the simplest possible physical relation. Pondering all these, one cannot help but ask how in the world a mindless, blind natural law could exhibit beauty based on simplicity.

A: Islam saved women who were exploited, enslaved, and regarded as second class in the darkness of the pre-Islamic Age of Ignorance from the position of a poor creature and elevated them to a new status as a blessed being. Islam freed women from being treated as a tool of pleasure and laid Paradise under their feet. If the essential sources of religion and the exemplary lives of the first two generations of Muslims who lived after God’s Messenger are carefully studied, it will be seen that Muslim women were absolutely not confined to their home and they were never oppressed. If those who come up with such claims are not prejudiced and are not making deliberate assertions, then these ideas stem from being ignorant of the essential principles the religion set on this matter and from attributing misconceptions and misapplications-which originate from interference of local customs-throughout history to Islam.

Islam is the only religion which has given women such extensive rights; when we look at the Qur’an, practices of the Prophet, and the history of Islam, except for some abuses caused by individuals’ mistakes, it will be seen that women gained the most exalted status in Muslim societies. Yes, women have a unique position in Islam, which can never be found in other systems. Even the societies considered as the most developed in our time are backward on this issue and they cannot be compared with Islam.

In these modern societies, even though women seem to have a certain freedom, it is rather a freedom to satisfy certain carnal desires, and such a freedom, whether for men or women, cannot be welcomed by primordial human nature and sound intellect; it cannot be acceptable in any divine religion. In recent centuries, the difficulties of making a living brought by bloody wars between states and the pressures of economic needs pushed women into the workforce and out of their homes. After this emergence, women started to earn their own livelihood and to some extent they gained economic freedom as individuals, but in many cases they were not saved from being exploited by capital holders, who wish to benefit particularly from their physical attractions. Unfortunately, especially in Western societies, women have found superficial and artificial love only at a particular moment of their lives in proportion to their contribution to the market, to material values, and to their serving men’s carnal desires. However, they have mostly lost the respect and love they previously experienced in social life as daughters, sisters, wives, mothers, and grandmothers, and this can never be replaced by anything else. In the long run, under the guise of freedom this time, they got to be exploited on and on with modern techniques (!), they were deprived of most inalienable rights, and become a victim of abuse equivalent of the dark ages.

As a reaction to all the injustice done to women (such as their lack of civil and property rights and the absence of justice toward women in family law) a movement to claim women’s rights emerged, particularly in the West. Even though this movement is considered an awakening of women, it occurred as a reaction and was doomed to imbalance like all other reactionary movements and ended up in extremism. Although the starting point was to defend women, in time it deviated from the original aim to the degree of being full of hatred towards men and to feeling a grudge against them. The movement named feminism, which was born from the idea of protecting women and providing them with rights equal to those of men, has only left behind longing, sorrow, and wreckage as a movement of discontentment. Nevertheless, the representatives of feminism, which now has different varieties, have pursued very different demands and the movement has frequently deviated from protecting the rights of women to the excess of trying to establish their dominance.

Two bodies, one soul

God has created woman as a partner to man, not as anything else. In this respect, he cannot be without her and she cannot be without him. According to Muhammed Lutfi Effendi, the Sufi scholar and poet (d. 1956), even though Adam was in Paradise, he lived in sorrow during the time when he was without Eve. Had Eve been created first, then at that time she would have lived in sorrow without Adam, since they could not do without one another with respect to their creation. They were like two bodies and a single soul and represented the two different faces of one truth. God has created women and men in relation to each other as He created the electron in relation to the proton, the negative pole in relation to the positive one, the female seed in relation to the male one. As He composed a whole from these pairs, He willed woman and man to make couples. Yes, as the positive is joined to the negative, the electron is joined to the proton, night is joined to day, summer is joined to winter, and the earth depends on the sky, to the same extent woman and man are created dependent on one another. God’s Messenger expressed this truth as follows: “Surely, women are the other half of men.”

In this respect, women and men are equal halves in terms of their humanity, but neither of them is ever the same as the other. They hold certain differences in their primordial nature, physical potentials, spiritual worlds, and psychological structures; but men are not a biologically mature form of women, nor are women a less or more developed form of man. Both are individual human creatures and they are in essential need of one another. In accordance with this balanced understanding, women were granted the lofty status they deserve at the time of the Prophet; they undertook responsibilities to suit their nature, and the vital position of women in society was reestablished. This great revolution took place at a dark period when the world was immersed in savagery and when it was being discussed whether women had a soul or not.

The place of women between extremes

Islam did not deprive women of anything; it just kindly granted them exemption from certain liabilities. For example, Islam does not hold women responsible for attending congregational prayers and sermons, fasting or praying at certain times, or undertaking paid work to support themselves or their family. However, Islam does not prevent any woman’s voluntary attendance at a congregational prayer, such as Friday Prayer. In the reference books on the sayings and life of the Prophet there are reports that women attended different congregational prayers including the prayer for rain.

Not making women liable for everything men are responsible for is an expression of Islam’s kind approach towards women. This manifestation of divine Mercy is based on the following essential: Women are generally more compassionate and merciful than men. As a compliment to her vast compassion, the All-Merciful Creator who is the sole owner of true mercy honored women with a different aspect of His blessings and freed her from certain liabilities.

According to Islam, women’s role in this world is not only restricted to doing the housework and raising children. In fact, as long as it does not conflict with her primordial nature or with observing religious requirements, she is responsible for carrying out the duties that befall her in every area of society and making up for shortcomings where men fall short in social life. However, this reality was ignored in time, even among Muslims; rough understandings and crude thinking upset this system based on women and men’s mutual assistance. After this upset, both family life and the social order were also upset. Different peoples’ perception of their own historical heritage as a part of Islam, their seeing and reflecting their folklore and traditions as essentials of religion, and making judgments pertaining to this issue at certain periods all resulted in the usurpation of women’s rights; they were pushed into a more restricted area day by day, and in some places they were totally isolated from life without consideration of where this issue leads. However, the source of mistaken thoughts and deviations in this matter is not Islam whatsoever. The mistakes belong to those who misinterpret and misapply the religion. Such mistakes in practice must definitely be corrected.

On the other hand, while correcting these mistakes, approaching the issue from a feminist standpoint will upset the balance again and an opposite extremism will replace the former. For instance, just as it is very ugly to see women as merely child-bearing objects and is insolence towards them, it is equally unbecoming and unnatural to build a society where women are unable to bear and bring up the children they wish for, or for a woman to feel a need to rebel against marrying and to avoid bearing children in order to show that she is not a machine. As a woman is not a dirty dish, her place at home is not confined to the kitchen with the dirty dishes. However, a woman who claims to have no household responsibilities and thereby turns her home to a quarters for eating and sleeping is far from being a good mother, a good teacher, and a good spiritual guide to her children.

Besides all this, it is another form of oppression to make women work under difficult conditions, such as mining and road-building. It contradicts human nature to push women into heavy tasks like agricultural manual labor, or military field operations, and other harsh pursuits, just for the sake of proving their equality with men; it is nothing but cruel torture. It shows ignorance of women’s qualities and conflicts with their primordial nature. Therefore, just as an understanding which imprisons women at home and takes them completely away from social life is absolutely incorrect according to Islam, likewise, depriving women of financial support, preventing them from bearing and raising children in security, and forcing women into the labor force to do uncongenial work is also oppressive. A woman, like a man, can have a certain job as far as her (and his) physiology and psychology are taken into consideration; but both women and men should know that a good life consists of sharing and division of labor. Each should assist the other by doing tasks in compliance with their nature.

The only rose of my fate, sweet musk-scented hair

My enshrouding sphere, You bestow abundantly,

Wings of the angel lay down for you on the way to the Lote-tree.¹

The Station of Two-Bows’ Length, the highest peak of all,

You are the breath of the original nature,² the cosmos’ lofty call.

You are the rain of mercy and compassion from the most Supreme,

You are the Master of existence, prior even to Adam.

O the Ocean of Light! Would your grace cascade from a fountain?

The myriads of hearts would each become for you a crystal pool.

Black Locks you must be called, O the Beloved,

I wonder if my cry can reach you, dull, enfeebled.

My troubles are far too many, and I myself possess no cures at all,

I spent summers in vain, and am left in poverty in the fall.

“Perhaps a hand will be extended,” I thought, “if I knock on your door,”

“Perhaps my Master could find a cure for this sinner.”

I am afraid to hear you say, “Who is he?”

Then, all abodes would become a dungeon for me.

You are a cure for troubles, let this heart burn,

O the Beloved of the Merciful; to ashes let it burn.

Moons split at your command,³

Nothing but a full moon is seen in your face.

Purest water pours down from your fingers quenching armies,⁴

The hardest hearts soften in rapture with your breath.

Your blessed saliva is a heavenly river and a salve for the wounded,

Every moment in your company is time spent in heaven.

Black Locks I say, for the color of the Hira cave

Is united in harmony with that of the Miraj night.

Hajar al-Asad⁵ is imbued in black,

Inspired by the black of your hair, O the Beloved with rosebud lips.

Black Locks I say, for the pitch black of the Ka‘ba,

Draining the color of your eyes, as if from Kawthar.

O Black Locks, come before laments are no longer of use,

O Black Locks, come before my life comes to a close.

O Black Locks, come before my love fades in my heart,

O Black Locks, come before the Angel descends to take this life away.

With sparkling light, bestow upon me the horizons of future,

May all the horror on the road change into glory.

Burying my face into your prints in the dust,

Burning in flames, crying your name “O Muhammad!”

I wish to reach the land beyond, thirsty and tired,

On my lips, may cries of “water” and “Lord” become entwined.

Perhaps my burning could be the lowest of mercy,

A kiss from an angel whispering “He” while touching.

O Black Locks, all my days roam in this way,

Each ordeal passes engulfed in longing for you.

Stop this pain, put an end to this longing,

Uproot and hurl away this torment of separation from my heart.

Hurl it away to the unknown or to extermination,

Burn this heart forever with your light of reunion.

________________________

1. sidrat al-muntaha: (the Lote-tree of the Boundary) a station which the Prophet was raised during his Ascension.

2. fitrat: the original state in which humans are created by God

3. One of the well known miracles of the Prophet was “splitting the moon.” Once, the most staunched idolaters of Mecca came and asked him to show them a miracle to prove his mission. The Prophet prayed and the moon split. One half of the moon appeared above a mountain while the other half appeared above another mountain. This miracle is confirmed by the following verse: The Hour has approached and the moon split (Qamar 54:1).

4. This verse refers to one of the Prophet’s miracles. The Prophet dipped his fingers into a pot of water and immediately after he took them out, from each water flowed like a fountain.

5. Hajar al-Asad is the black stone that is found in one of the corners of the Ka‘ba in Mecca. Pilgrims start circumambulation from the corner on which this stone is placed.

Once you realize these things about you and the life that you are living, then it really sounds outrageous when people think they have made a good work of art or they have great taste in art. Could it not be that all people have the same taste but only each individual’s perception is different, as opposed to all people having the same level of perception but different taste?

Most people think that taste is something subjective, that is, everybody has their own taste and that is the end of it. There is nothing more to discuss about taste. Hence, there is no such thing as good taste or bad. Everybody has things they like and things they do not, but no one can say that their taste is any better than someone else’s. Thus, we are all tempted to accept the unquestionable character of taste as the truth since almost everybody agrees on it. Although the majority view is often considered acceptable as a way of ascertaining the truth, there are quite a few examples that show that is just not correct. This article is about one of those examples.

If you are part of the big majority of people that thinks there is no such thing as good taste, you should also think that there is no such thing as good art. I can imagine if I was giving a talk about this article and presenting this exact same argument, there would be fifty hands going up objecting: “That can’t be true; there is Mona Lisa, there is Tortoise Trainer, there is this, and there is that.” But then, whoever did not like Mona Lisa or Tortoise Trainer would just have worse taste than yours, or anybody else who liked it might have better taste for that matter. Hence, we arrive at the conclusion that if there is no good taste, then there is no good art. If we follow the argument further, then there is no good artist.

Suppose you are making a painting or writing a poem, what do you think would be guiding you throughout the whole process? The inevitable answer to this question must be “taste” because each stroke of your brush or each line you add is a decision made by you with the help of your taste. Every move you make is a result of your conscious or subconscious thought that it would make your piece better. But then, if you think that there is no place for a concept of being better in art, you should not be able to make any moves. Not only that, by the same token a brand new blank canvas would be just as good as the ceiling of the Hagia Sophia. What is more, by saving a lot of time and energy, you are doing even better with the blank canvas than the guy who painted the ceiling of Hagia Sophia.

Probably you are thinking that the author of these lines has really lost it now! And maybe, you are thinking that it is about time to move on to the next article. But hold on a second!

I think I may have a solution to this nonsense. If Da Vinci was in Robinson Crusoe’s place, he would still draw the Mona Lisa on that island, but surely, he would be happier if thousands of people came to see it every day. So, there is more to art than pure taste; art has people who appreciate it. It could be argued that an artist enjoys his piece for two possible reasons. First, just because he likes what he does; second, there is an audience who will appreciate what he does.

But before appreciation come attention and interest. People must pay attention or need to have an interest before they understand or even think about something. Only after that do they recognize something is beautiful, and after that comes the appreciation.

Attention and interest are two very broad terms. There are so many different things that attract my attention or interest me, often without me knowing it. Sometimes the rhyme of a poem is so soothing and pleasant that I do not even know, when I read it the first time, that I have actually fallen in love with it. I realize this when I figure out that I have learned the whole thing after a few recitations without expending any special effort to memorize it. It is as if, all of a sudden, I start hearing the constant relaxing whistle of a tall reed in my ears along with the wind. It is a great pleasure to fall asleep in the ambiance of that reed. The bed is no different than a throne for me at that moment.

Once I discover such a lone reed with a soothing melody, I visit her from time to time when I get really tired and need some rest. Then, on one of those visits, just before I fall asleep, I see a ray of a different color through the leaves of the reed; one which I had not noticed before. It is an irreplaceable touch. Surely the poet must have hidden it among the leaves and the branches only for his loyal visitors. Exhilarated by the discovery of this beauty, I start telling the fellows in the shade around me about it. I hear you saying now, “Oh! I thought you were alone under the tree.” No, no! That is impossible. If there is a reed, there will always be fellows under the shade, some for the whistle, some for the colors, some for something you do not know, but there will be always some people enjoying it.

I tell you the little story about me and the poet just to make a point about the type of art that intrigues us. Some art lies in the background quietly, some shakes our very souls and makes us tremble. Some gets carved into our brains immediately, whereas some types challenge our intelligence. In all of those different kinds of good art there is a very essential thing in common. It is the common things that the audience shares.

Although poetry is a type of art with a very broad audience, we can always imagine some people who would have no interest in it at all. Maybe a better example would be a type of beauty that would interest absolutely everybody in this world. Is there anything like that? There are tons of things like that. Who would not like a nightingale singing near dawn, or a warm breeze on the cheek, the harmony of different tones of green in a broad forest, human faces, and the like. Let us focus, for example, on that last one. All of us find human faces interesting, right? I believe that it is encoded in our DNA. A parallel to this is the obsessive compulsion of sculptors to make human faces all the time. Or, think about the number of people whose faces you know but not their names and vice versa. Which number is bigger do you think?

If you are not convinced by these arguments or think that maybe I am biased due to the conditions that I developed in, let us put the same question to babies, who are not biased, at least not just yet! Let us see what they have got to say about this. If you are worried that we cannot really understand what they are saying, there is some help from the psychologists. “In 1961, the psychologist Robert Fantz devised an ingenious method to find out about babies and faces. He designed a stand in which, on the bottom level, the baby lies on his back, looking up. A few feet above is a display area where the experimenter puts two large cards, each containing a design-a white circle, a yellow circle, a bull’s eye, or a simple sketch of face. The researcher, peering down through a tiny peephole, can watch the movement of the baby’s eyes and time how long they are directed at one or the other of each pair of patterns. Fantz found that at two months babies looked twice as long at a bull’s eye as at a circle of solid color, and twice as long at a sketch of a face as at a bull’s eye. Evidently, even a two-month-old can distinguish major differences and direct his gaze toward what he finds more interesting.”¹

With this in mind, we are compelled to acknowledge that the human face appeals to an innate common taste in all humans, either because it is beautiful in itself or because it contains most, if not all, of the things that are to “the common taste” of all humans. Then we can conclude that, as humans, our design is such that we are at least able to appreciate the same things.

Finally, we are in a position to define good art. Good art is such that it passes from its creator and reaches a lot of people who enjoy gazing upon it. Good art attracts attention and interest from a lot of people with different characteristics from different cultures and regardless of all their differences, the essential thing is they all have the same aptitude to enjoy the same thing in various different ways. In other words, good art is a manifestation of unity in multiplicity.

_______________________

1. Hunt, M., The Story of Psychology, pp. 366, Anchor Books, 1993

Vitamin basics

Vitamins and minerals are key nutrients that are essential in the regular functioning of the human body. They are needed in small amounts and are usually acquired from vegetables and fruits (Dobson 12). When acquired properly, vitamins can competently play the role assigned to them and they can observe their duties, such as to keep the immune system running, contribute to the structural integrity of the body, and strengthen the sensory systems. Their deficiency in the body leads to problems in these systems, which may result in lethal risks for health. For example, “lack of vitamin D damages immunity to cause cancers, diabetes and infections” (Mirkin).

Vitamins can be classified as water soluble and fat soluble. Generally, the vitamins that are soluble in water are absorbed by the body in the quantities that are needed. The excess is excreted in urine. Thus, it appears that abundant use of pills containing such vitamins produces nothing but expensive urine. As for the vitamins that are soluble in fat, their excess is stored in fat tissues and is retrieved in case of need (“Vitamins and Minerals”). This is an undesired effect, because it tires the body, which is otherwise a perfectly adjusted system.

Motivation for vitamin supplements

In the last century, a lot of research has been done to establish the amounts of vitamins and minerals needed for regular functioning of the body. With this knowledge, there is a growing concern among the public about their nutrition in recent years. People often think that the foods they are consuming do not contain necessary or sufficient amounts of vitamins and minerals.

It is not difficult to see that this concern has been formed by the artificial agendas of certain specialists. These specialists use methods that evoke feelings of anxiety, fear, desire, and the wish for perfection. The visual media and the press have certainly been the main and most effective means of propagating this agenda. Based on consultation with the specialists, vitamin-producing companies make promises to the consumers through advertisements that highlight how good vitamins are for children, adolescents and the elderly. They promise, for example, that if certain vitamins are used, people will feel better, improve their memory or remove aging effects. They claim that some of the vitamins they are selling have a healing or preventive power against diseases about which people are most concerned or fearful. Cancer, cardiovascular problems and obesity are among the most commonly emphasized such diseases. In the same way, abusing people’s desire for a long life, they claim that some vitamins increase life expectancy. For children, their inherent desire to be like adults is abused and they are promised that if they use certain vitamins they will be strong. These claims are reinforced with video clips in order to make them appear more realistic, and they are further supported by frequent repetition in the visual media.

Food supplements designed to meet the needs of the body are also put in “costumes” to allure the consumers. Product packaging uses big bullet points to present information about their extra vitamin content. In parallel to this, in the stores where these vitamins are sold, life-size pictures of famous or well-built people are displayed.

The Vitamin Market

As a result of all these efforts, many people think that a healthy life is not possible without vitamin pills. According to a survey by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) two decades ago, around fifty percent of the population from 19–50 takes a multivitamin pill every day. That survey showed a significant increase compared to another one performed five years earlier (Driskell). According to this trend, the vitamin supplement consumption is likely to have achieved much higher levels in our time.

Thus, an enormous market has formed for vitamin and mineral pills. It is estimated that this market amounts to an annual sales value between three and five billion dollars (Anderson, Wilken). With a drive to get a share of the sales, all supermarket chains have opened sections for vitamin pills and sell various kinds of vitamin supplements. Not only is the vitamin industry doing all these promotions for its own benefit, but media companies are also thriving on such advertisements. Unfortunately, this is sometimes a major reason for the media not to go after certain issues.

What is wrong?

Research shows that people get the correct quantity of vitamins and minerals if they consume a variety of natural foods and drinks. In countries with a high per capita income, some foods and drinks are even enriched with extra vitamins to ensure that vitamins are taken in sufficient amounts. As a result, for a person who is on a normal diet, a multivitamin pill is very likely to be excessive. With regard to these pills, nobody knows what amount is good for which person under what conditions. It is strange that the quantity of fruits and vegetables corresponding to the same amount of vitamin contained in a multivitamin pill is not revealed. Perhaps if this were calculated, the insanity of vitamin supplements would become evident. Do we really need to eat as many vegetables as a cow or a horse?

At the top of the direct vitamin intake options are vitamin pills. The majority of vitamin pills are marketed as a multivitamin-combinations of different vitamins and minerals. Supplying various combinations of vitamins in a single pill seems like a good idea at first. However, when we look at the production of vitamin pills, we see that the production process has not been standardized. Each company makes its own vitamin combinations and markets them. On top of their content, the daily consumption of synthetic vitamin pills is also variable based on the demands of the individual consumer. Although some companies include a recommendation on the packaging, in the end they say that their product can be consumed to the extent it is needed. For many vitamin pills, information about their solubility in water or fat is not present either. However, such pieces of information are of vital importance for their healthy consumption.

In recent times, with their wider use, these synthetic pills have been held responsible for health problems, contradicting expectations of health improvement, but so far they have not gained a bad reputation related to side-effect or harm. The prevailing view is that the more vitamins one takes, the better one’s health. This view might be true for natural vitamins; however, it is not so for synthetic vitamins. Generally, side-effects are associated with high dosages and undiluted intake, neither of which occurs in their natural counterparts.

Multivitamin pills are usually combined with minerals. Thus, while taking vitamin supplements, minerals are also taken, regardless of the need for them. However, similar to vitamins, minerals also are bad for human health when taken in excess. They interact with and counteract each other, and hence they disturb the body’s equilibrium.

In a study by Goran Bjelakovic and Christian Gluud, which was published in the journal of National Cancer Institute, it is stated that “Our diets typically contain safe levels of vitamins, but high-level antioxidant supplements could potentially upset an important physiological balance” (Bjelakovic, Gluud 742). They claim that antioxidant vitamins (A, C, E) do not provide any benefit when consumed in pills: if they are used as such, each results in certain forms of harm according to their function in the body. Bjelakovic and Gluud proved that such vitamin pills neither prevent nor cure cancer, that they do not protect the cardiovascular system, do not increase life expectancy nor alleviate the effects of aging. On the contrary, they showed that these antioxidant vitamin pills increase the risk of the diseases mentioned above. For example, a male person who is taking one multivitamin pill per day is doubling his risk for developing prostate cancer.

Some supplements can also have drug-like effects which present risks for people with certain medical conditions. A vitamin supplement brand was found to have potentially dangerous interactions with a number of prescription drugs (“‘Miracle’ Health Claims”).

At the very least, such side-effect-related cases call for a sound understanding of how these substances interact with the body. Can the human body convert synthetic vitamins to a usable form? Can they be stored and used later in case of vitamin deficiency? Are vitamin supplements, especially synthetic pills, as effective as natural vitamin sources, such as fruits and vegetables? What are the side effects associated with synthetic vitamins? What happens to vitamins in the case of overdose? Unless there are factual answers to these questions, vitamin pills should not be considered safe to use, and people should not use vitamin and mineral pills without consulting a doctor (“Vitamins and Minerals”).

Watch out for your health!

Here is the dilemma now: on the one hand, vitamin manufacturers are struggling to show the benefits of vitamin pills so that they make more profit; on the other hand, there is other research proving the detrimental effects of vitamin pills. At this point, it is nice to see a parallel dilemma in the fast-food market. If you go to a fast-food restaurant, their “nutrition facts” sheets show how healthy their food is. They even compare their food with other companies’ food in order to highlight their quality. However, there is a general consensus about unhealthiness of fast-food as demonstrated in the movie “Supersize Me”. Be it the food industry or the dietary supplement industry, there are claims from the producers which contradict the facts observed in real life. What to believe and who to trust are not clear.

One recourse in this ambivalence is the federal regulations or official advice from government scientists. In theory, health-care standards are established by either legislators or health organizations. However, in practice, there is a lack of institutes which can undertake the control of production of synthetic vitamin pills. In the US, for example, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s report, “Dietary supplements are not required to undergo government testing or review before they are marketed” (“Miracle’ Health Claims”). So, existing US health organizations, such as the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), do not accept any responsibility.

The main reason for not checking the harm associated with vitamin pills is that their side effects emerge in the long run. Consumers do not have the means to prove their cases, and consumer associations do not have enough financial power to take legal action against the producer companies. Therefore, there is no legal or practical base to pursue allegations related to the use of vitamin supplements. Given all this, using vitamin and mineral supplements is not very different from gambling with our health.

The above discussion provides enough information to evoke questions in the mind of the reader. Protecting people from the harm caused by vitamin pills is not possible through financial or judicial means at present, but it may be possible in the future through their long term results appearing as people with severe health problems. Let us hope that the people who have control over these issues will act in consideration of everybody’s health as an invaluable trust granted to them.

Alper Bursali is a senior student at West Virginia University, Biology Department.

References

• Bjelakovic, Goran, and Christian Gluud. “Surviving Antioxidant Supplements.” Editorial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 16 May 2007:742-743.
• Dobson, Roger. “The A to Z of vitamins;” Independent Extra, 6 Mar. 2007. 25 June. 2007 http://web.lexis-nexis.com.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/universe/printdoc
• Driskell, Judy A. Vitamin-Mineral Supplements and Their Usage by Adults. 28 June 2007 http://www.healthgoods.com/Education/Nutrition_Information/
• Nutritional_Supplements/supplements_usage_adults.htm
• Familydoctor.org 2004. Vitamins and Minerals: What You Should Know. Sept. 2004 http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/
• home/otc-center/otc-medicines/863.html
• Fogle, C., J. Anderson and K. Wilken. Mar. 2002. 29 June 2007 http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/foodnut/09338.pdf.
• ‘Miracle’ Health Claims: Add a Dose of Skepticism. September 2001. Federal Trade Commission. 20 June 2007 http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/health/frdheal.shtm
• Mirkin, Gabe. Lack of Vitamin D causes Cancer. 5 Mar. 2007. 27 June 2007 http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/1337.html
• Sardi, Bill. Government/Scientific/Pharmaceutical/News Media Grip Over Dietary Supplements. 23 Jan. 2006. 27 June 2007 http://www.policestateplanning.com/dietary_supplements.htm

During the academic year of 1991-92, I had the opportunity to spend a sabbatical year in Paris. During that time, my wife Adele and I were surprised to notice intense activity, in the form of books, conferences, and symposia, on the theme of “Science and Faith,” with the purpose of bringing them together after a long time of separation and antagonism. Significantly, this attempt toward reconciliation was beginning in France, the country that so much contributed to the dichotomy between the two in the first place.

Three books figure prominently in my present discussion about science and faith. The first, the best-selling God and Science,¹ consists of a dialogue between J. Guitton, a highly respected Catholic philosopher and a well-known member of the French National Academy, and Grichka and Igor Bogdanov, young scientists whose fields of research are in astrophysics. In the dialogue between Guitton and the Bogdanov brothers, the scientists answer the questions posed by the philosopher about the laws governing the natural world. Intriguing questions are addressed: “Where the universe came from? What is real? What are the relationships between conscience and matter? Why does anything exist at all?” In every instance the philosopher, who is also a believer in God and in the Bible, finds that the answers he receives from science give him comfort and strength in his faith. He finds no contradiction between the two; on the contrary, everything he hears about science strengthens his faith.

A collection of essays edited by Jean Delumeau, Le Savant et la Foi,² presents a similar theme. It consists of nineteen contributions from scientists, some of them highly reputed, who explain, in often touching terms, how they reconcile their faith with their scientific research. One of the essays is the result of a collaboration among some twenty scientists affiliated with the University of Paris-Sud (Orsay, Gif, Saclay, etc.), who hold monthly meetings to discuss issues of science and faith in relationship to their research.

A third book that attests to this renewed interest in the relationship between science and faith is another collection of essays, Can Scientists Believe?,³ written by scientists from different religious traditions and edited by Sir Neville Mott, winner of the Nobel Prize for physics in 1977. In this book, Mott himself explains how he became a Christian at the age of fifty, when, as head of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, in England, he was invited by the vicar of the university church to join other leading scientists in contributing to a lecture series there about science and religion. Being agnostic, he felt a need to do some reading before discussing something about which he knew very little, and this was the beginning of his conversion.

In January 1992, the Catholic newspaper La Croix organized its second conference on “Science and Faith,” a day-long conference which took place in a theater in Paris and was widely attended. Among the participants were scientists, theologians, historians, and philosophers, representing all the major religious traditions, and it included atheists of good will, who were open to dialogue. Some of the participants were people of high professional standing, members of the French Academy. The opening addresses were delivered by Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, and Professor Hubert Curien, minister in the French government for scientific research.

The recurrent theme of all the contributions at the conference was “Scientism is dead.” In order to understand the significance of that pronouncement in the context of our discussion of spirituality and postmodernism, we must consider the historical development of science.

Modern science and Determinism

In the ancient and medieval worlds, science and religion were part of the same cultural heritage; one was unthinkable without the other. What happened later to cause the schism between them?

The story is well-known. Modern science developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), in the aftermath of a great period, the Italian Renaissance, during which attention shifted from God to humankind, from the supernatural to the natural.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, which saw such technological advances as electricity and the steam engine, which made such a deep impact in the life of the Western world, confidence in science was unlimited. There was a general feeling that science would ultimately solve all the problems of society and the human condition. Suffering, diseases, poverty-all these evils would sooner or later be eliminated by science and technology. There was no place for God. Human reason could reach the ultimate truth without the need of a supernatural power.

In philosophy these ideas culminated in schools of thought such as logical positivism, in which there was no room for a transcendent superior being. All these schools of thought are usually referred to under the general name of “scientism.” When, therefore, H. Curien, and the other participants in the 1992 conference in Paris, boldly declared the “death of scientism,” they marked the end of a whole historical development and celebrated the present, post-modern period in science.

The new science: causality and probability

In the beginning of the twenty-first century we are more ready to recognize humbly that science has its own limitations and cannot cure all the evils of our human condition. This altered perception of science has been fostered by the advent of the so-called new science, which developed during the third decade of the last century. Quantum Mechanics has revolutionized the way people think about the natural world. In the atomic and nuclear realm the deterministic model, advanced by Laplace in his System of the World, was no longer valid. Certainty had to be replaced by the notion of probability; the whole principle of causality had to be questioned and revised. For example, the notion of “orbit,” perfectly valid when describing the motion of the earth around the sun, became meaningless in the new theory, which was designed to describe the properties of a negative electron moving around a positive nucleus. A well-defined trajectory was replaced by a “probability cloud.”

As these examples indicate, our ability to grasp reality is limited. Waves and particles are different descriptions of the same reality, which we are not able to define in absolute terms, as was once claimed by the deterministic science of the nineteenth century. At this point we realize that we must give up the idea of grasping “the thing in itself.” All this does not mean that the old, deterministic science was wrong, but only that it was correct under certain approximations, which are not valid in the micro-world of atoms and nuclei.

The healthy effect of this great revolution, brought about by the advent of the new science and Quantum Mechanics, has been to shake the arrogance of those who believed that everything could be predicted, once the initial conditions of the system were known, and to introduce an element of chance. We might say, in different words, that there is a place for God in the new scheme of ideas.

Einstein’s unenthusiastic response to Quantum Mechanics shows that he clearly perceived the “place for God” at the very heart of things. In the early stage of development of the new physics, he wrote to Niels Bohr: “Quantum Mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal, but hardly brings us close to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.”⁴

Einstein’s letters and essays are famous for their many references to God. Although he did not have a religious affiliation and shunned all forms of organized religion, Einstein the scientist had a firm belief in God. Forty years before the 1992 conference in Paris declared the “death of scientism,” Einstein had come to this same conclusion, as shown in a letter to his dear friend Solovine⁵:

“You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way… There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods, but also “bared the miracles.” Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the “miracle” without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it.”

As an example of the “new scientist,” Einstein rejects a science without faith, without belief in the “miracle” that remains “unapproachable” and “mysterious.” Perhaps the best description of Einstein’s attitude toward religion appears on the back of the dedication page in a recent biography: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,”⁶ as Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed.

Given the death of scientism, the discoveries of Quantum Mechanics, and the obvious connection between faith and science in the life and work of men like Einstein, it is now possible to write a revised history of western science based not on the split between religious belief and scientific research, but on their intimate connection. We can view science and religion as two approaches, different but complementary, to the same reality. In fact, there has never been a good reason for an opposition between science and religion; they are not incompatible in their views of the natural world.

Awe and excitement in science and religion

Many scientists, then, have been and are believers. The question then arises: what do science and religion have in common, so that realms previously thought to be mutually exclusive can now be seen as intimately linked? We may point to three elements common to both science and faith: the belief in things unseen, the awe and excitement of discovery, and the goal of service to others. First, the belief in things unseen. It is said of Einstein that he was a religious person… in the sense that he [had] no doubt of the significance of those super-personal goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. His was not a life of prayer or worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith […] that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism and optimism are illuminated by his remark: “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.”⁷

One aspect that links science and religion, and characterizes a scientist’s spirituality, is the feeling of excitement, the thrill that both scientists and believers experience when confronted with a new facet of the truth that lies beyond the boundary presently accepted as the ultimate limit of their knowledge. As John Polkinghorne, a British professor of theoretical particle physics at Cambridge University and now an Anglican priest, one of the speakers at the 1992 conference, observes, “Part of the authentic experience of a scientist is the feeling of astonishment he or she experiences when contemplating the remarkable rational beauty of the physical world, as it unfolds in his/her research.”⁸

The eminent physicist, Isidor Isaac Rabi (1989-1991), who was honored with the Nobel Prize in 1944, bears witness to the religious dimension of this experience of astonishment: “When I discovered physics, I realized it transcended religion. It was the higher truth. It filled me with awe, put me in touch with a sense of original causes. Physics brought me close to God. That feeling stayed with me throughout my years in science. Whenever one of my students came to me with a scientific project, I asked only one question, “Will it bring you nearer to God?” They always understood what I meant.”⁹

At the time, Rabi himself had no particular religious affiliation, except for his background, which was strongly rooted in Orthodox Judaism. According to his own testimony, his upbringing in a household where the holy books of the Bible were familiar readings, gave him a definite spiritual formation that affected his attitude toward science: “To choose physics in the first place requires a certain direction of interest. In my case it was something that goes to my background, and that is religious in origin. Not religion in a secular way, but religion as the inspirer of a way of looking at things. Choosing physics means, in some way, you’re not going to choose trivialities. The whole idea of God, that’s real class… real drama. When you’re doing good physics, you are wrestling with the Champ. You have one life to do it, you don’t want to waste it.”¹⁰

Like Rabi, who moved “nearer to God” through scientific research and discovery, Xavier Le Pichon, a speaker in the 1992 conference and a professor of oceanography and geophysics at the prestigious Collège de France, speaks of his amazing encounters with the God of nature. A member of the French National Academy of Sciences, he has been exploring the bottom of the oceans for the past thirty years. Those underwater explorations have, as he says, awakened his “capacity for adoration”: “I have often experienced this capacity for adoration during my scientific explorations. I think in particular of my first descent in a submarine in the Rift Valley, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, at a depth of ten thousand feet… In our little boat, we are the first people to discover this scenery reminiscent of Genesis, the virgin crust, produced by the marriage between fire and earth. I had an appointment with the Earth so that I could make an offering to God.”¹¹

The same sentiments are expressed by another one of our speakers, Fr. George Coyne, Director of the Vatican Observatory in Castel Gandolfo and at the University of Arizona. I quote: “My scientific exploration and slow understanding of the universe is a prayer, and one that is drawing me into a deeper relationship with God. My understanding of the universe, with faith as a foundation of my life, is being drawn into the mystery of God. And this is why we’ll never fully understand our universe: while the scientific knowledge draws us on and on, the more we know, the less we know in many ways. The universe participates in the mystery of God.”¹²

Recently, in an article on the New York Times, the Dalai Lama, speaking about the convergence of science and spirituality, said, “Science could benefit from exploring issues usually left to the humanities. I believe that we must find a way to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. I am speaking of a secular ethics, which embraces compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers: they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.”

Those sentiments are echoed by Xavier Le Pichon, who said: “Science and technology are not only necessary, they are indeed the main tools needed to perfect the creation entrusted to humankind by God. To the extent we place the poor and the least ones at the center of our society, to the extent we ask them to inspire the civilization we are about to build, science and technology will appear as means offered in order to create a civilization of love.”¹³

So, perhaps, the “battle” between Science and Religious Faith is not so polarized as some of those at the extreme edges of the debate would have us to believe.

“In this modern era of cosmology, evolution, and the human genome, is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual world views?”¹⁴

Dr. Francis Collins, author of the best selling book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and Director of the National Genome Research Institute, responded with a resounding “Yes” to this question, in his public lecture on February 20, 2007, at Purdue University.14 To an enthusiastic crowd of more than 1,100 participants, Dr. Collins stated that “The newfound power to read our own instruction book is no obstacle to faith in the existence of God.” Dr. Collins called for a truce in the escalating war between science and spirit. “We need science if we are going to survive in a complicated world, and we need faith if we are going to keep ourselves in perspective. We must seek out the ways in which these world views can happily coexist, and the mind must find a way to embrace both realms, if we are really concerned about our own future in this world.” Everyone who questions how religious faith would be reconciled with scientific knowledge, and everyone interested in an open and sincere discussion of one of the most crucial issues of our time, will be greatly enlightened by Dr. Collins’ experience described in his book “The Language of God.”

Roberto Colella is a professor of physics at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Notes

1. Guitton, Jean, Grichka Bogdanov, and Igor Bogdanov. Dieu et la Science, Grasset. 1991.

2. Delumeau, Jean (edited by). Le Savant el La Foi, Champs-Flammarion, Paris 1989; p. 230 (translated from French by Roberto Colella).

3. Molt, Sir Nevill (edited by). Can Scientists Believe? James and James, London, 1991, p. 71.

4. Pais, Abraham. Niels Bohr’s Times, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991, p. 318.

5. Einstein, Albert. Letters to Solovine, New York Philosophical Library, 1987, p. 131.

6. Einstein, Albert. “Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium.” 1941.

7. Pais, Abraham. Subtle is the Lord… The Science and Life of Albert Einstein, Clarendon Press, Oxford, New York, 1982, p. vi.

8. Lecture on “Science and Religious Faith,” Purdue University, February 27, 1997.

9. Ridgen, John S.. Rabi, Scientist and Citizen, Basic Books Publishers, New York, 1987, p. 82.

10. See Ref. 8, p.p. 73-79.

11. See Ref. 2, p. 166.

12. Public Lecture at Purdue University, April 2, 1998.

13. See Delumeau 1989, p. 168.

14. Collins, Francis, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press, New York, London, 2006.

In this article I address four questions regarding the importance of mathematics in our lives:

1. Why is mathematical thinking significant to comprehend the universe and how it runs?

2. What are the problems in the new millennium and what solutions to these problems are expected from scientists?

3. How important a role does mathematics play in today’s world?

4. What is the relationship between defense industry and space research

In contemporary scientific research methodology, mathematics is the most objective tool which can be used to draw a general conclusion from outcomes obtained. Mathematics is considered to be an expression of the knowledge of the All-Knowing. This characteristic of mathematics recognized by Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages was emphasized by well known scholars such as Ghazali, Al-Biruni, Nasiruddin Tusi, Al-Hujandi, and Al-Khwarizmi. Following in the path of Muslim scholars and being considered one of the pioneers of modern science, Galileo stated in his second book published in 1623, Il Saggiatore, that “it is impossible to understand the universe without learning the real logic of the universe and decoding its characters. The universe was created in mathematical logic and it is impossible for us as human beings to comprehend its words without mathematics.” Galileo’s statement points towards an important truth-that even though it is possible partially to explain the intricate perfection in the universe through the mathematics that has been developed so far, we are not skilled enough to produce or comprehend any mathematical systems or formulas that can express the whole universe despite the complexity of occurrences that go on in the universe.

In the history of science, the structure and the mechanism of the universe have been explained to some extent using mathematics. Physicists have developed equations to demonstrate the structure of matter and forces in nature. An engineer who designs an artificial heart considers the equation that governs the bloodstream in a vein. An astronaut at NASA utilizes equations that describe the motion of satellites or the orbit of a spacecraft. In our contemporary world, the crucial role of mathematics is the main reason why Landon Clay, a millionaire philanthropist and the founder of the Clay Mathematics Institute, came up with a list of seven “millennium problems” and promised seven million dollars to the first person who found the solution to each of them. They have not yet been solved.

Many of us remember traditional mathematics classes as boring because they were not apparently related to real life. Only once symbols and equations become meaningful and solutions are found, does mathematics become pleasurable. Despite the stress endured, true success is hidden in the process of writing the correct equation. An equation developed to solve a specific mathematics problem becomes an invention when it is practically used in life, for example, to build a spacecraft or design a medical device.

However; in order to make an invention, the correct equation for that invention needs to be developed, or a pre-developed equation that works for the invention needs to be determined. The next step is to solve it. Even if the solution to an equation cannot be found, an approximate solution can always be discovered and used to build an invention.

The equations for two of the millennium problems come from physics. One of the problems involves finding a general solution to the Navier-Stokes equations governing fluid dynamics. These equations were first formulated in the 1820s to describe the motion of fluids and gasses. Examples include the flow of water around a boat, air over the wings of a plane, and blood pumped from the heart to the vessels. At first glance, the Navier-Stokes equations resemble equations taught at the undergraduate level in the fields of science and engineering. However, the way they look is deceptive because no one has ever come close to finding the general solution to these equations. Even though a general solution to these equations does not yet exist, the Navier-Stokes equations do help one comprehend the aforementioned problem. Therefore, they do not help naval architects to construct better marine vehicles, aerospace engineers to build better aircrafts and spacecrafts or biomedical engineers to build artificial organs.

Another millennium problem involves finding a solution to the set of equations formulated by Chen-Ning Yang and Robert Mills in 1954 that describe the fundamental forces of nature. This set of equations reveals the description of the raw material out of which everything in the universe has been created. None of these equations have been solved so far. Physicists have gained accurate results and made calculations tested in laboratories based on Yang-Mills equations that could be solved by using computers as in Navier-Stoke equations. Even though these kinds of equations provide physicists with almost all the necessary information, no one has ever been able to solve the Yang-Mills equations by known methods. What is important is not to solve equations; it is to figure out what the solution means instead. Using numbers and making calculations based upon these equations remain secondary despite their importance.

As a result of positivist and materialist approaches to knowledge and science, most people today are interested in science and technology for the sake of their own material wealth and comfort. If this degrading approach continues, worldwide degeneration cannot be prevented. However, mathematics is a universal language generated by mathematical thinking. This type of thinking is one of the qualities of the “inheritors of the earth.” In The Statue of Our Souls (2005), M. Fethullah Gulen says,

In the past the people in Central Asia and later on in the West achieved their renaissances by means of the laws of mathematical thinking. Man discovered and brought to light many uncertain and unknown things in the mysterious world of numbers. Without going to the extremes of the Hurufis,^[1] what we say is that without mathematics it is not possible to understand the relations of humanity and natural phenomena with one another. It illuminates our roads like light on the line that stretches from the universe to life; it indicates to us what is beyond the human horizon, even the depths of the world of contingencies, which is very difficult to think upon; and it makes us meet with our ideals.

On the other hand, being mathematical does not mean knowing everything related to mathematics. It is to think mathematically, to think within mathematical laws, and to be aware that it permeates everything from man’s thoughts to the depths of existence, from physics to metaphysics, from matter to energy; from body to soul, from law to Sufism. In order to comprehend existence completely, we have to accept a dual method of Sufi thinking and scientific research. The West essentially lacks essence, and has tried to compensate for this loss, as far as it can, by taking refuge in mysticism. In our world, which has been always intimate with the soul of Islam, there is no need to look for anything strange or foreign, or to take refuge in anything. We have all our sources of power within our system of thought and faith. That suffices as long as we comprehend that source and spirit with its original richness. Then we will see some of the mysterious relations in existence, how harmoniously such relations run, and reach a different knowledge of observing and taking pleasure in everything.

In short, being mathematical is necessary to describe the universe we live in and the principles of how it runs. This tool will be considered triumphant in as much as it can remove blockages from the individual’s eyes and exhibit the truth. Only if scientists who have attained the harmony of heart and mind penetrate into the secrets of existence, utilizing science and its fruits for the benefit of humanity, will justice be done to their profession.

The road, although not very long, took her back in time by a fast train of memories. She remembered how her newborn son had caught his dad’s finger in an unbreakable grip as he was whispering the call to prayer to his little ear. She saw her son waddling his first steps and her husband clapping his hands for joy. Every curve of the road took her to another stage. His first day in kindergarten was unforgettable. Seeing him walk in line behind the teacher had made hide her tears behind her husband. Separation, though a short one, had been hard to bear. Then she saw herself sitting on the sofa by her son’s side, teaching him how to read the Holy Book. She remembered her son’s excitement when she told him the prophetic tradition that the parents of those people who read the Qur’an a lot in this world would have shiny faces on the Day of Judgment. “Mommy,” he said, taking her face between his hands, “You and daddy will have the shiniest faces of all people, I promise.” Aisha had laughed at his genuine promise and kissed his head many times. One of the memories she cherished most was going on a bug hunt with him, to return home with a jar full of creepy crawlies for his science project. Her son had been fascinated to see all the different shapes and colors of life around him. She had reminded him to be respectful to every creature. She once overheard him pray to God to grant him a flying dinosaur in paradise. Aisha caught herself smiling in the rear-view mirror. “Life is a journey,” she thought. “My son reached the destination and he is waiting for us. O God, please reunite us in your paradise and give us patience meanwhile,” she prayed.

She parked the car in the graveyard’s little parking lot. Aisha took her copy of the Qur’an and got out, not minding the cold at all. “It is always so quiet here,” she thought. “I can even hear my own heartbeat.” She stopped by her son’s grave, bent over to touch the ground, and felt the knot in her chest tie up again. “Now, now, hold strong,” she ordered her heart. “It’s just a temporary separation. Just like in kindergarten, only a lot longer. O God, I am thankful for my faith in You. How would I have endured all this pain had I not known You will raise the dead and then everyone will be with their beloved forever. Thank you, thank you very much,” she whispered, feeling the knot loosen. She opened her copy of the Qur’an and started reading the chapter “The Merciful.” The first time she read it in this graveyard, it sounded as if it was being read from heaven. One verse repeated thirty-one times in this chapter had kept her from rebelling in her grief: “Then which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?” She had never understood its message better before. Aisha finished reading and opened her hands in prayer. “Our Lord, grant us bounties in this world and in the hereafter and save us from the torment of hell. Do not let us go astray once you have guided us to the truth and grant us mercy from Your Presence. Surely You are the Most Generous One. Amen.”

She rubbed her hands over her wet face and was preparing to go when she suddenly heard someone sobbing not too far from her. She turned to her right and saw a woman crying over a grave. Her black hair touched the ground and hid her face completely. Next to the grave, a big balloon was waving in the wind. Something was printed on it. Aisha read it and was stunned. The white letters materialized the pain of a mother’s heart: Happy birthday, son! “The grave is new. Her wound must be still bleeding,” Aisha thought to herself. “It took two years for mine to cover with a thin layer.”

Aisha went close enough for the woman to sense her presence. The woman stopped crying, looked up, and then tried to stand up, but her knees would not hold her. Aisha reached out her arm and kept the woman from falling. They looked at each other. It felt like looking in the mirror. The same tears formed traces in their faces resembling riverbeds in summer. The same longing to go back in time for one more chance to live the past could be read in every line and wrinkle. A small shiny pendant cross hanging below the woman’s chin caught Aisha’s eye. For a moment, neither spoke. Aisha looked at the cross, becoming aware that the woman was staring at her white scarf. After that short moment of bewilderment, Aisha spoke first.

“I’m Aisha. I just want to let you know that I understand how you feel.”

“You do?” asked the woman.

“Yes, I lost my only son two years ago.” Then with empathy, she added, “It’s OK to cry, and if you need a shoulder you can cry on mine.”

“But how can you…?” The woman could not finish her words as her eyes met the warmth of Aisha’s face. Then something wonderful happened that only angels witnessed. She hugged Aisha and both of them cried. The two women hugged for a long time despite the white scarf, despite the pendant cross. Had they met in a store or at gas station they might not have exchanged anything more than a wry smile, they might have thought that they belonged to different worlds. Yet here they had become indivisible in their maternal pain.

“This place helped me understand better not only my Holy Book,” thought Aisha, “but also my humanity. Praise is to you, God,” she whispered with the delight of someone who has just found a lost friend. The two women, leaning on each other, walked toward the parking lot, realizing with great surprise that the wind was not chilly anymore.