…

I love my daughter, I really do. When my daughter laughs with me right now, it’s as if that is the definition of happiness. But I came home from work at midnight yesterday and had to run errands this morning. I really wanted to stay home this afternoon and get some rest, but my wife wanted to meet her friends. God, I feel so tired, and I haven’t even been able to read the newspapers today; I wonder what the repercussions of yesterday’s market crisis are. I hope the day I will retire comes soon…

…

My days in this house are rather routine and lonely. I watch the news, eat, walk, read, and once in a while get together with friends in the neighborhood. My wife left me after I retired, which I understand happens often in neglected marriages. My daughter visits me in the summers and stays with me for a few weeks at least, for which I feel blessed. An interesting development has occurred in my psyche: Recently, I have been feeling this growing envy for people who do physical work. All my life, my job entitled making abstract decisions about abstract situations. Not once did I do something that I could step back from and take a look at the outcome of my effort. Just today I was watching a construction worker building a wall. What a great feeling it must be to start in the morning where there is no wall and in the evening to see the result of your daily work, a wall that you have built with your own hands.

…

Being a worker is no great feat. Sure the pay is not bad, I can’t complain about that, but everybody knows it can’t last. I mean, first off, you don’t get much contracts in the winter, then the big companies take up most of the stuff and let’s face it, I can’t earn my money on this when I’m fifty, then you lift boxes in a supermarket, what else? You may find this funny coming from me, but I always wanted to be a musician, a cello player; that’s what I wanted to do. I wish I could be in the shoes of that cello kid in the poster in front of the concert hall.

…

I am a cellist. I have loved the sound of cello for as long as I can remember, I do not know why, and now when people ask me I tell them I love the cello because it is the instrument that most resembles the human voice. That is not why but it sounds better. I have practiced hard for more than fifteen years now, on average four hours a day. This practice may have its rewarding moments, but most of the time it feels like you are trying to achieve something that is in no way achievable. My parents never approved of my choice and I think they never will, unless I reach the level of a Rostropovich, which for me is clearly impossible. Everything set aside, the upsetting thing is that my real passion is composing music, although I am not very good at it. I have been taking classes with an instructor in my college on music composition, and I am in awe at his achievements. I would give up everything I have at any moment to be able to compose like he does.

…

Some may say that I have contributed some pieces to our musical library. I would say that they are either too kind or they do not know music. I teach music composition in a mediocre music school and until now I have been able to convince my students and colleagues that my compositions are important. Fortunately, I myself do not share that delusion. I say fortunately because I know that I have in me something waiting to be written on score sheets, something sublime, something… that I haven’t been able to get out of me in the last couple of years. I do love the process, even though many nights the candle on my piano burns down and I haven’t been able to write a single note. Am I burned out too? Is my hope for a sublime finale the real delusion? Why cannot I be like the great master Beethoven?

…

I am Beethoven. My music has been hailed as the work of a genius, which still gives me great satisfaction. However, there are two substantial catches with my present situation. First, I am deaf; I went deaf in the last thirteen years of my life. As an ironical twist of fate, I, the great Beethoven, was never able to hear any of my greatest work, my 9th symphony. Second, I am dead; I do not know how long I have been dead, a year or hundreds of years; I have been waiting in this grave in complete silence and in complete darkness. Often, I find myself imagining a scene from my life. No, not the time when the Archduke celebrated my work, not the time when the Eroica was first performed either. It is a much simpler and at the same time, a much more handsome memory. There was a time when I was strolling in the park one afternoon and I was enjoying the gentle touch of sunrays coming through the trees. A flute was playing Bach’s Badinerie in the distance. It was a beautiful day…

Firat Kocol is a freelance writer. He lives in Boston. He can be contacted at firatkocol@gmail.com

More specifically, groundwater represents 98% of the available fresh water on earth. The contamination of groundwater has increased significantly due to industrial developments over the last century. To illustrate how the modern human has had an impact on the environment, let us look at some numbers: In the United States alone, yearly 100 million tons of hazardous waste is generated and 4 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into streams; in addition, 1.2 million tons of toxic waste are emptied into landfills and 1.5 million tons are injected into deep wells for disposal. Again in the United States, of the 2 million underground storage tanks in gas stations, 450,000 are leaking gasoline and petroleum products to the subsurface. If these numbers do not impress you, remediation costs for contaminated sites in Europe are expected to exceed $1.5 trillion in the near future. These are only some of the impacts of heavy industrialization of which we are aware. The contaminants that are released into the environment severely threaten drinking water, agricultural, and surface waters.

The pollution process of the subsurface environment is ironically simple. Leaks from various contamination sources seep into the groundwater from where they travel and infiltrate the soil with which they come in contact. Contaminated soils and sediments slowly release these pollutants, which over long period of time have become a continuous source. Of course, all these contaminants can potentially cause cancer or have detrimental effects on the ecosystem or on human health. To give an example of how these pollutants easily spread around the globe, in a recent study of dairy products that were collected from countries all around the world, the same type of organic contaminant (PCB:

Polychlorinated Biphenyls) was found in those products that, for the most part, originated in the USA, although the usage and production of this contaminant has been banned since 1976. How have these pollutants managed to persist in the environment and travel all the way from USA to the rest of the world, even as far as Australia? There are several ways this can be done; first the released contaminant volatilizes into the air and travels, through atmospheric depositions of large quantities onto the grass that is eaten by the cow. Another way is that a fish swimming in contaminated fresh water is caught and becomes food at a dairy farm. This research exemplifies how the pollution of the environment can affect us, regardless of where we live on this planet.

It seems like a very gloomy picture though, if nobody is going to take any action against the contamination or clean up the toxic chemicals from vulnerable targets like drinking water sources or terrestrial lands. There are, of course, many precautions that have been undertaken to clean up the environment. This article is about one of the interesting ways in which we utilize microorganisms to clean up contaminated groundwater or drinking water.

It sounds a little strange for engineers to be dealing with bacteria that naturally exist and utilize them in cleaning up the environment. But this is what they are doing, using a technique called bioremediation, wherein natural microbes become stewards for destroying the pollutants in the environment. The simple technical description of bioremediation is the intentional use of the biodegradation process to eliminate environmental pollutants that have been intentionally or inadvertently released. The biodegradation used here is the microbial transformation process of toxic chemicals into nontoxic forms and sometimes mineralization into inorganic elements like carbon, oxygen and hydrogen.

This transformation, which is essentially a process of destruction, first requires the presence of microorganisms. These microorganisms almost always exist in nature, unless there are harsh conditions that prevent microbial growth. The microorganisms use inorganic or organic contaminants as their nutritional and growth source in the life cycle. For example, a commonly encountered organic contaminant, benzene, is composed of six carbon atoms and six hydrogen atoms. During the degradation process, the microorganisms synthesize enzymes that stimulate the breaking down of benzene into carbon dioxide and water or sometimes the simple elements of carbon and oxygen. These enzymes ease the reactions that produce cellular energy and the building blocks for the synthesis of new cells. In essence, the contaminant serves as a nutrient – food – so that the microorganism can continue its life.

The electron acceptors

During the process in which the microorganism feeds on the contaminant (the degradation process), the key issue is the electron acceptors, the complementary part of the chemical reaction that occurs during the biodegradation process. During the breaking down of the large organic molecules into small elements, excess electrons are released into the environment and therefore an electron acceptor is required to maintain the chemical equilibrium and continue the reaction mechanism. This necessity for oxygen or iron dioxide resembles the need for oxygen in our liver to break down the complex molecules that occur during energy production and new cell generation. The process is as simple as this: we breathe oxygen to live and so do microorganisms. Oxygen molecules act as convenient electron dumps for bacteria that usually lie near the soil surface. Depending on the electron acceptor types, degradation reactions are categorized as aerobic (using oxygen) or anaerobic (using nitrate, manganese, iron and sulfate as electron acceptors). Humans can only inhale oxygen, but most insects can utilize other molecules, like iron oxide or sulfur as well.

Moreover, in order to have a successful clean up, scientists need to satisfy chemical and nutritional requirements and this is challenging for engineers. As these electron acceptors are not always readily available, engineers supplement the electron acceptors in the contaminated environment by methods like pumping air into the ground. Sometimes the microorganisms that are necessary to degrade the potential pollutant do not exist and the engineers must first inject the bacteria so that they can consume the pollutants as food.

Geobacter

One of the microorganisms most frequently studied for its degradation potential for organic and inorganic contaminants is Geobacter metallireducens, or the geobacter. Since it was first discovered, more than 20 years ago, researchers at the University of Massachusetts have been studying this incredible creature; however, they admit that there are many things that they still do not know about it. The geobacter was the first organism found to oxidize organic compounds to carbon dioxide using iron oxides as the electron acceptor. In other words, the geobacter gains its energy by using iron oxides (a rust-like mineral) in the same way that humans use oxygen. The main nutrient for the geobacter can be organic or inorganic pollutants for, and it breathes iron oxide in the way the human inhales oxygen. The geobacter can consume soil and groundwater contaminants like benzene and the gasoline additive MBTE, even in an oxygen-free environment. The geobacter, which has been found almost everywhere, even living in the dental spit-sinks, also flourishes in uranium-contaminated sites, converting soluble radioactive material to a material that is insoluble in groundwater, therefore making it easier to isolate for cleaning up. At present the geobacter is being put to work in actual clean up projects. As our understanding of the functioning of the species has improved, it has become possible to use this information to modify environmental conditions in order to accelerate the rate of contaminant degradation.

More interestingly, researchers have discovered that the geobacter spits out unwanted electrons into the circuit while consuming contaminants for energy. The geobacter exhales electricity through 20 to 30 hair-like structures, just 3 to 5 nanometers in diameter, to its surroundings. Although there is hardly enough microbe-produced electricity generated to solve the world’s energy problems, a fuel cell measuring a cubic meter would generate 2 kilowatts, and some engineers are talking about powering sewage treatment plants with a type of geobacter that harvests off the sewage itself. Just to give an idea about the direction of future research, researchers are now working on a selected gene of the geobacter. The gene that limits electricity production will be modified so that electricity production can be boosted during the degradation process. Given that, it would not be surprising if there were technology that created energy while cleaning contaminated soil or groundwater.

Clean water is a basic need for every human being, and it is our moral obligation to work as stewards for the environment; the first thing we must do is to stop contaminating the planet. However, we are faced with resources that have been previously contaminated. As one result of an increasing sense of responsibility toward nature, we are at a point where we can use natural microorganisms or plants as clean-up tools. Although mankind harshly contaminates the environment while creating an industrial and technological world, it is quite ironic that we still rely on the marvels of such divinely ordained solutions to sustain life.

References

• Martin Alexander, Biodegradation and Bioremediation, 199, Academic Press, San Diego CA USA
• Pedro J. Alvarez, Walter A. Illman, Bioremediation and Natural Attenuation: Process Fundamentals and Mathematical Models, 2005, Wiley and Sons, NY, USA
• www.geobacter.org Geobacter project, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Environmental Biotechnology Center
• Jana Weiss, Olaf Papke, and Ake Bergman, A Worldwide Survey of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins, Dibenzofurans, and Related Contaminants in Butter, AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment Volume 34, Issue 8 (December 2005), pp. 589–597

The Qur’anic approach is to arrive at a position through observation and reason from which the intellect clears the obstacles for faith, allowing it to take hold in one’s heart and preparing the way for dedicated worship of one God. After faith takes hold of one’s heart, there will be many elements of creed as well as principles of personal and social life which may or may not be suitable for verification through scientific means. In such cases, it is sufficient that such beliefs and rules of conduct do not contradict observation or reason. Hence, the Qur’anic style combines philosophy, theology, and “all dimensions of our being.” In the following I will give examples from the exegeses of Maududi, Yazir and Nursi that, in my opinion, support this view. Unless marked otherwise, the English rendering of verse meanings will be from the Maududi exegesis translated by Ansari.

Nursi: KNOW, O FRIEND, that out of the purposes for things’ existence, the Qur’an sometimes mentions those related to humanity. This does not mean, however, that humanity was created only for the purposes mentioned. Rather, it draws our attention to their benefits, to the order and harmony they display, and thus to their Maker’s Names. We only pay attention to and prefer that which is related to us, even if it is microscopic, in preference to a “sun” with which we have no relation. For example: And the moon: We have determined stations (phases) for it (36:39), that you might know the number of years and the reckoning (10:5). This is only one of the moon’s thousands of purposes, and it is mentioned because it is the most evident one for humanity⁵

Yazir comments on the role of such verses in encouraging humanity to discover the laws of nature, which are indeed works of God, and through them to discover the purpose of human life, developing a methodology for a type of scientific acquisition of knowledge along the way:

Yazir: Indeed, the source of the notion of time is movement, a continuity and change that underlies the order in which these created objects exist. Indeed, the way to the true sciences is reflection on the heavens and the Earth, the day and the night, creation and change and their perception by intelligence.

Yazir also narrates a report of Prophet Muhammad’s reception of this verse. Aisha told that the Prophet asked permission to worship. She said, “He then stood up, made ablution with a little water and stood for prayer. He was reciting the Qur’an and crying. I even saw that his tears wet the floor. Then Bilal came and informed him of the congregation for morning prayer. Upon seeing that the Prophet was crying, Bilal asked: ‘O Messenger of God, did not God forgive your previous as well as future sins? Why would you cry?’ The Prophet then responded: ‘O Bilal! Under these circumstances, should I not be a thankful servant? Why should I not cry, God Almighty revealed this verse tonight, (and recited the verse) Woe on those who recite this verse and do not reflect on it.’”

Thanksgiving

He set the earth for all creatures, with all kinds of tasty fruits in abundance and palm-trees with sheathed fruit, and a variety of corn with husk as well as grain. So, O jinn and men, which of your Lord’s blessings will you deny? (Rahman 55:10-13)

Maududi begins his commentary with a discussion of the term alaa’ which has traditionally been understood to mean bounty.

Maududi then indicates another meaning of the term, that is, power and the wonders of power, which is based on the famous exegesis of Ibn Jarir Tabari. He continues to comment on how the observation of these objects of need and desire come not only with benefits, but also with the qualities that satisfy the various lofty human senses. He describes in what ways humans deny the bounties of God: By out right rejection of a creator, by associating partners with God, by disobeying the commands of their Creator or by simply not offering thanksgiving, which he calls denial by practice.

Nursi comments on the importance of thanksgiving based on the observation of the universe, the Earth, the living beings, including the human, and how the latter are cared for and sustained:

Nursi: Indeed, both the All-Wise Qur’an shows thanks to be the result of creation, and the mighty Qur’an of the universe shows that the most important result of the creation of the world is thanks. For if the universe is observed carefully, it is apparent that all things result in thanks in the way each is arranged within it; to a degree each looks to thanks and is turned towards it. It is as if the most important fruit of the tree of creation is thanks and the most elevated product of the factory of the universe is thanks.

Nursi then details the picture that emerges when one carefully observes the relationship of the universe, the inanimate beings, the living beings, and humans.

Nursi: We see in the creation of the world that its beings are arranged as though in a circle, with life as its central point. All beings look to life, and serve life, and produce the necessities of life. That is to say, the One Who created the universe cares for life in it.

Then we see that He created the animal kingdom in the form of a circle and placed the human at its center. Simply, He centered the aims intended from animate beings on the human, gathering all living creatures around him (the human), and subjugating them to him…Then we see that the world of human, and the animal world too, are formed like circles, with sustenance placed at their centre.

We can draw a picture based on Nursi’s description:

Nursi then continues to comment on the relationship of sustenance with thanksgiving:

Nursi: He has made mankind and the animals enamored of sustenance, has subjugated them to it, and made them serve it. What rules them is sustenance. And He has made sustenance such a vast and rich treasury that it encompasses His innumerable bounties. Even, with a faculty called the sense of taste, He has placed on the tongue fine and sensitive scales to the number of foods, so that they can recognize the tastes of the many varieties of sustenance. That is to say, the most mysterious, richest, most wonderful, most agreeable, most comprehensive, and most marvelous truth in the universe lies in sustenance. Now we see that just as everything has been gathered around sustenance and looks to it, so does sustenance in all its varieties subsist through thanks, both material and immaterial and this is offered by word and by state; it exists through thanks, it produces thanks, it shows thanks.

We can summarize Nursi’s commentary as follows: When a human observes the universe, they will notice that all inanimate beings serve life, plants and animals serve humans, and humans are in need of sustenance. In addition to satisfying the needs of life, sustenance carries other qualities that satisfy the higher senses of the human. It shows signs of mercy, care and love from the Creator. Therefore, all of these observations ought to lead a person to be thankful to their Creator.

The signs of resurrection

Just see the Signs of Allah’s Mercy, how He brings back to life the dead earth. Likewise, He will bring back the dead to life: He has power over everything. (Rum 30:50)

Does not man see that We created him from a sperm-drop, and yet he stands forth as a manifest adversary? Now he strikes out likenesses for Us and forgets his own creation. He says, “Who will give life to these bones when they are rotten?” Tell him, “He Who created them in the first instance will give them life again: He is skilled at every kind of creation. (Ya-Sin 36:77-79)

The basic argument in this verse, repeated elsewhere in the Qur’an, can be summarized as follows: When you observe the coming to life of living beings, the coming back to life of plants and animals after a period of inactivity, which resembles death and other similar phenomena, you should have no doubt that the Creator and Sustainer of the universe is capable of bringing humans back to life after their death. The coming into existence of the first living being and that of first human being, the coming back to life of their various traits through their progeny, the preservation of their qualities in their seeds and sperms should all make it easy for the intellect to accept the possibility of resurrection. In other words, after observing all of these phenomena, one should not reject the idea of resurrection simply because it does not occur for individual humans before their eyes:

Against this, the Qur’an employs a basic argument which is not difficult to accept rationally, equating two similar feats: the power that can accomplish something once can do it again. From the fact that human beings now exist, it is clear that divine power was not incapable of making them: why should it be assumed that such power will be incapable of doing for a second time what it achieved the first (50:15)? Indeed, a second creation is easier than a first one (30:27).

Commenting on 36:77-79, both Maududi and Yazir relate an account of the occasion of revelation which illustrates the disbeliever’s attitude:

Yazir: It is related that Ubey b. Halef came to the presence of God’s Messenger (upon whom be peace and blessings) with a decayed bone and crushed it. He then asked, “Would you say that God could give life to this after it has perished as such?” The Messenger answered: “Yes indeed! He resurrects you and places in hellfire.” And God knows every aspect of His creation. In other words, He knows every detail of every part of His creatures, their situations, quantities and qualities. He knows all forms of creation, material and immaterial, with instruments or without instruments, with archetypes and without archetypes, unbounded by time. And this concludes the matter.

The entire chapter entitled the 10th Word in Nursi’s book The Words, consisting of over sixty pages, is dedicated to the issue of belief in resurrection and life in the hereafter. After discussing in detail of various forms of signs and similitudes of resurrection, Nursi concludes with an appeal to the reader’s conscience:

Nursi: Can you not see the numerous designs made by God as signs, similitudes, or analogies of resurrection? He has placed them in every era, the alteration of day and night, even in the coming and going of clouds. If you imagine yourself a thousand years in the past and then compare past and future, you will see as many similitudes and analogies of resurrection as there are centuries or days past. If, after this, you still consider corporeal resurrection improbable and unacceptable to reason, there is something seriously wrong with your powers of reasoning .

Maududi comments that in addition to being a sign of resurrection, there is a moral lesson in the example of rain bringing life to the Earth in the spring. In addition to being reminded about the resurrection, human beings are reminded about the life-giving nature of divine guidance:

Maududi: There is a subtle allusion in the mention of the Prophethood and the rain, one after the other, to the reality that the advent of a Prophet is a blessing for man’s moral life even as the coming of the rain proves to be a blessing for his material life. Just as the dead earth awakens to life by a shower of the rain from the sky and starts blooming and swelling with vegetation, so is the morally and spiritually desolate human world quickened to life at the coming down of Divine Revelation and starts blossoming with moral excellences and virtues. This is the disbelievers’ own misfortune that they show ingratitude, and regard the blessing of Prophethood as a portent of death for themselves instead of a good news of life.

In this verse we once more see an example of the Qur’an’s appeal to observation and reasoning based on some intuitive premises shared by humanity due to their innate nature: Reflect on the first living being. How did it come to existence? Reflect on your own existence. How did your forefather come into being? Observe the winter and spring. How did these plants and animals that look as if they are dead in the winter come back to life in the spring? In particular the trees which show no sign of life suddenly take on a completely new form and color after the rain wets their skirts and the sun warms them? Remember your own ability to memorize events and people. How you are able to reconstruct a virtual scene based on your memories? What do these actions tell you with respect to the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Whose power is not limited and Whose knowledge is infinite?

Conclusion

The narrative style of the Qur’an is sometimes described as a river that makes turns but flows toward and end. The basic themes of the Qur’an have generally been recognized: the Unity of God and the necessity that humans acknowledge and worship God; the phenomenon of the messengers and revelations of God and the finality of God’s revelation to Muhammad in the form of Islam; resurrection after death and life in the hereafter, and the principles of social justice. The Qur’an makes it clear that it addresses intelligent beings that are capable of observation and reason. It does not ask its readers to suspend their critical faculties in embracing the faith. On the contrary, it expects them to make careful observations, relate their experiences from social life, and draw logical conclusions that eliminate intellectual obstacles to faith’s taking hold in one’s heart. In the meantime, the Qur’an also exposes the invalidity of the false arguments of those who reject its message out of ulterior motives such as greed, habit, pride or fear of material disadvantage. The approach of the Qur’an to observation and reason in relationship to faith is one of balance. The use of observation and reason helps build faith on sound foundations. There is no room for bigotry or fanaticism. However, the Qur’an also praises those who believe in the unseen (2:3). Hence, believers are still expected to have faith in matters that are beyond direct observation; however, this faith is now grounded on a foundation of observation and reason. In this paper I have presented interpretations from three popular works of exegesis: Nursi, Yazir and Maududi. In each of these commentaries, we can see the Qur’an’s appeal to observation and reason as expounded by their respective authors. It should be noted that there was little to no interaction among these authors. Although Nursi and Yazir were contemporaries, their works were written in parallel, while Nursi was in exile and his works not widely available. Since translations of the complete works of neither Yazir nor Nursi were available in Urdu and English at the time of Maududi, it is safe to assume that either text had little or no impact on Maududi. Therefore, the resonant comments on the paper’s basic premise reflected in these commentaries should be considered independent support for my thesis.

Finally, what about the persons who use their observation and reason as the Qur’an encourages, but reach different conclusions about metaphysical phenomena? The basic premise of the Qur’an is that if the human intellect and conscience are not influenced by other motives, such as persistent wrongdoing or the pursuit of material interests, then the God-created human nature should yield the same result for everyone, at least as far as the pillars of faith are concerned. Whether this very premise is valid or not has to be left to human conscience.

Notes

1. Irving et al., The Qur’an: Basic Teachings, London: The Islamic Foundation, 1979, p. 35.

2. Fethullah Gulen, in Ali Unal Foreword, The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, New Jersey: The Light Inc., xviii., 2006.

3. Yazir does not provide a commentary on this verse.

4. Said Nursi, The Letters, Twentieth Letter, Addendum to the Tenth Phrase. Sozler Publications, Istanbul, 2001, p. 306.

5. Nursi, Al-Mathnawi al-Nuri: Seedbed of The Light, NJ: The Light, Inc., 2007, p. 304.

6. Nursi, The Letters, Twenty-eighth Letter, On Thanks. Sozler Publications, Istanbul, 2001, p. 428.

7. Nursi, The Letters, 28th Letter, London: Truestar, 1995.

8. Muhammad AbdelHaleem, Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Style, London: I.B. Tauris, 1999, p. 85.

9. Nursi, The Words, Tenth Word, New Jersey: The Light Inc., 2005, p. 97.

10. See, for instance, Robert Hunt, Muslim Faith and Values: What Every Christian Should Know, New York: GBGM Books, 2003, p. 81; Abdel Haleem ibid., Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an. Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1989; Michael Sells, Approaching the Qur’an: the early revelations. Ashland, Oregon: White Cloud Press, 1999; Unal ibid., x.

11. Malise Ruthven, Islam in the World, London: Granta Publications, 2006, p. 103.

References

• Bucaille, Maurice The Bible, The Qur’an and Science, Indianapolis: North American Trust Publications, 1978.
• El-Fandy, Muhammad J. On Cosmic Verses in the Qur’an, Cairo: Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, 1961.
• Hunt, Robert. Muslim Faith and Values: What Every Christian Should Know, New York: GBGM Books, 2003.
• Khalifa, Rashad. Miracle of the Qur’an, St Louis: Islamic Productions International, 1973.
• Khan, Maulana W. Religion and Science, New Delhi: Al Risala Books, 1988.
• Kiyimba, Abasi. “Islam and Science: An Overview,” in Islamic Perspectives on Science, Izmir: Kaynak A.S., 1998.
• Irving, Thomas B., Khurshid Ahmad, and Muhammad M. Ahsan, The Qur’an: Basic Teachings, London: The Islamic Foundation, 1979.
• Maududi, Sayyid Abul A’la. Towards Understanding the Quran. Trans. of Tafheem al-Qur’an by Zafar I. Ansari. London: The Islamic Foundation, 2007, available online at http://www.tafheem.net/main.html.
• Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islamic Science: An Illustrated Study, Chicago: Kazi, 2007.
• Nursi, Said. The Words, New Jersey: The Light Inc., 2005.
• Nursi, Said. The Letters, 28th Letter, London: Truestar, 1995.
• Nursi, Said. Isarat-ul I’caz, Istanbul: Yeni Asya, 2001.
• Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur’an. Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1989.
• Sells, Michael. Approaching the Qur’an: the early revelations. Ashland, Oregon: White Cloud Press, 1999.
• Shafiq, Muhammad. Growth of Islamic Thought in North America: Focus on Isma’il Raji al Faruqi, Amana Publications, 1994.
• Unal, Ali. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, New Jersey: The Light Inc., 2006.
• Yazir, Elmalili Muhammed Hamdi. Hak Dili Kur’an Dili, Istanbul: Zehraveyn, 1991.

But if you look at nature more carefully, you will find that it does not always seem that way. You may see animals that are strikingly unselfish, most of the time for their own species, such as giving a warning of approaching predators, sharing food, licking others to remove parasites, adopting orphans. And occasionally they are unselfish to other species as well. They fight without killing or even injuring their enemies. Such behavior poses a problem for the Darwinian view of nature; this behavior is known as altruism. But is there really a problem?

Yes, there is!

One of Darwin’s greatest challenges was explaining how altruism could have evolved. For example, consider how a single bird within a flock might act as an emergency alarm, giving a warning call when a predator approaches. By receiving advance warning, the other birds in the flock have a better chance of escaping from the predator. But this comes at a price to the bird that guards the flock. A warning call attracts a lot of attention, making the guard an easier target for the predator.

How could a character for such altruism be passed on from generation to generation if it is the altruists who are more easily eliminated, and should there not be some kind of reward or motivation for this self-sacrifice? At first glance, it seems that if altruistic birds are more likely to be preyed upon, then fewer altruists would survive to reproduce. Eventually, altruism should die out. In fact, it should have died out before we discovered it.

Altruistic behavior

How can we explain this behavior? It is not possible to do so from an organism-centered view. So, let’s imagine a gene that causes the organism containing that gene to behave in such a way that copies of it are made in other organisms. In other words, a bird is only helping the other birds if they have the same type of gene. A gene that makes its owner behave in this particular way, all other things being equal, is likely to survive. But then the natural question is that altruism is only directed to those with the altruistic gene. If the birds without the altruistic gene benefit from the help as much as those with it then how does the survival of the fittest theory favor this gene? It is not easy for a gene to recognize other such genes in other individuals. There must be another solution.

Sharing the same gene

One way of increasing the likelihood for altruism to reach its true target is to keep it within the “family.” If there is a gene for behaving altruistically, then the members of the family are more likely to inherit the same gene than a random member of the population. The closer the family member, the greater the possibility of sharing the gene.

If, for example, an individual had the choice of saving his own life or the lives of two sisters or eight cousins then the survival of the fittest theory should be indifferent about the choice as they will save the same number of genes. But on the other hand if I could save three sisters instead or nine of my cousins then the theory would favor the self-sacrificial act, “saving my kin rather than saving my skin!” Hmm, what do we know, maybe indeed there is a way to be both Darwinist and altruist.

The idea of the “fittest” in Darwin’s theory is the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce and therefore to pass on some of their genes. If a mother gives up her life for her offspring, the mother ceases to exist. But, from another point of view, the mother continues to live on in her child genetically. Although the mother as an individual has not benefited from her altruism, half of her genetic code survives.

This new definition of fitness shifts the focus from individual fitness to family fitness, which takes into account the survival of an individual’s relatives. Evolution is no longer seen simply to be a process of individual selection, but also one of family selection.

Although this selection based on family seems to be a good explanation for our puzzle, at least in theory, there are many immediate questions that spring to mind. Assisting one’s kin often goes in one direction, although one would expect it to be a two-way process as there is symmetry between the genes. And how practical is the process of selecting one’s relatives? How would you differentiate the members of the same flock as to whether they are family or not, the ones that are getting the help secretly “connected”!?

Mathematics and game theory

At this point at least we have arrived at the conclusion that it is quite difficult to explain altruistic behavior in all circumstances. Maybe there is a solution to be found in mathematics, which has solved so many abstract problems.

It would be useful to take a different point of view for the entire matter. Maybe what looks like altruism is indeed to the advantage of the altruist. Two parties could be exchanging altruistic favors and in the end they both are better off. Another question that comes to mind is “Even when everybody knows that cooperation is good for all, why shouldn’t one cheat as this is more beneficial from a selfish point of view?” If everyone were to cooperate, everyone would be better off; but the best for an individual is to pursue their own self-interest, in which case therefore everybody ends up worse off.

A similar change of understanding also happened in economic theory in the 1950’s when the game theory was first introduced into economics. Initially, this theory was intended to deal with the problem of providing a theory for economic and strategic behavior where people interact directly, rather than through the market. Here, games are only used as a metaphor for more serious interactions in a general ecosystem. But the game theory addresses the serious interactions using the metaphor of a game: in these serious interactions, as in games, the individual’s choice is essentially a choice of a strategy, and the outcome of the interaction depends on the strategies chosen by each of the participants. On this interpretation, a study of games may indeed tell us something about serious interactions.

In neoclassical economic theory, to choose rationally is to maximize the rewards for the individual. From one point of view, this is a problem in mathematics: choose the activity that maximizes rewards in any given circumstances. Thus, we may think of rational economic choices as the solution to a mathematical problem. But in the game theory, the case is more complex, since the outcome depends not only on one’s own strategies but also directly on the strategies that have been chosen by other individuals; we can still think of the rational choice of strategies as a mathematical problem – and maximize the rewards of a group of interacting decision makers (Nash equilibrium).

Now that we have realized that we have to move in a somewhat similar direction to the economists, maybe we should consult the experts of the game theory at this point. In the 1980’s Axelrod and Hamilton worked on a famous problem in the game theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, exactly because it deals with this problem. The rational pursuit of individual self-interest drives everybody into an outcome that is not favored by anybody. Imagine two partners in a crime being interrogated at the same time. Each one has two options, cooperate with the other and keep quiet or betray the other and confess. Case C, we can say, is if both cooperate then the police cannot get much out of them and they will both get a light sentence (2 years); if one defects and the other keeps quiet then the traitor will get an even lighter sentence (1 year) – this is case B. If the one who cooperates gets the longest sentence (10 years), this is the worst end of the deal and we can call this case S. In a case when both betray one another they will both get a sentence (6 years) longer than if they had cooperated but lighter than if one had kept quiet and the other spoke, and this is case D.

Out of the four outcomes, B is the best and S is the worst from an individualistic point of view, while the order of preference is B, C, S, D. We should realize that this is a non-zero sum game. In a zero-sum game, my loss is your gain; for example, if we are trying to divide a certain amount of money in the bank into two, anything over fifty percent for me is a loss for you. On the other hand, in a non-zero sum game I can actually win without you losing. Each suspect has to make their decision without knowing what the other has done. What would a rational suspect do?

The answer is simple; he would betray his partner in crime! Regardless of what the other suspect does, betrayal always pays better than cooperating. Here is the simple reasoning one would follow. Suppose my partner in crime cooperates. I could do quite well by also cooperating, I would get 2 years, (C). But it is even better to betray him, since I would then get 1 year instead of 2, (B). What if he betrays me? If I keep quiet then the worst is going to happen and I will get 10 years, (S), therefore I should defect and get 6 years, (D). In summary, all we are saying is that the second row in the chart is always more favorable than the first row, hence no matter what, a rational prisoner would always betray his partner!

“And here comes the dilemma: it pays each of them to defect, whatever the other one does, yet if both defect, each does less well than if both had cooperated. What is best for each individual leads to a mutual defection, while everybody would be better off with mutual cooperation.”

Fortunately, the dilemma has a solution in our case. So far, we have only played the game once. What happens if the parties play the game repeatedly and for an indefinite number of times? After every single time they play they know that they are likely to meet again later. Under such conditions there is actually a cooperative strategy for the players that could be successful; this is a somewhat twisted version of the cooperation defined earlier in the prisoner’s dilemma case. First of all, we immediately realize that always defecting is clearly not the smartest strategy, knowing that you will meet the other individual again in the future. Instead, consider this natural strategy, called Tit for Tat, which is never to be the first to defect, always imitate the other from his previous move and retaliate only when you have been betrayed. It turns out that this highly cooperative strategy can survive, even though initially it withstands the challenges of readily defecting strategies. And it can be stable against diminishing altogether.

In order for this Tit for Tat strategy to have a chance to work, a critical proportion of the individuals have to cooperate. Otherwise the readily defective strategies would simply destroy the cooperative ones and dominate the whole system. But once the number of individuals who adopt a Tit for Tat strategy exceeds a critical ratio in the population then it survives and reaches a stable ratio able to withstand any other strategy.

Axelrod’s theory is nice and easy to understand, but once again it prompts all sorts of other issues. How frequently the population is able to reach that critical level in the first place? On the other hand, what kind of a memory do individuals need in order to be able to execute a Tit for Tat strategy?

What do we make of it?

We could keep working on expanding these explanations and models, or at least the biologists should. But in any case, in order for any of these models to apply in what we see in nature we have to be demanding of the individuals who form the population. Every single time we come up with a new approach or an extended model it is difficult to explain many of the characteristics of altruistic behavior, even in idealized cases. Either there must be altruistic genes that can recognize the other altruistic genes carried in other individuals, or we all individuals have a well-developed memory that actually remembers all the moves that have been made by other individuals in the population, or one starts from an idealistic state in order to maintain the stability of the system without knowing how we are able to get there in the first place.

It seems that the smarter we get, the better our theories are developed, and the more flawless our models become, the more we realize that all the individuals in the great ecosystem of nature that show some kind of altruistic behavior must have a great deal of knowledge and power over the rest, they must have eyes that see many things about the whole picture and they must have an authority that has a great impact on others, on and on and on.

“A man was going down from Jericho, [The road from Jericho to Jerusalem was steep and winding, a place where criminals regularly assaulted travelers at the time when Jesus lived] and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest [A holy man] was going down that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, [a religious leader] when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan [Samaritans were people who were despised by the ethnic group to whom the lawyer belonged.] while traveling came near him, and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, [two coins equal to two days wages] gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’”

Then Jesus asked the lawyer, “Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” The lawyer said to Jesus, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus then said to the lawyer, “Go and do likewise.” The moral of this story is that if one wishes to have eternal life one must be a good neighbor.

The medieval Christian monk Bernard of Clairvaux shares the great theme of the love of God with the Sufi master Rumi. A big portion of Clairvaux’s writing includes the idea that of all the attributes of God, the one most important to humankind is love. Father Clairvaux was not a poet like Rumi but a fine scholar of the Bible and found many important verses of Scripture that speak about the idea of God’s love being manifest through the actions of human beings. This love of God is expressed most graphically in the activity of being a good neighbor. He writes, “True love is precisely this: that it does not seek its own interests. And you cannot love your neighbor unless you love God. God must be loved first in order that we may love our neighbor in God” (from, On the Love of God).

From the Christian perspective neighborliness is one of the most important characteristics a follower of Jesus can possess. The two sections of the Bible, the book that gives Christians their primary guidance for living, are the Old Testament and the New Testament. These two parts of the Bible are full of verses that emphasize the high moral value placed on the practices of love of God and of neighborliness.

The Old Testament concept of neighbor often referred not only to the person who lived in the house next door to you but to anyone in your tribe. The good deeds of neighborliness were emphatically applied to care for the widow or orphan and those in need of one’s help.

God says, “If you take your neighbor’s cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbor’s only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep? And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate” (Exodus 22:26–27). Later in this same Old Testament book, speaking to the Israelites, God says, “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. You shall not abuse a widow or orphan” (Exodus 22:21–22). It is written in the book of Deuteronomy, “Cursed be anyone who strikes down a neighbor in secret” (Deuteronomy 27: 24). The prophet Jeremiah writes, “Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place” (Jeremiah 22:3). And the prophet, Micah says, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).

The New Testament concept of neighbor becomes even more universal through the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul of Tarsus. These ideas are derived from the thought that if God loves all people we should, in turn, love ourselves and especially others, including our neighbors, our enemies and those in need, the widow and orphan.

Jesus says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22: 37–40) And Paul writes, “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:13–15).

Therefore, to be a true Christian one must take care to obey the first and second commandments, to love God and also to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.

We Christians have to be alert to what some call the constant presence of evil, others call this negative force in our living the devil, and still others call it the distractions of daily living; such things as television and the media in general, the North American impulse to consumerism, self-aggrandizement, preoccupation with the accumulation of wealth, politics and the list goes on and on. These distractions, against which Christians must be constantly alert, are what our holy Scriptures refer to as our “having other gods before the one God.” The reason we want to be alert to distractions such as these is that our primary goal as Christians is to first love God and second, to love our neighbors and not to place a higher value on worldly things than we do on neighborliness.

The spiritual director and Presbyterian minister, Diana Nishita Cheifetz, writes about ways people can be good neighbors in a world where air travel and the internet have brought a great diversity of culture, political ideology, ethnicity and religion together. She talks about “graceful neighboring” which is a kind of interpersonal “dancing with our diversity.”

Graceful neighboring recognizes differences while at the same time it dwells on the positive nature of our similarities. Through the art of graceful neighboring we become more aware of people different than ourselves who are on this metaphorical “dance floor” with us. This is an important, other-focused view observed in the more accomplished “dancers”. That more mature, other-focused view, dear reader, can be possessed by you and your families and friends, and by me and mine when we are all committed to interfaith dialog. When we engage in the dance of life we do not see the stranger as black or white, Christian or Jew, rich or poor; we acknowledge them as partners, people of equal value in the eyes of the one God, people who are moving to the rhythm of life with us. We gaze into their eyes, and smile and thereby recognize their humanness and our collective joy in our living together. To behave this way is to understand what Rumi and Bernard of Clairvaux would call a kind of whirling dance of faith, a moving out of darkness into light.

Graceful neighboring also recognizes differences. We do not stand too close and invade the boundaries of the others whose culture and religion ask for more room on the dance floor. Being a good neighbor is to be willing to respect the needs and differences of the dancers.

If we are able to be vehicles of graceful neighboring in these ways others will observe our joy, we will be the good dancers whom others watch and respect, and the one God will bring all of us together into a great dance of life.

Sam is a Presbyterian pastor, a husband, a father, a grandfather and a friend. He is actively involved as a member of the Advisory Board of the Austin area Institute of Interfaith Dialog, an avid bicycle rider and environmentalist.

Notes

1. Diana Nishita Cheifetz, Weavings: A Journal of the Christian Spiritual Life, July/August 2006.

The nineteenth century, particularly towards the end, was a period that was intensively preoccupied with human-centered theories and movements that would be implemented later in the twentieth century. When focusing on the theory of crime developed by Raskolnikov, the protagonist in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, it is possible to see the traces of a variety of philosophical or criminal theory approaches that were developed in this era.

The most well-known of such views was that of Karl Marx (1818-1883), which advocated a completely new and revolutionary world order based on economic equality. Because he held the view that all human behavior was determined by social conditions, Marx maintained that it was social circumstances which were responsible for the crime, not the individual. In fact, Marx did not recognize crime as such. Crime to Marx is a responsibility which a society that has been established on unjust grounds has burdened the victimized individual with. It is Mark’s primary assertion that the only possible way to break free from such chaos is a revolution aimed at establishing a Communist order, which would in turn lead to the construction of a society based on social and economic equality.

It is possible to see significant traces of what Marx describes as a society of injustice in Raskolnikov’s crime theory. In the novel, Raskolnikov is a poor student who murders an old woman pawnbroker. The principle factor pushing Raskolnikov to commit the crime is anger at the social circumstances that surrounded him, such as his own poor economic conditions and that of his family, the huge economic imbalance within society and the atrocious tyranny over others of those who have economic power – like his landlord. As such, similar to Marx, Raskolnikov does not consider the crime he is about to commit a crime. For Raskolnikov, the theory is much more than revenge taken on an unjust society, it is a reform carried out on behalf of society. Raskolnikov envisions hundreds of people being saved with the money he will get from the old woman after he has killed her.

Marx was not the only one whose ideas had an influence on those represented by Raskolnikov. For Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) the theory of crime is relevant to psychological influences; childhood, social pressure and values all have an influence on the individual. It is possible to recapitulate Freud’s approach to crime as, man commits the crime, but he is not the criminal. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) developed Freud’s human analyses within his own nihilist philosophy and had the greatest impact on Raskolnikov’s theory of crime.

Before moving on, let us clarify exactly what Nihilism is. It is, in Nietzsche’s own words, “the self devaluation of the highest of values.”¹ In other words, the old Christian ethical worldview is no longer welcome. Nietzsche describes this situation through the famous statement “God is dead.” It is important to point out here that this statement was not made against religion or God per se, but against their corrupted forms. Along these lines, Nietzsche states in The Anti-Christ:

“What sets us apart is not our rejection to recognize God behind history or nature; but our inability to see he who is revered as God to be like God.”

Collapse of the belief in an Absolute Being, which Dostoyevsky considers to be the worst disaster in the history of mankind, consequently eliminates the belief in a real world. This leaves the human being with two alternatives. One is the hopeless and depressive state that is caused by the thought life has no meaning, all is in vain; the other, in the words of a hero in another of Dostoyevsky’s works, is “if there is no God, then God is I”²; or, in other words, Nietzsche’s notion of “Now, I’ve got the power.”

Regarding power as being essential to life, Nietzsche defines power to be “holding a view independent of all other judgments and limitations.”³ His solution to the chaos that is brought forth by the idea of an absence of God can be realized only through the new superior man, who Nietzsche states has the ability to exist beyond the norms of good and evil.

It can be said that it was this desire to become a superior man that resulted in Raskolnikov’s theory of crime. It is possible to see this will in Raskolnikov’s article in which he divides people into two groups; those who join the herd and the heroes. Instead of the first group, whom Raskolnikov designates as victims, he prefers to be affiliated with the second group, whom he groups under the name of Napoleon. A theme even in the poems of Pushkin and Lermantov, Napoleon, the personification of the man for whom nothing is impossible, symbolizes the will to do anything for the sake of one’s ideals for Raskolnikov. This will necessitate the overthrowing of the old value system that states “thou shalt not kill” and the establishment of a system of new values. In this new order, “there is no such thing as ethical phenomenon. There exist only ethical interpretations of phenomena.”⁴ And beyond this is the idea that, “the worst of vices is necessary for the best of virtues,”⁵ amounting to the fact that crime is henceforth licit. This is why we can say that it was the determination to become a Napoleon or a super man that formed Raskolnikov’s crime theory, for he justifies the crime on the grounds of an ideal – the eradication of vice.

Up until this point, the theories of Marx, Freud, or Nietzsche would not consider Raskolnikov’s murder to be a crime. It is the author himself who regards the murder as a crime, because for Dostoyevski, crime is a sin, it is a departure from God. In the novel, Dostoyevsky reveals Raskolnikov to be someone mentally tormented by his crime, so much so, that he finally confesses to it. As a solution, Dostoyevsky prescribes the repair of the human soul, which in a society where all the boundaries between vice and virtue have been eliminated Dostoevsky considers to be possible only through a return to the Absolute Being. For him, to believe that there is an immortality of the soul and that there is a God who takes care of human beings is necessary if one is to attain happiness and to create a moral life.

Notes

1. Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Will To Power, translation by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1967.
2. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, translation by Richard Pevear, Larissa Volokhonsky. North Point Press.1990.
3. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti Christ, translation by H.L. Mencken, 1920.
4. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good And Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, translation by Walter Kauffman. New York: Random House, 1966.
5. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translation by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1995

The first group of people carry a “pump” in their chests, but it cannot be said that they have hearts. The second group of people live in the cloudy, misty atmosphere of their surmises and doubts, separate from God, and are unable to reach their destination. The third group of people, those who have traveled some distance toward the destination, are at risk because they have not yet reached the goal. They advance falteringly, struggling on the way of God, experience cycles of defeat and success, and spend their lives trying to climb a “hill” without being able to reach the summit.

On the other hand, those who have a firm belief live as if they see God and in the consciousness that God sees them, enjoy complete security and are under God’s protection. They study existence with insight, penetrate the nature of existence, discover their reality through the light of God, and behave soberly and with self-control. They tremble with fear of God, full of anxiety and hope concerning their final goal, and pursue His pleasure by seeking to please Him and living in a way that shows their love for Him. In return, God loves them and causes other believers to love them. They are loved and esteemed by humanity and the jinn, and receive a warm welcome wherever they happen to be.

Prophet Joseph, upon him be peace, the truthful hero of Sura Yusuf, is mentioned five times in this sura as a man of perfect goodness and deep devotion. All of creation, including the Creator and the created, friend and foe, Earth and the heavens, testified to his strict self-control and self-supervision: When Joseph reached his full manhood, We bestowed on him wisdom and knowledge. Thus do We reward those who are perfectly good [worshipping and acting in consciousness of being always seen by God] (Yusuf 12:22). Here, the Almighty states that Prophet Joseph was a man of perfect goodness and self-control at the age of puberty. During his imprisonment in Egypt, every prisoner, whether good or evil, discerned the depth of his mind and purity of his spirit, and appealed to him to solve their problems: Tell us the interpretation of events, including dreams, for we see you [to be] among those who are perfectly good (Yusuf 12:36). Joseph succeeded in every trial he faced, and won a place in everyone’s heart, both friend and foe.

Once more God mentions him as a man of perfect goodness, a perfect embodiment of goodness, as his character did not change when appointed to a high government post: Thus We established Joseph in the land, to take possession of it where he pleased. We reach with Our mercy whom We will, and We never cause to be lost the reward of those who are perfectly good [worshipping and acting in consciousness of being always seen by God] (Yusuf 12:56). When his brothers, who had always envied him, acknowledged his goodness and truthfulness even before they discovered that the charitable minister in the royal palace of Egypt was Joseph. They said: O exalted sir. He has a father, aged and venerable; so take one of us instead of him, for we see that you are among those who are perfectly good (Yusuf 12:78).

Lastly, as a man perfectly matured and having acquired full spiritual contentment, Prophet Joseph himself testified to God’s blessings on him: God has been indeed gracious to us. Whoever acts in fear of God and full submission to Him and is patient, surely God does not waste the reward of those who are perfectly good (Yusuf 12:90).

It is inconceivable that an individual with such a sound heart could deviate or be deprived of God’s blessing. Such a heart has the same meaning with respect to its owner as God’s Supreme Throne has with respect to the universe, and is a polished mirror in which the Almighty looks in full appreciation. Such a mirror is not something to be discarded or allowed to break, for it is the essence and spirit of human reality and is praised by God.

In the following couplets, Rumi recalls this:

The Truth says: I consider the heart,
Not the form made from water and clay.
You say: I have a heart within me, whereas
The heart is above God’s Throne, not below.

She stopped in front of a vast puddle. “What do you think? Is it possible?” she asked her reflection in the murky water. “No way,” snapped back the image. “With a bunch of brothers and sisters and cousins donating their hand-me-downs every year you stand no chance.”

“Oh well! Hope springs eternal,” muttered the little girl and avenged the answer by stomping on the cruel “other.”

She hurried up to the school just around the corner. There was no one in sight. She was late again. Teachers’ voices blended from the broken windows. She entered her classroom. The teacher let her take her seat with a reproachful look that set her cheeks on fire instantly. The little girl wondered how her cheeks could burn while her feet were ice cold.

She scanned the class discreetly after she had taken her seat. All she saw was a bunch of freezing kids, a door that would not close, and windows that, like her shoes, welcomed everything in. She tried to think of something funny to lift up her spirit. Alas! Even jokes were scarce in her life. Patience was the only thing she had in abundance to help her survive till the end of the school day.

The little girl took the same path in the opposite direction toward home, lost in her thoughts. She felt very insignificant and the fact that her problem seemed irrelevant to the rest of the world increased her desperation.

* * *

At home Mom heard the little girl bark a terrible cough by the burning stove. She fixed her stare on the little shoes drying nearby, then grabbed the shoes and checked them as she had done several times before, only to confirm that in their desolate state the shoes could not stand one more nail. They were about to fall apart. Now it was Mom’s turn to worry.

“Mom, let me buy her new shoes!” Big Sister saved the day. She was volunteering to buy them from her pocket money, usually spent on stuff for her trousseau. Mom consented to Big Sister’s proposal, despite Grandma’s strong belief that it was past the time for her to get married anyway.

The little heart leapt with joy. “For real? Brand new shoes? Tomorrow?”

* * *

The next day came with a lethargic sun, as much anticipated tomorrows always do. The little girl was anxious.

“Let’s go!” The two sisters walked along the street, the big one squeezing her money, the little one squeezing her heart to keep it in place.

The shoe store struck the little girl with terror. It was unpleasantly cold. The saleswoman snailed around, making things worse. Most unfortunately, there was nothing on the metal grid shelves except for a pair of papa-sized boots and a couple of black slippers. Her little heart sank.

The saleswoman and Big Sister exchanged pleasantries. The saleswoman spoke annoyingly slowly as if chatting for the first time in a very long while. Finally the chitchat was over.

“I would like to buy a new pair of shoes for my sister,” Big Sister said, emphasizing the “new” unnecessarily. She was handling the situation so calmly you would think she was buying her daily bread.

The saleswoman stared at the little girl from head to toe and back, though all she needed to inspect were her feet. “I don’t think I have anything for her,” she said matter-of-factly, ”but let me check to be sure.” She disappeared into the unlit back. The little girl wished the saleswoman might disappear completely rather than come back empty-handed. She could take waiting a lifetime, but facing empty hands would be unbearable.

The saleswoman came back with a box. “What’s her size?” The big sister muttered the number. “A one-size-fits-all size,” translated the little heart. “This pair is one size smaller, but this is the closest I can get.” The saleswoman was obviously paying attention only to Big Sister.

The little girl took the right shoe. She almost swooned at the smell of new leather. She squeezed her foot into the shoe. “It hurts, but don’t show it,” said her little heart. She suddenly turned into Cinderella’s stepsister, ready to cut off her toes if need be. Big Sister, not easily fooled, bent down and felt the curled toes. “No, no, you can’t walk straight with these shoes.” The little girl stepped back, defiant. “You’ll have to cut my feet off to take them off me!” her eyes challenged.

The saleswoman, sensing a storm approaching, made a move to prevent the family crisis. “Why don’t you come on Monday?” she said. “A new shipment will be available then.” The girl watched the saleswoman’s face intently for a wink at Big Sister. Deadly serious, the saleswoman did not even blink. With no other option, the little girl dragged herself out of the store.

The two sisters walked silently on the street, the big one squeezing the money, the little one clenching her fists. Too bad there was no one to punch. The little heart was ice cold, yet a flickering flame of faint hope kept burning in a far corner.

“Who am I kidding?” thought the little girl. “Even if she gets new supplies, who says she will get my size? Besides, in two days there is plenty of time for my sister to change her mind or spend the money on some you-can’t-find-it–elsewhere bedspread. By Monday there is even enough time, God forbid, for some distant relative to materialize from nowhere with a pair of very old, smelly shoes, and that would be a nightmare.”

They entered their small apartment. The little girl went straight to her room and sat on her bed, painfully hearing Big Sister explain to Mom and Grandma why they had returned empty-handed. She heard the door open slowly, but she did not turn to look, knowing that no one else but Grandma could be coming in.

Grandma sat by her side with a frown. In her story-telling voice she spoke:

“Once upon a time, there lived a young man in a very far land. He walked down the streets of his little town looking at his shabby shoes, feeling very unhappy, and wondering why he couldn’t have a new pair of shoes. At that moment he passed by a beggar leaning on an oak tree, his hand stretched out asking for alms. As he looked closely he realized that the beggar had no legs. The young man grew very sad and felt ashamed of himself. ‘Shame on me! This man doesn’t have feet and I am feeling miserable because I don’t have decent shoes.’ He reproached himself and gave thanks to God for his feet.” Smiling and caressing little girl’s hair, Grandma continued, “See, my dear, do not despair. God willing, you will get what you don’t have. Meanwhile be thankful for what you already have. Contentment of the heart is the greatest of treasures.”

The little girl, having understood very swiftly the message of the story could not help but comment, “But Grandma, I want to be grateful for my feet and a pair of new shoes.” Grandma smiled at her and whispered, as if revealing a well-kept secret, “God increases the bounties when we thank him. If you are thankful for your feet, he may grant you a pair of shoes as well. Remember, contentment of the heart is the greatest treasure.” After kissing the little girl on the forehead, she left the room as quietly as she had entered it.

The little girl tried to reason, although her brain was turned upside down. “That seems like good advice. What could I be thankful for?” she asked herself. “Well, I have a wonderful grandmother for a start,” she thought with a smile.

* * *

On Monday afternoon they went back to the store. First, the saleswoman smiled at them, and then she sluggishly disappeared into the back. “Thank goodness this time I was spared the torment of pleasantries,” the little girl thought, relieved.

With a box in her hands and the air of a savior on her face the saleswoman returned. She lifted the lid and handed the right shoe to the little girl. It fit perfectly. Ta da! Boy, would Cinderella be surprised, or should I say jealous! Stepsister or no, this time she got the shoes. Her little heart was overflowing with bliss until Big Sister stepped into the middle of the majestic celebration. Now what?

“The color…,” she said. “Dark red is not a very appropriate color. Only black and brown polishes are available. They’ll soon get muddy.”

“I did my best,” the saleswoman announced in surrender. Little eyes pleaded with Big Sister, the shoebox crushed in an unyielding embrace. With the saleswoman no longer an ally, Big Sister waved the white flag.

They left the store with the new shoes inside the box. The new shoes would look wonderful under her desk tomorrow. The whole school would marvel at them. Her little heart was beating like a crazy bird in a cage. Her prayer had been answered.

Wait a minute! The girl stopped. Remembering what her grandmother had told her, she paused and whispered, “Thank you,” to the One who had given her all bounties.

“I will never forget this day,” the little girl promised.

* * *

But the little girl did forget her promise for many years until the day she witnessed a father trying hard to convince his whining little child that plain shoes are as good as the ones with Pooh Bear printed on them. She once again longed for that sincere thank-you, craving the genuine way it came out of her lips on that memorable day of her life when she got her first ever brand-new shoes.

Mirkena Ozer had her major in Turkish language and literature. She lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

There is no similarity between the systems through which insects produce or receive sounds. Furthermore, even the frequencies of the sounds they produce or hear may not be the same. The wisdom behind this might be that the receptors of some insects are devised in a way that will enable them to detect sounds produced by their enemies. Moths can be given as a typical example of this. They can detect sounds between 1,000-140,000 Hz. Their sensitivity is best between frequencies of 20,000-40,000 Hz, but interestingly, most moths do not have any organs to produce sounds at these frequencies. In other words, moths do not seem to use their tympanal organs in order to communicate with one another. Discovering the real function of the tympanal organ of the moths has taken researchers quite a long time.

The mysterious relation

Every being in nature is created to assume a role in the ecological balance and no creature has been equipped with a useless organ. Researchers have discovered that the tympanal organ plays an important role in defense. Moths spend the day resting in corners and only become active after sunset. Researchers have come to the conclusion that they are not searching for food, since the nutrition they need is stored in their bodies during the larva stage. Thanks to this blessing, moths do not spend their short life span in search of food. The aim of their night flights is reproduction.

The essential duty of moths is to find the plants where they will lay their eggs and on which their larvae will feed. As slow moving animals, it is almost impossible for the moth larvae to go and find their own food. As all creatures are provided in accordance with their need, these helpless larvae are born on their food. Another amazing fact about their nutrition is that the moth larvae eat their own protein-rich eggshells before eating leaves. Research has shown that those larvae which eat their eggshells are more resistant to environmental conditions.

As the moths try to continue their species by laying their eggs in the darkness, some other creatures try to continue their own existence by feeding on the moths. Bats eat insects and are also active at night. As is well known, bats fly comfortably in the dark thanks to the radar system they have been equipped with. This innate system is perfectly devised to enable bats to pinpoint a tiny insect flying through the darkness, and moths are a prey that is easily spotted by bats. The astonishing fact is that the moths’ sensitivity to the sound waves is perfect for picking up the sounds emitted by bats. The moths are able not only to detect the bats, but also to judge their distance from the frequency of the waves. If the distance is greater than 30 meters, the moth leaves the area immediately. If the bat is closer however, the moth takes a zigzag course or tries to avoid danger by plunging down and staying still.

The balance here is so perfect that while bats are skilled enough hunters to obtain provision, the moths are good defenders and are able to continue their existence. Both species fulfill their roles in balance with creation. Some bats are able to catch some moths, but there is no excess on either side. Nothing is left to blind chance in nature; not only did the Creator equip the bat with a perfect radar system, He did not leave the moth helpless but granted them perfect receptors to rescue themselves from bats. If it were not for the Power that established the mysterious balances in the universe, how would a bat find its way through the darkness and how would moths be protected from extinction?

Every different type of moth which forms another ring in the chain of food in nature lays its eggs on different plants. If moths did not feed on certain fast-growing plants and if their growth is not kept under control, these plants would invade the space of other plants and wipe them out. The moths and other creatures that feed on plants ensure that no one plant is allowed to upset the balance of the chain of nutrition. Similarly, the perfect balance established between bats and moths prove that nothing in this universe is left on its own. When confronted by the perfect order in nature, one cannot help but think about the verse:

You do not see any fault or incongruity in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look yet again: can you see any rifts?

Then look again and yet again, (and however often you do so, with whatever instruments to aid your looking) your sight will fall back to you dazzled (by the splendor of God’s creation), and awed and weakened (being unable to discern any flaw to support any excuse for claiming that there could be any sharing in the dominion of the universe). (Mulk 67:3)

The way scientific prediction generally tends to approach matters is as follows: “do this and you’ll see that”. The discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, one of the early successes of physics, still remaining fresh even today, is a particularly nice example: In the nineteenth century, by observing the trajectories of the planetary motion of Uranus, the most remote planet in the Solar system at that time, astronomers discovered that its trajectory was not exactly the way it should have been. Taking into account the gravitational action of nearby planets did not help either. By that time, however, Newtonian mechanics had already gained enough authority so as not to be immediately abandoned. To circumvent the problem, instead of abandoning gravity altogether, scientists proposed that there must be a celestial body, hitherto unseen, that was disturbing the trajectory. After elaborate calculations were made, the astronomers were told to direct their telescopes at a specific time at a specific region of the sky and they would see a shiny dot. They did as instructed, and the dot was present exactly as calculated. Significantly, it does not matter who was actually sitting by the telescope. Under the same conditions, a famous scientist or a lay person should be able to see the same. This is an example of what is called “objective reality,” the shining star in this case. In general, objective reality may be defined as anything which exists independent of the observer, implying that if something objectively real is encountered by observer 1, then reproducing the conditions of the first experiment, observer 2 should see it as well.

“Objective reality” is the scope of science and the science is unbelievably successful when dealing with it. The agreement between theory and experiment in the case of the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” for instance, is to the order of 1 to 100,000,000,000. To give a sense of this truly mind-blowing degree of precision, one can say that it is like sending a rocket to the Moon and predicting its landing coordinates up to the nearest millimeter.

This shows us the might of science, but what makes science so effective also sets the limits for the range of its applicability. The key factor for the conventional scientific method is the reproducibility or the regularity of the event. Whatever does not fit this condition finds itself outside the circle of phenomena that are conventionally called “scientific.” For example, ghosts are not scientific, although there are many more people who claim to have seen them than there are those who routinely observe, for example, the fractional quantum Hall effect, which is absolutely real, despite its exoticism. The number does not matter in this case. There is a certain prescription of how the quantum Hall effect should be observed, whereas there is no such thing for spiritual contacts. One has to be careful to distinguish non-scientific phenomena from non-existent phenomena. The concept of reality and existence itself is a subtle question and has traditionally been a philosophical battlefield that is heavily dependent on definitions; in any case, whatever the truth is, the fact that there is no 100% guaranteed technique of, for instance, summoning the spirit of the long-deceased Genghis Khan does not present sufficient evidence to rule out its possibility.

To illustrate what has been said up to this point, and to look on the subject from a different perspective, the following story might be of some use.

The pond story

Imagine Mr. Smith is sitting by the pond. To study its content our researcher has a sieve that he can use to scoop the water and see what is left inside. After some time he is certain that there is ooze in the pond. Later that evening, by the fireplace, he tells his wife, Mrs. Smith, about what he’d seen during the day at the pond. On the next day, to make sure her husband had actually spent his day the way he said he had, she takes the sieve and goes to the pond. With the first scoop, she gets some ooze and on the evening of the second day the ooze is elevated to the level of an objective reality. It is unimportant who is scooping the water, Mr. or Mrs. Smith. From now on whenever they want to watch the ooze, they just scoop the water with the sieve, and they are guaranteed to get some. In addition to this important discovery, Mrs. Smith also tells Mr. Smith about some rapidly moving shiny longish objects that she saw from time to time in the muddy waters of the pond. However, none of these, unfortunately, have ever made their way into the colander. That evening Mr. Smith has trouble believing the confusing story of his wife, as she doesn’t have much evidence to support it. At the end of the day, the self-confident ooze pioneer has convinced the excessively susceptible scooper that she has had a hard day, and shiny objects won’t bother her anymore. And so they lived a long and happy life. Actually long after, Mr. and Mrs. Smith Jr. discovered that the silver objects also existed objectively, for that, however, a sieve had to be upgraded to a net. These are called fish. But that’s a whole other story.

The moral is obvious: the fish here symbolizes some phenomena that are unobservable with the available accessible technology, but which do actually exist in the pond, which represents the universe; it is solely the problem of the master of the colander, who is of course identified with a researcher, that his gear is not advanced enough. At this point, one should avoid falling into another extremity, that is, denying science altogether, for Mr. Smith was right to a certain extent. At that point the fish, or to be more precise, a fish dinner which would be the manifestation of the fish, was not real for him at all. And this being so there wasn’t much point in talking about it. He preferred to talk constructively of what he could do at anytime with, to some extent, guaranteed success, that is, of what was real for him. Though, again, one should keep in mind that they should not be so opinionated to deny the existence of anything they cannot trap or measure. These ideas should always be kept in mind when thinking about the compatibility of metaphysics with the conventional, quantifiable material world.

The fact that science is based on positive knowledge is very inconvenient for proving the absence of something as opposed to proving the existence of it. To perform the latter involves locating the object or giving a concrete example of it. On the contrary, to prove the absence of something, the whole range of possibilities must be exposed. The task grows ever more difficult as the generality of the statement grows, ultimately becoming impossible.

While thinking of the universe and the role of science which is so successful in understanding it, one should be aware of the fact that science deals with the idealized models of phenomena, describing them with a certain degree of success, not the phenomena themselves. A good model has a small error, poor ones have greater error. A nice example illustrating this matter is the electrical model of a mechanical oscillator. For those who are not familiar with electronics, we can say that the capacitor and the coil act as a spring and the mass, respectively. The charge is to be associated with the expansion of the spring, the electrical current with the velocity of the block.

In the first approximation everything goes well: if we want to determine what the position of the block of the oscillator would be after 3 seconds, instead of oscillating the whole system, we can build a model circuit with the capacitance and inductance adjusted properly, and measure the charge accumulated on the capacitor after 3 seconds. However, once we begin to demand higher precision, we begin to encounter one problem after another. The capacitor might be leaking, hence it no longer ideally represents the spring; the coil has resistance and so on. Even if we somehow get ideal electronics, the oscillator has some air drag, and the spring does not ideally follow Hook’s law) [Hook’s law states that the force the spring produces is directly proportional to the degree it was stretched or compressed to]. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to determine what the oscillator would do exactly without letting it run. However, there is no reason to fall into despair: generally we don’t need to know what it does exactly; depending on the particular case, a fairly good approximation is fine for most of the applications we might ever encounter.

This is how science works. No one has ever observed the “free bodies” moving on a “straight line with constant velocity” that are mentioned in Newton’s first law, the so-called “law of inertia.” What we actually do encounter are the almost free bodies, moving on an almost straight line, with almost constant velocity. But that doesn’t mean, of course, that Newton was wrong: as long as we don’t force his laws into the subatomic region where quantum physics dominates or try to use them nearby the black holes where Einstein’s general relativity takes over, they work unbelievably fine. The rockets we send using these very laws make it quite well to the Moon.

There is an interesting aphorism which is ascribed to Sir Arthur Eddington, a prominent British astronomer: “The law of inertia is true as long as we believe in it.” Newtonian mechanics states that “An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.” However, since no one has ever seen bodies that are totally isolated from “an external and unbalanced force,” we just believe in this law. Now imagine that someone has nevertheless succeeded in shielding away all the external forces. Being given an initial velocity it is expected to maintain this; but what a disaster: the body doesn’t do so! What should be done in this case? One choice is to renounce Newton’s first law altogether, the other is to say “Hey, what if I did not eliminate the forces completely, what if there is some other force, unknown to me? Both ways are good, but in the latter one you save the ability to describe the world, whereas in the first you are left with nothing. We assume the law of inertia is true and the world becomes describable. Actually, this is what one has to do to understand anything. You have to begin somewhere. State an axiom and assume it is true. Infinite skepticism just doesn’t work. “Cogito ergo sum” was Descartes’ axiom which he had to accept to begin with.

This being so, modern science in the way it exists now does not provide the only model for the Universe; instead, it just realizes one of the possibilities. In the same way that one can use either electrical circuits or a special computer program to model a mechanical oscillator, there is more than one way to deal with the Universe. For example, how can we explain that the parameters of the planet Earth happened to meet the criteria needed to support organic life so ideally? One can say it just happened to be this way by coincidence and we are very lucky. We are very lucky, for instance, that the magnetic field of the Earth stops deadly solar winds, that the ozone layer stops destructive ultraviolet radiation, that the atmosphere is the most transparent for radiation in the yellow-green part of the spectrum, which just miraculously happens to coincide with the intensity peak of the Sun spectrum, which, in turn is the spectrum part plants use for photosynthesis and that to which the human eye is the most sensitive, etc, etc, etc. And though the probability is ridiculously low, low enough to rule it out in normal practice, it is still not impossible, although it is extremely improbable. Or one can say it was God Almighty who created the planet this way so that we can live here. And if it was God Who created the Sun, the Earth, the human eye and the plants then this set of coincidences does not seem so improbable any more. Is there a way to find out which approach is the truth? As long as both are self-consistent internally and do not contradict physical observations, the answer is no. There is no way to choose one version over the other using pure logic alone. However, there is an empirical rule usually called “Occam’s Razor” which states that in case there is more than one explanation for some phenomenon, the one which is the simplest is the true one. Well, the Universe with God in it is the simplest, isn’t it? 

Janibek Alpishev is PhD candidate at Stanford University.