Reductionist, their next-door neighbor, was editor-in-chief of a highly recognized magazine. He was kind of older, and so had rather a fatherly attitude toward them. Not surprisingly, each of the three writers had one thing in mind-to catch the attention of their next-door neighbor, which was a really tough job. Having seen thousands of different articles in his life, and still editing several of them every day, Reductionist had become very good at categorizing ideas and pieces of writing. So, it was really difficult, if not impossible, to come up with something that he would call original. This state of Reductionist caused competition, and sometimes jealous actions, among the three writers.

Reductionist used to invite his neighbors to accompany him whenever he was invited to a program related to writing. Rational especially liked them because he learned new things from different people. Romantic loved staying alone, but doing this in different settings opened ways for new inspiration. Regular, on the other hand, was not very thrilled at the idea of traveling because it disturbed his daily schedule. But he thought it was OK being with friends as part of a bigger schedule that spans a larger time.

At the end of one of those trips, they were traveling back home on a dark and rainy night. As they covered each mile of the road, they talked about various topics. After some random ones, they started talking about a topic that really interested all of them: writing. They discussed different issues surrounding the main idea of writing, such as how to start writing, how to write well, how to make your words carry meanings that would satisfy the mind and the heart, and so on. When it came to the issue of inspiration and new ideas, Romantic told a short story:

“A farmer had two fields. He started cultivating both. After the first season, he saw that one of the lands was yielding produce but the other one didn’t. Several consecutive trials only confirmed the quality of the fertile one. The more trials the farmer made, the faster he received the produce and the more he reaped. Then the farmer decided not to use the barren field anymore.

“The inspirations are gifts from God. He plants seeds in our hearts in that way. People who value and pay due respect to inspiration are like the fertile field in the story. The farmer enjoys the produce and uses that field more. People who ignore inspiration or postpone dealing with it are the barren land. They don’t foster the seed, and the farmer ceases using them.”

After the apt parable, everybody was submerged in silent thought for a while. Then Romantic suggested, “Why don’t we pull over and talk about this all together with peace of mind? I’m really enjoying this.” But Rational did not share her perspective: “You know, I really would love to, but we have a long way to go. It is not wise to stop and forget about our trip. What are you going to do when we are all sleepy and not able to continue on the way? And what is wrong with talking while traveling, anyway?”

At the words of Rational, Romantic started crying: “You never listen to me; you always want me to forget my heart. I feel like I am among friends who are like dead statues.” Irritated by the words of Romantic, Regular took a turn, but talked in a way so as to manage the feelings of everybody: “Hey, umm… I think focusing on the discussion is a good idea, but it is not what we usually do. We are not near a lake or on top of a hill. It is neither sunset nor nighttime in a café. So, it may be better to wait until tomorrow.” Although these words were as neutral as they could be, Romantic still felt neglected: “I don’t think you are going to give yourselves to the matter if we keep going and talking at the same time. Instead, you are going to exploit and consume this lovely talk as a means to keep awake. This is a clear betrayal; it is hypocrisy toward your heart.”

“Wait a minute. I don’t think being wise is the same thing as hypocrisy. Do you have a really good reason to forget about everything else for the sake of this topic? I mean, what makes this topic so important that you want us all to sacrifice everything for it?” rebutted Rational.

Romantic could not answer this question, and turned her face outward into the darkness veiling the fresh green of the trees. She thought, “I am just like those trees and flowers that suffer from not being able to display their beauty because of the darkness.”

Reductionist, who was driving while listening to all the talk, said, “What is it that you are aiming to get from this talk, whether we do it now or later? I don’t want to be discouraging here, but isn’t this another hay-fire that is going to give a burst of heat and light, but will prove ordinary and transient in the end? This is just another emotion-provoking breeze about inspiration. I have experienced several of those, and yet here comes another. What difference is this going to make when we already have thousands of them out there? What is the point in discovering America over and over?”

Hearing all these arguments, Romantic, Rational and Regular all shut their mouths. Although the three roommates wanted to talk about the new perspective that Romantic had presented, their dispute about how to do it had weakened them in the face of Reductionist’s arguments. Nobody could say a word after Reductionist had spoken, and silence covered the quartet like the night.

Although she had been upset by the rest of the group, Romantic was still awake and happy in her mind. She decided to daydream about previous inspirations she had received. That way, she lived again the exhilaration and joy that came along with them. Triggered by that energy, Romantic gave a giggle that disrupted the increasing weight of the dark and silence. Rational, who was sorry to have upset Romantic, used this as an opportunity: “I have an idea. By going slower, we can sincerely concentrate on each other and on Romantic’s inspirations. That way, we can convert our trip into a journey toward the making of an article.” This suggestion triggered Regular to say: “Yeah, depressed nights, too, are part of our custom for in-depth talks.” Now everybody was waiting for Reductionist to approve the idea. Reductionist first slowed down. The reduction of the noise from the engine strengthened the silence. In the tense atmosphere, Reductionist laughed like a thunderclap, and said, “I am going to tell you guys a little story. A writer had three pens. He picked the first one and wrote an article with it. After finishing it, the pen said, ‘I wrote this article for you. Do you like it?’ The writer smiled back and said, ‘Yes, thank you.’ Then the writer put that pen in his office so that it could do things for him. Another day, the writer used the second pen to write a piece. After he finished it, the pen turned to him and said, ‘I wrote what you told me. Do you like it?’ The writer smiled back and said, ‘Yes, thank you.’ Then the writer put that pen in his bag so that it would write things as he wanted. And finally the writer used his third pen to write another article. After finishing it, the pen turned to him with a smile and said, ‘Thank you for using me.’ The writer smiled back at the third pen and put it in his pocket right next to his heart. He carried it everywhere he went, and whenever he had an original idea, he welcomed it with the help of his third pen.”

By that time, the rain outside had turned into a rain of smiles inside the car. Motivated by the unexpected story Reductionist had told, everybody engaged in an effort to welcome the inspiration that came through the one next to the heart. Romantic was not late taking her turn: “You know, for everything there is a season. You have to sow your seeds in the fall and wait until summer to reap. If you sow any time else, you not only waste your time but also lose your seeds. So, I guess the best time to work on an idea is when it first descends from the heavens to your heart.”

Both Regular and Rational looked at Romantic with wide open eyes. Regular said, “You have an important point there.”

“That is absolutely right,” concluded Rational.

Seth Mette has a PhD in Aerospace Engineering and is currently working as a postdoctoral fellow at West Virginia University. He has a special interest in psychological fiction.

Although the dialogue of civilizations has always been laudable, modern global developments such as economic inequalities, environmental destruction, the spread of information technology, and the increasing power of civil society make dialogue critical for global peace and welfare. Facing these Herculean global challenges, economic and political solutions are not enough because they empower the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and weak, leading to the erosion of human dignity. Without a moral dimension, globalization is doomed to remain fragile. Furthermore, it can create resentment as well as a sense of injustice and anger among the poor and weak. However, conflict between the winners and losers in globalization is not inevitable. Religious leaders have the authority and responsibility to add a moral dimension to globalization by voicing “the silent cry of those who today suffer from want, hunger, disease, powerlessness, and lack of freedom” (p. 11).¹ In Sacks’ account, religion is integral to global politics.

Belying Enlightenment predictions that religion would become “mute, marginal, and mild,” (p. 11) people are turning to religion across the globe, from Latin America to the Middle East, from the U.S. to China. Increasing global religiosity does not necessarily contribute to humanity’s hope for peace due to the dual nature of religions as a source of conflict and conflict resolution. In order to contribute to dialogue, harmony, and peace religions must find ways to “acknowledg[e] the integrity of those who are not of our faith.” It is their willingness to “make space for difference,” to “hear the voice of God in a language, a sensibility, a culture not our own,” or simply, their capacity to “see the presence of God in the face of a stranger.” If religious leaders fail to accommodate other religions, with the increasing salience of religion in international politics, religions will continue to be a source of discord, not harmony. Sacks is unequivocal in his contention about integrating faith into solutions to global problems: “If faith is enlisted in the cause of war, there must be an equal and opposite counter-voice in the name of peace. If religion is not part of a solution, it will certainly be part of the problem” (p. 9).

After describing the moral and political necessity of incorporating religion in global politics, Sacks answers the most thorny question facing religious mobilizations for equality, peace, and harmony: Can monotheistic traditions accommodate the dignity of followers of other monotheistic and polytheistic religions as well as non-theistic religions and philosophies? Is the unity of God compatible with the dignity of difference? Offering a Jewish perspective on monotheism, Rabbi Sacks suggests that monotheism is compatible with the diversity of religions.

Before explaining the Jewish perspective for making space for other faiths, Rabbi Sacks argues that the notion of the universality of truth and the danger of particularity (a notion he traces back to Plato’s The Republic) can have non-religious as well as religious roots. Rabbi Sacks identifies Western universalist cultures that have propagated the idea of the existence of one universal truth: ancient Greece and Rome, medieval Christianity and Islam, and the Enlightenment. In addition to these five universalizing cultures, the world is going through a sixth-global capitalism. These attempts to unify the world under one religion or culture are not compatible with the Divine Will that is revealed by the diversity and complexity of the natural and social world. Despite his criticisms of universalist cultures, Sacks claims that some universal moral truths exist as codified in the Biblical “covenant with Noah” which forms the basis of modern human rights norms. Despite the existence of these moral universals, Sacks rejects that the existence of one God requires “one faith, one truth, one way.” By creating complexity and plurality in the cosmos, God teaches a lesson on the dignity of difference.

According to Sacks, Judaism represents the best example of a monotheist accommodation of religious plurality. In contrast to the universalist monotheisms of Christianity and Islam, Judaism is a particularist monotheism that “believes in one God but not in one religion, one culture, one truth. The God of Abraham is the God of all mankind, but the faith of Abraham is not the faith of all mankind” (p. 55). One God shows His majesty and mercy through diversity in the cosmos as well as in faiths. God and religion are uncoupled. “God is universal, religions are particular” translations of God in a specific language in the form of a specific life, nation, and community of faith.

Rabbi Sacks’ account puts Abrahamic religions on equal ground. Stressing that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions of revelation, Sacks argues, “In the course of history God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, and Islam to Muslims. Only such a God is truly transcendental-greater not only than the natural universe but also than the spiritual universe articulated in any single faith, any specific language of human sensibility” (p. 55). However, as I explain later, Sacks revised or removed many of his statements accommodating Christianity and Islam in later editions of his book.

The dialogue of civilizations is the key to sustaining moral universals, accommodating the dignity of difference, and humanizing globalization. To this end, Sacks envisions two simultaneous dialogues with complementary functions-an interfaith dialogue and a faith–globalization dialogue. Before defining the term “dialogue,” he clears up some misconceptions about it. Dialogue is not about winning an argument or changing one’s own beliefs, but it is a “disciplined act of communicating . . . and listening.” By communicating we make our “views intelligible to someone who does not share them.” By listening we enter “into the inner world of someone whose views are opposed to” our own. In short, the aim of dialogue is not “to change one’s beliefs but make space for another deeply held belief” (p. 83). Once the space for another’s belief is created, the dignity of difference can flourish.

While interfaith dialogue should focus on finding religious justifications for the dignity of difference, faith–globalization dialogue should offer ways to enhance distributional justice in world resources. The integration of religious communities into this process is imperative because they embody the moral responsibility to alleviate the suffering of the poor and oppressed.

Among some Jewish moral responsibilities is tzedakah, which requires Jewish people to give charity for distributional justice. In addition to tzedakah, Jonathan Sacks stresses education, civil society, and environmental sustainability as other topics which activists should incorporate into the dialogue of civilizations.

The Dignity of Difference is an important contribution to the debate about interfaith dialogue, as well as globalization and its discontents. It weaves its argument through theology, political science, economics, and philosophy. Yet, there are three issues Sacks fails to address. First, it is not clear to what extent Sacks’ reading of Judaism is a standard Jewish reading. In other words, “how Jewish is his description?” This is important because of his claim that Judaism is the only particularist monotheism advocating the dignity of difference and accepting Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on equal theological grounds. As Richard Harries the Bishop of Oxford details, after the first publication of the book, other Jewish authorities criticized Sacks’ description of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as being on equal theological grounds.² This criticism suggests that there is not a unity of opinion among Jewish scholars about whether and how to accommodate other Abrahamic traditions.

These criticisms led Sacks to rephrase and remove some statements. For example, in later editions, he removed this statement which had been included in the first edition: “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions of revelation-faiths in which God speaks and we attempt to listen.” He also revised the statement that “God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims” so it became “As Jews we believe that God has made a covenant with the singular people, but [this] does not exclude the possibility of other peoples, cultures and faith finding their own relationship with God within the shared frame of the Noahide laws.” From an interfaith perspective, these criticisms and Rabbi Sacks’ responses indicate interfaith dialogue may not be sustainable without an intra-faith dialogue within each religion.

Secondly, Sacks refers to seeing God in the face of the stranger, but his examples and his argumentation are based on monotheistic traditions. Accepting the dignity of an atheist or a polytheist from a monotheistic perspective is hard, and Sacks fails to get directly involved with this difficulty.

Third, while Sacks talks about accommodating more religious voices in global governance to rectify the inhumane aspects of globalization, he tends to ignore the most outstanding obstacle in front of the integration of religious voices into politics: secularism. How can secular state institutions integrate religious voices while maintaining the separation of church and state? With their claim to sovereignty, nation states, tend to eliminate differences in the name of state- and nation-building and security. Can secularism, sovereignty, and nation state accommodate religious pluralism? If so, how?

Interfaith dialogue can provide solid, theological ground for the religious foundations of the dialogue of civilizations. Creating space for others’ beliefs is one of the most important and urgent challenges of increasingly interconnected and complex global world politics. By articulating Jewish justifications and parameters for the dialogue of civilizations, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks joins the company of other religious voices such as Fethullah Gulen³ and scholars such as Fred Dallmayr⁴ advocating interfaith dialogue, tolerance, and harmony. Any religious and secular voices advocating that end will help both to avoid the clash of civilizations and possibly to add a moral dimension to globalization.

Voices for interfaith dialogue from Judaism are particularly important for religious and practical reasons. Jewish scholars’ struggle to accommodate other religions can influence other Abrahamic religions and the interactions of Abrahamic religions with non-Abrahamic religions. Politically, it is important because Jewish voices for interfaith dialogue may moderate the ongoing tensions in the Middle East and Palestine.

Notes

1. Jonathan Sacks expands some of his arguments in his subsequent book To Heal A Fractured Word: The Ethics of Responsibility. New York: Schocken. 2005.
2. Richard Harries (2004). “Jonathan Sacks’s The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations,” Scottish Journal of Theology. (57)1: 109-115. For another thorough review see Fred Dallmayr (2003). “The Dignity of Difference: A Salute to Jonathan Sacks,” Kroc Institute Occasional Paper # 24:OP:1.
3. Ali Ünal and Alphonse Williams (Compiled by). Advocate of Dialogue: Fethullah Gulen. Fairfax, VA. The Fountain Press. 2000.
4. Fred Dallmayr. Dialogue Among Civilizations: Some Exemplary Voices. New York. Palgrave Macmillan. 2002.

In this issue we examine diverse topics from astronomy to art, from dialogue to genetics. On reading the lead article, you will be filled with hope that once those “who are spiritually alert with faith, hope, and tenacity” roll up their sleeves ready for work, the true message of Islam will be revealed to everyone in the world, for Islam is “a combination of systems that is perfectly compatible with human nature and rich enough to meet all the material and spiritual needs of humanity.”

Although we see it every day as the source of light and heat above us, most of us do not know that the sun is like an “enormous piano with ten million notes.” “The Trembling Sun” expounds on how helioseismologists gather important information about the sun’s core by studying the echoes that appear on the sun’s surface from the energy produced by these ten million notes.

From the macrocosmic sounds of the sun we move on to studying the marvelous microcosmic world of seeds in “Tiny, With A Great Mission,” which is a contemplative piece on how seeds are equipped with all the necessary information, how are they programmed to become the plant they are meant to be, and so on. In “Will and Balance in Nourishment,” we learn that there is no limit to the absorption of foods that have high calories (lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins), and that this can lead to being overweight. However, in the absorption of minerals, the rules of dynamic balance occur in our intestines, regardless of our will, by the help and mercy of God. The former becomes a test of our appetite, while the latter is a measure divinely installed in our body to protect us from various malfunctions. A similar protective mechanism is found in the DNA, our genetic coding. “A Miraculous Mechanism: DNA Repair” lists various precautions to prevent DNA damage, such as detection by sensor proteins, the damage checkpoint process, and apoptosis.

We are grateful to the authors for their contributions, and owe a special thanks to Ozge Ozturk, Hacer Sartepe, and Sermed Ogretim for their help in producing this issue.

The four main functions required for life, namely the digestive, respiratory, circulatory, and excretory systems are all found in plants but performed by different organs. If these functions are non-existent the dynamism or the essence of existence that we call life will disappear and death is inevitable. If these four functions (digestion, circulation, respiration, and excretion) are in working order, it means an organism is alive but only at the level of plant life. To reach the animal level of life, in addition to the four main functions, functions like senses, nervous and muscular systems are also required.

If these functions fail, life continues, but at the level of plant life. We sometimes hear people saying “in a vegetative state.” When you hear this, people are usually talking about a person who has lost the use of the animal functions. He or she may be unable to see, feel, hear, or move. Intelligence, comprehension, will power, conscience and the many other special aspects of human beings cannot be compared with the essential functions of living; these are additional characteristics of being human which accompany the animal system of functions and emerge in relation to a person’s spirituality. This obviously does not mean that those who have lost their abilities are less human and they do not have any rights; on the contrary, it means to say that they are not responsible any more.

The focal points of sensory functions of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell are found within the head in the brain, which is the command center of our body and the most complex form of existence we know of in the universe. The brain is connected to the nervous system which communicates with all the organs in the human body. This is why the head is so precious; it is a very sensitive part of the body and has to be protected like a jeweler guards precious stones. If you tread on a nail, it may hurt for a while, but with treatment the wound can be cured. But if a nail were to penetrate someone’s head, this could damage any of the sensory functions or, God forbid, could even result in death.

As you have probably understood from our introduction, the head is firstly the center of animal functions then the focus point of the addition of the human senses. When you mention the head we are the first thing that comes to mind: the eyes. Did we hear you ask why? It’s because we are what you are reading these words with right now, and because you can see the beautiful creations of the universe with us-that’s why.

If my Creator had not created us and positioned us in the two cavities on your head, you would have no knowledge of the beauties of light, color, insects, flowers, roses or birds. You would be afraid to walk without us because you would have no idea where you are about to tread. The effect of sight can only be sent through us to your brain and reflected into your mind. The development of human knowledge would have been very delayed if God had not created us or the other sense organs because the only way to gain knowledge is through healthy sense organs. The sense organs are the only way of detecting and recognizing the characteristics of objects.

You need us to realize that water is transparent, apples are red, quinces are yellow and violets are purple, you need us to recognize your mothers, fathers and friends. You need us to eat, drink, read and write and so you do not bump into walls. What do you think will happen if we close our lids for ten seconds and you try to walk down the street? Try it if you want!

You see-it was harder than you thought. You were scared in case you bumped into something or fell over. Look, Peter, just take a deep breath and give praise to our Creator while our lids are closed tight, for you could not tolerate being in the dark for a mere ten seconds, so what if you never saw the light? Just think sometimes about people who are not as fortunate as you, who cannot see for one reason or another. Give praise to our Creator for not giving you such a trial, and pray for the patience of those friends who have been deprived of sight.

Yes, now we have come to our characteristics and delicate creation, so pay attention. When Darwin saw God’s magnificent skill in our creation, he realized that we could not have been just a coincidence or a self-made creation, and it was impossible for us to be a creation of unconscious nature. Due to the guilt he felt inside, he found it necessary to say that the idea that “the evolution of complex organs like the brain and the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

There is no artificial optical device that can match the esthetics or precision of our creation. Our operating principles depend on the optical laws God Almighty has determined for the light. As a matter of fact, just by looking at our structure, human beings worked out the rules of optics, you made the simplest of cameras, and you went on to produce the most magnificent photographic cameras possible. But whatever you do, never try to compare one of us to those cameras you have invented or you may become rather embarrassed. Your cameras are a simple toy compared to us. From the time of the invention of the old, wooden box cameras that had to be covered with a black cloth up to the modern digital cameras of the present, 175 years have passed. Many people worked for years to bring cameras to such a perfect state. Can anyone claim that the old camera made of a wooden box and a lens evolved by itself and turned into the high-quality, digital cameras of today? With all the knowledge accumulated by hundreds of scientists over the years, can this invention really be called a coincidence? So, can we be a coincidence? Could the eyes of mollusks or insects make themselves evolve and transform into the eyes of humans? Of course not! But to understand this a little better you must pay attention to our structure.

We are globe-shaped and look like covered capsules with a multi-layered structure which is quite solid and supple (Figure 1). Each of us is approximately 24mm in diameter. We have an outer layer made of something called sclera (hard coating). We are protected by a strong cover made up of dense ligament fibers, and beneath this is the choroid layer (a layer of blood vessels), where the blood vessels nourishing us go into; this layer covers us completely like a network of vessels. In the middle of the eye is the retina which is a layer of film. It is located in the most precious place where our actual receivers of light reside. There are other layers which each have their own duty beneath these layers, but we won’t go into too much detail.

We each have a main casing that is round and has a dome-shaped surface which slightly protrudes. The center of the hard coating, the cornea, is transparent so that it will allow light to pass through. On the outer part of the transparent area is what they call the white of the eye, and the whole areas seen from the front is covered in a clear membrane (the conjunctiva) with mucus cells. This keeps us lubricated. So as to focus light rays, our cornea section is more curved than other sections. There is a tiny chamber behind this curved front and this is actually where the lens, which separates the main chamber, is found. In the front chamber between our lens and cornea is a transparent liquid, the iris, which gives us our color. The black hole in the center of the iris is called the pupil. The iris, which has a special structure of muscles, works like a curtain contracting and expanding our pupil in response to the brightness of light. If the light is powerful, it contracts to protect the retina from any damage, whereas if the light is dim, the iris expands the pupil to allow more light into the retina.

The fibers (zonules) that hold the lens suspended in place and the cluster of muscles (corpus ciliare), which changes our lens according to the focus distance, are in front of a layer of blood vessels. Our lens, which plays a role in focusing, changes shape and adjusts according to whether the focus point is near or at a distance by thinning and thickening. We do this with the help of the fibers that keep the lens suspended.

Behind the lens is a larger chamber filled with a jellylike, transparent liquid (vitreous humor). The pressure and consistency of the jellylike liquid ensure that we keep our round shape. There are photoreceptive cells in the shape of rods and cones which are sensitive to light in the dark chamber behind our retina. The visual images formed by the rays which pass through the cornea and lens to the retina are upside-down. There is a small pit in my retina where almost every cell has a light receptor cell. This is where your sharpest vision is formed, but that doesn’t mean that it is where you actually perceive the object you are looking at. Sight is what happens when a group of cells in the brain’s visual center is stimulated, and the images on our lens are comprehended. It is unbelievable how fast is the effect of the chemical and electro events on our light receptor cells. The effect of light is conveyed to your brain through the stimulation of electric signals in our receptors’ optic nerve where the actual vision is produced in the brain, so in a way we are just the means of vision.

Because we are such delicate and sensitive organs, our Creator placed us in the cavities within the bone structure of your head for protection. We fit in the very strong and secure structure comprising your chin bone, cheek bones, forehead bone, orbital bone (just around us, your eyes), nasal bone and occipital bone (at the rear and bottom of your skull), but this is not our only protective mechanism. We have top and bottom eyelids that we close to protect ourselves from oncoming dangers. The frequent blinking of our eyelids prevents our cornea from becoming dirty, just like the windscreen wipers of a car. Our eyelids are not just simple folds of skin, they are a secretion system of glands which continuously lubricate the inner part of your lashes and seize dirt and dust, turning them into harmless particles. When you feel emotion, the secretion produced by the tear glands between us and the nose fills the tear ducts, passes through the two canals, and gives us a good wash. But when you cry too much, the excess secretion empties through another canal, which also washes your nose.

As this system is complex, it can also go wrong sometimes. If you consider our many parts and our millions of cells you will clearly see the possibility that any one of our components may fail. However, our Creator has formed the eyes in most people’s heads without any defect or failure, so we can serve you with vision of the universe.

The Creator gives us something called illness so we are reminded of our weakness, a defect or failure which arises as an act of wisdom. Some illnesses, like diabetes, deficiency of vitamin A or atherosclerosis, may have a negative effect on us and even render us useless. We eyes also have some defects which occasionally appear, such as not being able to see at a distance, or close up. Focus defects are easily remedied with spectacles or lenses, but faults in the sensitive light receptor cells in the retina are more difficult to amend. The pressure of the liquid in our larger chamber must be correctly balanced. If this pressure increases too much, we will give you a great deal of pain due to what doctors call glaucoma. If we lose our transparency, your vision will become clouded by what is called a cataract. Apart from this, there are many viruses and bacteria that can cause infections and diseases, but the cells of your immune system are like soldiers who, with the Creator’s help, protect you from those bacteria and viruses.

Look, Peter! It would take pages and pages for us to explain ourselves to you, but we don’t really want to confuse you with even more anatomical information. Our whole aim is to explain the reasons for the creation of our parts, to astonish you with the wisdom and fine art of the Divine, so you will contemplate the wonders of creation and give praise to the Almighty for the blessings he has bestowed upon you. If we have been successful in achieving this, that would be the greatest reward we could ask for.

Irfan Yilmaz is a professor of biology at Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.

Through this religion, humanity welcomed the most profound and rewarding transformations spreading in ever-widening circles from the center and witnessed the most vital changes. It was Islam which indicated the paths leading to absolute peace and salvation; it offered decisive solutions to the problems of humanity that had amassed over centuries. And today, despite the age-long efforts of many aggressive and brutal people to defame its luminous face and prevent its advance, Islam still maintains its position as a unique source of hope and treats everyone who takes refuge in it with an elixir of immortality.

Although there have been some who chose to darken their fate by breaking away from Islam during a gloomy period or by opposing it for the sake of obstinacy in a false cause, Islam’s ever fresh and fulfilling message has always been like a lighthouse for those on the voyage and a safe haven for those in peril. For all some people may say, the entire world will one day appreciate this great truth thanks to the real representatives of this religion and will run to its climate of soothing breezes. Who knows? This religion may embrace us all, just like in the first ages of revival, and blow a new soul into this moribund world! May the followers of this religion not disappoint those who pin their hopes on them by dallying and wavering; may they not shake the trust in them that has started to grow in public opinion.

In a single breath, this religion once saved the masses that had sunk up to their throats in heedlessness, ignorance, and aberration, and it elevated them to lofty horizons beyond imagining; likewise, it will certainly be a source of inspiration for today’s dispersed and aimless masses and speak to them of the privilege of being human.

One day, with its well-preserved heavenly nature, this religion will wake the riotous masses of this age to being truly human and will reveal the divine in Islam’s essence to everyone; for this religion is not an empty system that consists of nothing but abstract measures, principles, and theories. Islam is a combination of systems that is perfectly compatible with human nature and rich enough to meet all the material and spiritual needs of humanity. It is the voice originating from the realms beyond the heavens that promises a bright future for every individual and society. And now, with its unique rhetoric and enchanting effect engrossing everyone, it offers to humanity a mysterious key to unlock the gates of this world and the afterlife by way of carrying them to the heavenliness once attained in the past.

Although our religion is not being fully expressed due to some of its disloyal followers and destructive enemies-as is no doubt the case today-its voice will be heard in the skies and beyond at a providential period of time, by means of the efforts of its auspicious students who have managed to wed their heart with their mind; this will be the true shab-i arus (wedding night) for the people of their time.

If such splendors were achieved in the darkest days of history, why should they not be realized once again? As long as they are aware of their own wonder and spiritual merit, human beings are the same human beings that they were in the past, happiness in this world and in the hereafter is the main goal as it was in the past, the disciplines need to reach the goal are the same disciplines as they were before …. All that remains is for the representatives who are spiritually alert with faith, hope, and tenacity to roll up their sleeves ready for work. Hearts are under God’s control; so all this can come true one day. “When God manifests Himself with His favor, He makes everything easy / He creates the means for attainment, and grants it instantly” (Ibrahim Haqqi). We cannot say representatives of the necessary caliber do not exist at all today. It is true that there is some slackening of enthusiasm and we are acting slowly, but it is also true that many exceptional projects have been realized so far.

So many of our precious values have been revived all over the world that to ignore that fact would be ungrateful, just as it would be unfortunate to remain in despair while they stand before our eyes. How many other developments can we refer to that have been achieved as fast as that in our day? How many other revivals were there that have been as immediate as that of our day? And how many philosophies and worldviews have we seen that have been embraced by the masses in a time as short as this revival we see in our day? The world is the same planet, humanity is the same humanity, the goal is the same goal; then, why should past achievements not be realized again? Once the long-awaited truthful representatives can make their voices heard, albeit at low volume, but in a tone appropriate for all humans of diverse natures, and if those with sensible minds and spirits are made aware of their own true values, then fair-thinking souls who have always sought a glimpse of light throughout the ages will be saved from the confinements of this world and will rush forward to the expansive lands of these enlightened representatives, discovering a very different life.

Opposing revivalist movements, hedonistic circles try to sabotage every positive development; resistance comes especially from a powerful minority whose minds are completely fixed on gaining this world at the expense of the afterlife. These circles go all out to damn and smear the most positive and innocent activities that do not fit into their worldview, if it can be called a view. While they engender a new conflict every day by attacking every thing that is carried out on behalf of religion, sometimes with words like “backwardness” and at other times with delirious slanders like “fundamentalism” and “fundamentalist,” the pure souls who have awakened to true human values have always smiled back and entreated God the Ever-Patient, hoping that even those hostile circles-who are also favored with the wonder of being human-may one day feel regret for what they have done and ask pardon.

What falls to our share today is to put our faith in God, to walk with added determination on the path we know as straight, to embrace everyone as compassionately as we can, and to pronounce even to hostile groups our overflowing love for humanity. What remains beyond this is to be content with God’s will, to assume active patience against the exasperations of the time, and to move forward with consideration.

How do we distinguish between the desire to emulate and envy? What are your thoughts regarding the charities and alms given away openly by some leading people in good work in order to inspire others and stimulate their feelings of generosity, while others cannot help but feel envy of their generosity?

Desire to emulate (gibta) is a desire to have the same blessings another person has without wishing for him or her to be deprived of them; it is looking up to others’ admirable qualities and achievements. Envy (hasad), however, is the inability to bear with others’ successes or to acknowledge the favors and virtues they are blessed with; it is to wish for the absence of those favors and good conditions for others and to desire to possess them all for oneself. Envy, therefore, involves resentment, indignation, and jealousy, whereas the desire to emulate is admiration. In a saying reported as a hadith of the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, it is said that “Believers admire, hypocrites envy.” By this, a bottom line is determined for believers so that they do not go further than admiration, and we are told that jealousy makes hypocrites squirm in a constant state of pain.

To emulate: harmless envy

It is also reported that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, “There are only two to envy: a person whom God has given wealth and he spends it in the right way, and a person whom God has given wisdom (religious knowledge) and he gives his decisions accordingly and teaches it to others.” It is harmless to admire those who, after they have learned the religion well and made it their way of life, illuminate others with their knowledge, which they have made a source of wisdom. They act as a genuine interpreter of the Qur’anic truths by both communicating and representing them. So, one can say, “I wish I were like him; I wish I knew my religion so well, so that I could have illuminated my own life while communicating it to others!” It may even be a self-rewarding act to do so, for it is in a sense self-interrogation; realizing our inadequacy we may be motivated to work harder and even to pray, and thus be filled with lofty feelings. It is not wrong also to admire prosperous people who have been made superior with wealth as well as with generosity, who give away their God-given property in great quantities in charity, and who never feel content with their giving, as if addicted to benevolence. As in the previous situation, one can say, “I wish I had the same resources, so that I could donate as much as he did. I wish I could have built a school and provided grants for hundreds of students as he did.”

Nevertheless, in the hadith given above, the Prophet, peace be upon him, uses “envy” instead of “desire to emulate,” emphasizing the fact that admiring others is also a state that is close to jealousy. No matter how harmless and even favorable it may be, desire to emulate shares the same border with envy, rendering its territory somewhat unsafe to walk through. Inability to define the limits of admiration may result in jealousy and envy. For instance, looking up to a friend who is well-versed in the religion, in an admirable condition, and who acts with good conduct, is fine, as long as it does not cross the border into comparison and covert competition, saying, “Why does he know so much that I do not know? How can he communicate our faith better than I can?”

Therefore, believers must keep a distance between themselves and admiration, which is adjacent to envy and separated from it only by a thin veil. They must be content with what has been appreciated for them; they should never complain of their fate, even with the slightest emotional disappointment; they should see no one as their rival, and they should strive to attain their highest potential in virtue.

Food supplies delivered at night

In his “Principles for Sincerity” Bediuzzaman Said Nursi warns not to “provoke [your brothers’ and sisters’] envy by making a display of [your] attributes,” defining the responsibility that falls on the shoulders of those people who are admired. Boasting incessantly, always bringing the subject to one’s own achievements, claiming success for oneself, and appearing at the forefront all the time are also acts of trespassing in the forbidden zone. Such a person may not envy another person, but with this attitude he drives other people to jealousy of him by provoking their envy.

For this very reason, boasting of one’s personal virtues and abilities is considered inappropriate in Islamic culture, so a tradition of engaging in good work privately has developed. Alms used to be left at certain places out of sight and reach of others, so that only the poor could come and get what they needed. Alms columns, for instance, which were around six feet tall with a cavity on top, were erected at certain points in towns; it was not easy to discern who was leaving alms there and who was taking them, so that the poor were not made to feel obliged, their feelings were not hurt, and their envy was not provoked. Foundations were instruments for transferring donations from benefactors to the poor without causing embarrassment or taunting of the latter, while the former were saved from ostentation and arrogance.

In Islam, intending to hide one’s voluntary prayers and alms is very important. The Prophet declared that God does not accept anything from the one who gives in charity to be known by others, someone crazy for show, nor from a philanthropist who taunts the beneficiary of his favors. Performing charity secretly and giving alms without revealing it to others are good ways of being saved from the desire to be praised by others. There are many people who help others secretly and disappear mysteriously without introducing themselves even to the poor person to whom they provided some relief. Many of our noble ancestors made extreme efforts to avoid ostentation, praise, and making others feel indebted; some of them, without being seen, simply left their alms in the path of a poor person or anywhere he or she was likely to sit. Others would place coins into the pocket of a pauper who was sleeping, while some others secretly carried bags of food supplies on their backs and left them on the doorsteps of those in need.

Imam Ali Zaynul Abidin, one of the grandsons of the Prophet, was one of those heroic souls. During the time of this blessed person who devoted his life to true servanthood to God Almighty, society was afflicted by unbearable poverty. Many of the poor would find food and clothes they desperately needed mysteriously left at their doors with a note allowing them to use it at no cost. They did not know who was leaving the bags until one morning, after many years, they found nothing at their doors. Nothing had been left that night for anyone. People were wondering what the reason for that was, and then they heard somebody announcing “Imam Ali has died!” The caretaker who washed the body of this blessed man before his funeral saw a huge callus formed on the imam’s back. The imam had carried bags of food and clothes to the poor for twenty-seven years, and no one had known about it. It did not matter, for it is only God’s pleasure that counts as the goal, and God knew what Zaynul Abidin was occupied with.

People like Zaynul Abidin fixed their eyes on God’s good pleasure and they chose to race without competition along the track of servanthood. Just as they did not envy others, they were also careful not to provoke others by contaminating their donations with ostentation, praise, and indebtedness. This was their way of investing in the afterlife and earning God’s pleasure, and the Qur’an describes it as tanafus.

The Goal is the Drink of Eternity

Tanafus is used in the verse And to that (blessing of Paradise), then, let all those who aspire (to things of high value), aspire as if in a race (with each other) (Mutaffifin 83:26). It refers to admiring a maturity of character displayed by another person, striving to attain the same virtue, and to working as if in a race with others for a lofty purpose. This verse encourages people, who compete with one another to the point of ruining each other for the benefits of this world, to race instead for eternal bliss and to taste from the drink of eternity.

The race for eternity and good work does not allow room for a competition in which uncontrolled admiration or envy is possible. Every contestant is expected to break his or her own record, as they are responsible for accomplishing the level of perfection determined solely for them. In this race, everyone is an escort for each other, for everyone is a member of the collective body.

In the race for eternity, once assigned works are fulfilled, rewards are shared and deposited to everyone’s account. In Bediuzzaman’s most fitting description, serving God is like carrying and protecting a huge and heavy treasure. So, the more people with strong arms join the company, the more those who carry the treasure on their shoulders must be pleased. Far from envying the strength of the helping hands, they must welcome their contribution and applaud them with love. Approaching these people in rivalry will push away sincerity from the work, and the expected result cannot be achieved.

True believers never envy, nor do they stroll within the territories of admiration which borders envy, but they race for good. They see each other as cordial assistants and everyone works to carry out a task they are assigned, or anything they are capable of doing. For instance, in the good work of teaching about God, one person can recite the Qur’an beautifully and soften hearts; another one can sing a religious song and enthuse the audience, paving the way for a third one, who can deliver a speech with wisdom. The task is apportioned, everyone performs his own share, and at the end everyone wins. From the beginning, it is not clear who to credit with this work which is not based on one person. Everyone participates and assumes responsibility. They make the best of what they can, and the end result, which belongs to all, is something more than one person can achieve. The Qur’an encourages such a race, saying, “Strive, then, together as if competing in good works” (Maedah 5:48).

To Set an Example and to Encourage

In such a race for good work, it is virtuous to give one’s charity openly to stimulate feelings of benevolence. At a time when people are troubled by slackening, indifference, and hopelessness, open charity can stir them to take part in good work with generosity.

“Giving alms secretly is more virtuous than giving them openly. For the person who wishes others to follow him it is virtuous to give them openly” said the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. When a person who intends to direct his or her friends’ attention to the hereafter performs charity openly, he or she has no intention other than motivating them to engage in good work. By giving the prescribed alms (zakat), which is obligatory in Islam, openly, he or she both obeys the divine rule and reminds others of this duty.

The Holy Qur’an praises those who fulfill the need of any person without delay and encourages believers to run to do charity: “Those who spend their wealth night and day, secretly and in public, their reward is with their Lord, and they will have no fear, nor will they grieve” (Baqara 2:274).

It is reported that this verse was revealed to praise Abu Bakr, may God be pleased with him, the first caliph of Islam, who gave forty thousand dinars all in one day, ten thousand of which he gave at night, ten thousand during the day, ten thousand in secret, and ten thousand openly. Likewise, Ali, may God be pleased with him, also shared his only four dirhams of silver with the poor, giving each dirham either during the day, at night, openly, or secretly. Even though the verse might be indicating these two noble Companions of the Prophet, the ruling of the word of God is universal. Hamdi Yazir of Elmali interprets this verse as defining the types of alms, namely, obligatory (fard), necessary (wajib), and supererogatory (nafila) alms. A time may come when it will be necessary to donate all of one’s property for one’s religion and country, and in such a time of collective mobilization, it will be better to perform it openly to encourage others. Those of us who are in a position to guide our society especially should give in charity most of our property in order to teach people to make a sacrifice for the sake of sublime truths, and doing this openly is absolutely better and we may even consider it a duty.

Yet with a Handful of Dates

The Companions of the Prophet are the greatest examples of charity. Abdullah ibn Masud narrates that when the verse about alms-giving was revealed, all of them quickly went out to find something to give in the way of God: “Some of us worked as porters to earn yet a little. We carried things on our back in the marketplace, and once we were paid we hastened to the Prophet to join in the company of ‘givers.’”

One day, our Blessed Prophet called on his Companions for charity. It was either because he was going to send a contingent to somewhere and he needed equipment, or he was going to feed the poor coming from the desert and see to their needs. Responding to this call, Abdurrahman ibn Awf raised his voice with the valor he always displayed: “O Messenger of God! I have four thousand dirhams. Please accept them.” The Prophet was very pleased, and he prayed for him. After hearing the Prophet’s words of encouragement and seeing the great sacrifices of the generous ones, everyone wished to participate in this race for good work. The wealthy ones gave high amounts, while those with limited means looked for things to donate. Abu Aqil was one of those poor Muslims of Medina; he possessed nothing to give other than two handfuls of dates. But he had to have his name on the list of the “contestants” in good work. So, he spared a handful of dates for his family and gave the rest in charity.

Seeking God’s pleasure is a lofty aim, reaching for it by teaching about God is a holy mission, and racing for this cause without competing is very good work. Those people who are focused on God’s pleasure stay far away from envy and uncontrolled admiration. They are content with their lot and they carry on with the race as far as prevailing conditions allow them. They are not people of desires and misgivings; they do not seek refuge in excuses like “if I had the means, if I were able to….” They do whatever they can with all the means God has provided them with, and in this way they offer thanks in return for the blessings they are granted, and this is in fact an invitation to further blessings. They avoid admiration, just as they avoid leading others to it. Since God’s pleasure is their goal, when necessary they can retreat two steps or move forward one step. They may present their own achievements as if they were accomplished with the help of or completely by others, if this is what they think more proper for God’s pleasure. For them, only the fulfillment of duty matters; who did it is so insignificant as to not be worth mentioning. As long as the spoken words are sublime truths, then it does not matter who is articulating them. Once the truth is victorious, then it is the same whether one’s name is listed or not among the victors. For they are sailors on a ship whose captain is the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Once his ship docks at the land of peace, then everyone on board will step off onto the shores of salvation.

The sound of the sun

Sound waves are seismic waves which cause up-down and forward-backward movements. According to some scientists with poetic hearts the sound of the sun is like the sound of the heart beat. When a human’s heart beats, it makes varying sounds by contracting and relaxing, and cardiologists use these sounds to determine if there is a problem with the heart. Like the cardiologists who listen to our hearts, helioseismologists (scientists who research the sun’s seismic waves) listen to the sounds of the sun to learn more about its structure and mysteries. The power produced by these sounds makes the sun oscillate like a bell or tremble like someone suffering from a high fever. Another interesting point is that millions of different sounds have been discovered to emanate from the sun and every sound oscillates on a distinct frequency and displays a different pattern on the sun’s surface. If we compare the sun to a piano, a piano has 88 metal wires which produce sounds with varying tones, whereas the sun produces ten million notes. So the sun is like an enormous piano with ten million notes producing sounds at roughly five-minute intervals which create harmonic acoustics resembling the heart beat.

Scientists are trying to decipher these ten million different sounds, which brings us to another interesting point; we cannot hear the sound frequencies because they are too low (between 1–4 millihertz) for the human ear (the lowest range of human hearing is 20 Hz). 1–4 millihertz equals to a time span of 200–1,000 seconds, meaning that the sun oscillates once every 3–16 minutes. Even if our hearing ability was suitable, the sound would not reach us because there is no air or layer of gas between the earth and the sun to convey sound. If we could increase the sounds of the sun by 20,000–40,000 times, the sound humans would hear would only resemble a whisper. The sun is like a musical instrument that plays a continuous concerto of ten million notes every day in the sky above us, and we do not even perceive it. Can you imagine the astronomical music if we were to include the galaxy’s 200 million stars?

Scientists gather important information about the sun’s core by studying the echoes that appear on the sun’s surface from the energy produced from these ten million notes. The solar oscillations are divided into three categories called the p, g, and f modes. The p mode is the pressure of acoustic waves, g mode is gravity and the f mode refers to the surface-gravity waves. There are ten million of the p and f modes alone and the combination of these modes produce ten million different sounds.

In Bediüzzaman’s Risale-i Nur, his explanation of the letter “Lam” in the verse 36:38 in chapter Ya Sin in the Qur’an, affirms that everybody obtains understanding of this chapter according to his or her own spiritual senses and every chapter of the Qur’an contains thousands of aspects from which everyone benefits according to his or her own depth of understanding, from the common public to scholars, from scholars to the philosopher of the cosmos. In The Words, Nursi goes on to say, “Precise and wise scholars consider li to be causal and adverbial. They understand that since the All-Wise Maker operates behind the veil of apparent causality, He has tied the planets to the sun by His law of gravity and causes them to revolve with distinct but regular motions according to His universal wisdom. To produce gravity, He has made the sun’s movement on its axis an apparent cause. Thus a resting place means that “the sun moves in the place determined for it for the order and stability of its own (solar) system.” Like the Divine laws, that motion produces heat, heat produces force, and force produces gravity. … The sun is a light-diffusing tree, and the planets are its moving fruits. But unlike trees, the sun is shaken so that the fruits do not fall. If it were not shaken, they would fall and be scattered. They also may imagine the sun to be a leader of a circle reciting God’s Names, ecstatically reciting in the circle’s center and leading the others to recite. Elsewhere, I expressed this meaning as follows: ‘The sun is a fruit-bearing tree; it is shaken so that its traveling fruits do not fall. If it rested, no longer shaken, the attraction would cease, and those attracted to it would weep through space” (Twenty-fifth Word).

It is interesting that the sun’s oscillation, which modern science discovered in the 1960s, was mentioned much earlier by Bediüzzaman. In fact he went further and even explained the wisdom and necessity of the sun’s oscillation as a law of gravitation keeping the earth and the other surrounding planets in orbit. This is a subject which has only recently begun to be researched by scientists of the present. If we were to look further into the history of the valuable discoveries of Imam Rabbani, Ibrahim Haqqi of Erzurum, Ulug Bey, and many other scholars, we would be sure to encounter many other scientific facts.

References

1. “Solar Ellipticity Fluctuations Yield No Evidence of g-Modes,” J. R. Kuhn, K. G. Libbrecht and R. H. Dicke, Nature 319, 128 (1986).
2. “The Excitation and Damping of Solar Oscillations,” K. G. Libbrecht, B. D. Popp, J. M. Kaufman and M. J. Penn, Nature 323, 235 (1986).
3. “What do Observations Tell us about the Excitation of Solar Oscillation Modes?” K. G. Libbrecht, Proceedings of IAU Symposium 123, Advances in Helio- and Astroseismology (1988).
4. “Seismology of Solar Oscillation Line Widths,” J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, D. O. Gough, and K. G. Libbrecht, Astrophys. J. Letters 341, L103 (1989).
5. “Frequencies of Solar Oscillations,” K. G. Libbrecht, M. F. Woodard, and J. M. Kaufman, Astrophys J. Supp. 74, 1129(1990).
6. “Advances in Helioseismology,” K. G. Libbrecht and M. F. Woodard, Science 253, 152 (1991).

This is what Osman Sahin does to relax. Dance. But he is no choreographer, he is a calligrapher-one who has mastered the art of Classical Turkish-Islamic calligraphy for over twenty-five years. He calls his calligraphy style “the dancing of the pen.”

His eyes, eagerly glued to the paper, anticipate his next move. His hands lift with each pen stroke, gliding to the rhythm of his breath, rising with every new thought and slowing to the pace of his heartbeat.

To many of us, calligraphy is merely fancy handwriting used to record information, but to a Turk calligraphy is much more. It is an art-a grand form of art-with its origins dating back many centuries. The Turks refer to calligraphy as Hat (pronounced like “hut”). In its literal sense, Hat means beautiful writing practiced and perfected throughout time as a way to combine spiritual and functional writing with the medium of art.

It is however the spiritual element of Hat that is most striking to viewers. Because the drawing of human figures is not favored in Islam, Muslim artists throughout time have channeled their talents toward the art of calligraphy.

“Hat is all about symmetry, harmony and measurements,” explains Osman Sahin. “It is the dance of the pen and paper. It’s music to the eyes. Hat is like composed music that soothes and refreshes the spirit and brings peace and harmony to the soul. It enables the person to reach inner tranquility.”

The origins of Hat date back to the early Islamic era when manuscripts of the Qur’an were being recorded and handwritten. However, at that time there was little emphasis on the style of writing but greater emphasis on the message being revealed. It was centuries later, during the Ottoman Era, that Turks focused on the style of writing.

It is a common saying among Muslims that “the Qur’an was revealed in Mecca, recited in Egypt and written in Istanbul.” The Ottoman Turks produced and perfected various styles of script that were passed on throughout the Muslim world.

They loved and respected the art of Hat as it flourished in the great city of Istanbul, which was at the time the focal point of the Ottoman State, and it was there that history’s finest works were produced.

Hat has been used throughout Turkey in enchanting ways to decorate palaces, mosques, museums and fountains for many centuries. The renowned Spanish artist Pablo Picasso, referring to the art produced by Muslim calligraphers during the Andalusian period, said, “Muslim calligraphers five hundred years ago reached where I want to reach today.” In present-day Turkey, there are over twenty million artwork treasures that bear witness to this history.

The beauty present in Islamic-Turkish calligraphy is said to be a direct reflection of the inner soul of the calligrapher. As Osman Sahin himself says, “Whenever I am stressed, I pick up my pen and draw. This is because the art of Hat has a therapeutic aspect to it. During the Ottoman era, some of the sick were treated by using fine arts like Hat together with soothing Sufi music and the art of Ebru (water marbling) drawing.”

This extraordinary art form can only be executed with the use of pens made of bamboo cuttings, preferably Balinese bamboo. “The bamboo is cut at a thirty-degree angle and split in half from top to bottom,” demonstrates Osman Sahin. “Even with the technology present today, it is not possible to write better or more beautifully using anything other than bamboo. The squeaking sound you hear when using the bamboo pen is said to be the weeping of the pen. It is said that the pen weeps so as to not fall into the hands of the ignorant.”

It is no surprise that there is wonder and magic in Turkish-Islamic calligraphy. It is almost as if the art moves and comes alive. Sweet appearance follows a slow, inner flow. There is silence, yet harmonious and metaphysical music echoes. However, this music cannot be heard by the ears but must be heard within.

He breathed in and leaned back comfortably in his chair, looking deep into his finished calligraphy as it stared back at him. The dance was over, the rhythm ceased, and the music was muffled. The bamboo pen lay there on the table, weeping with heartache, unaware of when the next dance will be.

Dirac’s discovery

Dirac had the honor of being the first scientist in history to demonstrate the principle that all particles in the universe must exist in pairs, that for each particle there must exist a corresponding anti-particle of exactly the same mass but with an opposite electrical charge. For all matter in the universe, in other words, there must exist an equal amount of anti-matter. Thus the existence of a proton must imply the possible existence of an anti-proton; if a hydrogen atom exists, there must equally exist an atom of anti-hydrogen, perhaps in some distant corner of the universe.

Equal amounts of matter and anti-matter must have been produced in the first moments of the Big Bang. In our present universe, however, a particle will not be found co-existing peacefully side by side with its corresponding anti-particle. To understand this, we could recall the old European myth of the doppelganger, the perfect double of the unlucky hero. The message of the stories is always to avoid the doppelganger: if you meet your double you will be destroyed.

Just so, if matter and anti-matter meet they annihilate each other, their energy and momentum dissolving into heat and light. According to Dr. Abdus Salam of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, “In Dirac’s language, anti-matter is ‘minus matter’; matter and anti-matter just cannot co-exist in the same part of the universe without the ever-impending catastrophe of annihilation; and indeed some astronomers do believe that just this type of annihilation of galaxies and anti-galaxies is taking place at the sites of powerful X-ray sources in the heavens” (See Abdus Salam 1966).

Dirac predicted the existence of anti-matter in 1934, and the discoveries of specific anti-particles in the following years confirmed his prediction.

The Fish Problem

According to an apocryphal story, the germ of Dirac’s breakthrough materialized from a mathematical brainteaser seemingly unrelated to theoretical physics. During a meeting of the Cambridge Undergraduate Mathematical Society, the Archimedians, the following problem was presented. Those who like a challenge can try working it out for themselves. The answer is provided below for those whose brains become tangled by figures.

After a long day, three fishermen have caught a good amount of fish. They are about to set sail for home when a storm suddenly builds up. Under raging skies, they decide to seek shelter on a nearby island. They unload their catch and set a fire before falling asleep. A few hours later, one fisherman wakes up to find that the weather has settled enough for a safe return to be possible. Not wanting to disturb his friends, he divides the haul into three equal parts. There is one fish remaining, and this the fisherman throws back into the sea. He then leaves with his share.

A little later, the second fisherman awakes, also with the desire to get back home. Unaware that one of his friends has already left, he too divides the catch into three equal parts. Again there is one fish remaining, and again this is thrown back into the sea. The fisherman rows off with his portion. Finally, the third fisherman arises and goes through the same process, dividing the remaining fish into three parts, finding one fish remaining, which he then throws back into the sea. He leaves the island with his portion.

And now for the problem: What is the minimum number of fish in the original catch? To put it another way, what is the smallest number which can be subdivided three times, leaving one fish outstanding each time?

Dirac’s answer

Dirac thought for a while before arriving at the answer: minus two. If you divide minus two fish three times, each third will contain minus one fish, with plus one fish outstanding. Each time a fisherman throws the plus one fish into the sea, and rows off with the minus one fish. Expressed in an equation, it looks like this: -2 = -1-1-1+1.

Minus one fish is obviously no use to anyone, and this is certainly a brainteaser. It is important only in that it gave birth to the notion of anti-particles in Dirac’s mind and can help us to understand the mathematical principle behind his discovery. It led him to the conclusion that all particles exist in opposing pairs and allowed him to see the symmetry of matter and anti-matter.

The Holy Qur’an and Dirac’s theory

As we have already noted, Dirac was the first man in the history of science to make this profound discovery. For this he must be congratulated, and so must the modern scientific methods which have brought us so much practical information about ourselves and the universe in which we live.

Many centuries before Dirac, however, a text was revealed to an unlettered man in the Arabian desert. Its primary message was of the existence of one Creator and of an Afterlife in which human beings would account for their conduct while on earth. But this was no ordinary religious book, for it continually exhorted its readers to examine the natural world around them for the signs of God, to develop logical and objective thinking, and to place a crucial emphasis on education. This Book broke down the artificial boundaries which divide material and spiritual study. In the Holy Qur’an, science and religion are entirely compatible. Indeed, they cannot be distinguished.

In the Qur’an, we find the following verses, which may be considered relevant to Dirac’s discoveries of the pairings and symmetries of the universe’s structure, and in fact much more:

Glory to God
Who created all things in pairs,
Those that the earth produces,
As well as their own (human) kind,
And things of which
They have no knowledge
(Ya Sin 36:36)

The line “Who created all things in pairs” clearly shows that the Qur’an is referring to a law of nature; all things on earth and in the heavens-animal, vegetable or mineral (and even sub-atomic)-have been created in pairs. (Modern science has evolved around the study of pairs, from the male/female pair which generates animal and plant life to the pairings of quarks and leptons which are the most basic building blocks of the universe.) The line “Things of which they have no knowledge” suggests that the theory of pairs is of universal scope. It applies equally at all points in time and space; even in worlds of which we have no knowledge.

Elsewhere in the Qur’an we find a statement which modern science has spent its history confirming:

Verily all things (without exception),
We have created,
In exact measures and proportions.
(Hadid 57:49)

The line “In exact measures and proportions” is most revealing from a scientific point of view. The Qur’an contains the unambiguous lesson that as well as having perfect symmetry, every force in the universe is definite, of exact measurement and proportion following precise laws:

And there is not a thing,
But its storehouse is with Us,
And We send them down,
But in definite ascertainable measures.
(Hijr 15:21)
God, the Absolute Singularity
The Holy Qur’an tells us of God:
He is the First,
And the Last,
He is the Outermost,
And the Innermost,
And He is the knower of all things.
(Hadid 57:3)

In this verse “the First” and “the Last” relate to the time domain, and “the Outermost” and “the Innermost” to the space domain. As such time and space are the first pair of nature. By extension all pairs are finally unified in the only Singularity in the universe-God. All pairs are aspects of the same reality, to which they all must return-the oneness of God.

But the Qur’an does not only give us information about the universe. It goes a step further, requiring us to use this information to develop our thinking. As always, the Qur’an demands the active participation of its reader:

And of everything,
We have created in pairs,
That you may reflect.
(Dhariyat 51:49)

The Qur’an asks us to think, offering both a mental challenge and a proof of God’s existence. If we reflect on the paired structure of the universe by using the methods of scientific reductionism, breaking a complex system down into its simplest units, we will finally come back to a single point of origin, an absolute singularity, the one source of time and space: God (See Mahmood 1987). As the Qur’an says,

And all that is in the heavens,
And all that is in the earth,
It is from God;
And (in the final analysis)
Everything will return to Him.
(Al Imran 3:109)

Guidance for the modern age

The Qur’an comments on many areas of interest to modern science, from medicine to geology. Many verses of the Qur’an have taken on added significance as new scientific discoveries have been made. In fact, it seems that science has been following the Qur’an’s lead for centuries.

Furthermore, in an age when progress in such fields as genetic engineering and chemical weaponry has raised complex ethical questions, the Qur’an teaches the salutary lesson that science should be the servant of humankind, not vice versa. It provides a model for all our endeavors in which symmetry is a prime value. Technological progress must be balanced by a symmetrical spiritual development. The new freedoms that we have won through our expanding knowledge must be balanced by an awareness of our new responsibilities. Otherwise our achievements will turn upon us, polluting our environment and increasing rather than diminishing our suffering. Without the guidance of Islam through the Qur’an, humankind with its scientific achievements will be like a child surrounded by dangerous toys.

This Book provided the light by which a great scientific culture once thrived. The Muslim world today, cursed as it is by illiteracy, intolerance and superstition, is a poor reflection of that former glory. This is the fault of human beings, not of the message of Islam, whose light continues to shine. Its light is every bit as available to a non-Muslim as it is to someone who has grown up in a Muslim environment. Once we move beyond our habitual beliefs and prejudices, all of us can profit from the message of the Qur’an. An independent and freethinking mind is all that is necessary to see its light. If we read, discuss and reflect upon the Qur’an, we can use that light to guide us now in our explorations of the universe and ourselves.

For this reason, we appeal to you to read the Qur’an. The example of the Qur’an’s truth presented in this paper is only one starting point. The Qur’an reveals further riches with each reading. The light of this Book, which spoke to seventh-century Arabs of things of which they had no knowledge, can teach modern humankind too.

Dr. Sultan Bashir Mahmood is the founder of the Holy Quran Research Foundation in Islamabad. Mr. Robin Yasin Qusab is a graduate of Cambridge University and a freelance journalist.

References

• The Holy Qur’an: with English translation and commentary by Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Asad, Maulana Darya Abadi, Ali Ünal.
• Maurice Bucaille. The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc., 2003.
• Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood. Doomsday and Life After Death, Islamabad: Holy Qur’an Research Foundation, 1991.
• Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood, “Symmetry of the Universe and the Qur’an,” Science and Technology in the Islamic World, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan. 1987. National Science Council of Pakistan.
• Abdus Salam. Symmetry Concepts in Modern Science, Lahore: Atomic Energy Centre, 1966.
• Sultan Bashir Mahmood
• Robin Yasin Qusab

Roughly speaking, the bulk of Central Eurasia consists of Central Asia and the Caucasus but also stretches to such regions as Turkey, the Turkic/Muslim regions of southern Russia, northern Afghanistan, southern Siberia, Tibet and Mongolia.[1] Largely due to Turkic influence, shaped historically by a tolerant understanding of co-existence as enjoined in Islam, this region has won prestige internationally for its peaceful efforts in this diverse geographical area.

Such leading U.S. universities as Harvard University, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the University of California in Los Angeles, and the University of Indiana in Bloomington offer graduate courses on Central Eurasian studies and languages. The notion of a “clash of civilizations” promoted by Huntington[2] in the era of globalization has never been accepted by many people throughout Central Eurasia in their rich historical experiences of living in “mosaic societies.”

Pluralistic Islam at the heart of Eurasia

Unfortunately, for last couple of decades the experience of the diverse pluralistic Islam of Central Eurasia has been obscured by the political trends of Islam in the Middle East. The latter, rather than the former, has become the focus of most academic scholars of social sciences and humanities and media. Historically, while Turkey formed the western boundary of the Muslim world, Central Eurasia has largely represented the northern and north-eastern boundaries of the classical Islamic world. Islam in Central Eurasia emerged mainly through remarkable Sufi masters like Ahmet Yassavi, Korkyt Ata, Mevlana Rumi, and Baba Tukes. The merchant caravanserais of the Silk Road that traversed vast areas between the Middle East and China came into existence through peaceful means, and new Muslims in this area were very tolerant toward the many religions and cultures of their neighbors. Although the revelation of the Qur’an started in Arabia, most of its scholarly interpretations and the hadith compilations were compiled in Central Asia.[3] The greatest contributions to almost all areas of religious and positive sciences, engineering, art and culture were witnessed in this part of the world between the ninth and fourteenth centuries ce. The works of such outstanding intellectual figures as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Al-Farabi (Alfarabius), Al-Khwarizmi still benefit

people all over the world. The largest library in the world in the thirteenth century ce was in Otrar (a city in present-day southern Kazakhstan), which was later totally demolished by Genghis Khan during Mongol invasion.

In the period between the seventh and thirteenth centuriesce, the Muslim world was ruled predominantly by Arab caliphs of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties. However, starting from the twelfth century up until the beginning of the twentieth century, Muslims of Central Eurasia of predominantly Turkic origin became the foremost rulers of the Muslim nations. Among them were the famous states administered by the Seljuks in Central Asia, the Golden Horde in Russia, the Baburides on the Indian subcontinent, the Mamluks in Egypt, and the Ottomans in Eastern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

The Golden Horde’s legacy of tolerance toward Christian, Jewish and Buddhist communities laid the foundation for the flourishing of Moscow and the Russian

Empire, which became heir to the Golden Horde’s legacy.[4] Saray, which was the capital of the Golden Horde from thirteen to fifteen centuries, and which was located very close to the border of modern-day southern Russia and western Kazakhstan, became a center of intercontinental diplomacy as envoys and ambassadors representing princes and popes sought audiences with the Muslim khans of the Golden Horde.[5]

Dialogue between world religions in Central Eurasia in the modern secular context

After more than two hundred years of Czarist rule, the ex-Soviet Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan, being one of the most diverse countries in the world, the home of 120 ethnic groups and many world religious communities for the last seventeen years became the active initiator of peace, dialogue, integration and reconciliation initiatives across not just the Eurasian states of the former Soviet Union, but also the larger international community. After independence, to ease tension among superpowers Kazakhstan’s government decided unilaterally to dismantle the huge nuclear arsenal left as the Soviet legacy of the cold war. Following the breakup of the USSR, Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbaev’s proposal to form a “Eurasian Union” was praised by many leaders across Russia and the ex-Soviet republics. The late pope John Paul II met Nazarbaev in Astana on September 11, 2001.

Muslim–Jewish dialogue in Central Eurasia

In 2002 Kazakhstan served as the facilitator of Islamic– Jewish dialogue in Eurasia, an event which took place in the new capital, Astana. At the conference, thirty rabbis from various countries noted that the only way forward in the relationship between Muslims and Jews is through constructive dialogue. They also expressed their wish to see Kazakhstan as a center of Muslim–Jewish dialogue.[6] The fact that the headquarters of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress (EAJC) was placed in Almaty, the largest city in Muslim Kazakhstan, at a time when there is growing instability in the Middle East, is a sign of the huge potential of the mutual trust between Muslim and Jewish communities in Eurasia.[7] Alexander Mashkevich, the head of the EAJC, considers Kazakhstan a unique example of cooperation and peaceful coexistence between various peoples and religions. He also noted that the largest synagogue in Central Asia, which was opened in Astana, best characterizes Muslim Kazakhstan as the land of inter-ethnic peace and inter-confessional harmony.The latest phase of this dialogue at the First International Conference of Peace and Accord was held in Almaty the previous year. Presidents of the leading Jewish organizations of the United States, leaders and plenipotentiaries of the states of Central Asia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, and members of the leadership and the Council of Rabbis and Central Asian Muslim leaders condemned terrorism and declared that there are no antagonistic contradictions between Judaism and Islam.

Dialogue between world and traditional religions at the heart of Eurasia

At a time when some dark forces are trying to bring about a clash of world religions and civilizations, Central Eurasia offered an unprecedented challenge to these dangerous trends by initiating a series of high profile civic activities bringing together members of the clergy of world and traditional religions in the heartof Eurasia in Kazakhstan’s capital Astana in 2003 and 2006.[8] A unique role model for intercultural communication and dialogue, Kazakhstan, with a number of other countries of Central Eurasia, showed the whole world that traditional values can be reconciled with liberal norms in the formation of a successful, peace-loving, civil, mosaic society. Leading Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gulen, active promoter of interfaith and intercultural dialogue, valued this significant interfaith event in Eurasia highly and said, “The only way for humankind to solve its problems is by way of dialogue: meeting, learning and talking to each other…With all my heart I state that all these initiatives done out of pure intentions will serve to establish peace and stability in the region, to improve relationships among nations and also to build lasting peace on the whole planet.”[9]

Dialogue Eurasia: “DA”

A number of Turkish people are working to pave the way for dialogue in the Eurasia region.[10], [11] Diyalog Avrasya (Dialogue Eurasia), a publication of the Dialogue Eurasia Platform, has been the voice of common sense in seventeen countries, from Moldavia to Mongolia, since its founding in 2000. A bilingual quarterly published in Turkish and Russian, DA adopts an approach to conflict with reconciliation, using the slogan, “Dialogue starts with ‘DA’” (“Da” in Russian means “yes” in English). DA representatives recently gathered in Istanbul and discussed the latest developments in the Eurasia region. DA stressed that its ideology is knowledge and love, and that convergence, compromise and understanding constitute the backbone of their policy. Renowned Kyrgyz writer Chingiz Aytmatov, who passed away recently, also served on the journal’s advisory board; he described DA as “the business card of Eurasia.” Garnering great interest in the countries where it is published, DA also brings together Eurasia’s famous writers, intellectuals and civil society volunteers. In addition, opinions and essays of leading politicians frequently appear in the journal.

Interestingly, present and past dialogue efforts in Central Eurasia go hand in hand with positive trends in education, which for the last decade or so, has experienced quite a renaissance.[12] Hopefully, dialogue efforts combined with excellence in education will yield great fruits in the future in this important region of the world, which will benefit the whole of humanity again as during the region’s golden ages between the ninth and fourteenth centuries. There is hope that the dynamism of inter-cultural diversity which has prevailed for centuries on the Eurasian continent with its multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-religious characteristics will gain momentum in future again.

Dr. Zhandos Utegulov is researcher at University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Notes

1. http://cesww.fas.harvard.edu/

2. Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72(3): 22-49.

3. Ali Unal, Alphonse Williams eds. Advocate of Dialogue: Fethullah Gulen, 2000, The Fountain Publications.

4. http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/Mongols/states3.html

5. Janet Martin. Medieval Russia, 980-1584, CUP, 2008.

6. http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/19476/edition_id/395/format/html/displaystory.html

7. http://www.eajc.org/publish_gen_e.php?rowid=40

8. http://www.religionscongress.org

9. Interview with Fethullah Gulen in Kazahstanskaya Pravda, Sept 15, 2006.

10. http://www.zaman.com/?bl=culture&alt=&trh=20061206&hn=38940

11. http://www.interfaithathens.org/article/art/10081.asp

12. Ismail Demirkan, Aksar Beketov. “Islam, Science, and Free and Open Inquiry,” Physics Today, January 2008, p. 11.