Decisions within the cell: mathematical and algorithmic character

In order to enable Escherichia coli bacteria to use lactose (disaccharide), the genetic information of the enzymes that have role in transporting the lactose into the cell and converting it into glucose is coded in the bacteria’s genome. The binding and decoding structure which enables the genes to be transcribed at the right time in the appropriate amount is called the operon. The operons are model mechanisms which work on the synthesis or destruction of every chemical molecule (metabolite). One of these, lactose operon, is a good example that demonstrates how the decoding information contained in DNA is regulated and controlled in the bacteria. E. Coli is equipped with a system that distinguishes lactose and glucose when they are combined and this system functions perfectly. Primarily, all of the existing glucose is consumed before the start of the production of those enzymes that splits lactose into glucose and galactose. It has been discovered that this operation in the bacteria is followed by an interaction between DNA sequences located on the upper part of the lactose gene and various molecules. The DNA sequences on the upper part of the gene are the signals that format DNA for transcription. These signals cause the decoding of the genes that interact with the transcription factors. While some of the signals in the relevant region of the genes are common in most genes, some others are specific.

The most basic interaction system of the genome-proteome (all proteins in cell) is the suppression of the lactose operon that is observed in E. Coli. This process depends on DNA-protein interactions which are based on a mutual relationship and it requires the existence of repeated DNA sequences. Tetramer lac1 protein control the lac operon binds to four repeating binding regions on the DNA. Since one dimer can be connected to one operator sequence, two dimers are connected to two operator region units, and as a result the result is a loop formation in the DNA structure. Consequently, because of the access of RNA polymerase to the promoter region, the pre-coding process of genes is hindered. If the hindering protein is in the form of a monomer, the operator displays a weak interaction with half of the sequence. In the dimer form there is a stable binding. For this reason, many procedures in the cell occur by working together and making a union of molecules. Since the loop shape of DNA stabilizes the structure, it prevents the RNA polymerase from being connected to the promoter region. In order to eliminate the blockage on the lac operon, the mutual relationship must be prevented by stimulatory molecules, such as lactose.

There is metabolic information in cells that measure and control the physiological condition. The sequences on the regulatory region of the lactose operator and the data concerning the physiological condition of the lactose and glucose metabolisms are analyzed in the cell which perceives the presence and the amount of glucose through the changes in the system that transports the glucose into the cell. The molecule that announces the presence of glucose in E.coli is cyclic-AMP and concentration of this molecule in the cell is inversely proportional to glucose. The level of this signal affects both the coding and regulation of genomic information. The protein that transports glucose into the cell contains a phosphate group; as it transports glucose into the cell, this carrier protein phosphorylates the glucose molecule thereby loosing its phosphate group. As a result, the proportion phosphorylated transport protein and those without phosphate provides information about the glucose level in the cell. The phosphorylated form of the carrier protein activates the adenosine cyclase enzyme. Through this enzyme, ATP is converted into cyclic-AMP. The cyclic-AMP level increases in the cell. Consequently, the situation that concerns the increasing concentration of the phosphorylated transfer protein and the cyclic-AMP is interpreted as non-existence of glucose in the cell. The CRP protein that binds to regulatory region of the lactose can only bind to this region in the presence of cyclic-AMP. The cyclic-AMP-CRP complex which is tied to the promoter region of the lactose gene speeds up the transcription of the lactose operon. Transcription rarely happens when there is no lactose. This is because the lactose repressor protein lacI, hinders the RNA polymerase reaching the lactose promoter region by binding to the operator of regulating region. The cell can sense the existence of lactose in a circuitous manner. Low levels of coded Permease enzyme on the lacY region transfer some lactose into the cell. The coded beta galactosidase on the lac Z region alters them into a sugar called allolactose. The allolactose is bound to the lacI repressor protein and changes its conformation. The allolactose –lacI repressor complex can not bind to the operator region. The promoter region, called LacP, of Lactose operon is set free for transcription. In fact, every one of these molecular interactions is an incident of information being transferred. All these incidents demonstrate that an algorithm (If there is no glucose and only lactose exists, then transcribe the lacZYA enzyme) that is able to distinguish the difference between two sugars exists in bacteria cells and that it functions perfectly.

In short, the signal transfer in lactose operon occurs with the activation of chemical molecules that represent the experimental data pertaining to the physiological environment of the cells. For example, the levels of cyclic-AMP, allolactose and protein phosphorylation indicate the existence of glucose and lactose. The regulating network system, on the other hand, combines many aspects of cell activity (transport, enzymology, energy metabolism) in order to make the transcription decision. Briefly, it is impossible to show that arranging the order of the genome in any cell occurs independently from physiological or biochemical processes.

The principle of “using combinations in the arrangement of specific binding regions” is commonly used in metabolic signal networks that control cell physiology and the differentiation of cell (morphogenesis) that are oriented towards tissue formation. Such an interaction takes place on these network paths between proteins and DNA sequences to ensure that the cell is allowed to process molecular information and to calculate whether it will transcribe a specific genetic sequence. The common binding regions on DNA have vital roles in the coordinated control of various genetic loci, and it is then that the decoding of genes in a harmonious (symphonic) manner becomes possible. Various combinations of these regions are also used in making more complex decisions. As an example, protein-binding regions that are involved in the lowest level of genomic indicators have a role in decoding genes. The proteins that bind to these DNA sequences can become active when they form a group that has an interaction with more than one protein molecule. For instance, each one of the lacO and CRP regions on the lactose operon shows a palindromic sequence structure (the DNA sequence remains the same when the sequence is read from either end). Similarly, the lacP region has two lower regions that are appropriate for the binding of RNA polymerase and are separated from each other by a 16–17 base pair. In all living beings, the proteins and DNA sequences interact with each other. For example, the LacI repressor, which is in charge of controlling the lactose operon,has separate regions for not only binding the DNA region, but also for creating protein-protein binding as well as the binding of allolactose stimulator. The unique combinations of this region on the genome sequence result in a unique protein synthesis.

The genetic engineering procedures in cells

Some of the genetic engineering procedures that take place in the cells are as follows: Recombination systems (mutual material exchange) that are observed in homologous chromosomes (the chromosome pair derived from each parent), recombination specific to a particular region; separation of DNA sequences specific to those regions (fusion of gene pieces, VDJ recombination of genes as appointed in the immune system); the existence of systems that combine end points in non-homologous chromosomes (the binding of broken DNA parts, the formation of new genetic fusion, the formation of sequences that are open to hyper mutations); DNA transposons (DNA sequences that can insert themselves into different DNA sequences or can copy themselves there and leave a copy); the RNA sector that can control the transcription and signals that are responsible for the maturing transcription; the signal sequences that cause the rearrangement of neighboring DNA sequences (such as amplification, deletion, and inversion); and finally, controlling the transcription with micro RNAs.

None of the above phenomena which cause in-cell changes are random. Each of the genetic engineering functions is planned in a way that makes specific changes and arrangements. In the processes of insertion, i.e. when a specific amount of DNA is added to a different region of the genome, or deletion, i.e. when a specific amount of DNA is severed, there should be arranging, cutting and coding sequences that will bind the cut part to its new place in an appropriate way. On the genome, special regions that are suitable to mutation are created in order to produce variety and to respond to adaptation. When all these molecular engineering functions are thoroughly analyzed, it can be seen that even the point mutations, which up until now were thought to have happened by chance, are not coincidence; rather, they occur through the divinely designed genetic engineering functions. Most of the mutations that are thought to occur by chance in the cell have been removed by the repair systems and fault correction functions in the cell. Thus, the changeability and variety in DNA sequences are shaped by the power and will of God the Almighty according to a planned, programmed genetic schedule.

The R&D department of the genome

Depending on the stimulation received, God-given genetic engineering functions are arranged in the cells and a decision is made about which parts of the genome should be changed. Some of the changes inside the cell appear on a large scale. Inside the genome, different and far removed regions can be rearranged. The changes are related to one another and are in no way disconnected. One mechanism can produce more than one change. The reconstruction of changes in some organisms is a part of the normal life cycle. In the Cornelius protozoan, the embryonic genome is regularly decomposed to a thousand slices. Then, through processing and rearranging in the cells, a functional genome with a distinct system structure is created.

While the genome is reshaped, there is the production of new different sequences rather than the sequences that they regulate and which have the code for the continuity of existing phenotype features. The organization of the genome along the system base emerges with the functions of the genetic molecules, such as cut-paste-rearrange. For example, in immune system cells, there is a planned disposition to mutation and the specific antibodies are rearranged to recognize an infinite number of different antigens. The life cycles of lymphocytes demonstrates both the control of the DNA rearrangement improvements and the specificity of mutations. It is estimated that the new sequences which do not change the existing structure operate like a research center for the genome.

The God-given genetic engineering systems imposed in the cells, when analyzed from the perspective of the population, are molecular mechanisms that carry out basic changes to ensure adaptation. The duty of reconstructing the genome during adaptation has been assigned to the divine genetic engineering functions imposed in the cell. The divine genetic engineering tools and mechanisms, which are placed in the cell with active nucleic acid elements that carry information, change the genome in parallel to the changes in both the inner and outer environment; this change occurs not only on one point of the genome, but rather on every point of genome. The functions of the DNA elements, which allow for the exchange of genetic information (both horizontally and vertically, in species and between species, between types and classes), are arranged by domestic cell signal transfer and data process networks. The signal network systems that are in charge of rearranging and controlling in-cell procedures not only control when the genome is rearranged, at the same time it decides where these rearrangements take place inside the genome. The selection of the target is planned, it is not random. For instance, R1 and R2 retrotransposons which are established in the DNA region that codes 28S ribosomal RNA have specific recognition regions and the information of endonuclease cutting DNA region on specific points that it had settled down. Eukaryotic cells have more complex decision making systems. The cells continuously create responses in response to DNA damage, cell physiology and outer-cell reproduction factors. One of the critical questions and answers is whether the damage will be repaired or whether programmed death will take place. If the cell avoids giving an answer, then genetic indecisiveness appears and abnormal cell reproduction, i.e., cancer, begins. From this perspective, cancer is a result of pathology in the signal and information process in the cell. The changes in gene expression without any changes in the DNA sequence (epigenetic) as well as the divine genetic engineering functions are clear proof demonstrating that every single action in the cell occurs with a certain aim that is based on knowledge and calculations.

Hamza Aydin holds a PhD in biology.

References

• Shapiro J. A.(2001). “Genome Formatting for Computation and Function: Genome Organization and Reorganization in Evolution: Formatting for Computation and Function.” Presented at the “Contextualizing the Genome” symposium, Ghent University, Belgium, November 25–28, 2001 (Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., in press).
• –. (2005). “A 21st century view of evolution: genome system architecture, repetitive DNA, and natural genetic engineering.” Gene 345 (2005) pp. 91–100.
• Shapiro J. A. and Sternberg R V (2005). “Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function.” Biol. Rev. (2005), 80, pp. 1–24. Cambridge Philosophical Society. DOI: 10.1017/S1464793104006657.

Answer: Human nature and certain feelings that are ingrained in it are closely related and are in compliance with the attractions of the world. This is an undeniable reality. Thus, there are truly so many different things which invite one to the world, to its tempting presence that is centered around fancies and desires. If we remember Nursi’s remarks on this same issue as he protested the way in which Muslims were attracted to the world, he writes in the seventh note of the Seventeenth Gleam:

[M]any factors invite people to the world: one’s carnal soul, needs, passions, desires, Satan, the superficial sweetness of the world, bad friends, and the like, while those inviting to the Hereafter and eternal life are few. Patriotic feelings and efforts will increase this number. If you act otherwise and silence them, and help the many, you will be a companion of Satan.

The attractions of this world constantly appeal to human beings, to certain sensory faculties ingrained in their nature, to their inner and external feelings and keep inviting them. In addition, as this aspect of the world and the reward of the Hereafter are opposites, we can also say that those attractions which invite people to the world are also factors that divert us from the eternal beauties of the Hereafter.

Etymology of the word dunya (world)

In fact, when the etymologic structure of the word dunya is studied, it can be seen that there is a serious relation with the structure of the word and its attractions. According to scholars, this word is either derived from the root dunuw, which means “being near,” or danaeh, which means being low, mean, or vile. If we accept that the word comes from the root dunuw, then the word dunya means “the nearest one,” whereas the next life to follow after this near one is called the akhirah (Hereafter). The word ukhra, which means “the other,” is also used for the Hereafter, as opposed to this world. Accordingly, the world is the immediate realm, the one near to us, and the Hereafter is the next one beyond. Therefore, something people find in their immediate surroundings has a greater effect on them and takes them under influence; it bewitches and attracts them. Thus, people are close enough to the world to be enchanted and come under its spell. Therefore, we call this dunya, meaning the nearest realm. When we examine the word dunya as a derivation from danaeh, then akhirah means that which is higher and dunya means lowly, or vile. When both meanings are combined, dunya means “a lowly thing that is near to people.”

Three facets of the world

On the other hand, it would not be correct to solely consider and evaluate the world according to its material aspect that appeals to our physical nature and fancies. At this point, it is useful to remember Said Nursi’s wise perspective. He states that the world has three facets. Accordingly, the first facet is concerned with the Names of Almighty God and demonstrates their inscriptions and functions as mirrors. In this respect, we can view the world as an exhibition for the Divine art, a book of reflection composed by the laws of creation, a huge vehicle, a port that opens on the knowledge and love of God. As a consequence of all these, the world can be viewed as a bay that allows us to contemplate Creator deeply. As far as this facet is concerned, the world serves as a stage that reveals the infinite beauties of God and their manifestations, and is a means for love for Him to flourish. In this respect, the world is not contemptible, but rather is worthy of love.

The second facet is concerned with the Hereafter. As stated by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, the world is an arable field for the Hereafter. It is the ground that is to be prepared for the Hereafter through good deeds; it is the tillage of Paradise through which we can attain eternal happiness.

The world is worthy of love from the perspective of both of these facets. It is with these facets that the world becomes a heavenly stairway by which believers ascend toward the Divine.

As for the third, it is concerned with the passing fancies of people. This facet of the world is material, and it is transient and deceptive. Loving this facet of the world diverts people from God and from the purpose for which they have been created, taking them to perdition. Thus, this third facet of the world is closely interrelated with human nature, their desires and fancies. If people do not use their free will against this facet of the world, if they do not satisfy the feelings in their nature within the limits allowed by their Creator, but rather give in to the heedless atmosphere of their desires, they then face the great danger of failing the test in this world.

In two of the three conditions it is more likely that we may go astray. One can find the truth, walk toward it and then embrace it. In other words, if a person does not use their free will correctly, does not meet the requirements of guidance, but act heedlessly, it is certain that they will go astray.

Secondly, idling one’s life away can also lead to misguidance. The third possibility is that one good use of the free will entrusted to us, exerting oneself in this direction and being rewarded with divine guidance. As can be seen, there is only one way for deliverance. However, if one does not use this opportunity well, there are two different ways by which they can fall into misguidance. Thus, a person’s finding the truth and maintaining the straight path require serious efforts. This difficult task can be compared to rising through the layers of the atmosphere and reaching outer space by freeing oneself from the gravitational pull of the earth. Without a doubt, this requires a certain amount of energy. On the other hand, one does not need to make any effort to stay on the ground; even the dead are able to do that. Instead of hurling bodies away as it revolves, the earth attracts them toward itself. And in the long run, as the laws of creation operate, the earth makes these bodies resemble itself by having them decompose and becoming earth. In a similar way, we need to be equipped with the necessary spirituality to help us overcome the pull of the world so that we can complete our spiritual journey in the realm of the heart and spirit. A person should acknowledge, from the very beginning, the interrelation between this third facet of the world and human desires and fancies, thus becoming aware that this is the dominant aspect Only then can an individual carry out what is required of human free will, only then can they see the beautiful facets of the world that declare God and the Hereafter, and only then can they exert a continuous effort. Otherwise, it is all too easy to be overcome by the pull of the world and to plummet to earth.

Seclusion and living for others

In order to be saved from the danger we mentioned above, many people choose to seclude themselves from others; such a choice can be a means for salvation for one’s personal life. However, it should be realized that this is not an absolute and it may not always be a means to salvation. For example, Said Nursi once retreated to a cave to worship on Mount Erek; but they did not leave him alone, not even there. Now try to imagine: had this blessed personage not oriented his life with a pure and upright perspective and disciplined himself to live according to modest standards, as if he is living his life in a cave, how could he have maintained his supreme spirituality when exiled and forced to live a non-secluded life? However, the life he led outside was purer and nobler than one that was led in a cave. As an expression of Nursi’s gratitude, he remarked that divine Mercy had made the exile town Barla a means to attain the spirituality he had sought in the cave, without making his feeble body bear the difficult conditions of the cave. In spite of going through an ordeal that included prison, surveillance, and endless trials, Nursi led a saintly life, together with his students, publishing his works of Qur’anic exegesis and on the truths of faith in inner peace.

It should also be realized that those who choose seclusion and seek spiritual comfort in retreat eliminate the conditions for spiritual struggle and thereby destroy a dynamic that could be a basis for their spiritual progress. Just as our immune system cannot develop unless it meets certain viruses, leaving it so undefended as to be able to be destroyed by the slightest germs, a person who is not engaged in a spiritual struggle is just as vulnerable to the virus of sin.

The following parable demonstrates this point very well: once upon a time there were two devout brothers. One of them lived as a hermit on the side of a mountain, and the other lived among people and tried to convey them the truths of faith. The hermitic brother had a bag made of cloth which he used to hang his food and drink near the entrance of his cave. One day he realized that God Almighty had granted him an extraordinary blessing; the cloth bag held liquids like a glass, with no seepage. He visited his brother in the city and witnessed the same blessing there. As the hermit spent some time near his brother the worldly life of the city had an effect on his spirituality and the water in his bag in the cave began to seep out. However, there was no change to his brother’s bag. Then it dawned on the hermit that while his brother was trying to save others he had gained a strong defense mechanism against sins; he used his willpower to maintain his spirituality in the life of the city.

The ideas above should not be taken to mean that worship in retreat is of no use. The point being made is that seclusion is not an objective method that can help everybody to salvation in any absolute sense. Nevertheless, it is an undeniable fact that throughout history there have been men of God who advanced toward perfection on the horizons of knowledge and love of God by withdrawing into seclusion and ceasing to busy their ears, tongues, and lips with anything not related to Him. Later on, those making such journeys gradually came into contact with the world and they learned to maintain their spirituality in these conditions as well.

Try to save others so that you can be saved

However, it is a truth that one who constantly leads a hermitic life cannot usually tell others about the truth. Even though they can find personal salvation, they cannot save another. A true believer is one who strives for the guidance of others as well; this is an obligation for those who have sincere faith. It is possible to say that in our philosophy the way to salvation is related to our intention and efforts to save others. And this can only be realized by being with God while socializing with people; to express this in Sufi terminology, this perspective can be realized by preferring the Jalwati way over the Halwati one.

Another important matter to be considered at this point is that an inclination for seclusion may generate from a wish to escape responsibility and seek personal comfort. When I was working in Edirne I saw a few lines on the wall inscribed inside the mosque by a follower of the Halwati order. These lines exemplify this point well and read as follows:

“O my brothers, my comfort is in my retreat. Whoever I made friends with found my shortcomings and revealed my faults. Indeed, I have met no one who is truly faithful. Therefore I, found comfort and inner and mental peace in solitude.”

I think this approach is an escape, since a believer cannot be a person who only thinks about and lives for themselves, only seeking personal comfort. Instead, they consider both their own progress and the salvation of the faith and spirituality of others. Therefore, we can say that being among others with the intention of expressing the truth is the way of the prophets, particularly that of the Messenger of God. Had seclusion been more pleasing to God Almighty, the noble Prophet would have spent his life in the cave on Mount Hira and have led his life in retreat. Nobody would have disturbed him; but then who would have carried out the duty of conveying the message to others? At the very beginning of his mission, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, received the following command: “O you cloaked one (who has preferred solitude)! Arise and warn! And declare your Lord’s greatness!” (Muddathir 74:1–3). With these verses, God Almighty declared that he should go and be with people and give them a hand to guide them to the truth; this was the mission of Prophethood. There is a similar statement in another verse (Maeda 5:67) reading: “O Messenger! Convey and make known in the clearest way all that has been sent down to you from your Lord. For, if you do not, you have not conveyed His Message and fulfilled the task of His Messengership.” Actually, this verse implies: “you will be dismissed from your position if you do not fulfill your mission.” In this respect, if one retreats into a corner, God Almighty might renege on the favors that He blessed that person with. This is why we are underlining the point that what should be sent to a cave is our wish for solitude, nothing else. Instead, we should arise with the motive of mingling with people for the sake of God, exerting ourselves in the way of faith and serving humanity, hand in hand with our friends. At this point, one cannot help but remember what the poet Mehmed Akif said: “One should rely on God, keep striving, and obey what wisdom requires. If there is a way, it should be this one; we do not know any other way out!”

Nevertheless, God Almighty protects those who serve on His path when they mix with people. Is this not what He has done so far? Many of us have had such experiences. As has been previously mentioned, the temptations of the world have a very powerful appeal for human nature. This tendency for ungodliness, the rebellious urge of our carnal self, is so overwhelming. A fair evaluation of this picture might lead to the conclusion that “because a person’s fancies, desires, and the rebellious urges of the carnal self constantly call him to the world, one can give into the temptations of the world any moment.” In my opinion, the surprising thing at this point is that although some may expect that the people who are trying to serve in the way of God will fall headfirst into the swamp of sins, thanks be to God this is not actually the situation. Because there are so many pitfalls awaiting us, one can just lose control and go astray. However, Providence does not let us deviate from our path. Those who serve the righteous cause are devoted and seem to come under divine protection. What befalls us is to be aware of this blessing and keep praying: “O God, we pray for Your protection and care; we implore You for deliverance under Your Providence.”

Many articles and books have been published to refute Dawkins’ opinions, but most of them focus merely on defending the author’s own religion or sect of religion. I would like to take a different approach: pass Dawkins’s claims through the test of reason without invoking any religious references, and see how they withstand critical scrutiny.

Richard Dawkins, the author of The Selfish Gene, has gained even more public prestige since his latest book, The God Delusion, became a best seller worldwide. This book has become the most popular tract on atheism in recent times. However, its popularity is due neither to its originality, nor its academic quality, but rather to the nature of its rhetoric. The God Delusion is written in a passionate, provocative, merciless and often bullying voice. The kind of writing he adopts creates fury in the hearts of many religious people and a joy among many atheists; and from this ability to arouse readers’ emotions comes the popularity of the book, at the cost of furthering division and hatred between believers and non-believers.

Despite the media’s excitement, Dawkins’ claims are mostly repetition of very old arguments against religion and God’s existence, put in a different context, and supported with different examples. Many articles and books have been published to refute Dawkins’ opinions, but most of them focus merely on defending the author’s own religion or sect of religion. I would like to take a different approach: pass Dawkins’s claims through the test of reason without invoking any religious references, and see how they withstand critical scrutiny.

Dawkins’ claims in the book can be reduced to two thesis statements.

1. Religion is evil.

2.“There almost certainly is no God” (p. 137).

The logical reasoning he uses to prove his first thesis statement is poor and biased. He points to some Christian fanatics who burn down abortion clinics and concludes that Christianity is evil because it inspires individuals to perform such despicable acts of violence. According to this same faulty logic, Islam is evil because some terrorists and suicide attackers who claim to be Muslims participated in the September 11 attacks. To Dawkins, it does not matter if there are billions of well-behaved Christians and Muslims who are motivated by religion to become better human beings. By this logic, if billions of people drink water from the same water source for centuries and in that time just a few among them fall ill, then the source of illness must be the water. Had Dawkins approached the matter like a true scientist and carefully examined the scientific studies on violence, he would have learned that violence has almost nothing to do with faith, and that terrorists are rarely motivated by religious beliefs, but rather by political and nationalistic impulses. One such study was conducted by Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. Pape has compiled the most comprehensive data on suicide bombings and attacks around the globe over the past twenty years. He published his broad study, which analyzed the root causes of such attacks, in a book called Dying to Win and summarized his findings as follows: “The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. In fact the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. … Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.”¹

While scientific studies such as Pape’s prove that a it is a specific set of factors unconnected with religion that leads to violence, it is peculiar to see Dawkins make the unjustified claim that “Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness” (p. 343).

The fact that the greatest atrocities in human history have been committed by non-religious leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, or by non-religious groups like the Tamil Tigers, does not alter his conviction. In claiming that “. . . atheists may do evil things but they don’t do evil things in the name of atheism” (p. 315), Dawkins may persuade himself of this double standard, but, the true, logical conclusion regarding evil is an obvious one. If non-religious people do as much evil as (if not more than) religious people, then we cannot blame religion for the actions of a few evil-doers who happen to be, or claim to be religious, especially if billions of other people subscribing to the same religion condemn these acts.

This much suffices to demonstrate the fallacy of his first thesis statement and we now move to his next claim which is about the existence of God.

Definition of God

To be consistent in discussion we should adhere to a common definition. The concept of God used in this article is not the perception of God according to any particular religion. It is God as defined by Dawkins himself. Dawkins defines God as “a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it” (p.52). Although the word “superhuman” is vague and undefined, I accept the rest of the definition as the basis for our discussion.

Dawkins starts with an attempt to reduce the question of the existence of God to a scientific problem and to show that the probability of God’s existence is far less than fifty percent.

What is the probability of God’s existence?

Can we prove God’s existence or non-existence by scientific methods? Dawkins’ definition makes the answer to this question an obvious “No!” How can one make conclusions about a “supernatural” being by using only physical methods? Many philosophers consider the “existence of God” to be neither provable nor disprovable with scientific methods and mathematical certainty. Dawkins is not so naïve as to directly claim otherwise, but he dances around this generally accepted principle by introducing the concept of probability: “Even if God’s existence is never proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50 percent” (p. 73). This is a statement that clearly demonstrates Dawkins’ lack of knowledge in the field of probability, as well as his desperate need to score some points in an otherwise losing argument.

How does one estimate a probability? If I toss a coin and ask you what the probability of tails is, you might be tempted to say fifty percent. But are you sure? How do you know the coin is not irregular? How do you know I cannot toss it with such skill that the outcome is always heads? In fact, you do not know. In mathematics, there are two ways of estimating probabilities. One way is to set some assumptions, which may give you a good estimate if the assumptions are correct. In case of the coin, you may assume that it is a fair coin, with uniform weight distribution, entirely symmetrical, and that it is tossed in a completely random fashion. But if these assumptions are incorrect, the estimate will not be accurate. The second way to estimate the probability is to repeat the experiment many times and record the outcome. You may toss the coin 1000 times. If it lands tails up 300 times and heads up 700 times, then your estimate for the probability of tails would be 30 percent. This result would also show that the assumption about fairness is incorrect. To gain a true estimate would involve tossing the coin indefinitely and taking the limit of this ratio; but, such an experiment is impractical. When Dawkins tries to estimate the probability of God’s existence, he cannot use the second method, for it is not an experiment one can repeat many times. Therefore, he arrives at his conclusion by using the only remaining method: making assumptions. He makes some complicated, un-testable, and unverifiable assumptions (such as “God must have a complex structure”), and then concludes that the existence of God is highly improbable. But I could make my own assumptions and find a different probability. In fact, I could assume that God exists, and with such an assumption my estimate of probability for the existence of God would be 100 percent. In the end, whose assumptions are correct?

Who created God?

Dawkins has only one “strong” argument against God’s existence, which he repeats many times throughout the book: “Who made God?” (p. 136), “Who designed the designer?” (p. 147), “the designer himself immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin”(p. 146). This same question is invoked repeatedly on pages 138, 147 (twice), 151, 161, 169, 171, 176, 178, 183, 186, 187, and 188. It becomes annoying after the third or fourth repetition. One keeps reading in hopes of encountering some new and fresher ideas; but all hope is vanquished by the time one flips the last page. While pondering the possible reasons for so much repetition I came across the answer within the very same pages: “if you repeat something often enough you will succeed in convincing yourself of its truth” (p. 394).

Dawkins believes that this question is his ultimate argument against God’s existence. But, this question is far from being a new one. For instance, in Bukhari’s hadith collection (written in 846 ad), the Prophet Muhammad is quoted as having said, “A day will certainly come when some people will sit with their legs crossed and ask, ‘If God created everything, then who created God?’”² Apparently, more than a millennium later, atheists still have not come up with a better argument; they are still holding onto this thin, old thread.

Is this really a strong argument against God’s existence? If, in one’s mind, God is just a complex being, such as “the ultimate Boeing 747”(p. 138) airplane in the sky, then this might be a meaningful question to ask. But when one defines God as the Being who created everything – as all Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many Hindus and Buddhists do – then, by definition He is not created; He would not be God if He had been. This idea is best demonstrated by a metaphor.3 In a moving train, each car is seemingly pulled by the one before. But the locomotive is not pulled by anything, and it pulls all the other cars. The question, “Who pulls the locomotive?” is meaningless because the locomotive does not need to be pulled. The concept of “being pulled” simply does not apply to the locomotive. Similarly, in the infinite regress of creation, God is the locomotive, which makes the question, “Who created God?” meaningless. As a result, Dawkins’ argument against the existence of God, the argument that according to him makes the existence of God highly improbable, is nothing but a meaningless, paradoxical question. One could respond by saying, “The fact that a question can be phrased in a grammatically correct English sentence doesn’t make it meaningful” (p. 56).

Of course, what atheists like Dawkins truly mean by this question is: “If every form of existence needs a cause, how can God exist without a cause? And if God can exist without a cause, then why can’t the universe exist without a cause?” A logical response would be that every existence does not need a cause, but that everything that has a beginning needs a cause. The universe has a beginning; therefore, it needs a cause. According to the theory of relativity, time is a dimension of this universe. Therefore, time is also part of this nature (natural). Dawkins’ definition itself states that “God is supernatural,” which means He is beyond and above anything in this universe, including time. If that is so, then God is eternal (timeless); He has neither beginning nor end; hence, He does not need a cause.

A major portion of Dawkins’ book is devoted to addressing the anthropic principle, which is considered to be one of the strong arguments for God’s existence.

The Anthropic Principle

One version of the anthropic principle, sometimes called the strong anthropic principle, states that the laws and constants of the universe have properties that make inevitable the existence of intelligent life. Undoubtedly, we live on a life-friendly planet. Yet, the probability that a planet can be life-friendly is extremely small because a great many conditions and elements need to come together to form an environment suitable for life. For example, the planet needs to be at the right distance to the star (sun), and possess the right combination of elements, carbon, and water, the right atmospheric gases, and the right temperature. It is hard to assume all these conditions can co-exist by pure chance. This is one of the strong arguments for the existence of God. Dawkins does not answer this argument by pulling out his handy Swiss army knife, “Who created God?” but rather, by making the only other argument in his book that is worth discussing. Namely, he explains the existence of complex life on earth by the theory of evolution, and, in invoking this theory, he tries to explain how the conditions for life were established, that is, how life started on earth in the first place, for admittedly, in order for something to evolve, it needs to start evolving in suitable conditions. Dawkins’ argument against the anthropic principle is to speculate about the large number of planets. Today scientists think there are approximately one quintillion (a billion times a billion) planets in the universe, but, this number is just an approximation extrapolated from our solar system. It is not a verifiable number. “Suppose,” says Dawkins, the first life “was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. … even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets, of which earth of course is one” (p. 138). Two major parts of this statement are flawed: the assumption involved, and the conclusion. His assumption that the probability of life starting on a planet is just one in a billion may very well be incorrect. Dawkins does not provide any justification for this assumption. Just because it sounds like a small probability does not mean we should accept it. Why one in a billion? Maybe that probability is one in a trillion times a trillion, in which case there would not even be enough planets to make the probability plausible. The second problem involves an even more profound mathematical error. In calculating probabilities, one must correctly define the sample space of events. That is to say, when considering the probability of life beginning on any given planet, our sample space is not all the planets in the universe; rather, it is only earth-like, life-friendly planets. One cannot include Jupiter in the sample space because it is known that life cannot occur on Jupiter. Hence, one would first have to estimate the number of life-friendly planets in the universe. If there are only one million life-friendly planets and the probability of occurrence of life is one in a billion, then the chance is not in favor of life. If that is so, then the occurrence of life (on earth) requires an explanation other than chance.

The inability to verify chance as a probable factor in the origin of life is, by the way, not the only weak link in evolutionary theory. Evolutionist Mark Ridley suggests in Mendel’s Demon that the origin of eukaryotic cells (cells with a nucleus, and other features, such as human and animal cells) is even a more difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life.4 Other similarly improbable steps, such as the origin of consciousness, have also been discussed by scientists.

Furthermore, it is evident – even to Dawkins – that we are not only living on a life-friendly planet, but also in a life-friendly universe: “the laws of physics must be friendly enough to allow life to arise. … physicists have calculated that, if the laws and constants of physics had been even slightly different, the universe would have developed in such a way that life would have been impossible” (p. 169). To answer this challenge to his argument about chance, Dawkins invokes the multi-universe hypothesis: “There are many universes like bubbles of foam, in a ‘multiverse.’ The laws and constants of any one universe, such as our observable universe, are by-laws” (p.173–174). In short, he concludes that it is possible for one of these universes to be life-friendly, and hence solves the difficulty of explaining one universe by assuming that there are many. Yet, his multiverse hypothesis is clearly not scientific; it is a belief. It is no simpler than assuming God created the universe.

So, how did the universe (or multiverse) come into existence in the first place? Physicists calculate the age of universe to be approximately 14 billion years from the time of its formation (i.e., the Big Bang); we know, therefore, that it has not been here indefinitely. Since it had a beginning, its existence requires an explanation.

The majority of the arguments in Dawkins’ latest book are poor, and in many cases based on incorrect assumptions and flawed conclusions. The writer makes colossal mistakes while discussing subjects he is unfamiliar with, such as the theory of probability. As an academic, he has no expertise in the field of sociology and yet makes grand claims about the role of religion in society. Dawkins must be seen as a popular science writer who uses his credentials as a scientist to give credibility to otherwise poor and often false theories, which are neither scientific nor objective. Atheists of the world will be indebted to him forever for being such a fanatical advocate of their ‘faith’, but those who truly seek knowledge will be able to see the shortcomings of his work very clearly..

B. H. Yenikaya holds a PhD in Mathematics.

References

• Pape, Robert. Dying to Win. Random House, New York, 2005. 4
• Bukhari, Muhammad I. “I’tisam #3” Sahih Bukhari. Kazi Publications, 1979
• Gulen, M. F. Questions and Answers about Islam. The Light Inc., 2005.
• Ridley, Mark. Mendel’s Demon. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Great Britain, 2000. 17
• Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Bantam Press, Great Britain, 2008.

Organized by Cairo University and Hira Magazine, the conference lasted three full days and featured many prominent social scientists, mainly from the Arab world: Dr. Ahmad El-Tayyeb, the rector of Al-Azhar University, Dr. Mohammad Emara (Egypt), Dr. Nadia Mostafa (Egypt), Dr. Ibrahim Elbayoumi Ghanem (Egypt), Dr. Abdel-Halim Oweis (Egypt), Tarek Albishri (Egypt), Dr. Ridwan Elsayed (Lebanon), Dr. Leonid Syukiyaynen (Russia), Dr. Samir Boudinar (Morocco), Dr. Fathi Malkawi (Jordan), Dr. Jill Carroll (USA), and Dr. Johann Hafner (Germany), to name a few. The grand hall of the Arab League headquarters was packed with an audience of 400 and more participants – seated or standing – from Egypt and neighboring countries. The huge roundtable in the middle of the hall hosted twenty scholars, either presenting a paper, observing or commenting on the topics. Aired live on the web, the conference explored islah, an Islamic concept that is often simply translated as “reform” in English but which in fact is loaded with a much deeper and wider frame of reference.

There was enormous media attention to the event: at least fifteen television networks and seventy-five reporters followed the conference and interviewed the participants. While dozens of requests to reserve seats had to be turned down, more than twenty-thousand viewers followed the event on the web. The conference drew an exceptional level of interest in the event, much higher than the average academic activity.

Throughout the conference there were occasional references to recent history, accompanied by expressions of regret or frustration. Yet, many scholars offered some insight with a vision of the future in line with the main theme, a focus on the nature of the Gulen Movement. They expressed their perception of the movement as a new and potentially wide field for research into islah. How have reform trends appeared in the Muslim world in the last half century? How do we interpret the spread of Gulen’s call and his movement on a global scale inside and outside Islamic countries? How has this movement succeeded in positively communicating with western elites with its scientific institutions, media and cultural entities in comparison to other reform movements? What are the prospects for future cooperation with this movement to take advantage of its successful experience in fighting problems and future challenges in the Muslim and the Arab world? How does this movement, which seems to act as a social movement organization rather than an NGO, develop successful relations with established systems in the countries where it works without conflict? These were the questions that were discussed on the floor.

Until recently, Turkish-Arab relations have been somewhat delicate. On both civil and official fronts over the last couple of years, firm steps have been taken by both sides to close the chasm that divided these nations; these are in fact nations that share many historical and cultural roots. This Turkish-Arab rapprochement is not an artificial one based on temporary mutual interests. The “problem-free” policy adopted by the Turkish government vis A vis neighboring countries should be appreciated in a number of ways. Without hands-on support from the grassroots level, however, such policies have little chance of success, if they are not doomed to complete failure, particularly in the context of the Middle East, where international interests are extremely complex.

The frustrations voiced by Arab scholars and politicians at this conference and elsewhere are to be expected in the context of the political and economic tensions that have lasted for decades in the region. There is no need to mention the international disputes which prevent the progress that has been long-awaited and desperately needed by millions. In this regard, this conference might serve as a new beginning, for participants strived to replace frustration and despair with hope and strong will and encouragement for islah. Despite some exposure to Gulen’s works and the literature produced about him, there is still much to be learned. First-hand experience and observation are certainly necessary, particularly to achieve an accurate analysis of a civil society movement that is as broad as the Gulen Movement and to understand what their contribution to the social reform and renewal of the Islamic world can be. Some of the testimonials expressed throughout the conference, specifically during the last panel, were of great use for many among the audience. The Salahaldin International School, which opened in Cairo only a few weeks ago, with its well-equipped campus and high standards of education, and which draws on worldwide experience, will become a visible testing-ground for those who are willing to explore this initiative. In the message Fethullah Gulen sent to the conference, he emphasized the importance of education and schools like Salahaldin in islah: “Education is pivotal in islah efforts, for it is directly linked to the human being in the person of the teacher and the student. A teacher who is dedicated to his or her mission in the spirit of worship can bring about a new human in his students, a new human who looks to the future filled with hope, whose heart beats with love and peace. Raising new generations is dependent on a precise revision of education. This revision requires educators to free themselves from sticking to working hours, which are limited and insufficient, and to work without pause in the consciousness that they are building new human beings with all their faculties.”

More than five hundred questions were handed in to the panels throughout the conference. Many inquirers asked how they could become a member of the movement. The speakers explained several times that this movement-which is frequently called the “Gulen” Movement for the lack of a more concise term-is not an organization in which you become a member by simply having your name listed. Nor is it a school in which you can enroll by paying a certain fee. “The Gulen movement is similar to a well-conducted symphony as its basic aim is to unite people and bring about solutions to their problems,” Pakinam El Sharkawy from Cairo University said. A professor of political science at Cairo University, El Sharkawy, the commentator on the sixth panel, said that the movement does not seek to defeat others but to bring people together and to remove prejudices between them: “The movement tries to respond to strong winds by creating a soft and soothing atmosphere.” Professor Jill Carroll from Houston, Texas, underscored a similar theme about the movement and praised its contributions to the main concern of our times, how we can coexist in peace and respect while preserving our differences.

Cairo is a place that everyone should visit at least once in a lifetime. This was my second time in eight years. And this time, I saw a great deal more than on my last visit. The conference offered a great deal to the hundreds who attended, and there was much that encouraged us to be more hopeful for the future. The new terminal at Cairo International Airport, which also opened recently like Salahaldin International School, now welcomes its guests with great confidence and arrival there promises a lot more than sightseeing.

Hakan Yesilova is a staff editor at The Fountain magazine.

The rule of Muslims represents a particular period in Spanish history. It was at this time that a substantial part of Spain, known back then as Al-Andalus, came under the control of various Islamic groups. The entire period of Islamic rule lasted from the first conquest in 711 to 1492 when the Christian King Ferdinand reconquered Granada (La Reconquista), thereby extinguishing the rule of Muslims (Crow 1985, p.78).

The Umayyad prince, Abd-ar-Rahman I, established himself as Emir of Cordoba in 756, after the Abbasids supplanted Umayyad rule in Syria (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Umayyad dynasty first ruled as emirs (756–929), then as caliphs (929–1031), but eventually fell to the invading Berber tribes of North Africa, the Almoravids (1090–1147) and then the Almohads (1147–1248) (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Muslims of Spain ushered in a period of great creativity and scholarship, in which significant advances in poetry, art, music, calligraphy, botany, historiography, medicine, mathematics, and astronomy were made (Fletcher 2000, p. 65).

Maria Rosa Menocal argues that Al-Andalus was a peaceful society in which Jewish people were free to practice their religion without being subject to the threat of forced conversion or persecution. She further claims that the rulers of Al-Andalus not only gave the Jews the right to maintain their religious identity, they also offered them the opportunity to fully involve themselves in what was then a predominantly Muslim society. Al-Andalus is, therefore, a truly unique example of religious toleration and cultural interaction, one which stands above all others in Medieval Europe.

Menocal claims that the Jews of Spain, that is the Sephardic Jews, enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy as they were considered to be people of a particular status. They were members of the Dhimmi, or “pact,” whereby the Muslim rulers agree to protect and care for non-Muslims insofar as they accede to the laws and regulations of the state (Menocal 2002, p.29). Jews, like Christians, are particularly important to this contract as they are “People of the Book” (Ahl al-Kitâb), the book being the Torah or the Bible, both of which are considered to have been revealed by God in Islam (Lassner 1999, p.106). As monotheistic religions of the Abrahamic tradition, Islam, Judaism and Christianity share common ground.That Spanish Jews were treated with respect by their Islamic rulers is evidenced by the way in which they were permitted to be directly involved in the political process. Menocal refers to several Jewish people who rose to claim positions in the Umayyad dynasty, one such person being Hasdai Ibn Shaprut.

Shaprut served as vizier to Caliph Abd-ar-Rahman III (911–961), while also acting as the “prince” or nasi of his own religious community (Menocal 2002, p.79). Shaprut, through his skill and intellect, was able to secure a position of considerable influence and prestige, while retaining his role as a representative of the Jewish community. He served the Umayyad rulers in a variety of ways, including several stints as a foreign ambassador and general secretary (Glick 1979, p.172). Menocal claims that this was not an unusual occurrence or isolated event as Al-Andalus was in fact a “world brightly lit for Jews,” in which they were free to participate in the politics of the state (Menocal 2002, p. 84).

Samuel Ibn Naghrela (Samuel the Nagid, or “prince”) also showed how a Jewish person was able to enjoy a position of power under Islamic rule. Born in 993, he pursued success in a number of fields including as a high-ranking official, poet, statesman and warrior. At thirty-four he was chosen as the first Nagid, or head of the Jewish community, and was later appointed as a vizier and prime minister of Granada (Menocal 2002, p. 104). Jewish people also served as viziers in Zaragoza, Seville, and Almeria during the Muslim rule (Perez 1993, p.10). They were also very active in the economy of Al-Andalus as they had “virtually unlimited opportunities in the booming commercial environment” (Menocal 2002, p. 85). Jewish people were allowed to pursue their vocational interests, and, in time, they came to dominate the financial and mercantile activity of the region (Glick 1979, p. 176).

Menocal attributes the success of the Jewish people in Islamic Spain to their willingness to assimilate, or be “Arabized.” Arabization is the process whereby the Jewish people of Spain sought to understand and to engage with Arabic culture-its language, art, tradition, and values- while still retaining their own sense of identity as a separate community. It is said that the potential for this style of acculturation was great because much of Islamic Spain was highly secular (Glick 1979, p.175). Therefore, the religious affiliation of the individual in Islamic Spain had far less importance, and thus far fewer consequences, than it did elsewhere.

The Jews of Spain excelled in many areas of their society, owing to the tolerance which they had been accorded by their Islamic rulers. They ensured a climate in which Muslims and Jews could live in a state of peaceful cooperation. This happened not by the imposition of one culture on that of another, but a cultural exchange wherein Jews were “able to openly observe and eventually enrich their Judaic and Hebrew heritage and at the same time fully participate in the general cultural and intellectual scene” (Menocal 2002, p. 87). Therefore it can be said that Spain, under the rule of Muslims, was quite tolerant of its Jewish population. The Jews, according to Menocal, did not have “to abandon their orthodoxy to be fully a part of the body politic and culture” (Menocal 2002, p. 86).

Maria Rosa Menocal offers a particular interpretation of this period, one that is certainly not shared by all. Bernard Lewis agrees that the Islamic rulers in Spain treated their Jewish counterparts with some degree of respect (Lewis 1984, p. 9). Lewis refers to the Qur’anic verse (11:62), “Those who believe [the Muslims], and those who profess Judaism, and the Christians and the Sabian, those who believe in God and the Last Day and act righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord,” as the injunction by which Muslims must treat Jews with tolerance (Lewis 1984, p. 13). But Lewis also sees the seeds of hostility and intolerance in the way Muslims treated Jews.

In reality, however, Jews, like Christians, were still defined by their supposed inferiority to that of the Muslim. They were possessors of a religion that was based on authentic revelation, but that incomplete or distorted. They had failed to realize God’s truth in its most perfect form, as it is in Islam.

Bernard Lewis does not limit his perspective to “religious inferiority.” He argues that Muslims restricted Jews’ movement into the wider community. According to him the poll tax, or jizya, a fixed tax that was to be paid by all non-Muslims to the Muslim rulers in return for certain immunities like not going to war, was a “symbolic expression of their (Jews) subordination” to the Muslims (Lewis 1984, p. 14). Restrictions, Lewis argues, were certainly not limited to fiscal servitude, but also applied to the way in which Jewish people conducted themselves in public and private life. A Jewish man could not enter into a marriage with a Muslim woman as that would make a Muslim subordinate to the will of a Dhimmi, though a Muslim man could marry a Jewish woman (Lewis 1984, p. 27).

Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject “were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character” (Lewis 1984, p. 26). That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population.

Norman Roth claims, much like Menocal, that the Jewish population was quite prominent in Spain during the Muslim rule. According to Roth, rarely did “Jews reach such prominent positions of power as they did in Al-Andalus” (Roth 1994, p. 79). This was due, in part, to the fact that they were perceived by the Muslims and Christians of Spain as being “neutral,” that is, without allegiance to either side (Roth 1994, p.79).

While Al-Andalus was a society in which Jews enjoyed a certain degree of freedom, particularly after the advent of the Almohads, Roth claims, some restrictions in clothing were strictly enforced (Roth 1994, p. 167). For instance, the Almohad ruler Abu Yusuf Yaqub (1184–99) made it compulsory for Jews to dress in certain colors (Roth 1994, p. 167), perhaps to distinguish non-Muslim citizens from the Muslims. According to Joseph Perez, the Almohads also instituted religious persecution and forced Jews to convert (Perez 1993, p. 12). In this way, Perez draws a parallel with this period and the one that was to follow, in which Jews were expelled from the newly reclaimed Christian Kingdom of Spain.

The rule of the Moors is a unique period of Spanish history, one that has received much attention from scholars and theologians alike. It was, according to Maria Rosa Menocal, a time in which Jews and Muslims lived a relatively peaceful existence. While the evidence suggests that Jews and Muslims did integrate to an extent, there are also some scholars who suggest that Jews were subject to persecution. Therefore, this period of history offers a lot to be learned for our modern times.

References

• Crow J, 1985, Spain: The Root and the Flower: an interpretation of Spain and the Spanish people, University of California Press, Berkley.
• Fletcher R, 2000, “Islamic Spain,” in Carr R, Spain: A History, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Glick T, 1979, Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
• Lassner J, 1999, “Abraham Geiger: A Nineteenth-Century Jewish Reformer on the Origins of Islam,” in Martin Kramer, The Jewish Discovery of Islam, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
• Lewis B, 1984, The Jews of Islam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
• Menocal MR, 2002, Ornament of the World, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
• Perez, J, 1993, History of a Tragedy, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
• Ray, J, 2006, The Sephardic Frontier: the Reconquista and the Jewish community in Medieval Iberia, Cornell University Press, New York.
• Roth N, 1994, Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims In Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict, Leiden, New York.

the seashell becomes treasure,

a catalyst of daydreams. Tunes

hummed by innocence reach

the seagull nearby who gives up

flight to breathe in this fresh air.

An air that only they can bear,

that we forget through years

of aging hearts.

The sand still has memory of us,

although we forget. And that starfish

under the stars awaits our return,

but we turn. Away from the past

that gave us sight into a spark

of the divine. To see creation

in its purest form, its brightest shine.

Each grain of sand will be called to

tell his story. Can you imagine?

When from the seen and unseen

Worlds come Men and Jinn.

And to be asked from such an old age,

why we could not stay like a child.

For a moment to see like a child.

To dream like a child.

To take into our heart,

the Heart of the world,

as a child does,

with every blink of existence.

“How long have you been lost?” I asked her. “For three nights” (Maryam 19:10) was her Qur’anic rejoinder. I offered her food. She replied with, “Observe the Fast until night sets in” (Baqarah 2:187). “Yes, but we are not in the month of Ramadan,” said I. “Whoever does a good work voluntarily, surely God is All-Responsive to thankfulness, All-Knowing” (Baqarah 2:158) was her response. “It is permissible to break fast on a journey,” I informed her. “Yet better it is for him who volunteers greater good, and that you should fast (when you are able to) is better for you, if you but knew (the worth of fasting)” (Baqarah 2:184) she responded.

I asked her why she did not converse in the way I conversed. “Not a word does he/she utter but there is a watcher by him/her, ever-present,” (Qaf 50:18) recited she. I put a question to her: “Where do you belong?” “Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge, and refrain from groundless assertions and conjectures. Surely the hearing, the sight, and the heart – each of these is subject to questioning about it” (Isra’ 17:35) was her Qur’anic response. “I sinned; please forgive me,” I pleaded. “No reproach this day shall be on you. May God forgive you; indeed, He is the Most Merciful of the merciful” (Yusuf 12:92) said she. I offered to let her ride on my camel so as to deliver her swiftly to her convoy. “Whatever good you do, surely God has full knowledge of it” (Baqarah 2:215) she thanked me. I brought my camel and as she was about to mount on the animal, she said, “Tell the believing men that they should restrain their gaze” (Nur 24:30). I cast my eyes down. Just as she was about to climb on the camel, the animal shied and moved forward, and her clothing was torn a little. “Whatever affliction befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned,” (Shura 42:30) she murmured. “Be patient, let me hold the camel!” said I. Reciting the verse, “We made Solomon understand the case more clearly. We granted each of them sound, wise judgment and knowledge” (Anbiya 21:79) she said, implying that I was more successful at controlling the camel. She mounted the camel and recited the verses, “So that you sit secure on their backs, (and), then remember and reflect on the favor of your Lord when you settle securely on them, and say: All-Glorified is He Who has subjugated this to our use. We were never capable (of accomplishing this by ourselves). And surely, to our Lord we are indeed bound to return’” (Zukhruf 13–14). “Come on!” said I, so as to urge the camel on. “Be modest in your bearing, and subdue your voice. For certain, the most repugnant of voices is the braying of donkeys,” (Luqman 31:19) she warned me. While walking, I began to recite poetry. “Recite from the Qur’an what is easy for you!” (Muzzammil 73:20) was her advice. “But reciting poetry is not forbidden in Islam!” I protested. “He grants the Wisdom to whomever He wills, and whoever is granted the Wisdom has indeed been granted much good. Yet none except people of discernment reflect and are mindful” (Baqarah; 269) was her reply.

We travelled for a long while; later I asked her whether she was married. “O you who believe! Do not ask about things which, if made manifest to you, would give you trouble” (Maidah 5:101) she snapped back. Soon, we caught up with her convoy, and I asked her, “Do you know anybody in the caravan?” “Wealth and children are an adornment of the present, worldly life!” (Kahf 18:46) said she, and I realized that she had children. I asked her their names. “God accepted Ibrahim as a friend; spoke to Musa; O Yahya! Hold fast to the Book!” (Nisa 4:125, 164; Maryam 19:12) was the answer. I called towards the caravan, “O Ibrahim, O Musa, O Yahya!” Three saintly-faced youths quickly appeared. She gave them money, reciting the verse, “Send one of you to the city with this coin of yours: let him see what food is most pure there (and so lawful), and bring a supply from it. But let him behave with utmost care and guarded courtesy,” (Kahf 18:19). When her children brought the food, she recited the verse, “Eat and drink to your hearts’ content for all that you sent ahead in advance in days past” (Haqqah 69:24).

I told her children that if they would not tell me the reason why their mother talked in that way, I would not touch even the smallest part of the food. ‘Our mother,’ they said, ‘for fear that she might blurt out some foul words that would call down God’s wrath, has been speaking through the Holy Qur’an for the last forty years.’”

Abdullah bin Mubarak (d. 797 AH) was an important figure from the second generation after the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Suat Erguvan is the Academic Coordinator of the Rumi Forum, Islamabad.

A being that covers half the remaining distance with every step can reach its destination only if it can walk for infinity. When the ability to walk is limited, irrespective of the length of the steps taken, one will only be able to cover half the remaining distance, not the entire distance. In other words, there will always be a distance that remains to be covered. To cover more than half would be nothing less than attempting the impossible, because no being lives long enough to do this. With every step that the being moves forward it can only cover half the distance between the location and the destination.

In the light of this mathematical perspective, we can analyze the deeds we carry out and the steps that we have already taken, and those that we will take in our journey through life that is to be carried out towards God. I wonder if the steps we have already taken are enough to acquire His love and consent at the end of the journey. Answering this question in a conclusive way is difficult, because in the end this situation depends on God’s will. Moreover, God informed us of what needs to be done when he sent the Prophets and Books. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, encouraged us to increase our steps in one of his hadith: “He whose two days are equal is at a loss.” As life passes by, we may be satisfied with our performance so far and we may be sure that we will reach our goal, but if our steps which we make for the sake of God are abating, then we are deceiving ourselves. After some time, our steps become so small as to disappear and it becomes impossible to attain our goals. There is no doubt that such a break in our actions creates a lack of progress, and this in turn induces us to take no further steps. In this saying the Prophet, peace be upon him, highlights this danger and advises us to take more steps than the day before.

In another hadith qudsi (a saying uttered by the Prophet but the meaning of which belongs to God) related to the subject, the Prophet describes how to acquire God’s love in the following manner:

“My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. (I protect her/him from hearing, looking at, touching forbidden things and walking on the wrong path.” (Bukhari, Tawhid, 15)

Certainly, there are occasions when we become so enthusiastic that we lose ourselves in the desire to gain the consent of God and to be reunited with God. On special days and nights and at holy times, we push ourselves; at such times we might perform supererogatory prayers. We hope that God the Almighty accepts these prayers; but if this worship is short-lived, it will not be enough to help us reach our goal. As we can understand from the above hadith, what is important is that prayers are constant. In another hadith, the narrator Abdullah bin Amr bin As reports that our Prophet, peace be upon him, told him “O Abdullah! Do not be like such and such a person who used to pray during the nights but gave up later” (Bukhari-Muslim). Again, according to a narration by Aisha, the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, carried out twelve cycles of prayer to compensate a night in which he had been unable to pray because of pain or some other reason (Muslim).

All of this shows us how important it is to be steadfast in prayer. Taking control of one’s carnal self, the believer should walk toward God with constant steps. To attain the prosperity of the servant described in the above hadith qudsi, a person should make obligatory and supererogatory prayers a habit. Although sometimes the carnal self, nafs, and the Devil try to imprison one in hopelessness, the believer should do whatever they can in order not to lose their zeal and enthusiasm. Even if, from time to time, they stumble or fall, they should never fall into a whirlpool of despair and should not be overcome by pessimism. Thoughts about the brevity of their steps or the inadequacy of their worship should never slow the servant down nor should they be a reason for the servant turning back on the road to which they have devoted their lives. We should not forget that “our Lords’ most beloved worship is the one that is consistent, even if it is small.”

As one of Turkish national arts, ebru is carried out by transferring onto special paper a design which is formed by scattering dye on dense water. It is argued that the root of the word “ebru” is from “ebr” (cloud-like), “ab-rû” (water surface) in Persian, or “ebre” (moiréd) in Chagatai. Owing to its moiréd appearance, it is called “marmor papier,” “papier marbre,” or “marbled paper” in European languages, and “waraqu’l-mujazza” in Arabic.

The art of Ebru, which is believed to have origins in Bukhara (a city in Uzbekistan, Central Asia) in the eighth or ninth century, reached Anatolia and Istanbul via Iran along the Great Silk Road. Ebru, like other book arts, continued to develop in Istanbul, reached maturity in the sixteenth century, and experienced its brightest period of time in the seventeenth century. The Ebru that was produced in that period in Istanbul was enough to meet the demand from Europeans.

The oldest example of Ebru ever known is in Istanbul University Library. It is estimated that it was made before 1519. Another piece of Ebru, which is believed to have been made in 1539, is kept in Topkapý Palace, in Istanbul. It is impossible to know much about early Ebru artists, (except those from the last period of the Ottomans) because there was no tradition of adding the artist’s signature to the work in that period. sebek Mehmet Efendi, Hatip Mehmet Efendi, seyh Sadýk Efendi, Nafiz Efendi and Hezarfen Ethem Efendi were famous Ebru artists who lived in the Ottoman period. Names such as Necmettin Okyay, Sami Okyay, Sacit Okyay, Abdülkadir Kadri Efendi and Mustafa Düzgünman were famous Ebru artists who lived in the early Republican period. Today, in Turkey, where the art of Ebru is becoming even more popular, there are a lot of contemporary Ebru artists.

Early Ebru artists produced almost all the equipment that they used. The materials which are used are paper, kitre (a gum-like substance made of cow’s gall), a table, naphtha, an awl set, combs, dyes, and brushes. The dye that is used in Ebru is water-proof. In traditional Ebru, soil pigments are used. The pigments are crushed on a marble base with a hand-carved stone called a “destezeng.” They are then put in a bowl, and mixed with water and gall. The mixture is left to stand for some time so that it reaches the right consistency. The period of waiting may be from several weeks to several years according to the type and quality of the dye. Owing to the difficulty of its preparation, this technique has almost been completely replaced with using readymade products.

Ebru is categorized according to the design and the motif used. By manipulating the dye on the surface of the water, different styles of Ebru can be made such as “the tide,” “the shawl,” “the striped,” “bülbülyuvasý,” (drawing spirals from outside to inside) “Hatip,” (drawing concentric circles with drops of colors) and “flowery.” Battal Ebru is made without manipulating the dye and transferred to the paper directly.

To judge the beauty of a piece of Ebru, three points should be taken into consideration. These are hav (the nap), the nimbus (hale), and the design. The nap is the height of the dye on the surface of the water. It feels velvet-like when it is touched with the fingers. The best nap can only be obtained with a soil dye. The nimbus is a white, glimmering circle around every drop of dye. It is achieved with the gall which is added to the dye. The design is the general appearance of the Ebru. It is composed of color distribution, coherence, form, and the location and size of motifs.

In the contemporary world, different schools of Ebru can be distinguished. The Turkish art of Ebru is one of these styles or schools. Hundreds of Ebru artists perform Ebru in their own way.

Today, most Ebru artists practice it as an independent art. In addition, Ebru is also used with miniature, calligraphy, tezhip, and other arts such as painting. The production of Ebru for book binding has declined in recent years.

There are different arguments about the relation between traditional and modern Ebru. While some artists are more sensitive about carrying on the traditional school, others are freer about the use of equipment and technique. It is useless to argue on which is better. There are already hundreds of Ebru artists around the world who deal with Ebru in the way they want. Whether the work is admired or not depends on art lovers. It is probable that a technique or a school which does not attract any attention today will be demanded more in the future.

There are too few Ebru artists who have received education and license to teach from the early masters. For that reason, the condition that every Ebru teacher should have a teaching license may restrict the art and artists. It can be understood whether one is really an Ebru artist or not, through one’s works, not just by looking at a person’s certificate. On the other hand, it would be beneficial if expert trainers could come together and determine some criteria.

The art of Ebru in today’s world has been experiencing a period of revival. Both in Turkey and in the rest of the world, there is increasing interest in Ebru. In tandem with the fact that many Ebru artists have been trained, there have arisen new techniques and schools.

We can also interpret muraqaba as trying to observe whatever God wills, and leading a life in unwavering sincerity and in the consciousness of His constant supervision. Such an attitude is possible when the servant knows that the Almighty is aware of all that he or she does, says, knows, and thinks, as stated in the Qur’an: In whatever state you may be, and whichever part of the Qur’an you recite, and whatever deed you do, We are witnesses over you when you are deeply engrossed therein (10:61).

If muraqaba means closing one’s heart to all that displeases Him and separates one from Him, and opening the spirit to receive the radiances, gifts, and favors coming from Him, then we must close what we must and open what we must. The first steps to muraqaba are to accept as great what God has decreed as great, to accept as worthless what He has decreed as worthless, and to prefer His Will and desires over our own. Thinking of the depth of God’s Mercy increases and strengthens one’s love of God and desire to worship Him, and fear and awe of Him causes one to lose any appetite for sin and to live a careful life. Muraqaba leads men and women to discard anything that harms their worship, and to maintain the purity of their thoughts, actions, and intentions even when they are alone, in the consciousness of His continual observation.

Muraqaba is one of the most important and direct ways of reaching God without a guide. It resembles the type of sainthood attained through succession to the Prophetic mission, which is conveying the Divine Message to people, without following a spiritual order. Such travelers can turn to God at any time or place in awareness of their helplessness and destitution, and be admitted to a “private meeting” with Him based on their need. They feel God’s constant supervision while they are watching nature, and so avoid whatever is other than Him; they are deaf to all sounds and voices that are not related to Him; and they praise His Beauty and Grace, and regard it as useless to mention something that is not concerned with Him.

As a matter of fact, if one’s eyes do not remind one of His Seeing, one’s ears of His Hearing, and one’s tongue of His Speech, how can these organs be used other than as pieces of flesh? Rumi says:

God Almighty described Himself as the All-Seeing in order to warn you against evil, He described Himself as the All-Hearing to admonish you not to say anything bad, and He described Himself as the All-Knowing to inform you that He knows you and therefore to exhort you to be alert to corrupt thoughts and considerations.

Rumi regards self-supervision as a protecting screen from evil emotions, thoughts, passions, and acts, and considers it the safest way to be attentive to Divine rights.

The first step in self-supervision is voluntary submission to the Divine Will and wishes in the conviction that He is present everywhere and is aware of all our thoughts, intentions, and deeds: God is Watcher over all things (33:52). The second step is to turn to God with a heart at rest and patiently anticipate the flow of Divine gifts and blessings into one’s heart.

This does not require any physical or spiritual attachment to or relationship with a guide, or the regular recitation of God’s Names. However, if one wishes to follow a guide and regularly recite His Names in accordance with the defined principles, it will certainly be much better. To the extent that an initiate, whether on the first or second step, can act according to the meaning of the Prophetic Tradition: “Perfect goodness is that you worship as if seeing God, for even if you do not see Him, He certainly sees you,”1 and that, always seeing himself or herself as helpless, destitute, and needy before God, believes Him to be the sole point of reliance and source of help, he or she may be traveling safely on the path of self-supervision and therefore be secure against deviation. Over time, those who follow such a path will acquire a peace of heart that will allow their conscience to remain open to Divine gifts and receive radiances from the One of Unity.

One of the most important mechanisms of self-supervision is muhasaba (self-criticism). As this method of self-control allows believers to become aware of personal faults and their causes, they can find the truth in their hearts and then display it in their conduct. In this spirit, the meaning and mystery of: Glory be to Him Who sees me, knows my place and hears my speech manifests itself. Such people know that the Divine Knowledge and Will always keep them under control and, regardless of location or action, seek only God’s pleasure by trying to act in accordance with His wishes.

Note

1. Al-Bukhari, Iman, 37; Muslim, Iman, 1.