***

Receive Love’s letters and let go of the pigeons
And your heart will fly higher with Love.
Wherever you look,
You will see the Face of the Beloved
For He is with you wherever you are
And is never absent!
You will always live in love with the Truly Real (al-Haqq)!
And you will never lose Love when the pigeons fly away!
O Soul, do not then lose sight of the Beloved

***

Everything reminds the lover of his Beloved
And for that he loves everything
There is no loss in that Love
There is always a new letter;
For the Beloved is swift in sending
And is always Creative!
Thus, the lover cannot think but in the Beloved
His actions are to please the Beloved
He worries to displease the Beloved
He cannot eat or drink but with the Beloved
Every chanting reminds Him of the Beloved
He sleeps with his lips praising the Beloved
And wakes with his lips glorifying the Beloved

***

He calls the Beloved
And attentively awaits the answer
And the Beloved keeps writing
For even if all the trees were pens
And all oceans were ink
They would cease
but the words of the Beloved will forever continue

***

The amazing reality of Love
Is that no matter how the lover is brought near to the Beloved
He wishes to draw even nearer
For the Beloved’s expressions are eternal
So, O soul: Read!

“Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.” Cree Indian Proverb

The table I have under my laptop while writing this article, the materials used for my laptop, the cover case for my phone, the pen I have by my phone, the package for the mail I have received, the dividers I have in my notebook, the hair dryer I have for drying my samples before performing FT-IR on my samples, the FT-IR machine itself … They are all made up of plastics. I could go on and on, giving examples of what I observe in my immediate environment made of plastics. It would not be exaggerated to say that after the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age, we are now living in the “Plastic Age” given the fact that the production of plastics has increased from 1.5 million tons per year in the 1950’s to 260 million tons per year in 2007.1 The majority of plastics we use in our daily life are petroleum-based plastics. What that means is, the starting materials of these plastics are chemicals derived from crude oil. There are some major concerns related with these petroleum based plastics – the Earth may run out of oil one day, or the questionable durability of how these plastics biologically degrade. Further environmental concerns exist, such as the toxic additives these plastics contain, including plasticizers like adipates and phthalate. Burning these plastics can release billions of tons of toxic pollutants every year; moreover, most plastic production reactions are done in toxic solvents, so the disposal of these solvents becomes a problem.2 Reflecting on it, it’s an incredible mercy that we have been able to get away with all the waste we have produced up to this point. But the question is: how much longer can we get away with such wasteful behavior?

One of Paulo Coelho’s passages from his book The Winner Stands Alone exactly describes my attitude and desire to “go green.” My heart pounds as I read the sentences that so touched me:

It seems now that-despite wars, famine in Africa, terrorism, the violation of human rights, and the arrogant attitude of certain developed countries-our main preoccupation is saving poor planet Earth from the many threats created by human society. “Ecology. Save the planet. How ridiculous.”

Hamid knows, however, that there’s no point in fighting the collective unconscious. The colors, the accessories, the fabrics, the so-called charity events attended by the Superclass, the books being published, the music being played on the radio, the documentaries made by ex-politicians, the new films, the material used to make shoes, the new bio-fuels, the petitions handed in to members of parliament and congressmen, the bonds being sold by the largest of the world banks, everything appears to focus on one thing: saving the planet. Fortunes are made overnight; large multinationals are given space in the press because of some completely irrelevant action they are taking; unscrupulous NGOs place advertisements on the major TV channels and receive hundreds of millions of dollars in donations because everyone seems obsessed with the fate of the Earth. Whenever he reads articles in newspapers or magazines written by politicians using global warming or the destruction of the environment as a platform for their electoral campaigns, he thinks:

“How can we be so arrogant? The planet is, was, and always will be stronger than us. We can’t destroy it; if we overstep the mark, the planet will simply erase us from its surface and carry on existing. Why don’t they start talking about not letting the planet destroy us? Because ‘saving the planet’ gives a sense of power, action, and nobility. Whereas ‘not letting the planet destroy us’ might lead to feelings of despair and impotence, and to a realization of just how very limited our capabilities are.” 3

On that note I would like to share some amazing facts I found while searching articles written on bacterial biopolymers, but first of all I would like to introduce some definitions on the concepts I will be writing about.

Plastics have many definitions, but usually, in a daily conversation, plastics mean “anything that can be molded or shaped.” Scientifically, a plastic is a sub category of a polymer. Poly- meaning “more than one” and -mer meaning “member of a particular group.”[4] Basically, a polymer is a naturally occurring or synthetic compound made of many relatively simple repeating units that are linked together in the same fashion, forming a carbon rich backbone in most cases. For example, PVC is a well known synthetic polymer, in which the monomer (the repeating unit) as seen in Figure 1 is repeated several times. A well known natural polymer is cellulose, in which the monomer as seen in Figure 2 is repeated several times.

Here it is important to note the difference between a polymer and a plastic. All plastics are polymers, as in the example of PVC, whereas not all polymers are plastics, as in the example of cellulose. The combination of the chemicals, and the type of bonds these chemicals are linked to each other by, determines the properties and applications of the polymers. The molecular weight of the polymer depends on how many times the monomer repeats itself. The molecular weight of polymers can be controlled during production with chemical techniques. One significant difference between natural vs. synthetic polymers is the molecular weight distribution. When the polymer is synthesized in the lab, the polymer product is a combination of different molecular weight chains. In other words, when a polymerization reaction takes place, lots of polymer chains are produced and one chain is never the same length or weight as another. Instead, there is a molecular weight distribution as seen in Figure 3, where most of the polymer chains in the solution have a molecular weight close to the value of Mw. So in the solution, we will have polymer chains that have molecular weights close to each other, and some extreme short or long polymer chains. It is impossible to synthesize a polymeric solution where all the polymer chains are of identical length and weight; therefore, we speak about the average molecular weight when the case is synthetic polymers. However, when we look at any polymer produced in nature, we see that the polymer chain length and molecular weight are the same every time the polymer is produced. So instead of a molecular weight distribution, natural polymers have a molecular weight value. This is important because the narrower the molecular weight distribution is, the better.

When talking about bio plastics, it is important to make the differentiation between bio-derived plastics and bio-based plastics. As Dr. R. Narayan explained in his talk at Johnson County Community College[5] , bio-derived plastics means that the plastic is isolated from a living organism, meaning that the living organism performs the polymerization reaction and then you extract the polymer from the organism.

On the other hand, bio-based plastics mean that the starting material of the plastic is derived from a living organism instead of a petroleum-based material, but it is polymerized into a plastic by humans. Therefore, not all bio-based plastics are biodegradable; however, the fact that the starting material is from a plant that can be replaced in a couple of years rather than a petroleum-based product which can only be replaced after a couple million years, drives motivation for their usage. There is the ethical concern that bio-based plastics are usually made from food sources, such as corn, however Dr. R. Narayan, who is one of the leaders in the field, argues that if the situation is handled appropriately, this should not be a problem. He argues that one up-side of the situation would be to increase values of crops and the prevention of mass migration to big cities. It’s your call to decide which side you favor more.

What is more interesting to me is the polymers being created in nature. A chemistry doctorate, Dr. Lon J. Mathias, writes that “We humans make nylons in tons per day in huge chemical plants where simple molecules are joined together in large quantities to give products that we need or want. Nature is much more careful and concise in how she does things. For a living organism to make an enzyme, another enzyme or active species must be involved. The synthesis always involves a template, or recording, of how the individual amino acids are to be joined together to give the final polymer. The enzyme adds a single amino acid, one at a time, as indicated by the mRNA. This is a slow and tedious process and takes a long time. Sometimes the enzyme gets frustrated, waiting for the right amino acid to come along, and slaps a wrong one on instead. To compensate for this, the enzyme is made to back up occasionally to check its work. If it has made a mistake, it has a process for clipping out the wrong amino acid and inserting the right one. We humans never do this. If we make a mistake, we simply grind it up and throw it away.”6

Dr. Mathias goes on, comparing the manufacturing conditions between nature’s form of polymerization and humanity’s. He says polypeptides in nature are synthesized in water, whereas we synthesize our polypeptides in toxic organic solvents. “This leads us to a problem: what do we do with the organic solvents when we’re through? Sometimes we burn them, but more commonly we try to recycle these materials, which not only are getting more expensive to buy in the first place (compared to cheap water, which is everywhere, or almost everywhere) but are also a responsibility for their recycling, purification, and final disposal. An example of how nature uses water in this way, and one which we still haven’t figured out, is the production of spider silk. Spiders spin their webs from solutions of polypeptides in water. These solutions are squeezed through the spider’s tiny spinneret and elongated quickly to form the spider webs which we’ve all seen and sometimes become tangled in. What’s really weird is that, once these spider webs form, they are no longer soluble in water. If we could just figure out how spiders first make spider silk in water and then spin their webs from it, we could make nylon the same way. This might save us a lot of waste disposal problems, and money.”6

Another spectacular creation in nature is polymers produced in bacteria which can be used as plastics once isolated from the bacteria. A wide range of biopolymers that are synthesized in bacteria serve diverse biological functions and have material properties suitable for numerous industrial and medical applications.7 Different carbon sources are efficiently converted into a diverse range of polymers with varying chemical and material properties.7 To be a little more specific, four major classes of polymers are produced by bacteria: polysaccharides, polyesters, polyamides and inorganic polyanhydrides (such as polyphosphates).7 These polymers serve various biological functions, for example, as reserve material or as part of a protective structure, and can provide a substantial advantage for bacteria under certain environmental conditions.7 Some of these biopolymers can be isolated from bacteria and can be used as plastic. Biopolymers are, by definition, biodegradable, and so their application as commodity products becomes increasingly attractive in view of the desire to avoid the use of recalcitrant oil based polymers that will accumulate in the environment.7 Biodegradable means that when exposed to the microbial flora present in a given environment (for example, in soil or water), biopolymers are fully degraded and mineralized to CO2 and H2O.5 The reason biopolymers are 100% degradable is, as they are produced in bacteria as storage material, they have sites where bacterial enzymes could attack to break them down when they search for nutrients. Whereas other polymers – even bio based polymers – will not have these enzymatic sites, so they are not always biodegradable.

One popular class of polymers produced by bacteria which can be used as plastics is called polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA’s). PHA’s are a class of polymers produced in nature by the bacterial fermentation of sugar or lipids. They are produced by bacteria to store carbon and energy when there is a nutrient lacking from the environment. Many kinds of bacteria are able to produce PHA’s, such as soil inhabiting bacteria, and many bacteria in activated sludge, high seas, or extreme environments. 8 As we store fats in our bodies, the bacterium store PHA’s. In an environment that contains all of the necessary nutrients, bacteria grow and reproduce – in other words they produce biomass. However, when subjected to specific nutrient depletion (nutrients such as nitrogen or phosphorus) and excess amount of carbon resources, the bacterium starts storing PHA granules (Picture 3). The moment the missing nutrient is introduced back into the environment, the bacterium starts degrading the PHA granules and continues to produce biomass. Therefore, by manipulating the nutrient resources in the environment and providing optimum conditions, bacterium can be pushed to produce PHA’s.[9]

There are metabolic pathways involving various enzymes for the conversion of carbon sources to polymers. Scientists have been trying to genetically engineer bacteria for the increased production of these polymers. In some cases it is possible to over-express the key enzymes in the pathways to achieve increased production of PHA. However, this kind of research takes a lot of time and effort because altering biological activity is a very complicated process and in most cases, cells give unpredictable responses to alterations. By feeding the bacterium with different carbon sources at different conditions, it is also possible to alter the composition of the polymers. Moreover, different strains of bacterium produce different types of polymers; therefore, the range of biopolymer research is very wide. With over 150 different PHA monomers (the repeating unit of polymers) being reported, PHA with flexible thermal and mechanical properties have been developed. 7 Such diversity has allowed the development of various applications.

During his speech at the “2nd International PLASTiCE Conference Trends in Bioplastics” in Slovenia, 9 Dr. Martin Koller explained that there are two types of PHA’s that a microorganism produces. The first type are short length PHA’s (3-5 carbons in the backbone) and the second type are medium chain length PA’s (6-12 carbons in the backbone). While the medium chain length PHA’s can be used for biodiesel production, the short chain length PHA’s can be used as thermoplastics (plastics that can melt with heat, and can therefore be processed with the help of heat). These thermoplastics can be isolated from the organisms they are produced in by solvent extraction, mechanical disruption, or by using hypotonic media (having the lower osmotic pressure of two fluids) for cells that have high intracellular osmotic pressure.9 In the last case, the cells will explode due to the pressure difference and release the PHA’s; deionized water can be used as the hypotonic media. However, only specific strains can be treated with this method. At the moment, the most common technique used for extraction is solvent extraction. These solvents – such as chloroform or dichloromethane – are generally toxic, therefore creating a contradiction with the point of producing biopolymers.

Although not mainstream, some of these bacterial plastics are produced in the industrial world.8 The simplest and widest application for bacterial plastics is for packaging purposes. They can also be used in therapeutic applications, as they are generally biocompatible. Drugs can be incorporated into them, therefore as they biodegrade, they release the drug in a controlled time frame.9 For example, Dr. Martin Koller and his group have just finalized a project called “BRIC – BioResorbable Implants for Children,” funded by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG).10 Their purpose was to isolate a biocompatible polymer produced from bacterium which could be degraded and removed from the body within a certain time. The point of this project is based on the fact that in contrast to the traditional implants that need to be removed from the body after a certain amount of time, such as plates, screws or pins, the newly developed implants could be degraded and removed from the body naturally, preventing the need for a second surgery. This is a great advantage, especially for children, who would suffer greatly from additional surgeries.

Bacterial bioplastics have many other applications; however the biggest obstacle for their usage is the cost of production. During his speech, Dr. Keller stated the production of bacterial bioplastics is around five times more costly than petroleum based plastics. Most of the cost is related with the bioreactors needed to grow the bacterium and the solvents used to extract the polymers. The scientists are hoping to develop new techniques to reduce the cost of the polymers.

It is breathtaking that these creatures we cannot even see with the naked eye have been synthesizing polymers as well as we do, if not even better, and for a lot longer than us. The polymers they synthesize are completely biodegradable, have a constant molecular weight, and do not require toxic chemicals for their production, unlike the synthetic polymers we produce in the lab. They don’t harm nature as we do. And THAT is powerful.

References

1- Simon, Tristan (2007). “Experience Curves in the World Polymer Industry” Utrecht University, Netherlands.

2- Lei Pei, Markus Schmidt and Wei Wei (2011). “Conversion of Biomass into Bioplastics and Their Potential Environmental Impacts, Biotechnology of Biopolymers.” InTech.

3- Coelho Paulo(2008), “The Winner Stands Alone.” pg: 139.

4- http://dictionary.reference.com/

5- Narayan, Ramani (2013)”Bioplastics and Reducing Carbon Footprint.” JCCC Video. Johnson County Community College, USA.

6- Mathias, Lon J. (2005).”Natural Polymers.” Polymer Science Learning Center. The University of Southern Mississippi, USA.

7- Rehm, Bernd H.A.(2010). “Bacterial polymers: biosynthesis, modifications and applications” Nature Reviews Microbiology. Massey University, New Zealand.

8- Chen, Guo-Qiang (2010). “Plastics Completely Synthesized by Bacteria: Polyhydroxyalkanoates”. Plastics from Bacteria: Natural Functions and Applications, Microbiology Monographs, Springer. Tsinghua University, China.

9- Koller, Martin (2012). “Polyhydroxyalkanoates: Biodegradable polymeric materials from renewable resources” Plastice Project Video. 2nd International PLASTiCE Conference Trends in Bioplastics, Slovenia.

10- No name (2013).”Plastics from Renewable Raw Materials:Body automatically breaks down implants” Graz University of Technology, Austria.

11- Nishiyama, Yoshiharu; Langan, Paul; Chanzy, Henri (2002). “Crystal Structure and Hydrogen-Bonding System in Cellulose Iβ from Synchrotron X-ray and Neutron Fiber Diffraction”. J. Am. Chem.The University of Tokyo, Japan.

12- Ritter, Stephen(2005). “Green Success.” Science and Technology. pg: 40-43.

13- Waters Co. (2013). “GPC-Gel Permeation Chromatography”. Web.

Since all monotheistic scriptures come from the one and only God, we should view other scriptures as potentially enriching our understanding of our own scripture. But in the middle ages, almost all readers thought of revelation as a zero sum sport like tennis rather than a multiple win co-operative sport like mountain climbing.

In a zero sum game, any value or true spiritual insight I grant to another scripture somehow diminishes my own. This was the result of the influence of Greek philosophy’s emphasis on the logic of the excluded middle. Something is either true or it is false. There is no other option. If two propositions contradicted one another, one or both of them must be false. If my religion is true, yours must be false.

In modern terms, light could not be both a particle and a wave at the same time. Yet we now know that light is indeed both a particle and a wave at the same time.

This situation did not improve much in modern times. In the last two centuries, university academics have written many studies of comparative religion which they claim are objective and not distorted by their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, academics who treat other religions academically usually do not believe that other scriptures are actually Divinely inspired. Indeed, many academics do not believe that even their own scriptures are Divinely inspired.

They use the same kinds of explanation to understand a revealed religion that they would use to explain secular history and literature. I follow a different model, one I learned from Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Mishnah (an early third century compilation of the oral Torah), states, “Adam was created as an individual to teach you that anyone who destroys a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as if he destroyed the whole world” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5).

And the Qur’an states, “one who kills a human being, unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, would be as if he slew the whole people, and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (Qur’an 5:32). Academics explain the similarity of the two statements by assuming that since the Jewish statement is several centuries earlier than the Qur’an, Muhammad must have heard it from a Rabbi or other educated Jew in Medina.

But I believe Muhammad is a prophet of God who confirms the Torah of Prophet Moses. Muhammad has no need to learn this statement from another human being. Academics might reply that the statement is not found in the written Torah; it appears in the oral Torah, written by the Rabbis in the Mishnah more than 1000 years after Moses.

But the Rabbis maintain that the Mishnah is part of the oral Torah that was passed down from Moses through many generations, just as the Prophet Muhammad’s sayings have been passed down through the generations. Indeed, the Qur’an itself introduces this statement as follows, “It is because of this that We ordained for the Children of Israel ‘one who kills a human being …'” (Qur’an 5:32).

No prophet of God needs to be informed by another human what should be written in Holy Scripture. God is the source of all Divine inspiration. There are several verses in the Qur’an that mention things from the oral Torah. My perspective is that prophets and Holy Scriptures cannot in reality oppose one another because they all come from one source. Prophets are all brothers; they have the same father (God) and different mothers (motherlands, mother tongues, nations, cultures, and historical eras).

All of these produce different rituals and legal systems, but their theology can differ only in small and unessential details. As the sage of Konya, Jalal al-Din al-Rumi says, “Ritual prayer might differ in every religion, but belief never changes” (Fihi Mafih 49). Religions differ because the circumstances of each nation receiving them differ. Where the Scriptures differ, they cast additional light on each other. My belief is based on an important Hadith of Prophet Muhammad: a disciple of Muhammad named Abu Huraira relates, “The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah, and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'”

Following Muhammad’s teaching, I too neither believe nor disbelieve the Qur’an. If I believed in the Qur’an, I would be a member of the Muslim ummah (community). But I cannot disbelieve in the Qur’an because I believe that Muhammad was a prophet and I respect the Qur’an as a revelation to a kindred people, in a kindred language. In fact, the people, the language and the theology are closer to my own people, language, and theology than that of any other on earth.

How does this perspective affect my understanding of their Qur’an and my Torah? I practice “hosgoru.” Unlike those in the past who played the zero sum game, I do not seek some verse in the Qur’an I can dispute or object to. Indeed, this is what the Qur’an itself teaches. “For every community We have appointed a whole system of worship which they are to observe. So do not let them draw you into disputes concerning this matter” (22:67).

One of the major differences between the Qur’an and the Torah is the Torah’s attention to details (names of people and places) and the Qur’an’s emphases on universals. The Torah has long lists of geographical locations and of genealogies that many people today, especially non-Jews, find boring.

The Qur’an rarely identifies locations, and often omits the names of the people it does mention, for example the prophet who appointed Talut to become the first king of Israel (2:246). Indeed, Muslim commentators disagree about many of these details. Some say the prophet who appointed Talut king of Israel was Samuel and others think it was Joshua or Simeon.

These disagreements occur because many commentators do not use the Bible to fill in the details for the generalities of the Qur’an. Sometimes the Qur’an refers to nameless Messengers sent to a nameless town and no additional details can be added because there is no parallel in the Torah (36:13-29). In this case, even the punishment is only a vague “single blast and all became corpses” (26:29).

This lack of detail points to the Qur’an’s universal and ongoing Divine call for all human societies to repent and reform themselves.

On the other hand, many Rabbis get caught up in the details of the Torah and even expand them into super details. Thus, the rules relating to dietary observance of Passover and prohibited work on Shabbat have multiplied endlessly.

We need to learn from the Sunnah of the prophet as narrated by Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38).

Another important lesson from the Prophet’s Sunnah, as narrated by his wife Aisha, says, “Whenever the Prophet was given an option between two things, he used to select the easier of the two as long as it was not sinful; but if it was sinful, he would remain far from it” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 147).

This is the path that I and most Reform Rabbis have taken in the last two centuries. If Orthodox Jews in the time of Muhammad had followed the prophet’s teaching, Reform Judaism (the largest of several different religious groups of Jews in North America) would have begun 14 centuries ago, instead of only two centuries ago.

The Qur’an was also far ahead of its time in many other ways. One of the most important ways is the Qur’an’s oft repeated statement that believers (Muslims) should believe in all the messengers of God. This message of religious pluralism and toleration is sorely needed in the 21st century.

The Qur’an states: “They say that none will enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. That is their wishfulness. Say ‘Produce your proof if you are truthful'” (2:111).

At the time of Muhammad, both Orthodox Rabbis and Catholic Priests did claim that only their own believers would enter Paradise. The Qur’an instructs Muslims that this claim is not based on the Jewish or the Christian scriptures but only on the desires of those people who make these claims. In truth, nowhere in the Torah of Moses, the Zabur of David, or anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible is this claim that only Jews will enter Paradise asserted.

The great Sage Hillel, who lived in the first century prior to the birth of Jesus, taught that, “The righteous of all nations have a place in Paradise” (Tosefta Sanhedrin). Jesus also taught, “In my Father’s house are many dwelling places; if not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you” (John 12:2).

But generations after the death of Jesus, claims were made in his name, that only those who believed Jesus was the son of God, who died on the cross to save all humans from going to Hellfire, would be able to enter Paradise. In reaction to these polemical Christian claims, some Talmudic Rabbis began to counter-claim that only Jews would enter Paradise.

Yet even then the Rabbis did not think that eternal punishment was the fate of all those excluded from Paradise. Gehenna-Hellfire was conceived of as a temporary abode generally believed to last a maximum of 12 months.

The great sage, Rabbi Akiba, stated, “The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna lasts 12 months” (Mishnah Eduyyot 2:10). This is repeated in the Talmud (Shabbat 33b), and elsewhere it is stated that sinners, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are punished in Gehenna-Hellfire for (up to) 12 months (Rosh HaShanah 17a).

Thus the Qur’an accurately states, “They say, ‘the Fire will not touch us except for a fixed number of days” (2:80). The Qur’an instructs Muslims to say to both Jews and Christians, “If the abode of the Hereafter with God is reserved for you alone, excluding other people, then long for death … but they will never long for it” (2:94-5).

So, the answer to those who claim that, “none will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian,” is “No! Rather, whoever submits his whole being to God as one devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing him, his reward is with his Lord, and all such will have no fear, nor will they grieve” (2:112).

Thus, the Qur’an affirms that those Rabbis who strayed from the words of Hillel, “The righteous of all nations have a place in Paradise,” were wrong. Those followers of Jesus who abandoned his teaching, “In my Father’s house are many dwelling places,” and instituted the doctrine that Saint Augustine espoused, “No one can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation,” are also wrong.

Tragically, during many centuries of Medieval debate between the three religions, everyone thought that religion was a zero sum game (one winner or one truth vs. many winners or many truths, i.e. soccer or tennis vs. hiking or mountain climbing).

Thus, some Muslim commentators also began to take the same exclusionary view condemned by Prophet Muhammad by adding specific details of theological belief to the statements in the Qur’an that stress a simple and firm belief in the one and only God: “No! rather, whoever submits his whole being to God as one devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing him, his reward is with his Lord, and all such will have no fear, nor will they grieve” (2:112).

And even more explicitly, “Those who believe (Muslims), those who advocate Judaism, Christians, Sabeans, whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day, and does good righteous deeds, surely their reward is with their Lord, they will not fear, nor will they grieve” (2:62).

Thank God, in 21st century America the majority of most religious groups now believe the teachings of the Qur’an cited above (2:112 and 2:62).

A survey of over 35,000 Americans in 2008 found that most Americans agree with the statement: many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life. Among those affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including 82% of Jews, 79% of Catholics, 57% of evangelical Protestants and 56% of Muslims (from the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2008, Pew Research Center).

Thus, in the 21st century United States most Christians, Jews, and Muslims have rejected the zero sum mind set and believe in the Qur’an’s teachings, “If God had so willed He could surely have made you a single community, but (He didn’t) in order to test you by what he has given you. Strive then, in competing in good works” (5:48). For ultimately, “On the Day of Resurrection God will judge between you about what you differed” (22:69).

Only those who reject God by disbelief or by unrepentant evil activities will be the losers when Judgment Day comes. But many, perhaps most, theologians will learn that they might not be as smart as they thought they were.

In conclusion, it is very important to understand that “religious pluralism is the will of God” is very different from religious, moral, or cultural relativism. Relativism teaches that all values and standards are subjective, and therefore there is no higher spiritual authority available for setting ethical standards or making moral judgments.

Thus, issues of justice, truth or human rights are, like beauty, just in the eye of the beholder. Most people, especially those who believe that One God created all of us, refuse to believe that ethics and human rights are simply a matter of taste. Religious pluralism as the will of God is the opposite of cultural or philosophical relativism.

The fundamental idea supporting religious pluralism is that religious people need to embrace humility in many areas of religion. All religions have always taught a traditional anti self-centered type of humility. Religious pluralism also opposes a religious, philosophical, and self righteous intellectual egoism that promotes a tendency to turn our legitimate love for our own prophet and Divine revelation into universal truths that we fully understand and know how to apply.

Religious pluralism teaches that finite humans, even the most intelligent and pious of them, cannot fully understand everything the way the infinite One does.

This is true, for every human being, even for God’s messengers themselves. When Prophet Moses, “who God spoke with face to face, as a person speaks with a friend” (Exodus 33:11) asks to see God face to face, he is told, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see My face and live” (33:20).

Similarly, in the Qur’an, Prophet Jesus admits to God, “You know everything that is within myself, whereas I do not know what is within Yourself” (7:116). When Prophet Jesus was asked, in private, by his disciples, “What will be the sign for your coming (back) and the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) Jesus warns his disciples about all kinds of upheavals and false Messiahs that will come. Then Jesus concludes by saying, “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the son: only the Father” (24:36).

A similar statement was made by Prophet Muhammad when he was asked, “Tell me about the Hour.” He said: “The one questioned about it knows no better than the questioner” (Muslim book 1 Hadith 1&4).

God taught the general principle of epistemological humility through his Prophet who taught his followers, “I am no novelty among the messengers. I do not know what will be done to me, or to you” (Qur’an 46:9).

Only on Judgment Day will the answer to the theological differences that divide us now be resolved. “To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open path. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (He desires) to test you in what He has given you: so (compete) strive in all virtues as in a race. The goal of you all is Allah. He will (on Judgment Day) show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute” (5:48).

This past April has been a busy one for The Fountain staff. We have had gatherings with our contributors in several states in the US, including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Travel is a great joy when merged with thoughtful discussions – this is at least what we believe at The Fountain. Discussions are a feast when you have participants, each a brilliant mind in their respective fields, and many of whom are faculty or PhD candidates. We are especially thankful to the Dialogue Institute in Jackson, Mississippi, for bringing together a very distinguished group of guests who eagerly shared their views and asked inquisitive questions.

The Dialogue Institute in Houston has been organizing roundtable discussions every Sunday in cooperation with The Fountain, and the “consumerism” theme we laid down in April reminded us of our personal and societal weaknesses as we are tempted to consume more and more, usually unnecessarily. In Pittsburgh, we visited a recently formed study group of Americans (hosted by Peace Islands) who pick an article, and read, discuss, and contemplate over it when each new issue comes out. And finally, we gladly enjoyed a faith-filled event titled “When Beauty Whispers to the Heart,” an interfaith conference organized in cooperation with Sacred Heart University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Peace Islands Institute.

Panels and one-on-one talks about the magazine and its ethos followed one after another, filling a whole month, all the way from the glacier covered Niagara Falls in Buffalo to the warm shores of Miami. We did not have to survive shark attacks and a volcanic eruption, as Walter Mitty of Life magazine did in the movie; but we at least had the same feeling of “drawing closer” when we conversed with our contributors and readers. These gatherings meant a lot to us, as we believe our contributors are among “those who will shape tomorrow with their ideas will be the guides of generations to come. The way they think and reason will redesign the world, and their messages will brighten the future” (quote from the Lead Article).

What you will find in this issue is another journey across an ocean of ideas, from the meaning of true liberty which “Laborers of Thought” of the future will aspire, to the psychology of morality and how we apply it in our everyday lives; from a dialogue of flowers to the artificial replacement of a failing heart. A book review on Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an explains the nature of freedom to practice any faith in North America and how it has evolved since the founding fathers. This review is complemented by Donald Beechers’ “Hearts and Minds for a Country: Nation and Construction of Self Identity,” in which the author discusses the concept of nationalism in the context of Canada, which is by definition an immigrant nation.

The man had only fallen unconscious, but his family thought he had had a heart attack and brought him to emergency. The initial diagnosis was that his artery was almost clogged up due to cholesterol, and the doctor on duty decided to follow a clean-up procedure. This would be my seventh time in a similar operation, so I was not really nervous. But in the eyes of the patient’s family, I saw panic. Their eyes were screaming for help, and watching them made my eyes almost deaf when I finally managed to throw myself into the surgery room. Oh my comfort zone: staff only.

As the operation started, the serpentine cord that carried the visualization instrument gradually made its way towards the patient’s heart. The walls of the arteries were covered with black remains, fatty tissues were hanging down here and there, and minor clogs were built up at sharp turns. I remembered my dad, who was a plumber. Many times, he was called into the “staff only” rooms for clogged pipes. In contrast to my love for them, the “staff only” rooms were his nightmare. “Poor dad,” I thought, pitying him, even if it was thirty years later.

“Go on,” came an unknown voice, waking me up from my childhood memories. “Where,” I asked in my mind. Then I realized that the camera was showing inside the heart. Looking from within, it only made sense that the man fell unconscious. How could such a heart support the demands of a body?

“He probably hasn’t had a refreshing breath for a long time, and certainly wasn’t able to run with his grandchildren,” I murmured.

“He never did that anyway, so that he should suffer from not doing it now!” answered the unknown voice.

“This is not the time to critique. He is in our hands waiting for help,” I replied.

“Well, do what you can. Even if you can fix the entrance, you won’t be able to fix me. By the way, would you like a drink?”

Wasn’t that a kind heart? Learning who my host was, I rejoiced despite the stress. With the heavy illumination in the surgery room, I was in fact terribly hot at that moment – as if helping my mom while cooking in the kitchen. “Yes, please, a cold drink would quench my heat,” I accepted.

“I am sorry, but I only serve hot drinks here. Cold drinks are served in dead bodies,” teased the heart. “Here is your energy drink.”

“WHAATTT?” I spat all that was in my mouth, and threw the cup towards the heart. The same instant, I received the words of disdain: “Did you just make a heart attack?”

“You are, sir, sucking the man’s blood,” I replied in anguish.

“That is what’s available in here,” answered the heart teasingly. “I have production wells extending throughout his body, and I drink this warm energy drink constantly. Without it, I cannot live. If I cannot live, he cannot live. So it is a win-win situation, you know what I mean?”

“Wait a minute, aren’t you the embodiment of love and compassion? Aren’t you supposed to give without a return?”

“That is true, indeed so. But there is another condition on the same agreement, which says that I have all the rights to defend myself if my carrier denies my rights of privacy.”

A heart defending its privacy from its carrier! I was as bewildered and as silenced as a fetus going through birth. The heart took my confused pause as a request for explanation.

“My carrier developed a habit of welcoming thieves as if guests into me, and they kept robbing me,” the heart cried, collapsing. “After a while, I decided to separate myself from him, even if that meant the end of my life. The first thing to do for winning my independence was not to use his blood. So, I started narrowing the artery that was feeding me. After all, I was doing something I was familiar with: giving without taking. That rendered me weaker; but he became weaker, too. With his health gone, no thieves were interested in him anymore. And I was safe from both my carrier and the thieves.”

Strained between anger and affection, my breaths became deeper and stronger. For relief, I turned my head around. Then suddenly, I started shaking from what I happened to see. “What is this door,” I managed to ask at last.

“Don’t you see the sign? It is a room for staff only.”

“Staff only!” I smiled as if I had found water in the desert. But after realizing that I wouldn’t be able to go in there, I went through a storm of sentiments: outcast, unable, sad.

“You feel distanced, right?” asked the heart, to which I nodded.

“That sign is there so that the grown-ups don’t enter. If you were a child, you would not be able to read it, and would directly rush in without asking.”

“Why children only?” I inquired.

“If you can go through this door in your heart, you can get out into the heart of another person. And if you are a grown-up at that moment, you are going to be treated like a thief in that heart. But if you are a child, you are going to be welcomed as a guest.”

I listened to the heart, waited in front of the door. I thought about the people in my life, especially those with whom I wanted to be closer. This door could be the key. I raised my hand, held the door knob. But then I thought about what I was going to face on the other side. Was I entering as a child? Or was I an ambitious adult who was going to be treated as a thief? It was also possible that my grown-up state could trigger the heart on the other side to react to its carrier just like this one; and that would mean trouble for one of my loved ones…

I certainly was not staff… I stepped back from that door for staff-only, as if waking from a pleasurable dream that I did not want to leave. Then, the heart gently told me: “Go upstairs to the kitchen, now; you are expected to open a clogged pipe.”

They will not be free riders who just fiddle and suffice with what is given. No, when need be, each and every one of them will be sure to strike water from the hardest stones as Moses did and split rampant waters to lead the way.

They will know to wait when they need to wait, and they will know to act when they need to act. At times, they will come down on the earth like lightning. Yet, at other times, they will know to avoid violent storms and wait for the season of clear breezes. They are quick and bold, but their actions do not lack thought. Their minds are enlightened, their decisions exact, and their conduct measured.

They see no harm in relating to any idea or school of thought. But the direction of their hearts is immutably fixed on their own foundation of faith. For them, even the most lustrous movements of thought are not worthy of concern if they ultimately fail to relate to their faith. That is, they will not struggle to reclaim rivers that will not water their lands or feed their lakes.

Their power is derived from the truth and it is the truth for which they endeavor. However, they know that power is not without aim or place, and they know to be prudent when they cannot match the power of their adversaries. Shallow in appearance, they are smart and wise.

They are candid and sincere with friends. Their insight warmly accommodates their foes. In their world, heart and reason go hand in hand; friends are not ignored and foes are not cast away by vitriol.

Their anger never extends to cruelty. Yet, their leniency does not tolerate injustice. Their blessed atmosphere is free of the wantonness of the cruel and the wailings of the downtrodden.

They have resolve and determination. Neither worldly concerns, nor the desire for Paradise can entrap them until the day of true festivity. They incessantly exude the unparalleled incense of the transcendence.

They serve as a spiral cord between their communities and the truths of the realms beyond the heavens. This cord will never break, even though malevolent hands try to tear it apart, time and again. They are neither scared of the flames nor intimidated by the cannons of tyranny, because they have often countered infernos and crushing blows.

For them, true liberty lies in connection to the Divine Truth. Therefore, every exertion of the carnal self on the path of the Divine engenders an exhilaration of worship and infuses the faithful with interminable joy. This is particularly true when the soul is way beyond the primal human wants and pleasures, nestled in the safe haven of the heart …

Those who will shape tomorrow are always in confrontation with the carnal self. They are so composed that they will not be deceived into the positions granted by the good will of other people. They are never spoilt by their own achievements, grand as those achievements may be, or by the respectful ranks others ascribe to them. When the time comes that their names are heard everywhere and their reputation knows no limit, they will remain the same modest and unpretentious individuals they were when they first assumed the sacred duty. This modesty and this unpretentiousness will be embroidered with nobility and dignity.

They will never become beggars who seek reciprocation in return for the deeds they perform for the sake of their people. For them, beggary is to be abhorred, even if they are in utter need. For begging would mean doing what they despise most – receiving double of what they gave to their people.

Once again, we beseech the help of an elevated generation whose approach is imminent on the horizon. We pray, knowing that the Merciful God will not disappoint us.

In our times, the Big Bang Theory is generally accepted to be the starting point of the universe. When the Big Bang happened, the universe and light were simultaneously created. The universe came into being at elevated temperatures from a single particle.

For the events that happened after the Big Bang, the most recent and accepted theory is the Inflation Theory. According to this theory, right after the Big Bang, the universe started inflating at an incredible rate, quantum fluctuations were scattered throughout the universe, and a homogenous inflation happened which allowed galaxies to be formed. Light was created at this period for the very first time.

What is “light” and what is the wisdom behind it?

Ibn Sina was the first scientist stating is was possible to measure the speed of light. And Newton used the marble example to explain the phenomenon of light containing colors of different wavelengths. Modern theories state that light is composed of weightless and charge-less particles called photons. Light is now known to be electromagnetic waves that carry energy as well as having the characteristics of refraction and reflection. A major discovery occurred in 1975, when the Danish scientist Ole Romer was observing the satellites of Jupiter. During this study, he was able to prove that the particle model proved to be insufficient, as was seen from the diffraction of light (changing its direction after having passed a narrow slit)..

Although the wave model is more dominantly talked about in modern times, it is known that both models are true.

Femto photography

Various experiments have been done to understand the properties of light. One of these experiments was a photography technique applied by Dr. Edgerton, in 1964. In this photo, the image of the apple right after the bullet passed through it was captured. This famous photograph, which was captured in a millionth of a second, inspired Prof. Ramesh Raskar from MIT (USA) to take a photo of light in order to see it by naked eye. Raskar developed a camera that can take up to a trillion frames per second. This would make it possible to visualize the human body without using X-ray. The wave like property of light was studied by this new technology called Femto Photography.

Light is the fastest substance in the universe. As long as it does not change its environment, the movement of light is linear because of its electromagnetic wave properties. If it passes to a different but transparent environment, it continues its movement. If it passes to an environment where the refractive index is larger than its original environment, it comes closer to the line accepted to be vertical to the surface (normal) and vice versa.

The speed of light and all electromagnetic waves in an empty, airless environment is 299,792,458 m/s (300 thousands kilometers). With this incredible speed, the Earth could be toured 7 times a second. The letter c represents this speed in science, and it’s based on the Latin name for speed: celeritas. While passing through any object (air, water, glass etc.) the speed of light is smaller than c.

If a laser pointer is activated for a thousandth of a second (a couple of femto seconds), a photon cluster is formed which is approximately 1 mm in width. This cluster of photons has a speed millions of times greater than the bullet passing through the apple.

What if the femto photo of a cluster of photons that were sent from the bottom of a glass bottle full of water was taken? How would the light appear in slow motion? Although this short journey of light takes place in less than a nano-second, it is possible to capture how it moves in slow motion by reducing the speed ten billion times with the femto camera. With this femto camera, it is possible to measure the average speed of light in a tomato and gain knowledge about its interior texture and quality without touching it. When a bunch of photons are sent to the surface of a sample, a three dimensional picture of it can be constructed by the high resolution detection of the photons that are reflected at different times from the sample.

With the science of light, technology for transportation that does not require a driver can be developed, creatures can be saved from natural disasters by the reflection of light on windows, and many new age surgery technologies can be developed.

In order for the eye to see, light needs to exist. One of the latest and most astonishing pieces of research done about light is the femto photography technology. By this technology, it will be possible to visualize the human body without the use of X-ray. If there was a femto camera incorporated in our cell phones, we would be able to understand the quality of the tomatoes we were buying when we went to the grocery store without having to touch them. By harnessing the great gift of light, we can make the great gift of life even better.

These situations entail the psychology of morality-an intriguing and growing topic of study. Significant and insightful research has been completed in an attempt to understand more about morality from a psychological perspective. Many questions have been raised in the realm of morality and ethics, such as: How do people think about morality? What are people’s concepts of a moral person? How do people apply morality in conflict and their everyday lives?

In psychologists’ attempts to answer these questions, we learn more about mankind as a whole and about our own individual selves. This article will summarize some of the most prominent studies in the field of morality psychology and use these perspectives to help attain a better understanding of who a moral person is and what they do.

Exploring differences in moral foundations between political liberals and conservatives is one interesting area of research in the psychology of morality. Graham, et al. (2009) established a definition of a moral foundation as consisting of five moral intuitions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The researchers found that political liberals were likely to chiefly judge a moral situation along the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity aspects, while conservatives were more likely to use all aspects equally. The results of this study seem to agree with the ideologies of liberals and conservatives. Considering that conservatives are less receptive to changes in political policies and culture, it makes sense that they would place a high value on the authority of a government, and also that they would give more weight to protecting their in-group from outside influences. This ideology may in turn stem from a Hobbesian worldview (Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679) in that everyone is at the most basic level self-interested, and therefore they must protect their own interests from the interests of others.

Liberals, on the other hand, would be more likely to go against the authority of the government or in-group concerns if they felt a moral injustice was being committed. This may be one reason why conservatives sometimes accuse liberals of not being patriotic.

As for the purity/sanctity condition, there is some doubt as to whether it can really be considered a moral facet. Conservatives seem to think that this is the case, but liberals on the other hand give nearly zero consideration to aspects of purity during moral judgments, as it seems to be an unrelated concept. Additionally, this idea may explain why conservatives tend to be against gay marriage, while liberals are more likely to support gay relationships.

Before moving on, let me pose another question: which action is more moral, volunteering time in a soup kitchen or keeping your vow to your wife not to go to the racetrack and gamble on payday?

Now we turn our attention to an enlightening study by Janoff-Bulman, et al. (2009) that analyzed morality in a different way: by categorizing it into two distinctive types, prescriptive and proscriptive. Prescriptive morality has a commendatory and encouraging nature, and it is characterized by taking positive action and the question what one should do to be moral. Proscriptive morality is more commanding and punishing in its aspects, and it is characterized by preventing negative action and the question what one should not do to prevent immorality. The distinction between the two can be states as helping versus not harming.

The researchers provide evidence for these two different types of morality in their studies. For example, in one experiment, participants were asked to describe what they thought it meant to be-depending on the manipulation-either moral or immoral. They had correctly predicted that proscriptive morality tended to have more concrete and defined language, so as to assist its adherents in knowing exactly what actions are wrong. Prescriptive morality’s language was more abstract so as to include more possible right actions.

It was also found that people were more disapproving when someone committed forbidden acts as opposed to someone failing to perform righteous acts. This finding-that it is generally more objectionable to see an overtly immoral act than to see a failure to commit a positive act-is strong evidence for the prescriptive/proscriptive distinctions of morality.

There are many more questions about morality researchers are asking. For instance, what lies behind the rationalization of a racist behavior or attitude? How are people’s moral principles influenced by the particular identity of the individuals involved? Uhlmann, et al. (2009) examined these topics. Most of us tend to think of ourselves as having a relatively stable moral standing, but this study showed that for most people, this simply is not the case. People were presented with different moral dilemmas that measured if they would support either a consequentialist solution or a deontological solution to the dilemma. According to the researchers’ hypothesis, changing some details of the scenario could influence people’s preference for either consequentialism (the idea that it is permissible to commit an action that would normally be considered immoral for the benefit of the greater good) or deontology (the idea that there are some actions that are morally wrong under any and all circumstances); this is in fact what they observed.

They observed that political liberals were more likely to sacrifice a white man to save a black group of people and less likely to sacrifice a black man to save a white group. The reverse effect was observed for conservatives in that they were more willing to sacrifice a black man to save a white group and vice versa. They also found that conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of Iraqi civilians by American forces than the unintentional killing of American civilians by Iraqi armed forces.

These results provides a striking example of how people’s moral concepts can change when the specifics of those involved in the moral equation change, which in turn suggests that people value some lives more than others. Conservatives, in particular, seem to value people who are part of the in-group over people who are not. This study also suggests that liberals may actually devalue in-group members in an attempt to maintain a non-racist morality.

Another major question is how do religious concepts and the knowledge that one’s actions are being judged affect how people behave morally? The following study (Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007) asked participants to play a game that would measure their generosity towards total strangers. The researchers discovered that people who were primed with words relating to God and religion were more generous on average than those who received no priming. The researchers also found that priming people with secular concepts of moral institutions had the same effect.

These results provide strong evidence that people will try to act more morally if they have some idea in the back of their minds, whether conscious or not, about being judged in some manner for their moral actions. This does not have to apply exclusively to religious concepts, as the results of this study show. As a matter of fact, related research conducted by Bateson, Nettle, and Roberts (2006) showed that just the indirect suggestion of being judged by other people was enough to reproduce this effect-an increase in moral behavior. Specifically, they saw a three-fold increase in the amount paid for drinks supplied on an honor system when the image associated with payment resembled human eyes versus a control image. Apparently, a pair of eyes is enough to trigger a conscious or subconscious idea of being watched and judged.

What is known about the neural activity of the brain itself with regards to moral judgments? What roles do cognitive and emotional processes in the brain play in thinking about morality? Greene et al. (2004) conducted detailed biological mapping of brain neuronal activity of individuals during their thought processes that went along with solving hypothetical moral dilemmas. It was observed that areas in the brain associated with abstract reasoning and cognitive control-regions noted included the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex-were found to be more active during very difficult moral judgments where utilitarian resolutions require violation of personal moral convictions. They concluded from their work that utilitarian moral judgments rely more on cognitive processes and abstract thinking, whilst more personal moral judgments relied primarily on social-emotional processes.

This is good evidence for two different types of moral processing-cognitive or more logical, and emotional or more personal. During this study, Greene and colleagues also considered the degree of personal relatedness of a scenario with the likelihood of utilitarian resolution, and therefore the associated cognitive processes and abstract-thinking brain regions. They looked at what happens when you alter the classic moral dilemma of the runaway trolley car (Thomson, 1986) by making it either more personal or less personal. It was observed that people were more likely to engage in utilitarian calculations when the harm was less personal-in the case, that involved pulling a lever to kill a person-as opposed to when harm was more personal, in the case requiring pushing someone off of a bridge.

Morality is often connected to religion and religious values, and a natural topic to investigate is the role that sacred values may play in moral psychology. Ginges et al. (2007) examined the Israeli-Palestine conflict in an attempt to answer the question of how sacred values are involved in the resolution of political conflicts. The researchers wanted to shed some light on several issues related to sacred values in political conflict – namely, how do instrumental incentives, such as monetary gain, affect compromise with sacred values?

Interestingly, they observed that adding instrumental incentives to hypothetical deals involving the forfeiting of some sacred value actually made the subjects who held sacred values more opposed to and outraged about compromise than if they simply offered the compromise on its own. They also found that these people were less opposed to compromise if the deal also stipulated that the opposing party would give up one of their own sacred rights.

These results are important in that they show how radically different sacred values are from instrumental values. Sacred values are, for the most part, non-negotiable, except in the cases mentioned above, and it seems as though the idea of offering something of instrumental value in an attempt to negotiate the non-negotiable only serves as an insult to those who hold these sacred values. It is only when some other sacred value is offered up that we see some willingness to compromise, suggesting that sacred values cannot be compared with instrumental values, but they can be compared to other sacred values. Because of this, one may wonder whether sacred values can really be considered truly uncontestable, as opposed to simply a different type of value that is not comparable with more material principles.

An important side of the psychology of morality concerns how people perceive the moral legitimacy of authority under different circumstances. More specifically, how much of a moral investment do the participants have in the moral issues. The researchers Skitka, et al. (2009) correlated an individual’s general degree of moral conviction with how much they either supported or agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on physician-assisted suicide in 2006 that prevented the Attorney General from prosecuting doctors in Oregon who operated under state law. It was discovered that the degree of moral investment a person had about this decision increased the variance of people’s perception of the legitimacy of authority. More specifically, people who supported the decision with high moral conviction more strongly supported the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction, and people against the decision with high moral conviction more strongly opposed the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction.

These results are strong evidence for the idea that our perceived legitimacy of authority is intimately tied with our moral conviction on the issues that matter most to us. In other words, if the government made a ruling that we did not agree with, but did not care much about (for example, the ruling that pizza is a vegetable), we wouldn’t have much reason to deny the legitimacy of the government. However, decisions made about issues we have a strong moral standing on tend to either strongly reinforce or strongly undermine the perceived legitimacy of authority in our attempt to reconcile our moral standing versus the decree of authority. Additionally, a study could be run to test the hypothesis that liberals would be more willing to deny the legitimacy of the government, and conservatives would be more willing to affirm the government’s power.

We believe it is moral to care about others and give charity, but what motivates the moral response of giving? Some psychologists are interested in this question. Olivola & Shafir (2011) found that people were willing to give more money to a charity if they were required to run a marathon as opposed to simply attending a picnic. This finding shows that associating donations with self-sacrifice or suffering activates people’s concepts of morality.

How could we measure if having concepts of justice and fairness cause people to strengthen their moral responses as well? An experiment might be set up in this manner: one group of participants would be told that they would be donating to a village in Africa that is suffering from a drought, and as a result, running low on food. The other group would be told that local rebels are constantly raiding the village and taking their food, thus depleting their food supplies. We would then measure how much people would be willing to donate to the village in each situation. The condition of need arising from a natural disaster should not activate concepts of justice and fairness; however, even if some people think suffering from droughts is an inherently unjust event, the second condition – need arising from a military-type attack – should greatly outweigh the first in terms of justice/fairness considerations. Based on the results of the Olivola & Shafir (2011) study, it is reasonable to expect that people would donate more money to the people being raided, since that condition should activate moral concepts such as justice and fairness.

What do these studies tell us about what a truly moral person is? Let’s first look at the five moral foundations again, from Graham, et al. (2009). It appears that a truly moral person bases their judgments primarily on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. This is because there can be situations where authority or in-group concerns can conflict with harm and fairness considerations, and in these situations the latter set of moral outlooks should prevail. One only needs to consider an example such as this: imagine you are asked to commit atrocities in the name of your country. It should be clear that these atrocities couldn’t be justified in this way. Based on the results of Skitka et al. (2009) such a request may even lead one to deny the legitimacy of whatever authority commanded this action-which is what a truly moral person would and should do in that situation. For reasons like these, harm/care and fairness/reciprocity should be on the forefront of one’s moral concerns.

Harm/care and fairness/reciprocity are also probably closely related to each other, and in many situations, one moral concept is found with the other. Consider an instance where a person beats his wife in an act of drunken violence. It’s clear that harm/care are involved in this situation, but also consider that we could say that what he is doing is an injustice to his wife. Similarly, suppose an example where a banker swindles a client for thousands of dollars. It’s clear this has to do with fairness/reciprocity, but we could also consider this action as a way of harming somebody else in a non-physical manner.

Research further clarifies a truly moral person as one who leads a disciplined life that builds off of the proscriptive, preventing immorality, and subsequently the prescriptive, acting morally. Such a person must be a role model for everyone else to follow. For this reason, a truly moral person is careful not to commit proscribed acts. A person who performs many good deeds, but also many bad deeds, will appear insincere and hypocritical. In other words, a truly moral person does their best to not mix the good with the bad. Once a person has built a strong moral foundation of avoiding proscribed behaviors, he or she can branch out and help others with ever-increasing frequency. Furthermore, with regards to the study on the effects of being watched, a truly moral person acts in every situation as though he or she is being watched or will be judged later on, even if they know that they are alone. This is because they know that any action they do may have consequences at some point, either immediate or distant.

Work in the area of the psychology of morality sheds some light on how a moral person behaves, however an ideally moral person does what is right with 100% accuracy, and no matter what the circumstances. This is an ideal, and very few people can be considered to be ideal moral examples. Prophets are the only people who could be considered to be morally infallible. Prophets like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, peace be upon them, serve as examples of perfect moral conduct. Even though none of us can hope to attain the rank of a Prophet, every person ought to strive for this ideal and be the best person they can be. If we hope to have any positive impact on the world we must first start by changing ourselves for the better. Only then can we attempt to sincerely help other people around us, starting with our close family and friends, and later on, the larger world.

M. Tarik Ozgur is a graduate of Lehigh University Physiology Department in 2013.

References

• Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology letters, 2(3), 412-414.
• Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18), 7357-7360.
• Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B.A. Liberals and Conservatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (5), 1029.
• Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
• Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521-537.
• Olivola, C. Y. (2011). When noble means hinder noble ends: The benefits and costs of a preference for martyrdom in altruism. The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to Study of Charity, 49-62. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God Is Watching You Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game. Psychological Science, 18(9), 803-809.
• Skitka, L. J., Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Sargis, E. G. (2009). Knitting together an elephant: An integrative approach to understanding the psychology of justice reasoning. In The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 1-26).
• Thomson, J.J. (1986). Rights, Restitution, and Risk Essays, in Moral Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 476-491.

So when it comes to self identity, in what kinds of groups are we most likely to flourish? And if the sociological truism holds that we bond first with those who confirm our identities by being most like us, how large is that group likely to be?

Steven Pinker, in The Blank Slate, states that “The universality of ethnocentrism and other forms of group-against-group hostility across societies, and the ease with which such hostility can be aroused in people within our own society” is one of the greatest obstacles to the extension of identity communities.

Still, for an opener, you can see self and group formation at work in high school cafeterias as clusters of the like-minded create an identity by excluding outsiders, largely through gossip, sometimes around matters as trivial as a dress code, or who owns the latest electronic gadgetry. In effect, they are behaving like little tribes or nations. The fascinating part is the emotional drive to belong, and the fear of exclusion, even from groups arbitrarily defined and ephemeral, including those created in cyber space. These same principles pertain to the 700 gangs which form the social fabric of south-central Los Angeles. Yet, arguably, this same group-making process, through intellectual imagination, might be extended all the way up to the world nation or global community, with each echelon defined by shared interests, activities, values, and memories. A nation, among them, is a mutuality of thinking among persons sharing common purposes. Yet as a principle of social cohesion, it is also emotional, allegiance-oriented, exclusionary, and collectively administered. There is no nation without those who are not members. Nations may also entail chauvinism, loyalty tests in time of threat, and hostility toward non-members. Karl Deutsch famously defined a nation as “a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbors.” In his view, national groups lie to themselves about who they are as warriors or victims in order to justify their aggression. They can act as gangs. That is an unnecessarily dark view of the national experience, but it gets much brighter as we go along.

According to the traditional dictionary definition, a national bond arises, not only because people share a common geographical territory, but because they practice the same mores, speak the same language, worship the same gods, fight common enemies, participate in the same identifying rituals and traditions, share a common stock of stories and a common history, and are often related to each other through blood ties. Cohesion around sporting events and beer preferences is merely a parody of bedrock national identity, although in a self-effacing manner, Canadians like to start there. But it is inversely conceivable that diverse peoples with diverse allegiances may somehow share a common territory without a sense of national identity, because most of those listed characteristics typically defining a nation are simply not shared by the members of pluralistic societies. So if such populations are to find an identity center for themselves in a nation, they really have only three options.

One is to redefine themselves around more vague, generic and inclusive categories of nationhood. Another is to impose uniformity through the melting pot, the Lord Durham solution, through enforced and universal education, imposed official languages, an official history, and official social rituals in the search for a common brand of allegiance. A third is to choose a new concept under which they can unite themselves as a secular community and forget about being a nation altogether. In my view of Canadian practice, we are currently pursuing all three solutions at once. The third option entails falling back upon the universals of our humanity. We might simply acknowledge the common desires and instincts of all humankind as members of the global village, and we might view Canada as a piece of this village in which we listen to each other’s first national stories in a spirit of good will. Is that not the mandate of the Canadian ministry of multiculturalism? To be sure, it would seem only right that we remain free to express the national imperatives of our birthplaces, our mother tongues, our religions, and our respective ethnicities, yet such practices appear to obstruct the formation of a specifically Canadian national identity-or maybe not? The point is very much up for discussion.

Let’s return for a moment to the second option, the nationalist teach-in for all citizens. While recognizing diversity, national governments may also recognize the value in proactively promoting a national brand, but it is a challenging enterprise, because a meaningful nationalism cannot be bought with jingoism, cheerleading, and trinkets, or bread, circuses, and revisionist history. Identity as a mind-state entails a combination of pride and duty that is somehow earned and experienced, who knows exactly how? It is something we instinctively desire, yet identity arises only when we feel emotionally drawn to the collectivity of minds, values, and practices that constitute a nation-the argument becomes circular. We may well wonder how such emotional allegiances may best be fostered. It is a point to which I will return. But it must also be lamented that nations may also include stories of failure; in fact, our literature is full to overflowing with them, and they are studied in our university classrooms with empathetic attention. From that perspective, a lament for our national failure to create a national home for new Canadians may be our most common and unifying characteristic; it is an obsession among our literary critics.

There are many stories to choose from, but I am most immediately reminded of a touching personal narrative written by Elena Maccaferri and translated by her sister as A Bench on Which to Rest. Maccaferri came to Canada from a small village above Bologna, lured to a better life by an Italo-Canadian who promised marriage, but failed to meet her at the dock upon her arrival. A hard and lonely life followed, until she was at last found by a man who had also come from her village. She went on to raise children here, who grew up Canadian in soul and spirit, but Elena could never find a true home away from her native mountains, and was overwhelmed by nostalgia. At last, when her children were grown, she returned to Italy, only to discover that all she once knew had vanished. Canada had found no place in her emotions, but had succeeded only in alienating her even from her own children.

Thomas Henricks stated that “for the most part, people experience personhood in the terms that their host societies offer them.” But that does not always happen, and when that host society somehow fails to offer acceptable terms around which personal values can flourish, the story becomes tragic, as it was for Maccaferri. It was a crisis in personal identity in relation to a nation. And while I’m telling stories about the inability of a host nation to inspire allegiance, I’ll mention another, which goes back to my bachelor days as a young Carleton professor. I had just exhausted my resources on a six-bedroom fixer-upper in Ottawa south with rooms left over to rent out to students. In that little community we had a mysterious roomer who never joined in our collective kitchen exploits and conversations. That was not a problem in itself, but his place in the household came to a strange crisis, nevertheless, when one afternoon a couple of the other students found him in the kitchen counting out huge piles of change. He explained simply that if the laundromat owners were so stupid in their choice of coin boxes, they deserved to be robbed. In no time I had a report upstairs, and went down for an account of my own. It was a sad litany: that his father had come to Canada with promises and expectations, and that to his mind this country had ruined him, giving him only custodial work to do. In his disappointment, he had trained his children to blame the entire country, giving them carte blanche to recover his losses any way they could. The laundromat theft had been conducted as a grievance against the nation. Any Canadian was thus a fair target, and revenge could be taken indiscriminately. What bizarre turns the idea of nation can take; it is a reminder that dialogue can help.

When social groups are organized around adhesion to extended clans or tribes, as they were among the First Nations of the New World, we have an early example of the tribal-nation as a tight working survival community sharing a single culture, and calling for unflinching loyalty. But it was only after the long hiatus of the Dark Ages, and a pre-Renaissance period characterized by city states and assorted feudal principalities that the modern nation emerged in conjunction with the political institutions that framed the autonomous state.

The sixteenth century was the first great age of nation building, with England leading the way under the Tudors. And what an experiment it was. A poem I teach nearly every year is entitled The Faerie Queene, written by Edmund Spenser. It was, unabashedly, a national epic which, by chivalric and allegorical example, set out to teach its readers the great civic virtues upon which the new nation could build, including loyalty to the queen and a sense of duty in the cause of right and justice.

Of course, there is nothing like war and the threat of invasion to quicken a sense of common cause and rouse a sense of national fervor. This is simply a by-product of the craving for self- protection which can only be realized where there is a feeling of all-for-one and one-for-all. Canadians still construct some of their strongest moments of national identity through recollections arising from the First and Second World wars. They are noble stories in which we all can share, dealing with a nation coming of age through the baptism of sacrifice. And we have been reminded at times that the nation expects such matters to be treated with ultimate respect and honor. On these occasions the self is lost for a moment in the experience of the nation, and in that regard it is an experience of extended identity, a national ritual that contains the self within the group. The spiritual philosopher, Fethullah Gulen, extends that loss of self in a nation into a hope for a collective future: “Any nation that liberates itself from the deadly web of selfishness and egoism, stereotyping, excessive entitlements, fear of the future, long-lasting hatred and hostility, and at the same time respects the freedom of ideas and beliefs, while turning away from oppressors, as well as giving rights to the innocent, will surely experience long life.” That requires not only self-investment, but collective monitoring and the mastery of the dialogic self in each member. Such a nation must seek to amplify the positive qualities of experiential identity at the national level. But how to extend that experience to the optimum level of respectful allegiance is a challenging formula to meet.

We are, in fact, discussing a rather elusive state of mind. What is it like to experience an ideal national allegiance? How will it feel to be a participating member? One part of our nature seeks a spontaneous glow of unconditional brotherhood in a community of homogenous values. Another part realizes, intellectually, that we have a mutually beneficial contractual arrangement with fellow citizens only at a legal and organizational level. The German terms for these, often employed by scholars, are gemeinschaft for the former, and gesellschaft for the latter. The contrast can be understood historically. In the Middle Ages, rural populations spent their entire lives within view of their parish church steeples; their thought preoccupations were concerned with fixed or received views invested in work, rituals, and customs which remained unchanged throughout generations. Such communities had little need for debate or discussion, because everyone knew what the others were thinking. These were societies entirely integrated through common religious festivals, language, history, and traditions. These were experiential quality nations generating a sense of gemeinschaft.

Renaissance societies worked outwards from this communal base toward new identities based on restraint in a secular, legislated, legal, and impersonal society. This new order we might call a second experiential quality of nation, conceived as a partnership or a social contract to promote political and economic order. Both the communal nation and the legal nation are principles of group organization and experience, but they do not share a common ethos. For better or for worse, the modern plural nation has been compelled to redefine itself as a society regulated by law, charters, and citizenship-a gesellschaft. My point is that as societies foster libertarian individualism, much of that intuitive and communal sense of the first experiential quality of nation disappears. We have heard much, since the nineteenth century, about alienation, solipsism, existentialism, the anxieties of modernity, the breakdown of the nuclear family, rapid mobility, and transnationalism.

The longing for a tribal structure in size and cohesion prevails even in modern societies. We might try to replace that feeling at the national level through an equitably administered legal society, through education, and through health and welfare support. But that returns us to the awkward crux. Does a true sense of brotherhood and identity emerge only when there are collective bonds that include language, religion, customs, food and festivals, and life on a village scale? States may structure themselves around welfare nets, global educational systems, and the legal protection of opportunity for all, but there remains intense anxiety over the oneness of our collective national experience.

Donald A. Beecher is Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
(Editor’s note: A follow-up of this article can be find in the 100th issue of The Fountain Magazine)

My leaves reflected the moonlight. I looked up at the moon, and it looked back at me brightly. But even its lights seemed somehow unfamiliar to me.

I slowly turned my flower head to the right to watch my brothers and sisters. They all looked pretty exhausted from the long journey, and in their face I saw the same concerns as mine. They, too, felt like strangers here.

Feeling a little bit depressed, I sighed and just wanted to sleep, but in this precise moment a move in the dark bushes that separated the garden from the fence attracted my attention. I caught sight of a small hyacinth. She looked at me curiously, as I smiled at her with mild exertion.

My smile was returned immediately, and visibly excited she gave a sign to those behind her. All of a sudden, there appeared a bevy of hyacinths, closely followed by – I could not recognize them right away – small carnations and roses.

Chatting and giggling, they hopped over to me and I realized that they were thrilled. A small carnation stumbled while running and fell to the ground. The hyacinth, which I saw first, ran back to her and helped her up.

The flower children surrounded me, eyeing me curiously. I smiled back at them kindly, a little nervous. Unexpectedly, they all erupted into laughter. I hadn’t seen such vivid flower children for a long time.

The hyacinth took the little carnation that had stumbled by the hand and started to speak:

“You and your siblings did arrive just now, didn’t you?”

I nodded, hoping that she was old enough to guess that I simply wanted to have my peace and quiet. But unfortunately, she apparently wasn’t… None of these little children were.

A murmur went through the swarm of children.

“Wow! Then you are a tulip, aren’t you? We have heard of you tulips. You guys are the first tulips coming from there,” said the hyacinth, pointing east. Her big eyes were shining with enthusiasm.

Yes, the East. From there, I came here; from a land where the sun rose and sometimes only reluctantly went down again.

My petals cramped. It had been very painful to leave that wonderful place, my home and my people.

As if reading my gloomy thoughts, the hyacinth said:

“It’s really beautiful here in the West! God showers us with water and it is pleasantly cool, sometimes even colder than we would like. Besides, we are well treated. The people are really fond of us.”

These words reminded me of the magnificent brightly lit tulip festivals, which used to be celebrated in the Ottoman Empire, of the nights made into days, and of the wonderful names we have been given, like face of the beloved or lucky star. At once I felt warm all over my carpels.

But once again, grief seized my flower head, and my sepals sank slightly due to their oppressive severity. “How long are you here, now?” I asked the kids, only to divert my attention from these thoughts.

The hyacinth shrugged her leaves:

“I don’t know exactly, but I think it was my great-grandparents, who were brought here.” The other flower children nodded doubtfully. They didn’t know anymore.

“Do you actually know anything of the country from which you, and…” – I briefly swallowed – ” … I originated?” They shook their heads. They were so young, so inexperienced. I smiled and sighed acquiescently, because I had to suppress my fatigue.

“Would you love to learn something about your country from me?” I asked.

The hyacinth politely set me straight:

“Here is our homeland. Here we were born, and here we are living in peace and joy with each other. I know my homeland. But I would pretty much like to hear something about the country where you and our great-grandparents come from.”

Smiling back at her, I was slightly confused about this answer. She was very smart, for sure, and would be a wise flower.

“Well, then sit down. I want to tell you about my homeland that is also the land of your ancestors.” They bounced close, and formed a semicircle around me with their eyes curiously focused on me.

“I am a tulip and I used to live and prosper in the Ottoman Empire, where I was surrounded with every imaginable flower. The Turks love us so much so that we have become an important part of their art and literature.”

Again a murmur was heard, and I had to smile about the naive way of these children. My fatigue and my gloomy mood slowly vanished. It was nice to relive those memories again.

“I don’t want to dive too deep into this topic. But we all are common motifs of the so-called Quatre-Fleur style of the Ottomans in the crafts.” It still made me very proud when I thought of it.

The hyacinth intervened:

“In this country, people say that we flowers have our own language. Each of us has a very special meaning for them and is given away as a present on certain occasions.”

I looked at her in surprise and let her continue. It sounded exciting.

“And not only have the flowers special meanings, but their colors as well.” The children in the semicircle nodded in agreement. “Tulips, for example, symbolize love and affection. Lovers present each other red tulips. Orange symbolizes fascination and blue means a promise of fidelity.”

My stamens trembled with joy when I heard that. How beautiful, indeed!

“This brings me back to the Ottomans,” I smiled at the children. “They also have something like a language of flowers, but somehow different from yours. They, for example, place yellow roses on the window sill, which is saying something like: there are sick or old people living in this house. In this way, passersby were prompted to behave quietly, which they did.”

I gave the flower children a short while to digest this new information, which apparently pleased them.

“By the way, do you actually know where I originally come from?” I asked them. They shook their heads. “My ancestors once left their home as well and were brought into the Ottoman Empire.”

The astonished hyacinth interrupted me:

“Does that mean that this isn’t the first migration?”

I gave her a nod. “Your ancestors were not the first, and I certainly won’t be the last who moves from one place to another in this wide world. There have always been trade relations between nations, and this will certainly remain so.”

The children smiled at me.

“And from where did you come to the Ottoman Empire?” the little carnation asked me timidly.

“Well, my real home … We tulips were already mentioned by the Greek writer Xenophon, who lived from 430 to 354 BC. And in the fourteenth century the Persian poet Hafez introduced my species into literature. He called us Lale, and this name so much appealed to the Ottomans that they adopted it.”

“In Turkish garden culture we had our heyday with Sultan Ahmet III. At that time, a whole era was named after us: The Tulip Era – Lale devri, which began in 1718. The tulip hype exceeded all bounds. There were 1323 different varieties.”

“Do they only have tulips over there?”

I shook my flower head. “No. The Ottomans had many flowers, including hyacinths as well. A part of the courtyard gardens of the Sultan were always reserved for you, the hyacinths; and this is still the case today.”

The hyacinths giggled again and whispered to each other. “See, I told you,” the first hyacinth whispered to the others.

“The poet Fazli, an Ottoman poet, often wove the hyacinth motif into his poems,” I continued. “And in Edirne and Istanbul, there are meadows covered with fragrant hyacinths.”

“Do you also know where we came to the Ottomans from?” another hyacinth, tall but very thin, asked.

“From the gardens of Baghdad and Aleppo,” I told her. A murmur rose again. The crowd of children thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

“How exciting,” they blurted.

Thus I added, “by the way, you folks came to Europe in the sixteenth century.” While they kept on jabbering with each other, the little pink carnation looked at me expectantly. Then she squeaked hesitant and softly:

“Have you also got flowers like me in the Ottoman Empire?”

I smiled at her. “Carnations, you mean?”

She nodded eagerly, and her cute petals shook with her head.

“Of course, even at the time of Theophrastus, in 300 BC, you were already growing. But I guess it was the Arabs who brought you to the Ottomans. At least, you got your name from them. The Arabs call you Qaranful, which is probably derived from the Latin Caryophyllus or from the Greek Karyphillon. And the Ottomans call you Karanfil.”

The eyes of the flower children widened and they tried to repeat the name slowly. Apparently they liked it very much.

For the first time, a small rose spoke up, slowly and gracefully as is to be expected from a rose:

“And what about us? What did we mean to the Ottomans?”

Again, I had to smile. What a question!

“Roses are sacred to all Muslims and, therefore, also to the Ottomans. They play a major role in Turkish culture.” The roses looked at me in surprise. “The Ottomans never left rose petals lying on the floor because rose in their tradition symbolized the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.”

“Wow,” the children whispered reverently, as with one voice. The carnations and hyacinths respectfully looked up at the roses. They, in turn, humbly looked at me, waiting for me to go on, which I did:

Again, the flower children were whispering to each other. At the sight of them, I rejoiced. Now, they were my new neighbors. What luck! With them, I would certainly never get bored.

I looked over at my tulip siblings. They had already made themselves comfortable and were sound asleep. Out of the blue, I felt tired again. “Dear children! Tomorrow I’ll tell you more, if you want. But for today, it’s enough.”

A disappointed murmur rose. But the hyacinth encouraged me.

“Okay friends. She’s right. It’s enough for today. We should go back. Our parents are probably already worried. It’s getting late.”

“But I certainly would like to know more about my ancestors in Albania,” the little carnation complained.

“Arabia! Your ancestors came from Arabia! Just listen more carefully,” the hyacinth chastened her. She stood up and pulled the others behind her. “And now let’s go home!”

“Didn’t you forget something”, the hyacinth asked the flower children. As if on command they all turned again to me and shouted:

“Thank you very much, Mrs. Tulip!”

I laughed. The hyacinth had a very good grip on them.

“You are welcome,” I replied. “Good night!”

“Good night,” they echoed back, and with a broad grin and still fidgety, they retreated. I was alone again, and at once felt a little lonely. So I hurried back to my brothers and sisters.

This country seemed to be very exciting, at least more exciting than I would have thought. I smiled and suddenly did not even remember why it seemed so strange to me in the beginning.