The Fountain: You are an expert on Charlemagne, who was a contemporary of Harun al-Rashid. What can you tell us about these two rulers and their impacts on the cultural history of their civilizations?

Professor Dr. Max Kerner: The inhabitants of the city of Aachen, Germany, associate Charlemagne and Harun al-Rashid with a wonderful story – the story of the white elephant, Abu l-Abbas. In the late 90s of the 8th century, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Baghdad. This trip, of course, had a political dimension to it. At that time, there were two powerful, rival Arab dynasties: the Abbasids in Baghdad and the Umayyads in Cordoba. Charlemagne was also on bad terms with the Byzantine Empire. He hoped that Baghdad could exert some pressure on Byzantium. Harun al-Rashid in turn hoped that Charlemagne would keep the Umayyads in check. This was, from a geopolitical and military standpoint, an almost ideal situation for cooperation.

Culture played a very central role in that mission as well. Firstly, Harun al-Rashid was politically in charge of Jerusalem, which is of paramount importance to all three Abrahamic religions. The holy places were supposed to be accessible to Christian pilgrims, and Harun al-Rashid was capable of securing them this access. Secondly, Baghdad at that time was an important cultural center for scientific and medical research. Charlemagne hoped to get a share in these findings.

The white elephant basically stood for these ideas, and its name, Abu l-Abbas, symbolized them. Abbas was the progenitor of the Abbasids and he was also a relative of the Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, when Harun al-Rashid made Charlemagne a present of a white elephant named Abu l-Abbas, this was not only a gesture of kindness, but it also had great symbolic significance. And Charlemagne certainly understood that. Charlemagne was a Christian, but culturally, he was very open to the Muslim Arab culture.

You are co-editor of a book entitled Institutio Trajani, which ranks among the great mirrors for princes. Can you tell us briefly what a “mirror for princes” is?

A “mirror for princes” is a book that teaches a leader specific rules and conventions that are important for his statecraft. One thing special about this “Institutio Trajani” is that it is most probably written by a Greek author, Plutarch, but the only existent text is in Latin. It propagates a model of society that can be described as organological. In other words, the human body is taken as a microcosm that reflects the great macrocosm of the universe. The human body has different members: head, hands, feet, abdomen, and many other more. And in the “Institutio Trajani” these organs are assigned to the different parts of a society. The Agricolae – those employed in agriculture – are represented by the feet, while the sovereign is represented by the head. The head cannot be ruled by the feet, and the function of the ruler cannot be exercised by the Agricolae. The same applies to the reverse case. This division of tasks results in a hierarchical society with different functions, but all of these functions are vital, not least those of the so-called lower classes (if we use modern sociological terms).

So this mirror for princes attributes specific management functions to the rulers, but all other sectors of society have their special tasks and there raisons d’être, as well. Such an organological model does not meet our present understanding of democracy. But we can accept its substance – namely, the realization that all parts in society have their meaning and importance.

Mirrors for princes are also a common denominator of the Orient and Occident. Works like “Il Principe,” by Machiavelli, “Institutio Trajani,” by Plutarch, or the “Speculum Regum” are classified to be significant mirrors for princes of the Occident. In the East, we could mention the “Siyasetname,” by Nizamulmulk, the “Gulistan,” by Saadi or the work “Kutadgu Bilig.“It is said that the culture of the “mirrors for princes” has been lost in modernity. Who or what has taken its place?

Just like in Latin-European culture, there were also mirrors for princes in Arab-Muslim culture, and the works just mentioned were important examples. But as a matter of fact, this literary genre no longer exists.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, every open society must hold a debate about its society and culture, and about its constitution and state organization. In this context I would assign the role that the mirrors for princes used to play in the past to the intellectuals of today. They write texts, in Arabic as well as in other languages, and in the Arab world as well as in the Western world. Whether they find attention and recognition is a different question, but the mirrors of princes were also sometimes ignored. In German society, admonitory texts like these are mostly written by political scientists, sociologists, philosophers, and – to a lesser extent – by historians. One example of the latter is the “History of the West,” an important work by an historian named Heinrich August Winkler. If we want to know what exactly constitutes the West, then it is not enough to define it solely from the viewpoint of the current situation and problems. It is just as essential to examine how certain things have emerged.

According to Edward Said, since the times the West developed ideas about the East the only thing the East failed to do, was to depict itself in appropriate ways. Do you also think that the Islamic world failed in this task, or has at least been often misunderstood?

Yes, the Islamic world is often mistaken or misconceived in the West, just as, conversely, the Western world is often mistaken or misconceived in Arab-Muslim countries. There are diverse reasons for this, but one thing is clear: both spheres have to search for ways to present themselves adequately and transparently – and, indeed, in the whole range of their orientations.

Islam is not Islamism, Islam is not Jihadism, Islam is not Salafism. All the terrible things we are confronted with daily in the media do not represent Islam. On the other hand, you also cannot separate these phenomena entirely from Islam. They are recent developments that should not be blanked out; quite the contrary. In the same way, you cannot separate the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the persecution of heretics in Christian history from Christianity. An important question is: which role does violence play in the respective religions? And even more importantly: What can we do to prevent violence in the future? Of course there are big cultural-philosophical discussions on this topic.

In his “Ring Parable,” the German writer and philosopher Lessing shows how this type of conflict could be dissolved. In this well-known drama, a father has three sons whom he loves equally. On his deathbed, he gives each of them a ring, emphasizing that this is the heirloom ring, which passed down through generations. So all three are convinced to own the original ring, not just a replica, and quarrel over it after the father’s death. It turns out that it is impossible to find the “real” ring. The only way to find out whether one of them has the real ring is that all of them try to live a life pleasant in the eyes of God and mankind, so that their ring’s powers can prove true. The winner of this competition shall be the one who has the true ring, i.e. the true religion. Each of them may claim in their confidence to possess the true religion, but none of them must claim to have the only truth.

You do not need to carry out large Islamic studies or European studies to realize what the core of this parable is: a plea for religious freedom. And this religious freedom does not endanger the self-claim of the religions. The important thing is: what I claim for myself, I also grant to others.

Today’s societies are interconnected and they have multiple identities. How did historiography in the past deal with heterogeneity, and how does it deal with it today?

It must be a task of historiography, to describe heterogeneity in places where it did really exist. History is supposed to depict the past as it really was. I will give you an example: Spain. Spain for centuries had an Arab-Muslim history. But how does the Spanish historiography deal with this heterogeneity? One thing is that you describe how things worked at that time, but a different thing is to evaluate the occurrences. And historians can’t ignore this task. If you look at the evidence of Arab-Muslim Spain, then it is possible to read and review it in very different ways: In Spain a large caliphate was established that existed for centuries. Then it was recaptured gradually by the Reconquista until, finally, the last Muslims were expelled from Granada. The Mezquita of Cordoba is a terrific evidence, but at the same time, until today, a quarrelsome object. Because in the 16th century, Charles V brought up a cathedral in the middle of this mosque; and even today the bishop of Cordoba does not allow Muslims to assume their typical prayer attitude in front of the mihrab in the Muslim part of the Mezquita. For him, this place and the whole environment is a Christian cathedral now.

Therefore, is this Muslim-Arab episode accepted as a part of Spanish history, or is it rather described as an aberration, a byway, a detour? And consequently: which are the leitmotifs of the country – the dream of Al-Andalus, the Convivencia, the social coexistence, or the Reconquista, the recapture, the fight? At these two keywords – Reconquista and Convivencia – other European countries also chafe. As for my part, I think Convivencia is the only solution possible.

In Turkey, in turn, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul once was one of the greatest churches of Late Antiquity. After Mehmet II conquered the city in 1453, he made a mosque out of it, and in the 20th century, under Ataturk, it was transformed into a museum. Today there are ambitions to reconvert it in a mosque again. These two examples show how difficult it is to deal with heterogeneity.

Traditional historiography usually focuses on a particular cultural identity while other identities are largely blanked out. Do you think that this might change in the next years, for example with regard to the history of Europe? Do you think questions might be raised about the essence of Europe, about some meta-identity that goes beyond national state, but at the same time also determines limits and borders to it?

If you ask “What is Europe?” you also have to ask another question: What are the old foundations of Europe? There are at least three that are repeatedly mentioned:

Firstly: Christianity and the church – a subject with many, highly complex subchapters. (What is the essence of Christianity? What makes the difference between church and Christianity? What about Christianity’s responsibility for the dark chapters in church history?) No one, not even the biggest critics, doubt that Christianity and the church belong to Europe. But there is a debate about whether or not both still are important, and whether Christianity itself possibly has become a mere overhang of tradition.

Secondly: Nation and the nation-state. The nation-state was born in Europe and exported from there into the world. Worse than nationalism is National Socialism, which played a disastrous role in recent German history.

Thirdly: Rationality and science. These two aspects are embodied by universities. We just now sit and talk in an institution of rationality, a technical college (Aachen RWTH), where people think from morning to evening about how things can be improved with technology.

Now it is important to clarify how we deal with these old European basics and to see if we can pull something out of them we are willing to engage with. If we are convinced of our culture, we will be ready to stand up for the good of it, for preserving its values. And in a self-respecting Europe people must say: I am not indifferent to where I come from, but I’m also taking a critical attitude towards Europe. There are certain things that I stand up for and others I want to make sure that we don’t experience ever again.

So, if you think about identity, you must become aware of own identity first. You have to fathom out how it has developed; you have to think about what is worth keeping and what is not.

Another perspective is, as already mentioned, to be open to others. And with regard to plurality and heterogeneity, the following question arises: which role did Islam play in Europe in the past and which role will it play in the future? Let’s have a look at cultural transfers. As the example of Cordoba shows, Europe is connected with the Islamic world in many ways. Most of the philosophical writings of Aristotle were passed to us through a detour, namely via the Arabic translations and commentary of Averroes (Ibn Rushd). Averroes thus has undoubtedly greatly influenced the philosophical tradition of Europe. He also brought a principle to Europe that later became part of European modernity: the doctrine of duplex veritas, the double truth. It holds that there are two claims, the theological one and the scientific one. According to this second claim, science opens up and explains the world to us – the natural sciences just as the engineering sciences, the social sciences, and philosophy. Averroes decisively contributed to the recognition of the autonomy scientific approach.

The question whether there is such a thing as a German Islam fits this context, too. Recently, it was answered positively. And of course there is a German Islam, practiced by all Muslims with a German nationality. In this sense, Islam belongs to Germany, and in the future we will probably not only have mosques, but also Muslim nursing homes and cemeteries, or Islamic holidays. On the other hand, there are many ways to think about Islam and practice it. So what are the characteristics of a German Islam? It adheres to the constitutional requirements of this country, just like Judaism and Christianity also do. And these requirements are clearly defined. Whoever adheres to it has the right to practice his or her religion, and must also be protected in his or her practice.

When it comes to the elaboration of a European identity that includes the highlights of our past and present identity, we need to create a shared culture, which connects the different pluralities with each other. And we need to define a framework in which this shared culture can exist; a framework within which people can practice their own values much the same as the collective ones. This of course is far from being easy, as current events never cease to show.

One of your fields of activity is the training of teachers. Do you have certain guidelines in this field that you attach special importance to?

I search for historical topics from the subject areas mentioned above: Christianity and the Church, nation-state development, and history of rationality. Then we try to interpret them critically according to the current state of modern historiography. In an indirect way, I’m trying to develop a basic understanding of worldviews.

In recent decades we have become information giants. There are endless opportunities to gather endless information. But at the same time, we must be careful not to become knowledge dwarfs, because what is missing quite often is the ability to transform our information into real knowledge. And there is a huge difference between information and knowledge. We live in an environment of picture worlds, superficial and without structure. And we are, as Umberto Eco once put it, in danger of suffocating in information garbage.

Therefore, a major challenge of the universities and the teacher training is to impart knowledge that can prevent this suffocation. Previous generations would have envied us for our technical opportunities. But these opportunities alone are not enough. They require a critical understanding and openness to critical examination. One principle of teachers in training should be to enable them to make their students curious about our world and to give them the means to deal with information in a critical and skeptical way. This, for sure, is a never-ending task. To use Kant’s words: we have to end self-imposed immaturity.

Do you have a final message to our readers?

Yes, and it relates to the personification of a great idea. I have already addressed the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. This wonderful building originally was a church, before it became a mosque, and afterwards a museum. Its name, Hagia Sophia, means Holy Wisdom. So I hope that the holy wisdom represented in this marvelous construction will help us to create a shared culture in Europe. This holy wisdom is characterized by the fact that, on the one hand, it preserves the identities of the majority and the minority in society, guaranteeing autonomy and diversity; and on the other hand, it also seeks common ground. But you can only find common ground and create a shared culture if you develop ideas, if you have certain benchmarks. And there are a lot of benchmarks, for example, in the fields of education, philosophy, literature, art, or global ethics. Maybe we have to create and to formulate a new myth in Europe, which would build on the oppressive experience of the Shoah and also bring forth a reconciliation between Islam and Europe. If we succeed in this while respecting our old European fundamentals, we will create an open Europe. And openness has always been one of the most profound of all European features – yesterday, today, and hopefully tomorrow. So I cherish a kind of openness to the world that is willing to integrate the other, while not forgetting our own accomplishments. May the Hagia Sophia help us to achieve it!

Interview by Abdullah Kulac

The energy we need for our organs to function and to survive our daily activities comes from the foods we eat. A “calorie” is the energy value of a food. One calorie is defined as the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius.

The caloric values of foods are generally known. Food packages bear information about these values, and in some places, the law requires restaurants to list the nutritional values of their meals. However, what is not commonly known is that not everyone receives the same number of calories from the same food. The way the food is prepared or processed influences its chemical structure, and therefore the number of calories it contains. When nutrients pass through the digestive tract, they also undergo a transformation. Billions of bacteria created to help digestion “use up” some of the food’s energy. However, every person has a different digestive system; the precise number of bacteria in each person’s body varies.

For such reasons, people receive different amounts of calories from food, even if they have eaten the same kind of food – and the exact same amount. Calorie calculations without taking these differences into consideration might be mistaken. Even nutritionists cannot calculate definite calorie values without such information. As such, one may not be able to lose weight merely by choosing foods after looking at the information written on packaging.

To begin explaining this, let’s look at how the process of energy consumption works. It starts with the enzymes in our mouth, stomach, and intestines, which are responsible for breaking down complex food molecules into basic building blocks like sugar and amino acids. These building blocks are borne into our cells by means of capillaries. As a result of some chemical processes within the cell, they transform into energy, which is used for carrying out ordinary, everyday actions. The extra calories are stored for later use.

The factors that affect caloric calculations

The calculation of foods’ caloric values began in the 19th century. Scientists developed an approach to approximate the caloric value in one gram of oil, protein, or carbohydrate. Accordingly, a gram of oil gave 9 kilocalories, a gram of carbohydrate or protein gave 4 kcal, and one gram of fibered food gave 2 kcal.

It is not sound logic to assume an average caloric value for foods. The enzymes of the human digestive system are created in such a way that they cannot break fibers down to smaller molecules. These fibers are disposed of when we go to the toilet.

We also eat the bodies, leaves, or roots of hundreds of different plants, be they vegetables or fruits. The cell walls in the body and leaves of some plants are more resistant to digestion than others. In fact, the soundness of the cell walls may vary in different parts of the same plant. Old leaves have more resistant cell walls in comparison to young ones. Generally speaking, if the cells walls are weak, caloric intake will be higher.

The effect of cooking also varies depending on the plant. For example, while the cells of plants like spinach and zucchini are easily broken down, when a plant like water chestnut is cooked, its cells gain a more resistant form. The foods that are not broken down because of their sound cell walls are thrown from our body without proper digestion; thus, it is not possible to absorb all of their calories.

Peanuts, almonds and other types of nuts are digested in a slower and more difficult fashion in comparison to other foods that contain the same level of protein, fat, and carbohydrates. In one study, it turned out that people who ate almonds only got 129 calories, although the packaging claimed they contained 170 calories. Researchers stated that in order to find out the real caloric value of a given food, it is necessary to measure the amount of calories in the urine and waste matter from the bodies of people who have followed the same diet.

There are also explicit differences between foods that can be completely digested. Certain foods, such as honey, are broken down in our stomachs right away. They then join our blood circulation by easily passing through the intestinal walls. For the digestion of fats and proteins however, five-times more energy is required. Proteins need to be broken into amino acids by enzymes so that the energy in them can be used. This point is not taken into consideration when calculating the caloric value written on food packages.

Some foods cause the immune system to be activated because of the pathogenic microorganisms in them. For example, a rarely done piece of meat is a potential danger to our intestinal microorganisms. Even if the immune system does not attack the pathogens in the foods we eat, they still head for the guts in order to recognize whether the alien substance is benign or harmful, and this consumes high amounts of energy. There is no serious study on how many calories the immune system needs to identify an alien substance and, if necessary, neutralize it.

In a research conducted in 2010, one group of people were given sandwiches made from bran bread and cheddar cheese, whereas the others were given sandwiches made from processed cheese and white bread (600-800 kcal). In spite of having consumed the same amount of sandwich, those who ate the sandwiches made from the bran bread and cedar cheese spent twice as much energy in digestion. Therefore, those who consumed the bran bread received 10% fewer calories in comparison to the others. The amount of calories received from foods differs on account of genetic, anatomic, and metabolic differences.

These difference have a serious effect on human nutrition. For example, there can be racial and ethnic differences when it comes to the length of a person’s intestine. At the beginning of the 1900s, it was recognized that Russians have an average intestinal length 57 cm longer than those of people from Poland. On account of this difference, Russians will obtain more calories in comparison to Polish people who consume the same amount of food.

The amount of enzymes secreted in every person also differs according to both genetic differences, and age. For example, while a glass of milk is a source of high energy to some – particularly children – it is not the same for others. Most adult bodies do not secrete the enzyme of lactase, which breaks down the lactose sugars found in milk.

People also have different types of bacteria colonies. Predominantly, two bacteria colonies (bacteroidete and firmicute) are found in human intestines. Research has indicated that there are more intense populations of firmicute in the intestines of obese people. Accordingly, having more than the necessary amount of bacteria in the body increases food digestion and thus causes the body to absorb more food. If these foods supply more energy than the body needs, they are stored as fat.

Some microorganisms are only seen in some people. For example, since Japanese people often consume algae, some microorganisms in their intestines are equipped with the genetic information to code the enzymes responsible for breaking down and digesting algae. This is an adaptive trait humans have: if our intestines stop being suitable for environments for such bacteria to breakdown fibrous foods, our calorie intake will be low, because of the fact that hard nutrients, such as celery or carrots, will not be digested properly.

In recent years, it has been explicitly shown that how food is prepared alters the number of calories the human body can extract from it. Therefore, as the human body digests processed foods rather easily, they provide much energy with little effort from the digestive system. Processed foods also cause the diminishing of the intestinal microorganisms which digest fibrous foods.

On the other hand, as the body extracts more vitamins and nutrients from vegetables, nuts, and whole grains, these all help to maintain the number of beneficial bacteria in our intestines. Those who wish to follow a healthy diet and lessen their caloric intake from nutrients should not eat processed, fried, and well-done foods. Instead, they should eat raw or boiled foods which contain bran and fibers.

As shown, a healthy diet, does not just depend on the type of food, but how that food is cooked, whether it was pre-processed or not, and whether it is swallowed after being chewed well or not. Our health further depends on the diversity and balance of our intestinal microorganisms and flora. It should be noted that without taking into consideration these factors affecting our caloric intake, the benefit of exercise and sports will also be limited.

The second fact is that Gülen views spiritual life as the sole alternative for solving the problems of people in our time. This is one of the dominant themes in Gülen’s world of thought. The Statue of Our Souls, one of his most significant works, is a collection of his essays in which he attempts to establish the guidelines for a revival of Muslim life, in both action and thought, to attain the level of true humanity on a societal scale.

Gülen is one of the most prominent representatives of sunni school of thought, with a balanced understanding of the tradition, and he is recognized for his proficiency of Islamic scholarly heritage. His scholarship is based on almost every relevant discipline and many outstanding scholars ranging from Kushayri to Ghazzali, from Rumi to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, and from there to Imam Rabbani and Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. He benefits from poetry as well as prose when making his points.

Particularly in Emerald Hills of the Heart, he sets the main guidelines for the “life” of the spiritual heart. Imam Ghazzali explained the nature of the heart and its functions from his own perspective in The Revival of Religious Sciences; in his Flourishing of Hearts, he elaborated on deeds of the heart such as sincerity, patience, and reflection (tafakkur). Similarly, in different works, Gülen also describes the heart from a broad perspective. In the Emerald Hills of the Heart, however, Gülen does not only present the basic concepts of spiritual journeying, he also elaborates on the deeds of the heart and shed light on these deeds for people in our time.

The heart from a personal perspective

Gülen points out that the heart serves as a bridge for all goodness and grace to reach a person, though it also leaves the person potentially open to all devilish and carnal urges and recollections. As far as the heart can be oriented to God, it becomes a projector lighting up the entire body, down to its darkest points. The heart is the essential home of faith, worship, and a spirit of perfect goodness, as well as being a lively river of the finely flowing feelings between humans, the universe, and God.

If, however, a person remains stuck in the realm of physicality, the heart becomes a target for the poisonous arrows of Satan. There are countless enemies seeking to deviate the heart from its course, shifting the bed of that river. Lots of enemies, from gloom to unbelief, from long-term worldly ambitions to greed, from lust to heedlessness, and from selfish interests to love for status, lie in wait, hoping to take advantage of the heart’s weaknesses.

The heart is the center of human abilities such as understanding, feeling, sensing, reasoning, wishing, and inclining; it perceives and understands things as far as it can use these traits. Thus, as the center of the mind’s functioning and perception, the heart is constantly monitored by God Almighty. From this aspect, it is “the perceived.” On account of this quality, the heart is referred to as, “the focal point of God’s sight.”
Gülen derived this fact from the saying of God’s Messenger that, “God does not look at your bodies nor your forms, but He looks at your hearts.”

According to Gülen, God Almighty takes individuals as His addresses to the level of their heart’s respective spiritual progress. Accordingly, God Almighty’s relationship with a person who has attained a higher level of divine knowledge (marifa) is more profound and mysterious in comparison to a person with a lower spiritual level. If the heart is atrophied in its abilities due to the person committing grave sins, then the faculties mentioned above will also be affected negatively, and the person will struggle to fulfill their duty.

The heart, according to Gülen, is born from the coming together of divine favor and human essence, and it bears a stamp of the Almighty Sovereign. In this respect, it is closely interrelated with both the spiritual and material realms. This approach is important in terms of the fact that it stresses the significance of the heart’s role between a person and God, as well as stressing the value of a spiritual faculty, which is a crucial means for a person to know God. As a matter of fact, it is a great favor of God to the humankind that He has endowed us the heart, for while bearing responsibilities as faith, worship, and morality, the human is not left helpless, but is supported with the mechanism of the heart, which has the capacity to fulfill these responsibilities in the best way.

Gülen uses a metaphorical description for the heart and refers to it as “a stairway leading to human perfection, a projection of the realms beyond in the corporeal world, the largest door within the human body open to spirituality, the sole laboratory where our selfhood is formed, and the most important criterion of telling right from wrong.”

In the same context, he explains the wisdom of the heart’s existence as, “establishing intimate friendship with God Almighty.” The meaning of the heart’s friendship with God refers to matters of deep faith, as well as to knowledge, love, and fear of God, as well as nearness and familiarity with Him. A heart that realizes these will have fulfilled the purpose of its creation.

While portraying the prototype of an ideal individual, Gülen uses the term “man of the heart.” With this and similar phrases, he evaluates humans in a context of the heart. The people of the heart have merits such as a sound heart, a strong willpower, perseverance, insight, and active patience. Only by means of these will believers attain their due character, qualities, and purity. To quote his own words, “Indeed, the hero of the heart is, as the Qur’an and the Messenger of God have told us, the person of truth, who sees, thinks, and acts with all the faculties of such a conscience; whose sitting and standing are mercy, whose words and speech are mildness and agreement, and whose manners are politeness and refinement. They are the people of heart and truth who reveal and teach others the secret of knowing and perceiving the Creation from the inside, who can express the true meaning and purpose of the Creation.”

Extracting the essence of Qur’anic verses and the Prophet’s sayings, Gülen paints the portrait of an ideal believer, and again refers to the heart as an attribute. According to this approach, people of the heart are merciful, clement, and kind; they listen to their consciences about every idea and behavior. They are the ones who can realize the true meaning and purpose of this life. While writing about depths of the heart, Gülen frequently refers to the faculties known as the secret (sir), hidden (khafi), and the most hidden (akhfa), and he uses metaphors like observation, observatory, beholding, witnessing, binoculars, and telescope to describe various functions of the heart.

The heart from a social perspective

In Gülen’s world of thought, the issue of attaining the level of being human in the true sense is of central importance. He believes that the development of the heart and spirit is crucial in terms of both a person’s relationship with the Almighty Creator and of being a successful individual, beneficial to society. In other words, Gülen believes that the solution for the troubled state of the people of our time lies in the flourishing of their heart and spirit. He expresses this point as follows:

“Although some people today disdain moral values, the inner depths of the human being, and the importance of the life of the heart and spirit, there is no doubt that the route to true humanity passes through them. No matter what some people may think, the successful practice of these dynamics in life offers the only solution that can save the person of the present. People today must be relieved from the social, political, cultural, economic, and various other depressions that are bending them over double, forcing their back into a misshapen twisted form.”

These words reflect both his diagnosis of the disease and ways of curing it.

Accordingly, bringing the heart and the spirit to life is the “sole” dynamic and cure to solve modern people’s depressions. It is a strikingly significant fact that even while referring to the worldly underdevelopment of Muslims and others, Gülen directly comes to the issue of spirituality first and saw it as the starting point for material progress, too. In his opinion, humanity is misguided in its pursuit of physical or material satisfaction when what it truly needs is to fulfill its spiritual hunger. Correcting such an error depends on a holistic approach to the human, by evaluating them with their spiritual aspect.

Another relevant concept Gülen expounds on is a “marriage of the heart and mind.” This is like an initial and indispensable condition to be met. Gülen makes a concise explanation of this concept with the following words:

“The first and concise purpose of our creation is obvious: realizing the meaning of being human in the context of humanity, the universe, and God, and thus reaching the horizons of faith, knowledge of God, and true delight of the spirit. Fulfillment of such a large-scale and succinct plan is only possible with systematic thinking and disciplined action. Such a basic first plan and first action, yet unsuitable for elaborated thought, forms the initial ring in the chain of a virtuous cycle of thought and action. Later, the person begins to experience so many virtuous cycles between the transcendental horizons of the heart and reason’s dawnings of wisdom. In time, actions gain greater perspective toward more complicated thoughts, and thoughts continue by transforming into greater projects.”

In conclusion, we can say that Gülen resembles earlier spiritual teachers in that he evaluates the human as a whole; he is concerned with human’s not only spiritual but also material well-being. This holds true not only on a personal, but also societal level. Gülen sets a spiritual map that begins with faith, leavens with knowledge and love of God, preserves its right state with enthusiasm and loyalty, and attains consistency with delights of the spirit.

It is also possible to refer to this as a civilization of gnosis, or knowledge of the divine (marifa), which can be reached after a long and tiring journey by letting the heart, which has the position of a commander, fully function with all of its faculties. While making particular reference to this issue in The Emerald Hills of the Heart, he puts emphasis on the same issue in many other articles. He envisions a universal civilization of people who attains a revival with their hearts and spirituality. There should be nothing wrong in referring to his as a “civilization of the heart.”

Meaning fear and dismay in the face of a frightening event or situation, utmost astonishment is the feeling of shock which travelers to God experience during their spiritual journey on coming face to face with the manifestations of the Beauty and Grace of the AllBeloved. Although there is no explicit statement touching on it in the Book or in the Sunna, a relation with the verse (12:31), whose meaning is, When they saw him, they so admired him that they cut their hands, can be established.

Some have described utmost astonishment as the shock when encountering an incident beyond one’s understanding and endurance, and power to explain. This can also be described as experiencing the truth that the Divine manifestations exceed the limits of reason, and that love for God goes beyond the limits of patience; and getting into a state beyond one’s capacity of perception.

We add here some further explanations about this state:

Travelers on the way to God feels astonishment when the state in which they find themselves exceeds the limits of their knowledge and perception, and then they go into a state of ecstasy beyond their endurance, where God will favor them with spiritual discoveries disproportionate to their efforts. One can go into ecstasies unintentionally when reciting the Qur’an or performing Prayers, although selfpossession and a feeling of awe are essential to both; the heart can go into spiritual arrhythmia as a result of excessive rapture, destroying the balance and selfcontrol in an initiate; a traveler on the way to God behaves hastily and sometimes in an uncontrolled manner, under the enrapturing influence of witnessing God’s signs, although seeking God always demands loyalty and faithfulness. All of these are causes of utmost astonishment.

When, under the influence of the state that the initiates have entered upon, or because of the spiritual pleasure they feel, they see the whole creation annihilated in God’s Existence and all time ending in eternity, and the spirit witnessing God’s signs, then they are swept up in astonishment. That is the spiritual station where travelers on the way to God can hear through God’s Own Hearing and see through God’s Own Sight.1

When the slopes of the heart are unexpectedly exposed to the shower of gifts from the AllGlorified and the Divine favors, when the lights of nearness to God envelop one, and when secrets are disclosed to the extent that they result in reaching the horizon of worshipping God as if actually seeing Him, astonishment pervades the whole being of the lover of God. The person is then lost in the depths of selfannihilation and the considerations of astonishment. The following verses of Gedai, expressing this spiritual station, are truly beautiful:

I did not know myself as I see me now,
I wonder whether He is me or I am Him?
This is the point where lovers lose themselves;
I have burnt away, so give me water!

This feeling experienced by those still on the journey may sometimes cause confusion. For this reason, those who do not lead their lives in strict accordance with the Qur’an and the Sunna and who do not feed their subconscious with the lights that emanate from the sun of Prophethood, upon him be peace and blessings, may be deceived through the influence of these feelings and experiences. Such deception may lead them to utter words of pride incompatible with the rules of Shari‘a, words that are irreconcilable with selfpossession.

Stupor (Hayman) is used to denote one whose thirst is deepened by drinking, not quenched or satisfied, and also one who is mad with passionate love.
In Islamic Sufism, stupor means that an initiate is deeply in love with God, and therefore loses selfcontrol in great ecstasy, drowning in wonder, appreciation, and spiritual pleasures under the influence of the surprising Divine gifts and manifestations that pervade the heart during the journey to God. Since there are no explicit statements in the Qur’an and the Sunna concerning stupor, many exacting scholars have tended to see it, like astonishment, as a spiritual state rather than a station, something transient rather than lasting. Although some have attempted to relate it to the verse (7:143), Moses fell down in a faint (as if struck by lightning), it is evident that the situation of a Messenger receiving Divine Revelation cannot be reconciled with a faint. So, I feel that we should approach Moses’ falling down in a faint on Mount Sinai as his conscious astonishment and shock, an attitude that he felt was fitting for him in the face of God’s partial manifestation of His Majesty in all Its transcendence and above all corporeality.

Like astonishment, stupor can also be analyzed in three categories:
When initiates, aware of their helplessness, poverty and worthlessness before God, are favored with Divine gifts far beyond their capacity during the first stages of their journey, then they—like Prophet Job, who entreated God, saying, “I cannot be indifferent to any of Your favors,”30 —joyfully desire more and more gifts. Such an attitude, when observed in those who are on the way, is characteristic of those in the first stages.
In the face of abundant gifts granted in advance in response to the sincerity of the initiate and his or her virtue that God knows that he or she will acquire in the future, the initiate renews him or herself in perception, spirit, and will, and observes with deep pleasure the wonders and marvels, whose doors have been half opened. In the mood expressed in the verse (66:8), Our Lord, complete our light for us!, the person, with great determination and spiritual tension, longs for and expects what lies beyond the favors already granted. The couplet of Gedai,

I have dipped my finger into the honey of love;
Give me some water!

very beautifully expresses this degree of stupor.

Initiates attain a state where they feel they are standing on the same point as their sight reaches and careful about where they put their feet, and they begin to observe the universe from the horizon of annihilation and disappearance. They reach the point where nothing other than God exists any more for them and they feel their existence annihilated in God’s Existence, which they experience every moment with a new manifestation of Him. They acquire an unshakable certainty that God always sees them, that certainty being a gift of recompense for reaching the highest point of excellence, and they overflow with the yearning and zeal to see Him.

We should mention here that all these favors come in proportion to the strength of belief, and as long as the initiates can maintain their relation with God from the heart and continue to lead their life in utmost loyalty to Him. This depends on strictly following the master of the creatures, upon him be peace and blessings. Any extraordinariness which arises in a state where one does not feel perfect attachment and devotion to him, is likely in most cases to be deceptive. Those seeking the gifts of the Almighty must certainly enter the circle of Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, and the lovers of the Almighty’s light must conform to the rhythm of that circle.

O God! I ask You for useful knowledge, and seek refuge in You from any knowledge of no use; and I ask You for acceptable action. And bestow blessings and peace on our master Muhammad, and on his Family and Companions, all of them.

For Muslims, Jesus is one of the five elite prophets, and he will come again at the end of time to bring peace. Although Muslims and Christians have a very similar idea of Jesus as far as his birth, general personality, and second coming are concerned, there are major differences in the way each religion treats Jesus. Muslims do not hold Jesus as the son of God. For Muslims, he is a messenger from God, and beloved of God. Despite the differences, given his importance to both traditions, Jesus is and should be a figure that Muslims and Christians can rally around and use as a foundation for dialogue and peace.

To understand Islam’s Jesus, the first thing one should know is that belief in Jesus is one of the major principles of faith in Islam. Belief in all prophets and messengers of God is one of the six articles of faith in Islam. Therefore, when a Muslim utters the statement of faith – “there is no deity but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God” – from his or her heart, indirectly they are saying that Jesus, like all other prophets and messengers, is a messenger of God.

Muslims believe that there were 124,000 prophets who came before the Prophet of Islam. Not just anyone can be a prophet or a messenger of God: only people of extraordinary character can be one. Muslim theologians have developed five attributes that a prophet of God must possess: trustworthiness, truthfulness, innocence, the ability to convey God’s message, and intelligence. Anyone who lacks one of these principles cannot be accepted as a prophet or a messenger of God. These attributes are indeed attributes that can be said about almost any Christian understanding of Jesus.

There are five prophets who tower above the others. Jesus is one of these prophets, along with Abraham, Moses, Noah, and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon them all. These five are known collectively as the ul al-‘azm:the possessors of steadfastness. Islam views Jesus, and all prophets before him, as well as their faithful followers, as muslims, with a small m. The word muslim in Arabic literally means those who have submitted themselves to the will of God. Since there are no capital letters in Arabic, the term muslim encompasses both muslims and Muslims.

Despite Muslims not believing Jesus is the incarnation of God, there are many aspects of Islam’s Jesus that Christians can recognize. In fact, there are far more shared qualities than there are differences. For instance, Islam’s Jesus was a miracle worker, most famously speaking from his cradle to defend his mother, Mary, over charges of adultery and licentiousness. The Qur’an states that when Mary gave birth to Jesus and brought him to her people, they asked her, “From where did you get your baby?” They wondered how she could have a baby without getting married. Mary pointed at the baby, and Jesus spoke, saying, “I am the servant of God. He has given me the Book [the Gospel] and He has appointed me to be a Prophet” (19:30).

The Qur’an instructs Muslims to love all prophets without distinction; however, for many Muslims, there is a special love for Jesus. This is perhaps because, according to Muslims, Jesus spoke both in the Qur’an and in the Gospel about the coming of the Prophet of Islam. In the Gospel of John, Jesus said, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever” (14:16). This Advocate, according to some Muslim theologians, is the Prophet of Islam. In the Qur’an, Jesus said, “O children of Israel! Surely I am the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah [that was revealed] before me and giving the good tidings of a Messenger who will come after me, whose name is Ahmad” (60:6). Ahmad comes from the same root as Muhammad, and it is understood that it is another name for the Prophet of Islam.

It is important to look more deeply at what is written in the Qur’an about Jesus. In the Qur’an, Jesus is mainly characterized by his message, which centers on worshipping the One God (5:116–17). Jesus is mentioned in more than ninety verses of the Qur’an. The Qur’anic Jesus is a receiver of Divine scripture. God revealed to him a special message, Injil, the Islamic name for the Gospel (3:48, 5:46-7, 19:30, 57:27). The Qur’an refers to the Gospel as a source of guidance, light, and admonition for God-fearing people (5:46-7). Jesus made certain things, which were forbidden to Israelites, lawful (3:50). Jesus called upon the people to submit themselves to the will of God. Because of this, the Qur’an praises the disciples of Jesus (3:52, 61:14). Therefore, Muslims revere the followers and disciples of Jesus for their struggle in the way of God and their support for Jesus.

The Hadith or the sayings of the Prophet are the second most important source for Islamic theology, and one can also find many references to Jesus in the Hadith. Citing all of these references is beyond the scope of this essay, but I want to look closely at one example. A reliable hadith in al-Bukhari’s al-Sahih states that the Prophet saw a dream in which he was circumambulating the Ka’ba, Islam’s holy shrine in Mecca, and while doing so he saw Jesus doing the same. He saw Jesus as very clean, with combed hair.

“In my dream while I was circumambulating the Ka’ba, I saw a man of brown color, the best one can see among brown-colored human beings. His hair was so long that it fell between his shoulders, among the best hairs one can see. He had combed his hair and it was as if water was dripping from his head, and he was on the shoulders of two men circumambulating the Ka’ba. I asked, ‘Who is this?’ They replied, ‘This is Jesus, the son of Mary.’”

Given the importance of cleanliness in Islam, the fact that Jesus is described in this way is significant. It reinforces that Muslims should strive to fulfill his message of peace and serenity, a message proclaimed by the Prophet of Islam.

In the Hadith, there are also around 100 sayings about Jesus’ descent from Heaven, which is analogous to the “Second Coming” in Christian tradition. According to Islamic theology, Jesus will come as a messianic figure with an eschatological role that includes bringing justice and reviving religion. Muslims understand his coming as a promise of change in the course of history and as the onset of the establishment of justice. Jesus, a symbol of goodness, will defeat the Antichrist, a symbol of oppression and evil. This is such an important part of Islam that manuals of Islamic theology refers to the descent of Jesus and his defeat of the Antichrist as a statement of belief.

Because of this theological principle, both classical and modern Muslims have elaborated on the concept. In my book Islam’s Jesus, I dedicated two long chapters to this element of Jesus’s role in Islamic theology. Islam does not just accept the idea of fatalistically waiting for the coming of Jesus; individuals must strive to make the world a peaceful place. It must be said though that while the persona of Jesus is as an essential part of Islamic theology, given the many direct references to him and his message in the Qur’an, when it comes to his descent, the case is different. The descent of Jesus is not mentioned in the Qur’an per se. However, there are some verses that are considered hints at his descent. For example, 43:61 indicates that Jesus is the Sign of the Hour. Although some commentators interpreted this verse by saying that his miraculous birth, not his descent as the sign of the final Hour, most commentators see this as referring to his descent prior to the Hour.

Like theologians, Muslim mystics also have spoken about Jesus and his message. Sufis like Ibn al-Arabi, Rumi, and al-Sharani, have much to say about Jesus and his role in the Islamic tradition. Once again there are too many examples to discuss; to suffice, I will just mention one from Rumi. In a verse of poetry, Rumi wrote about the power of Jesus’ breath – not the physicality of that breath, but the power hidden in it that raises the dead. Rumi likened a human being to the breath of Jesus. The physical aspect of that breath is weak, but there is a very strong inner aspect of both the breath and the human being. He wrote:

“Man is like the rod of Moses; Man is like the breath of Jesus.”

On another occasion, Rumi compared the nature of Jesus to that of angels:

“Jesus and Idris [Enoch] ascended to heaven, since they were of the same race as angels.” (For more information on this, see my book, Islam’s Jesus, pp. 129-130.)

In conclusion, the essences of the teaching of Jesus are love, peace, and compassion. One should remember that all verses of the Qur’an begin with, “In the name of the Most-Compassionate, Most-Merciful.” It is this call to mercy and compassion that can bring together members of all faiths, and particularly members of the Abrahamic faiths. As I argue in my book, the members of the Abrahamic family constitute more than one half of humanity; if they can come together in peace and love, they will go a long way to securing a safe, peaceful future for the world.

Today, humanity needs this message of love, hope, and peace, more than ever. It can be argued that when the Prophet said that Jesus will come as a just ruler, he emphasized the importance of justice and peace on earth. If the trend toward dialogue and cooperation leads to justice and peace in our world, it will mean the fulfillment of the messages of both Muhammad and Jesus, peace and blessings be upon both of them.

Speaking about altruism, Ronald M. Green, a professor of religion, said, “Humility and selflessness, we know, are the very center of the moral life.” [1] According to James Ozinga, a professor of Political Science at Oakland University, altruism is, “Simply doing for others at some cost to oneself, and selfishness is doing for oneself at some cost to others.”[2]

In this article we will not embark upon complex debates whether altruism itself is a self-consistent concept, or if the very readiness to give away is an indicator of impossibly pure altruism (for “altruism,” by definition, ought to be totally about “other people,” and extend not an iota’s weight of importance to the “I-ness” of a person). It is clear from the viewpoint of pure logics, though, that we have to identify ourselves as independent agents in order to grasp the meaning of anything, as it is precisely this that distinguishes us from animals who are unaware of themselves and, thus, unable to think. Nor will we consider the problem of the performer of the altruistic act deriving out of it some intrinsic pleasure, thus flouting his initial “other-regarding” impetus, the idea that the famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was ever eager to accentuate. For Hobbes, if you relieve a beggar, you do it to relieve yourself of the distress at seeing the beggar’s distress.[3] It is enough to adhere to the aforementioned definition of “altruism” in order to check these kinds of debates. Thus, the aim of this article will be to shed light on the religious understanding of altruism in conformity with the definition of altruism as “doing for others at some cost to oneself,” as well as to find out whether secular and religious approaches to the issue are mutually exclusive or not.

The founding father of the term “altruism” was Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the initiator of modern positivism and, thus, one of the leading figures of modern science. In fact, he was the first to coin the term “altruism” itself. As he wrote, “the being, whether man or animal, who loves nothing outside himself, and really lives for himself alone, is by that very fact condemned to spend his life in a miserable alternation of ignoble torpor and uncontrolled excitement.” [4]

“Altruism” was part of his grand project of a completely new-fangled worldview. He envisioned this as “the Religion of the Great Being, Humanity,” whereby the principle of human rationality was asserted to be sufficient enough to invest humanity with all possible material progress and physical strength, but with no recourse whatsoever to the centuries-revered religious institutions. According to him, the Church’s institutions were irrelevant as far as meeting humanity’s real needs were concerned. Moreover, religion in any of its manifestations, and as the most authentic philosophy of life, had grown out-of-date, and would eventually be supplanted by positivistic science, with the rationalistic ethics being the culmination. Society, he believed, cannot be without ethics, and ethics cannot be without holding selfish instincts in check, thus tempering one’s egoistic personality with a desire to live for others. Regretfully enough, by tolerating no sense of individualism, Comte was extreme, the dictum of social duties in his philosophy being always prioritized over any particular and quite natural considerations pertaining to each and every person.

Another prominent philosopher of that age, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), came up with his own notion of altruistic relationships, which was close to the Comtean one. Although he did not use the term “altruism” in his treatment of the issue, for him the most important fact about the moral nature of man was the so-called “Moral Law,” which, similar to the Comtean philosophy, was determined solely by human minds and was autonomous from God or any religious tradition. The Law was, or is, universal in its nature and perfectly reasonable, though somewhat strained as far as its practicability was concerned. Kant wrote that, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.”[5]

He thought that humans can govern themselves merely by the power of intelligence, and thus be held fully responsible for all actions, including any indulgences in animalistic or all-to-human inclinations – things the ultimate source of which are not, Kant believed, our intelligence. To make it clearer, the formulation of the same Law can be described as, to “act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”[6]

According to this, before undertaking any course of action regarding another person, we have to deliberate what would happen if the action were implemented unto the whole of humanity. If our conscience assures us of the action being equally beneficent in both cases, then it conforms with the Moral Law and is morally acceptable; if it does not, it is denuded of any virtue. Say, for example, that we have to produce evidence against our own brother in a court. The radical rottenness of human nature could easily induce us to tell a lie in order to release our brother. But if we are decent enough to remember Kant’s Law at such a critical moment, we will understand that telling a lie can inflict definite harm on our brother’s plaintiffs, and that acting here as a false witness will be a means to achieve some further goal; namely, the welfare of the brother, but not the end-in-itself, which is – as far as this case is concerned – the confirmation of truth.

According to Kant, people are too clever to engage themselves in self-contradictory enterprises, which can do harm to nobody but themselves. Thus, the Moral Law – when deployed before any action as a heuristic devise – divests us of fallacious predilections that affect us due to our base humanity; it also reveals to us the ideally impartial and fair state of human interactions. Our intelligence and ability to reach these conclusions enables us to transcend our base humanity.

General and abstract as the nature of the law is (it is to be filled with concrete schemata of actions in each and every case of its real-life implementation), it is of great avail in the sense that it helps us distance ourselves from evil commands of our self-indulgence, which may go unnoticed, and allows us to assume both a proactive and beneficent course of action towards others.[7] In other words, it should be the well-being of others, as shown to us by the impartial judgments of the Law, that drives our actions, not our self-interest.

However, the surrounding people’s whims and fashions, ages-old traditions and the shortage of certitude in our philosophy of life may well distract us from that rationalistic predisposition of ours to be compassionate and altruistic. Moreover, not all human beings can be motivated to be altruistic by reason alone; it is obvious that a great majority of people may need to pass through a long process of moral self-cultivation, constantly performing good deeds and listening to good advice, in order to become attuned to Kant’s mode of action. Also, many people would not adhere to the results of their sound reasoning to be altruistic; after all, practically, we know that humanity’s crooked nature is not conductive to an impartial attitude towards everyone; even if we can be altruistic to people dear to our heart, it does not mean that we will be equally good to everyone. Also, would self-sacrifıcing for others have any limits, whereby one could duly stop and give free reins to his egoistic pursuits? Do we not need some degree of self-prosperity, and, thus, a healthy deal of self-regard?[8] The American political philosopher, Jean Hampton, said, “If we are so ‘altruistic’ that we become unable to develop and express ourselves properly, we become unable to give to others what they may want more than anything else.”[9] These ideas of the philosophers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment mirrored the then-popular and almost unimpeded belief in human abilities to succeed in all possible enterprises solely by the means of their intelligence and personal initiative, as opposed to the total submission of the Medieval European human’s mind and heart to the dictates of Church organizations and traditional ways of living.    

Needless to say, as a founder of the “positivistic” scientific worldview, Comte has played and is playing a great role in the way we perceive things today. The same goes for Kant, who – in his various interpretations – was and still is the main proponent of the agnostic attitude of many Western people as far as belief in God is concerned. But was humanity truly oblivious to the acute necessity of altruism, all the way from antiquity through Comte’s epoch? Surely it wasn’t. And the reason why people didn’t think of altruism until the Renaissance was simple: the absence of the notion of egoism! The religious frame of mind so characteristic to the pre-modern epochs was the main reason behind the proliferation of selfless individuals and communities – at least within common cultural boundaries. Thus, it was the notion of “egoism,” as elaborated by Thomas Hobbes, which triggered a powerful reaction in other rationalistic and not-too-religious thinkers. This “reaction” led to the widespread adoption of the secular notion of “selflessness” or “anti-egoism,” eventually leading to the term “altruism.”

Yes, this drastic division between the good (altruistic) and bad (egoistic) dispositions of human nature was drawn in a full-fledged manner for the first time by Hobbes, who tried to show that egoism and altruism are conflicting parts of one and the same human being. In his Leviathan, he maintained that altruism is impossible at all because, by nature, humans are possessors of a strong bend towards assertiveness. Hobbes believed that human nature is “essentially individual, non-social, competitive, and aggressive.”[10] As opposed to an altruistic society, Hobbes saw a daunting chasm, across which nothing could be handed, gaping between human nature and human benevolence. It is this chasm that has led to power struggles that then engulf the whole of society. It is only out of this inauspicious state of things that the necessity for social pacts and conventions arise; they are finally agreed upon by nothing better than formidable state machinery. Hobbes believed that this was the only way the intrinsically self-regarding nature of man could be persuaded to live in a mutually beneficial state of coexistence with others. Through the suppression of individual desires, man can attain a degree of security and welfare, thus fulfilling some of his egoistic desires. As Hobbes put it, “We gain by it the largest scope for action our crowded world permits.” [11]

After Hobbes, it took a whole series of English philosophers (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Butler, and others) nearly a century to get around to the idea that the nature of man is not that egotistic. Still, they failed to explain the dualistic (altruism vs. egotism) nature of man. Hartley (1705-1757) and Mill (1806-1873) said that the two inclinations of our souls could be fused by the way of association – we may be self-regarding when harrying for the aid of others (as Hobbes said), but, in due course, our thoughts grow to be so submersed in other people’s welfare that we start to regard them and not ourselves as a primary object of our attention and assistance.[12] Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) upheld a so-called “quantitative view.” Due to the mirroring capability of our conscience, we can see others as a huge bulk of our own emotional world; thus, the happiness of the maximum possible number of people is highly conducive to the accruing of our own happiness, the latter playing a role in Bentham’s philosophy; he believed it to be the key motive behind human behavior. Adam Smith (1723-1790) was another thinker who contributed ideas to the discussion. For him, sympathy played an enormous part in our lives; we just cannot stay uninvolved in other’s sufferings or happiness. For him, man’s ability to share feelings with others, and even to identify with others, is something agreeable, invigorating, and contributes to man’s overall well-being.[13]

The Islamic solution to altruism encourages people to see everything as reflective of a sacred, divine oneness of being. There is no reason to be egoistic, for the Divine Presence is overbearing, insofar that any claim one could lay to existing apart of that Divine Reality is moot. On the other hand, a relative degree of existence is still warrantable for man, as far as his duties before the Super-Being are concerned. The primary duty is intellectual and spritual love of the Real Source of all existence and ever-readiness to sacrifice the very idea of one’s own autonomous existence in order to comprehend His Existence unhindered by one’s ego. Man must follow, most unfailingly, His will in every passing moment. These acts are supereregatory and  are considered to be among the most important spiritual stations of the Sufic tradition of Islam – “isar,” or the “preference of others, first and foremost, God’s desires and orders, to one’s own desires.” This was eloquently described by the Islamic mystic, Rabi’ah al-‘Adawiyah (d. 801):

O Lord, if I worship You out of fear of hell, burn me in hell. If I worship You for hope of paradise, forbid it to me. And if I worship You for Your Own sake, do not deprive me of Your eternal beauty.[14]

In the Islamic world-vision, Kant’s impartial stance to others is enforced by the Sacred Law itself in such verses of the Quran, including:

“Say, each works according to his manner, but your Lord is most knowing of who is best guided in way” (17:84); “And we have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with definite preference” (17:70); “O, mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you different peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Aquainted” (49:19).

According to these and others, every man is a bearer of God’s spirit:

“And when I have proportioned man and breathed into him of My spirit, then (o, My angels!) fall down to him in prostration” (15:29). To accept and, eventially, love every human being as he is means exactly what the German thinker meant by his imperative “not to take any human being as a means to accomplish some further goal.” The meaning of humanism, then, finds its expression in the Islamic revelation, although it is “theocentric” – deriving its meaning from the Holy Scripture, not the human intellect.[15] Still, to follow the idea is a supererogative act, for not everyone can relinqish his egocentric desires. Our altruistic feelings will anyway stem from our initial understanding of ourselves as independent, and, therefore, egoistic or pragmatic agents.[16] We ourselves are the first baseline of our self-perception, so without self-love, we cannot understand what it means to love others. The benevolence of others unto us may well enslave us, but this is because our ego is enamored with those who do good to it. However, as the famous Islamic theologian Imam al-Ghazzali (1058–1111) put it, those whose aethetic and moral predelections are of a higher level, cease to love themselves and, as it were, become dissolved in their love for abstract kinds of beauty and benevolence.[17]

A critical verse reads, “Those who fulfill their vows in full and fear a day whose ill effects will spread afar, who feed, for His sake, the destitute, orphan, and captive, they declare: We feed you only for God’s sake; we do not desire recompense of thanks from you” (76:7-9). In this, we can see that Muslims were entreated to embody the ideal of altruism within the Islamic World through the institutions of “Waqf” – charitable trusts. This Arabic word means, “to cause a thing to withhold, to stop and or to prevent”; the word also means, “to endow the property rights of a good to the public service perpetually, and to prevent others from obtaining its property rights.”[18]

Such foundations were usually open to everyone in need. Notably, 75% of such trusts in the Ottoman Empire of the 18^th century devoted substantial funds to serving outside constituencies, and 18% were precisely charitable ones. “Waqf” is also defined as “the detention of an object from possession for good, by considering it God’s property, and devoting all of its conceivable favors of revenue to different kinds of charitable purposes for the benefit of the public.”[19]

Muslims founding these institutions believed that this worldly existence is a temporary one, and one needed to devote one’s income for the betterment of other people’s lives, so as to make safe the blessedness of the next, eternal life.[20] All over the huge Islamic lands, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, countless amenities vital to social life have been funded and upheld through “waqfs,” some of which have even survived more than a millennium,[21] providing the penurious with basic needs such as food, shelter, education, and improvements like cemeteries, lighthouses, public baths, aqueducts, fountains, bridges, mosques, roads, and so on, augmenting amity and concord.[22]

Religion is clearly not antagonistic to altruism, even in the Comtean sense of the latter. Surveys conducted by the European Value Systems Study Group and the British Household Panel Survey reveal that churchgoers are some three times more likely to be involved in voluntary service for others than are non-churchgoers.[23] Love for humanity can be induced not only by the secularist or humanistic tendencies of modern Western civilization to exalt human beings to the highest ontological level, but also, and even primarily, by the religious injunction to love humanity as the best pattern of God’s creation. In fact, any monotheistic religion and humanism agree on this point, the difference being that the first is believed to arrive at it by virtue of a transcendent, supernatural source, and the second, by man’s independent reasoning. However, contrary to philosophical humanism, which is always open to unceasing doubts and critiques as to its intrinsic logical consistency, the religions of monotheism, resting upon articles of immutable and certain faith, have centuries-old social institutions and meditational practices which provide humanity with the priceless spiritual rationale for altruism. As the authors of the book, “The Altruistic Species,” Andrew Michael Flescher and Daniel L. Worthen concluded:

Altruism is neither a given nor an impossibility for human beings, but rather an ongoing opportunity in which to participate. Being more a matter of skill than talent, and therefore largely the result of hard work, it is something we should regard as contingent on our moral development.[24]

[1] Green. Ronald M. 1979. Religious Reason: The Rational and Moral Basis of Religious Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 188.

[2] Ozinga. James R. 1999. Altruism. London: Praeger, p. xvi.

[3] Neusner, Jacob, Bruce Chilton. 2005. Altruism in World Religions, Georgetown University Press p. 50.

[4] Comte, Auguste. System of Positive Polity, Volume 1: Containing the General View of Positivism & Introductory Principles. Translated by John Henry Bridges. New York: BurtFranklin. (Original work published 1851), p. 565–56.

[5] Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. H.J. Paton (New York: Harper and Row, p. 67.

[6] Ibid, p. 91.

[7] Hill, Thomas, Jr. 1993. “Beneficence and Self-Love: A Kantian Perspective,” in Altruism, ed. by Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr., and Jeffrey Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 13ff.

[8] Flescher, Andrew Michael, Daniel L. Worthen. 2007. The Altruistic Species: Scientific, Philosophical, and Religious Perspectives of Human Benevolence. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, p. 186-193.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Singer, Peter. 1981. The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Socio-biology. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 50.

[11] Palmer, George Herbert. 1970. Altruism: its Nature and Varieties. Westport: Greenwood Press, p.4.

[12] Ibid, p. 6.

[13] Ibid, p. 7.

[14] Sells, Michael (ed.). 1996. Early Islamic Mysticism. Translated by Paul Losensky. New York: Paulist Press, p. 169.

[15] Kim, Heon Choul. 2009. Gülen’s Dialogic Sufism: A Constructional and Constructive Factor of Dialogue. Conference proceedings. Washington D.C. pp. 520-547.

[16] Robert M. Berchman, p. 23.

[17] Çağrıcı, Mus­tafa. 1982. Gazzali’ye Göre İslâm Ahlâkı, Is­tanbul, pp. 139-143.

[18] Akgündüz, Ahmet. 1996. İslam Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi. 2nd Ed. Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, p. 77.

[19] Bilmen, Ömer N. 1969. Istılahat-ı Fıkhıyye Kamusu. Vol. 4., p. 294.

[20] Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin. 1996. Place of the Waqf in Turkish Cultural System. Translated by R Acun and M Oz. Istanbul: Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II). http://www.history.hacettepe.edu.tr/archive/waqfkultur.html.

[21] Çizakça, Murat. 2000. A History of Philanthropic Foundations: The Islamic World from the Seventh Century to the Present. Istanbul: Bogazici University Press.

[22] Yalawae, Asming, and Izah M. Tahir. “The Role of Islamic Institution in Achieving Equality and Human Development: Waqf or Endowment.” Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia (UDM). http://www.capabilityapproach.com.

[23] Gill, Robin. 1999. Churchgoing and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 174-5.

[24] Flescher, Andrew Michael, Daniel L. Worthen. 2007. The Altruistic Species: Scientific, Philosophical, and Religious Perspectives of Human Benevolence. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, p. 239.

I carry the winds of the Eastern Fables. They cover each and all. But I write from the City of Angels, where all ends and thus begins. It is not a surprise that I want to be a kind of Arabian fable teller, who touches everything and yearns to tell as much as I can. Bear with me, will you?

Life is a journey, not a destination, Emerson said. I will add that life teaches one to be on the road. Prayers keep one on the road. The pilgrimage is a place where you find more of your soul. It is a journey on this Earth that reminds us that there is a destination to reach: the last stop, where one becomes the ultimate and total human.

To be a human is a destination, and we are cloaked in human attire in the most auspicious ways. Yet the attire does not prove the residents of human bodies to be humans. Yes, life is a journey, and the last breath is exhaled when the destination of being a full human is achieved. Or maybe life begins only after we fill the outfit in which we are dressed. Then the true journey starts.

Today, I decided to pray. I learned that everything prays in this city: flowers, sun, water, my cells, and the city’s sounds. Their functioning is a prayer. They set off their journey anew each day. What about me? What about me?

The pilgrims in many religious traditions undertake a long journey to expiate their sins. The journey itself is a means to cleanse their minds from the sediments of everyday life. Daily prayers are here with us on the journey. As the sun rises, and gravity continues to fulfill its duty, I join the harmony, trying to be my best as a human. How can I be a better human today? What does “being a human” mean for me today?

We are pilgrims every day. We travel from day to morrow, from good to the best, from the love of having to the love of sharing – and even giving. Through each step we, the pilgrims, have taken, we break free from the intrinsic lure of the city, of the lights and their illuminations. A person who lives to reach out to the luminous horizons of being alive – to the site of the pilgrimage – will find their existence on Earth expanded, made larger. It will turn from dross to gold; from ephemeral to ebullient timelessness.

At a downtown coffee shop, I sat and began thinking about the prayers. Since I have to observe my daily prayers one after the other in a constrained time during these short winter days, I oscillate each time about whether to go or not to a coffee shop, to study. I did go this Saturday.

With me, I have the small rug I use as a prayer mat. I have all types of stories about my prayer rug. I have a personal connection with it since it reminds me of the extent of humanity’s potential to occupy a space on the Earth. When we stand, we can claim a space as big as two feet. When we ensconce ourselves in a chair, or are outstretched on a piece of rug, we have only a space as big as our body. We cannot have more than that, even if we have it all. I do not. Yet I feel the whole city is mine, when I try to find a place to pray on the streets or in the parks. I familiarize myself with a certain tree, and talk to that tree, thinking that it will one day remember my prayer, and me. I tell the streets that I follow their paths; they offer me a verdant beauty, and I offer my prayers, just as they did. Their green is how they pray.

Los Angeles is a different city of prayer in each season. But whatever the season, I can pray outside. There is no snow, and very little rain. The cafés always have chairs outside, and I have my prayer rug under my arm. I do not need a building to pray. This also makes the city more of an open-air prayer hall to me. This green and blue city is constantly praying, and thus its prayers are reflected as an open-air museum, honoring the Names of God as well as the humans who want to recite the name of the God, following the city’s lead.

I used to say a house is not a home to me unless I clean each and every corner by myself. I have developed a new motto: a city is not mine unless I have been to its various coffee houses, and prayed in many streets and parks. In that sense, this city is not terra incognita to me anymore. It could not be: it is, as I said, an open-air prayer hall. In a city where everything and everyone is in constant prayer, I see all as a distant relative of mine. To have One in our lives, connects me to the all unknown faces and places. How do I know that everyone prays? Well, people are working hard in this city, and that makes the city a prayer hall, I say. People are doing their best to fulfill the requirements of their professions in this city. They may not know it, but that is also a prayer. There is literal prayer, through sacred texts and rituals. And then there is another type of prayer, through diligent labor and dedication.

So now, I should pray. I leave my belongings in the coffee house with my friend and walk to the adjacent street, to find a tree under which I can pray. One side is trees, and the other side is parked cars. I lay my prayer rug down and take off my shoes. I stand still to begin my prayer. If you’ve ever seen a Muslim praying, you would better understand what I am doing.

The light in the city always reminds me of the sheer, unfading innocence, and thus incessant happiness, that one can catch a little glimpse of only during childhood imaginations. On the freshly cut grass, I cannot find myself at peace; yet, I have one more chance when I change my movements. Each prayer unit is a reminder to wake up from a dream in which I forget myself. I am trying to wake my inner self with each movement. First, I move my hands up and open my palms towards the point where I face all my attention during the prayer. The hope is to carry one’s attention to one focal point. I put my left hand on my heart and the right on my left hand. I can neither feel palpitations nor dedicated concentration.

It is good to pray on the streets. It is both distracting, and yet the sound of the passing cars, and even walking people, is a call to awake. I look to my prayer rug and hear the voices on the street. I wish to silence them, but cannot. They follow me until the end. I pray the prayer, but it cannot arrest the meaning inside.

I sit on my rug, open my palms towards the skies, and wish that I knew one of the soliloquy prayers by heart. In those lines the shards of broken souls are replaced with new excitement. Tilted heads and open hands open each and every part of the heart to new possibilities and hopes. All living beings are alive again, and they are all sentient. The dissident darkness of the heart declares the honor of being servile. The air fills your palms, and the moment you take your hands to your face, that sensuous new life fills your being, from your eyes to your toes. I understand why men begin the prayer by touching their ears: the ears are the nexus of where all begins and where all ends. Life and the prayer begin with a call to prayer, and life ends with the last call to prayer. I think of the call to prayer as an archaic sound, reminding us of the origins of any kind of language. Thus, the call to prayer talks to anyone, from any place or religion. And the ears carry and reveal that primordial duty.

How, I asked my scientist friends at the coffee shop, can you understand and explain this? Are the stones on the road, the grasshoppers at night, the wind that carries the leaves, and the leaves that submit to the wind… are all and each praying? Are they also pilgrims, joining this journey of prayer and seeking their Mecca?

There are patterns that make science feasible, my friend responded. Whatever fits within the pattern has life; whatever has no reason, follows another pattern that we call non-existence. We name the physically measurable scientific patterns.

But how about naming human feelings? Is sadness another pattern that we concoct? What about prayer? Is it gravity, or is it the concomitance of a series of physical facts that coincide at one moment and place, many times, again and again? It is easier to name it for the sake of scientific research, and not to repeat the detailed explanation, each and every time. Prayers are such a pattern. The apples falls down because the apple responds to what the earlier generations did. This is the tradition of nature. We are wired with feelings; this is also a pattern, a tradition. Prayers are the call of living beings to their very nature. Nature is in line with its own nature; however, how much are we humans in line with our nature? Prayer keeps us in line with our nature.

The one who prays every day will remember there is One who sees and hears, even though nobody else is around. The one who prays will remember that there is a Sustainer. They will know that humanity will be sustained as long as humans remember that there is a larger order and that there is One who organizes this beautiful, intricate, yet easy to unravel picture.

Yes, my dear friend. We wake to a new life every day. Each and every creation is on a journey. We all are seeking our destination: the pilgrimage sites in this world, and maybe in the hereafter. Maybe the ones who prepare each and every day anew will end up in the most beautiful pilgrimage site upon their departure from this world’s stop. We are travelers, after all.

There is a parable about two twins in their mother’s womb. They are discussing whether there is a life after being inside their mother. One twin asserted that it will be a birth, and not a death, and this birth presages the beginning of the real life. That new life will be a new world, with new patterns.

The other twin said there is no life after this one. “We will live and die within this turbid water, drinking this red blood as the only source of nourishment. We cannot adjust to a different food. There cannot be something better than this. Besides, there is no mother, because we do not see her. We will perish after all this ends.”

There is certainly new life after that little, tiny place they called home. They were at a station on their journey.

I smiled as I told the story to my friend at the coffee shop. I took a sip from my coffee, and said, “What can be better than this latte and how can I possibly taste it?” But there must be things better than these. I am sure there will be, because I want something more, something better. This feeling in itself foretells what is to come, or exist.

I come to the coffee houses to share stories like this with interesting people. Anyone can strike up a conversation with you in such a place, and many people have their own stories to tell. On their quest for enlightenment, the residents of Los Angeles illuminate the city with their hearts and pens. The lights of the city do not come from the Department of Power and Gas, but from a motley group of praying hearts’ efforts. While the trees prostrate themselves and praise the beauty of the Creator of the Blue and Green in this golden state, the Divine Brush cleanses the city with extraordinary rains.

Today, my prayer is this story, put down on paper with a pen. I hope these words will testify to my few hours of examination, and that they will become an infinite seed, to blossom in many colors in a lot of cities. I write from Los Angeles for you, my friend. I send my city’s blessings and greetings. I would love to hear your journey, to your inner self, in your city. I hope we can set off on a pilgrimage together, from each city: from the good to the best, from the love of having to the love of sharing, and even giving. I repeat what the lights of the city that fell on my prayer rug told me: when all pray to One and the Same, then nowhere is terra incognita, and no journey is different.

The word “obesity” originates from the Latin obesus, which literally means, “having eaten until fat.” Obesity is a disorder involving excessive body fat that damages our well-being and increases the risk of health problems. For example, an obese individual is ten times more likely to have heart disease and five times more likely to have diabetes as opposed to a person of normal weight. Some other symptoms of obesity are high blood lipids (e.g. triglycerides), high blood pressure, and low good cholesterol, which helps remove bad cholesterol from your arteries. Besides leading to a number of diseases, the large waistline formed due to the fat buildup also triggers our immune system, which plays a critical role in the initiation and progression of obesity-associated diseases. Before going into the details of the altered immune response due the increased storage of fat, let’s first explore the perfect order in our immune system, especially in a subset of immune cells called macrophages.

The amazing immune system

Our astounding immune system is in charge of defending our body by clearing out thousands of germs that can make us sick. Our immune cells serve in the context of cleansing the human body from invading germs. The immune system has two branches: the innate and adaptive branches, as defined with respect to the characteristics of their responses. The cross-talk and mutual communication between the two arms constitutes the integral immune response. 
The adaptive immune system operates slowly, by developing for specific pathogens. In addition, it has a memory of previous exposures. The innate immune system provides a first line of defense against the invasion of disease-causing microorganisms (pathogens). It has three defense layers: anatomical barriers, humoral barriers, and cellular barriers. The skin is an example of the physical barriers, which prevent pathogens from getting access to our body. The chemicals found in tears, saliva, and mucus impair bacterial growth, and they represent the humoral barriers. Once an invading bacterium somehow evades these barriers, or a tissue injury occurs, various types of immune cells are recruited to the site of infection for the protection of the host. These cells constitute the third barrier of the innate immune system. As an initial defense system, innate immune cells and their components exhibit a fast, non-specific response with minimal memory of past exposures.

Macrophages: the big eaters

Macrophages, a subgroup of such innate immune cells, form a front-line component of our bodies’ defense. The term “macrophage” is derived from a combination of two Greek words – “macro,” meaning big, and “phage,” meaning eater. As the early combatants of our immune system, they are armored with perfectly-tuned ingestion capabilities. Macrophages function like the policemen of our body because they are charged with patrolling nearly all of our body’s tissues, except the heart. They are intensely positioned in tissues where infections are likely to arise, such as the gut and lungs.  

There are approximately 200 cell types in our splendid body. Each specialized type of cell is charged to operate like a government or an army. Macrophages are organized to be combative and to secure the body. They possess flawless intelligence, coordination, communication, and movement traits. They are created from differentiating monocytes. Monocytes are produced in the bone marrow and then released into blood circulation. In case of an infection or dangerous threat, they migrate into tissues as early combatants.
To collect intelligence, macrophages are equipped with a large repertoire of sensors or receptors, which are positioned in the cellular membrane and intracellular part of the cellular architecture. These receptors are called pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), whose function is to detect certain structural patterns of pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi. Such specific patterns are named pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). On the other hand, molecules generated by host cells under extraordinary stress are called danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) which are detected by other specific PRRs. Additionally, macrophages are ornamented with other types of receptors that help recognize and eat extracellular material, including pathogenic microorganisms by a membrane-bound vesicle. This process is phagocytosis, where the pathogen-containing vesicle is ultimately fused with the degradation machinery of the cell (i.e. lysosomes) to eliminate the pathogen.

Once the intelligence is collected by sensors, macrophages become “activated,” meaning that they are mobilized by transmitting and processing the information into the interior of the cell via – from a biologist’s perspective – downstream signaling pathways that initiate the program in the cell nucleus to secrete “alarm” molecules. Such molecules are named cytokines, whose duty is to adjust immune response by aiding cell-to-cell communication and stimulating the movement of macrophages towards the combat zone – in other words, the sites of inflammation.

Metaflammation: a chronic disease caused by obesity

The areas possessing redness, heat, pain, and swelling represent the combat zones of classical inflammation. Such wars are usually short-term and area-specific, with respect to infection and injury; they end with the elimination of the infection and the repair of the damaged tissue, respectively. Unfortunately, chronic inflammation is a different type of prolonged and disorganized immune response. Such a chronic state manifests, a) a low grade increase in immune system markers (inflammation-inducing cytokines); b) a persistent stress response; c) inflammatory effects covering the whole body rather than localized symptoms; and d) a sustained state of the disease. In other words, chronic inflammation corresponds to a lasting state of low-level war all over our body that gradually escalates and leads to various chronic diseases. Interestingly, intense research on the obesity epidemic demonstrated the presence of such low-grade chronic inflammation as the main driver of obesity-associated diseases such as insulin resistance, diabetes, atherosclerosis, pulmonary hypertension, and chronic liver disease. Such an inflammatory state is also termed metabolic inflammation or metaflammation.

The molecular details underlying metaflammation are increasingly better understood. From a scientific standpoint, obesity is characterized by the increased storage of lipid molecules in an expanded fat tissue mass. The macrophages residing in such fat tissues of obese individuals are likely the major source of inflammation-inducing (pro-inflammatory) cytokines, as they seem mobilized mainly due to two reasons. First, the excessive presence of lipid molecules accumulated by overeating are sensed as danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) by various macrophage sensors. Second, macrophages residing in fat tissues have significantly higher level of threat sensors, leading to their easy mobilization. Therefore, the level of such sensors in obese individuals was found to be directly correlated with the severity of obesity-related diseases, such as diabetes and insulin resistance. Moreover, fat tissue macrophage populations are directly associated with the accumulation of fatty tissues in different experimental mouse models. The studies performed in obese and diabetic mice models and patients demonstrated high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in blood circulation and fat tissues, contributing to metaflammation.  
To simplify metaflammation, excessive fat buildup is sensed as a threat by the big-eating patrollers of our amazing immune system, leading to their abrupt mobilization and continuous secretion of cytokines as “alarm” molecules. The intensity and locality of cytokines simply determines the state of war (i.e. the category of inflammation). In obese individuals, the low concentration of cytokines in blood circulation and fat tissues represents an ongoing low-level war found all over the body, which is metaflammation. Paradoxically, the degree of the war escalates by the enhanced sensitivity of macrophages to cytokines and the gradual increase of cytokines as a result of additional fat accumulation, hence throwing the body out of order and making it vulnerable to numerous diseases.

Apart from excessive food intake, there are other nutritional, environmental, and behavioral factors that give rise to similar chronic inflammation in our bodies. Things such as processed food, traffic-related air pollution, inactivity, inadequate sleep, and stress, can have similar effects as obesity. To protect our splendid bodies from the harmful effects of chronic inflammation resulting from overeating and other factors, we need to carefully think about our external and internal responsibilities. We may need to make intensive, external lifestyle changes, including restricted energy intake, more exercise/physical activity, and a diet high in healthy, unprocessed foods.
As for the internal responsibilities, the most essential part is strengthening our self-control. By doing so, we may improve our willpower, which is needed to resist the temptation to overeat. Otherwise, disrupting the balance of our wonderful body by overeating is an offense and disrespect to its perfect order. Such an imbalanced state pushes our body further toward a biological cliff, to such an extent that the delicately and perfectly organized immune system declares war against the harmful lipid molecules and leads to the emergence of various inflammation-associated diseases. Therefore, to eliminate the risk of imbalances in our superbly designed bodies, we have many internal and external responsibilities to fulfill.

This has always been the case, although few knew it because world travelers were rare in the past. But Ibn Battuta, the famous 14th century Muslim jurist and world traveler, who visited many Muslim countries and observed many local customs, relates a good example of local custom: “Each of these Khanqahs is set apart for a separate school of Darwishes, mostly Persians, who are men of good education and adepts in mystical doctrines.

“They have many special customs, one of which has to do with their food. The steward of the house comes in the morning to the Darwishes, each of whom indicates what food he desires, and when they assemble for meals, each person is given his bread and soup in a separate dish, none sharing with another.”

This custom mentioned by Ibn Battuta is a local custom meaning that it was, and still might be, practiced in one local area, and/or by one select group of men.

Immigrant Jews also have been surprised to learn that many customs that had great religious significance in the “old country” are not practiced in the “new country” by other Jews from other lands.

In Israel, the differences between Orthodox Jews from Christian Europe and Orthodox Jews from Muslim North Africa and the Middle East, are great, although Jewish law and prayer are basically the same for both groups.

In both Islam and Judaism local folk customs, and even folk beliefs, are often examples of the common people’s desire to be better Muslims or Jews. But sometimes these beliefs and customs are the result of local superstitions and are rejected by the Ulama or the rabbis.

Sometimes local religious leaders support modest innovations in practice or belief that are not deemed unIslamic or unJewish, and sometimes religious scholars oppose them as unsupported by scripture.

For example, in both Islam and Judaism, a folk belief grew up in the Middle East, unsupported by religious scholars, that if it were not for a small number of very righteous people, the whole corrupt society we live in would collapse.

Neither the Torah nor the Qur’an support such a belief, but the concept does support the ideal that a few people who continue to live in righteous purity when everyone else has become corrupt, can really make a big difference.

After all, even today the whole earth seems to be filled with violence, cruelty, oppression and injustice. This is made worse by the corrupt and oppressive behavior of many high and low government officials; as well as the immoral activities many economic, intellectual, political, and even religious leaders, which are constantly being exposed.

Of course, our generation is not the first to suffer from these universal social, political, cultural and national maladies; and religious people know that God is merciful and compassionate as well as just.

God’s patience and forbearance with widespread human inequity and sin can be understood in many ways.

One explanation, that developed within some parts of both the Jewish and Muslim communities, is that in every generation there are a small number of very special hidden saints (60 or 40 Abdal in Islam and 36 or 30 Tsadikim in Judaism), whose souls are so kind, honest, trusting and righteous, that for their sake alone, the rest of the society of sinful human beings avoids collapse.

Thus, the idea of the hidden saints emphasizes the importance God gives to a small number of very kind and righteous people who serve as the supporting foundations of the civilized world, and in some way known only to God, support human civilization against total collapse.

Thus, Abu Darda’ said: “When Prophethood ended – and they were the supports (Awtad) of the world – Allah substituted their places with 40 men from the nation of Muhammad called “Abdal” (Substitutes). Not one of them dies except that Allah replaces him with another one, and they are now the supports of this world. The hearts of 30 of them contain the same firm certainty (yaqin) which Prophet Ibrahim had.”

“They did not succeed or rise above other people due to much fasting or prayer … but rather through being honest, having noble intentions, having sound wholesome hearts … They do not curse anyone, or harm anyone, nor do they see themselves as being higher or nobler than anyone under them, or envy those above them. They do not fake their humility… nor are they ostentatiously impressed with themselves.”

Most Islamic scholars think the ahadith relating to the Abdal are weak. And since acquiring religious knowledge is highly valued in both Islam and Judaism, most Jewish and Muslim scholars have rejected this elevation of religiously ignorant yet pious individuals.

However, I am a Reform Rabbi who thinks of himself as a Muslim Jew, because I faithfully submit to the one and only God of Abraham; and I am faithful to the Torah of Prophet Musa which I study continually, and to the covenant that God made with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai.

Yet in my heart, I see the need for religious scholars to increase the respect people in general, and the religious and educated elite in particular, should have for the many simple, poor, good hearted, righteous believers within their own community. This is especially true in our generation.

I also see many parallels between this Islamic and Jewish revolutionary concept that society is supported and sustained, not by the high and mighty, not by the rich and famous, and surely not by the media celebrities of sports and entertainment, but rather by a small number of poor, hidden and rarely acknowledged saints.

As Abu Hurayra said: “I entered the mosque, and the Prophet said to me, ‘Abu Hurayra, in this hour, a man will walk through this door, who is one of the seven people of the world through whom Allah diverts punishment from the Earth’s inhabitants.”

“Just then an Ethiopian entered through that door. He was bald, maimed, and carrying a container of water on his head. So he said, ‘O Abu Hurayra, that’s him,’ and then said to the man three times, ‘Welcome.’ This man used to sweep and clean the Mosque.”

Perhaps a weak Hadith, but certainly one with a strong message to respect every human being regardless of class, status or appearance.

Even more revolutionary, is that within the Muslim tradition some people explicitly included Christians and Jews within the Abdal: Hudhayfa ibn Yaman said: “The Abdal in my community in Syria include 30 men on the path of Ibrahim (Jews)… And the group (of righteous Awliya’) in Iraq are 40 men… 20 of them are on the path of ‘Isa (Christians) and 20 of them have been given some of the instruments which Khalifa Da’ud (King David) was given.”

According to Jewish folklore the hidden saints number at least 36 in each generation. Called in Yiddish lamedvovniks (36ers), they are responsible for sustaining and supporting the civilized world. At times of great peril, a 36ercould make a dramatic appearance to defeat the enemies of Israel, and then return to humble obscurity.

The 36+ people are unnoticed by other people because of their humble nature, status, education and vocation. The 36+figured in Kabbalistic folk legends of the 16–17th centuries, and in Hassidic folklore from the end of the 18th century.

Yiddish proletarian writers in the 19th and 20th centuries expanded the folk tradition of the 36+ righteous people whose simple role in life justifies the value of all mankind in God’s eyes; by adding that if even one of them was missing from the minimum 36, society would come to a bad end.

For the sake of these 36+ hidden saints, God preserves our world even if the rest of humanity degenerates to the level of total barbarism. This idea is based on the story of Sodom and Gomorra in the Torah, where God told Abraham that he would spare the town of Sodom if there were at least 10 righteous people in it.

Since nobody knows who the 36+ are, not even they themselves, every Jew should honor and respect all the simple, honest, unselfish, hard working and long suffering people around us, for one of them may be one of the 36+. I think this lesson rings true for all religions.

Unlike the rich, the famous, the pious, the scholars, the powerful, the beautiful or the successful, who everyone else thinks are very important, according to this concept, the 36+ are the really important people, because without a few of them society could destroy itself.

The tradition of the 36ers, others say 30, is found in the Talmud where RabbiAbbaye says: “There are not less than 36 righteous people in the world who receive the Sakina – Divine Presence” (Sanhedrin 97b and Sukkot 45b). “Not less” is not a fixed number, and there may be many more than 36 (40 or 60) in some generations.

These righteous people are usually and incorrectly called men because in Hebrew grammar a mixed group of males and females always uses a male noun and verb. It is much more likely that the 36ers are 18 men and 18 women, since in Hebrew the number 18 is the numerical equivalent of the letters in the word life.

Ibn ‘Asakir (1105–1175) and Ibn Abi Khaythama narrate that Uthman ibn ‘Ata was having a conversation with his father, who told him, “The Abdal are forty Insan (humans).” So Uthman ibn ‘Ata said to his father, “Forty men?” and his father replied, “Do not say men, but rather say humans, for there could be women among them.”

The number 36 is not the only number offered in this connection. Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai believed, “the world never lacks 30 righteous people” (Genesis Rabbah 35:2) while Rabbi Simeon ibn Yehozadak says (Ḥullin 92a. and Midrash Psalms 5:5) “the world exists by the merit of 45 righteous people”; perhaps 30 in the land of Israel and 15 in Iraq/Babylonia where Rabbi Simeon ibn Yehozadak lived.

According to Rav Judah, the number 30 represents the number of “righteous gentiles among the nations of the world” (Ḥullin 92a). Thus, some Rabbis felt that women and non-Jews should be counted among the hidden saints, just as some Islamic sages have taught.

All of these statements about the 30 or 36+ Tsadekim (saints) are the views of individual rabbis. Their views did not become part of Jewish law or general belief, just as the Abdal did not become part of general Muslim belief.

The power of the prayers and the tears of a 36er to bring rain from God was rarely mentioned in accounts from Europe about the 36+, because droughts are very rare in Europe. But both the 36+ Tsadekim and the Abdal 40 (or 60) share this trait.

As ‘Ali said: “The Abdal are in Syria, and they are 40 men. Whenever one of them dies, Allah substitutes another in his place. By means of them, Allah brings down the rain, gives victory over enemies, and diverts punishment from the people of Syria.”

A Jewish folktale from Syria illustrates the theme of the power of a pure hearted simple man’s righteous plea. Once, in the land of Syria, there was a great drought. A rabbi called all the Jews of his village to the synagogue. They prayed day and night, but still no rain fell. Then the rabbi declared a fast, and asked God to answer their prayers.

That night he heard a voice from heaven, saying, “God will send rain only if Rahamim, who always sits in the back corner of the synagogue, prays for it.” “But he’s an ignoramus,” protested the rabbi. “And I am not sure how kosher his home is.” Silence was the response.

When Rahamim came to the synagogue the rabbi said, “Tomorrow you will lead the congregation in prayers for rain,” “But I do not know how to pray,” said Rahamim. “There are so many others who know more than I.” “Nevertheless,” said the rabbi, “it is you who must lead the prayers.”

The next day the rabbi called all the people together to pray. The synagogue was filled to bursting. All eyes were on the placewhere everyone expected to see the rabbi leading them in prayer. How great was their amazement to see poor Rahamim standing up there before the Holy Ark, holding a clay jar with two spouts in his hands. “Now I ask that you pray with all your heart,” he told the congregation.

So they opened the Ark, where the Torah scroll was kept, and the people poured out their hearts to heaven, wailing bitterly and beating their breasts. Then Rahamim lifted up his jar, first placing one spout to his eye and then the other to his ear. Instantly there was a rumble of thunder and then the sky opened up, drenching the earth with rain.

The rabbi later asked Rahamim, “Why did you bring that jar to the synagogue? What did you do with it?” “Rabbi, I’m a poor, ignorant man,” Rahamim replied. “What I earn as a shoemaker barely feeds my many children. Every day they cry for bread and I have little to give them. When I hear their cries my heart breaks, and I too cry. So I collect my tears in this jar.

“When you asked me to come here to pray, I looked into the jar and said, ‘Master of the Universe, if you do not send rain, I will break this jar in front of the whole congregation.’

“Then I heard a voice that said, “Ask again when you stand before the congregation. So I did and I heard a voice say: ‘Do not break the jar’.” And then it began to rain.

Answer: A real believer is a resolute person whose faith in God is doubt-free. A believer does not lose hope even in the face of the most daunting circumstances. For this reason, such a person never gives in to hopelessness but always stands firm, even when all roads are blocked, and keeps walking toward his ideals; he knows that God Almighty has never left those who walk on His path with no ways to reach their goals.

When it was not possible to live in Mecca, God opened the way of miraculous Ascension of the Prophet to the heavens, along which every one of the greatest Prophets saluted him. The Messenger of God reached such a point that even Gabriel the Trustworthy said, “I will be perished if I take one more step.”

Seeking perfection

God Almighty never let down those who walked on His path; He held their hands even at the most unexpected moments, delivering them safe and sound. You may fall down a well, but when you least expect it, a strong rope will be dropped down. There may be times when you are mistreated by a few jealous brothers. However, after a term of spiritual journeying, you just see that God sets thrones in hearts for you. In this respect, no matter what hardships are faced, believers who always feel the Divine help and support behind them will seek out great achievements, and try to give their willpower its due in terms of fulfilling those accomplishments in accordance with their worth. They will thus try to produce the most perfect works, because the Prophet commanded believers to be equipped with the morality of God.

The Divine morality of this issue is related to us by statements like, “He who makes excellent everything that He creates,” (as-Sajdah 32:7) and, “This is the pattern of God who has perfected everything” (an-Naml 27:88). Thus it is pointed out that He brings everything into existence in the best, most beautiful, soundest, and perfect fashion. If He created something out of nothing, built it up, and breathed life to it, those who witnessed His works could not help but say, “There could not be anything better.”

Bediüzzaman relates the following remark of Imam al-Ghazali about this: “There is no possibility of anything more wondrous than what exists in this universe.” A person who beholds this universe with a comprehensive perspective, and moves his shuttle of wisdom between the cause and effect, will have to make the following confession: “God created the universe so beautifully that, had I been given a life of thousand years long and assigned to build a little piece of existence, I could never do it.”

Thus Divine morality shows us this: while striving on the path of God, believers should do their best and try to carry out their tasks in the best and soundest fashion.

As if presenting your work to God’s supervision

Concerning the fact that a believer should seek the perfect for the sake of gaining God’s good pleasure, we can ponder over the following verse: “Say: ‘Work, and God will see your work, and so will His Messenger and the true believers; and you will be brought back to the Knower of the Unseen (of all that lies beyond sense-perception) and the witnessed (the sensed realm), and He will make you understand all that you were doing (and call you to account for it)’” (at-Tawbah 9:105). God Almighty does not command as “if’alu” (do), but as “i’malu,” which means to “fulfill a certain deed.” The Qur’an frequently refers to deeds by putting emphasis on “righteous deeds,” so we understand that the term “deed” refers to fulfilling a certain task positively and flawlessly, within a certain plan, and by considering the results.

The verse also commands fulfilling deeds with the consciousness that God, His Messenger, and all true believers will see these deeds. Namely, a believer should fulfill their deeds so that God Almighty will approve, the Prophet will express appreciation, and believers will wish to have fulfilled their own deeds in such a way. However, the purpose of a believer who seeks perfection in his deeds is not to cause envy in others. On the contrary, they try to gain God’s good pleasure by giving the task its proper due. It is good to aspire to do the same good deeds another person has done, but this issue should not be approached with a feeling of jealousy or rivalry.

Angels as examples

Concerning the angels, the Qur’an states: “(They) do not disobey God in whatever He commands them, and carry out what they are commanded (to carry out)” (at-Tahrim 66:6). That is, they fulfill every command scrupulously and do not disobey His orders in the least bit. They are important examples for us in this respect. Believers should fulfill their tasks comparably to the archangel Gabriel and seek Divine appreciation. They should feel a pulsing in their temples, as if their brains would come out through their noses. It is said that whoever does his best for the sake of accomplishing a certain task, God will grant that person what he seeks.

The heavy trial entailed by success

A person who exerts himself or herself in this degree may attain very good accomplishments, by God’s permission and grace. Thousands, or hundred thousands, of people may gather around them and shower them with thanks and praises. The greatest trial starts at this very point: will they lay claim to the good results or give them to their rightful Owner? Will the achievements trigger feelings of thanksgiving or cause dizziness and blurring of vision? Those who pass this heavy trial successfully and keep their ego in check in order to tame their carnal soul are the heroes of the heart who are fixed on the consideration of humbleness and modesty. They know to keep their place at this critical point, while other people might become addicted to success or winning. Just as they give their willpower its due at the beginning, here as well they give their conscience its due and appropriately determine the correct place they are supposed to stand. They never credit themselves but say, “It was Him that made these things happen,” and run like the plague from vices such as pride and self-satisfaction. Let alone indulging self-satisfaction, from their horizons of self-criticism they see the failures of their work, regret these, and suffer over not having performed even better.

Individuals who serve in different areas of life may make different achievements in the fields of their responsibility. They may put stamps of excellence on every task they fulfill, in a way that evokes admiration in dwellers in the high assembly of the heavens. Individuals may perform perfectly—some with speeches they deliver, some with the articles they write, some with their abilities of teaching and administration, and some with their artistic talents. However, a genuine believer should say, “had there been some sensible person with an immense conscience, he would have probably performed much more perfectly and efficiently.” Considering the impossible—if an act of this person’s parted the moon in two, changed the sun’s course, united all people in the world for a lofty truth, or made an accomplishment comparable to that of Gabriel, the sound of the conscience would still say: “Had there been someone else in my place, who knows how much better he would have done this work! To tell the truth, since this work came out of my foul hands, it remained much lower than where it should have been; it remained derelict, poor, and undeveloped.”

The Apocalypse and the Self-accusing soul

Why is it so important for a believer to revile himself in this degree? Because, there is the risk of experiencing the greatest loss in a zone of winning. After swearing on the Day of Judgment, God Almighty swears on the self-accusing human soul (al-Qiyamah 75:1). As it is known, valuable things of significance are sworn upon. The Day of Judgment is important, for on that day all of those galaxies, constellations, and solar systems that look so impressive to people will be in utter chaos before God’s all-comprehensive Knowledge, overwhelming Will, and supreme acts. That day, everything will be thrown to the air like pieces of straw. By swearing on the Day of Judgment, it is brought to attention that this glorified act of God is a great happening.

Right after this, there is a swear upon the self-accusing soul (an-nafs lawwamah), which refers to one that never likes his own works, but constantly questions and criticizes himself. In this respect, it is the first step of progress on one’s spiritual journey. It is not possible for a person who does not ascend this first step to progress to the level of the soul receiving inspiration (an-nafs al-mulhimah); or from there to its two wings—the soul with which God is pleased and the soul pleased with God; and particularly from there to the soul perfected or pure (safiyah or zakiyyah). The Self-accusing soul can be compared to a ladder, stairway, or an elevator to help a person reach these soul levels on their spiritual journey. It is for this reason that it is very important for a person to constantly confront himself, attribute the negative outcomes to himself, and always criticize himself.

The safest way to purification from sins

Bediuzzaman’s approach on how to avoid the pitfalls of arrogance that can come about after victories and accomplishments is noteworthy. At the end of his Twenty-sixth Word, he virtually addresses his soul like speaking to another person and says:

“O my ostentatious carnal soul! Do not be proud of your services to God’s religion. As stated in a Prophetic Tradition,[1] God may strengthen this religion by means of a dissolute person. You are not pure, so regard yourself as that dissolute person.”

As a spiritual discipline he suggests, “We should never hold ourselves pure; instead, we should regard ourselves as fallible and susceptible to error.”

Accordingly, a person who does not see his own soul as impure does not feel any need to purify it. Thus, he will not purify his soul and cannot be pure. As the carnal soul is not pure in essence, a person should ascribe all negative things to himself.

What happens if a person holds himself responsible for defects and faults? Such a person genuinely turns to God Almighty and asks guidance from Him. Also, God Almighty takes such considerations as remorse and repentance, and paves the ways leading to forgiveness for that person. If a person does not have such considerations at all, he commits various kinds of mistakes unawares and still attaches importance to himself; just like the way people do in our time in spite of their being nothing.

Consider that Umar ibn al-Khattab was a person who successfully dealt with the superpowers of his time, who spent his days and nights in obedience to God and had nothing to do with sins. During a time of draught, he placed his head on the ground by prostrating himself and cried in sobs, praying, “O God, please do not ruin Muslims because of my sins!”

On another day, when they asked him to lead a prayer for rain, he probably said to himself, “How can a sinful person like me pray for rain?” With such a consideration, he held the hand of the Prophet’s uncle Abbas and climbed a hill with him. Then he made his wish by utterly humbling himself, raising the latter’s hand as an intercessor and saying, “O God, this is the hand of your beloved servant’s uncle. Grant us rain for its sake!” Sources relate that a heavy rain began afterwards.

This should be the attitude of an ideal believer. Along with fulfilling every task perfectly, and always seeking to achieve the best at everything and using his willpower to the ultimate degree, one must see various defects in those works in his own sight and constantly criticize himself. As it is expressed in a saying attributed to Umar ibn al-Khattab, a person must continuously call himself to account before the Day of Reckoning comes.

To conclude, if a person performs perfectly in a way that does not bring him shame when presented to God Almighty; if he still sees faults in himself by saying, “Had someone else realized these works, they would have done it better, but I have messed it up;” then by God’s permission and grace, this will render that person impeccably pure.

Note

1. Sahih al-Bukhari, Jihad, 182; Abdurrazzaq, Al-Musannaf, 5/270.