At the end of the Treatise on Sincerity, Bediuzzaman says: “We beseech the All-Compassionate, the Most Merciful, making all of His Most Beautiful Names our intercessors, that He may grant us complete sincerity.” [1] What is the wisdom behind invoking the Divine Names as intercessors in attaining sincerity? 

Answer: 

Sincerity (ikhlas) means performing deeds solely because God commands them and seeking only His good pleasure as their outcome. Beyond this, one does not set one’s heart on worldly interests or even on rewards in the Hereafter. For worshipping God is not the price paid for blessings to be granted later; rather, it is an expression of gratitude for the blessings that have already been bestowed. 

Nevertheless, when the matter is considered from the perspective of human need and necessity, there is no harm in asking for the blessings of the Hereafter. Although we do not attach our acts of worship to such rewards, nor serve God merely to obtain them, it is certain that we are in profound need of them. Just as in this world we need to believe in God, to know and recognize Him, to love Him, to feel connected to Him, and to rely and trust in Him, so too in the next world we are in need of being among those brought near to Him. We know that the only place where we may draw near to Him, behold His Divine beauty, and be encompassed by the breezes of the verse, “God’s good pleasure is greater than all else” (Qur’an 9:72), is Paradise. Therefore, we hope for and ask for Paradise and its blessings from His grace. For we cannot do without Him; and just as we cannot do without Him, we cannot do without Paradise. 

Seeking refuge in the Divine Names  

Sincerity is, in essence, a designation for truly knowing God, aspiring to attain His good pleasure, and showing reverence for His commands. For this reason, sincerity holds vital importance for every believer. The wisdom behind Bediuzzaman’s invoking the Divine Names as intercessors while asking God for sincerity lies precisely in this point. When we ask for what we value most in our supplications, we naturally seek intercession through what we hold most precious. 

Moreover, the Qur’an recommends that we include the Divine Names in our supplications and invoke them as a means of appeal. One verse states, “The Most Beautiful Names belong to God; so call upon Him by them” (7:180). 

This indicates that the Divine Names possess a profound influence connected to the inner meaning of servanthood, and that we should seek refuge in them in our prayers. Similarly, in the supplication of Jawshan, it is said, “I ask You by Your Names,” after which the Divine Names are mentioned, and through their honor deliverance from Hell is sought. 

Bediuzzaman’s emphasis on sincerity 

In his works, Bediuzzaman repeatedly stresses sincerity on various occasions and highlights its importance in powerful terms. He states that even an atom’s weight of action performed with sincerity surpasses tons of deeds devoid of sincerity. Despite the small number of people around him, he attributes the manifold fruits of their service to their sincerity, describing how their efforts yielded results far beyond their apparent capacity. While expressing this truth, he says: “God willing, you will attain complete sincerity, and you will also help me attain complete sincerity” [2]. 

Through these words, Bediuzzaman demonstrates humility, appreciates his companions, and at the same time offers an important reminder. For no matter how sincere a person may be, attaining perfect sincerity is not easy. It requires that not even the slightest ulterior consideration be mixed into one’s deeds, that everything other than the Divine be set aside, and that one’s heart be fully directed toward God alone. Moreover, sincerity once attained can easily be lost without one even realizing it. Even when one is very careful, it is difficult to claim that one has reached complete sincerity (ikhlaṣ al-tamm) or perfected sincerity (ikhlaṣ al-atamm). This represents a horizon that we strive for but find difficult to reach. To attain it, one must overcome many demanding obstacles and loosen the bonds of bodily and worldly attachments. Such a degree of sincerity belongs only to the distinguished servants referred to as the mukhlasin—those purified in sincerity. 

Bediuzzaman was a monumental personality who carefully observed events around him, continuously drew lessons from them, and offered guidance whenever necessary. On one occasion, he recounts the following experience concerning sincerity: when he told his student Hafiz Ali that another friend’s handwriting was more beautiful than his and that this person would therefore contribute more effectively to the service, Hafiz Ali responded with complete sincerity and heartfelt purity. Rather than feeling disturbed, he expressed joy and took pride in his brother [3]. 

This example shows that sincerity is closely connected with brotherhood and fellowship. If we wish to understand the degree of sincerity present in our own efforts in the path of God, we may ask ourselves the following question: If I were confronted with such a situation, would I be able to show the same attitude? 

May God grant us the ability to transcend our egos, establish a deep connection with our Lord, and act with genuine sincerity at this level. 

The ascending spiral of sincerity 

If, like Bediuzzaman, we carefully take a look around us, we will encounter many heroes of sincerity whose hearts beat for God. We admire their state and strive to be like them. There have been many such heroes who set out for many parts of the world without considering salary, often without even knowing the countries to which they were going, and they undertook journeys of migration devoted to altruistic service. Their attitude inspired us, revived us, and helped us regain our sense of purpose. No matter how much we thank God for granting us the blessing of being among so many dedicated individuals, it would still be insufficient. Indeed, if there had not been such devoted and sincere people, so many beautiful outcomes would not have emerged. This shows that the fruits arising from such service are extra favors granted by God to sincere intentions. 

If sincerity is the foremost quality that the Divine seeks from us, and if it is like an ascending spiral that lifts a person toward His good pleasure, then it should also be our foremost aim. We must constantly ask God for sincerity. Especially at night, we should place our foreheads upon the prayer mat and say: O God, make us among Your servants who seek sincerity and who are granted sincerity. 

We should seek sincerity in all of our actions and spend our entire lives striving for perfected sincerity (ikhlaṣ al-atamm). In our supplications, we ask God for matters such as livelihood, health, and family. There is no harm in these requests; however, none of them is as important as attaining sincerity, the Divine good pleasure, and knowledge of the Divine Creator. Therefore, at least as much as we pray for worldly needs and desires, we should also pray to obtain these higher aims. 

It should also not be forgotten that sincerity is connected to faith. The stronger one’s faith, the stronger one’s sincerity will be. From this perspective, we must first believe in God with certainty surpassing mathematical certainty; in proportion to our faith, we should attain knowledge of Him (ma‘rifah), and in proportion to that knowledge we should establish a deep connection with Him. If we wish to attain perfected sincerity, we should strive to elevate our faith from certainty through knowledge (‘ilm al-yaqin), to certainty through direct perception (‘ayn al-yaqin), and finally to certainty through realized truth (haqq al-yaqin). If faith becomes deeply rooted within our being and we remain close to God, neither Satan nor the evil-commanding self (nafs al-ammarah) will be able to damage our sincerity. 

Just as every precious thing is difficult to obtain, sincerity is not easily acquired. Yet the paths leading to it are not closed; they remain open. It is possible to reach sincerity through faith, knowledge, love, reflection, and prayer. 

References 

1. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Lem’alar, p. 208 (The Twenty-First Flash – Treatise on Sincerity). 
2. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Lem’alar, p. 203 (The Twenty-First Flash, Third Principle). 
3. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Barla Lahikası, p. 146. At that time, his Epistles of Light collection were written and reproduced by hand due to the political pressure and persecution directed against religious expression. 

Li, T., Wang, Z., Kyba, C.C.M. et al. Satellite imagery reveals increasing volatility in human night-time activity. Nature, April 2026. 

From space, Earth at night appears steady with cities glowing like fixed constellations. For decades, scientists treated these lights as a simple story of growth: more light meant more development. But a recent study reveals something more subtle. The night is not steady. It pulses. 

Using daily satellite images collected between 2014 and 2022, researchers found that artificial light at night is constantly shifting. Places do not simply brighten over time. They brighten, dim, and brighten again. On average, each changing location experienced several distinct shifts in less than a decade. What seemed like a smooth upward trend is, in fact, a restless pattern of activity. 

These fluctuations reflect the rhythms of human life. A sudden blackout after a hurricane, a city expanding its suburbs, a factory shutting down, or a new policy reducing energy use all leave their mark on the night. Even global events appear in this silent language of light. During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, large regions dimmed noticeably as movement and industry slowed. In parts of Europe, recent energy-saving measures have also darkened the night. 

Not all dimming signals decline. In some places, it points to efficiency and restraint; in others, to instability and hardship. Light, then, becomes a kind of indicator—not just of growth, but of change itself. 

Seen this way, the illuminated Earth resembles a living system. Its glow rises and falls, responding to forces both planned and unforeseen. What we once read as a static map of human presence is better understood as a dynamic record of our collective life—one that flickers, adapts, and reveals, moment by moment, the changing state of our world. 

A New Way to Clean Microplastics with Algae 

Susie Dai. Can algae help pull microplastics out of our water supply? Science Friday, April 2026. 

Microplastics have been found in oceans, soil, human blood, and even in a cave sealed off for decades. This is alarming not only due to where these particles are found but also because of how silently they disperse, passing through filters and reaching areas we believed were safe. And yet, in the midst of this quiet spread, researchers are beginning to find equally subtle ways to respond. 

Scientists in Missouri have been experimenting with a modified algae that exhibits unusual behavior. Both the algae and microplastics repel water, and this shared property causes them to cling to one another. When they do, the particles clump together and sink, making them far easier to remove. Controlled experiments demonstrated that this process can eliminate over 90% of microplastics from water, particularly the smallest pieces, which are typically the hardest to filter out. 

The goal is not to release the algae freely into rivers or lakes. Instead, researchers propose using it within controlled environments, like wastewater treatment plants, where conditions can be precisely managed. In these settings, it can efficiently collect fragments that might otherwise slip through current filters unnoticed. 

What makes the story more compelling is that this was not the initial goal. The algae were originally researched as a possible fuel source. Their water-cleaning ability only became apparent when scientists started exploring other potential uses, asking what else they might accomplish. 

The idea is quite fitting. The issue of microplastics is a widespread, persistent problem often hidden from view. It may be that its solutions will arrive the same way: not in a single sweeping fix, but in small, patient discoveries that gather what has been scattered and begin, piece by piece, to bring it back into view. 

Ancient Fossil Egg Sheds Light on Mammal Origins 

University of the Witwatersrand. Mammal ancestors laid eggs, and this 250-million-year-old fossil finally proves it. ScienceDaily, April 2026. 

A 250-million-year-old fossil egg containing a Lystrosaurus embryo has provided the first direct evidence that early mammal ancestors laid eggs. This discovery resolves a long-standing scientific question about how mammalian reproduction evolved. 

Lystrosaurus, a plant-eating ancestor of mammals, became one of the dominant species after the End-Permian mass extinction, Earth’s most devastating extinction event. Its success in such harsh conditions—extreme heat, drought, and ecological collapse—has long intrigued scientists. 

The fossil, first found in 2008, was only recently confirmed as an egg using advanced synchrotron X-ray imaging, which revealed a curled embryo inside. The embryo’s undeveloped jaw showed it had not yet hatched. 

Researchers believe Lystrosaurus laid large, soft-shelled eggs, which explains why such fossils are extremely rare. Soft shells decay easily and seldom fossilize. These large eggs likely contained abundant nutrients, allowing the young to develop fully before hatching and survive without parental care. 

The study suggests that Lystrosaurus hatchlings were precocial—born relatively mature and able to feed themselves immediately. This, combined with rapid growth and early reproduction, likely helped the species thrive in unstable post-extinction environments. 

Overall, the discovery not only confirms that mammal ancestors reproduced by laying eggs but also highlights how reproductive strategies contributed to survival during extreme global crises, offering insight into resilience in both ancient and modern ecosystems. 

We have lived with imitation forever. Dye pretended to be royal purple. Bronze pretended to be gold. Photography pretended to trap time. Every tool that extends human power also extends human pretense. The difference now is acceleration and opacity: an edit so swift that even conscience can’t keep pace, a polish so seamless it erases its own fingerprints. Authenticity, once a matter of manners and craft, begins to feel like a moral emergency. 

The word “authentic” is often treated like a mood: earthy bread, unfiltered photos, a personality that “feels real.” But moods are evaporative. I want a definition that can weather automation. For me, authenticity means at least three things: a truthful intention, an accountable process, and a risk carried by a person—not just a model—at the end. If any one of those goes missing, I can still admire the product, but I struggle to trust the person behind it, even if that person is me. 

I am a student of scripture and interpretation; the air I breathe is full of words—recited, argued, memorized, sung. Words are supposed to approach truth, not merely to resemble it. In my tradition we talk about sidq (truthfulness), niyyah (intention), ihsan (excellence), and amanah (trust). These are not ornamental ideas; they are disciplines of selfhood. AI does not cancel them; if anything, it intensifies their necessity. A tool that can impersonate excellence forces us to decide whether we want excellence to be an impersonation at all. 

Consider the student essay. A model can outline, draft, tidy, and even simulate “voice.” The result may be correct, even insightful. But where does the student’s intellectual risk live? What has she actually learned to do under the skin? When the paragraphs look sturdy enough to lean on, she is tempted to stop building muscles and start leaning permanently. Authenticity, then, is not a refusal of assistance; it is the refusal to outsource the very thing that the task exists to train. If my course is meant to form judgment, then I can’t delegate judgment to a statistical system without hollowing myself. 

Consider devotional art. I can train an algorithm on a hundred recitations and produce a voice that glides like a blade through silk. Does its perfection honor the text, or does it smuggle in a lie about effort? The beauty of breath is that it runs out. The realism of virtue is that it costs. A cloned voice can mimic the contours of humility; it cannot carry humility’s weight. 

But the age of AI also disciplines my suspicion. I do not want to become a nostalgist for struggle merely for struggle’s sake, as if the only honest loaf is kneaded by hand and the only honest letter is scratched by a quill. Tools have always multiplied human meaning. A calculator doesn’t corrupt arithmetic; it frees the mind to do higher math. Spellcheck does not destroy literature; it rescues attention for the sentence. So the question is not whether to use AI. The question is whether, in using it, I remain willing to be the person responsible for what the work becomes. 

To make that willingness practical, I’ve started practicing a small liturgy of making—four habits that help me stay answerable to myself: 

Maksad — Purpose. Before I open a model, I ask: what is the task trying to shape in me? If the goal is recall, I read. If the goal is style, I draft with my own sentences first, however clumsy. If the goal is exploration, I might brainstorm with a model, but I mark the frontier as borrowed. Clarity of aim guards me from seduction by convenience. 

Musyaratah — Guardrails. I decide in advance what lines I will not cross. I will not present machine-generated text as my own for graded work. I will not clone human voices without consent. I will cite sources I discover through a model just as if a friend had recommended them. Constraints, like rhyme in a poem, make freedom musical. 

Muraqabah — Accountability. I keep a process log. It is not a confession booth; it is a checksum of the self. I note what I asked a model to do, what I adopted, what I altered, what I rejected. If someone asks how I made this, I can tell the true story of the making. The log is for my integrity, not for another’s approval. 

Muhasabah — Reflection. After I “finish,” I step back and listen for the room tone of the piece. Does it sound like me—a me who has grown, yes, but still recognizably me? Could I defend the claim I have made without the screen? If the answer is no, the work may be excellent but not yet mine. 

These habits are small, almost domestic, but they wage a quiet war against the slippage of authorship. A shortcut that hides itself is a lie; a tool that introduces itself can be a teacher. 

To test myself, I ran an experiment. I wrote two short reflections on the same passage: one with the gentle scaffolding of a model that proposed themes and metaphors, and one entirely alone, allowing only books and silence inside the room. The glossier one was not the one I thought. The “assisted” piece flowed and sparkled; it also lacked the knot in the string where my confusion had been tied. The solitary piece was messier; but in its hesitations I could hear a person who had wrestled, and whose voice—imperfect, specific—had weight. If writing is, among other things, a trail of thinking, then the overly smooth trail begins to look suspiciously like a sidewalk poured after the journey ended. 

A friend challenged me: “But if the goal is to help readers, why not publish the better piece?” Because better is not the only category that matters. We need a second axis—call it answerability. A piece is answerable when a human being stands behind it and can truthfully say, “I did this much. I accept these consequences.” The reader deserves craft; they also deserve custody. Who is the custodian of the claim? If the maker is only a curator of model outputs, the answer grows indistinct. The words may be true; the accountability is blurry. In a world already allergic to responsibility, blur is not neutral. It is the solvent of trust. 

The most common defense of seamless assistance is compassion: Let’s not gatekeep excellence. Let’s let more people sound good. I agree with the compassion; I resist the conclusion. True inclusion invites people to grow strong in their own voices, not merely to be dressed in a costume that fits a market taste. If we unwittingly define dignity as access to a convincing imitation, then we will populate our public life with expertly rendered masks. I do not think we can build a trustworthy civilization out of masks. 

Of course, there are ways in which simulation serves mercy: a voice for someone who has lost hers, a predictive text that helps a non-native speaker write with less fear, an image tool that enables a person with limited mobility to tell visual stories. In such cases, disclosure is not self-sabotage; it is part of the dignity. “This is me, with help.” The sentence is humbler and truer than “This is me,” when the latter would be a lie. 

Disclosure, in fact, may be the new politeness. We already accept labels that tell us what has been added: contains nuts, edited for clarity, color-corrected. Perhaps we need soft language for creative process as well: assisted outline, language polish, synthetic voice with consent. These are not apologies; they are invitations to trust. They let receivers calibrate their expectations without forcing creators into a permanent performance of purity. 

Will some people game the new etiquette? Of course. People already counterfeit everything that is worth trusting. But an ethic does not need perfect compliance to be worthwhile. It only needs enough faithful practitioners to make the real visible again. 

When I reach for examples, I keep circling back to the ancient contrast between spectacle and sign. Spectacle calls attention to itself: Look how astonishing this is. A sign points beyond itself: Look where this leads you. Much of our AI-driven culture is spectacular, and a little spectacle is fine—life without astonishment would be gray. But a life dominated by spectacle makes us shallow. We begin to prefer what dazzles over what guides. In my own studies, I try to remember that the most important truths rarely arrive in glitter. They arrive in the steady work of reality: caring for parents, reading primary sources, returning a borrowed thing on time, pronouncing a word as it was meant to be pronounced. 

This is not an argument against beauty. It is a plea for the kind of beauty that costs a person something. There is beauty in a scale sung until the throat stings, in a paragraph rewritten until the music settles, in a calculation checked twice. The machine can sketch such beauty. It cannot suffer for it. And suffering—not dramatic, but patient, sustained—is often what turns the merely correct into the genuinely true. 

What, then, should we do? We can enact authenticity at three levels: the self, the circle, and the commons. 

At the level of the self, we can cultivate appetites that resist fakery. Appetites are trainable. If we binge on frictionless polish, our tongues forget the taste of labor. So we can fast a little from perfect surfaces. We can keep some imperfections on purpose—not as a performance of rusticity, but as a reminder that we are not machines. We can practice saying, when praised, “Thank you; I had help,” and letting that sentence be part of the beauty. 

At the level of the circle—friends, classmates, colleagues—we can covenant for clarity. Agree on what kinds of assistance are honorable for a given task. Normalize process notes. Praise the growth that shows in the second attempt, not only the result that gleams in the first. The point is not surveillance; the point is shared courage. 

At the level of the commons—publishing, platforms, institutions—we can ask for policies that assume human dignity. Tools can include visible provenance, watermarks that are hard to forge, and optional toggles for disclosure tags. Prizes and journals can reward accountability statements as well as elegance. The goal is not to penalize assistance, but to refuse the disappearing act. When a culture asks “How was this made?” as naturally as it asks “Is this good?” life becomes harder for counterfeits and easier for craft. 

But what if the counterfeit is harmless? someone might ask. If the cloned voice soothes a child to sleep, who is harmed? I do not want to be severe; I have been soothed by small mercies that were not entirely honest. Yet the harm of habitual imitation is cumulative. If we allow simulation to become the default texture of care, we teach ourselves to accept gestures without givers. We risk raising a generation comforted by performances of presence rather than presence itself. The harm will appear, like all deep harms, as hollowness. 

One evening, after too much thinking, I returned to the same recording that had tricked me. I played it on purpose, knowing it was synthetic. I listened for the seams and could not hear them. The vowels warmed, the consonants glinted, the pauses landed as if the singer had lungs. I tried to be angry and failed. The file was not malicious. It was simply better than my ear. So I did something awkward and good: I put the phone down, sat on the edge of the bed, and recited alone. The room was ordinary. My tone wavered and my breath ran short. But a small confidence visited me: this sound, for all its ordinary, was not pretending to be anything. It was mine to be judged for; mine to improve; mine to offer. 

Authenticity will always be partly aspirational. We declare we are telling the truth and then we learn how to do it. We promise to disclose and then we forget and begin again. But aspiration is not hypocrisy; it is training. The self is a muscle, not a statue. Every day I decide which parts to exercise: the instinct for polish or the instinct for presence. In the age of AI, the instinct for polish will have irresistible help. So I must nourish the other instinct with choices that keep me answerable—choices that keep a person at the center of the work. 

I still love the tremor in a human voice. I love the penultimate draft that isn’t smooth yet but already honest. I love the awkward sentence that finally learns to walk by itself. I love the breath that runs out and then returns. In a future crowded with convincing performances, these small loves feel like the last quiet luxuries we can afford. Perhaps the test of our intelligence will not be how perfectly we can imitate ourselves, but how bravely we can remain ourselves while we learn to live with perfect imitation. 

So here is my working creed, shyly offered to anyone else who wants to stay real without becoming a Luddite: 

Use the tools, but don’t let them use your courage. 

Disclose your shortcuts, and let the truth become part of your style. 

Keep a little friction in the craft; let it remember you. 

Accept the cost of carrying your claims. 

And when the clone sings beautifully, sing anyway. The world does not merely need correct sounds. It needs responsible singers. 

Many verses in the Qur’an are cryptic. While being aware of theological tools helps understand the meaning, in many instances, scientific findings, too, prove to be of use to unpack the mysteries therein. One of those verses I find fascinating is al-Isra 17:44: 

“The seven heavens, the earth, and all that is in them glorify Him. There is nothing that does not glorify Him with praise, but you do not understand their glorification. Truly, He is Most Forbearing, Most Forgiving.” 

In classical commentary, the phrase “the seven heavens, the earth, and all that is in them” is generally understood as a reference to all beings, conscious or unconscious. It is explained that everything glorifies God in its own way, though the nature of this glorification cannot be directly grasped by human understanding. 

To go deeper into the meaning of this verse, we will first review approaches found in classical exegetical sources as well as modern interpretations. In particular, we will briefly highlight the commentary of Bediüzzaman Said Nursi in his work Ayetü’l-Kübrâ, a fifty-page treatise devoted in part to this verse. After that, we will present a framework of interpretation shaped by modern scientific findings, suggesting an alternative reading of the verse that accounts for both its metaphysical and physical dimensions. The broader goal is to contribute to a new interpretive ground at the intersection of revelation-based knowledge and scientific observation, through the universal laws that govern existence. 

Glorifying God 

In classical sources, the concept of tasbih (glorification) in this verse is often explained as all beings’ turning toward divine order and the Creator, each in its own way. For example, al-Tabari sees tasbih as each being worshiping God in its own language. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi states that sometimes this happens through words and sometimes through the state of existence itself, and that it can only be grasped by those with intellect. Ibn Kathir considers the tasbih of all beings to be real, though imperceptible to human senses. Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır emphasizes that the order in the universe itself demonstrates a kind of tasbih. 

A common point among these classical commentators is that tasbih occurs on two levels: through spoken expression (lisan al-qal) and through existential state (lisan al-hal). This dual approach applies both to conscious beings (such as humans) and unconscious beings (such as stones, air, or atoms). The verse highlights that this universal glorification operates on a level beyond human comprehension. Thus, tasbih is not limited to conscious acts of worship but can also be understood as the ongoing and all-encompassing order within the natural world. 

From this perspective, the workings, regularities, and interrelations of all things—from subatomic particles to galaxies—can be seen as manifestations of divine laws, a kind of ontological tasbih. The cosmological view offered by the verse thus points to a profound overlap between the natural laws discovered by modern science and the metaphysical insights of classical thought. 

Modern interpretations tend to explain tasbih as beings’ fulfilling their functions in line with their purpose of creation and their inherent nature (fitrah). In this sense, even if not a conscious act of worship, every being is seen as glorifying God through its orientation embedded in creation. Each being’s continuation of existence according to its own nature is also considered tasbih. 

In this framework, tasbih is not limited to conscious expressions but includes the structural order, physical laws, and natural processes observed throughout the universe. Modern interpretations therefore understand tasbih as an ontological orientation: every being continues its existence in accordance with its own internal laws and physical limits. This shows that tasbih is not only a religious or metaphysical concept but also resonates with the idea of natural order observed by science. 

In his treatise Ayetü’l-Kübrâ, Bediüzzaman Said Nursi discusses tasbih on both metaphysical and ontological levels. He likens the universe to a book and every being to a letter or sentence in that book, each directly remembering the Creator. For him, tasbih is not merely metaphorical but a true glorification that each being performs through its existential function. Nursi structures his metaphysical reflections through contemplation, grounding what is perceivable in rational thought. 

He emphasizes that the continuity and order seen throughout the cosmos directly point to the Creator: “The entirety of the universe glorifies its Maker with true remembrance.” “The manifestations of divine power appear in everything, and each being declares: There is no god but He.” “With the motion of particles, a glorification, remembrance, and worship take place.” “Every creature has a task; its task is worship.” These statements highlight how all beings, from subatomic particles to the cosmic whole, operate within law, order, and functionality. 

When compared with modern interpretations, Nursi’s approach shows some key differences. While modern exegetes often see tasbih as symbolic or systematic order—beings acting in line with their purpose of creation—Nursi considers it direct and real. For him, every being actively and consciously glorifies God. His approach integrates physical reality with a metaphysical perspective, presenting creation as not only “existent” but also “meaningful.” This resonates with both classical and modern interpretations while adding a contemplative dimension that speaks to modern seekers of meaning. 

Nursi even describes the entire universe as a grand assembly of remembrance (common ground for everything but Allah): “The heavens, the earth, and all within them are like a great gathering of remembrance. Every atom praises God in its own language. Humans may not perceive this praise, but it is real.” This view emphasizes that the order of the universe is not only physical but also meaningful and holistic. 

What do scientific findings say? 

In continuing this discussion, our focus will shift to how this “common ground” can be conceptualized in light of modern scientific discoveries. That is, how the building blocks, laws, and principles uniting all beings in the universe can be understood through contemporary science. 

The idea of glorification through words (tasbih by speech) is easily understood as conscious beings verbally exalting God. But how should glorification through state (tasbih by being) be understood? Both classical and modern interpretations agree that all beings and events are bound by divine laws governing their existence and functioning. This compulsory harmony and order can be seen as the creation glorifying its Creator. Still, this idea may seem abstract at first, so it requires explanation. In particular, we will explore what modern science offers for understanding tasbih by being. 

Science gives us several fundamental elements that reveal a common ground uniting all of existence. Among these are shared building blocks (subatomic particles), universal physical laws, common origins, and systematic methods of observation and interpretation. Every being demonstrates, in its own context, that it is part of the larger whole through structural similarities and compliance with shared laws. 

At the microscopic level, this unity is especially clear. All observable entities are made of atoms—small and discrete units. The atomic structure is universal: a nucleus of protons and neutrons, surrounded by a cloud of electrons. These fundamental particles themselves are composed of even more basic particles such as quarks and leptons. Thus, all material systems are built from the same components in varying combinations. 

In addition to this shared structure, quantum numbers define the order within atoms, governing matter’s behavior at a universal level. The position and energy of electrons are described by four quantum numbers: 

• n: the principal quantum number, indicating energy level, 

• l: angular momentum, describing orbital shape, 

• ml: orientation of the orbital in space, 

• ms: electron spin. 

By the Pauli exclusion principle, no two electrons in an atom can share the same four quantum numbers. This rule shows that universal order operates even at the subatomic level. Each particle has a unique position in this order. 

Other principles, such as Hund’s rule (that electrons are first singly filled with the same spin before they are filled doubly) and the Aufbau principle (that electrons first fill subshells of the lowest available energy, then those of higher energy), further highlight this extraordinary order, leaving no room for randomness at the atomic level. Together, they point to a coherent, universal structure encompassing all matter. In Nursi’s words, this could be seen as a shared “mosque” for all creation. 

Each particle’s individuality—defined by its unique quantum state—coexists with the universality of the shared laws. In religious terminology, this can be linked to Ahadiyyah (the unique individuality of each being) and Wahdaniyyah (the unity of all beings within one system). While a deeper discussion of these theological concepts is beyond the scope of this article, we note that even in physical reality, these dual dimensions of uniqueness and unity are observable. 

One of the most striking scientific principles supporting this universal order is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. This principle points to a limit built into the very structure of nature: it is impossible to know both the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time. This is not due to shortcomings in measurement tools but due to the nature of reality itself. It reveals an inherent “limit of knowledge” in the physical world. 

As such, the principle is not only a physical rule but also an epistemological sign: it defines the boundaries of human knowledge about nature. In a metaphysical reading, it indirectly suggests an unbridgeable difference between Creator and creation. While natural laws provide knowledge, the limits of this knowledge reveal the boundaries of human existence and understanding. 

Conclusion 

In this study, we have attempted to interpret the concept of tasbih in Qur’an 17:44 through both classical and modern exegesis, alongside insights from contemporary science. The order observed in creation, from the quantum level to cosmic structures, manifests laws and harmony that align with the Qur’anic concept of glorification. This perspective allows us to reconsider the idea of tasbih by being in a scientific framework. 

In short, the laws, order, and functionality observed in the universe can be seen as signs of beings’ connection to their Creator, a form of existential orientation. The author hopes that this article may serve as a modest attempt to show how scientific discoveries can contribute to a deeper understanding of a Qur’anic expression.

Schimmel’s orientation toward the East was preceded not by an academic choice but by a striking encounter experienced at an early age. This event occurred during a period when she was unable to attend school due to a kidney infection she suffered at the age of seven. Family members and friends brought her various books to read, one of which was a fairy tale titled Padmanaba and Hasan. In this story, a Hindu sage teaches the secrets of supreme wisdom to a Muslim youth in Damascus and asks him to guide him to a marvelous realm located at the bottom of a deep well. There lay the tomb of the world’s greatest Emir, and inscribed beneath it were the words: “People are asleep; they awaken when they die” [2]. According to Schimmel, this sentence became a turning point that determined the course of her life. She would learn only ten years later that the saying was attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib, Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law (peace be upon him) [3]. Yet this childhood intuition—however subjective—opened a gateway that led her to encounter the tradition of Islamic wisdom. 

A life of learning 

Schimmel was born on April 7, 1922, in Erfurt, Germany. Her childhood passed within a family nurtured by affection and compassion. Her father, Paul, had an interest in philosophical and mystical subjects, while her mother, Anna, was an avid reader. Demonstrating scholarly aptitude beyond her age, Schimmel’s favorite pastime as a child was arranging words in alphabetical order. 

After learning French and English in high school, she studied Persian, followed by Ottoman Turkish and modern Turkish. When she decided to learn Arabic at the age of fifteen, she encountered Dr. Hans Ellenberg, a scholar deeply knowledgeable about Islamic culture and devoted to the East. Ellenberg required her not only to learn Arabic but also to read extensively in history, literature, and religion. Thrilled at having found what she was searching for, she read three books a week from the very first lesson. During this period, Schimmel skipped two grades and completed high school at the age of sixteen. [4] 

At a time when her extraordinary talents were leading her from one success to another, all high school students were summoned to Berlin for compulsory service due to the impending outbreak of World War II. Students in medicine and the natural sciences were exempt, prompting her to enroll in physics and chemistry at university. Meanwhile, she continued taking courses in Islamic art history from Ernst Kühnel and Arabic from Walther Björkman. Recognizing her exceptional talent in Islamic arts, Kühnel encouraged her to pursue a doctorate and promised to take her on as an assistant upon completion [5]. 

Accepting this academic plan, Schimmel devoted herself entirely to the East. Under the encouragement of her mentor Richard Hartmann, she completed her doctoral dissertation entitled The Status of Scholars under the Mamluks and the Problem of Relations between the Turkish-Speaking Military Class and the Muslim Elite at the age of nineteen [6]. 

In October 1940, eager to go beyond her readings, she asked her mentor Hans Heinrich Schaeder whether he would recommend reading Rumi’s Masnavi. Schaeder instead suggested reading the Dīvān-i Kabīr through Reynold Nicholson’s translation. Schimmel would later describe the profound impact of this work as follows: “When I picked up the Dīvān, I felt as though struck by lightning. The harmony of the poems swept me away; although I was unfamiliar with Persian meter and rhetoric at the time, I could understand the texts directly. As I read, the poems seemed to translate themselves into German. Since photocopying did not exist, I copied Nicholson’s entire book by hand, including the footnotes” [7]. This experience explains why she gravitated toward understanding Islam primarily through Sufism. 

After completing her doctorate, Schimmel worked as a translator at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. During this time, World War II ended with the victory of the United States, and she was sent to Marburg, where she was detained for five and a half months. There, she further developed her habilitation thesis prepared earlier in Berlin and completed The Social and Cultural Roles of Soldiers, Emirs, and Sultans in the Mamluk State. She submitted this work to Marburg University in 1946, thereby earning her second habilitation [8]. 

She was subsequently appointed to a vacant position in Arabic philology, where she taught Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Islamic arts, and the history of Islamic literature. She also attended the lectures of Heiler, the only scholar in the faculty advocating mysticism, and under his supervision completed her third doctoral dissertation on The Concept of Mystical Love in Islam [9]. 

“Who could resist the allure of the Süleymaniye?” 

Schimmel’s period in Turkey represented not merely a phase of academic research but also a direct engagement with Islam as it was “lived.” She first came to Istanbul in 1952 to examine manuscript collections and met figures such as Abdülkadir Gölpınarlı, Nihat Sami Banarlı, and Yahya Kemal. Her friendship with Samiha Ayverdi was so close that she addressed her as “sister.” Reflecting on the joy she felt while examining the calligraphy and tilework of mosques and historical sites, she later remarked: “The finest thing I did here was to visit the mosques; who could resist the allure of the Süleymaniye, rising like a crown over Istanbul?” [10] This statement reveals that her presence in Turkey was not merely an academic obligation but a conscious and heartfelt choice. 

A year later, she traveled to Ankara, where she encountered other prominent figures. For Schimmel, Ankara’s primary significance lay in her appointment to the newly established Faculty of Theology—the first of its kind in Turkey. She later recounted that there were several reasons why she was appointed to the job: It was in Ankara where she delivered her first lecture in Turkish; she was being regarded as sympathetic to Islam; and she had recently earned a second doctorate in the history of religions in Marburg. All these factors made her an ideal candidate for the vacant chair of History of Religions at the Faculty of Theology. “When I received the offer to begin work on November 1, 1954,” Schimmel says, “I accepted with pleasure, believing that I had found an ideal opportunity to live in a country I deeply loved while gaining knowledge about Islam.” [11] 

Having completed her third doctorate on Mystical Love in Islam, Schimmel felt compelled to visit Rumi. She made her first visit in 1952 and was invited to the Shab-i Arus ceremonies in 1954. As elsewhere, she formed lasting friendships there. What gave her the greatest joy during these visits was witnessing the sincerity of Anatolian women and customs previously unfamiliar to her. 

During her stay in Turkey, Schimmel traveled extensively across Anatolian cities such as Kayseri, Konya, Sivas, and Hatay. She also frequently visited other parts of the Islamic world, including Tunisia, Iran, Riyadh, India, Egypt, and Pakistan. Her particular affection for Pakistan, inspired by her admiration for Muhammad Iqbal, was something she believed originated from the tale Padmanaba and Hasan. 

Pakistan became her second homeland. She first visited the country in 1958, which she described as “the place where my destiny was shaped.” She was deeply moved by the shrines she encountered there and remarked: “…I loved my Sindh and visited many villages and sacred sites. I befriended singers and musicians who played and sang for me on moonlit boats. I never tired of listening when they performed old melodies accompanied by double flutes and various percussion instruments” [12]. 

Prejudice and exclusion in European academia 

Though it was difficult to leave Anatolia, Schimmel left Turkey in the autumn of 1959 with a warm farewell. Upon returning to Marburg, however, she was met with a cold atmosphere and was not reinstated to her former position. The reason lay in the intolerance of colleagues who could not accept a female professor of international renown who approached Islam, its culture, and Muslims without prejudice [13]. Bias and resentment now stood before her like the Great Wall of China. 

During this period, her mentor Heiler asked for her assistance in organizing a congress in Marburg, which occupied her for a year. Nonetheless, unemployment weighed heavily on her, leading her to briefly consider emigrating to Pakistan. Around that time, the President of Pakistan, whom she had met in Karachi, visited Bonn and requested a meeting. At that meeting, Prof. Otto Spies, dean of the Oriental Institute and a Turkologist, offered her a professorship. Thus began her Bonn years, lasting from May 1, 1961, to 1967. There she taught Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, as well as the history of religions, Sufism, and Islamic history. She was like a fertile land yielding three harvests in a single season. Despite her heavy workload she also served as editor of the Arabic journal Fikrun wa Fan (Thought and Science) and contributed articles to it [14]. 

American years and global impact 

By the mid-1960s, Schimmel had become a leading authority in the history of religions. She was invited to the 1965 Congress of the History of Religions in Claremont, California, where Harvard University offered her a chair to teach Indo-Muslim culture. Although she had long awaited such recognition from her own university, male administrative dominance had prevented it. Thus, she moved to the United States and spent twenty-five years at Harvard University introducing Islam to Western students through its poetry, symbolism, and mystical language. Her studies on Rumi, Yunus Emre, and Muhammad Iqbal, in particular, had a broad impact. Yet in America—what she called the “ghurbat al-gharbiyya” (Western exile) of her soul, borrowing from Suhrawardi—she carried the voice of the East to the West until her retirement [15]. 

The autumn of her life 

A life that bore fruit in every season could hardly be confined to quiet retirement. During what she called the autumn of her life, Schimmel published three-five books annually, bringing her total output to over one hundred works. Among these, And Muhammad Is His Messenger is especially significant for its profound portrayal of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). She prefaced the book with the words of Sir Kishan Prasad Shad (Kishen Pershad) (d. 1943), the Hindu Prime Minister of Hyderabad state:  

Be I infidel or true believer 

God alone knows, what I am! 

But I know: I am the Prophet’s servant, 

Who Medina’s ruler is. 

“Poets like him” Schimmel writes “want to leave their native country and leave their garden like a disturbed nightingale” and ask God “to lift the veil of separation” between them and the beloved Prophet [16]. 

Additionally, after reviewing a doctoral dissertation on Fethullah Gülen, she stated: “I was deeply impressed by what I read and heard. This movement represents a beautiful aspect of engagement with the modern world… If these ideals are properly introduced and implemented, they would greatly benefit Turkey, the Turkish people living here, and humanity as a whole. Humanity should come to know Fethullah Gülen and his ideals. His idea of tolerance and “accepting everyone as they are” is extremely important” [17]. 

Alongside her prolific writings, numerous awards crowned the autumn of her life. Although she was awarded the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade in 1995, some envious critics—unable to challenge the scholarly merit of her works—criticized the institution for honoring her. Among them was even one of her former students, Gernot Rotter. 

In her later years, Schimmel received numerous international awards not only for academic excellence but also for poetry and literature: Rückert Prize, Germany (1965), Grand Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (1989), Order of Merit of the Republic of Turkey 1996, and many more. One of her latest works was Morgenland und Abendland. Mein west-östliches Leben (East and West: My Life in the East and the West) [18]. 

By the age of eighty, Schimmel’s physical body was ready to bid farewell. Having devoted her life to studying the intricacies of Islam—particularly its mystical tradition—she mastered Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Urdu, Pashto, Sindhi, Gujarati, Marathi, Kashmiri, Bengali, Sanskrit, Czech, Hebrew, Ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Dutch, French, and English. She passed away on January 26, 2003. On her gravestone, she requested that the phrase which had shaped her life since childhood—“People are asleep; they awaken when they die” [19]—be inscribed in both German and Arabic. 

References 

1. Annemarie Schimmel, Morgenland und Abendland: Mein west-östliches Leben (München: C.H. Beck, 2002), 12–15. 

2. Damla Çeliktaban “Ölüm Bir Uykudan Uyanmaktır”, K dergi, S. 131, (2009), p. 17. 

3. İsmail b. Muhammed el-Aclûnî, Keşfü’l-Hafâ ve Müzîlü’l-İlbâs, c. 1 (Beirut: Dâru’l-Kütübi’l-İlmiyye, 1988), 413. 

4. Senail Özkan, “Zümrüt Hayallere Adanmış Bir Ömür”, İslâm Araştırmaları Der., S. 9, (2003), p. 154 

5. Ibid. p. 154. 

6. Ömer Faruk Altıntaş, “Bereketli Bir Ömrün Kısacık Hikâyesi; Annemarie Schimmel”, ehlibeytalimleri.com. 21.09.2022. 

7. Schimmel, Morgenland und Abendland: Mein west-östliches Leben (München: C.H. Beck, 2002), 49-50. 

8. Schimmel, “Social and Cultural Roles of Soldiers, Emirs and Sultans in the Mamluk Empire,” (dissertation), Marburg University, 1946, 45–78. 

9. Semanur Bal, “Annemarie Schimmel’in Tasavvuf Anlayışında Türkiye’de Geçirdiği Dönemin Rolü,” Istanbul: Üsküdar Üniversitesi Tasavvuf Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, 2019, p. 67. 

10. Cengiz Batuk, “Türkiye’de Dinler Tarihi Çalışmalarının Tarihsel Seyri”, Dinbilimleri Akademik Araştırma Dergisi, C. IX, S. 1, (2009), pp. 82-83. 

11. Mustafa Kara, “Doğudan Batıya, Batıdan Doğuya Bakan Bir Alim Prof. Dr. Annemarie Schimmel”, Tasavvuf: İlmî ve Akademik Araştırma Dergisi, Vol. IV, Number. 11, (2003), p. 498.  

12. Ethem Cebecioğlu, “Bir Akademisyen Olarak Annemarie Schimmel,” Tasavvuf: İlmî ve Akademik Araştırma Dergisi, Vol. IV, p. 11 (2003), pp. 583-58. 

13. Özkan, “Zümrüt Hayallere Adanmış Bir Ömür,” İslâm Araştırmaları Der., Number 9, (2003), p. 154. 

14. Ibid. 

15. Schimmel, And Muhammad Is His Messenger, The University of North Carolina Press, 1985, p. 192. 

16. Ibid. 

17. Aymaz, Abdullah. “Annemarie Schimmel,” Çağlayan, Sep. 2020. 

18. Altıntaş, 21.09.2022. 

19. Altıntaş, 21.09.2022. 

 

I recently watched a scholar who broadened my perspective on the sin of lying. In the video, he say, “let me take a sip of water, my lips are dry,” and brought the water to his mouth. After taking two sips he continued with these words:  

“I said let me take one sip, but I took two, I wonder if that becomes a lie too. It is a sensitive issue because everything that comes out of the mouth is being recorded. We say ‘a sip’ as a figure of speech to imply that we will not drink much; but why speak in figures of speech when you can speak truth with clarity? Perhaps the correct form should have been to say ‘let me take one or two sips.’ That indicates a few sips.”¹  

This sensitivity over a sip of water should in fact be a subject of deep thought for all of us. If such sensitivity is needed for such a small action, how more careful should we be for more major things in our lives? 

Starting from this matter of a sip of water, I reviewed our daily life and unfortunately realized how common these seemingly insignificant lies are in the virtual world. This virtual world is very colorful, attractive, and just as entertaining. It brings many things to our feet, lets us shop with one click, gives us access to far more than what people once learned through months of travel with a single touch in the blink of an eye, allows us to see and speak with our loved ones far away as if they were right beside us, and lets us complete our work from our homes. A long list of benefits stands before us. But together with this potential for good, who knows how many times each day we also use it for harm. Sadly, the virtual world has become a world of lies. It seems to have melted away our moral values and all the beauty we possess. If you want examples, the examples are so many that even mentioning a few here may make us all hold up the mirror to ourselves, do some reflection, and act more carefully from now on. 

It is very clear that this is not only an individual problem but also a reflection of a global collapse of mindset. The following words of Noam Chomsky shed light on this very situation: “I don’t know what word in the English language – I can’t find one – that applies to people who are willing to sacrifice the literal existence of organized human life, not in the distant future, so they can put a few more dollars into highly overstuffed pockets. The word ‘evil’ doesn’t begin to approach it.”² 

This statement expresses in a deep way the selfishness and indifference behind the recklessness of the digital world. 

After all this, let us look together at some mistakes that many people make knowingly or unknowingly and search for solutions. 

Deceptions in the virtual world 

User agreements 

When buying anything or installing an application or program, the user agreements that appear before us include many risks and lies for both those who provide them to us and those who say I have read and approve. These texts, consciously written in pages of tiny font, contain so many misleading pieces of information that we would not like, harming our privacy, full of verbiage and slippery expressions and word tricks, that it is impossible for many people to read them, understand them, or willingly accept them. Unfortunately, the number of users who actually read these texts is almost non-existent, but the number of those who approve them is very high, and perhaps none of us refrains from approving. In this situation, we may try to justify ourselves by saying “but I need to use this, I do not want to pay money, I have no choice but to accept”; this does not change the fact that we slip into lying by accepting texts with an “I have read” statement without reading them, nor does it change the fact that we are too lazy to learn our rights as users and too unwilling to demand that companies stop wrongful practices when necessary. 

Likewise, the behavior of producers who, out of greed, violate the rights of users, manipulate default settings to their own advantage and to the detriment of consumers, and exploit people’s weaknesses and legal loopholes is also among the unacceptable actions. 

Fake identities and digital courage 

In the virtual realm, hiding behind fake identities to present oneself differently in order to seek a job or spouse, to pick fights and provoke people, to spit hatred toward individuals or groups of different beliefs, cultures, or statuses, and to shout from behind a screen like a warrior, things one cannot do or say face to face are among the most common painful scenes. There may be some objections on this matter. For example, those living under oppressive regimes or those who fear discrimination may be excused to some extent and may be exceptions, but even there, caution is needed and one must not depart from truth and justice. 

Digital lies in work and livelihood 

Another problematic area is the lies used due to livelihood needs, job searches, or sometimes out of greed. Using fake experience or information is the most striking example of this. Entering jobs that we do not deserve through different names, photos, experience claims, and the like is unfortunately an open wound and the first step toward unethical earnings, which is a very dangerous path. Using artificial intelligence in interviews or exams to cheat, having someone else take an exam in one’s place, or obtaining answers illegally are behaviors that are both morally and legally wrong and unfortunately increasingly widespread. 

We also sadly witness situations where remote work possibilities are exploited. People working in developed countries for higher salaries hire individuals from countries with fewer opportunities and much lower wages to work in their place and pocket the difference without doing any work themselves, gaining unjust profit. In addition, in hourly paid work, failing to do one’s tasks and instead engaging in personal chores, or using provided resources for personal matters, are also mistakes seen at a significant rate. 

As a general principle, both the employee and the employer must adhere to the initial agreement and respect each other’s rights. The employer must not prevent the employee from fulfilling obligatory religious duties, and if he does, one should not work in that job. However, the employee must also be very careful and must not forget that even optional worship cannot be performed at work without the employer’s permission. On the other hand, employers taking overly restrictive measures, such as constantly monitoring and recording the employee and violating privacy, or making them work longer hours than agreed, are also wrong. 

Comment manipulations, bots, and fake crowds 

Fake reviews written for products, thousands of automated likes, and praise or criticism campaigns carried out with fake accounts mislead social media users. Some companies employ people to write good reviews, delete negative ones, or give the product for free in exchange for fabricated praise. The presence of tens of thousands of comments on some products often reflects not genuine user interest but systematic manipulation. 

Rage bait and the exploitation of human emotions 

Rage bait, chosen as Oxford’s word of the year for 2025, shows how widespread the trend of gathering engagement through anger has become. These contents provoke people through extreme expressions, and as the argument grows, the content becomes more visible. Thus, the most sensitive points of society are turned into tools of conflict, hatred, and hostility, becoming mere engagement material. 

Clickbait, deliberate mistakes, and price tricks 

Clickbait titles mislead users with irrelevant content. Some accounts deliberately make spelling and punctuation mistakes to cause people to comment corrections. Hiding the price of a product and saying message for price is another common tactic used to increase engagement. Showing a large carpet in a photo but listing the price for the smallest doormat model, then showing the real numbers after someone clicks, is among the new forms of deception in digital spaces. 

Troll networks and state supported digital manipulations 

Troll networks working with thousands of fake accounts to spread certain ideas, silence opponents, and shape public perception are among the most dangerous elements of social media today. The fact that some of them are supported by powerful companies or authoritarian states exposes the global dimension of the issue. Societies are manipulated in this way, and grounds are laid for wars, conflicts, and isolation. 

The vicious cycle fed by algorithms 

It is also clearly seen that technology companies directly feed this unethical situation. Because these companies use algorithms that promote content by click value and push forward high engagement posts automatically. These algorithms rank content only by superficial metrics such as clicks, comments, and shares, without looking at what is true, false, harmful, or beneficial. As a result, content based on truth, calmness, and constructive dialogue becomes invisible, while provocative, conflict raising, anger inducing, or deceptive material is constantly pushed forward. 

This system rewards wrongdoers, increases their visibility, and gives them material profit. Those who behave correctly remain in the background and become less visible. Consequently, people receive a subconscious message saying, “I earn more by doing wrong” and increase their unethical behaviors. Companies also feel no need to change the system because they profit from this increase through advertising revenue. In the end, the user, the producer, and the technology company become parts of a cycle that feeds one another. 

As long as this cycle is not broken, social media will continue to be a mechanism that suppresses truth, magnifies lies, and accelerates moral collapse. 

What can be done? 

It is not enough to mention problems only. Both individual and social steps are needed to keep the digital world on a moral foundation. In summary: 

Reporting harmful content: Provocative, hateful, manipulative, or deceptive content must be reported when encountered. As report numbers rise, the algorithm will push such content back. 

Not giving engagement through comments or shares: Liking, commenting, or sharing makes a post more visible. Not engaging with wrong content is the most effective response. 

Establishing a culture of blocking: Blocking accounts that cross moral boundaries protects personal peace and prevents their behavior from being rewarded. 

Creating public pressure on technology companies: Societies must demand more transparent algorithms, clearer user policies, and privacy protecting settings. Feedback is effective. Symbols similar to those used in films may be used to warn users about the reliability of content or its elements, and problematic users may be banned from systems. 

Encouraging legal regulations: Demands must be delivered to lawmakers and decision makers. Clearer laws and regulations should be introduced in digital ethics, data security, and combating manipulation. 

Digital awareness and ethics education: Children, youth, and adults must be taught digital literacy, source checking, truth distinction, information verification, and digital ethics. This strengthens the social fabric. 

The role of opinion leaders: Religious scholars, academics, artists, scientists, and public figures must raise awareness on this issue. Social change continues only with the contribution of broad groups. 

Conclusion 

The world is changing very rapidly. As a result, new problems emerge in societies, and there is an urgent need for appropriate solutions. For these solutions, it is essential for experts from fields such as law, theology, sociology, psychology, technology, etc. to come together quickly and produce practical and applicable solutions suited to the conditions of this era and the issues deeply affecting society. Otherwise, problems will become gangrenous and major wrongs will be normalized. Instead of artificial rating boosting fruitless debates that distract society, it is unavoidable for our valuable scholarly community to focus on these issues. 

What falls upon us is not to depart from truth. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said “Always seek truth. Even if you see your destruction in truth, your salvation lies in it.” This is why the message he brought always upholds the truth, be it in the context of the employee and the employer relations, or whether it is a real or virtual world context. 

However, I, of course, went for the shortcut. Like so many new discoveries, mine too was made through an AI-powered app. I learnt about it one afternoon in my own backyard with my friend, an enthusiastic birdwatcher. She raised her phone, like a divining rod, in the air. “Listen,” she said. The air was alive with a dozen different whistles and chirps that I had heard all my life but had never really listened to. She gave her phone’s screen a tap, and like a magician revealing a card trick, a neat list of my audible world appeared: American Robin. Northern Cardinal. Song Sparrow. House Finch. 

It felt like magic. All my life, this world had been lovely yet unintelligible for me, but now this small app had given me a libretto and a volume knob of this concert. I downloaded it right away. Over the course of the following few weeks, I was a human possessed. Nearly every moment of mine was spent sitting by my window and every stroll in the park turned into a digital translation exercise. I needed nothing else now. My interpreter was the app, always present, translating the birds’ cryptic language into the straightforward, gratifying finality of a proper noun.  

Oh! That’s a Tufted Titmouse, and that one is a Blue Jay. Suddenly, without any hard efforts, I experienced a superior and effortless expertise, a sense of mastery in my field. But soon, an odd thing began to happen. 

Not that I don’t accept this tool’s genius. In fact, it can actually be the spark that ignites a lifelong passion for a youngster just getting started. Its visual sonograms could provide access to a world that might otherwise be inaccessible to a person with a hearing impairment. This is a marvel bridge of accessibility to the amateurs. But somewhere along the way, I noticed I was crossing that bridge so often I stopped looking at the river at all.  

The more I used it, the less I actually heard. I didn’t realize when I had stopped even attempting to retain the melody in my own mind to try to distinguish it, just because I was so preoccupied with recording the sound for the algorithm to give me quick answers. I came to the realization that I was actually paying a heavy fee to cross this bridge. This realization hit me when I visited my father. His straightforward comment that the wren sang with a certain character, a distinct personality, exposed the gap between our two methods of knowing as I could only check on my phone to confirm his knowledge.  

Mine was a transaction, a query to a server, question in-answer out, without any personal depth; but his was a connection. He understood the “how,” when I only knew the “what.” And at that precise moment, I felt like a tourist in my own home, a place, of which I had the perfect map, but knew nothing about.  

After reflecting for a long time, I deleted the app that night. The next morning, the birds outside my window were back to singing lovely but indecipherable sounds. Of course, as expected. Afterall, I had given up using my AI interpreter and now had to take on the difficult task of learning the bird language on my own. So I purchased a dusty field guide, the type with faded illustrations and poetic descriptions: the sparrow’s song is a “sweet, thin series of notes,” and the robin’s is a “liquid, caroling whistle.” It was a beautiful experience to try to understand them.  

I recall sitting on a park bench one afternoon, trying to tell the difference between a House Finch and a Song Sparrow. According to the guide, the finch’s song was more jumbled and varied but the sparrow’s had more structure. I closed my eyes and tried to listen. From a maple tree, a bird sang. It sounded, well, like a bird. It was a rambling, high-pitched song. Jumbled, yes. Must be a finch. I opened my eyes and looked around the branches, but the singer was hidden. Then another song came from a low hedge. It was more distinct, with a trill after a few clear notes. I decided, after much consideration, that it was a structured piece. Sparrow definitely. With my field guide in my hand and my heart racing from the excitement of my success, I edged closer. A striped breast and a flash of brown feathers came into my view, a Song Sparrow. My heart did a little flip. Then, however, a jumbled, meandering song emerged from the same hedge. Another sparrow song burst forth. To think my racing heart was on the edge of victory, only to watch a Song Sparrow deliver both kinds of songs in the span of minutes. 

My confidence vanished. And I felt utterly defeated. To think a creature the size of my thumb had completely humbled me, the giant. I realized there was no tidy checklist in the actual world. 

Weeks passed like that. Humbling, and frustrating. I had to admit how little I actually perceived. I had to acknowledge my own sensory dullness and ignorance. I remembered I certainly was not like this in my childhood. So I decided against giving up and at least learned to sit still without reaching for a quick urge to name and win. 

Then on a cool late spring morning, it happened. A clear, three-part whistle that sounded like it was singing, “Oh, sweet Canada, Canada, Canada,” pierced the air as I was strolling close to a small creek. And without hesitation or reaching for an external gadget, a name automatically came to me out of my own memory. It was the result of my own mind’s labor, which was slow, patient, and frustrating rather than an instantly gratifying algorithm. White-throated Sparrow. Indeed. 

My happiness was limitless then. It was a profound sense of connection that seemed to be whispered to me alone. It was real knowledge as it belonged to me, not because it was more accurate than the app’s – as a matter of fact, statistically, it was probably less accurate – but because it was earned with patience rather than downloaded. It was a thread, woven from sunlight, birdsong, and my own clumsy attention, that linked me directly to that tiny, genuinely vibrant life in the trees. But now, we are living in the era of fake nightingales. The counterfeit, however, is more than just a fake bird; it is also that fake song that claims to be able to explain the meaning of every other actual song of those vibrant, and “full of life” creatures. 

AI has become the ultimate, tempting solution because it can recognize not only the sounds in our backyards but also the trends in our lives, our goals, and our futures. It provides an alluring diversion from our clumsy, ineffective, and frequently discouraging process of learning, creating, and establishing connections with the process for ourselves. 

But my clumsy attempt to comprehend the birds taught me that the struggle is what actually matters. The texture of seeking the truth, the understanding that comes with time is just as valuable as the solution. The “real” is a quality of the attention and time we give an object, not of the object itself. A real friendship is a history of shared vulnerability and often imperfect presence rather than a string of flawlessly manicured updates and flawless replies. And, for me, true knowledge is not a fact that has been displayed on a screen but rather an insight that has been ingrained in us via our experiences, our failures, or the victory of finally hearing the song for ourselves. 

Hence, though AI can be a helpful map for us, we must not allow it to persuade us that just reading a map is equivalent to actually exploring that area. That unmediated space, the patient labor of listening, looking, trying, failing, and then trying again, until we can finally separate the music from the noise, will always contain the most genuine moments of our lives which no AI can ever replicate because that is something utterly human, utterly real.  

For centuries, humans have marveled at birds’ ability to soar and dive. The gannet’s abilities seem almost engineered for an aquatic hunter: a streamlined form, precision vision, and special internal “airbags” all perfectly coordinated. As we explore the gannet’s high-speed dive and the science behind it, a profound question arises: could such a combination of traits have arisen by chance, or do they point to an intelligence that makes it all possible? 

To catch its dinner, the Northern Gannet climbs high above the waves – sometimes 30 meters (100 feet) or more in the air – searching for fish shoals. Once a target is spotted, the gannet snaps its wings tight to its body and plummets in a steep nose-dive, accelerating due to gravity. In just a couple of seconds it can hit speeds of 60–75 mph (about 100–120 km/h) before impact. At those velocities, hitting water is essentially like hitting concrete. A misjudgment in angle or a strong gust of wind could send the bird tumbling out of control. Yet gannets execute dive after dive with astounding precision. 

One secret to the gannet’s controlled dive is that it turns itself into a spinning projectile. High-speed footage has revealed that as it nears the water, the gannet often initiates a rapid spin, twisting its body like a drill bit. By tucking in its wings and tail just so – much like a figure skater pulling in her arms – the bird can rotate one or two full turns around its body axis during the dive. This spin confers gyroscopic stability, keeping the gannet perfectly on course despite wind or waves, thanks to the physics of angular momentum conservation (the same principle that keeps a rifle bullet or a spiraling football stable in flight). As a result, the gannet spears the water cleanly without veering off-track. 

At the final split second before impact, the gannet performs another critical maneuver. It extends and aligns its body into a pointed, streamline shape – essentially transforming into a living javelin. The bird slightly draws back its head and neck so that its dagger-like beak, head, and body form one continuous tapered cone. Any small protrusions or uneven surfaces are smoothed out in this instant. The result is an almost ideal hydrodynamic profile that slices into the water with minimal resistance. The entry is so clean that there is often almost no splash, just a quick spray of water, as the gannet disappears under the surface in pursuit of its prey. 

Once underwater, the gannet doesn’t stop its hunt. It can penetrate to depths of 5–10 meters on momentum alone (around 16–30 feet) and then continue swimming downward by flapping its half-folded wings and kicking with its webbed feet. Like a penguin or a dolphin, the gannet “flies” through water in short bursts, chasing fish even several meters below the initial dive depth. It has been recorded diving as deep as 20+ meters (70 ft) and staying submerged for up to 30 seconds as it actively pursues prey. After a successful catch, the bird uses its buoyancy to rocket back up to the surface, pops out of the water, and immediately resumes flying. Remarkably, studies show that a gannet’s success rate in its hunt is about 72%, which is exceptionally high among marine predators. Clearly, everything about this diving strategy – from the initial aerial survey to the final underwater chase – is executed with astounding efficiency and accuracy. 

Plunging headlong into water at highway speeds would be suicidal for most creatures, but gannets are built to survive these collisions. Every part of the bird’s anatomy is optimized to absorb shocks, protect vital organs, and prevent injury. Consider the challenges: the head and neck must withstand huge deceleration forces; the bird must avoid drowning or eye damage on impact; and it needs to rebound for the next dive almost immediately. The gannet meets all of these challenges with a combination of unique impact-proof structural features. 

Shock-absorbing skull – The gannet’s skull is reinforced and extra-thick in front, with a spongy bone plate at the base of the bill that acts like a built-in crash helmet. This bony padding, together with the overall sturdiness of the skull, helps dissipate the force when the beak hits the water at full speed. Rather than shattering or concussing the brain, the skull’s design absorbs and spreads out the impact. 

Powerful, flexible neck – A gannet’s neck is unusually strong and muscular, yet flexible. Specialized neck muscles and 15 elongated cervical vertebrae enable the neck to resist bending or buckling under sudden pressure. Think of a shock absorber or a spring – the neck can tense to keep the head aligned with the body during impact, preventing whiplash, and then relax to cushion the jolt. This adaptation ensures the head (and the precious eyes and brain it contains) isn’t thrown back violently upon entering the water. 

Air-sac “airbags” – Under the skin of a gannet, especially in the face, chest, and along the flanks, lies a network of subcutaneous air sacs connected to the lungs. Before a dive, the bird inflates these little air pockets. Upon impact, they compress and absorb the shock like natural airbags, protecting internal organs and bones. The air sacs also make the gannet buoyant, so after the dive it bobs back to the surface with ease. These air sacs are an extension of the bird’s respiratory system – essentially an extra set of air-filled cushions provided for high-speed diving. 

Sealed airways (no external nostrils) – One obvious problem with diving face-first into water is the risk of water rushing up the nose. A simple but crucial solution has been given to gannets: they lack external nostrils entirely. Instead, their nasal openings are located inside the mouth and can be tightly closed off. A hard, keratinized covering shields the nasal cavity entrance. Thus, when the gannet hits the water, no spray is forced into its sinuses or lungs. They essentially hold their breath at the moment of impact and while underwater (much like a freediver), and start breathing again only after resurfacing. This prevents the fatal aspiration of water during high-speed plunges. 

Protective eye coverings – Hitting water at 100 km/h is also like slamming into a wall from the perspective of the eyes. To prevent injury, gannets (like many diving birds) have nictitating membranes – transparent third eyelids that rapidly flick over the eyes as the bird dives. These membranes act like a pair of built-in goggles, shielding the eyes from saltwater and debris at the exact moment of impact while still allowing the bird to see. The gannet essentially never closes its eyes during a dive; it merely covers them with a protective film. This way, it maintains visual contact with its target all the way through the strike. 

Each of these features is remarkable on its own. Together, they make the gannet virtually indestructible during its high-speed dive. Engineers designing a high-velocity projectile or a diver’s gear would recognize many of these same solutions: a reinforced “nose cone,” shock absorbers, streamlined shape, pressure-resistant breathing apparatus, and eye protection. It’s as if the gannet comes equipped from birth with a whole suite of safety technology – an integrated design that allows it to dive again and again without harm. 

Vision in both air and water 

Catching a fish from high in the air is not just about impact protection – it’s also an incredible sensory challenge. A gannet must spot a moving fish from perhaps 30 meters up, account for refraction at the water’s surface, judge the dive angle and timing, and then, once underwater, instantly refocus its eyes to track the prey. The bird basically has to hit a dime-sized moving target, in a different medium, at lightning speed. Amazingly, the gannet’s vision system is up to the task, thanks to special features that allow it to operate in both air and water. 

First, gannets have binocular vision due to their forward-facing eyes. Unlike many birds whose eyes are on the sides of the head, a gannet’s eyes are set somewhat forward, giving overlapping fields of view. This binocular overlap lets the gannet accurately gauge distance and depth – a crucial ability when timing a dive. From high above, it can triangulate the position of a fish shoal far below the surface. Researchers note that the gannet’s depth perception is excellent, allowing it to account for the distortion of looking through water and to know exactly when to fold its wings and strike. In essence, the bird is conducting complex geometry on the fly, converting what it sees into an attack plan within a split second. 

Even more astonishing is what happens when the gannet hits the water. The environment around the eyes suddenly changes, light behaves differently in water, and the focal requirements of the eyes shift. The gannet, however, switches to underwater vision almost instantly. A team of biologists in New Zealand discovered that as soon as a gannet’s head goes underwater, the shape of the bird’s lens changes from an oval (a shape that focuses light in air) to a rounder, more spherical shape ideal for water. This refocusing occurs in as little as 80 milliseconds (0.08 seconds) – literally the blink of an eye. To put that in perspective, 80 ms is faster than a human can consciously blink. In that fleeting moment of immersion, the gannet’s eyes adjust so that the fish it saw from above remains in sharp focus underwater. 

Such rapid accommodation (focusing) is nearly unheard of in vertebrate eyes. While diving ducks, seals, and penguins can see in both air and water, the speed of the gannet’s visual adjustment is unique. The instant its eyes are underwater, the bird effectively has fish-eye vision, allowing it to pursue evasive prey with deadly accuracy. Combined with the nictitating membrane protection and a high density of retinal cells for sharp acuity, the gannet’s eyes are akin to sophisticated cameras that auto-adjust settings in a fraction of a second. Little wonder that the gannet seldom misses its mark – the world appears in focus to it whether it’s in the sky or under the sea. This extraordinary optical talent has earned the gannet distinction as one of the most efficient predators in the animal kingdom. 

A master of the skies 

Outside of the dramatic dive itself, the gannet is also a master of the skies. When not hunting, it spends hours soaring over the ocean, riding air currents with minimal effort. Its form is highly adapted for efficient long-distance flight: long, narrow wings and a streamlined, cigar-shaped body that together minimize drag. With a wingspan of around 1.7 meters, the Northern Gannet resembles a smaller cousin of the albatross – built to cover large areas of ocean in search of food. These birds can travel hundreds of kilometers over the sea, seldom flapping except to adjust course or gain a bit of altitude. The wing shape (high-aspect-ratio wings) gives excellent lift with little drag, allowing gannets to glide for long distances and dynamically soar on updrafts above the waves. 

When gannets do flap their wings – for example, during takeoff or to cruise between feeding spots – they do so in a surprisingly optimized, efficient manner. In fact, gannets (and many flying animals) obey an intriguing aerodynamic rule known as the Strouhal number. The Strouhal number (St) is a dimensionless parameter that relates an animal’s wing-flapping frequency and amplitude to its forward speed. Essentially, it’s a ratio: St=f×A/U ​, where f is wingbeat frequency, A is the wing stroke amplitude, and U is forward velocity. Through both observation and theory, scientists have found that propulsive efficiency in flapping flight peaks when St is in a narrow range between about 0.2 and 0.4. Amazingly, a huge variety of animals – from insects to bats, small songbirds to large seabirds, and even swimming fish and dolphins – all cruise with Strouhal numbers in this same optimal window. This means that despite differences in size, wing shape, and flight style, nature’s fliers and swimmers have converged on a particular rhythm that maximizes thrust for minimal energy. It’s a beautiful example of mathematical harmony in biology. 

The gannet is no exception. When gliding and flapping over the ocean, its wingbeats fall well within that efficient range (typically on the lower end, around St ≈ 0.25–0.3). In practice, you can observe that gannets seldom flap rapidly like small birds (which would increase St); instead, they combine occasional strong wingbeats with extended glides, a pattern that keeps their Strouhal number near the sweet spot for efficiency. In simpler terms, gannets are “tuned” to cruise efficiently, expending minimal energy as they scan vast stretches of sea. Just as the dive showcases the bird’s power and precision, its cruising flight showcases an endurance and efficiency that allows gannets to thrive over the open ocean. 

This ubiquity of the Strouhal optimal range is a unifying principle many creatures seem to follow. It is wondrous that the gannet’s wing motions adhere to a universal constant that also governs the fluke beats of whales and the wingbeats of dragonflies. This consistency hints that there is an underlying order in the natural world – a “code” that living things follow to achieve optimum performance. The gannet, with its perfect diving form and efficient flight, beautifully exemplifies this order. 

When we consider all these characteristics of the gannet – the split-second refocusing eyes, the reinforced skull and inbuilt airbag system, the precise wing dynamics – a pattern emerges. These traits are integrated and complementary, all serving one overarching purpose: to allow a bird to plunge into the ocean at tremendous speed, catch a fish, and live to do it again and again. Each feature by itself is impressive, but it’s the combination that truly astonishes. If any one part were missing or even slightly subpar, the whole system could fail. Imagine a gannet without sealed nostrils, or without the air sacs, or without the ability to refocus its eyes quickly – it would likely be injured, drown, go blind, or starve. Instead, we find nothing out of place in this animal’s design. It is a seamless whole, every element working in concert with the others. 

References 

• American Bird Conservancy. (n.d.). Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus). Retrieved August 26, 2025, from https://abcbirds.org/bird/northern-gannet/ abcbirds.orgabcbirds.org. 

• AskNature Team. (2016). Spinning Makes Safe Dive — Biological Strategy (Northern Gannet). The Biomimicry Institute. Retrieved August 26, 2025, from https://asknature.org/strategy/spinning-makes-safe-dive/ asknature.orgasknature.org. 

• Hawkes Bay Today. (2012, September 24). Gannets have extraordinary optical powers: Study. NZ Herald. Retrieved from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/gannets-have-extraordinary-optical-powers-study/B7P6VVG5LWMKIA7ZTQSLCN6MHI/ nzherald.co.nznzherald.co.nz. 

• Oztunc, H. (2022, September 1). Mathematical harmony in the bird’s body structure. The Fountain Magazine. https://fountainmagazine.com/2022/issue-149-sep-oct-2022/mathematical-harmony-in-the-birds-body-structure  

• Taylor, G. K., Nudds, R. L., & Thomas, A. L. (2003). Flying and swimming animals cruise at a Strouhal number tuned for high power efficiency. Nature, 425(6959), 707–711. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02000 en.wikipedia.org. 

• Wikipedia. (2023, August 20). Northern gannet. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 26, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_gannet en.wikipedia.org. 

• Wikipedia. (2023, July 10). Strouhal number. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 26, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strouhal_number en.wikipedia.org. 

Some of the philosophers use the terms “effusion” and “manifestation” identically and mean “emanation” by both. That is, according to them—God forbid such an assertion!—existence has emanated from God, and what is meant by “effusion” or “manifestation” is that emanation. 

Others among them rightly attribute effusion to the Divine Will and Decree, but place several intermediaries of creative effect between God’s initial origination of things and events and their coming into existence. 

Still others restrict themselves to the external existence of things and events, and conclude that—God forbid such a conclusion!—the aforementioned Divine effusions occur naturally and necessarily. That is, according to them, God naturally and indispensably originates things and events. Thus, they ignore the absolute freedom of the Divine Will in doing or not doing something. 

Others conceive of the Divine Being only as the First Cause, without personal existence, and claim that everything and event emanates from this Being in a certain order. 

Still others attribute the initial effusion or, in their terminology, emanation, to an Intellect, which they call the First Intellect, and they talk about a trinity: (1) the Intellect itself, (2) the Intellect’s thought of an initial cause, (3) a second Intellect’s emanation from this thought. 

Yet others think of many Intellects (the Ten Intellects), from the first one to the supposed spirits of realms or spheres of existence, and thereafter to the Active Intellect. They also insert a Soul among those Intellects. 

All such assertions by philosophers imply a random guessing at the Unseen, and they are impossible to reconcile with the essence of the Religion. Furthermore, they are of no practical use for true or sound knowledge and faith, knowledge of God, or spiritual pleasures. 

Even though some Muslim thinkers have, now and then, busied themselves with such matters, neither these philosophies nor similar trends of thought have made any contribution to Sufi life or experience, which is another way of expressing the Islamic life of the heart and spirit. More than that, they have muddied some simple minds, damaged the spirit of some principles of faith, and caused several trends of falsehood to emerge. 

We also come across some Sufi guides who are reported to have written or talked about emanations from God and His self manifestation as a visible Being. I think that either such contorted ideas have been inserted into their works by others, or they themselves have approached the matter from a different viewpoint in relation to the Divine Oneness and Will and have lapsed into seeing such approaches as harmless. For neither the Qur’an nor the Sunna contain such considerations, nor did the scholars of the earliest times make any mention of them. For this reason, such philosophical approaches to creation can only represent some contaminated information that has found its way into our religious heritage from the legacies of earlier traditions. 

As Bediuzzaman Said Nursi points out, the false doctrine of “only one entity emanates from one entity” lies in the essence of such trends of thought. They regard the All-Independent, absolutely Powerful Lord of the worlds to be in need of some powerless means or intermediaries, and present material or immaterial causes, which are in fact veils before the acts of His Lordship, as if His partners. To explain further, these approaches accept the existence of an Intellect besides God, an Intellect which emanated from Him, and they consider God to be inactive—God forbid such conceptions!—ascribing His dominion over all parts and dimensions of existence and all His acts to different means and causes. This is impossible for any believer in God to accept. 

As the explanations of the Qur’an and the Sunna concerning creation are so clear as to cause no misunderstandings, so too are the views and conclusions of true Muslim thinkers and scholars regarding this matter so obvious that they make no way for such misconceptions. According to the Qur’anic way of thinking, or the Islamic viewpoint, whatever exists—with all its punctuation, letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, and parts—has been created by the All-Sublime Creator, and receives from Him whatever it needs to subsist; and all that exists is under the control, direction and disposal of His Will and Power at every second of its life, without excluding the partial, free will of conscious, responsible beings. The creation and direction of all the visible and invisible realms of existence belong to God, Who is the sole Source of all gifts and blessings that reach every existent thing and being. With the exception of some misunderstandings that arise from certain ambiguous expressions, all the explanations concerning this matter agree upon this cardinal truth. Sound minds have thought so, sound senses have received the same sensations, and the order, harmony, and instances of wisdom in existence have always expressed it. 

Everyone who is able to observe carefully will feel and see that everything—from the multicolored faces of flowers, which send smiles to passers-by, to the swaying of trees in the manner of brides, from the frightening roars of thunderbolts to the delicate, penetrating songs of birds and insects echoing in our souls, from light, heat, gravity, electricity, and chemical processes to biological activities, from humans’ observable potential and abilities to their feelings and conscious, spiritual activities—all indicate and bear witness to the Existence of God and His absolute dominion over all things and events. Everyone will feel and see this truth and quiver in awe. 

If humans can evaluate the sounds and scenes which come to their ears and touch their eyes by passing through the sensitive filters of the conscience—the sounds and scenes from the terrifying roars of the seas to the enchanting howls of the forests, from the contemplative silence of bays and coves to the awe-inspiring stature of mountains, from the flirtatious gestures of multicolored flowers to the loving kindness of birds and insects, from the world that is a book to study, an exhibition to watch, a palace to visit, and a field to sow and harvest, to humans, who are honored with abilities, to numerous subtle purposes for and instances of wisdom in the existence of all these things—then they will be able to feel and understand that all these have originated from the Sacred and Most Sacred Source of effusion through the Knowledge and Will of God, and go into raptures at the knowledge of the love of God and yearn for Him and for the spiritual pleasures that invade their spirits. 

In short, whether spiritual or material, animate or inanimate, large or small, every existent thing or being has come into existence through an effusion from God and continues to exist through constant manifestations that originate in Him, thus pursuing a fixed goal. Coming into existence from non-existence depends on a certain effusion and manifestation, and taking care of everything or being that has been sent into existence is dependent upon another, different effusion and manifestation. Furthermore, the opening of ways to belief, knowledge of God, and love by means of the Prophets is the result of another gift of effusion—while it is yet another gift of effusion that the same truths brought by the Prophets are presented by saints, verifying, saintly scholars, and true guides to the level of comprehension of every age according to changing time and conditions. It is also another, particular effusive gift that all the means and possibilities down to the slightest ones are used to form a pool of mysteries and enable everyone to benefit from them. 

The Creator has boundless gifts that come in effusion, 

And in every effusion is a different manifestation. 

Whatever we see is a mystery throughout, 

Every mystery is clearer than the other for those who are aware of it. 

Our Lord! Grant us mercy from Your Presence and arrange for us in our affairs what is right and good!  Our Lord! Grant us a way out and salvation in our affairs!  Bestow your blessings and peace on our master, Muhammad, and on his Family, and Companions, all of them! 

In her winning essay, “The Counterfeit Nightingale and the Real Song,” Shivangi shares her experience of trying to identify birds by listening to them in nature and by using an app. It is a thoughtful exposition on the value of human effort—how it deepens our connection with the world and sharpens our insight – rather than relying solely on information displayed on our screens. Fatima Azzahra Ishak, who placed second in the contest, offers a profound reflection in her essay, “Between Sidq and Simulation: On Authenticity in the Age of AI,” exploring how we can engage with AI without compromising our authenticity and humility. 

Kerem Yalcin, in “AI, Biology, and the Hidden Author Behind the Code,” presents AI as a compelling argument for the existence of God. As he explains, the autonomy AI appears to possess is borrowed; it operates through mechanisms designed by others: “AI can generate text or code, but it cannot decide why it should do so, nor can it sustain or direct its own existence.” Yalcin’s piece helps place things in perspective—whether biological processes or AI technologies, neither is equivalent to God, the true Creator. 

One issue that often goes unnoticed is the extent to which we compromise our integrity as we spend more time online—and, increasingly, with AI. Zeynep Orhan argues that we engage in small acts of dishonesty almost constantly in the virtual world: signing user agreements without reading them, creating false identities, exaggerating qualifications in job applications, or posting fake reviews. Hiding behind screens does not change truths about who we are. Timeless teachings of faith traditions encourage us to seek truth at all times—and we should strive to do the same. 

Amid all this noise and uncertainty, the lead article points us back to an inner compass. Fethullah Gülen redirects our attention from the external world to the depths of the soul. “Our hearts’ breaths have an articulation that has not yet been spoken,” he writes, urging us to communicate beyond sound and words—silently, from the heart—so that we may find calm and uncover the treasures within.