East and West. Maybe it is not easy to draw straight lines where these two are clearly separated, and yet everyone has a conceptualization of what is meant when this distinction is proposed. While some circles try to delineate the differences and polarize societies on the basis of “us vs. them,” there are others who prefer to highlight commonalities, shared pains and joys, the benefits of interaction, and an inevitable future of less separation and more coexistence.

One dynamic of our shared society that will shape such a future is migration. Migration is a reality of the human condition. Throughout history, migrations, be they mass or individual movements, have not only shaped our societies, national borders, languages, religious traditions, and of course, identities, but have also been a major catalyst for disputes and conflicts. Hence, for the last several years, the US has been debating whether a wall should be built across the Mexican border; we continue to watch the heart-breaking tragedy of thousands of refugees rowing across the Mediterranean; the ongoing plight of Syrians fleeing their country’s violence; and more recently, the forced migration of teachers, doctors, and civil servants affiliated with the Hizmet Movement from Turkey, their homeland, where they have suffered persecution for the last few years. Due to many reasons, including geographical, historical, and colonial ties, Europe has been one of the major destinations for those seeking freedom and a life of security, especially for many Muslims. Akbar Ahmed’s book Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Identity (2018) is one of the most comprehensive researches into this very complex social phenomenon. In this issue, Behzad Fatmi from India reviews Ahmed’s book and explains how the author dissects the fundamental character of European society vis-à-vis the place of Muslim communities in the continent.

Learning theoretically about diseases is surely important. But having a first-hand experience, or at least spending time with those who suffer from a disease, teaches much more than what one can learn from books. Ceyda Sablak shares her experience with some patients who told what they have been through with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). She writes how important it is to have an accurate and concrete diagnosis, even if it turns out to be a terminal illness. While it is painful to go through such an illness, it is no less of a burden on the shoulders of doctors and the family who have to be present next to their loved ones and do as much as they can to continue to care for them.

Science in the Islamic world flourished between the eighth and the eleventh century CE. If there had been a Nobel Prize in that period, on most occasions it would have gone to a Muslim scientist, but the situation is quite different today. Why did scientific discovery decline in the Muslim world? What should Muslims do to regain the excellence in science that they once had? What are the current prospects in this respect in the Islamic world? To find answers to these questions, we talked to Ahmed Zewail about his own fascinating journey to the Nobel Prize and his views about science in the Islamic world.

About Professor Ahmed Zewail

Professor Zewail completed his undergraduate education the University of Alexandria, Egypt, and his doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania. His honors include more than a hundred prizes, awards, orders of merit, and orders of state from around the world. Professor Zewail was awarded the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his pioneering developments in the field of femtoscience, making it possible to observe the movement of the individual atoms in a femtosecond, that is, a millionth of a billionth of a second.

Professor Zewail is also renowned for his public lectures and writings on science and technology, education and world affairs, and for his tireless efforts to help the have-nots. In his recent biography Voyage through Time-Walks of Life to the Nobel Prize, he relates his life and work up to his receipt of the Nobel Prize, and he suggests a concrete course of action for the world of the have-nots and a new vision of world order.

In one of your recent commentaries in the Independent newspaper, you quote a beautiful verse from the Qur’an “Indeed! God will not change the good condition of the people as long as they do not change their state of goodness themselves” (Rad 13:11). Why did you quote this verse?

If you look at the height of Muslim achievement, Muslims were then acting individually as good Muslims, meaning that they read the Qur’an and they thought of the good things they were supposed to do, for example, to acquire knowledge. As you know, the first word that was revealed of the Qur’an was “read” and this respect for learning is repeated everywhere to the point that scientists of magnitude are almost put on the level of prophets in many ways in the Qur’an. So the Muslims of the early days recognized the importance of acquiring knowledge, but frankly, nowadays because of the deterioration that has taken place among the Muslims, we have become so possessed by the idea of conspiracy theories that we like to blame other people for our decline.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are many external forces that have contributed to our decline, but the truth of the matter is that it falls to us to do better. I am proud to see any Muslim, young or old, achieving at the highest level. In every case I see, I realize that these people did not let external things stop them and they have gone on to achieve. So I can summarize the reasons for our general decline, and I’m taking it verbatim from the Qur’an, as being our own problem.

In your book, you say, “The Sidi Ibrahim al-Desuqi mosque was very important in my life because it defined my early childhood. I used to go to the mosque to study… In Islam, the mosque is not just for prayer, but it is also for scholarship” (p. 15). Do you think this remains true?

Unfortunately, in recent years the mosque has been used by people who are not enlightened about Islam to propagate their point of view, not Islam’s point of view, so a political component has grown in it. It’s a lack of enlightenment on these people’s part. Growing up in Egypt, I remember Al-Azhar as being one of the centers of enlightenment of the world. Now, I didn’t reach Al-Azhar but on the other hand, even in my own town there was a mosque where we used to go and see the Imam, and the main thing he would try to tell us as young boys was that “you’ve got to achieve in knowledge; you’ve got to be the best doctor or the best engineer.” We used to study in the mosque. It was marvelous. I mean, we would meet as young people in the mosque-of course, we would pray-but then after we had prayed, we would all sit down and look at our school books and our study notes, and so it was a center of gravity. In fact, in my book I say that the mosque was the center of gravity for the whole town.

In a number of places in the book you talk about the importance of “having a passion” to achieve something. Have we, as Muslims, lost our passion for science and scholarship? If so, how can we reignite this in the younger generations?

I don’t think we have lost our passion, no. Especially since the Nobel Prize, I have spoken all over the Muslim world from Cairo to Malaysia, from Istanbul to Lebanon, and thousands of people come to my lectures. What I have found is that young people are hungry to achieve-they have that passion for achievement. The problem, unfortunately, is that they are not in the right system to make them realize their potential. So, I always say that the biggest asset right now in the Muslim world is actually its human capital. If this is used in the right way and we rebuild the old centers of excellence to attract the best minds, I believe that the Muslim world can undergo a huge transition. There are political issues, and a lot of political problems, but I don’t think that the problem with the Muslim world is lack of economic resources or lack of human capital. We have both types of resources.

Some people argue that religion and science cannot coexist. What is your take on this issue?

Some of the best minds in the world are religious people. So the claim that in order to be a rational scientist, by definition, you must not believe in a religion is a bit naïve. It seems to me also that it is quite strongly dogmatic. Religion is very important for people for a variety of reasons and I don’t see a conflict between the two.

What do you think about The Fountain, especially from the perspective of promoting the coexistence of science and religion?

Let me tell you why I like The Fountain and, as you know, I subscribe to it. I thank you for introducing me to it. The reason I like The Fountain is that it tends to explain things with reason and in a rational way, but it doesn’t stop the writers utilizing excerpts from the Qur’an that support their argument. But I need the rationality. It seems to me that the fact that the magazine uses this approach and respects the values of reason and knowledge and science will make it more effective.

Do you see the success of people like yourself and Abdus Salam as exceptional individual cases, or as early signs of a revival in the Islamic world?

Not early signs of revival, I always say that I’ve been fortunate to gain two things from my early childhood and my adulthood. First, I’m very proud of the value system that I was given by my family and the way I grew up as a Muslim in Egypt. I did not grow up in a system where I got into drugs and violence; I had never seen a gun before I left Egypt. The values that I acquired from my family were extremely important and gave me confidence for what I have achieved in my life. But besides that and importantly, I did get a good education in Egypt up to the level of university. What America has given me is a system of appreciation and opportunity, and that is what we are lacking in the Muslim world. If I had stayed in Egypt, I would not have been able to do what I have done because of this lack of opportunity and appreciation for achievement.

Let me give you another example; part of the Muslim world is very poor, but there is a big part of it that is very rich. The very rich part has not invested in the human capital. On the other hand, on a recent trip to Malaysia, I met Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, the former prime minister. Now, Malaysia is a country 60% of whose population is Muslim. It is possible to see the results of the experiment that has been carried out in Malaysia. Malaysia has made a transition-its GDP is much higher than most Muslim countries, and they are moving into the developed world-and this has been done in a country with a 60% Muslim population. What they did was to invest in education. Dr. Mohammed told me that, in order to make the transition from an almost underdeveloped economy depending on tin and rubber into one producing micro-electronics and the like, they invested as much as 20% of the GDP in education. So I think the formula is very, very clear in terms of what you can get out of this.

In one of your recent newspaper articles, you mention that one of the primary goals of education in the Muslim world should be “to promote critical thinking.” What do you mean by critical thinking?

Young people are very confused right now; they don’t know what is wrong and what is right. What I mean by critical thinking is that we all have been given the gift of the mind to think, so we should educate the people to think about what’s morally right and what’s morally wrong, but let them also think about, for example, science. There is nothing wrong with studying different points of view about what’s going on in the universe. If you are a good Muslim, it’s up to you-you have the garden of knowledge and you choose what you think. But to intimidate people and say things like “You cannot do this, don’t do that, don’t read about this…” that’s not critical thinking! That’s not what we need.

The Prophet would not allow that forbidding attitude today in my opinion because he was progressive in his thinking; his is a message of peace and critical thinking. In the twenty-first century now, people are thinking about having colonies on the moon, people are thinking about dissecting genes and opening up a whole new world of treatment for molecular diseases, people are thinking about watching atoms on the femtosecond timescale. And we as Muslims need to keep up with this.

You say in the book, “We should not divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’ and must not allow for the creation of barriers through slogans such as the ‘clash of civilizations’ or the ‘conflict of religions’-we need dialogue not conflict or clashes!” What do you think is the best way of achieving this dialogue?

Let me say, and perhaps I am putting this too strongly, that I think there is ignorance on both sides. There is a large proportion of the population in the Muslim world that I feel is not informed; they are not sophisticated enough to speak to the mind of the west. On the other hand, in the west they have neglected to learn about the Muslim world for a long time and treat it as if there must necessarily be a conflict with Muslims. With this kind of attitude on both sides, we can never get into dialogue.

You know, when I first came to the United States, they used to call the Japanese “the Japs” and the Chinese “the Red Chinese” and so on. Nowadays, because there has been a dialogue and we are starting to understand different cultures, there are Chinese and Japanese restaurants all over the country. China has McDonalds… But we have not done this as far as the Muslim world is concerned. For example, what do they know here in the US about Turkish culture? It could be a start to take the story of the Ottoman Empire and let them learn about the baklava and Turkish hospitality. The same thing is true for the Arabs. We have not done a good job, and on their side I must say they have neglected for a long time to develop any knowledge of the Muslim world or to understand faith or the strong feelings of the Muslims about their faith.

On the individual level, both sides need to be exposed to each other more, and here exchange programs and all kinds of education centers can help. But I tend to put more blame on the Muslim world because we have not taken the initiative to communicate about ourselves as much as the rest of the world does.

You live in California with your wife and two children. How do you keep the balance of work and family life and other personal issues?

I have been fortunate in this because my wife’s father is a professor and she has seen what it means for somebody to work hard, so she knows. She has said many times that my first love is my work. However, having said that, I think my children will say that I am a caring father. I try to balance things. For example, I always spend Sundays with my children; even if I’m staying home reading, they are around me. I see them, I go with them to soccer games, and so on. If you don’t, if you take it to the extreme and you claim that your work is everything, then you have weakened a whole corner of your life, and I don’t believe you will have the strength to do many other things in life.

What is it that keeps you so motivated even after getting a Nobel Prize? Does your background as a Muslim play a role in this?

I think it is a composite of things. First of all, God created me with a passion for whatever I do. If I read a book, I have the passion to finish it. The other thing is my background, as you said. When I came to the United States, I was challenged. As I mention in my book, there were political barriers, there were cultural barriers and scientific barriers. So I was challenged to show that somebody with my background, someone who is a Muslim and grew up with mosques and everything like that can achieve something.

Nowadays, I also try to go beyond the Nobel Prize, and I ask myself if I can help people and if I can help science in general. Perhaps also because of my upbringing and the mosque, I have faith. So I think it’s that kind of faith in life, in the universe, in myself, and in God, of course-all of this makes me who I am.

Nuh Gedik is an Assistant Professor of Physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Before moving to MIT, he worked as a postdoctoral scholar at Caltech in the research group of Prof. Ahmed Zewail.

The social milieu that provided the background for the emergence of Islam in Arabia is described by Muslims in one term: Jahiliyya, or The Age of Ignorance.² Armstrong argues that this term was not used to define a historical era but to illustrate the spirit that pervaded this time of “spiritual and moral crisis,”³ thus referring “to a state of mind that caused violence and terror in seventh-century Arabia.”⁴ Women were not exempt from this violence and social crisis: infanticide, the burying alive of baby girls, was rife; marriage was not sanctioned;⁵ women did not have the right of inheritance and bequest; they were not treated fairly during divorce; and women were not afforded full control of their wealth.⁶ It is in placing the Qur’an and its principles against the backdrop of such a setting that the reformist spirit of Islam, which restores the true human character, can be seen.

One of the most important principles detailed in the Qur’an which regulates the lives of Muslim women is the spiritual status assigned to women. Viewed by Muslims as the literal word of God, the Qur’an is taken to be the means through which God makes Himself known and describes His laws.⁷ When Islam emerged in tribal Arabia, religion reflected the tribal nature of society and its social structure.⁸ Polytheism and idolatry were dominant, with the Ka‘ba, the shrine revered since the time of Abraham, housing 360 idols. Families banded together to form clans and clans came together to form tribes; tribal allegiance was the most important factor governing an individual’s position in society. One of the points discussed with reference to women in pre-Islamic society is the level of their participation in religious rites and traditions. Some have argued that, while being seen as improving the rights of women, the advent of Islam in fact restricted them. Leila Ahmed, most notably, includes among the roles of Jahiliyya women, “priestesses, soothsayers, prophetesses” and “warrior-leaders.”⁹ However, in his discussion of the feminine in Islamic mysticism, Elias locates the chief reason for women’s involvement in soothsaying, blackmagic and such occupations, as being women’s exclusion from religion.¹⁰ Islam’s emergence drastically altered the spiritual landscape of Arabia for women. One of the most important principles outlined in the Qur’an is the notion of religious, moral and spiritual, obligations being incumbent upon all individuals, regardless of sex. The Qur’an states, for example: “Those who submit to God and accept the true Faith; who are devout, sincere, patient, humble charitable, and chaste; who fast and are ever mindful of God-on these, both men and women, God will bestow forgiveness and a rich recompense.”¹¹ Listing this and another ten sections from the Qur’an, Stowasser claims that these Qur’anic references “converge to establish the absence of the doctrine of woman’s spiritual inferiority in Koranic teaching.”¹² Moreover, in contrast to the central concept of Original Sin in Christianity and Judaism, the Qur’an never mentions that woman is the devil’s gateway or a deceiver by nature:

The Qur’an clearly rejects any such notion of the “inherent” evil of woman. It explicitly demands respect for her “inherent” good as potential child-bearer (and primary nurturer). It places her on absolute par with men in terms of the spiritual potential (to know and serve Allah) and the potential to attain Paradise, provided she and he strive to realize such potential.¹³

The Qur’anic principle of spiritual and moral obligation has meant that women, from the very early days of Islam, have played an essential role, not just in practising the faith and engaging in Islamic mysticism,¹⁴ but also in writing the official history of Islam and compiling foundational works establishing the standards of religious and social practice for Islamic society.¹⁵

Another essential principle pertaining to women which is woven through the fabric of the Qur’an is that of marriage. Ahmed identifies marriage as the area where Islam has introduced the greatest reform, with no institution of marriage present at the advent of Islam.¹⁶ The reformist nature of Islam, however, lay not just in introducing new regulations, but also in overlaying new ideas to existing practice.¹⁷ While the institution of marriage, for instance, did not exist in the traditional form in pre-Islamic Arabia, there were different forms of it that were present.¹⁸ The Qur’an defines marriage as a contract between man and woman, with both assuming equal, though not identical, places. It sees the institution and the sexual relations between husband and wife not as shameful, but as commendable:

By another sign He created for you spouses from among yourselves, that you might live in peace with them, and planted love and kindness in your hearts.¹⁹

The status of women and the family in Islamic society was thus the product chiefly of Qur’anic prescriptions, which endure in affecting the lives of Muslim women.

As a final point, the economic principles detailed in the Qur’an provided such rights to women that women in the rest of the “civilized” world would have to wait until the nineteenth century for these rights to be recognized and granted.²⁰ With the advent of Islam, women were granted the right to inherit and bequeath property, have possession and complete control of their wealth and receive a dowry, while married and after divorce.²¹ The economic autonomy detailed in the Qur’an was perhaps one of the most striking reforms at the time, and still continues to be discussed today.

The principles outlined in the Qur’an which regulate the lives of Muslim women transformed the tribal society in which Islam emerged. While a satisfactory evaluation of each of these principles is beyond the scope of this paper, it is axiomatic that the transformations that Islam induced have had far-reaching implications for the lives of Muslim women and have directly impacted how these lives are played out in ever-changing societies.

Fulya Celik is coordinator of Religious Studies at a private college.

Notes

1. A. Guillaume, Islam, 2nd edn, Harmondsworth, 1956, p.71.

2. H. Smith, ‘Islam’, The World’s Religions, San Francisco, 1991, p.223.

3. Karen Armstrong, Muhammad:Prophet for Our Time, London, 2006, p.34.

4. Ibid., p.19-20.

5. L. Ahmed, ‘Women and the Advent of Islam’, Signs, Summer 1986, p.668.

6. B.F. Stowasser, ‘The Status of Women in Early Islam’, in Hussein, F (ed), Muslim Women, New York, 1984, pp.15-17.

7. Smith, ‘Islam’, p.235.

8. J.L Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, New York, 2005, p.3.

9. Ahmed, ‘Women and the Advent of Islam’, p.691.

10. J.J. Elias, ‘Female and Feminine in Islamic Mysticism’, Muslim World, July/Oct 1988, p.214.

11. N.J Dawood, The Koran, London, 2003, p.296. (Ahzab 33:35).

12. Stowasser, ‘The Status of Women in Early Islam’, pp.20–23.

13. A. Wadud, Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective, New York, 1999, p.99.

14. See Elias, “Female and Feminine in Islamic Mysticism.”

15. Ahmed, “Women and the Advent of Islam,” p.671.

16. Ibid., p.667.

17. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, p.94.

18. Ahmed, “Women and the Advent of Islam,” p.670.

19. Dawood, The Koran, p.285. (Rum 30:21).

20. Esposito, 2005.

21. Stowasser, ‘The Status of Women in Early Islam’, p.15-18.

References

• Ahmed, L, “Women and the Advent of Islam”, Signs, Summer 1986, pp.665–691.
• Armstrong, K, Muhammad: Prophet for Our Time, Harper Press, London, 2006.
• Armstrong, K, Islam: A Short History, Phoenix Press, London, 2004.
• Dawood, N.J, The Koran, Penguin Books, London, 2003.
• Elias, J.J, “Female and Feminine in Islamic Mysticism”, Muslim World, July/Oct 1988, pp.209–224.
• Esposito, J.L, Islam: The Straight Path, OUP, New York, 2005.
• Guillaume, A, Islam, 2nd edn, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1956.
• Smith, H, “Islam”, The World’s Religions, Harper, San Francisco,1991.
• Stowasser, B.F, “The Status of Women in Early Islam”, in Freda Hussain (ed), Muslim Women, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1984, pp.11–43.
• Wadud, A, Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective, OUP, New York, 1999.

At primary school, when our teacher first brought a microscope into the class and gave us the chance to see the delicate legs and wings of a fly I become for days enthused with the extraordinary grandeur of art in so tiny a creature.

At secondary and upper secondary schools we received more comprehensive courses in biology. Now though, everything began to be explained as the handiwork of mother nature. I couldn’t help wondering how this ‘mother nature’ was managing and doing so many things in their proper places; and whether the teachers really meant the Creator. But following the rest of what they said, and their train of thought generally, it became clear to me that they did not wish to say God.

In my family by contrast, it was always understood and always said that everything was created by God. Although my parents were not well-versed in religion, nor able to convey thoroughly what they did know, although none of us could have given clear answers to questions about God, His Power, His Essence, and Attributes, we nevertheless were aware of His existence and of the importance of belief in Him as our Creator.

Once, at the mosque on our street, I heard the preacher say that the Prophet Adam was the first man on earth. However, my biology tutor at the high school said that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter; then as it reproduced it changed of itself into different kinds of living organisms, ultimately producing plants, and animals. She talked also about certain prehistoric men who came into being through a long chain, by gradual, progressive evolution, of freaks and monstrosities. She narrated to us how fossil remains of these ‘men’ had been found. She seemed quite sure that fossil records provided a very important part of the argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life on earth. She argued that the Prophet Adam and his life story was but a tale and that belief in such tales had no place and was of no use to us in the age of space exploration and space travel.

When I told my father what the tutor had said and asked if it was true, he said:

Take no notice of it. Don’t bother about such views. Could it ever he possible that monkeys would turn into man? He meant to comfort my doubts. But in fact what he said did not satisfy the need in me for sound knowledge. He was sure of what he said; so was my tutor. I, in the middle, was left in conflict and struggle.

My father was not able to discuss such issues because he had not read anything about them. On the other hand, the biology tutor was knowledgeable, and a capable person who had learnt how to deploy arguments convincingly. So what must happen to my belief in God? The only way seemed to be to blend belief in God with some sort of acceptance of evolution. Believing in God, at the same time accepting brute beasts or half-apes as my ancestors, and not thinking too much, nor bothering too much about how to reconcile the two. Aware that I was not the one person in the world who had such problems to resolve, I escaped to the football field and played so hard that I became too tired to think about the problems.

I had ambitions to be a doctor but, by a few points, failed to get the average for the Faculty of Medicine. My second choice was to enter the Faculty of Biology, which I did. I realized much later how great a blessing this would prove to be–it is something for which I have been thanking God for years.

I felt quite happy before 1 started the courses, expecting to find the answers to my many questions. However, two years passed, and I did not find the answers, only improved my style and techniques in football. What we were taught in the courses was the theory of evolution from the simple and crude to the complex and excellent. The words which always highlighted the arguments were ‘by chance’, ‘mutation’, ‘atrophy’, ‘evolution’. No one even uttered the word creation. I sometimes tried to discuss the subject with my friends. While some of them did not have enough knowledge to pursue the argument, others did not hesitate to reject creation. They said, that all had been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator; that what I believed in was tales, conjecture, self-delusion; the questions troubling me would he re-formulated in a way such that, in time, the progress of science and technology would resolve them; in short, there was no longer any need to worry over such issues.

If I followed this approach what would happen to all that I valued so much; belief in God, His Prophets, the practice of prayer, fasting, and so on? I decided to be resolved one way or the other, to either believe or disbelieve, because it was really distressful to be in between. How? I planned to see the most fervent atheist in my class, Kaya. If Kaya convinced me I would become like him; if I could make him say, ‘yes, there is really the One, the Supreme Being, who creates all’, I would be at ease with what I knew and believed.

I discussed matter, biology, physics and metaphysics, with Kaya for two hours. He was well versed in disbelief and explained everything in materialist terms. Once or twice I tried to cite examples from the micro and macro cosmos; from the balance harmony, order, and splendour in atoms, in living cells, and in space, but he was so expert in tackling those issues that he always had something to fire back with. I was not able to convince him. Rather he managed to raise many more doubts in me. Seemingly uncontrollable waves of disbelief began to swell within me. Everything I had somehow held to, now seemed about to fall to pieces. Were all the religious duties, my prayers and fasts, all for nothing now? Was even the pleasure I had taken in them merely self-deception? The business of living had no ultimate purpose–I was only one among billions of moving bits and pieces, now here, now there, then forgotten eternally? To be rid of those thoughts and agonies, I was drawn to contemplate suicide.

That was the turning point in my life. Ahmed, who observed us talking, had watched and listened from a distance. After Kaya had left, he approached me. He saw the gloom in me and asked the reason for it. I mentioned how Kaya had drowned me in doubts.

I had known Ahmed for two years. He was studying mathematics. We only chanced to see each other in the language laboratory once a week, and occasionally talking. He was a good, kind fellow, someone I had always felt at ease with. He started talking now as we had never talked before.

For everything, including man, that has a beginning and an end in time, there can be only four ways of trying to explain how it came to be.

1) It was made, or created, or caused by nothing at all. In other words, it came out of nothing. 2) It created itself. 3) Nature, according to generative principles like those given in nature, created it after a random series of chance coincidences. Or, 4) it has a creator, cause, or maker outside itself. The first three explanations are obviously impossible. It is inconceivable for something that has a beginning in time to come out of, or be made of, nothing at all. It is also inconceivable that it should bring itself into being. The universe and all that is in it could not have created itself nor did it come about by mere chance. He took a booklet from his inside pocket and referred to some examples to illustrate his argument. Some of them were as follows. If a number of bottles in a pharmacist’s, containing a variety of different elements fell off a shelf and mixed on the ground what is the chance that some wonder drug would result? If earth and stones fell from a mountain could the pieces organise themselves, even over infinite stretches of time, into a splendid palace?

Nature is effect but not the cause; it is a work but not the artist; if a clock is an evidence of intelligent design how much more so is the far more vast and complicated universe? Camel droppings imply the presence of a camel. Human footprints on the sand tell of a traveller having passed that way. The heaven with its stars, the earth with its mountains and valleys, and the sea with its waves, do they not point to the Maker, All-Powerful, Knowing, Wise and Caring? The conclusion is clear. The universe and all that is in it owe their existence to a Maker or Creator outside itself. You as a human being are a part of the universe, a tiny speck even in the context of this planet, and you owe your existence to such a Creator. To suppose that man evolved by random chance from other creatures, does not really answer the question about the origin of the universe and all that is in it, including human beings. Such suppositions are grounded in a wholly false world-view.

As Ahmed settled all my doubts, the seeds of disbelief and the temptation of suicide withered away. I felt considerably relieved. I gave thanks to God who sent me Ahmed and such a book in time to cure me of my doubt and suffering, and yet the gratitude I felt could hardly be expressed in words.

Later on, Ahmed introduced me to some of his friends, with them he shared a flat. Some of them were, like myself, first-year biology students. We went home, talked about and read from Ahmed’s booklet, the chapters on the existence of and belief in God, each of which effected a different cure.

At the faculty, the courses on genetics and evolution were presented in the context of, and in favour of, atheism. I no longer had any real doubts as to creation, nevertheless the Darwinian theory continued to worry me. The lectures were certainly one-sided. Whoever tried to say something in favour of creation was ridiculed as backward or reactionary by pro-Darwinian and atheist students. Those who tried to question the theory were even snubbed and silenced by the lecturers for seeking to introduce what they dismissed as irrational ways of thinking. Some students tried hard to compromise belief in God with evolution, saying that God created through evolution, that He brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that the higher forms, including man, evolved from them.

One day Ahmed and his friends came to the class and invited us to a lecture on Darwinism and Creation which would be given by an imam. Some students straightaway expressed their willingness to attend. Predictably the atheists in the class tried to discourage others from attending: “The speaker is a man of religion! How could an imam know such a subject better than professors of science!” That this opinion was prejudiced, not objective, certainly determined us even more to go.

It was a pleasant evening. The lecture was being held in a large hall usually used for public entertainment. As well as students, I was pleased to observe many scientists and scholars there also. At last the imam, whom by now every one was curious to see, came onto the stage and delivered his lecture. As he began, and as he proceeded, I felt the last, fluttering palpitations of Darwin’s theory in my mind. Among the things I remember from that evening are the first clear statement I ever heard of the simple truth that evolution is only a theory, an hypothesis, not an established scientific fact. To claim otherwise, as many who teach it do, is itself most unscientific. An increasing number of scientists, including a growing number of evolutionists, now argue that the Darwinian theory is not a properly scientific theory at all, that is, not capable of experimental testing. Many of its critics have the highest scientific or intellectual credentials, and of them many hold that creation is a for more plausible and acceptable explanation. Those who advocate evolution maintain their position but because the evidence is inconclusive disagree about the meaning and usefulness of it. Even among their number, one school of thought urges major modifications in the theory. It is not only so-called fundamentalist Christians but also reputable scientists who question the theory. There is growing dissent, especially, among palaeontologists whose speciality it is to study fossil records. Darwin himself acknowledged that if numerous species can be shown to have emerged simultaneously, that demonstration would be fatal to his theory very large quantities of fossils have been unearthed since Darwin’s time: they do not constitute a significant support for Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. The evidence is precisely that a large number of species did emerge simultaneously; the evidence does not demonstrate gradual development, as the theory of evolution requires. All the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates appeared in the Cambrian period and spread for about ten million years; scientists have not found the progenitors of the Cambrian forms in the vast depths of sediments below the Cambrian period, and admit that there is little prospect of their ever being found. Contrary to most people’s belief the fossil evidence could perfectly well be said to be consistent with the idea of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established. The evolutionary process cannot be accounted for by mutations, because most mutations are damaging to the organism; they seem to be destructive rather than constructive processes. Those artists sketches of ape-men, depicted in text-books, encyclopedias and museums, are based more on mythologizing imagination than scientific reality. The first of mankind, said the imam, were neither brutes nor beasts, not ‘half’ man and ‘half’ ape. Those who persist in their belief in evolution, against the evidence are not the friends of scientific knowledge nor encourage a scientific attitude to such questions.

Many times, the speaker made reference to Islamic sources and quoted from them. I was filled with both wonder and joy. I felt a great blessing was granted to us that night which extended even to the hall itself, so that all the misuse of time and resources in idle entertainment with which the place was associated seemed to be undone. As I left, I could not help but say to myself: “Well, Mr Darwin, you have been a nuisance to mankind for a hundred years or so, but your account has surely been settled here-in a short lecture, in a couple of hours. Your followers, and even those who carry the word ‘professor’ in front of their names, could not save you. In the end, we have come to believe an imam, one whose learning and clarity of thought they would never have given credit to before…’

I liked and fastened to Ahmed, his friends, their books and to this preacher, and have stayed with them ever since. Of course, the argument has been carried further in my mind since then. Precisely because the theory of evolution has been a part of the mythology of modern Western civilization for so long, and because this civilization continues to enjoy enormous prestige and power, the theory persists and is believed by great numbers of people almost without question. It is still necessary therefore to keep up a mental struggle against the tyranny of the idea that human beings are descended from apes. We are not. Consider what it is that distinguishes us so decisively from all other living organisms on this planet. We give particular names to some species to acknowledge that they share with us certain characteristics: for example, we speak of weaver birds, farmer ants, and so on. Living and working together inlarge organized groups clearly is not what distinguishes us from the rest of creation. Nor is it our ability to build elaborate, even beautiful homes for ourselves: allowing for scale, termites build larger cities with even larger skyscrapers than we do. Our cunning and intelligence likewise are matched, perhaps exceeded, by many animals: spiders, for example, construct traps to catch their prey as subtle and delicate as any we might devise. Perhaps then, our special characteristic is that we use tools? Again, not true: several animals, notably primates, not only use tools (admittedly very simple ones), they teach the use of them to their young. Perhaps it is our emotional or psychological life that distinguishes us? Again, where we have had the means and the patience to study animal behaviour over a sufficiently long period, it is demonstrable that the animals experience and express happiness, sadness, tenderness, curiosity, impatience, bitterness, that some individuals can suffer inwardly to such a degree as a result of some traumatic loss (for example the loss of a friend or a father-figure) that they lose the will to live, failing to join with the rest of their group in eating or playing until, eventually, they die. So, if it is not intelligence, not our social skills, not our affective or emotional life, what is it that makes us special?

The answer is that what makes us unique is our use of language. No other living organism uses true language, that is a coherent and flexible system of signs, governed by a body of logical rules which we call grammar. Animals communicate but they do not use, nor, despite years of assiduous effort to do so, can they be taught to use, even the simplest sentence. By contrast, all human beings without exception enjoy this faculty, young and old, male and female, of any and every race, whether so-called civilized or so-called primitive; even the deaf, given the opportunity, can communicate fully using a true language. There is no early or primitive form of language from which true language evolves; one language is not more primitive than another; every true language is as truly a language as any other: that is why children brought up in any environment acquire competence in whatever language they hear around them, regardless of their parents’ language.

How does the theory of evolution cope with this fact? The truth is that it does not cope at all. It simply ignores it. And yet this is the decisive characteristic of our being human. If the theory that we are descended from apes has any validity at all, surely it must account for, or at least attempt to account for, this very large and obviously important fact. Historically the theory only emerged at a time when Western Europe was obsessed with the twin myths of human progress and the superiority of its own civilization.

The theory has rather more to do with the social and political ideology of a culture anxious to justify and rationalize its exploitative attitudes to all other living forms, including human beings, than it has to do with any objectively, scientifically observed reality.

I am glad therefore to abandon any temptation to base my understanding of the dignity or meaning or purpose of human life on a theory that is, as a scientific explanation of relevant facts, so very incompetent. And yet, even now I cannot help but tremble at the memory of how near I came to being seduced by it. Nor can I help but tremble at the thought of what arrogant darkness I might still be wandering in if I hadn’t met Ahmed when I did if I hadn’t attended that lecture by that preacher when I did. I give thanks therefore where, ultimately, it is always due: al-hamdu li-llahi rabbil alamin.