Question: Is having bad opinion of others actually self-inflicting?

Answer: “When you hear a man say, ‘The people are ruined,’ he himself is the most ruined of them all.”[1] Since this blessed statement is a pithy one, it conveys many truths. One of the truths conveyed by this saying by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, pertains to making false assumptions or having bad opinions about others. Vilifying others, even to the degree of declaring them to be ruined, almost always stems from such false assumptions. However, the noble Prophet points out that the one who makes such sinful statements is actually the most ruined one.

Those who idolize their ego seek others to blame

The underlying motive behind such invective is egotism, ego-centrism, and even narcissism. If a person is vilifying everybody and finding faults in them, it means that they are idolizing themselves unawares. A person devoid of positive thinking but fixed on negative thoughts can even use their false assumptions to criticize very important acts of worship by others, questioning their sincerity in their prayers.

Such a thought should be accosted by the Prophet’s warning, “Did you cleave his heart open to check it out?”[2] We cannot know anyone’s heart. A person who seems to neglectfully observe prayer may actually be observing it with deep feeling. Viewing others’ acts of worship with bias and assuming them to be sanctimonious is a terrible form of false assumption. Such a false assumption may cause a person to end up in utter spiritual loss. God Almighty forbids baseless suspicions, in a definite and clear fashion, with the following Divine decree: “O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, for some suspicion is a grave sin (liable to God’s punishment); and do not spy (on one another…)” (al-Hujurat 49:12).

While considering others, it is always necessary to view them in a positive light, as far as there is a possible basis for it. Even if a person has only one aspect that allows positive thinking, one must still take it and avoid negative thinking. On the other hand, while viewing ourselves, we must be self-critical to the degree of worrying about the possibility of having spoilt our good deeds by showing off.

Someone who outwardly seems to have a weak connection with God, owing to poor observance of individual worship, can be someone who always speaks truthfully in interpersonal relations and never lies. We must interpret this attitude of theirs as a result of their God-consciousness and say, “Given that this person is so scrupulous about refraining from lying, then they must have a very strong relation with God.”

Similarly, imagine a person who is very vigilant against unlawful gain, does not even eat a forbidden morsel, and refuses to take an undeserved payment for a task they did not carry out. This person’s behaviors are so praiseworthy that one can only assume his or her special connection with the Divine.

Balance: think positively, but with caution

If we refrain from going to extremes but seek the ideal conduct on this matter, we must never disregard the following principle: for those people whose ups and downs we witness, we should still think positively, but with caution. If the person we view with positive thoughts occasionally strays from the line of uprightness, then they may not be a mature and perfect person, as we see them to be. In this respect, even if we entertain positive thoughts about that certain person, we should not fail to act cautiously about certain issues, such as giving them some vital responsibilities or entrusting them with very important tasks. However, we should know that even in such a case, we do not have the right to adopt statements that convey negative thoughts while giving an account of that person. We cannot say things like, “I do not have much trust in such and such person; they are not really trustworthy.”

While viewing others we should think that even the simplest deeds can be a means of salvation for them. We should overlook their faults and avoid speaking negatively about them. A particular example from the time of the noble Prophet provides important lessons to believers in this respect.

In the early period of the prohibition of alcohol, one Companion was caught drunk many times and was severely reprimanded. Once, he was brought to the presence of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, and reprimanded for the same offense. One of those present reacted to him with words like, “May God curse you! What a bad person you are! How many times it has been, and you are still brought to his presence like this?”

Upon hearing this, the noble Prophet said, “Do not speak like this; do not help Satan against your brother with such words. I swear by God, he loves God and His Messenger very much!”[3] So we should constantly view others through this perspective of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him.

Positive thinking: a very beautiful form of worship

One must especially avoid making false assumptions when considering the volunteers devoted to serving for the sake of faith and the Qur’an—those who have a relationship with God, His Messenger, and the Qur’an. A believer must heed the following warning of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him:

“Whoever shames his brother for a sin, he shall not die until he (himself) commits it.”[4] In this respect, one should be fearful, shaking in anguish with the consideration, “I saw such negative things in certain persons, but what if others see such things in me, my spouse, or my children?”

A real believer must be careful with his thoughts about others, no matter who they are. A real believer must act cautiously. As it is known, tayaqquz, which means being ever-vigilant, is the first step of spiritual journeying. A believer must always walk on the path of God with open eyes, channel his thoughts in the positive way as much as possible, and must definitely not commit the sin of false assumption. In addition, the noble Prophet points to positive thinking as a lofty horizon, stating that, “Entertaining good thoughts stem from a person’s good worship.”[5]

Together with positive thinking we should not fail to act cautiously and build barriers against those who take delight in biting others like poisonous snakes and are continually trying to cause harm. However, acting cautiously in this respect should not stop you from praying to God to grant guidance to those who devise various conspiracies against you.

In the face of the mistreatment and oppressions you go through, God has granted you the possibility of a different preference. If you wish, it is possible for you to say, “My God, please vanquish them, shatter their alliances, bring their schemes to nothing, and let them fall into their own traps!” Saying all of these is your right, in accordance with the judgment of the verse, “If you have to respond to any wrong, respond (only) to the measure of the wrong done to you” (an-Nahl 16:126). If somebody is oppressing you, preparing different conspiracies against you, or setting traps against you, it will be your lawful right to make moves to reverse these. Together with that, the verse continues, “but if you endure patiently, it is indeed better for the patient…,” and states that even in terms of personal rights, it is better for you to show patience and not give up gentlemanliness.

Footnotes

[1] Sahih Muslim, Birr, 139; Sunan Abu Dawud, Adab, 77; Imam Malik, Al-Muwatta, Kalam, 2.

[2] Sahih al-Bukhari, Maghazi, 45; Sahih Muslim, Iman, 158.

[3] Sahih al-Bukhari, Hudud, 4-5; Abdurrazzaq, Al-Musannaf, 7/381, 9/246.

[4] Sunan at-Tirmidhi, Sifatu’l-Qiyamah, 53; Tabarani, Al-Mu’jam al-Awsat, 7/191.

[5] Sunan Abu Dawud, Adab, 81; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Al-Musnad, 2:297.

Is this life?
This drastic contrast?
This black and white?
This sunshine and rain?
Is it?

Is it normal
for worlds to collide?
Combine?
Crash?

And these emotions?
To effervesce differently, yet be present,
in the same world,
the same existence.

It is.
And, apparently this is life,
When your mind and heart will be playing a tug of war,
and you sit,
you sit and realize it’s your choice.

See…
It’s your choice to visualize what you want to see. It’s your choice to just stay in the sunshine, ignoring the rain.
It’s your choice to just stare at that white and don’t look back at that black.

So this is what they meant,
when they told us to look at the cup, half full.

Even when you’re grieving the half that is gone, half is still there.

It’s the choice.
It’s the choice to chose how we look at our lives, the good and the bad.
How we smile in our happiness,
and find strength in our sadness.

How we laugh when we hear something funny,
something fun,
and hold those tears
when the sadness stings our hearts.

It’s our choice.
Our choice to be those optimisms
who just look at the glass as half full.

And who know,

deep down,
Even if the glass isn’t half full,
even if it’s only a quarter, or even a tenth, full
it will still, to some degree, be full.

And that it’ll get better.
It will get fuller.
Just know
that it will get better.
It will fill up.

No one’s glass
is constantly full…

The genera Escherichia is thought to have emerged around 102 million years ago and is known as a gram-negative pathogenic bacteria mostly found in the intestines of warm blooded animals [1]. German pediatrician and bacteriologist Theodor Escherich discovered E. coli in 1885, and for many years the bacterium was simply considered to be a commensal organism of the large intestine. It was not until 1935 that a strain of E. coli was shown to be the cause of an outbreak of diarrhea among infants [2]. The reason its pathogenic properties were discovered so late is that many of its strains are harmless. However, virulent strains of E. coli can cause various diseases in humans and in domestic animals, and are also sometimes responsible for product recalls due to contamination. Gastroenteritis, urinary tract infections, and neonatal meningitis are the most commonly observed diseases in humans, and in rare cases virulent strains are also responsible for haemolytic-uremic syndrome, peritonitis, mastitis, septicaemia and Gram-negative pneumonia [2]. Various outbreaks all around the world have been caused by E. coli, causing millions of deaths and sick people and billions of dollars have been spent fighting it. Even though death rates have decreased with the evolution of modern medicine and the discovery of antibiotics, the outbreaks are still a major concern for all countries, such as the recent outbreak in Germany in 2011 affecting 3,950 people and killing 53 [3].

Its reputation has not been one of great dignity, and it has ruined the reputation of many. You may recall in 1993, the fast food chain restaurant “Jack in the Box” suffered a major corporate crisis involving E. coli O157:H7 bacteria. Four children died of hemolytic uremic syndrome and 600 others were reported sick after eating undercooked patties contaminated with fecal material containing the bacteria at locations in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest, USA. The chain was faced with several lawsuits, each of which was quickly settled but left the chain nearly bankrupt and losing customers.

But don’t these creatures have any properties to be appreciated, I wonder…

Compared to eukaryotic cells, bacteria have a pretty basic mechanism of functioning. They don’t have sophisticated organelles, and they do not have a cell nucleus where their DNA is stored. Everything is floating along all together in the cell cytoplasm (which shocks me when I reflect upon how such a small and simple organism can cause such severe pain on “highly evolved modern humanity”). It has the basic metabolic tools for survival. And even though, at first sight, it is tempting to look down on its simplicity, today we know that it is this simplicity that gives us space for making many modifications and experiments on it, whereas in more complicated cells, like animal cells, the moment a modification is made, the entire system reacts to that and causes much trouble in the process.

The turning point of E.coli making a huge impact on our lives was in 1973, when Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer discovered the “Recombinant DNA Technology.” This technology allowed specific genes to be isolated from one organism and cloned to another organism by the help of bacterial plasmids. The first commercial product to be synthesized by this technology was human insulin, which is used for the treatment of diabetes [4]. This brought an amazing amount of recognition and appreciation for the technology, as the practical aspect of the technology was now proven to be commercially profitable. For the insulin to be produced, the DNA sequence that encodes human insulin was synthesized and transplanted into a plasmid that could be maintained in a non-pathogenic strain of E.coli [4]. Now the bacterial host cells acted as biological factories for the production of the two peptide chains of human insulin, which, after being combined, could be purified and used to treat diabetics who were allergic to the commercially available porcine (pig) insulin, or for diabetics from certain religious groups who abstain from pork products such as Muslims, Jews, some Christian groups, and many more who have similar concerns.

This was only the start of an incredible new technology which used bacteria to produce different proteins or enzymes to cure human diseases. Today more than 200 new drugs have been produced by recombinant DNA technology and have been used to treat over 300 million people for diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, and stroke, and to provide protection from other infectious diseases. Over 400 new drugs are in the process of being tested in human trials to treat such diseases as Alzheimer disease and heart disease (to name only two) [4].

Today E.coli is frequently used as a model organism for all kinds of microbiological experiments. In the lab, E. Coli. is one of the first micro-organisms that is thought of for testing a biological experiment. The reason is that E.coli cells are cheap to purchase and to sustain. They grow easily and rapidly in lab conditions and have non-pathogenic strains, so they are not dangerous for the researches doing the experiment. Whereas purchasing more complicated cells such as cancer cells or stem cells may be very costly, and moreover, may need special lab conditions to be sustained; so before more complicated cells are purchased, the experiments are usually tried out with E.coli or some other kind of model organism. More importantly, E. coli was one of the first organisms to have its genome sequenced; the complete genome of E. coli K12 was published by Science in 1997 [5]. Other areas in which modified E.coli has helped humanity are vaccine development, bioremediation (fighting pollution), and production of immobilised enzymes [6].

One specific example of the benefit of recombinant DNA technology for the environment is its use in the paper industry. Before the 1970’s, when there wasn’t much environmental awareness in the paper producing industry, poisonous chlorine compounds were conventionally used to achieve pulp brightness of a high order in the manufacture of high-quality paper products [7]. This chemical bleaching technique precipitated a tremendous environmental concern considering the magnitude of the industry. Plants treated with elemental chlorine produced significant amounts of dioxins. Dioxins are highly toxic, and their health effects on humans include reproductive, developmental, immune and hormonal problems. They are also known to be carcinogenic. Over 90% of human exposure is through food, primarily meat, dairy, fish and shellfish, as dioxins accumulate in the food chain in the fatty tissue of animals [7]. One alternative for these chemical bleaching processes is the use of the enzyme “xylanase,” which degrades the linear polysaccharide beta-1,4-xylan into xylose, thus breaking down hemicellulose, one of the major components of plant cell walls. Even though the use of xylanases in this industry has increased significantly with the discovery of Viikarri et al. (1986), the enzyme needs further improvements for it to be commercially acceptable [6]. To ensure the commercial utilization of hemicellulosic residues in the pulp and paper industries, the production of higher xylanase yields at low capital cost is required [6]. Such studies are ongoing with the purpose of partially mutating the amino acid sequence for the purpose of especially increasing the thermal stability of the enzyme and also increasing its metabolic activity. The gene mutation and gene expressions are generally done in either E.coli or yeast cells. Davoodi et al. has mutated the enzyme up to the point where the transition temperature increased 12 0C by introducing disulfate bonds in the enzyme [8]. The wonders this enzyme can do for the health of the environment is breathtaking, and is an area which should be further studied until finding the commercially viable kind that will eliminate chemicals from the paper industry during bleaching.

Even though some controversy remains on gene transferring, its tremendous positive impact on humanity cannot be denied. I personally think that it does need constraints and strict regulations, but this technique is one of the most remarkable techniques discovered in modern times, and E.coli has no doubt played a great role in the availability of this technology.

Even though condemning E.coli and stating its “evilness” seems like the most obvious path, we all ought to appreciate the variety and uniqueness of these creatures which also allow us to produce such large varieties of drugs. We ought to appreciate its simplicity, which allows it to have a chance of producing such sophistication. We ought to reflect upon the fact that something can be classified as “good” or “bad” only by the means in which we perceive it, and the reality of it may be completely opposite of what we had thought initially.

McPen is a freelance writer in natural sciences, Montana, US.

References

1. Battistuzzi FU, Feijao A, Hedges SB. 2004. “A genomic timescale of prokaryote evolution: insights into the origin of methanogenesis, phototrophy, and the colonization of land”. BMC Evol. Biol.
2. Todar, K. “Pathogenic E. coli”. Online Textbook of Bacteriology. University of Wisconsin–Madison Department of Bacteriology.
3. “German-grown food named likely culprit in deadly outbreak”. CNN. (5 June 2010).
4. Glick, Bernard, Jack Pasternak, and Cheryl Patten. 2010. “MOLECULAR BIOTECHNOLOGY Principles and Applications of Recombinant DNA . 4th Edition.” Washington,DC: ASM Press, pp. 3-13.
5. Blattner FR, Plunkett G, Bloch CA, Perna NT, Burland V, Riley M, Collado-Vides J, Glasner JD, Rode CK, Mayhew GF, Gregor J, Davis NW, Kirkpatrick HA, Goeden MA, Rose DJ, Mau B, Shao Y (September 1997). “The complete genome sequence of Escherichia coli K-12”. Science 277 (5331): 1453–62.
6. Cornelis P. 2000. “Expressing genes in different Escherichia coli compartments”. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 11 (5): 450–454.
7. Beg, Q.K., M. Kapoor, L. Mahajan, and G.S. Hoondal. 2001. “Microbial xylanases and their industrial applications: a review.” Springer.
8. Davoodi J., Wakarchuk W.W., Carey P.R., Surewicz W.K. 2007. “Mechanism of stabilization of Bacillus circulans xylanase upon the introduction of disulfide bonds.” Biophysical Chemistry, 125 (2-3) , pp. 453-461.

Almost every society eventually creates an “other”that serves as such for certain political, economic, or social purposes. And in most cases, the identification of this “other” rests on a simplistic “us versus them” dichotomy: we are “good” people, and they are “bad” people. Because this simple dichotomy is more mythical than real, the maintenance of this myth requires a continuous pumping of misinformation into the public realm. Misinformation is not necessarily incorrect information; it is also purposeful manipulation of reality. Each society foregrounds the good acts of its own people and backgrounds their bad acts while foregrounding the bad acts of “others” and backgrounding their good acts. Thus, we all accomplish giving our own communities a delusional sense of moral and cultural superiority over others, which eventually turns the material conflicts between us and others into moral conflicts between good and evil.

The common “good Westerners-bad Muslims” dichotomy results in manipulation of the information provided to the people in the West about both Muslims and Westerners themselves. This is why in some of the Western media, evil acts of Muslim people are almost always associated with Islam while noble acts of Muslim people such as Mr. Osman are either ignored or associated with their nationality rather than their religion. In the same vein, evil acts of Western people such as those who gassed the nursery of a Muslim mosque in Ohio while about 300 people were praying inside in September 2008 are largely ignored by some of the mainstream Western media, for it goes against the “good Westerners” image.

A striking example that is used as evidence to the evilness of Muslims is the degree of support for terrorism among Muslims. Authors from Sam Harris to Robert Spencer have sought refuge in Muslim support for terrorism when they wanted to denounce Islam. Some surveys reveal that there are some Muslims who justify killing innocent people in certain circumstances. According to the respectable PEW institution’s surveys, 10 to 50 percent of people in different Muslim societies (with an average of 20-25%) often times or sometimes justify suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam. Such findings are construed as evidence to both the belligerent nature of the religion of Islam and the evilness of the Muslim mind. Yet another truth that goes uncovered in some of the Western media is the fact that there is comparable support for terrorism among Western people as well. According to a 2007 survey by World Public Opinion, for example, 24% of Americans find “bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” often times or sometimes justified. But such surveys never find a place in the some of the mainstream American media because they go against the common “good American-bad Muslim” dichotomy.

The problem of misinformation is not unique to the West. It is equally problematic in Muslim societies. Most Muslims have known the United States and Americans through the lenses of Vietnam, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the like. But few of them are aware of such programs like Peace Corps or Volunteers for Prosperity because such good American acts go against the mythical “bad Americans-good Muslims” dichotomy in the Muslim world. Similarly, most Muslims have memorized many non-Muslim names for their brutal acts against Muslims, but very few Muslims are familiar with Muslim names who are held responsible for the crimes against humanity. Whereas the former figures confirm the mythical “good Muslims-bad non-Muslims” image, the latter contradicts it. Therefore, the former examples have been highlighted in the Muslim media and the latter has been ignored.

On the forefront of this universal misinformation campaign are two institutions: the media and governments. The media loves sensational, flashy news because such news pumps up their ratings. Consequently, the media capitalize on overstated evilness of some other people and the existential threat they pose to “our” society. In the same vein, our governments love the existence of “external threats to our national security,” mythical or real, because it allows them to divert public attention from failed domestic policies to international politics and also to implement certain political and military agenda that they could not have carried out without a foreign threat. John Mueller, a professor of political science from Ohio State University, estimated that “the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000-about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor.” Yet whereas no sane American is obsessed with the adversity of a meteor falling on his/her head, many have been made to obsessively think, fear, and guard themselves against a terrorist attack by some evil others.

Most of us have been misinformed about other societies to some extent. We are all, therefore, in need of a therapy of knowledge refinement. But how do we do that? Personally, I think there are two effective ways/channels of refining our knowledge and acquiring authentic information about other societies. First, we need to diversify our sources of information by reading multiple and multi-national news papers or portals. Second, we need to diversify our pool of friends and include in it as many people from “other” societies as possible. Nothing is more powerful than a concrete counter-example when it comes to destroying a myth. As we diversify our sources of information and befriend people from other societies, we will realize that “we” are not as “good” as we are told we are, and “they” are not as “bad” as we are told they are, which will hopefully help us re-appreciate the essential commonality between all of us: humanity. Hopefully, we will then also realize that the major struggle is not between “good” us versus “bad” them but rather between the good people and the bad ones among us all. We need to find ways of testing or confirming knowledge we get from the media and not forget that the media is owned and operated by people, who, like us, have many presumptions, biases, priorities, or simply misconceptions, that can spill over when they are “reporting.”

Kaan Kerem has a PhD in political science. He is a freelance writer on philosophy and scientific thought.

The example given above-not stealing customers’ money versus not being a rich person-is just one possible case among others which human beings feel tension because of conflicting cognitions. Most people have personal beliefs, principles, and values shaping their lives fundamentally. Psychologists use the concept of cognition to imply all of these factors that guide our choices. Cognitions regulate our lives at any moment regardless of our consciousness of them. For instance, some people could venture everything to have more money because they have a cognition whispering “money, money, money,” or others can sacrifice everything for the sake of beliefs because of their cognition, “I believe therefore I am.” Even though human beings feel good when these cognitions drive us to success, good decisions, and a satisfying life, they turn out to be a source of frustration when a certain cognition conflicts with another one. In such cases, what we usually do is to find a way to resolve the conflict because we do not like to live with this tension. How then can we cope with this conflict?

The most common attitude under such circumstances is “self-justification.” If we turn to our example, Peter chose one of the two alternatives: continue to steal his customers’ money in order to become a rich person. Now he must find a good reason to justify himself and reduce his inner conflict:

“Not stealing is not the only way of being an honest person. You cannot be a bad guy just because of one unique behavior in your life, given that other people are also committing such sins, even worse sometimes.”

“My customers are the richest people in the State; it is not greed if I want them to share some of their money. Actually, they do not deserve it at all.”

“I did that to ensure the future happiness of my family; I know that making your family happy is more important than being honest.”

There can be many other reasons or justifications for such a behavior. The truth is that, Peter is trying to convince himself about his behavior. Although people’s attempts to convince themselves are not necessarily rational, they try to rationalize their behaviors by changing their cognitions or adding new ones.

All of the above are in the simple processes of Leon Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance. He contends that when an individual has two or more cognitions (beliefs, opinions, ideas etc.) which are inconsistent with each other, then tension emerges and people attempt to reduce this tension. How can the tension be reduced? The answer is through changing one or both cognitions or by adding new cognitions to alleviate discrepancies between cognitions. Our behaviors in such situations will determine the way we behave the next time we encounter a similar situation. Our ultimate behavior will depend on the strength of one’s cognitions (Aronson, 2004). If being a rich person is more important than not being greedy, a person is more likely to choose to steal money.

It is critical that the choice does not have to be right or rational. Let’s remember Peter’s excuses for stealing. He tended to believe that stealing was not as bad as he thought before because he found some justifications. Now he seems to feel better, but what about the next step? Most probably, he will continue to steal. As one can easily see, dissonance reduction is mostly an irrational behavior. Apparently, these irrational behaviors help people to defend their “self” or “ego.” Through the help of these irrational beliefs, people continue to define themselves as if they are good, smart, decent, or generous people. The underlying motive is the need for self-justification.

Cognitive dissonance from the perspective of religion

There are many musts and must-nots in a believer’s mind. One common practice of dissonance reduction appears at a point where one must choose between committing a sin or making a righteous decision. While preaching or reading holy books nurtures spiritual “cognitions” in a religious mind, obeying concupiscence and chasing essentially worldly goals will weaken this. After every sin that a believer committed, the battle of the cognitions starts between “I am a religious guy” and “I committed a sin, therefore I am not a decent person.” Since these cognitions cannot live peacefully together in a religious mind, one of the conflicting cognitions will grow out of this battle.

This process meshes with a religious idea that “Within each sin is a path leading to unbelief” (Nursi, The Second Gleam). If a person insists on performing a sinful act, he starts to disdain his sin. After a while, as he keeps behaving in the same manner, he becomes addicted to the sin and tends to see it as a normal act. Instead of acknowledging that the sins are witnessed by the angels and seen by God, an unrighteous man may like the idea that they may not exist at all, which is again comforting. With that idea, the cognition of “I am a religious person” is surpassed by a new cognition, “Maybe the religion that I accepted has some flaws” or “is questionable” which were added to relieve the pain arising from the cognition “I am not a good person.” From this point of view, people’s preferences about their beliefs are not independent of their behaviors which foster or challenge their religious cognitions.

One’s tendency to justify himself is usual but may not be what ought-to-be from the moral point of view. As people justify themselves, they will ignore whatever is wrong with their behaviors or cognitions, which will make them insensitive. Going beyond psychology’s objective description of human beings as rationalizing or justifying beings, religious sources suggest rejecting self-justification in most of cases. The Qur’an quotes the Prophet Joseph: “Yet I do not claim my self free of error, for assuredly the human carnal soul always commands evil, except that my Lord has mercy. Surely my Lord is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate” (Yusuf 12:53). This means, self-awareness about the conflicting cognitions is critical for human beings. When the person has inconsistent cognitions, choosing the option that does not solely serve to justify himself will prevent the person from going toward unbelief. Christianity also pointed to the importance of facing up to our sins: “I acknowledged my sin to You, and in my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin” (Psalms 32:5).

Between the good and bad

Human cognitions determine their choices and actions, which in turn nurture, shape or weaken our cognitions. Repeating a sin a second time is easier than the first time, and we feel less dissonance because cognitions creating dissonance are replaced by those that bring inner comfort. People who exhibit extremely deviant and sociopathic behaviors should be reconsidered from this point of view. Extremely deviant behaviors should be considered a series of earlier choices which gradually led to the ultimate misconduct rather than the consequence of a unique decision made at a specific time.

Another possible implication of the theory of cognitive dissonance is the difficulty with judging absolute good or bad. Given the fact that cognitions may become weaker or stronger, personal views on the appropriateness of behaviors are subject to change. Human cognitions are potential mechanisms that lead one to behave in a certain way. Therefore, deviant behaviors might have a long history fed by the cognitions which turn out to be one’s rationale for inappropriate behaviors. As a result, cognitive dissonance uncovers the gray area between the continuum of good and bad through which human beings swing all the time.

Conclusion

Cognitive dissonance theory provides convincing explanations about how human beings make their decisions and behave in a moral or immoral manner. Also, it brings a resourceful perspective to illuminate spiritual experiences. It successfully explains how people swing on the path from good to bad and vice versa instead of considering them as dwelling on two discrete entities. Awareness of the above-mentioned processes is critical to increase self-awareness.

One last comment should be made about the role of conscience in cognitive dissonance. Although cognitive dissonance theory successfully explains many cognitive processes, a mental faculty that is responsible for recognizing the discrepancy in our cognitions and regulating the balance between them is conscience. However, psychology’s account of conscience is rather limited and inconclusive. Psychology offers evidence of the way human beings behave in dissonant situations. Religious resources, however, provide prescriptive guidelines to remain on the right track. As in the case of this unique theory, understanding the theories of psychology as well as making sense of them in the light of religious texts provides individuals with a heightened self-awareness.

References

• Aronson, E. 2004. The Social Animal, 9th edition, Worth Publishers: New York, NY
• Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

“In heaven all is gladness. In hell all is sorrow. Upon this earth, since it lies between, sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. We have our being between the two extremes, and so it partakes of both.” -Baltasar Gracian

I.

At some time in our lives, if we are mildly introspective and equally as observant, the incessant obviousness of life’s modus operandi is unmasked: That life, in essence, operates not as a utopia would, but as a dystopia, wherein woe is inextricably conjoined to its antithesis-felicity. Following this observation, many of us may find ourselves pondering over that timeless question which feigns simplicity: Why do bad things happen to good people? A vast myriad of philosophers have attempted-with little more than modest triumph at best-to make sense of this seemingly cruel paradox. Whether you are one of those who contemplate the visitation of woe upon yourself, or upon the good people you know, is only half of the task; at some point, woe shall manifest itself in our lives and in those of our loved ones. The other half of the task, then, involves acceptance and coping with it.

People of faith and without faith alike find themselves habitually treading on common ground, and they wonder: Is nature inherently our own worst enemy? Is God deliberately targeting us with misfortune for having transgressed? In a word, no; but eminent men and women have speculated. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote that “Nature is no sentimentalist,-does not cosset or pamper us. We must see that the world is rough and surly, and will not mind drowning a man or a woman; but swallows your ship like a grain of dust.” Natural laws operate indiscriminately; history has provided endless examples of this, where both the bad and the good perish from disease, natural disasters, or by fang and claw. Not even the intensely pious and god-fearing are exempt from suffering; one only need consult the story of Job in the Bible-and other holy scriptures-to see this. The Prophet Job, a man who was “blameless and upright, who feared God, and turned away from evil,” suffered legendary misfortune, yet did not curse God, nor did he give in to his plight, but accepted it, saying: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” To say that God and/or Nature contrive, through duplicity, for the good people of this world to taste the suffering which should, as some perceive it, be reserved for the wicked, is positively absurd. What must be kept in mind is the fact that this is not Heaven, and that laws of nature do not discriminate-they simply act.

Menander, an ancient Grecian dramatist, gave prima facie advice on how to avoid woe: “If you want to live your whole life free from pain you must either become a god or else a corpse. Consider other men’s troubles and that will comfort you.” Also, consider the words of stoic philosopher and Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius: “Nature gives and nature takes away. Anyone with sense and humility will tell her, ‘Give and take as you please,’ not out of defiance, but out of obedience and goodwill.” The sooner we accept our humble stations in life, and the sooner we realize that neither nature nor God owes us a life of pleasantries and unending bliss, we can conclude that it is not an applicable question of “why bad things happen to good people”, but a question of “what can I do to live the best amidst misfortune, and how can I assuage my fellows in times of their misfortune?” Misfortune, as the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote, is not “….exceptional; but misfortune, in general, is the rule.” By helping our fellow man, and by not giving in to woe, we can try breaking that rule.

II.

In this dystopia, there is no possible way to traverse along without encountering an unpleasant incident; ironically, however, it is often those very incidences that shape us into exceptional human beings. Nietzsche’s perspicacious adage of “what does not kill us makes us stronger,” should be the byword of humanity and our heroic equanimity when it comes to enduring misfortune. Reflect on how many myriads of good people have suffered and have turned that suffering in on itself, only to rise above, changing themselves-or the societies they live in-into more benevolent mechanisms. Reflect on how many good people have perished in wars, subsequently gaining liberty, or bettering their fellows’ lives by extirpating oppression; reflect on the good people who have endured sickness; and though possibly succumbing, lent us their strength, their hope; and reflect on the good people in your life today, on their misfortunes, and how you, as a good person, may become a better one by assuaging their suffering. Remember that both good and bad people are equal prey, and woe does not differentiate.

My own personal experience with misfortune will hopefully illustrate the point I mentioned above, about how unfortunate incidences can shape us into better people; therefore misfortune, at times, will not always deserve the appellation “bad” but can merit that of “good.”

Close to a decade ago I suffered an injury that forever deprived me of the use of about eighty percent of my body; as a result, I am confined to a wheelchair. The caustic arrow of misfortune that struck me seemed like an exceedingly pitiless one-especially considering the fact that I was only twenty years old, strong, and capable of almost anything. Abruptly I became paralyzed from the middle of my chest down, the arrow of misfortune leaving me with the scar of incomplete quadriplegia. Questions to ask: Was I a good person before woe’s arrow struck me? Good enough. Am I a better person now? Absolutely. Whether it was divine intervention, or the desultory act of nature instigated by my actions, rapidly began to matter little. And as I lay in the hospital, the words of Harriet Beecher Stowe echoed within my mind: “Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.” The tide did turn, and my dreadful situation turned into an auspicious new beginning.

Within most of us, there is a better person imprisoned behind the guise of a bad or indifferent one; moreover, for myself, “why a bad thing happened to a good person” was and is not applicable, because I’ve chosen it not to be applicable, simply by the recognition that what could be interpreted as bad was really a good thing disguised as a bad thing, and it changed my life for the better. By believing a misfortunate event in one’s life to be bad, and by agonizing over it unremittingly, we exacerbate the “badness” of it; we unwittingly inundate ourselves with negativity, thereby breeding fresh misfortune; we lament on how much of a good person we were, forgetting that we still can be; and finally, we wrongfully cast maledictions upon God, the world, or the people closest to us. If we accept the misfortune, if we accept the injury, and if we accept the pain-knowing that it will soon regress and dissipate-the quicker we can begin to heal and return to our life’s path.

Thoughts to keep in mind: The misfortune and woe that manifests within our lives will certainly vary in degree; not all of us who are brought low will ever rise up again. Undoubtedly some will perish, and fate-that unstable force impervious to all attempts to be controlled-will operate according to her own dictates, even as the tears of humankind wash over her like waves on a lonely sea…

III.

Long ago, Sophocles said of fate: “Dreadful is the mysterious power of fate-there is no deliverance from it by wealth or by war, by towered city, or dark, sea-beaten ships.” Indeed, fate can be as odious as it can be charitable, analogous to time. The domineering trait ascribed to fate is its immutability. Should fate meddle in an adverse fashion against a magnanimous person (why bad things happen to good people), it may be denounced as a person’s bad luck-or as something opprobrious and unfair. But is it that simplistic? Human beings have a domineering trait of their own-imprudence. A hypothesis not heretofore mentioned is one in which good people are responsible for succumbing to adverse turns of fate based on their own imprudent actions and inactions. The vicissitudes of fortune, then, should not always come as a surprise-nor as something inexorable.

For a moment, let us suppose a person leads his or her life as the absolute paragon of goodness. He/she is charitable, pleasant, humble, and ethical when meeting out all endeavors; in a word, they are like a saint. Now presume they have an unhealthy diet, smoke profusely, and never exercise-all imprudent choices which carry foreseeable fates. Suddenly they find out at a young age that they are diagnosed with lung cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease; suppose that they soon die. Do we attribute these “bad” things (i.e., sickness and eventual death) as bad things happening to a good person? Should we not, instead, label it as mere folly? Their own choices led to them being struck by the arrow of misfortune, and in this example, fate could possibly have unfolded differently had their life choices been more innocuous. This is not to say we should castigate a person for their life choices. Instead, we should offer advice and encouragement which would lead them to obviate an adverse fate.

Indifference, or inaction, can be just as fatal. Charities, for instance, rely on the actions of empathetic people. Thus, if those people were to become wholly indifferent, and were to stop donating their money or time (inaction), how many more good-yet poor-people would suffer misfortune? By being proactive, as a whole, we can ameliorate the suffering of those whose circumstances are less fortunate, and even if it is a one percent reduction in the sum misery of the human race, it shall have been worth it. By contributions of food, medicine, or funds we can alter a worse fate into a better one: we can prevent the arrows of misfortune from striking, and in so doing, give others opportunity to a life in the midst of less woe. In doing nothing, we allow suffering to breed. Therefore, seemingly bad things will happen to good people-all the more so if we remain in moral stasis. A poem by Emily Dickinson inspires us to act:

If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Unto his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.

IV.

As avowed earlier in this essay, I attempted to convey why bad things happen to good people, not as a matter of choice by God, who is loving and merciful than any other attribute; nor by nature-in the guise of a nefarious collaborator specifically targeting us-but rather as a consequence of our own choices and the nature of the dystopian structure in which all life, past and present, exists. Misfortune can be overcome by the acceptance of it; thereafter, one can move on without losing stride. Furthermore, as a result of an episode of suffering, we may become better people, and perhaps after we overcome our suffering we can help others through their times of crisis-thereby lessening an adverse turn of fate.

Fate, then, is immutable only to the degree that we allow. By our actions, inactions, and life choices, we contribute to either the sum of misfortune, or to the subtraction of misfortune.

Nothing happens without a purpose, including woe. Yet woe seems to be a sightless archer. Still, if we keep our faith in God, and if we recognize that all anguish and suffering must-and will-come to an end, the arrows of misfortune can do us no harm.

Harold R. Olcese is a history major at Western Connecticut University and will be receiving his B.A. this Fall. He is an accomplished landscape artist and lives in CT. Contact him via email at: harold.r.olcese@hotmail.com.

How does Islam view the idea of psychological projection developed by Freud? First of all, it is appropriate to highlight the writings of Said Nursi in which he tells the story of two travelers with different states in their hearts. One was serene and optimistic and viewed the world in positive ways while the other one was anxious and pessimistic, seeing the world as all negative. Both went to similar places, where ordinary lifestyles could be observed. The former one saw the place as beautiful with many good things existing there. However, it was different for the latter; wherever he looked he saw negative things.

According to Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, this difference of perspective between these two travelers is actually rooted in the state of their heart. The first traveler had no unnecessary anxiety in his heart; he was serene and content because he had relinquished all to God. He knew that whatever God had decided upon for him was best for him and he was never frightened of the future, because as long as he did the best he could, God would give him the best. Therefore, as a result, he had nothing to be depressed or worried about, as he knew that everything was taken care of by God.

The second traveler, however, had not put his trust in God enough to believe that everything was already under His management. He believed that he had the power to change things, but also believed that he did not have enough power to control everything, which in turn led to his insecurity and ego. In his heart, anxiety kept haunting him and he was worried about almost everything. As a result, in order to control his anxiety, he turned to drinking and other sins. When the two met, the first one commented that the second had perceived of everything in a negative light because he had no certainty in his heart.

There is one difference in the concept of psychological projection as coined by Freud and that from the Islamic perspective. For Freud, psychological projection happens when someone needs to suppress their negative thoughts or feelings. Considering the examples given above, lying and stealing are bad deeds and the feelings of guilt are that which the doer desires to repress. However, in Islam, projection can happen with both positive and negative feelings, as explained metaphorically by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi in his book.

Projection of this kind from an Islamic point of view can be related to a hadith regarding the heart, “…In the body, there is a piece of flesh. If it is good, the whole body is good, and if it is bad, the whole body is bad; truly, it is the heart.” This hadith underlines the importance of having a good heart to reflect well on the outer world. To apply this to the story of the two men, an insincere, insecure, worried heart reflects the similar world for the second man, while the contrary is true for the first man.

Realizing this aspect of the human psyche makes an impact on Muslims as preachers. Technically, all Muslims are in some way a preacher, regardless of their professions. Be they an engineer, educator, psychologist, policeman or officer, these professionals are entrusted by God to enjoin the good and forbid the bad. Being a good preacher might require us to filter our thoughts from unnecessary projections to those we are preaching. For example, a good Muslim psychologist who works as a counselor, and who also happens to be a single parent, must not perceive his or her client from his or her own point of view. This includes not jumping to conclusions too soon, for example, saying the client is lonely (as he or she feels, as a single parent) and deciding that all the problems of the client are rooted in loneliness. A good preacher must understand the nature and background of the audience and make an analysis that is as objective as possible.

Another impact of projection is the importance of cleansing the heart in order to construct a more optimistic view of the world. Al-Ghazali emphasizes the effectiveness of remembrance of God as a way to cleanse the heart. Performing additional forms of worships, in addition to the obligatory ones, can be a good way to make remembrance of God, for example, uttering istighfar (repentant supplication) before sleeping and engaging in self-supervision, or muraqaba. Cleansing of the heart can help a person have a more positive light in viewing this world, thus allowing more room for improvements and more opportunity to achieve something greater in life.

Psychological projection also gives us an understanding about how others might make criticisms based on their state of heart. This is important to note, because sometimes people easily succumb to the poison of criticism and cease performing correct actions merely because they are blinded by this criticism. For instance, a man is told by his friend that his good appearance when going to mosque will make others say something bad about him, because others might envy him. However, the second man’s statement may just reflect his own envy towards the first man’s good appearance. If the first man succumbs to the statement, he will try to worsen his appearance, despite the fact that we are encouraged to dress nicely when going to the mosque. By being aware of the existence of psychological projection, the first man can be more objective towards the “advice” of the second man and analyze it in the best way.

To benefit from understanding the nature of projection, we can go back to the story told by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. From this story, we can learn that projection can be both good and bad for the self. The heart, as the core of the self, can project serenity, confidence and many other positive feelings onto real life, if it has been cleansed and is pure and reflective of the line of the religious prescriptions. A positive state of heart can be very important to lead us further and it can make it easier for us to worship God. However, if the heart is negative, this can be bad as it will project whatever negative thoughts and feelings a person has. This insecure state of heart can lead to other sins, such as drinking or other problems that are rife in today’s society.

Once again we need to emphasize that understanding projection is important for us as people, because all believers are preachers. Whether we are to help others or only ourselves, pensive reflection on our backgrounds and assessments of our lives can be made to ascertain the state of our heart, and this in turn will make it more effective in helping others. Therefore, as we can see, understanding the real nature of our feelings and thoughts can be very helpful in developing ourselves.

Taufik Mohammad, PhD, is a senior lecturer in Universiti Sains Malaysia.

References

• Reported by Bukhari and Muslim with the authority of al-Numan bin Basheer. The Hadith Software, version 1.0, Islamasoft Solutions, 2002.
• Said Nursi, The Words, NJ: The Light, Inc. 2005.

However, space and time are relative according to the theories of Special and General Relativity which were developed by Einstein. A time period which is two hours long with respect to an observer may be one and a half hours or three hours long with respect to another observer. Let us suppose that two events are happening in different places (say New York and Istanbul) but simultenously with respect to an observer who is in between. The same events, however, will not be simultenous with respect to an observer who is in motion. If the observer moves towards the event happening on his right, that is, he diverges from the one on his left, then he will perceive the one on his right as happening earlier than the one on his left. Contrariwise, if he moves towards his left, that is, diverges from his right, then he will perceive the one on his left as happening earlier than the one on his right. Distances in space are thus relative and varying with respect to observers’ positions.

Matter has a certain amount of influence over time and space according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (which he described as the theory he most enjoyed). Proportional to its mass, an object may cause changes in the geometry of space or in the acceleration of time. The curvature of space, for instance, is infinite near a black hole, which is regarded as a highly dense substance. Time is, however, constant and does not accelerate. This theory, with such peculiar outcomes, is mathematically perfect and coincides with observations conducted until now. Whether the universe is finite or infinite depends on the density of the material it contains, according to this theory.

Einstein’s theories, though they seem flawless, cannot explain how the universe started all by itself. All laws of physics lose their validity at the time of the Big Bang (the explosion at the creation of the universe) and all the questions relevant to that moment and its precedents remain unanswered. How come the Big Explosion happened? How did it happen? What was there before the explosion? We need to rely on quantum physics in order to answer these questions or at least to deal with their paradoxes and be able to say something about the formation of the universe.

Newton’s clock model or the deterministic model (that everything is realized in strict accordance with certain rules) is still influential in Einstein’s theories, whereas quantum physics (which explains the activities of atomic and subatomic particles) is a more revolutionary approach to matter, actively engaging the observer in processes and tying events to probabilities. It seems that developing consistent theories about the beginning of the universe may only be achieved by using quantum physics, which might also have something to say about the macrocosm. However, the issue of how the theory of relativity and quantum physics can be reconciled is not yet solved. Here, it seems that the theory of multiple or parallel universes may be an alternative solution, and hence, many issues have been hitherto paradoxical and unsolvable are now being explained within a rational and logical frame of reference.

What are multiple universes?

In the Many Universes Interpretation (MUI) developed by physicists like Everett in the 1950s, the paradoxes caused by quantum physics in our modes of thinking are being eliminated and the issue of how the universe functions is being reviewed by an all-new approach. A parallel universe is a realm that carries features identical to those of ours and comprises space, time, matter, galaxies, stars and human beings all identical to those of ours. It can even be said that these two universes are sharing the very same space and that they are positioned to coexist. The substances in these parallel universes are interrelated according to the laws of quantum physics. That is, there are a great many universes like ours. You may, for instance, be taking a walk in a forest in a parallel universe while you are reading this article in this one.

Alternative histories can help us to understand parallel universes. How would the world have been shaped if the Ottoman sultan Mehmet II, who conquered Istanbul, had also succeeded in conquering Rome? Or, what would be happening now if Hitler had won World War II? Each of these probabilities has been realized in a parallel universe. Any world which is imaginably different and any history which is conceivably alternative is present and available somewhere out there. We can understand these multiple universes when we also consider our preferences. A person who chose to study medicine, for instance, would later become a medical doctor. If he or she had chosen biology, they might later have become a research scientist. Or, a man who chose to marry a woman merely due to her physical beauty but did not have a happy family life with her might have enjoyed a happy family life if he had married a pious woman who was his social equal and compatible with him. Thus, different universes, that is, differing probabilities become available according to our preferences.

Parallel universes are often a theme in science fiction novels and films. In the popular television serial Star Trek, for instance, during a routine beaming up process from a planet to their starship “Enterprise,” Captain Kirk and his crew suddenly and accidentally find themselves in an ionized gas cloud. They find themselves inside an “Enterprise” that is almost identical to but surprisingly different from their own Enterprise. But, interestingly, the Mr. Spock in the new “Enterprise,” is an extremely cruel person. In fact, all of the crew are cruel in this alternative starship. Meanwhile, the cruel Captain Kirk and his cruel crew have been beamed up to the other (good) “Enterprise” and these bad men have been imprisoned by the good Mr. Spock there. Both Mr. Spocks understand, after a short while, what the problem is. The Enterprise, due to an ionized gas storm, has been directed to a parallel universe in which an identical “Enterprise” and its identical crew exists. The duplication is almost perfect except that good is bad and vice versa. Had the ion storm not formed a space-time interconnection, the two (parallel) universes would have never become aware of one another. The good and bad versions of the parallel Captain Kirks have replaced each other; while the bad Captain Kirk is being held prisoner inside the good Enterprise, the good Captain Kirk has found himself inside the bad “Enterprise” and soon noticed that he can covertly correct some errors without being noticed and by acting as if he was one of the bad character.

In the television series The Twilight Zone a woman meets her (parallel) double while waiting at the bus stop. Her double has apparently left her own universe and entered this one. This double wants to replace her and succeeds in doing this. The genuine woman is meanwhile sectioned to a mental hospital.

In the story “August 2002, Night Meeting” from The Mars Chronicles, a terrestrial person named Thomas Gomez who has settled on the planet Mars happens to meet a parallel universe there. He hears an elderly man as he is about to depart after taking gasoline for his vehicle: “You may return to your world if you will not accept Mars as it is. Everything is different here: soil, air, canals, aborigines (though I have not yet seen any of them, but heard their voices) and watches. Even my watch functions peculiarly and even the time is different here.”

Thomas then meets a Martian with gold-color eyes being carried by a machine that looks like a preying mantis peculiarly painted in bluish-green colors and greets him. The Martian greets Thomas in his own language. But neither understands the other. The Martian approaches and touches him, but Thomas does not feel him. They somehow start speaking the same language. As they try to shake hands, each one’s hand passes through the other’s as if they did not have hands at all. They can see each other, but cannot touch each other. They realize that they are in intersecting parallel universes. Each can sense his own body, but sees the other one as a ghost. They try to understand why they cannot touch each other while their universes mutually counter-influence. But they cannot find the answer. As he looks at his environment, the Martian sees a beautiful city full of marvelous things, while Thomas sees only desolate, unpopulated, ancient urban ruins. He shouts at the Martian, “All of these canals are empty!” The Martian replies,”The canals are full of violet-colored flowers.” They finally understand that what they are experiencing is something related to time. However, they cannot discern who is in the past and who is in the future. Each of them thinks that his own world is the real one and the other one’s is a realm of fancy.

Such peculiar-sounding tales contain some reality in the light of new physics.

New Physics: How do we know multiple universes exist?

One of the best explanations of quantum physics is the “double slit” experiment. In this experiment, a coherent light source which is emitting particles (photons and electrons for instance) illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them. When both slits of the thin plate are open, an interference pattern of alternating bright and dark bands is observed on the screen. However, a periodic pattern does not result as the pattern that forms when one slit is blocked is directed over the pattern that forms when the other slit is blocked. Or, when a measuring is conducted in order to determine the slit through which a particle has passed, the particle is behaving as if it is certainly passing through one of the slits, but this is distorting the pattern.

We can deduce, from this experiment, that the tendency of the particle changes when either one or both slits are open. Quantum physics explains this peculiar incident as the mutually-influencing of the probability of particle’s passing through one slit with the probability of the same particle’s passing through the other slit. That is, the particle, though being a single one, is behaving as if it is passing through both slits. The only logical way of developing a reasonable postulate is to consider that the particle passes through one slit in one world (i.e., universe) and through the other one in another world. So, these are the parallel universes which we have been trying to explain since the beginning. When the particle hits the screen, these universes unite again and become a single universe.

Another striking example which discloses the existence of parallel universes is the “thought experience” known as “Schrödinger’s cat.” The Austrian physicist Schrödinger devised this clever thought experiment: A cat sits in a steel chamber with a flask that contains a poisonous substance. There is also a small amount of a radioactive substance with a 50 % probability of decaying and thereby triggering a mechanism which will smash the flask, release the poison and so kill the cat. On the other hand there is also the 50 % probability that the radioactive substance will not decay, the poison will not be released and the cat will not die. Now, according to quantum physics, the cat will be 50% dead and 50% alive, that is, there is a superposition of states (the cat is both dead and alive) until the sealed chamber is opened and the cat observed. Naturally, such a thing is against logic and incomprehensible. The multiple universes (multiverse) model, however, explains this complicated situation more easily by saying that the cat is alive in one universe and dead in another.

Black holes and cosmology

Black holes, which came to the attention of science because of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, are space-time structures that absorb everything including light. They form as a result of the collapse of stars which are three to four times bigger than the sun and which have fully consumed their energy. The structures of space and time become distorted due to the terrifying magnitude of a black hole’s gravity as it is approached. Some physicists argue that black holes are passages between parallel universes and we would find ourselves in another universe if we could pass through one.

Belief in the existence of such a great number of universes also sheds light on cosmology, the science dealing with the creation of the universe and its structure. Possibly the most vital of the subjects that cosmology rarely touches on is the fact that the structure and composition of the universe are so delicately devised that it enables living species and conscious creatures to exist and survive in it. Only a single one among the many possible universes has been selected and made inhabitable for living and conscious species. If the universe had had rather different characteristics, these species would not have been able to live in it. The gravitational energy in the universe, for instance, is almost identical with the expansion energy of the Big Bang, and very delicate balances are observable in the constants of the laws of physics. By thorough observation, we can deduce that everything has been devised and prepared for our existence.

The multiple universes (multiverse) theory asserts that all possible universes exist. According to this assertion, there are universes in which no conscious species exist. The reason why we perceive that everything has been devised in this way in our universe is because we believe that we cannot survive in another one which is not devised with the delicate balances that enable the survival of living species. In fact, all this reminds us that there may exist unseen realms and worlds different than ours. The existence of beings like angels and jinns which cannot be observed by worldly eyes and the fact that the believers are those who believe in the unseen are mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. The existence of people like Khidhr who lived in realms of life different than ours, various prophetic miracles, saintly powers and the true prophetic dreams (ru’ya-i sadiqah) that give true prophesies all inform us that there are other realms beyond the visible one. Thanks to the new physics, the life in the grave, the life in the realm of barzakh (the intermediary life between the mundane and eternal worlds), the dimensions of paradise and of hell and their levels which we cannot explain in concrete terms, the realms in which we will either be punished or rewarded at existential co-ordinates beyond our imagination all seem more easily comprehensible today.

In fact, the principles of faith such as fate, death, the hereafter, the resurrection and doomsday do not need support from the cold and positivistic viewpoints of the physics with which we are familiar today. However, the fact that the idea of parallel universes was initially used in science-fiction works and only later dealt with in quantum physics might lead us to an important conclusion: We are witnessing today that many events which we could hardly imagine in the past (for instance, saving audio-visual recordings in huge computers and later presenting them as witnesses) are becoming quite common and ordinarily achievable in the real world. Likewise, the possibility that all our deeds which we perform throughout our lifetime might be saved by recorders in unknown metaphysical universes has become more easily acceptable and comprehensible. Today’s imaginings might be the realities of one day in the future. Everything conceivable or inconceivable to us may be possible, for the One who created things is God, Who is Omnipotent and All-Knowing. Additionally, as He has informed us about all these phenomena in His Divine Revelation the Qur’an, of which even not a single word has been changed, we do not feel the least doubt. We shall experience how smoothly our souls transcend from this realm to another (as if passing from one room to another) when death knocks on our door one day. Certainly, we should never forget that the ease or difficulty of these experiences and the sights that we shall encounter in other realms will all depend on and be created out of our deeds in this mundane life. And, as we say “all praise and thanks be to God” in return for an apple that we eat here, we will witness, only when we face the reality, how this gratitude of ours will turn out to be a heavenly reward (a tree or a palace) in a different universe.

Salih Adem studied Biophysics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign until 2001 and philosophy at the University of Maryland at College Park until 2004. Adem is now freelance writer on physics and philosophy.

Based on a sensible interpretation of the cosmos and events, we considered the arrival and departure of each existence in this world very normal, a process taking place in a gentle manner; this mysterious journey instilled in us profound spiritual expansion, for it was a means of reunion, each action and replacement was like being discharged of duty and freedom from the burdens of service at the end of which await the realms of divine favors hat is constantly heard, touched and smelt; we, as humans, don’t hear or feel certain things after a certain period of time. In medical terms, this process is called “adaptation to the senses.” If we have to go into a very stinky place, we intensely feel the smell at first, but after a while, we begin to feel it less. Another example can be given about those who wear glasses. They sometimes search for their glasses in different places thinking that they have lost them, even though they still wear them.

Our friend’s adaptation levelwas a little higher than the normal, but considering the disturbance of those who wear glasses would feel on their noses, it is better understood that this adaptation is a great favor of All-Powerful and All-Knowing God.

In the absence of adaptation

If we weren’t endowed with the capacity of adaptation, our brain would be busy with unnecessary information and we would be disturbed by the constant touching in our body. The cells that feel the senses are called “receptors.” There is an amazing adaptation in most parts of the cells that sense the touching in the skin. For instance, when we wear something, we feel the first touch of the garment to our body, but this feeling caused by the garment disappears afterwards. If we were to feel everything touching our skin, life would be very difficult for us. Likewise, in some patients, the adaptation to senses disappears and this makes the things harder for them. Some patients, on the other hand, develops hypersensitivity. They feel pain and suffering even by the slight touching of their garments. It is very hard to cure this illness which is called “neuropathic pain” in medicine. They feel cancer-like severe pain. Scientists are still working on the studies to stop this kind of pain.

How does adaptation occur?

Adaptation happens as a result of a different mechanism for each sense. Touching causes a liquid movement in the cytoplasm of the receptor cells. This movement is sensed by the cell and conveyed to the brain in the form of electric signals. Despite the continuation of touching, the cytoplasm movement in receptor cells is stopped after a while and no signal is sent to the brain. So, no touching is felt. But when touching stops, as a result of a liquid movement in the cytoplasm of the receptor cells, a new signal prompts the brain that “touching is over.” In short, only the beginning and the end of touching is communicated to the brain. Despite the continuation of touching between the beginning and the end, the brain (rather the “soul”) is not bothered by this redundant information. Even though, many types of receptors serve in the process of adaptation to touching, only six of them have been thoroughly studied and named. The adaptation is not the same in all receptors; fast and advanced in some of them, while in some of them it is slow and weak. For example in touching receptors of the skin (Merkel disks), the adaptation is relatively little and there is no adaptation at all in some senses such as feeling the pain. In some receptors (such as Ruffini’s corpuscles) located in dermis (bottom layer of the skin), deep organs and joint capsules, the adaptation is very little. These receptors send the weight and pressure signals required for the absence of adaptation. Weight and pressure receptors located in the joint capsule are responsible for sensing the angle degree of the joint. The brain receives information from them about the angle degree of the joints and it constantly uses it while sending orders of movement to the muscles of the skeleton. We can walk and do the other movements that require balance thanks to these perfect processes happening beyond our consciousness. If the brain didn’t know the information regarding the angle degree of the joints, some jobs that require delicate balance such as the job of construction workers wouldn’t be properly done.

Adaptation in various senses

Adaptation in seeing (accommodation): Adaptation in seeing is different from the one for touching. If we keep looking at an object, we keep seeing it. In this sense, there is no interruption in adaptation and seeing. This is another favor of God among many of His favors. If the adaptation in seeing were to be similar to the one in touching, we wouldn’t be able to do many activities that require walking, reading, sitting, standing and being in balance. All-Merciful God placed different adaptations in our eyes appropriate for the jobs that they do.

Adaptation in seeing near and far: We keep seeing an object no matter how nearer or farther we move it. Despite the change in the distance of the object, our vision doesn’t change. These processes are automatically carried out depending on the distance we look and they are operated under the framework of optical principles such as changing the shape of the eye lens and approaching of the lens to the retina or moving away from it.

Adaptation in seeing in the light and dark: Our eyes detect and adapt to the new surroundings, be it light or dark. During this adaptation process, seeing in the dark and light is made possible by adjusting the degree of vision and increasing and decreasing it one million times. The activities of the photoreceptors (in the shape of rod and cone) are carried out by an amazing knowledge and power.

Adaptation in smelling (olfaction): The smelling receptors of the nose adapt to the bad smell at a rate of 50 % in its first encounter. So, the dense bad smell felt in the first encounter disappears immediately. A minute after this encounter, the sensing of the bad smell is eliminated upon the orders coming from the brain to the nerves of smell. Garbage men or cleaners or the people working in slaughterhouse or sewerage do not get disturbed, as a favor of God, by the bad smell as much as other people do.

Adaptation in tasting: the adaptation happens one minute (at most) after the “tasting.” Yet All-Powerful and All-Knowing God created the adaptation capacity for the bitter materials very low, because most of these materials are a kind of poison for our body. Therefore when the babies unconsciously want to eat something poisonous, they take them out at once and are avoid of being poisoned.

Adaptation in temperature: The temperature receptors are intensely stimulated in sudden temperature changes. The adaptation occurs in 30 seconds or one minute as the intense of stimulation decrease. However there is no 100% adaptation, because the receptors sense both the sudden changes and constant situations. Remember, both extreme hot and cold are harmful for the body. The fact that the adaptation in this sense is limited is another favor of God.

Adaptation in hearing: When we enter a noisy environment, we are disturbed by the extreme noise. But two tiny muscles located in the middle ear contract as a manifestation of His mercy and prevent the sounds from being conveyed to the middle ear by masking all the sounds except for the ones of normal conversation. Workers in a noisy environment keep working as though they do not hear the noise at all.

Adaptation in feeling the pain: There is no adaptation in feeling the pain which is an indication of God’s mercy. If there were any adaptation to the pain, we would lose the patients before diagnosing and curing the illnesses. If a patient bothered by the gastrointestinal bleeding or appendicitis were to have an adaptation to the pain, after a few minutes he would not feel any pain before taken to the hospital and think that his illness is over and does not feel any need for a treatment. But possible inflammation of the appendix might result in the risk of death after a while.

Many of us are not aware of this perfect mechanism of adaptation. All these examples put forward the fact that the mechanisms bestowed upon our senses are very harmonious and adaptive to the working principles of our intellectual and spiritual faculties in the evaluation of various situations that we encounter in our life and they also show that humans were created as a whole. If we were deprived of such a blessing, we wouldn’t be aware of many changes that threaten our life and be bothered by the disturbing environmental conditions.

Omer Arifagaoglu is a professor of medicine. He lives in Turkey.

The teacher-student relationship, or rapport, is the most important factor contributing to effective teaching. How a teacher portrays him/herself or is perceived by the students, the label he/she is given (bad or good teacher) determine the quality of the teaching-learning process.

Numerous studies, a great deal of research, books, and articles all shed light on this topic. Teachers are presented with many suggestions and ideas on how to become a good teacher. On the other hand, it seems that teachers are so bombarded with ideas that they can hardly digest and utilize them in their daily lives.

I would like to take a different approach and highlight an often overlooked corner of this field: How to become a bad teacher.

The principles of teacher-student relationships

Establish friendships with your students, but do not stop there: act like a child. Worry about what to teach rather than how to facilitate the learning process. Assisting one student at a time is good enough. Others can wait. Don’t worry about trying to assist more than one student with group activities. Be presumptuous towards your students. You have years of experience, you can decipher a student in a few minutes.

It is none of your business if the students develop good relations with each other. Do not bother to adopt a leadership role for this purpose. Some teachers try to get the popular students and the not so popular ones together, helping them to respect one another. These are efforts in vain. With your strong presence everybody will behave and that’s good enough.

Students are too young to develop a sense of responsibility anyway. They cannot be taught how to resolve their own problems, make their own decisions and self-criticisms. You must be there to enforce discipline.

Expected teacher behavior

Assign homework as a way of punishment and threaten your students with grades. Adopt one teaching method, preferably one in which you talk and they listen. If it has worked for so many generations, it ought to work for you.

Do not use encouragement or praise. Do not make any jokes. Do not check the student’s work or monitor progress. Let only the high achievers talk in class discussions. You do not have time to waste listening to poor achievers. They probably have nothing to contribute to the discussion anyway.

Do not tell the students what the expected behavior is. Do not provide a suitable environment in which expected behavior can flourish. Let your own behavior be inconsistent with that of your colleagues. When responding to unacceptable behavior or mistakes use negative criticism. Criticize your students instead of their actions. Be easily affected and distracted by negative comments. Discipline your students using only reprimands and punishment. Do not give time for your students to correct themselves.

Do not have a good lesson plan and let the kids be without a task from time to time. Include topics which you have not previously covered in your assignments. Be a book-oriented teacher. Go into your classroom, deliver your lesson, and leave. Remain distant from students. Do not position yourself in such a way that all the students in the room can see you. Turn your back to your class frequently. That way they will learn to value their time with you.

Do not take into consideration physiological and social development phases or the academic levels of your students. Do not cater for the needs of students with different learning paces. Do not let the students enjoy their achievements.

Focus on undesirable behavior rather than desirable behavior. Address some of your students with their first names while calling others “boy” or “girl.” Do not worry about fairness in awarding or punishing your students. Do not speak clearly. Use slang words.

Handle aggressively even minor discipline problems. Do not ignore anything however small it might be. Never laugh with your students and always keep in mind that you may lose control of the class if you do so. The students are expected to be obedient at all times without questioning anything. Tell students off in front of others if you need to. Never forget that discipline is a major problem; this has been suggested by so many other teachers. Ignore the fact that sometimes students may violate the rules because of your attitude. Do not let the students know that bad behavior is actually showing disrespect to themselves.

Teachers must be mean in order to discipline the students. Punish the whole class if you are not able to find the student who caused the discipline problem. Keep in mind that punishment is easier than prevention. Do not inform the administration, even if the students make it impossible for you to conduct the class. Keep it to yourself as this will protect your reputation.

Conclusion

Resist the temptation to listen to the suggestions of educators from around the world, take the easier path and become a bad teacher. Believe me it is very easy.