This particular kind of freedom is presented as one of the causes of war in the book Muhammad: The Messenger of God by Fethullah Gülen. If one approaches the problem from a partial analysis, rather than a holistic one, then one can easily come to the conclusion that “war can be waged to ensure spiritual guidance and communication.” In the aforementioned book, Gülen basically says that force is allowed if there is a resistance against the preaching of Islam and others are prevented from listening to its message.

Viewing the issue from this aspect, it is not correct to reach a conclusion that Gülen, thus Islam, does not recognize freedom of religion and conscience. Those who reach such a conclusion means, they are disregarding Islamic verses and the literature on the traditions of the Prophet that pertain to the freedom of religion and conscience, as well as the important interpretations made by Gülen in this issue. There are also some circles who never tire of spouting their biased discourse, manifested by slogans such as, “Islam is the religion of the sword,” “Islam is an oppressive and coercive religion,” or “either Islam or death.”

In contrast, it is very clear in Gülen’s message that no war can be fought in order to communicate one’s faith. A war can be fought when faith, Islam in this case, is prevented from teaching its message “in peaceful ways.”

In my opinion, restriction of the communication of any religion is a violation of a birthright and rights agreed upon in international human rights declarations. In other words, the prohibition in question, if one indeed exists, is a sheer atrocity that has been imposed on people living in a particular social system. Living in the West, where such debates have occurred, I have two alternatives: either to investigate the written and oral literature of Fethullah Gülen in order to examine the accuracy of this approach, or to ask him directly. I preferred to take the easier way and directly asked him my question: Here I give you his reply:

“It is possible to categorize all the battles the Prophet fought, when analyzed thoroughly with their basic characteristics, within the concept of defense. If there is an attack by an enemy, or if there is evidence acquired by a very reliable intelligence that there is going to be an attack, then war will be necessary. The Qur’anic evidence that supports this is Baqara 2:191: “fight against them, if they fight you.'”

Another remark by Gülen, made at another time, confirms this:

“Take a close look at his battles at Badr, Uhud, and the Trench. All of them took place in the vicinity of Medina, while the enemy, the polytheists of Mecca, were living 500 kilometers away. What could the Muslims do? Should they welcome the enemy forces, who had come to the front line and inside the town, trying to kill them? The Battle of Haybar, on the other hand, was fought because previously signed treaties were violated, and these treaties stipulated violation as a cause for war. While emphasizing the fact that the Prophet only fought defensive battles, there is no need to claim “there is no war in Islam by any means,” evoking some kind of an inferiority complex. On the other hand, Islam does not give the right to any nation to clamp on another nation for no reason, or just for the sake of her national sovereignty. This critical balance was maintained in the eras of the Prophet and the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs. But it is not possible to state that the same sensitivity has been preserved by some Islamic states after the Abbasids until today-the Ottomans included. Several wars were waged for the sake of gains, or to extend territory. They treated their enemies with justice during and after the war; but this is a different issue.”

The issue is crystal clear: war is the very last thing to do, when other solutions are exhausted, in order to eliminate an injustice that restricts the freedom of communication and guidance for teaching one’s religion. Thus, from where does this confusion stem? There are two reasons for this. The first is the inability to delineate the Prophet’s actions as the Messenger of God-which bind all Muslims until the Day of Judgment-from some of his actions as a statesman, which were basically formed in keeping with the policies of the day according to the prevalent context.

The second reason is that some concepts that pertain to war are predicated in their religious rather than political connotations, arising from the fact that war is a sphere where religion and politics intermingle; in other words, the “literalist” approach is adopted.

These two reasons, in the final analysis, give rise to misinterpretation of some of the concepts in a far distant meaning than what they were originally constructed for. Take the concept of “fi sabilillah,” as an example. This concept, which is repeated many times in the Holy Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet, literally means “in the way of God.” However, the role that this concept plays in the field of religion differs from that which it plays in politics in the Arabic language. “Fi sabilillah” in the field of religion covers all the good deeds aiming to acquire merit, whereas it signifies to ensure the rule of law in the field of politics.

In conclusion, fundamental rights and freedoms are not issues that are open to question. All people are free to choose their religion. No state should be able to revoke this right from her citizens. The ordinances of the Qur’an and the Sunnah which pertain to this issue are clear enough. Regulations and applications that inhibit these freedoms should not be allowed. Restrictions may be exercised by the authority of a legitimate state only if an encroachment of the rights of other people is in question, particularly in the fields of public security, common order, public decency, and health. As regards the case of war, a war can only be declared in keeping with the will of the legitimate political authority. The fact that people prefer to believe in a religion other than Islam is not considered to be a cause of war. On the other hand, if a state does not allow its citizens the freedom to choose their religion, whichever religion that may be, this is oppression. To prevent this kind of atrocity is a legitimate cause of war if all possible means of peaceful settlement have been tried and failed.

In the past few decades many studies and articles on the subject of religion, spirituality and health, from both Western and Muslim perspectives, have been published. In this book, Salih Yucel’s quantitative and qualitative studies support previous research findings which suggest that religion and health are not mutually exclusive and that there is clearly a positive correlation between prayer and wellbeing.

This book comprises a research study taken from the author’s doctoral thesis, The Effects of Prayer on Muslim Patients’ Well-being. Also included in this book is a qualitative study which contains examples of many case histories and anecdotal evidence from Muslims who have benefited from the healing power of prayer, which includes salat (Islamic ritual prayers), dua (formal and informal supplication to God), and dhikr (remembrance of God, based on the Sufi concept of connectedness to the universe. Also included are Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s “twenty-five remedies” for the sick which explains the concept of illness and how Muslims should view it in the light of belief.

The aim of this research has been to investigate the physical and spiritual effects of prayer on Muslim patients. Sixty adult Muslim in-patients, consisting of equal numbers of women and men from different educational backgrounds and nationalities, were recruited from the patient population at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a Harvard Medical School-affiliated institution in Boston, Massachusetts. The research included a pre-test questionnaire in order to assess the spiritual level of the patients and a post-test questionnaire after prayers were completed. The surveys were based on Islamic sources, with the second survey split into two sessions: the first contained readings from the Qur’an while the second consisted of texts from a non-religious source, serving as a control in order to determine the effect of prayers on the patients.

Unlike previous studies, this research has provided guidelines for prayer which is based on the Qur’an, the Prophetic Traditions and the works of a number of Muslim scholars. The guidelines are a reminder that prayers should if possible be carried out under certain conditions, which include both physical and spiritual preparation prior and after prayer. Examples include taking ablution and ensuring clothes are clean prior to prayer and so on. Also some of the spiritual advice is extremely helpful, such as the understanding that prayer will always be answered but not necessarily in the way that individuals may expect it, thus reducing the disappointment patients may feel if they do not get exactly what they have asked for after prayer. However, other conditions, such as offering prayer “sincerely,” may not be so easy to ensure.

The findings of the preliminary survey were used to determine the level of religiosity/spirituality of patients from an Islamic perspective. These findings were consistent with previous studies, showing a strong correlation between religiosity/spirituality and hopefulness/confidence. The post-test survey based on self-report measures of religiosity and wellbeing following the prayer session also showed higher scores in comparison to the control group. With regard to vital signs and the positive physical effects of prayer on health, however, the data was not considered to be clinically significant. The author admits to some of the limitations of the study such as the hospital environment itself which is not conducive to prayer conditions. One of the main limitations has been the omission of compulsory prayers (salat) from the survey, as many bed-ridden patients were unable to take part in this activity. A longitudinal study with a larger participant group and a more convenient environment might possibly have produced better results.

However, the qualitative study included in this book, which consists of many case studies of people who have benefitted from the healing power of prayer, provides further support for the importance of including prayer as part of treatment. The main strength of the book lies in its approach, which is based mainly on Said Nursi’s ideas of remedies for the sick. These remedies enable patients to move away from reliance on the realm of causality and are able potentially to empower them to try to understand their condition in a much broader context that includes the concept of the Hereafter.

The infinite! No other question has ever moved so profoundly the spirit of man; no other idea has so fruitfully stimulated his intellect; yet no other concept stands in greater need of clarification than that of the infinite. David Hilbert

The concept of infinity has always fascinated humankind. The excitement and awe that are affiliated with the very idea of this concept inspire us. Poets, philosophers, artists, astronomers, mathematicians and ordinary people have pondered the questions related to infinity over the centuries. Is the universe finite or infinite? Is matter or space infinitely divisible? Is there eternal life? Where does a finite being get the idea of infinity from?

In this article, we first consider the concept of infinity from a mathematical point of view and then try to explain how that is connected to Divinity and the Attributes of God. An incorrect understanding of infinity in mathematics leads to seemingly irresolvable paradoxes; likewise, an incorrect understanding of the Attributes of God leads to an incomplete or incorrect understanding of creation.

Mathematical infinity

Any serious consideration of infinity inevitably leads to mathematics, where the concept has its deepest roots. Mathematicians use the symbol ∞ to denote infinity. To many people infinity is a sort of number that is larger than all other numbers. However, that is not an adequate description of infinity. Strange things can happen in the realm of infinity. Many intuitive ideas fail when infinity enters into the picture. This leads to apparent paradoxes. Here is one example that is attributed to David Hilbert (1862–1943), the famous mathematician whose quotation appears above.¹ Consider a hypothetical hotel with infinitely many rooms. On a stormy night all the rooms of the hotel are occupied, and a wet and miserable couple shows up asking for a room. The concierge comes up with this clever idea to make room for these people. He says, “The hotel is full but here is what I can do for you. I can move the guests from room 1 into room 2, the guests from room 2 into room 3, and so on. The guests in room n will move into the room n+1, for each n = 1, 2, 3, …”.

So, if we can have a hotel with infinitely many rooms it is possible to accommodate an incoming guest even if the hotel is totally full. But then we see that by a similar reasoning we can accommodate any number of guests, and in fact infinitely many more guests! Clearly, this is not possible in ordinary hotels with finitely many rooms that we are familiar with.

To get more sense of what might happen in the realm of infinity let us consider a couple of other examples. You would have no trouble accepting that two sets have the same number of elements if there is a one-to-one correspondence between them. For example, the set {Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday} has seven elements because it is in a one-to-one correspondence with the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} given by Monday1, Tuesday2,Wednesday3, Thursday4, Friday5, Saturday6, Sunday7. Note that there are other possible ways of setting up a one-to-one correspondence between these two sets but what matters is the existence of one such correspondence.

There is absolutely nothing surprising about this example. We all know that there are seven days in a week. However, if the concept of infinity pops up in a similar situation, counterintuitive conclusions are obtained. You may be surprised to find out that the set of all positive integers {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,…} is in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of even positive integers {2, 4, 6,…}. One way of setting such a correspondence is

1 2 3 4 5

← ← ← ← ←

2 4 6 8 10 …

Therefore, there are as many even (positive) integers as there are of all (positive) integers (this is a mathematically correct statement), even though the set of even integers is a strictly smaller subset of all integers. Such a situation is not possible with finite sets.

There are other well-known examples of “paradoxes” involving infinity such as Zeno’s paradox, and Gabriel’s horn.²

Treating infinity as if it is like other numbers, even with the assumption that it is greater than all other numbers, is a major reason for these “paradoxes.” Their resolutions are obtained with a proper understanding of the nature of infinity and the concept of limit. For example, adding or subtracting one element, or any finite number of elements, from an infinite set does not change its size. In some cases adding or subtracting infinitely many elements from an infinite set does not change its size either!

Even mathematicians struggled with the idea of infinity a great deal before rigorously formulating the concept and the rules about it. The fundamental notion of modern calculus is limit, which is intimately connected to infinity, in terms of either infinitely small quantities referred to as “infinitesimal” or infinitely large quantities. It took mathematicians a long time to formulate the modern rigorous definition of limit, the rules involving infinity and infinite quantities, and sets of infinite size.

Infinity and understanding the Attributes of God

While the concept of infinity is essential in mathematics, it is not the only field where it is so important. Another field in which the concept is very important is theology. The concept of infinity is intimately connected to the concept of Divinity. In mathematics, compared to infinity all numbers are equal, and equally small. This fact is mathematically expressed as a/∞ for any number a, whether it is 7 or 17 million. This is parallel to the theological fact that compared to God we, and the rest of the creation, are infinitely small. Nobody can claim to be greater than any other human being or any other being in the universe, no matter how powerful or wealthy he or she might be. Therefore, we cannot attribute to anybody greatness to the degree of regarding him or her as divine. Nursi expresses this view in the following words:

“O human! It is a Qur’anic principle that you must not consider anything other than God Almighty as greater than you to the degree that you worship it. Nor must you consider yourself greater than anything and thus claim greatness before and dominion over it. For, just as all creatures are equally far from being the Object of Worship, they are also equal in being creatures.”³

We have seen that treating infinity like other numbers (even with the understanding that it is greater than all other numbers) leads to seemingly irresolvable paradoxes. Similarly, treating God like humans leads to an incomplete and incorrect understanding of God and the creation. God is not only greater than all that is created, He is also not bound by the kinds of restrictions that created beings are subject to. With His infinite power, creating one flower is as easy for Him as creating all the creatures on earth every spring. Creating all the trees in the world is no more difficult for God than creating one piece of apple. He can create countless things at the same moment. Creating a trillion things is no more difficult for Him than creating one thing.

Unfortunately, it is all too common to see the evidence of attributing incorrect characteristics and restrictions to the Almighty. For example, some “try to free God from the burden of special acts of creation”4 by attributing the development of species to evolution, natural selection, and random phenomena. They do not seem to understand that it is no “burden” for God to create anything, whether it be a tiny individual or billions of species. He can create a great number of things at once. He is not forgetful or incompetent. Nothing He does interferes with another one of His actions. He continues to create every moment everywhere in the universe and He has power to do so. He is closer to every one of us every moment than we are to ourselves: Assuredly, it is We Who have created human and We know what suggestions his soul makes to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein (Qaf 50:16). Therefore, there is no burden for God in dealing with special acts of creation.

Since we are subject to many restrictions as humans, we may fall into the error of attributing similar restrictions to God. So, we need to be more careful when we consider the Attributes of God. One of the restrictions by which we are bound is time. Unlike us, God is above and beyond time. Many people have difficulty comprehending the idea of destiny (or qadar, or divine decree in Islamic literature). If we understand that God is not restricted by time, it becomes much easier to understand this concept. Since He is beyond time, He does not need to “wait” to see the consequences of events in the universe. While it is not our purpose to have a full discussion of this important article of faith here, we want to point out one of its connections with the topic. A detailed explanation of divine decree can be found in Said Nursi’s Twenty-sixth Word.5 Those who do not understand that God is not restricted by time ask questions like, “What was God doing before creating the universe?” This question is meaningless with a proper understanding of the Attributes of God.

Attributing to God deficiencies by which we are constrained, such as forgetfulness, tiredness, and incompetence, is a great mistake, one similar to treating ordinary numbers like infinity. It leads to paradoxes that we cannot resolve. It prevents us from having a proper understanding of God and the creation. We can only understand the mystery of the creation by a proper understanding of its Creator, and we need to be very careful when talking about the Attributes of this Creator.

Nuh Aydin is an associate professor of Mathematics at Kenyon College, in Ohio, USA.

Notes

1. Maor, E. To Infinity and Beyond: A Cultural History of Infinity, Birkhauser, 1987. See also http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/davidhilbe181572.html; http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Hilbert.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
2. Ibid.
3. Nursi, Bediüzzaman Said, The Gleams, Seventeenth Gleam, NJ: Tughra Books, p. 160.
4. Collins, F. S. Language of God, Free Press, 2006, p. 140.
5. Nursi, The Words, Twenty Sixth Word, NJ: Tughra Books, pp. 479–494.

Today, the Western world is seen by many as the representative of freedom and democracy. How has freedom been understood and treated in the history of the West? To answer this question, we will go on a journey through history, in which we will restrict ourselves to continental Europe, focusing on different periods in terms of how freedom has been approached and used. Here, we basically define freedom as being free from suppression or obstacles which have deliberately been placed before an individual by others to impede said freedom.

In the Middle Ages, freedom was not relevant to the masses in Europe. Most people did not even dream of it, since inequalities in society were the norm. A person could not attain freedom, but some were born free. Freedom was a privilege inherited from the class that your family belonged to. Being born into the lower classes was a fate one had to accept. This limited concept of freedom based on social status was further acknowledged or legitimized by the dominant religious authorities, that is, the Christian clergymen. “Keep silent and obey the orders of the feudal lord; hope you will be rewarded in the next life” became the common prescription for the masses that kept them subjugated to and suppressed by the political authority. . In other words, if one was not of the upper-class, one could “freely” make a choice between the despotic order of the feudal lord and the in justice of the clergy, who were abusing the social role assigned to them as the unquestionable judges.

A breaking point in the stable intellectual line of the Middle Ages was certainly the Renaissance and the Reformation. Those who had the opportunity to study and read the works of the ancients directly, without the filtering of the Church, became aware of new directions for human thought. This current, propelled by these newly educated people, nurtured the idea of freedom of “thought” and “belief.”

The development of gunpowder and the cannon brought an end not only to the feudal-lords but also to the age. These changes reduced the importance of the skilled cavalry in warfare, which were supplied by the feudal lords to the kings, and in turn reduced the importance in the lords. Even well-fortified cities fell when faced by this immensely destructive force. Therefore, small feudalities had to unite, or else be erased. The strength of the state/king increased, while the lords’ sovereignty was reduced. Centralized authority became the dogma. Everything belonged to the monarch, including the authority to decide who had the freedom to do what.

Ironically, the concept of sovereign states was fortified through strong and able monarchies, which later produced the nation state. As the France of Louis XIV grew stronger, for instance, it started to dominate the surrounding territories. In its effort to support military campaigns, the powerful French state pushed forward the idea of a “French nation.” This new concept of nation superseded all local bases of identity, particularly, at the expense of religion.

Freedom under the shadow of capitalism

In the age of monarchy, everything was controlled and directed by a supreme state, the symbol of sovereignty. The idea of individuals with basic freedoms, such as freedom of thought or freedom of speech, was inconceivable as the state demanded complete obedience of its subjects. In other words, individual freedom would have been a threat to authority. Therefore, despite all the changes in the overall picture, the main component of society, the individual, was still overlooked.

While the feudal order became history with an alliance between the king and the rising bourgeoisie in towns and cities, in turn the bourgeoisie played a key role in introducing the concept of a state with limited powers. In the end, such limitations on the state meant greater freedom for the citizens.

With the new discoveries and inventions that led to industrialization, the bourgeoisie demanded more freedom. Its power was its wealth, which directed politics, its weapon was “reason,” which was used to challenge and abolish the monopoly of the Church on ideas, and its flag was “freedom for all.” For all? Could there really have been a chance of freedom for a person who could hardly make living? However, for the bourgeoisie, the answer was in the affirmative. To them, freedom was two-fold: freedom of thought and economic freedom, the core idea of a freely operating market. Both of these were held sacred and were considered to be closely intertwined. In this sense, the bourgeoisie, the primary agent of capitalism, was the first social agent to celebrate and pursue human liberty.

Demanding a market free of all kinds of controls was the fundamental idea of economic liberalism. In response to the concerns of justice, economic liberalism claimed that the invisible hand of the economy would balance out the inequalities in due time, provided that it was able to operate free of control. Although not everyone supported these notions of freedom, the poorer classes did ally with the bourgeoisie against one common enemy: the royalty. As the bourgeoisie’s power reached a critical stage they united with the lower class, overthrowing the king and holding a revolution. However, this was not a revolution for all of society. In fact, for some thinkers, all that the bourgeoisie had done was to present the old ideas in a new suit. The bourgeoisie set the bottom line of freedom at the possession of property. This was quite apparent in the constitution of France for example, where those who could pay a certain amount of tax were allowed to vote. In other words, freedom for all meant freedom for those who could afford it. One’s right was proportional to the tax one paid. If you did not have enough money, you had no right to be represented.

Freedom vs. justice

Certainly, the liberal understanding of freedom was far from pleasing to everyone. The lower class had no teacher at that time. They started slowly to become aware of Marx’s teachings, who claimed that the “evil capitalist system” was due to collapse. The new teacher of the lower class also preached to them that “history is the history of struggle between classes, and we are in the final round. We must win this battle, and begin a new life in a new world.” Thus, the socialist/communist notion of “social justice” grew stronger. The Marxist thinkers revealed the hidden realities of the society and gathered the working class around one goal, i.e., getting rid of the “evil capitalist system.”

This kind of interpretation of the new order was very attractive for some. It appealed to the angry masses and asked that they raise their voices in response. The Marxist theory dealt primarily with economic justice and the distribution of wealth. It spoke not of the “freedom of human beings,” but of the economic independence of the lower classes, for in Marxist thought human beings were “working animals.” As a solution, people’s future was closely tied to the dominance of the proletariat, who were seen to be the true owners of the wealth produced in a society. In this scheme of thought, individual freedoms were of secondary importance to the well-being of society.

Thus, one can say that the Marxist view of freedom was an abuse of freedom. In brief, what it said was this: Freedom is good as long as it gives us reasons to complain about the existing system and permits us to rebel against the bourgeoisie. After all, we are exercising our freedom to speak! But it is fundamentally problematic in that it erases the individuality of the person in favor of the group (the proletariat, the working class), whose existence is based only on abstract notions of materialism and historical determinism.

Multi-dimensional freedom for multi-dimensional individuals

After the age of ideologies, freedom today is understood more properly as a personal dimension of being human, a quality that is directly related to individuality. Despite many violations of justice, at least fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of travel, are protected by most democratic governments. The demands placed by political authority on people’s personal lives seem to be less controlling in democratic countries as compared to authoritarian ones. Can we then say that issues concerning freedom have been settled? Unfortunately not.

To resolve this matter, one has to think of humans as multi-dimensional beings. As we know, everything we experience in social life has a reflection in our internal life and vice versa. Laws and regulations address the social, political or economic aspects of life. What about our internal capacities that affect our decisions? Do we not have a strong attachment to our desires and impulses, which sometimes makes us act according to emotions instead of reason? If the aim of any theory is to guide us to true freedom, it must account for the inner dimensions of freedom. Since this guidance cannot be provided by any political or social means, each individual must strive to attain inner freedom by using the means available to him or her. We may start searching for this guidance by contemplating the meaning of our existence and what freedom really means in relation with our status in the universe. Perhaps, complete freedom is never attainable as all of us are connected somehow with each other and with the rest of the creation.

However defined, freedom is the fundamental requirement for the flourishing of the individual. Through much of the historical developments in the concept of freedom, there are two certain conclusions we can draw. First, freedom as a human condition has been ignored and has become subject to violations. Our history is full of examples that support this contention in which everything is expressed in terms of abstract-plural concepts. Remember our history books: Nations migrate, armies fight, states make peace, or civilizations clash. The individual human being, if not an exaggerated hero, is individually absent in history.

Secondly, freedom has prevailed as an intrinsically valuable notion for our existence. Several unpleasant examples in history witness that negligence or resistance to the use of this fundamental right only results in drastic changes that make it more valuable.

Ozgur tagla is a teaching assistant at the School of Arts&Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh.

1. Is “Allah” the same god as the God of the Bible?

2. Trinity and Tawhid (oneness).

3. The divinity of Jesus (pbuh) and the concept of Prophethood.

4. The authenticity of Holy Scriptures.

We will now briefly touch upon these four points in the same order given above.

Is “Allah” the same god as the God of the Bible?

A frequently-asked question by Christians in such meetings is if the word “Allah” refers to the same Deity mentioned in the Bible. The answer to this question is different for each side. According to Islamic teachings, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, Who sent prophets throughout history to mankind, speaks in the Bible as well as in the Qur’an. Thus, the answer is undoubtedly a “yes” for the Muslims. On the other hand, we cannot expect the Christians to accept this answer with similar enthusiasm, as this would also mean that they accept the Qur’an as the Word of God.

The Names and Attributes of Allah as they are mentioned in the Bible are very few compared to the many found in the Qur’an and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. Despite the fact that these Attributes and Names are similar, the Christian understanding of God shifts from the God of the Old Testament that commands an “eye for an eye” to a very compassionate God presented in the New Testament. Naturally, when a Christian hears the word “God,” he or she immediately begins to think, what kind of a God figure is being referred to? Is He like that of the Old or the New Testament?

To make things more complicated, the word “Lord” is sometimes used to refer to “Jesus” in Christianity. Thus, in a Muslim-Christian Dialogue the two sides may have significant differences in the very concept of God, the first article of faith. The key to successful communication on this topic is probably to discuss the Attributes and the Names of Allah as they are presented in the Bible and the Qur’an. This should be done without confusing the issue by discussing the personality or the claimed divinity of Jesus. The similarities in the way the Creator describes Himself in both Books will surprise the parties and clearly show that it is the same Divine Being Who is speaking in both Books.

Trinity and Tawheed

Trinity is often misunderstood by Muslim populations, including some learned men of religion. Most of the time, it is portrayed as believing in three gods or in three deities. However, as is well known, Christianity is a monotheistic religion, not a polytheistic one. The confusion comes from the fact that the godhead of Trinity has three distinct characters. But, to a Christian believer, these three characters are like three different manifestations of the same Divine Being on different platforms. In one of the most-quoted verses of the Bible, Jesus says “Father and I are one.” So, to a Christian, Jesus is the manifestation of the Heavenly Deity on Earth. This may be the grounds for many other disagreements between the Muslims and Christians about the personality of Jesus, but it certainly does not make Christianity a polytheistic religion.

This is, in a way, good news for the dialogue efforts. The most important article of faith is shared by both sides, which is the fact that God is One. He is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth, Almighty, All-Knowing, Pre-Eternal, Everlasting God that we all worship.

The oneness of God is not the only tenet shared by these two major world religions. The list indeed is very long. According to most Christian denominations, God will judge us on our deeds on the Day of Judgment and He has an eternal life prepared for us. The good will be rewarded and the evil will be punished. But, we all count on His Mercy rather than on our own deeds or acts of worship for our salvation. The concept of the Hereafter and the Day of Judgment are the most central articles to both faiths after the Oneness of God.

The divinity of Jesus and the concept of prophethood

Many Muslims simply fail to understand how central the divinity of Jesus is to the Christian faith in most denominations. It is not very uncommon for Muslim speakers to start their speeches by claiming that Islam respects Jesus so much so that it considers him as one of the five major prophets of God. It is in fact a great blasphemy for a Christian to consider Jesus as less than divine. As much as Muslims disagree with it, the idea that Jesus was sent to earth by God as His beloved son and that he died on the cross as a ransom for the sins of believers are main tenets of the Christian faith and they are as central as the Trinity itself. For a Christian to accept that Jesus was indeed a man just like us, and/or he was actually not crucified is the same as abandoning the Christian faith in its most orthodox form as practiced by majority of churches.

On the other hand, the high respect paid to the institution of prophethood in Islam, both for the major and minor prophets, is not shared by the Christian scripts. The Old Testament contains many accounts of major acts of sin committed by the prophets. The life style of the prophets depicted in these stories very often does not resemble that of God’s chosen people, contrary to their counterparts in the Qur’an. Consequently, it is very difficult for a Christian individual to feel the same high respect that a Muslim feels for the prophets. Therefore, calling Jesus a prophet in an attempt to find a common ground with Christians backfires for two reasons; first anything less than divinity for Jesus is not acceptable to a Christian mind; second the institution of prophethood is not as lofty for a Christian as it is for a Muslim.

Where is the common grounds regarding this matter? As mentioned above, the divinity of Jesus should not be addressed by the Muslim side at all. Neither should they insist on calling Jesus a prophet. A more productive approach for the Muslim side would perhaps be to emphasize the fact Islam recognizes Jesus as the promised Messiah and as the Word of God (Kalematullah, Qur’an: 4:171), and that he has been strengthened with the Holy Sprit (Ruh-ul Qudus, Qur’an: 2:87 and 2:253). He indeed has a very special place among the other prophets in the Qur’an.

The authenticity of Holy Scriptures

Christians have a diverse opinion as to how much and what parts of the Bible were inspired by God. The opinions on this matter extend from those who believe that each and every word in the Bible is inspired and hence binding to those who value the words of Jesus above the rest, as those are indicated in red ink in the “red lettered” Bible. Most Christians are probably of the opinion that even though the actual quotations from Jesus in the red lettered New Testament are few, the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety. Even the ones who do not agree with this statement would at least believe that the Bible is a book of good guidance as a whole. One way or another, the definitions of what is the Word of God, what is inspired, and what is from holy men who proclaimed the divine message throughout history are not profoundly important concepts to the faith of a Christian on the personal level. What matters is the fact that the Bible was written by so many authors over a period of thousands of years and that they all confirm each other. This is what it makes the Bible good guidance.

For the Muslims, however, it is simply not acceptable to found a religion on information that is doubtful in its authenticity. Religious principles can only be derived from the Holy Qur’an, every word of which is believed to have been revealed, and the examples from the life of Prophet Muhammad. Thus, Muslims again approach the Christian Scriptures on the matter of authenticity with severe criticism. In general, Christians do not see the need for a word by word authenticity in a religious Scripture for the foundations of the religion to be strong. In fact, they think that this is hardly possible as the Bible was written by 66 different authors. It is very much expected and acceptable that some parts of the book should be the words of holy men who committed themselves to spreading it to others, in the form of letters and such, mixed with the inspired words by God. Word by word revelation, as happened with Muhammad, on the other hand, is a new concept that Christians only become familiar when they talk to their Muslim friends. Therefore, the Muslim challenge to the Christian mind on this matter does not mean much more than the fact that it is another point which Muslims use to attack the foundations of Christian faith.

A more productive approach in a Muslim-Christian dialogue would be to point out the fact that the very fundamental tenets of the Christian faith are shared in the teachings of the Qur’an. The Ten Commandments revealed to Moses are laid out and detailed in the first several chapters of the Qur’an. The message of Jesus , the love and compassion that he had for others, regardless of who they were, his embracing of even the lowest in rank in the society and the giving of the glad tidings to the pious; all of these principles were also preached by Prophet Muhammad. Emphasizing the parallelism between the Bible and the Qur’an in the spirit of their teachings and not in their wording would be a much more productive approach than scrutinizing these books for authenticity in expectation that our Christian friends will have a higher respect for the Qur’an.

The selection of terminology

Furthermore, simple mistakes made in the selection of terminology can be misleading. The same word in the English language can bring quite different concepts and connotations to the minds of Muslims and Christians. Obviously the selection of the language determines the terminology. Each Biblical word in English has a long history in the minds of the people who speak this language. It is impossible not to get caught up in these connotations when Biblical terms are used to translate Qur’anic concepts into the English language. For instance, each of the words “grace,” “Lord,” and “saint” have deeply rooted meanings in the Christian tradition, which may be used as translation of Arabic words “ihsan,” “Rab,” and “wali.” However, these English and Arabic words do not overlap exactly in meaning. Islamic concepts like “rububiyah” are impossible to translate with one word. If one uses a made-up word to translate these Islamic terms, then the translation loses its religious flavor and its influencing power on the reader. On the other hand, if Biblical words are used, then it becomes impossible for the Christian mind not to get caught up in the Biblical connotations of these words. Therefore, one should not think that conveying Islamic concepts to Christians is a matter of having perfect translations. It will take many years before Islam establishes its own vocabulary in the English language amongst the native speakers of this language with well-understood meanings, as it did in many other cultures throughout the history. Considering the short history of indigenous Muslims in the West, particularly in English-speaking countries, the growth of Islamic media and their circulation is very encouraging.

Concluding remarks

Sincere efforts of dialogue should always start by learning the other party’s fundamentals of faith and what is most dear to them. Christian-Muslim dialogues, in our opinion, can be much more productive if the four points discussed above are carefully addressed during these meetings. First, Muslims should be very sensitive when discussing the personality of Jesus, who is not just a prophet to Christians, but everything that Christianity is built on. It should be clearly spelled out that calling Jesus a prophet is literally attacking the very foundations of Christianity and it should be avoided. Furthermore, the Trinity is a concept that is misunderstood by Muslims. It is in fact true, as often pointed out by Muslims, that Christian clergymen have difficulty explaining the concept of Trinity to themselves. But, this does not mean that the subject of Trinity, particularly the divinity of Jesus is a trivial matter to the followers of the faith. On the contrary, it is something very important and something taken to heart without question by the Christians. It is an issue of faith rather than reasoning. Therefore, Muslims should not try to explain this point with logic. There is nothing to be gained on this point in terms of finding a common ground with Christians and it will be a deal breaker if insisted upon.

The Christian side can also do their homework by paying attention particularly to the concepts of prophethood, and the Attributes and Names of God in Islam. As they study Islam, it will become clear that a prophet has a much loftier place in the mind of a Muslim than it ever has to a Christian. Also, the Attributes of Allah mentioned in the Qur’an are not different than those in the Bible, but only there is more information about who God is in the Qur’an than there is in the Bible. The faith that Muslims have in the prophets of the Old Testament and the second coming of J esus are two more crucial points that Christians can quickly discover to their surprise. Dwelling on these points first before the problematic ones listed above may be a good starting point for successful dialogue.

Jacques Derrida¹

For over two thousand years despotism has been used by the West as a concept for slandering systems that differ from it. What this means is that the term itself is European. It was used against the French king as a means of opposition. It was also used by Montesquieu and Engels as a strategy of accusation against Oriental regimes. Karl Wittfogel attempted to adopt it for the case of Soviet Russia, but he did not succeed, because the term has been indexed to the East since the time of ancient Greece. The East for the Greeks was Persia, then, it became Seljuk-Ottoman Empire and the Mongols for a while.

“Enlightened despotism” was used in positive terms for Frederic the Great and Catherine II; however, even this positive attempt did not conceal this myth or alleviate the burden of this prejudice. To sum up, the term despotism has cast a silhouette over the Eurasian map since the time of Aristotle’s Politics. What is more, the notions developed in the West still dominate today, even in the mindset of some “intellectuals” in the East.

There have been many books written on this subject. Edward Said struggled greatly at the beginning with his Orientalism, published in 1978, and in subsequent studies. There has been much research conducted on the problems and contradictions of Eurocentrism. In 1748 Montesquieu presents us with a discussion of despotism in his The Spirit of Laws. However, his outmoded theory was found to be ridiculous by Voltaire at the time and by Anquetil-Duperron thirty years later in 1778.

In fact, the aim of the “Eastern Orientalists” is clear: they are trying to find an explanation for the lack of development in the East. Montesquieu-who invented the term despotism while criticizing the French king-would be pleased if he could hear the repercussions of his theory still haunting Eastern history after 250 years. The philosophers of the Enlightenment were very clever men, they used special terms for special aims, and the myth of “Oriental despotism” is one of the terms used for multiple aims.

The French thinker Louis Althusser analyzes and criticizes Montesquieu in his book Politics and History.2 Althusser first of all tries to “understand” the thinker he is examining. He evaluates works by Montesquieu in general terms and he divides the thoughts into themes. Despotism is one of these themes.

Althusser thinks that Montesquieu’s main aim was not to defend a republic or a democracy against despotism, but rather to support monarchy and make it something that the King would opt for. Therefore, he continually tries to frighten the King with the specter of despotism, a degenerated form of monarchy. He wanted to show the King that if you abuse the monarchy you will become a despot, like that of the Turkish and Chinese states. His warning was, “Be careful not to abuse the monarchy!”

Montesquieu was not an innocent philosopher merely giving advice to his ruler. Philosophers are at least as far removed from innocence as politicians are. However, Althusser does not see things so simple. He thinks that Montesquieu uttered these “great ideas” in order to consolidate the importance of the feudal lords, of whom he was one, in the eyes of the King.

According to Althusser, Montesquieu was trying to bring back the interests of his class that would be lost by centralizing the monarchy.3 Montesquieu was in the camp of the feudal rightist party and he was constantly criticizing Louis XIV-a monarch who represents French monarchy at its peak; he was advising him not to be a despot. If the French king became drawn into the sphere of despotism, then the privileges and rights of the upper classes would be abolished, and they would have to hand over not only their power, but also their wealth to the control of the central authority. Montesquieu lists all the problems inherent in despotism; Louis XIV would continue to distribute offices that had formerly belonged to the aristocrats-a practice started by Cardinal Richelieu-to the newly emerging bourgeoisie, and the logical consequence of this is that Louis XIV would come close to establishing a tyranny.4

Here is what Montesquieu said clearly: Despotism is a regime of fear. There is only one ruler. There are no intermediaries between the King and the people. The despot who rules arbitrarily does stand much of a chance if the people, living like a herd of animals, were to rebel against him en masse. Despotism can not oppose rebellions because the King will be the only target of a huge upsurge, and therefore the life of the king and the continuity of the regime can easily be threatened. However, if there are intermediary classes-of which Montesquieu was a member-who stand between the king and the people, they would be the target of the masses. The king would be free from blame and he would not be a direct target. Finally, Montesquieu concludes: “O Kings! Distance yourself from despotism if you want to protect your reign from the violence of the people.”5

Montesquieu denigrates despotism, particularly in his Letters from Persia, by giving examples from the administration of the Ottoman sultan and the Iranian shah (the Ottomans and the Safavids became the devils in this despotism context and were the parties accused of despotism).6 Yet, as Althusser cleverly recognized, Montesquieu’s problem was not with the Ottoman Empire or Iran. They were just distorted mirrors, fake images, or boogeyman chosen to serve the aim of the feudal rightist opposition that was trying to stand against the king. In short, Althusser wanted the Turks and the Ottomans to be left alone and he was calling for European thought to confess their faults.

Concepts should be perceived as an umbrella rather than as a shopping bag into which we can cram everything. If we use them in the latter fashion then, as implied by Braudel, they tell us nothing, while trying to tell everything. Likewise, Karl Popper-a philosopher of science-was right when he said if we do not limit a concept, a theory, or a scheme and if we try to use it to explain everything, then it is difficult to call it scientific. This is also true for the concept of despotism. If this term is used in an unrestricted sense and is universalized, there will be a superficiality that eliminates all minor differences within the concept. This leads to an evaporation of the deep meanings that are hidden in the nuances, an atrophy of complex thinking and an establishment of thinking based on limits and ease. Because of this we need to talk about multiple despotisms rather than unique despotism.

In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, 7 there are four meanings for the term despotism:

1. In political terms, despotism emerged for the first time in the war between the Persians and Greeks in 5th century B.C. However, the term was formulated by Aristotle. According to him, despotism was an administration confined to Asian barbaric people. Therefore, the first conceptual iron door between Asia and Europe was constructed by Aristotle, who is known as “the first teacher” in Islamic philosophy. According to him, Asian peoples are natural born slaves and are accustomed to living under the authority of a single leader. He thought that their power was derived from despotism. However, since Greek (Europeans) people were superior to Asians in terms of rational capability and spirit, they should be the rulers. Thus, despotism was commonly used in a pejorative sense.

2. In the 16th century, the colonial powers that went to discover new lands to plunder frequently remembered Aristotle’s legitimizing despotism concept. The slave trade was inspired by this ancient obsession with despotism. The people who divided the world into two camps, the free and the barbaric, like Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, and Grotius, believed that the soldiers of European republics were more virtuous than those of the barbarians. According to this belief, it was therefore acceptable for the virtuous to convert the slavish barbarians into slaves.

3. In the 17th and 18th centuries two opposing groups in France, the French aristocrats and the Huguenots (French Protestants, some of who took refugee in the Ottoman Empire after the Edict of Nantes) used the term despotism as a tool of criticism for a European state. Therefore, the content of the term despotism expanded to European rulers who were ruling over free people. In conclusion, the term became two-sided; one for “Western despotism” and the other for “Eastern.” The despotism concept of Montesquieu emerged in the context of this century.

4. There is one other thesis which originated from the Swedish-born French liberal Benjamin Constant and was developed by Tocqueville. This thesis argues that the term of despotism had lost its ancient and original meaning after the French Revolution. These discussions allowed despotism to enter European politics and led to many interesting discussions, like “democratic despotism” or “the tyranny of the majority.”

After all these definitions those of Hegel, Marx, Weber, J. Stuart Mill, and Wittfogel follow; these are not very different in the main line of thought, also seeing despotism as something reserved for the East. They use terms “petrification, “resistance to change” and “static” as symbols of despotism and see it as the reason why eastern societies did not create democratic tendencies and a civil society.

Edward Said in his Orientalism has already shown that the concept of “the East” is a fiction. To put it more correctly, it is an image constructed by the European imperial subject in his mind and then imposed on the world. Therefore, there is no fixed “reality” of the East; rather there is only the ideologically distorted image of the “East” constructed over the ages in the Western imagination. Yet, our mission seems more difficult, as Said does not present us with any clue that can differentiate the “factual” and “fictional” faces of the East. He only diagnoses the existence of the fiction and analyzes the roles of the most important actors (Orientalists) in creating such a fiction. This critical tradition of Orientalism developed greatly after the pioneering role of Edward Said. According to his perception, the East has been singly constructed in the West. Arif Dirlik in his The Postcolonial Aura elegantly criticizes Said”s thought and says that Said is obsessed with external Orientalists; however, Dirlik puts it that Said seems to be unable to recognize the internal Orientalists among easterners.

According to Dirlik, Edward Said takes Orientalism as something that has finished; however Dirlik suggests that it is a continuing process. Thus, he advises that we closely examine local compradors. He asks the question that if there were not collaborationists in the “Orient” would it be so easy for a perspective like Orientalism to settle there? Finally, departing from the Chinese example, he tries to display how Asian intellectuals supported and adopted the Orientalist discourse at its birth and throughout its evolution, and how they worked hard in order to make their societies adopt this perspective.8 This striking thought of Arif Dirlik may facilitate our task, as it is very interesting to note how eastern intellectuals adopted a pejorative and humiliating term like eastern despotism for defining their own histories without questioning and criticizing it, how they were able to take on the habit of seeing their societies through the eyes of a Western subject and in the name of liberation and modernization. According to this approach, the commoditization of Chinese culture and its presentation as a static and petrified entity and marketing it like a commodity to Western people are one side of the Orientalization of the Orient itself.

The other side is glorifying the superior Western race, its land and its culture after humiliating the Orient. Furthermore, the East believes that if it possesses superior properties to that of the West it will be also superior and have a free-minded society. To sum up, much as Hegel strived to achieve, Easterners have put themselves onto this scale of frozen, static and unchanging societies because that is what the West thinks of them. So we have to admire the success of the Orientalist project. Lucette Valensi, in his encompassing and striking study, The Birth of the Despot: Venice and the Sublime Porte, draws conclusions from reports of Venetian ambassadors and arrives at how the concept of the “despot” was constructed in Europe. He says that the Ottoman sultan had not been called a despot and the Ottoman order had not been conceptualized as despotism before. On the contrary, the power, brilliance, and progressiveness of the Ottoman administration were often discussed.

However, beginning with the 17th century, the discourses of the Venetian ambassadors started to change. It was strange, according to Valensi, how the “grand Turc” was transformed into a “despot” in the 17th century. He rightfully asks why the Venetian ambassadors had glorified the Ottoman sultan until the 16th century and then humiliated him in the 17th century. It is clear that there was a change in the Venetian perspective of the Ottomans during this century. As Valensi himself elegantly points out: In the end, the ambassadors and then Montesquieu dressed an ancient Greek concept in a Turkish robe. To say it more correctly, that time is not very distant from us. The fantasy of pure power follows us and transforms its vision continuously.9 According to Valensi, Oriental despotism is just an image reflected onto non-western societies by the West in order to satisfy its fantasy of power. Yet, this image reflects the passion of power in the West; a passion that desires to be as powerful as the Ottomans. Voltaire declares the concept of despotism as presented by his contemporary Montesquieu as ridiculous; he defends that a mass of people ruled by a regime led by a single leader cannot survive; even though it might be possible for it to remain standing, it will not be for long. There was no despotic rule according to Voltaire because it could not exist. It is nothing less than a lie to talk about the existence of such a regime.

As I mentioned above, the concept of despotism, which Voltaire found absurd and fictive, has been used with the aim of concealing rather than describing, complicating rather than explaining. However, we should direct our energy and attention to understanding the facts rather than thinking within limits and fantasies. Then, our attempt to find the realities will remind us that our past is not “a foreign country,” it will give us sound clues about our present and past. Likewise, Voltaire, addressing Montesquieu, explained the Ottoman reality to those who thought like Montesquieu. Voltaire underlined that not only were the Turks free, but they also did not discriminate according to class. Their only criterion of privilege was merit. The facts Voltaire provides about the Ottomans are in complete contrast with the fiction. In conclusion, when carefully examined, myths like “Oriental despotism” do not amount to anything more than European fantasies about the East. Seeing despotism as an oriental concept is no more realistic than the Western misconception of the harem, where the sultan is depicted with hundreds of women. As long as we adopt orientalist presumptions without thoroughly questioning them, we will be unable to tell where the fictional ends and where the factual starts.

Notes

1. Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, The John Hopkins University Press, 1976, p.80
2. Louis Althusser, Politika ve Tarih: Montesquieu-Rousseau, (Politics and History: Montesquieu-Rousseau) Ankara: Verso, 1987. Translated by Alaattin Azenel and Ömür Sezgin.
3. For this transitional period, the seigneurs or landlords were delivering their rights to central government, that is, the central state was becoming a universal seigneurate, see W. H. Lewis, The Splendid Century: Life in the France of Louis XIV, Anchor Books, 1957, pp. 73-79.
4. Stephan J. Lee, Aspects of European History, 1494-1789, Routledge, 1986, p. 167.
5. Micheal Curtis, “The Oriental Despotic Universe of Montesquieu&”, Princeton Papers in Near Eastern Studies, n. 3, 1994, pp. 1-33.
6. Montesquieu, Ãran Mektuplari (Letters from Persia), Anka, Istanbul, 2001, p. 88-89. Translated by Muhiddin Gaklu.
7. David Miller (ed), The Blackwell Encylopedia of Political Thought, Blackwell, 1998.
8. Arif Dirlik, Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism, Westview Press, 1998
9. Lucette Valensi, The Birth of the Despot: Venice and the Sublime Porte (Despotun Dogusu: Venedik ve Bab-i Âli), tr. A. Turgut Arnas, Baslam, Istanbul: 1994.

At this point, it is important to note that the motives for Muslims to engage in dialogue with non-Muslims have their roots embedded not in the recent past, but date back to the seventh century. Dialogue is not a civilized virtue of modern times, but rather a duty upon every Muslim, who is following the footsteps of the Prophet of Islam. Dialogue is not a temporary activity, but a way of living that spans a lifetime. In the very first days of his mission, the Prophet sought every possible means of communication with his fellow townsmen; despite fierce opposition and in the face of all kinds of dangers and threats, he was the one who took the first step and initiated “dialogue.” This attitude was not only limited to the Mecca period when Muslims were few in number and powerless to defend themselves. The Blessed Prophet sent aid to Mecca when his hometown was suffering a deadly famine; this happened when Muslims had won battles against Meccan pagans and the city state of Islam was laying its foundations more strongly than any other establishment in the Arabian Peninsula. It is also well known that the Prophet’s shield was in the custody of a Jew when he passed away; he never stopped making peaceful contacts with non Muslims.

Some of the articles in this issue focus on some significant concepts like tolerance, jihad, and dialogue between Muslims and Christians. The lead article shows believers how to respond to “. . . the coarsest thoughts and the crudest ideas, without losing our temper.” “Mildness is reminded in such situations we cannot tolerate, a kind of mildness presented in the Qur’an as “gentle words” which “is the result of a tender heart, a gentle approach, and mild behavior.”

Galymzhan Kirbassov analyzes Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory.

Studying interstate disputes during the post-Cold War period, his analysis proposes a qualitative result that conflicts occur more because of other reasons than civilizational differences. Evan Radford’s piece explores the Islamic concept of “jihad” that is highly unpopular in the West. Radford thinks this unpopularity is a result of misinformation; Westerners and some extremists have misinterpreted jihad and use this concept as a veil and as a means to legitimatize their politically motivated violent activities.

When reviewing their lives and educational methods, we must keep their era and mission in mind. For example, global dissemination of God’s message became possible only after the time of Prophet Muhammad. Thus, all previous Revelations were restricted to a specific people and period, and so stressed certain principles. Also, God bestowed special time-dependent favors upon each Prophet and community. For example, Noah was endowed with steadfastness and perseverance; Abraham was honored with intimate friendship with God and being the father of numerous Prophets; Moses was given the ability to administer and was exalted through being God’s direct addressee; and Jesus was distinguished with patience, tolerance, and compassion.(1)

Their miracles reflected that which their societies valued the most at that particular time. For instance, medicine was highly valued by Jesus’ society. Thus, his miracles of raising the dead and curing the blind had the greatest possible impact upon his people. During the Prophet’s time, poetry and eloquence were highly valued, and famous poets were celebrities. The Qur’an, his most significant miracle, was a literary miracle. In the words of a non-Muslim translator of the Qur’an: ‘The Koran is the earliest and by far the finest work of Classical Arabic prose’. It is acknowledged that the Koran is not only one of the most influential books of prophetic literature but also a literary masterpiece in its own right.'(2)

While all Prophets share some of the praiseworthy qualities, each of them surpasses the others in one or more of them because of his mission.(3)

Moses as a Teacher

The Israelites lived a wretched life in Egypt before Moses was sent to them. Due to the Pharaohs’ despotic rule and oppression, slavery had become part of the Israelites’ character. To purge this trait, Moses was sent with stern and rigid rules: the Torah (Law). Thus, he was a somewhat stern and unyielding reformer and educator. The story of the golden calf indicates an important social lesson: Yielding on essential principles of faith is detrimental to a faith-based society. In Egypt, the cow was the main ‘tool’ used to cultivate the land that made Egypt rich. Eventually, its importance caused it to be raised to a divine status.

Although the Israelites were monotheists, this belief, symbolizing wealth, became ingrained in their subconscious. When they settled in the Sinai peninsula, God called Moses to Mount Sinai to talk to him. Moses left his brother Aaron in charge. During his absence, a Sumerian fellow (al-Samiri in the Qur’an) among the Israelites made a golden calf and declared it to be a god that Moses had forgotten. Fearing division, Aaron was lenient. Upon his return, warned the Sumerian and was angry with Aaron, as he had expected Aaron to prevent the reappearance of pagan beliefs. In other words, Moses was sensitive to matters that were critical to the community’s preservation. As monotheism was the main bond of communal identity, Moses worked to prevent future deviations.

Jesus as a Teacher

Jesus was sent to the Israelites at a time when the clergy had been corrupted by their unlimited power and materialism was prevalent. He invited his people to leave conventional wisdom behind in order to live by an alternative wisdom. His wisdom teachings consisted of short memorable sayings and parables that included ‘crystallizations of insight that provoked and invited further insight,'(4) such as: ‘If a blind person leads another blind person, they will both fall into a ditch’ and ‘Leave the dead to bury the dead.’

His parables included short stories and invitations to see the world differently, such as in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Both concise sayings (aphorisms) and parables are evocative and provocative forms of speech. But more importantly, they are invitations to see something previously unseen or to see things differently. We observe an important principle of education in this style: repetition. ‘No great speaker of one-liners tells a great one-liner only once, no great teller of great stories tells a great story only once.'(5)

How we see things and events makes all the difference in our thinking, attitude, and behavior. Jesus pointed to the world of conventional wisdom as a world of blindness, and invited his audience to see differently. Comparing Jesus’ alternative wisdom with that of the Prophet reveals many parallels:

Jesus Trained His Apostles

Let’s examine how Jesus trained his apostles by means of a program based upon a detailed pedagogical program6 that provided a comprehensive education.7 According to Schirrmacher, the main tenets were the following:

1. Jesus limited his group, for just as a parent can properly care for only a few children, he could train properly only a few followers at a time.

2. The goal of this intensive fellow-ship and dependence was mission preparation.

3. The training program followed a clear plan. The apostles were to be trained by living and working for several years with Jesus, who served as a prototype. He followed a clear order: He first preached alone, then preached while the apostles watched, then let them preach while He watched, and then sent them out in groups of two and afterwards discussed the results with them. This first, short-term assignment is described in Matthew 10:1-11, Mark 6:7-13, and Luke 9:1-6. Finally, he sent them out alone as described in Matthew 28:18-20. The Apostles trained other Christians in the same way.

4. His training program included all aspects of instruction and life, theory and practice, individual and group counseling, personal and public activity, activity and rest, professional and private life. Teaching and counseling formed a single unit.

Jesus’ miracles also played an important role here. Just like the miracles of other prophets, they removed the doubt in some believers’ hearts, challenged the unbelievers’ view, and further strengthened his followers’ bonds.

Analyzing how the Prophet interacted with his Companions reveals that he employed various educational methods. He emerges as a resourceful educator who sometimes asked, and at other times answered, questions. Sometimes he limited his answer to the question; other times he went beyond the question. Sometimes he illustrated a concept through parables, diverted a question to a different path, or told his Companions to write down his words. He drew figures and used body language, repeated a statement three times when it contained a critical lesson, and used symbolic language with implications or else clear and unambiguous words. He also used humor, puzzles, comparisons, and asking seemingly obvious questions to raise curiosity. The most important educational principle was using himself as a living example.

Teaching by Character. One of the first lessons of public speaking is that one’s character speaks louder than one’s words. The Prophet, whose words and actions were in perfect agreement, was a perfect leader and educator. For example, he often advised his Companions to pray during the night, for such a time provided an ideal, uninterrupted environment for reflection, thanksgiving, and prayer. His wife ‘A’isha related that he would wake up in the middle of the night and ask her for permission to pray. He prayed so much that one time she asked him if doing so was really necessary. He replied: ‘Shall I not be a thankful servant to my Lord, Who has bestowed upon me so many bounties?’

Gradual teaching of principles. Ibn Mas’ud, a Companion, relates: ‘We would learn 10 verses from the Prophet, and would not continue with new verses until we internalized and practiced those 10 verses.’

Be moderate and prefer ease over difficulty. The most authentic books of the Prophetic Traditions, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim relate the following saying: ‘Make it easier and not difficult. Give good news (endear) and do not alienate and repel.’8 ‘A’isha related: ‘When the messenger of God was left with a choice, he would always prefer the easier option, other things being equal.’

Observing the learner’s circumstances. Bukhari 7:140 relates: ‘A man asked the Prophet for permission to fight in God’s cause. The Prophet asked him: ‘Are your parents alive?’ The man said: ‘Yes.’ The prophet told him: ‘Go and serve them as best as you can.” Many Companions asked him what was the best deed in God’s sight. The Prophet answered according to the situation. When Abu Dharr asked: ‘O messenger of God, advise me (a good deed).’ He replied: ‘Be God-conscious wherever you are, clean your sins by immediately following them with a good deed, and treat the people around you in the best manner possible.’ Another Companion asked: ‘O messenger of God, advise me (a good deed), but keep it short so that I can remember.’ He replied ‘Don’t get angry.’ The man repeated his question two more times, and the Prophet gave the same reply.

Teaching by dialog or asking questions. Questions demand attention. Starting a dialog with a question prepares one for the message. The Prophet made great use of this technique. Bukhari (2:9) relates that the Messenger of God asked: ‘If a river ran by your door and you bathed in it five times a day, would any dirt remain on your body?’ The Companions answered that no dirt would remain. He continued: ‘The daily prayer is such a river. God cleanses you of sins with these prayers.’ We also see this technique in Bukhari (32:1:6251), where Abu Hurayra narrates that the Messenger asked: ‘Do you know who is the real bankrupt among my people?’ The Companions answered: ‘The one without money or property.’ He said: ‘The real bankrupt is the one who comes on the Day of Resurrection with prayers, fast, and charity but nevertheless finds himself bankrupt on that day. He will have exhausted his good deeds because he reviled others, brought calumny against them, devoured their wealth unlawfully, shed their blood, and beat them. So his good deeds will be credited to the account of those (who suffered at his hand). If his good deeds do not clear the account, their sins will be added to his account and he will be thrown in the (Hell) Fire.’

Teaching by comparison and parable. Comparisons and parables help people understand a new concept. Bringing a similar concept as an example makes the new aspects of the concept in question easier to digest. Comparisons and parables that refer to common and strong experiences improve the memory of the new concept that is learned. Muslim (6:83) relates that the Prophet told his Companions: ‘A good friend is like a person who carries amber (which has a fragrant pleasant smell). If nothing else, his pleasant smell will get on you. A bad friend, on the other hand, is like a blacksmith. Even if the dust of his work does not touch you, its fumes do.’

Using body language. Our visual memory far surpasses our audio memory. We remember images and scenes with great ease and speed. With body language, a good educator can make a lasting impression. Bukhari (9:389) relates that the Messenger of God said: ‘One who cares for an orphan and I will be this close in Paradise,’ and he pointed to his index and middle fingers.

Taking advantage of the occasion. Bukhari (8:458) relates that the Companion Jarir ibn Abdullah al-Bajali relates that: ‘One night we were watching full moon with the Prophet. He looked at it and said: ‘All of you will see your Lord on the Day of Judgment just like you see this full moon. None of you will be denied the opportunity to see your Lord.’

Using humor. In Abu Dawud,9 it is related that a man asked the Prophet for a riding animal. The Prophet asked: ‘Would it be alright if I put you on the calf of a female camel?’ The man said: ‘O Messenger of God, what good will that do me?’ and received the following reply: ‘Isn’t every camel the calf of a female camel?’

These are just a few of the many methods the Prophet used to educate his people. Other methods include, but are not limited to, the following: teaching by drawing, diverting the answer toward a different path, asking for the question to be repeated, letting the audience answer, teaching by approval, repeating to emphasize and establish, hiding the culprit or target or subject, describing a concept briefly and then in detail, leaving something ambiguous for the audience to discover, listing and then describing, combining encouragement and discouragement, teaching by stories and stories of past people.

Conclusion

Prophets were sent to the humanity to deliver God’s message in the most effective manner. Every Prophet strove to accomplish his mission by using those educational methods that were best suited to their mission. Today’s educators and parents can learn many lessons from their lives.

Footnotes

1. M. F. Gulen. Online at: www.pearls.org/prophets
2. N. J. Dawood, The Koran (Penguin Classics: 1997).
3. Gulen, www.pearls.org.
4. M. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & the Heart of Contemporary Faith (Harper San Fransisco: 1994). Online at: www.united.edu/portrait/wisdom2.shtml.
5. Ibid.
6. T. Schirrmacher, Jesus as Master Educator (1999). Online at: www.visi.com/~contra_m/ab/schirrmacher/educator.html.
7. A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve (Kregel Publications: 2000 [1894]).
8. M. Khan (trans.), Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings (Darussalam Publishers: 1997), 1:163 and A. H. Siddiqi (trans.), Sahih Muslim (Kitab Bhavan: 2000), 12:42. All subsequent Tradition citations are taken from these two sources.
9. Harf Information Technology, Hadith Encyclopedia (Egypt: 1996).

Science is not the private properly of any one people in the world. It is the common heritage of all mankind. Its period of infancy began with mankind’s period of infancy. When intellectual culture in the West attained a sufficient maturity, attained in great part through the achievements of other nations, especially of Asian peoples, the experimental sciences in particular were ripe for a new, comprehensive flourishing through the Renaissance.

The West did not neglect, while borrowing science from its ancient origins, absorbing and appropriating it, to import also the ways of developing it. Although the West has tended to deny the Eastern origin of science and how it was transferred, its relations with the Orient did not prevent it from transferring the zeal and resolution necessary for scientific development, Of course, science cannot be borrowed and then ‘worn’ like a medal of success or other symbol of outward show. It has to permeate through the veins of the society where it develops and functions like a substance of life diffused into the ‘air’ of every new day.

If true science consists in directing the intelligence towards eternity without expecting any material gain and making tireless and detailed study of existence in order to discover the absolute truth underlying it, and to follow the methods required to reach this aim, then without these essential points, science cannot fulfil what we expect of it, Although usually presented as a conflict between Christianity and science, the conflicts in the Renaissance period were mainly between scientists and the Church. Neither Copernicus nor Galileo nor Bacon was anti-religious. It may even be said that it was their religious commitment which ignited in men’s souls the love and thought of finding truth. In advance of Christianity, it was Islam, the religious thought springing from eternality, the love and zeal arising from that thought, accompanied by the feeling of poverty and impotence before the Eternal Creator of the cosmos, which lay behind the great scientific advance observed in the Muslim world for five hundred years until the close of the 12th century. The concept of science as based on the Divine Revelation, which gave impetus to scientific studies in the Muslim world, was represented almost perfectly by the illustrious figures of the time who, intoxicated with the thought of eternality, studied existence tirelessly with the aim of attaining to eternity. It was by virtue of their commitment to the Divine Revelation that its intellect diffused a light which fermented in human souls a new concept of science. If that concept of science, approved and appropriated by all the sections of the community as if a part of the Divine message and pursued with the zeal of an act of worship, had not been exposed to the destructive tumults of invasions from Asia and the seemingly endless and pitiless Crusades from Europe, the world today would surely be more enlightened than it is at present, its intellectual life richer, its technology more wholesome, and its sciences more promising. For that concept of science to which Islam gave rise was embedded in aspiration for eternality, the ideal of being useful to mankind and responsible in handling things for the sake of earning the pleasure of God.

It is the love of truth which gives the true direction to scientific studies. What we mean by the love of truth is approaching existence without any consideration of material advantage and worldly gain and observing and recognizing it as if really is .While those equipped with such love can by all means reach the final destination in their studies, those who are infected with worldly passions, material aspirations and ideological prejudices and fanaticism, and who cannot develop any love of truth, will either be unsuccessful in their studies or, worse, divert the course of scientific studies and make science a deadly weapon to be used against the best potentials of humanity.

It is impossible for any intellectual activity arising from and directed by worldly passions and egocentricity to lead to an outcome which will be truly beneficial for humanity. If such passions darkening our souls and forcing us to certain unapprovable behaviour are combined with ideological fanaticism and prejudices, then they will inevitably put insurmountable obstacles in the way of reaching the truth and using the results of scientific studies for the good of humanity. If, therefore, intellectuals, educational institutions and mass-media have a vital task to undertake for the good of humanity, it is to deliver modern scientific studies from the lethally polluted atmosphere of materialistic aspirations and ideological fanaticism, and to direct scientists toward true human values. The first condition of directing scientific studies in that way is to free minds from ideological superstitions and fanaticism and to purify souls of the filth of aiming at worldly gains and advantages. This is also the first condition of securing true freedom of thought and doing good science. Having waged wars for centuries against the ‘clergy’ and corrupt conceptions formed in the name of religion, and having blamed them for regression narrow mindedness and fanaticism, scientists themselves should try to remain free from being the target of comparable accusations. 

 Neither Copernicus nor Galileo nor Bacon were anti-religious. It may even be said that it was their religious commitment which ignited in men’s souls the love and thought of finding truth. Also, studied without prejudices and preconceptions, the Qur’an will appear, as it is in teality, to be promotig love of science, love of humanity, justice and order.There is no difference between intellectual and scientific despotism arising from interest and power- seeking and ideological fanaticism and restrictive reasoning because of corrupt and distorted religious conceptions and the dominion of a clergy, God-revealed religion whose original name has always been Islam- peace, salvation and obedience to God-whether taught by Moses or Jesus or communicated by Muhammad, upon them all be peace, preaches and propagates courtesy, respect toward human values, love, tolerance and brotherhood. Especially the Islam communicated by the Last of the Prophets, the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, as can be clearly seen in numerous verses of the Qur’an, urges the study of nature, which it sees as a place of exhibition of the Divine works; it urges reflection upon creation and the created, and approaching it responsibly, without making mischief and causing corruptions in the world. Studied without prejudices and preconceptions, the Qur’an will appear, as it is in reality, to be promoting love of science, love of humanity, justice and order. On a comparatively smaller scale of exploiting science and its products for the sake of power and base worldly ambitions against weaker peoples, it is true that some have appeared to use the Qur’an as a means of satisfying the hatred and enmity arising from their dark souls. Unfortunately, in the hands of those who see their ‘fortune’ in eradication of Islam, such attitudes have served as a weapon to accuse Islam of being a religion of hatred, enmity and vengeance.

‘Islam’ literally means peace and salvation; ‘Muslim’, according to the definition of the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, means one from whose hand and tongue everyone is safe and secure; and ‘mu’min’ (believer), derived from the word ‘amn’ meaning security and safety, means one who believes and is the guarantee of security, order, justice, love and knowledge. Through the light disseminated by Islam, many have dedicated their lives to the happiness of others in self-denial and many others have been resolved to carry human beings to eternity. Founded on the Divine Word, the Qur’an, Islam has founded knowledge and the quest for it on the intention of discovering the meaning of existence in order to reach the Creator and to be beneficial to all human beings, indeed to all the creation, and combined it with belief, love and altruism. This is what we learn from the Qur’an, as well as from the exemplary life of the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings and the conduct of many who have represented it perfectly in thought and action.

He is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and all that lies between them; He is the Lord of the Lasts. (Saffat, 37.5)

The concept of the Lord of everything is defined in this setting and within the limits of our knowledge. Since the earth, the sky and all else in between have been mentioned, a different reality or a different spatial continuum is not in question. The verse does not end there, however. A new concept is added: ‘He is the Lord of the Lasts.’

So, in addition to the earth, the sky and all in between, we have the concept of ‘Easts’. In Arabic, the plural form is used for three or more things. Therefore, God is the Lord of at least three Fasts, or of many Easts. What kind of scientific concept does this verse introduce? Before seeking an answer to this question, let us call to mind certain facts.

It is a commonplace that we conceive of space in terms of three dimensions. The existence of an object is determined by the space it occupies with respect to the dimensions of length, width and height, in addition to its position.

But is the universe composed of, and space constituted by, these three dimensions alone? Until Einstein’s Special and General Theories of Relativity, scientists believed that the universe consisted of three dimensions. The world-famous physicist, however, determined on the basis of mathematical calculations that there are more than three dimensions and that a fourth, fifth or higher number of dimensions would introduce different concepts of space.

According to Einstein, the fourth dimension is time. Time is not simply a matter of reading a clock, but a dimension of the same order as height, width and length. It is coextensive with the other dimensions. Our visual perception, however, can see in only three dimensions and no more. In fact, some organisms cannot even see the dimension of depth: lizards and snakes see the world in two dimensions, like a photograph or a movie cartoon.

Starting from this milestone of physics, we would have to conceive of spaces other than ours, and in addition to the physical space we observe in the universe at large. In these spaces, velocity is different, time is different, action is different; and so are translation, convergence and regression. This is why the concept of ‘worlds’ introduced by the Qur’an is an expression of such diverse spaces. The world of angelic beings, Heaven, Hell, and the world of spirits all lie in the domain of such spatial continua. Our difficulty in conceiving of them stems from the perceptual deficiencies of our three-dimensional habits.

Having noted this, let us now recall the final part of the verse: ‘He is the Lord of the Easts.

‘East’ is the expression of a direction, a dimension. This expression occurred for the first time in connection with the sun. The word ‘orientation’ or finding one’s bearings implies the Orient or East as the first or primary dimension. Although the expression Lord of the Easts and of the Wests occurs in many verses in the Qur’an, only the Easts are mentioned in this verse. This is why we are dwelling on this point at such length.

The point is that ‘the Easts’ are proclaimed as a set of directions, quite apart from the existents we refer to as the earth and sky. With this verse, God draws our attention to other directions and dimensions, indicating the existence of worlds and spaces composed of dimensions other than the physical world we are familiar with. In a sense, He says I am the Lord of the Easts in order to introduce the notion of infinite dimensions, which contemporary physics is just beginning to discover. But why only the Easts? Because in the definition of dimensions, the first dimension is the East, whereas the West is simply an extension of the Eastern dimension in the opposite direction. We can say that this verse clearly heralds the existence of thousands of spaces and worlds embedded in an infinite-dimensional matrix.

Many other meanings derive from the verse besides the meaning discussed above. I would like to mention two of these.

The meaning ‘births’ can also be derived indirectly from the plural mashariq. In this case the meaning points to a different scientific truth. The East, which is where the sun rises, also symbolizes the direction in which the earth moves around the sun. But, do we have only one East, or only one motion in the universe?

No. While the earth revolves around the sun within the solar system, the sun is also revolving around the Milky Way galaxy together with its family of planets. The Milky Way, in turn, is revolving around the central axis of the supergalaxy or local cluster of galaxies to which we belong. Thus, we may well speak of three different Easts.

This meaning, therefore, is also hidden within the statement ‘Lord of the Easts’ (rabbul-mashariq). The very fact that magharib (Wests) does not succeed mashariq (Easts) in this verse is a confirmation of this. We shall see while interpreting future verses that there are many statements in the Qur’an pointing to the rotation of the earth. For this reason ‘East’ in reference to the earth’s revolution is in the plural, indicating that these rotations occur at many levels.

If we take the verse from the standpoint of a direction on earth, the concept of the East differs for each location on the globe. The east of Turkey is in the east with respect to its western regions, while our east is actually west from the standpoint of Iran, which lies even further east. Therefore, the East concept is different at every point on earth, and these concepts form an ensemble of Easts. This concept geometrically defines the surface of a sphere.

Let us now reread the verse in order to discover another significant scientific observation: He is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and all that lies between them; He is the Lord of the Easts (Saffat, 37.5).

The heavens, as we also see from other Qur’anic verses, are very diverse spheres. So what does the expression ‘between the heavens and the earth’ mean? It is known that meteors, stars, even angels and various unknown beings, can be encountered at various levels of the sky. What are ‘those between earth and the sky’? As far as we can tell, they are invisible rays which form the basic building blocks of matter and energy. These rays, earlier lumped together under the generic term ‘cosmic rays’, are differentiated in modern physics within the broad categories of nucleons, haryons, leptons and fermions. These are the subatomic constituents of matter and energy.

With the expression ‘He is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and all that lies between them’ God explains that all these energetic particles and rays constitute a vast physical order subject to God’s attribute of Lordship. Modern physics has viewed these incomprehensible energy dissipations and rays with unease, almost seeing them as dangers threatening the destruction of the universe. The Qur’anic verse reveals that, on the contrary, they form a gigantic physical balance under the superintendence of God.