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.

Given the emphasis by the Qur’an on logical reasoning, it is understood that its audience (all of mankind) is expected to have a basic understanding of logical principles. It is our purpose in this article to go over a few basic principles of logic and give examples of how they are used in the Qur’an.

Logical principle 1: Proof by contradiction. An important aspect of logic concerns methods of proving or disproving statements. This is one of the basic principles of proving statements, and it is commonly used to prove mathematical statements. To show that a statement is true using this principle, suppose its negation is true, that is, that the statement itself is false. If you can then obtain a contradiction, something that is clearly false, this shows that the original statement is true. We shall illustrate this principle with an example. The reason we choose this example is that it is a classical result in mathematics, and the argument is beautiful. According to Hardy, this is an example of a first-class theorem about a significant mathematical fact (“a real mathematical theorem”) that is accessible to a general, educated audience (Hardy, 1967). There is a fundamental theorem in number theory which says that “there are infinitely many prime numbers.”1 There are many other proofs of this theorem but the most elementary and elegant proof is given by Euclid and it is by contradiction. Hardy claims that “both the statement and the proof can be mastered in an hour by an intelligent reader, however slender his mathematical equipment” (Hardy, 1967). Here is that proof: Suppose there is only a finite number of primes. Call them p1 , p2 , … pn. Now, consider the number N = p1 , p2 , … pn +1. Clearly, N is not equal to any of the primes in the list. Therefore, N itself is not a prime, and hence N must be divisible by one of the primes p1 , p2 , … pn (this is by “the fundamental theorem of arithmetic” which states that every integer greater than 1 can be written as a product of prime numbers). However, that is not the case: when N is divided by each one of pi there is a remainder of 1. This is a contradiction, and it arises from the assumption that there are only finitely many primes. Hence, the assumption cannot be true, and we conclude that there are infinitely many primes.

Proof by contradiction, or reductio ad absurdum in Latin, is one of the mathematician’s finest tools. There are many examples of theorems in mathematics where the simplest proof is by reductio ad absurdum. Another classical example is to show that √ is not a rational number (Hardy, 1967).

Now, we would like to give examples from the Qur’an where this logical principle is used. Consider the verse: “Had there been in the heavens and the earth any deities other than God, both would certainly fallen into ruin” (Anbiya 21:22). Here the argument is: suppose there were gods other than God. Then the earth and the heaven could not maintain their order (because the powers and wills of different gods would interfere with each other). Since this is clearly not the case (because we see perfect order in the universe), this contradicts the logical consequence of the initial assumption. Therefore, the initial assumption (i.e., there are more than one god) is wrong.

For another example, let us consider the verse: “Do they not contemplate the Qur’an? Had it been from any other than God, they would surely have found in it much inconsistency” (Nisa 4:82). Here the statement to be proven is “The Qur’an is the word of God, and it is from God.” To prove this statement by reductio ad absurdum, suppose for a moment the opposite statement is true, that is, that the Qur’an is not from God. A logical consequence of this assumption would be it is the word of a human being, but then there would be inconsistencies in it because the Qur’an talks about such great matters that if a human being had written it he would have made mistakes and inconsistent statements (for more on this point see Unal, 2007, page 228, and Nursi). However, we see no such statements in the Qur’an, thus contradicting the initial assumption. Therefore the Qur’an is the word of God.

The final example we would like to give related to this principle is expressed in the verse: “If you are in doubt about the Divine authorship of what We have sent down our servant (Muhammad) then produce just a sura (chapter) like it and call for help to all your supporters” (Baqara 2:23). Here the statement to be proven is the same as the one in the previous example. The argument goes like this: If it was possible for anybody other than God to produce the Qur’an, you should be able to make something like it with all of your supporters, if not an entire book, just a chapter of it. The Qur’an presents disbelievers with a challenge. However, they have not been able to meet the challenge. They chose to fight with the sword because fighting with words was not possible. Therefore the assumption that “the Qur’an could have been written by a human” is wrong.

Logical principle 2: The next principle we would like to discuss is the equivalence of an implication to its contrapositive. A statement of the form “If P, then Q” is called an implication. In such an implication P is called the premise, or the hypothesis and Q is called the conclusion. Such a statement asserts that whenever P is true (or satisfied) then Q is guaranteed to be true. However, if/when P is not true, it does not say anything about the truth value of Q. An example of an implication from daily life is: “If it is rainy, then it is cloudy.” Here the premise is “it is rainy” and the conclusion is “it is cloudy.” Another example would be: “If you are in New York City, then you are in the US.” A mathematical example is: “if a number n is divisible by 6, then it is even.” An implication can also be read as “P implies Q,” or written “P => Q.” The contrapositive of an implication “if P then Q” is “if not Q then not P.” For example, the contrapositive of the first implication above is “if it is not cloudy then it is not rainy,” of the second one, “if you are not in the US, then you are not in NY city,” and of the third one, “if n is odd (not even) then n is not divisible by 6.”

Here are two examples from the Qur’an where we can apply this principle. The first one is the verse we discussed above: “If you are in doubt about the Divine authorship of what We have sent down our servant (Muhammad) then produce just a sura like it and call for help to all your supporters.” We can rephrase this statement as “if the Qur’an is not the word of God, then humans can produce a like of it,” and its contrapositive is “if humans cannot produce something similar to the Qur’an, then it is the word of God.” Remember that these two statements are logically equivalent. Now, we know that humans cannot produce anything comparable to the Qur’an despite much effort and motivation, therefore it follows that it is the word of God.

The second example we want to consider is the verse: “Say (to them, O Messenger) if you indeed love God, then follow me, so that God will love you and forgive your sins” (Al Imran 3:31). The contrapositive of this statement can be stated as (slightly simplified) “if you are not following his messenger, then you really do not love God.” So, we obtain a clear measure of whether one really loves God or not. Following the Prophet is a necessary condition to attain the love of God.

Logical principle 3: The final principle we discuss is false implies anything. This is actually a special case of an implication of the form “P implies Q.” Recall that such a statement asserts that whenever P is true, Q is also true, so P promises Q. However, if P is not true then it does not claim anything about Q; it may or may not be true. For example, if it is not rainy then it may or may not be cloudy. An implication is false when P is true yet Q is false. Intuitively, we can think of this as breaking a promise. The question arises as to what the truth value of an implication should be when the premise P is false. It is accepted that the implication will be true in this case, because when the premise is false, the conclusion is totally irrelevant. This is called “false implies anything.” One can make any conclusion whatsoever based on a false premise, but it really does not mean anything. For example, the statements “if 2+2=5, then there are only finitely many primes,” and “if the world is flat, then there are no wars in the world” are both true statements. These statements are true but they really do not have any substance. They are true by a convention in logic. The important point one needs to pay attention to is this: Once you believe a premise that is not true, it is possible to make any conclusion you want and the whole argument looks right. However, such an argument is quite meaningless. So one needs to examine very carefully what is being assumed in a logical argument.

One example we want to consider from the Qur’an related to this principle is the verse: “Those who deny Our Revelations and turn arrogantly from them-for them, the gates of Heaven will not be opened and they will not enter Paradise unless a camel can pass through the eye of a needle” (A’raf 7:40). With a little simplification, we can rephrase this verse as “if a camel passes through the eye of a needle, then disbelievers will enter Paradise.” Since the premise is false (obviously, a camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle), this implication is true. However, this is not good news for disbelievers because the truth of this implication has nothing to do with the truth of its conclusion. This again shows the point: One needs to examine logical arguments carefully. What looks true or convincing formally and on the surface may not mean anything in reality if it is based on a false premise.

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

Notes

1. A positive integer n that is greater than 1 is called a prime if its only positive divisors are 1 and n. 1 is not considered to be a prime. Thus the sequence of prime numbers is 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29…

References

• Hardy, G. H. A Mathematician’s Apology, Cambridge University Press, 1967.
• Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said. The Words (translation), The Twenty-Fifth Word, Available online at http://en.nurglobal.net/modules/mastop_publish/?tac=The_Twenty-Fifth_Word
• Unal, Ali. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, The Light Inc., 2007.

Alexander Graham Bell, the famous inventor and scientist, mentioned three rules designed to keep people mentally young, alert, and strong. These are: observe, remember, and compare. Following these easy rules shows us how to build our perceptions, sharpen our intellect, and discover new ways of thinking. The first step is to observe concrete facts that can be found all around us, the second step is to remember the observed facts, and the third step is to compare them and formulate conclusions. As Bell said: “These conclusions are real knowledge, and they are your own.”

These three simple rules always keep our brains busy and alert, lead us to think and become aware of the facts around us, and help us make connections between these facts that will take us to real knowledge. Human beings are the only creatures who can think and who are always trying to acquire more knowledge. Dr. Kopil states that only man makes his own history by using his free will in conjunction with his knowledge. In humanity’s attempt to deal with the difficulties of the surrounding world, many men and women have used their minds and their search for more knowledge to make many inventions and discoveries. Today, men and women still struggle to give shape to the world by pursuing knowledge. In the words of Dr. Bell, who changed the faith of the world with his works and inventions: “The great advantage in pursuing knowledge is that we may capture something that will contribute to the welfare of the world.” The essential point is to use the power of the mind to bring safety and happiness to this world. Dr. Mahmud states that this is possible only by mental and spiritual purification. When the power of knowledge is used for other purposes, it often leads to dangerous and embarrassing results.

Dr. Bell gives us detective stories as an example, and asks us: “What is a detective story, if it is not a record of observing, remembering, and comparing facts and of then drawing conclusions?” Let’s put ourselves in place of detectives. Our first and most important goal is to be aware of the facts around us, to pursue that knowledge which will lead us to the best solution. We need to remember each clue we collect, and to make sure that we do not miss a single detail. At the end, we will find ourselves trying to draw the correct conclusion by comparing all of the knowledge that we have gathered. It is easy to reach conclusions from established facts. But what is important for us is to reach our own conclusions by thinking, asking, evaluating, and keeping our minds busy and alert-just like detectives. I think this gives us more satisfaction and pleasure than having answers just given to us free-of-charge.

It is also necessary to emphasize the mental education of very young children. Dr. Caprio states that knowledge is not objective and does not have an absolute structure. What we know and understand is only our perceptions of reality. The essential thing is not to tell children things directly, for this might kill the child’s imagination, creativeness, and, most important of all, the mind’s power to think. Instead, encourage them to discover things for themselves. Asking them questions is alright, but also encourage them to find the answers themselves. Dr. Wood claimed that knowledge is the product of active construction, which we make and share with others. According to Dr. Bell, if children arrive at the wrong answer, do not give them the right answer and do not tell them that they are mistaken or wrong; rather, ask other questions to help them realize their own mistake and push their inquiry further.

Dr. Bell gives us several examples: “Suppose you wanted to teach a child about moisture and condensation. You should state to him that there are minute particles of water vapor in the air exhaled from the lungs, and that this water vapor will be condensed under certain conditions.”

In the first example, you did not allow your child to discover the fact and to reach his or her own conclusion, whether it is right or wrong. However, you gave the general conclusion or an established fact and asked the child to memorize it. You did not encourage your child to think, understand the facts, and reach his or her own conclusions. You gave the child the answer without requiring any effort on his or her part.

“Now suppose you tell him nothing, but simply ask him to breathe into a glass tumbler. He sees the moisture on the glass. Ask him where it came from. Have him breathe against the outside of the tumbler. Have him try the experiment with a glass that is hot and with one that is ice-cold. Have him try it with other surfaces. Do not do his thinking for him. Make him observe what takes place, stimulating him to remember the different results he observes and, by comparing them, to arrive at conclusions.”

The second example shows us that parents should be guides for their children. Be patient and let them make the observation. Let them do their own thinking, which will enable them to reach their own conclusion.

It is a well-known fact that we use only a fraction of our brain’s potential power. Moreover, we are not sure how far our minds can go. However, what we know for sure is that we can stretch our mind’s capacity and increase our brain’s potential power. I will end my article with Dr. Bell’s words: “Self education is a lifelong affair. It comes, naturally and inevitably, through using the mind and following this Rule of Three: Observe, Remember, Compare.”

REFERENCES

1. Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, “Alexander Graham Bell,” Association review (Washington, DC: 1899).
2. Caprio, In Steffe, L. P., and Gale, J., Constructivisni in Education ( Lawrance Erlbaum: 1995)
3. Kopil, Alexa., ” Is the Brain the Origin of Man’s Mind?” The Fountain vol. 2., no.21 (Jan-Mar.1998).
4. Mahmud M. Sadat., “Thinking Straight and the Ways to Achieve It” The Fountain vol. 2., no.24 (Oct-Dec.1998).
5. Wood, T. “From Alternative Epistemologies to Practice in Education: Rethinking What It Means to Teach and Learn.” In Steffe, L. P., and Gale, J., Constructivism in Education (Lawrence Erlbaum: 1995).