There is often mixed joy and sorrow when traveling abroad, sometimes discovered in the journeying, sometimes found at the destination. Such a mixture was mine on a recent trip with Hizmet to India, where interfaith dialogue and its wonderful fruits across the many faiths of that subcontinent were very clearly evident, but that alongside increasing communal discord and even serious and extensive street violence in the face of protests against government policies of division and exclusion. Unfortunately, such social upheavals are today not limited to India; they seem to be spreading like fires in drought-stricken forests around the world, engulfing too many developing and developed countries, alike.

Early one morning around 2am, when sleep evaded me, I deeply felt the poignancy of this turbulent travel, while my mind drifted to recollect some stories often told of St Francis of Assisi preaching not only to human beings but to birds, as well as other creatures of creation:

When he drew nigh unto Bevagna he came unto a spot wherein a great multitude of birds of divers species were gathered together. When the holy man of God perceived them, he ran with all speed unto the place and greeted them as if they shared in human understanding. They on their part all awaited him and turned toward him, those that were perched on bushes bending their heads as he drew nigh them, and looking on him in unwonted wise, while he came right among them, and diligently exhorted them all to hear the word of God, saying: “My brothers the birds, much ought ye to praise your Creator, Who hath clothed you with feathers and given you wings to fly, and hath made over unto you the pure air, and careth for you without your taking thought for yourselves.” While he was speaking unto them these and other like words, the little birds—behaving themselves in wondrous wise—began to stretch their necks, to spread their wings, to open their beaks, and to look intently on him. He, with wondrous fervour of spirit, passed in and out among them, touching them with his habit, nor did one of them move from the spot until he had made the sign of the Cross over them and given them leave; then, with the blessing of the man of God, they all flew away together. All these things were witnessed by his companions that stood awaiting him by the way. Returning unto them, the simple and holy man began to blame himself for neglect in that he had not afore then preached unto the birds. [Saint Bonaventura, The Life of Saint Francis, 12.3]

And so I wondered (dreamed?), what might the birds tell us of their lives and struggles in this newly disruptive age?

The Birds: A Parable

Once upon a time, there was a bountiful flock of birds, all with iridescent blue-green plumage and a melodic trilling song of thanks through God for their heritage as a single community: together they preened, together they sang, together they lived and thrived upon the resource-laden land God gifted to their stewardship.

As time passed, other flocks were drawn to this same rich territory, as well, all with their varied distinctive plumage—fiery yellows and reds, subdued grayish-browns, and dazzling whites—and all with their individual God-given songs of praise.

The original flock generously welcomed all these newcomers, judging that sharing was better than selfish hoarding, opening better than closing ranks, and accepting different characteristics better than demanding uniformity in attributes. Together they fashioned a unity in their very diversity, sharing the riches of the land, extolling their variegated colors in songs to their Creator, generating a harmonious chorale that exemplified the Creator’s love for all of His making, as stewards of land and of one another, together…together. Generations passed in peace, colors and songs filled the land, and unity was manifested.

But a season came when a spirit of fearful possessiveness arose among some of the descendants of the blue-green flock, who began looking askance at those whose colors and songs differed. “What place have these foreigners amongst us? Have they not intruded into our way of life, depleted our resources and now threaten our very existence? Let them depart to other lands, apart from us, with their own kind.”

Though few in actual number in the beginning, these dissident voices seeded fear and discord, which took root and grew widely where once unity had thrived. For although the ones they called “foreigners” had passed many generations upon the shared land and even now comprised only a small proportion of the overall population, hardship borne of dissimulation had come to many of the birds across all the flocks. Stewardship of the land had been overshadowed by exploitation of resources for the benefit of a greedy few, and the detriment of many. Now, a scapegoat was needed to divert attention from the real causes of increasing distress and hardship.

Arbitrary hierarchies were manufactured and enforced, purporting to be inherent and according to “purity” of color and song. Only those deemed worthy now had a proper place in society, and their numbers were strictly circumscribed by documented ancestry via sole descent from the first flock. All others were relegated to some separate, ignoble status. And now, uniformity and unison in song, rather than harmony of distinctives, became the priority: “How else could the Creator receive proper praise? So-called harmony was really just cacophony, and no God could be pleased with that!” If the song were different, it had no arena, even when the song was echoing celestial praise; if the bird’s color and song were different, the bird was no longer welcomed, it had no place.

Unity was shattered, harmony disappeared, estrangement normalized. Jealously ostracizing others became the common rule. Harsh words became the norm…violence the ready remedy…destruction, injury and death the ultimate result.

More fully awake, now, I considered, “Can the birds recover themselves? Can they listen anew to St Francis’ call together joyously to offer praise to their Creator and so be content? Or is it too late?”

Perhaps more importantly, is there more than a fanciful story, here? what might these birds tell us of today’s challenges to our societies…to our very humanity? Can we, today, respond to the call of St Francis as did the birds of the field near Bevagna, to live together in peace unto the praise our Creator, seeking only His commendation?

When President Trump recently visited India, banners were emblazoned with the slogan that the world’s oldest democracy was meeting with the world’s largest democracy. Thomas Mann, in 1947 testimony before a U.S. congressional committee, noted a depressing increase in “spiritual intolerance, political inquisitions, and declining legal security,” that typically foreshadows an ultimate breakdown in democracy itself, which can only finally usher in a breakdown in societal peace and prosperity (subsequently realized in the fever of McCarthyism in the US, and the violent partition of India). Where there is no sense of the sacred through acceptance of difference and mutuality in dialogue, there is eventually only polarization: there will be those who agree to think the same way who are called friends; while all the rest are demonized as enemies. And where there are only friends and enemies, insiders and outsiders, “us” and “them,” civil war—metaphoric at least, actual bloodletting at worst—is inevitable.

So, can India recover itself? It was once the standard bearer of secular/multi-faith democracy in the developing world—or is it too late? Can we in the US recover ourselves? We were once the standard bearer of an immigrant-filled country grounded on practicing civil discourse in the developed world—or is it too late?

May the Creator grant that we all together comprehend and affirm His path of acceptance, affirmation, and peacemaking:

The Spirit has never ceased brooding over the waters … ever creating, superintending, re-creating, all that is, according to the counsel of God’s own purposive will. Together with the angels and saints, we rejoice in faith, hope and love, as the Only Holy One continually, eternally renews the face of the heavens and the earth.
Our Only Creator
through His creation
is creating us
is sustaining us
is provisioning us
is re-creating us
unto the restoration
of all His creation.

It seems that uncertainty instead of diversity is prevailing from the eve of post-modernism, thinning the lines between world cultures and societies from day one. In search of “theory of everything,” we have almost forgotten all good and great theories and ideas about everything, leading us to skepticism and unbelief. The challenge of open skepticism tends to create more refusals than acceptance and the objective of higher education fails bitterly here, an objective that is to create a global level of understanding of the universal phenomena and to proceed with a uniform level of evolution of the intellectual mind. Instead of growing intellectual maturity and reflexivity, the symptoms of anxiety and panic and/or withdrawal are prevailing. Is this a healthy sign? Will we be able to save the sanity of the world?

In sanity lies peace and stability, and both are at stake. Now there are two choices: The first is whether the world knowledge leaders should aspire to regress back to pre-industrial revolution’s feudal monarchy based upon resignation to a single authority, where people are more entitled to powers by declaration of ownership and where there are no choices but moralized obedience to such authorities. In corporate world, Machiavellian moral has already been resounding that might is right and means may not justify the end. Such regression calls for the indoctrinated agenda of the education with priests and preachers ruling the mobs and world streets are rushing for it. The second choice or alternative is that people should embrace postindustrial Marxist-Socialist interventions, which celebrate sharing rather than ownership. The individuals sub-serve the community and in turn communities the nation; whereas, the nations must not compete in status but protect the welfare of its citizens. Whether the traditional concepts of “welfare” and “citizenship” still exist in today’s world is questionable.

Since the right of choice is still available, the nations and communities are making blind choices without thinking of the outcomes of the outcomes. What will happen to nations who will fail to attain socio-cultural and political balance in their visions? They may hear the sound of the doomsday bell ringing in their ears, thinking that they have enough time to fight till the “end.” Actually, sound travels slower than light and people are misled to believe that doomsday has yet to come, whereas, the reality has crossed that threshold much earlier and what they are witnessing is the after-math; just like a Tsunami that passes in a few minutes and only some people survive to witness its after-effects. The victims remain in shock, while those who have not experienced a Tsunami themselves hang in confusion, pondering whether their present condition is the result of the Tsunami or post-Tsunami mishandling of affairs. They may continue creating split-hair logics till doom, but their wish to reverse time remains a dream.

Similar has been the case with the “corporate” Tsunami; it came and it won – not just overpowered but overthrew everything else. We were in midst of celebrating the glory of human worth crowning individual freedom and liberalism while achieving the impossible, reaching beyond skies and galaxies through advents of natural science. We are unable to justify from where this financial meltdown came and suddenly we found ourselves struck with global recession, as if travelling on the smooth pathways of the Milky Way, we were suddenly engulfed by a black hole.

Will this mammoth spit us out alive? Is living inside a dragon “life”? Are we not inside a cave as Plato had remarked, but inside a dragon? The world outside is no more a safer place to live with nuke ideas, but living inside the dragon, the corporate culture, is wearing us out of our vitality and enthusiasm. Our weakening may weaken the dragon but do we want to die with the dragon or live with it? Those of us who believe in the afterlife, we may have the spirit to risk martyrdom or if we have the feudal courage, we may have cut the stomach line of the dragon with our bear hands, as if ploughing the fields. Kingship and martyrdom are the stories of the past. We believe in peace not war, therefore we should manage to live with the dragon. Now onwards, every tear or drop of perspiration is creating dwarfs of “relativism” and “nihilism.” The harder we work, the more we reduce in size, creating our own prototypes. Small is beautiful, but what will happen when all of us will be cut to the same size? We are shrinking together; whether or not will we grow together is questionable. I grew up listening to the stories that explained how once the earth was populated by giants and dinosaurs, and a Tsunami came and all of them became extinct.

I’ve been informed that post-modern life knows no ethical limits, understanding that values are a matter of choice, a matter of aesthetical personal taste, and suddenly I am reminded that the purpose of higher education was to develop that aesthetical taste in favor of public good. Why then should we refuse the hegemony of valued knowledge and insist on creating new knowledge of “no taste”? No wonder this “new knowledge” is impoverishing both bodies and minds rather than nurturing them. The knowledge remains stratified and complex, non-chewable and non-digestive for the common as it was engineered to fit the purpose of the “elitist corporate.” The elitism is created on the type of education one has received rather than how knowledgeable one is, where reason reigns supreme and traditional methods of acquiring knowledge are blandly rejected being accused of spreading false prophecies and hearsay.

It is not only in the field of knowledge that legitimization of factionalism and particularism has gone too far, it has also affected the social fabric of society as well. When we witness the mixing of gender and social identities, the puzzled mind asks: which gender of which race do you belong to? Elongation of the ego exposes shadows and in a consumerist world, the question is how we can cease any production. Who will dare stop them? Who has the right to exercise “choice”? Whatever come may, the post-modern world is committed to the challenge of social change and social justice, no compromise, no deal to public freedom, whether they create demons or mole hills. They are liable to create colonies and their inhabitants. Does residence and citizenship still matter?

As the Tsunami of media and information technology has been rising, social sciences have remained dumbfounded as individuals become plain victims questioning oneself in sheer pain and guilt about one’s identity: who is the citizen of which world, real or cyber? Citizenship itself is challenged employing virtual rights over social networks. With the population of cyber networks increasing at a faster rate than the population of countries and may be that of small continents, everyone is jubilant at the promise of post-modernism fulfilled – the promise of diversity. It is not setting new world order, but a new social order, defining rules of communication and relationships, where virtual existence matters more than the real one and remarkable solutions for issues related to time and space are readily available.

The citizens of a global world have never experienced such flexibility before. The gates of Eden are wide open and you do not need to carry a “good deeds license” to enter. All you need is a cyber-work-space to enter the world of ideas. Is it a dream or an “afterlife” because that too appears to be more virtual than real. Again the boundaries are thinning between the virtual and the real, between a scope of possibilities and number of its realization, all that corporate citizenship wants is huge numbers so the giants are feeding on numbers and digits. Should I worry?

While waves of uncertainty crash to a shore nearby, I embrace the warmth of diversity emanating from the Sun above. I recognize my impotence before such radiance and realize that just like the sun, there is a unity that binds humanity together.

Dr. Arif is the Head of Department Psychology, University of Central Punjab, Pakistan.

Note

[1] Heterotopia: An idealized utopia of heterogeneity, that of mixing social gender and identities by realizing the principle of diversity

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.