Our hands are vital for performing tasks throughout our daily lives and must be taken care of and cleaned regularly. They can easily spread germs, bacteria, or viruses such as Covid-19 (Coronavirus). Coronavirus has spread rapidly throughout the entire world in the past few months and health officials are very adamant that hand hygiene can help prevent further escalation of the virus. The reason is simple; viruses can spread from our hands to other objects that we touch, to which other people can touch those same objects and possibly contract the virus by putting their hands on their face. According to the World Health Organization, proper hand sanitation that uses alcohol-based rub or hot water and soap can kill Coronavirus and other viruses [1].

For some people, such as healthcare professionals, there are actually major consequences for neglecting hand hygiene. For example, the dirty hands of these professionals have a negative impact of 40% in the transport and spread of resistant microorganisms among patients. Hospital infections are actually among one of the main catalysts for increased disability and death rates in hospitals, along with additional healthcare costs [2]. In the United States, 1.7 million patients develop health-related infections every year, and 100,000 of them die. This increases the length of hospital stay by 20 times and the cost of treatment by 5 times [3].

It was not until the 19^th century that we began to understand that infectious diseases can be prevented by washing our hands. In the middle of the same century, the pioneer of antiseptic processes, known as the “savior of mothers,” Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis, showed that microorganisms could be transmitted to patients via the hands of medical staff. This discovery began a new era of hygiene and healthcare. It is now well known that microbes reproduce rapidly, and that it is possible to prevent the spread of disease by keeping the hands and body, which is possible by following personal hygiene rules.

Hand hygiene is maintained in different ways in modern medicine. In daily life, washing hands with soap and water to remove dirt is called “social hand washing.” Common examples include washing after a meal and when visiting the toilet. For this purpose, it is sufficient to rub the hands and fingers for 15 seconds with a non-antimicrobial feature soap, rinse, dry with a disposable towel, and turn off the tap with a towel. Cloth towels used by many people in public places are not considered suitable for hygiene.

The more serious and professional form of hand washing is “hygienic hand washing,” where antimicrobial soaps are used in the washing process before and after contact with patients and bodily fluids. Other hand hygiene methods during surgical operations cover applications where alcohol-based 3-5 ml hand-disinfectant is rubbed until dry along with hand disinfection and surgical hand antisepsis, which includes washing the hands, including the forearms, with chemical solutions such as soaps, isopropanol, chlorhexidine specifically produced for this purpose for 2-3 minutes, and later wearing sterile gloves until the end of any procedures.

The World Health Organization published a guide on proper hand hygienics and explained when, how often, and how healthcare providers should wash their hands [4]. Despite the development of various programs and policies, especially hand hygiene, and increasing material expenditures in the fight against infections observed in health services, the control of infections remains well below the desired level.

Today, research also looks at the effects of hand washing on individual psychology. An experiment carried out by two psychologists from the University of Michigan, Spike W.S. Lee and Norbert Schwarz, shows that hand-washing reduces this classic post-decisional dissonance effect:

In individual sessions, 40 undergraduates browsed 30 CD covers as part of an alleged consumer survey as if they were in a music store. They selected 10 CDs they would like to own and ranked them by preference. Later, the experimenter offered them a choice between their 5th and 6th ranked CDs as a token of appreciation from the sponsor. Following the choice, participants completed an ostensibly unrelated product survey that asked for evaluations of a liquid soap; half merely examined the bottle before answering, whereas others tested the soap by washing their hands. After a filler task, participants ranked the 10 CDs again, allegedly because the sponsor wanted to know what people think about the CDs after leaving the store.

For those who merely examined the soap, the preference for the chosen over the rejected alternative increased from before choice to after choice by an average of 1.9 ranks, replicating the standard dissonance effect. In contrast, for those who washed their hands, preferences were unaffected by their decision. Thus, handwashing significantly reduced the need to justify one’s choice by increasing the perceived difference between alternatives. “Washing one’s hands after making a choice eliminates post-decisional dissonance effects, suggesting that hand-washing psychologically removes traces of the past, including concerns about past decisions” [5].

In another study conducted in 2008, Schnall, et. Al. “hypothesized that physical cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. In support of this idea, they found that individuals make less severe judgments when they are primed with the concept of cleanliness and when they wash their hands after experiencing disgust” [6]. This effect of hand washing, which relieves conscience, is called the “Macbeth Effect.”

Washing hands is one of those simple but compulsory practices we tend to take for granted and lose interest in as we progress in science and education. Simple practices like using each of our hands for different purposes and frequent hand-washing will surely contribute to the fight against healthcare infections and infectious diseases that threaten public health.

There are several traditions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in which washing hands is strongly emphasized.

“The blessings of food lie in washing hands before and after eating.”

“Wash your hands after you wake up; you do not know where your hands have moved while you were sleeping.”

The Prophet advised using each hand for different tasks. It is narrated that his wife Aisha said: “The right hand of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) was for his purification and food, and his left hand was for using the restroom and anything that was dirty.”

Notes

1. “Advice for Public.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public.
2. Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Storr J, Donaldson L. Clean care is safer care: the global patient safety challenge 2005-2006. Int J Infect Dis. 2006; 10(6): 419–24.
3. Allegranzi B, Storr J, Dziekan G, Leotsakos A, Donaldson L, Pittet D. The first global patient safety challenge “Clean care is safer care”: from launch to current progress and achievements. J Hosp Infect. 2007; 65(Suppl. 2): 115–23.
4. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care, www.who.int/gpsc/5may/tools/9789241597906/en/
5. Lee SW, Schwarz N. Washing away postdecisional dissonance. Science. 2010 May 7;328(5979):709. doi: 10.1126/science.1186799.
6. Schnall S, Benton J, Harvey S. With a clean conscience: cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychol Sci. 2008 Dec;19(12):1219-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x. Also see https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-011.html in which Johnson, D. J. et. al. suggest that “researchers investigating the connections between cleanliness and morality should therefore use large sample sizes to have the necessary power to detect subtle effects.”

We all may appreciate the difference between the positive impact made by a smile of pearly-white teeth and the repulsion triggered by yellowed and blackened rotten teeth, but the health issues run much deeper: as our medical knowledge grows, we are discovering that many diseases originate from dental cavities where microbes teem and nest, causing inflammations in many organs and tissues, most notably in the heart, kidneys, and joints.

The use of herbal sticks for cleaning teeth dates back to around 3500 BC, the time of the Babylonians. In several works of Ancient Greek and Roman literature, chewable sticks to aid dental and mouth hygiene are mentioned [1]. Hippocrates (355 BC) advises rubbing a ball of cotton wrapped around a stick and dipped in honey on teeth, to maintain dental hygiene, whereas Romans used pastes obtained from gumwood [2]. Dental hygiene is coming throughout history.

Arabs utilized the miswak for many years [3]. The Japanese used wooden sticks called “koyoji” and Jews used wooden sticks called “kesam.” In the 1920s, in some rural areas across the United States, a stick of blood-twig was used for rubbing on the teeth [3]. And according to a Chinese encyclopedia published in the seventeenth century, the first-ever toothbrush was made in China, in 1498.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, warned those of his Companions who visited him with bad teeth about the need for dental hygiene (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad 1/214):

“I oft reiterated my recommendations to you about the miswak.” (Bukhari, Jum’a 8; Nasai, Taharah 5; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad 3/143; Darimi, Wudhu’ 18)

“(The Archangel) Gabriel counseled me to use the miswak so much that I thought a verse might be revealed about the miswak to decree its use as obligatory for all.” (Ibn Majah)

Obviously he assigned the utmost importance to dental hygiene. It should be noted here that the Araq tree (Salvadora persica) from which the miswaq is obtained has features that are not present in other trees, and the Prophet particularly specified using the roots of that tree as the miswak.

Research has been conducted to discover the scientific and modern medicinal effects of the miswak, which has been used by Muslims in adherence to the Prophet’s practice. In 2010, a Ph.D. study at Karolinka Institute, Sweden, provided a significant message about its effectiveness [4] (Picture 1).

The Araq tree, which is used as the miswak across a geography spanning from Africa to the far east, is a short tree or bush with a slanted trunk, and it is easy to chew its spongy roots, parts of which generally expand and soften when dipped in water (Picture 2).

The roots of the Araq tree are washed to remove the soil, and approximately 1 cm from the tip of the root stick is peeled to be used as the toothbrush. The stick is pummeled or chewed until the fibers become softer (Picture 3). Fresh and soft miswak are preferable: If the miswak is dry, it is advised to dip it in freshwater for 24 hours before use. It is better to peel frequently, so the tip is renewed. The most practical advice is to use the peeled tip until it loses its tang and fragrance, because the fragrant components indicate the beneficial effect of the miswak. According to a study, using the same tip for more than 24 hours lowers its cytotoxic ability to get rid of microbes.

The practice of using miswak in the Muslim World is widespread in Asia, Africa, and some regions in the Middle East. As many Muslims opt for miswak use to maintain a practice of the Prophet, the World Health Organization (WHO) also advises and encourages the use of miswak as an effective dental hygiene tool along with the conventional toothbrush. The miswak is easy to use and effective; it also has chemical properties that help control dental plaque. Based on the basic information we have about the miswak, we can easily say that deeper research is needed for its different components, like its fibers, essence, and essential oils.

Antibacterial effects of the miswak

The antibacterial activities of the essences obtained by crushing different roots of the miswak have been analyzed by microbiological techniques. It was discovered that the miswak essence has a very strong antibacterial effect, predominantly against Gram-negative bacteria, including mouth-cavity microbes like Porphyromonas gingivalis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans. Two additional studies conducted on five different types of bacteria i.e. Streptococcus mutans, S. faecalis, S. aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Salmonella enterica, and Candida albicans, and a type of fungus [5, 6, 7, 8] revealed that the miswak essence stops the reproduction of micro-organisms, has a lower effect on Lactobacillus acidophilus, is active against Herpes simplex virus which causes blistered lesions, and suppresses acid production.

The essential oil obtained from miswak essence includes 70% benzyl isothiocyanate, 9.4% limonene, 8.7% I-pinene and 2.55% flavonoid. As the miswak’s main antibacterial component, benzyl isothiocyanate kills bacteria by forming protrusions on their cell membranes. The volatile nature of this substance may open doors to new practices requiring antibacterial treatment. It has been proven that fresh miswak is effective at preventing the formation of dental plaque and gum inflammation, and it has also been acknowledged that it may play a potential role in preventing periodontal diseases.

The miswak essence hinders acidic (pH) conditions causing tartar and dental plaque, leads to a long-term increase of pH in the mouth, stimulates saliva flow in the parotid glands (located in front of both ears), and prevents tartar formation.

It is necessary to conduct further lab and clinical research to augment the positive results shown so far about the effects of the miswak against the inflammation of the palate and gums, as well as its antiviral and antifungal activities. Some research has additionally suggested that the miswak has antioxidant, analgesic, and anti-inflammatory effects. It is claimed that potassium chloride, salvadourea (a urea derivative), alkaloids, and oleic and linoleic acids in the miswak sap increase the viscosity of saliva, helps it to soak into hard-to-reach corners in the mouth, and contributes to overall dental hygiene. It is reported that a substance named Xylitol in the miswak essence suppresses acid production and the reproduction of mutant streptococci [9, 10].

An interesting substance in the miswak oil

Benzyl-isothiocyanates are effective molecules in the defense systems of several plants such as cabbage, watercress, and broccoli. Secreted after damage to plant tissues, benzyl isothiocyanate forms a protective antibacterial layer on the damaged part of the plant. While dental plaque and tartar are mechanically removed by rubbing the miswak on teeth, this action also helps the substance secreted from the miswak reach deeper parts of the oral cavity. It is especially proven that benzyl isothiocyanates are strongly effective as bactericide on Gram-negative bacteria and have minimal effect on Gram-positives.

Lab tests conducted on animals indicate that these components also have anti-carcinogenic activity, and people who get isothiocyanates by nutrition have a lower risk of cancer. It is fascinating that the miswak, too, has the same substance.

While introducing a new set of ethical principles, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, revoked some customs and habits inherent to the pagan culture before Islam (Age of Ignorance) and kept others. Using miswak was a practice among the Arabs in the region; the Prophet encouraged its use and emphasized its benefits. Eventually, Muslims have adopted it as not only a habitual practice, but also as a healthy spiritual activity and are keeping the memory of the Prophet alive.

References

1. Wu, C.D., Darout, I.A. and Skaug, N. (2001): Chewing sticks: timeless natural toothbrushes for oral cleansing. Journal of Periodontal Research 36, 275-84.
2. Hyson, J.M., Jr. (2003): History of the toothbrush. Journal of the History of Dentistry 51, 73-80.
3. Bos, G. (1993): The Miswak, an aspect of dental care in Islam. Medical History, 37, 68-79.
4. Sofrata, A. H. (2010): Salvadora persica (Miswak). An effective way of killing oral pathogens. Thesis for doctoral degree (Ph.D.). From the Division of Periodontology, Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
5. Al-Lafi, T. and Ababneh, H. (1995): The effect of the extract of the Miswak (chewing sticks) used in Jordan and the Middle East on oral bacteria. International Dental Journal, 45, 218-222.
6. Almas, K., Al-Bagieh, N. And Akpata, E. (1997): In vitro antimicrobial effect of extracts of freshly cut and 1-month-old miswak (chewing sticks). Biomedical Letters, 56, 145-149.
7. Almas, K. (1999): The antimicrobial effects of extracts of Azadirachta indica (Neem) and Salvadore persica (Arak) chewing sticks. Indian Journal of Dental Research, 10, 23-26.
8. Almas, K. (2001): The antimicrobial effects of seven different types of Asian chewing sticks. Odontostomatolgie Tropicale, 24, 17-20.
9. Kakuta, H., Iwami, Y., Mayanagi, H. and Takahashi, N. (2003): Xylitol inhibition of acid production and growth of mutans Streptococci in the presence of various dietary sugars under strictly anaerobic conditions. Caries Research, 37, 404-409.
10. Miyasawa, H., Iwami, Y., Mayanagi, H. and Takahashi, N. (2003): Xylitol inhibition of anaerobic acid production by Streptococcus mutans at various pH levels. Oral Microbiology and Immunology, 18, 215-219.

With this realization, skepticism has the potential to become an inconvenience and, at its most extreme, a debilitating disorder of mammoth proportions. An example of the inconvenience of skepticism might look like this: Imagine you are looking to buy a new car from a car dealer you are unfamiliar with. The cars he sells all look to be in great condition, and the man himself seems honest enough. However, because of your skeptical nature you are not entirely sure about the quality of these cars and you ultimately decide not to buy one. Because of this, you end up missing an opportunity to own a great new car at an affordable price due to unwarranted suspicion, stemming from an overly skeptical worldview.

What does it mean to be “overly” skeptical? There are times when skepticism is warranted and even necessary. If you were to notice some odd or shifty behavior from the car salesman, for example, you would be prudent and wise to take a second to doubt the quality of the vehicles he is selling. However, problems arise when you are skeptical in the absence of any evidence to suggest that what you perceive is not in reality what one thinks it is. Is there a remedy for the soul who is afflicted with constant doubt about the world and the intentions of those in it? Is there a cure for the mind that is never satisfied with its ignorance, and wishes to know the truth and reality behind all events in the universe?

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, a twentieth-century Islamic scholar, answers in the Risale-i Nur with an affirmative “yes,” and says that having an idea of God in one’s life is sufficient to address the concerns of skepticism.

Born in 1877, in an Anatolian village in the city of Bitlis, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi lived through one of the most tumultuous periods in Turkish history, witnessing the end of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of the secular Turkish republic under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Nursi’s own life was equally tumultuous. Under the young republic’s Kemalist ideology, Nursi was routinely held by police, unjustly tried in court, and forced to live in states of exile. Despite these hardships, Nursi never deviated from his message of faith and peace, and managed to compile his incredibly influential Risale-i Nur collection.

What does Bediuzzaman Said Nursi have to say about skepticism? We should first look at Nursi’s attitude towards modern science. Said Nursi emphasized contemporary scientific achievements, and used religious and scientific terminologies together. This indicates that he supported and accepted the positive and metaphysical sciences. One of his fundamental ideas was how religious and modern scientific knowledge should complement and support each other, rather than come into conflict. In the following quote, we’ll see the importance he places on both sciences, and how skepticism is a result of a lack of the religious sciences:

“The light of the conscience is the religious sciences (ulum-u diniye). The light of the mind is the modern sciences (funun-u medeniye). Combining both manifests the truth. The student’s skills develop further with these two (sciences). When they are separated, the former breeds superstition and the latter breeds corruption and skepticism” (from Munazarat, in ibid., 2:1956).

To further the study, we will examine what Said Nursi says about the relationship between man and God. Nursi writes that belief, knowledge, and worship of God are the ultimate purpose of existence, and that these are our innate and original duties. Therefore, belief in God is the highest aim of creation. According to Nursi, because of these facts, which complement each other, human beings can only find true happiness and serenity through belief. This idea of finding inner peace through belief in God is a very important component of the Risale, and although Said Nursi does not speak to skepticism directly, this idea can address skeptical concerns about knowledge and the world. More specifically, it is when a person puts their full trust in God that he or she can stop worrying about their burdens in this world.

Said Nursi writes about putting one’s trust in God in the part of the Risale-i Nur known as The Words. He explains this concept in the Twenty-third Word, in the Third Point. Nursi writes that belief in God is both light and power, in that those who have true belief can be relieved from the pressure of events. Since they entrust their burdens to God’s Absolute Power, they travel through the world without fear and misery. Nursi writes that belief consists of affirming Divine Unity, which requires submitting to God. Submitting fully to God requires relying on Him, which will yield happiness in this world.

Nursi cautions that relying on God in this manner does not mean that one should ignore the relationship between cause and effect, but rather one should view cause and effect as veils covering Divine Power’s hand. For example, in order to earn a high score on a final exam for school, we shouldn’t only sit back and pray to God, but we should also study for the exam. He writes that observing the laws of cause and effect is actually a type of worship through seeking to comply with Divine Will. However, this kind of desire and seeking of results is not enough for us to get what we want. According to Nursi, we should understand that, with the right belief, the result we want can only be expected from God, because He is the sole producer of effects.

Said Nursi further explains this concept by use of an allegorical argument. The parable goes as follows: once, two people boarded a ship, each carrying heavy loads on their backs. One man immediately put his burden on the deck of the ship after boarding and sat on it to keep it safe. The other man refused to lay down his cargo, even after being told to do so. He feared that it might get lost, and felt that he was strong enough to carry it himself. His friend told him that the ship was stronger and could hold it better, and also that by holding onto his burden, his strength would eventually fail him. Additionally, if the captain of the ship would see him, he might think he was ungrateful or insane to be carrying that burden by himself. And so he was convinced to lay down his burden and he found relief at last. Said Nursi writes that putting trust in God delivers one from being fearful of things in life, similar to how the men in the boat put down their burdens and stopped worrying about them.

What does any of this have to do with skepticism? Let us recall the problems associated with living a life of skepticism. When a person has an unhealthy amount of skepticism, he or she can no longer be sure about things that should otherwise not concern them. This type of skepticism is like a kind of paranoia, a type of phobia. We saw earlier that Said Nursi views this sort of skepticism as a result of a lack of the religious sciences. By extension, this means that a lack of trust in a Benevolent and Wise God can be responsible for this skepticism. Completely trusting in God first requires one to believe that God has Absolute Power over cause and effect. If one believes that God controls cause and effect completely, and if one believes that everything God wills is for the best purpose and wisest reason, then one has no reason to worry about the things one cannot know for certain, because those matters are entrusted to God’s control.

Said Nursi also writes in the Twenty-Fifth Word, Second Station, about evil thoughts and involuntary suggestions that may come to people. He first quotes a verse from the Qur’an:

“O Lord, I take refuge in You from the evil suggestions of the satans, and I take refuge in You, O my Lord, lest they attend me” (23:97-98).

Nursi has this to say about involuntary evil thoughts: the person who is afflicted with these thoughts and fancies is in an unfortunate state. The more one thinks about them, the more they grow. If one ignores them, they will shrink away; but if one exaggerates them, they will loom large in one’s life. If one fears them, they will make one sick; but if one does not fear them, they will become hidden.

This approach is relevant with regards to skeptical worries. One can observe that the only people who tend to worry about whether we can ever have knowledge with 100 certainty are philosophers. Most people are free of this type of worry. Most people, for example, wouldn’t think to question whether they are awake or asleep at this moment in time. If we see a tomato, we shouldn’t worry about the fact that we cannot see every aspect of the tomato at once; this shouldn’t lead us to question whether what we see is in fact a tomato. Nursi’s advice to philosophers is that we should stop worrying about the 0.01 of knowledge we can never obtain, and instead put our full trust in God, Who has Absolute Knowledge, Wisdom, and control over the world. If God wills it, the tomato will turn out to be a tomato, and if not, it is not the end of the world. Nursi would probably also say not to worry about whether the car salesman is trying to rip you off. If it so happens that you bought a lemon, you should remember that God willed it to happen for a reason you may not yet understand.

On a final note, I can share a related story. About a year ago, I was playing paintball with some friends. We were at a park in the woods. The field was very large, and I went into a thick patch of brush and was quickly lost. After stumbling around for a bit, I emerged in a wide open area, and right in front of me I saw a strange sight: I had somehow ended up behind what I thought was the enemy team. I slowly crept forward, waiting until I was in a prime position to attack. I finally stopped, but I hesitated. And in that moment of hesitation I heard the whistle blow to end the match. I was dismayed at such a wasted opportunity. However, as I sulked back to my team, I soon realized that I had come perilously close to making a massive fool of myself. It turns out that I had bumbled onto an entirely different match with different teams. How differently I viewed the situation after just a few moments! In place of despair, I felt a huge wave of relief wash over me.

While it’s true that if I had taken the time to question my surroundings I might not have almost made myself look silly, in this case I would say there was a good reason for skepticism, which was the fact that I had gotten lost. If we have no reason to be skeptical about something we shouldn’t try to create reasons to be skeptical. This was the moment in my life where I clearly saw with my own eyes that sometimes things can happen that we may be upset about and appear to be bad for us, but in the long run they may actually turn out to be good. Because of this we should not worry too much about the outcomes of things out of our control, because they are all ultimately in God’s control.

Every thirty minutes, a person dies in an alcohol related car accident. Alcohol is the most common addictive substance used in the US, according to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (1). Alcoholism continues to create great burdens in societies throughout the world due to its cost or the consequences brought to families suffering from its abuse. It has a toll on people of every race, gender, age, and ethnicity. Social and moderate drinkers justify their habit by stating that a few drinks would even be good for health, yet they do not realize that their habit could lead to a destructive future addiction. In a world where alcohol is viewed as a necessity for social gatherings and environments, it is easy to overlook the risks associated with its consumption.

Research studies have shown that alcohol drinking significantly increases the risk of developing cancers throughout the body. With at least fifteen carcinogenic compounds such as ethanol, acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, aflatoxins, (2), alcohol can have a direct carcinogenic effect on gastrointestinal cancers through indirect effects by over-expression of oncogenes in cells that trigger cancer development. In addition to a carcinogen effect, it also has a co-carcinogen effect by boosting carcinogenic properties of chemicals (3).

Upon consumption, ethanol is oxidized by bodily enzymes to form acetaldehyde, a very toxic product, during alcohol metabolism (2). High level concentrations of acetaldehyde trigger mucosal hyperproliferation when in contact with the mucosal layer of the digestive tract (4). Alcohol also causes common diseases referred directly by its name such as; alcoholic cirrhosis (alcohol is the most common causative factor of cirrhosis), alcoholic liver disease, alcoholic steatohepatitis, alcoholic cardiomyopathy, alcohol induced chronic pancreatitis, alcoholic hypoglycemia, alcoholic neuropathy, alcoholic anemia, alcoholic dementia, alcohol induced depression and seizures, etc. A beneficial effect of alcohol is that it is one of the agents which can increase the level of good cholesterol called high density lipoprotein (HDL). On the other hand it also deteriorates hypertension and leads to alcoholic cardiomyopathy with its toxicity. The question then is, “Is it safe for a person to use a toxin due to its only one beneficial effect although it is the most common factor of many diseases that are referred directly by its name?” Considering even beyond the organic effects, alcohol can also harm our relationships and cause legal problems such as driving while drunk or intoxicated.

Recently, Bagnardi et al. (5) reported a meta-analysis about alcohol drinking and cancer in a medical journal, the Annals of Oncology, showing that alcohol consumption even in small amounts increases the risk of oral cavity, pharynx, esophagus, larynx, liver, breast, and colo-rectum cancers. Most of the data derives from studies of moderate to high alcohol intake. For the first time, the researchers evaluated the association between light alcohol drinking (even 1 drink daily) and cancers by evaluating 13,814 non-unique papers identified through literature search. 222 unique papers were included in the meta-analysis, comprising ~92,000 light drinkers and 60,000 non-drinkers with cancer. Most notably, even light drinking was associated with the risk of oropharyngeal cancer, esophageal squamous cell cancer, and female breast cancer (5). These findings show that even though some findings have suggested health benefits for light alcohol consumption, risk of cancer increases with any sort of alcohol consumption.

Previously, there was some support that light consumption of alcohol – one glass for women and two glasses for men – might improve cholesterol levels, lower the risk of forming blood clots, decrease inflammation, and increase antioxidant activity. However, this mere suggestion has quickly been generalized to the overall public. Potential benefits of light drinking depends on the patients’ age, general health, lifestyle, nutrition, history of alcoholism, and many other factors. According to research evidence, any amount of alcohol consumption poses and increases the risk of alcohol linked cancer (6). Because alcohol consumption is a modifiable risk factor for cancer and many diseases, the more a person consumes alcohol products, the greater the risks are (7). These risks are also lowered by reduction in alcohol consumption; thus there is no truly “safe” level of alcohol intake (6).

Alcohol reduces the blood levels of vitamins A and E, zinc, iron and some B vitamins, including folate and thiamin, leading to vitamin deficiency, nutritional disorders, and toxicities, all of which can trigger cancer development. Alcohol suppresses the immune system and makes alcoholics more susceptible to developing cancer (8). Considering these data, drinking alcohol for older people has no potential benefits. The risk-to-benefit ratio is a little higher in younger individuals, as they have higher rates of binge drinking and acute intoxication.

The sensitive question to consider is: should individuals consciously poison themselves if they think that a toxin might have a potential beneficial effect? Can a clinician recommend a toxic drug use for its effect on nausea? For alcohol, the evidence of harmful effects is stronger than evidence of the beneficial effects (6). There are many other proven safer ways of maintaining our heart health on track, without any risk of alcohol-related hypertension, stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, congestive heart failure, cancer, dementia, violence, or accidents.

Then, why is alcohol so praised nowadays? The alcohol industry tries to maintain and endorse alcohol consumption. In some countries, alcohol production is very high and is an important element in the economy. Public health has a very powerful opponent known as the alcohol industry; Bagnardi et al. (5) have reported a meta-analysis published against the alcohol industry and their enormous power against public health.

Even light drinking practice may turn many vulnerable people into alcoholics. Alcoholism is a prodigious defect behind many physiological and psychological problems, not only in individuals but also within many families and societies. It can also result in drunk driving accidents, which claim thousands of lives in the US every year. One simply cannot become an alcoholic if they do not drink. It would be beneficial to have people re-think their stance about this real toxin to fight against alcohol abuse and dependence.

Tahan is a student at the College of Sciences, University of Iowa.

References

1) https://ncadd.org/for-the-media/alcohol-a-drug-information

2) Lacshenmeier DW, Przybylski MC, Rehm J. Comparative risk assessment of carcinogens in alcoholic beverages using the margin of exposure approach. Int J Cancer. 2012; 131(6):E995-1003.

3) Haas SL1, Ye W, Löhr JM. Alcohol consumption and digestive tract cancer. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2012;15(5):457-67.

4) Homann N, Kärkkäinen P, Koivisto T, Nosova T, Jokelainen K, Salaspuro M. Effects of acetaldehyde on cell regeneration and differentiation of the upper gastrointestinal tract mucosa. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997 Nov 19; 89(22):1692-7.

5) Bagnardi V, Rota M, Botteri E, Tramacere I, Islami F, Fedirko V, Scotti L, Jenab M, Turati F, Pasquali E, Pelucchi C, Bellocco R, Negri E, Corrao G, Rehm J, Boffetta P, La Vecchia C. Light alcohol drinking and cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2013; 24(2):301-8.

6) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237

7) Holman DM, Grossman M, Henley SJ, Peipins LA, Tison L, White MC. Opportunities for cancer prevention during midlife: highlights from a meeting of experts. Am J Prev Med. 2014; 46(3 Suppl 1):S73-80.

8) Pericleous M1, Mandair D, Caplin ME. Diet and supplements and their impact on colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2013; 4(4):409-23.

I first came across his ideas in the 70s, through a book, Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1970), by two American authors, Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroeder.

Reflecting somewhat the counterculture of the 60s and 70s, the authors were exploring psychic matters and occultism, and for that purpose they visited Soviet Russia, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia in the summer of 1968. As described in the back cover, “they reveal astonishing breakthroughs and key personalities spearheading exploration of man’s unknown powers” in laboratories from Prague to Moscow.

One place they stopped was the Pulkovo Observatory near St. Petersburg (then Leningrad), “the principal observatory of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the timekeeping Greenwich of Russia” (today The Central Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences) to meet Dr. Kozyrev. They were going there to discuss “an amazing theory of time” developed by Kozyrev, whom the authors described as “one of the Soviet Union’s most renowned astrophysicists” (p. 157).

Kozyrev does deserve this praise, as he was only 17 when he published his first scientific paper. When he graduated in physics and mathematics from the University of Leningrad, he was only twenty. And by the age of twenty-eight, he had already won distinction as an astronomer and had taught at several colleges (p. 158).

He was brimming with new ideas and life was as good as he could possibly have wished it to be. Then the ax fell. In 1936 he was arrested in the Stalinists repressions and in 1937 he began eleven crushing years in a prison camp. … When he was at last rehabilitated and could return to astronomy, Kozyrev made a series of brilliant predictions about the Moon, Venus, and Mars. Much later, Soviet space probes proved him right. (p. 158)

Like many other geniuses throughout world history, his announcements were received with skepticism in the beginning. In 1958, for instance, he announced volcanic activity on the moon, which meant that there were vast natural resources to exploit. Scientists “classified him as an eccentric hunting for gas on the moon. They knew this was not possible.” But he was proven right when Dr. Harold Urey, a U.S. Nobel Prize winner, talked with him and NASA started the enormous “Moon Blink” project. Eventually, gas emissions were found on the moon.

Kozyrev was proposing a new theory when he said, “Time is a form of energy. It is to time’s properties that we should look in order to find the source that maintains the phenomenon of life in the world.” With all credit to his other findings, this theory on time may sound completely irrelevant and without basis to scientists today; but as mentioned in the beginning, the purpose of this review is not to confirm his theory, but to open up a long forgotten gateway for researchers studying time and ether.

Although approached with suspicion today, parapsychology studies peaked in the eastern bloc in the 1960s, which was the main reason the two American authors felt the need to travel overseas and spend three years researching their 450-page book. “Parapsychology, nonexistent just a decade before, was suddenly flourishing all over the USSR,” they wrote. When the authors looked beyond Iron Curtain politics, “behind the lace curtains of everyday Russia,” they began to come across “some very unusual material about life.”

“Soviet scientists were asking publicly, ‘What is man?’ Do we have unused, undreamed of potentials? Can parapsychology melt the barriers and create the supernormal human being? These were heady questions to read in Soviet publications.”

In 1966, the authors noted, the influential journal Science and Religion put out a special issue, No. 3, on current Russian telepathy research. Outstanding Soviets, including such notables as Dr. Nikolai Semyonov, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry and Vice President of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, called for further scientific investigations of telepathy. It was in this time and context when Kozyrev’s research intensified and his speculative theory came into a form.

The authors noted that, according to some Soviet scientists (p. 159), ESP (extrasensory perception) “may involve an unknown form of energy,” which Kozyrev called “time,” in the telepathic transfer of “thought” instantly from one person to another.

“Time is the most important and most enigmatic property of nature. Time is not propagated like light waves; it appears immediately everywhere. The altered properties of a certain second of time will appear instantly everywhere at once, just as time is everywhere. Time links us all and all things in the universe,” Dr. Kozyrev told the authors in his high-ceilinged office at Pulkovo. The authors noted the following from their interview with Kozyrev:

Kozyrev’s “time” has a number of properties which he says can be studied in the scientist’s lab. He has found, for instance, that this “X” energy, or “time,” is denser near the receiver of an action and thinner near the sender. He showed us some of the instruments he has devised to chart this unusual effect. The basic equipment includes precision gyroscopes, asymmetrical pendulums, and torsion balances. The instruments, when set up in a complex arrangement, react showing a change in time density near a mechanical action (like stretching elastic) or a chemical action (like burning sugar).

This is the gist of what happens in one of the more simple experiments: a long elastic is stretched by a machine. You can think of this elastic as having two poles. The “pull” or cause end and the “stretch” or effect end. When the elastic is stretched, the registering equipment, consisting mainly of an asymmetrical pendulum made with a gyroscope, arcs toward the effect pole of the elastic. This deflection is imperceptible to the eye, but easily registered on the sensitive instruments. It is a highly important effect. It shows there has been an increase in the intensity of time, according to Dr. Kozyrev. “This has nothing to do with force fields. We shielded and calculated out any possible influence of electrostatic or any other force.” Considering Kozyrev’s rarified caliber as a scientist, he probably knows what he is talking about.

Kozyrev’s instruments also showed a thinning of time near the “cause” end of the elastic, and this was possible even when the “cause-effect” equipment was shielded by a wall one yard thick: “It reacts even through iron tubes.” Chemical cause-effect, like burning sugar, also showed the change in time density. “We postulate,” Dr. Kozyrev said, “that time is thin around the cause and dense around the effect.”

According to the authors, “what Dr. Kozyrev has found in these tests can be called PK (psychokinesis),” for the chemical events acted on the gyroscope pendulum at a distance and without the use of any known force. Dr. Kozyrev would say that “time density” brought on this startling action at a distance. PK is usually considered not as matter affecting matter from a distance, but as a mind affecting matter. The authors asked Kozyrev whether thought might have any effect on this time density. “Yes,” Dr. Kozyrev replied. “Thought definitely affects the reaction. When I purposefully think of poetry or something emotional during the test, the equipment registers more of a change than when I think of mathematical calculations. Our thoughts may change the density of time.”

“Would the density of time, then, have something to do with telepathy?” asked the authors.

“Telepathy always depends on the density of time. Time would be thin near the sender of the thought and denser around the receiver. We’ve already done tests in our lab to try to artificially change the density of time. When we can make time dense at will, we can make telepathy happen when we want it,” Dr. Kozyrev feels.

What else affects the density of time? Thunderstorms, the weather, the change of season, the activity of growing things, gravity, and density of matter have an effect on time density, which lingers longer in some substances than in others. “It remains twice as long in aluminum as in lead and five times longer in wood than in lead” (p. 162).

Another characteristic of the energy Kozyrev called “time” is that it has a flow pattern, according to his findings:

Dr. Kozyrev thought about all living organisms-animals, plants, people. Our right and left sides are not mirror images. More of the heart is on the left than the right side. Microbes produce colonies of a spiral structure. Protoplasm, the basic building block of life, is not symmetrical either. Asymmetry is a basic property of life. This can’t be a chance thing, Dr. Kozyrev thought. … Perhaps the energy of “time” flows in this pattern. If so, Dr. Kozyrev figured, he could see it and measure it in a rotating body like a gyroscope. Altering the time pattern in a rotating system should add or subtract energy.

After years of careful experiments, Dr. Kozyrev and his colleagues found that in a left-hand rotating system the time flow is positive-it adds energy. In a right-hand system the time flow is negative. … In Dr. Kozyrev’s view our world is a left-hand system and it has a positive time flow that adds energy to our universe.

Time not only has a pattern of flow, says Dr. Kozyrev, but also a rate of flow. He calls “the rate of flow” the difference between cause and effect. “As the rate of the time flow through a substance changes, weight is lost,” Dr. Kozyrev told us. “It means that ‘levitation’ is a perfectly practical possibility.” (p. 163)

Time or ether?

Time is not matter. According to Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, “time is like an aspect or a ‘ribbon’ of motion” (The Thirty-First Word, p. 591). That is, time is not possible without motion. I argue that what Kozyrev thought he discovered was not time, but perhaps had to with what is called ether, an element which is assumed by some cosmologists to be the essence of all existence, but which is also disregarded by many scientists today. Bediuzzaman is one of those scholars who referenced ether in his work. In his partial Qur’anic exegesis, The Sign of Miraculousness (Isharat al-I’jaz first published in 1914), Bediuzzaman explained the verse (Hud 11:7) as follows:

… the verse “the heavens and the earth were at first one piece, and then We parted them as separate entities”(21:30) indicates that the earth and the solar system were a sort of dough kneaded by the hand of power out of a simple substance; I mean ether, which compared with beings is a fluid substance that passes through and among them. The verse “His Supreme Throne was upon the water”(11:7) alludes to this matter, which resembles water. After its creation, the ether received the Maker’s first manifestation giving existence; that is, He created the ether, then He made it into the subatomic particles (jawâhir farda) … (Isharat al-I’jaz, pp. 254)

For Bediuzzaman, ether was something like an interface upon which all acts of God were displayed:

… being an extremely subtle, fine, obedient and subjugated page for the All-Majestic Maker’s acts, being a means for the transmission of His commands, being an extremely delicate veil for the execution of His decrees, being refined ink for His writing, being a finest raiment to clothe His acts of creation, being a fundamental component in His artifacts and a field in which to sow His seeds, ether acts as a mirror for the manifestations of the Lordship of God. (The Thirtieth Gleam, p. 477)

Bediuzzaman also referred to “ether” when he said “refined matter” in the following quote: “Such subtle and refined matters as light, electricity, and heat point to the existence of a more subtle and refined matter that fills space” (The ThirtyFirst Word, p. 589).

The observations and findings of Kozyrev, though in desperate need of endorsement by objective scientific criteria, sound, from how the American authors revealed in their interview, as if referring to this mysterious subtle matter called “ether” rather than “time.”

Conclusion

The authors of this once popular book wrote in the Prologue that they “would have to be megalomaniacs to think that scores of highly reputable scientists from centers across the Soviet Union and the satellite countries all conspired to publish data for a decade and to bluff through interviews” to impress them when they happened to meet them. The authors further noted that “whether communist observations and theories about psychic happenings are right or not, can only be determined by further investigations East and West.”

Let us conclude with the following quote from the Prologue: “As Vladimir Mutshall wrote of current Soviet telepathy research in the American Foreign Science bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 8, ‘If the Russian reports are even partly true, and if mind-to-mind thought transference can be used for such things as interplanetary communications or the guiding of interplanetary spacecraft, the reports will obviously have overwhelming significance.'”

The main reason I have extensively quoted from this book is not to confirm any of the findings, but to encourage scientists to conduct further research into the essence of matter without completely disregarding phenomena like ether.

Willpower is considered as one of the four basic elements of what we call the mechanism of conscience. As expressed by Bediuzzaman in a beautiful phrase, willpower is “one’s inclination or his or her practice in the direction of that inclination.” That is, it is a person’s resolution and performance when he or she is in a situation to prefer one of the alternatives they are presented. As a matter of fact, it is nothing more than an insignificant cause that was made a condition although it is not needed in the true sense of the word. And from this premise, it is disqualified from a connection one would seek between the cause and effect according to the principle of causality. It is no different than binding the enlightenment of all the world to a single touch on the button of an electric network, or that the destruction or construction of huge systems to be dependent on a breath of yours.

As clearly observed in the examples, there exists absoutely no association between the cause and effect. Indeed, under normal circumstances, that cause is impossible to bring about that effect. Accordingly, for Bediuzzaman the nature of willpower is relative and secondary, as other scholars of Islamic theology, kalam.

Then, how are we being tested with our willpower?

1. How does it come that such huge effects are reached by such a small entity (an inclination or a practice on that inclination)? A huge pine tree originates from a little seed and a brood comes out of an egg – or, more accurately, a tiny “organism of vitality.” All these are particular manifestations of God’s power or capability. The role our willpower has in effecting the deeds we have been performing, and the results of them – no matter how huge or grand they are – are identical to the role of the seed upon that huge tree, or of the tiny organism upon the brood. All these, in fact, are the indicators of the truth of “God is great.”

2. Whatever the essence of willpower is, we have to rely on it simply because God has built some particular affairs upon it. Indeed, God Almighty has built our future upon our willpower. That is, willpower, in a way, is like a plan or project in terms of our future. Due to this fact, it is important to maintain a balance regarding the true nature of willpower, by assigning no value to it, or by binding everything to its presence. Willpower is a relative entity. As God Almighty has built many things upon will power, we should not be deceived by looking at the smallness of willpower as opposed to the greatness of all the entities that are created and our willpower serves as an instrument to them. How we define our willpower, and thus conceptualize our future and especially our actions is a great test we sit for.

3. Using willpower within the reasonable limitations in the way God points out is also of great importance. If you do not give your willpower its full due, if you do not, or cannot use it properly, or if you do not cherish it by strengthening it – although you have been striving in the name of the values you defend, the probability of your falling into some mistakes will always be in question. To give an example, if you aim to serve your faith and in that direction you want to pour out to the streets, wage armed struggle, or get into political rivalry instead of good services, and fight with all the world, you have failed the test with your willpower. You will have failed because you do not take the template of the good example of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his Age of Happiness; you disregard the circumstances of the age, the human condition, and the effect of willpower in all this.

We should utilize our willpower in the light of rationality and not forsake it to emotional traps; in contrast, we should always seek for means to consolidate our willpower. We should, for instance, unify it with our consciousness so that our heart is employed on behalf of our willpower. Thus, the test will be passed, particularly in matters pertaining to faith, worship, and charity work, for our willpower will be guided by the illuminating lights of divine knowledge.

4. We ought to accomplish the tasks falling upon our shoulders, and in no way interfere with manifestations of God’s Lordship. Yes, this is again a matter of willpower. Indeed, the fact that we apply to perform the deeds God shall actualize, is a matter exceeding our willpower. As another matter of fact, applying for things exceeding our power and abilities may lead us to fall into despair and fail the test, as a result. Bediuzzaman quotes aides of a great king who told him, on the way to battle, “You will win the victory!” The faithful king replied: “I am responsible for fighting against the enemy. To make me win or lose is God’s duty.” Actually, I do not know so well whether calling this a “duty” is right or not. But with Ustad top amongst them, many scholars of kalam have employed this term for God. But still, I prefer to use “manifestations of God’s Lordship.”

At that moment, such a question may come to your minds: “Are we not going to pass this test with our willpower again?” Yes, that is correct. Because of this, willpower should be ceaselessly strengthened. Prayer and appealing for pardon are two factors of vital importance. According to Bediuzzaman, “Asking forgiveness cuts off the root of one’s inclination to evil; prayer enhances one’s inclination to goodness.” Man essentially has been beset by an array of thoughts and by corporeal lust – such as eating, drinking, sleeping, getting up, and all other feelings. Humans are so surrounded by lust, that even just a single step could plunge a person into incredible depths of sin. In fact, to interpret the lust stated in the hadith merely as the attraction one feels for the opposite gender, as some people do, is not true. Here, lust bears a much more general and universal reference. In accordance with such a general and universal comment, gambling, drinking alcohol, and adultery are considered as varying dimensions of lust. If one is trapped by one of these variances of lust, he or she shall probably be hunted by his or her carnal soul, and one day he or she may totally become a slave to it. You see, begging for pardon against all of these shall become a spell cutting off any kind of evil and inclination towards evil.

To clarify a little bit further, we could say that the particular apology that shall cut off the inclination to evil requires a deep repentance for the sins of the past, preservation of the present legitimate path, a particular determined attitude towards the probable sins of the future, and resolution in that determination … Plus, one has to stress this resolution all the time; in other words, one ought to feel and sense his or her orientation towards God in his or her conscience to the fullest degree.

As of the prayer enhancing one’s inclination towards goodness, we may point out some verses from the Qur’an, like: “Your Lord has said: ‘Pray to Me, (and) I will answer you'” (40:60); “And when (O Messenger) My servants ask you about Me, then surely I am near: I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he prays to Me” (2:186).

In other words, God Almighty might mean something like, “my servants shall in no way fall in despair, as I am closer to them than their own carotid is; if they are not able to practice actual prayer, they may do it verbally; if they are still unable, they shall gravitate their hearts to Me; that is, if they are not satisfied with their verbal utterances, they may sail themselves away to the vastness of their consciences and recite something like, ‘O my beloved Lord! I have asked for Your help on that issue with 30–40 sentences. In fact, I am sure that I have not asked for so many things that must actually be asked from You, and that surely Prophets, the Purified souls, saints, the close and the distinguished ones have asked from You. I may have not known them, comprehended them, and asked for them. Now, I am taking all those holy wishes and prayers into consideration, and getting oriented towards You, with all my soul, one more time, touching the handle of Your Door of Mercy, and moaning.'”

Yes, we should keep our zeal as vast as possible, and should not go the door of our Lord as if going to someone lacking wealth or power. In contrast, we should go in with an air that we apply to the Owner of Infinite Wealth whose treasure would not be lessened even though He bestowed us a Paradise every day. Besides, as stated in a verse, “my Lord would not care for you were it not for your prayer” (25:77), one of the significant aspects of man is his or her orientation towards God by means of prayer.

Other practices of worship may not be as sincere as a sincere prayer or invocation, since they are open to hidden or apparent showing-off. And still some others may be practiced in a kind of compulsion within the frame of ostensible causes. A sincere prayer, indeed, is like a weapon man falls back on when all the causes in the physical world are exhausted. Causes are never appealed along prayers. In a way, it is closed to hidden or apparent kinds of showing-off. Thanks to prayer, man gets oriented to his or her beloved Lord in a particular place where no one else is present, opens his or her hands, lays him or herself flat for prostration, and keeps begging, and washing his or her prayer rug with tears. You see, it is this prayer said on this line that shall enhance the inclination to goodness; that is, that shall empower one’s will power in terms of doing good. In fact, God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon Him, begged forgiveness 70 or 100 times a day, according to varying reports. In all the phases of His blessed life, in different times and places, from the moment a rooster crowed to the time of putting on something new, He always prayed for each occasion.

Let us close with a poem by Yunus Emre:

So incapable has the cruel carnal soul made me,
It is unable to be saturated with joys of that world.
Its eyes are blinded by the shirt of unawareness,
It does not notice life is passing away.
O my Lord, how do you call those wearing the shirt of unawareness,
Do you indeed call those yielding to carnal soul as “believers”?
Those keeping earning but spending in vain
Unable to donate even a penny for God’s sake.
O my Lord, alert my eyes from unawareness,
so that I shall not be ashamed in your Divine Dwelling.
Yunus says, do listen to me and do what I say:
Those loving the world cannot find the Hereafter. 

Science is the systematic study of the behavior of certain phenomena (that is, regularities, uniformities) in the physical universe. Scientific study is based on observation, experimentation, measurement, and the formulation of universal laws that describe these facts and phenomena in general terms and enable prediction.

The process of describing regularities (i.e. things that happen in a particular way) is incomplete and never exhaustive because regularities are not exact and deterministic. There is actually quite a lot of approximation and simplification involved in this process. If an exact equation is desired, then these scientific laws, which are useful for prediction, must be formulated in mathematical terms; this represents the whole business of science.

The huge popularity of science is due to its practical results, such as the previous technological examples stated previously. Science is about studying regularities in the material world and describing those regularities in order to make predictions and to make possible the technology that we use daily possible.

It is important to stress that describing and making use of science is not about explaining, but rather using it to make sense of something; here, description is not to be confused with explanation. Therefore, science is about describing, not explaining. The moment a scientist talks about the meaning behind a law or regularity in nature and our ability to benefit from it, he is no longer talking science and he is venturing into the realm of metaphysics and the philosophy of science. Just because someone is a great scientist, it does not mean that he has a deeper insight into the meaning of the laws of the physical world and universe.

What science seeks to explain

Science does not answer questions of meaning or questions of agency (like, who is doing what for what reason? What is responsible for a given regularity?) and we cannot criticize science for not dealing with these questions. They may be important questions but it’s not the responsibility of the field of science to answer these questions. For example, consider the Law of Gravity. We drop a pen and it falls. Why did it fall? Because of gravity.

We observe that, without exception, the pen always falls when we lift it and drop it. Then we call the conjunction between performing an action and its regularity the law of gravity. This means that the law of gravity is simply the name we have given to this regularity; however, it does not mean that the pen is falling because of gravity. Gravity is the name given to the process, not an explanation for it, but in our minds both the name and the explanation for the phenomenon have become one and the same.

The question arises: Is it logically justified to explain an experience through a causal law that is derived through the same experience?

In the beginning, when scientists started asking these questions, it was unclear what the difference was between description and explanation. For a long time science was thought to be a venture competing with religion in providing answers for life.

Regarding natural laws, 19th century American philosopher Charles Peirce stresses on the point that natural laws serve as a description of natural events, not as explanations of these very events: “no law of nature makes a stone fall, or a Leyden jar to discharge, or a steam engine to work.”¹

A law of nature left to its self would be quite analogous to a court without a sheriff. A court in that predicament might probably be able to induce some citizen to act as sheriff; but until it had so provided itself with an officer who, unlike itself, could not discourse authoritatively but who could put forth the strong arm, its law might be the perfection of human reason but would remain mere fireworks. Just so, let a law of nature – say the law of gravitation – remain a mere uniformity – a mere formula establishing a relation between terms – and what in the world would induce a stone, which is not a term nor a concept but just a plain thing, to act in conformity to that uniformity?²

The law of gravity is just a formula, just a name. It cannot make a stone act in accordance to it.

It is important to note that the notion of law is closely related to issues of agency and also to the affinity of the human mind to perceive natural phenomena and the possibility of finding patterns in nature beyond science (i.e. how is it that we are so in tune to what is happening in the world that we can pick up all these regularities?). These issues announce the “greatness” of science. When it comes to the affinity of the human mind to realize recurrent patterns in the universe, Peirce says:

. . . the mind of man is strongly adapted to the comprehension of the world; at least, so far as this goes, that certain conceptions, highly important for such a comprehension, naturally arise in the mind; and, without such a tendency, the mind could never have had any development at all.³

Therefore, there would be no science if one could not grasp the regularities.

In our scientific inquiry, it is reasonable for us to be searching out these regularities and hoping that they will remain stable, but we cannot assume that we have explained how or why such regularities or laws are in effect. It may also be reasonable to say that there are regularities and we hope that these regularities and so-called universal laws will come into effect in the future so that technology can be made from predictions. There can only be hope, and not certainty, because science is based on observation and there may be some instances where the same observation may not occur.Even though science is based on exactitude, there is still a measure of hope and faith involved.

A scientific law states a repeated observation about nature. How do we come to the conclusion that we have a scientific law? Several events occur, (not just to the researcher) that hold to certain regularities, according to a certain pattern, and a generalized statement is formed. The process of generalization from a limited number of observations to form a universal statement or law is called the process of induction, or looking at a certain number of events and saying that things are going to happen all the time. The assumption under the process of induction is that the more observations made about a particular phenomenon, the more it will reinforce the law.

There is only one way for such an assumption to be true, and it has nothing to do with the number of observations. We assume a relationship or connection between the object and what occurs, the cause and effect. The assumption is that there is a necessary connection between the cause and the effect. One must be able to explain this connection in a logical way, not as something that depends solely on observation but something that necessitates the event. If this is unable to be done, if it is only based on observations, then induction is a problem. In formulating a scientific law, generalizations made through the method of induction are problematic.

Because of induction, the basic application of our inductive reasoning is twofold: firstly we think we can describe what we have seen by the use of universal laws, and secondly, that we can use these established laws in predicting what we will see. There is, however, a problem with the mechanics of the inductive process. Are we justified in formulating these universal laws simply on the basis of a discrete number of past observations that have been made?

For example, based on the scientific observation of planetary motion, we could suggest that “the sun will rise every day.” However, just because the sun has risen in the past, it does not mean that it will continue to do so either tomorrow or the next day. So the induction based on the number of occurrences of a particular phenomenon is illogical. There is no guarantee that we will ever see the sun rise again. The sense of faith we have in the scientific laws of planetary motions is based on the supposition that some kind of necessity has caused the sun to rise in the past and will therefore continue to cause the sun to rise in the future. We assume that the connection between the cause and the effect are necessarily related. To use another common example, everyone in Europe thought the statement “All swans are white” was true because every swan that they had ever seen was white. However, when travelers came back from Australia and New Zealand, they reported having seen black swans, thus providing a real life example of how induction can falter. This observation negated the previous generalizations.This brings us to the issue of causality.

Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first. In relation to one another, induction only has to work sometimes whereas causality always has to work. It has little to do with the number of occurrences; it has to work for each cause-effect relationship. The consequence of this model of the world is that empirical knowledge is connected to the causal relations between objects and events. According to this view, the logic of scientific discovery is inductive. In other words, it infers universal laws from particular statements.

The logic of induction proceeds as follows: First, it conjectures that induction is valid, and then concludes that causation is true. Whereas, from the point of view of logic, it is just the other way around; induction can be justified only by proving that causation is logically valid i.e., that the relation between cause and effect is necessary. Induction is therefore logically not a justified method to attain universality. As the Australian-British philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper observes, scientific induction is “logically inadmissible,” that scientific “theories are, therefore, never empirically verifiable.”⁴

Can we count on the laws of nature? It depends. We can have faith in them; we can hope that they will continue to hold in the future but there exists no logical certainty. But we cannot prove that they will remain true because we cannot observe something that will occur in the future (the dogma of the experiment).

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell calls the dogma of induction, the “biggest scandal of philosophy.” He provides the example of a farmer and his chicken. The chicken notices that the farmer comes every day to feed it. It predicts that the farmer would continue to bring food every day. According to the principle of induction, each feeding event added justification to its prediction. Then one day the farmer came and wrung the chicken’s neck. Russell’s point is that induction cannot justify any conclusions!

Critical problems with the method of induction have been in discussion long before the more recent debates, and are often connected with the concept of causality. The same issue was also at the center of a heated debate among Muslim philosophers and theologians as early as the 12th century. This critical problem with the method of induction was also pointed out earlier by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume stated that when we observe two events to be causally related, say a seed (a) resulting in the growth of a shoot or tree (b), what we in fact observe is only a contingent conjunction of two events. That is, the causation that we think we perceive is not actually “out there in the world” for us to observe. When we see two events and judge them to be causally related, it is merely through a habit of the mind, something we project onto the world. A necessary causal link, as such, is not guaranteed. Hume writes:

Were any object presented to us, and were we required to pronounce concerning the effect, which will result from it, without consulting past observation; after what manner, I beseech you, must the mind proceed in this operation? It must invent or imagine some event, which it ascribes to the object as its effect; and it is plain that this invention must be entirely arbitrary. The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it.⁵

This means that causal laws of nature are not true logically and there is no concrete evidence that these will continue to hold in the future. We simply cannot postulate universal laws that tell us the way the world irrefutably is and will always be unless we have some good reason to trust such generalizations. And even if we could trust such universal laws as “the sun will always rise,” it is not clear how many times we would need to see the sun rise in order to justify proposing this law. Scientific observation, although detailed and informative, has no claim to being the irrefutable truth of the matter.

The solution

Sir Karl Popper offered a potential solution to this problem by thinking about the way we do science in a new light. Popper turned science on its head by claiming that we are looking at science in the wrong way. Instead of looking to science to provide us with theories that are definitive and true, Popper said that we should be looking to science to provide us with theories that we have failed to prove false for a very long time. This approach to science is referred to as “Falsificationism.” Less of a solution and more of a shortcut, it is a tool which we are allowed to use in the game of science. He describes the Falsification approach by noting that for the scientific method to be rational, it must make claims to knowledge that is logically sound. That is, science is not about making grand universal laws, but about the examination of individual observations. According to the model of falsification, science is concerned with evaluating and refining. What we commonly think of as scientific claims to knowledge, are only hypotheses that we accept till they are proved wrong.

Fundamentally, Popper accepts that science can never provide us with complete 100% certainty, but he claims that this is not really a problem because it is not actually science’s job. The purpose of science is to provide us with a theory that is likely to be true based on the fact that we haven’t yet managed to prove it wrong. One unfortunate consequence of this, however, is that you can only ever be certain of the things that you have proved wrong. We know, for example, that the world definitely is not flat. The problem with this fact is that, although certain, it is not particularly useful to know that something is definitely false. For Popper, the best we can hope for is that a given claim is corroborated at one instance in time and if we presume otherwise, we are begging the question of the uniformity of nature: that what has always been, will (for apparently no good reason) continue to be.

To recapitulate, science does not deal with explanation; this is the realm of metaphysics. How we explain things depends on our beliefs and world view.

Dr. Yamina Mermer is a member of the Scriptural Reasoning Group based at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, UK.
Dr. Eren Tatari is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rollins College, Florida.

Footnotes

1. Online Past Masters text, The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, (University of Virginia E-text Center), 1.323. (The online texts is drawn from The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. I-VI ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931-1935), Vols. VII-VIII ed. Arthur W. Burks (same publisher, 1958).
2. Ibid., 5.48.
3. Ibid., 6. 417.
4. Popper, Karl. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co. (Original work published in 1935).
5. Hume, David. (1772). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hackett Publishing Co.

In the case of Islam, the Qur’an does not separate between the physical and the spiritual, or between matter and meaning. They are all on one continuum. Matter is the vehicle conveying meaning, like the material of a book for instance, the paper, ink and shapes of the letters etc., all mean something; they convey meaning and there cannot be meaning without the matter. From the Qur’anic perspective, that is what nature is about. Everything is seen as a sign or a symbol pointing to a transcendent reality, i.e. something that transcends the material, transcends what is here. There is an ontological continuity with the world to the very concept of God.

This connection between the spiritual and the physical, the Divine and the Creator, imparts a certain degree of sanctity to the world of nature. Just as the scripture is sacred, so is the world in the Islamic interpretation. In fact, just as the Qur’an presents the world of nature as a sign, it also calls its own verses signs, using the same word. The verses in the Qur’an that talk about natural phenomena includes both the verse itself and what the verse relates to in the outside world. This semantic connection is further strengthened through various Qur’anic descriptions.

According to the Qur’an, God communicates by “sending” His signs. There is basically no essential difference between linguistic and non-linguistic (phenomenological) signs; both types are equally Divine signs. All that we usually call natural phenomena—such as rain, wind, the structure of the heaven and the earth, alternation of day and night, the turning about of the winds, etc.—would be understood not as simple natural phenomena but as the many “signs” or “symbols” pointing to the Divine intervention in human affairs, as evidences of the Divine Providence, care and wisdom displayed by God for the good of human beings on this earth.

God speaks through words in the scriptures and through actions in the world; both of these are seen as modes of communication. That is why nature is also referred to as the “cosmic Qur’an” in the Islamic tradition. God speaks through verbal speech and through creative activity. Both of them are signs and one does not exist without the other because the Qur’an always refers to the outer world. God speaks as He creates, and in order to understand His verbal speech, one needs to observe the creational activity in the world. The reverse is also true: in order to understand what is going on in the world, one needs to listen to the scripture (verbal speech). Like a movie and its script, if the movie is in another language or there is no sound, how are you to understand? That would be the same as looking at nature without scripture. Inversely, if we were to hear the sound of the movie but the screen was blank, that would be like listening to the scripture but not being involved in the world. As nature is viewed as the cosmic Qur’an, the two must be read together. It is viewed less as a book and more as a speech; there’s the idea that everything is dynamic and constantly in creation.

The Qur’an has a very clear view of nature and a coherent view of causality. It tells of the causal relationship of science that is assigned to the Divine Attributes. For instance, the difference between seeing an inanimate egg versus seeing a living, flying bird that has come from something apparently lifeless, makes one wonder. Because of the polarity between the two i.e. the cause being very simple yet the outcome is dynamic, the relationship and the connection is seen to exist.

The Qur’anic text mentions the heavens 310 times, the earth 451 times, the process of rain, the clouds and water more than 50 times. It also talks about the seas, trees, vegetation, the formation of the human embryo, etc.

In the heavens and on the earth there are indeed (clear) signs for the believers (pointing to God’s Existence, Oneness, and Lordship); And in your creation and His scattering (innumerable kinds of) living creatures (through the earth) there are (clear) signs for a people who seek certainty of faith (in His existence, Oneness, and Lordship). And in the alternation of night and day (with their periods shortening and lengthening), and in the provision (rain) God sends down from the sky and reviving thereby the earth after its death, and in His turning about of the winds — (in all this) there are (clear) signs for a people who are able to reason and understand. Those are the Revelations of God that We recite to you (through Gabriel) with truth. In what other statement, if not in God and His Revelations, will they, then, believe? (Al-Jathiyah, 45:3−6)

God it is Who has made the sea to be of service to you by making it subservient (to His command) so that the ships may run through it by His command, and that you may seek of His bounty, and that (in return) you may give thanks. He has also made of service to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth, all is from Him (a gift of His Grace). Surely in this there are (clear) signs for a people who reflect. (45:12−13)

Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of night and day there are signs for the people of discernment. They remember and mention God (with their tongues and hearts), standing and sitting and lying down on their sides (whether during the Prayer or not), and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth: “Our Lord, You have not created this (the universe) without meaning and purpose. All-Glorified You are. (3:190−191)

We have set up firm mountains on the earth lest it should shake them with its movement, and We have made thereon broad paths, so that they might find their way. And We have established the heaven as a canopy well-secured (against collapse and the ascension of devils). Yet they turn away from all such signs (of truth manifested) in the universe. It is He Who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Every one (of such celestial bodies) floats in its orbit. (21:31−33)

O humankind! If you are in doubt about the Resurrection, (consider that) We created you from earth (in the beginning while there was nothing of your existence as humankind, and the material origin of every one of you is also earth). Then (We have created you) from a drop of seminal fluid, then from a clot clinging (to the womb wall), then from a lump in part shaped and in part not shaped, and differentiated and undifferentiated, and so do We clarify for you (the reality of the Resurrection). And We cause what We will (to come into the world) to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then We bring you out as (dependent) infants, then (We provide what is necessary and appropriate) so that you may attain your age of full strength. Among you some are caused to die (during this period of growth and afterwards), and some are kept back to the most miserable state of old age, ceasing to know anything after once having known some things. (As another proof for the Resurrection and a sign to comprehend it,) you see earth dry and lifeless, and suddenly, when We send down the (known, blessed) water on it, it stirs and swells and grows every pleasant pair of vegetation. And so, God is He Who is the Absolute Truth and Ever-Constant, and He gives life to the dead, and He has full power over everything. (22:5−6)

It also makes ample use of phrases like, “So look at…,” “Do they not see…?” “Do they not think…?” calling repeatedly on its audience to look at the world.

Say: “Go about on the earth and see how God originated creation. Then God will bring forth the other (second) creation (in the form of the Hereafter). Surely God has full power over everything” (29:20)

Then, let human consider his food (and so reflect on his Lord’s Mercy and the truth of Resurrection), That We pour down the water in abundance; Then We split the earth in clefts; And so We enable grain to grow therein, And grapes, and edible plants, And olive-trees and date-palms, And gardens dense with foliage, And (diverse other) fruits and herbage, As a means of livelihood for you and your animals. (80:24−32)

Do they not consider the camels – how they are created? And the heaven, how it has been raised high? And the mountains, how they have been set firm? And at the earth, how it has been spread out? (88:17−20)

There is less interest in the “why” but rather in the “how.” Thus science, as a systematic study of nature that developed in Islamic civilization, could not treat nature and its study as an entity separate from the Islamic worldview; this includes the sciences that were inspired by the very worldview of Islam—the concept of time, space, functions (everything is relational). Many scientific findings including functions like sine, cosine, all have a background to a particular worldview. The regularities, the laws of nature are actually mirroring the laws of the Divine Names.

In this Qur’anic view, nature is a dynamic system rather than an inert body. Nature accepts and acts upon Divine Commands, like all else between the heavens and the earth. This view of nature grants it distinct metaphysical qualities. Rather than being self-subsisting, autonomous or random, nature is described by the Qur’an as a sophisticated system of interconnected, consistent, uniform, and highly active entities, all of which are ontologically dependent on the Creator and exalt Him in their own specific ways. As the Qur’an often repeats “The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is between them sing the glories of God.”

This dependence and subservience of nature to God however does not occur haphazardly, since God’s ways and laws are unchanging (33:62). Actually, that is how the Muslim is supposed to reach belief in the Divine i.e., through observing the uniformity of nature, which is a sign of Divine activity. Thus the entire world of nature operates through immutable laws that can be discovered through the investigation of nature. Since these laws are both uniform and knowable, and since nature points to something higher than itself—indeed, to the Creator Himself—it follows that the study of nature leads to an understanding of God, and is in fact a form of worship.

Science historian Professor Briffault wrote about the scientific enterprise as it was carried out centuries ago in the Muslim civilization as follows:

The method of continuous observation was systematically carried out—some observations extending over twelve years—at the observatories of Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo. So much importance did they attach to accuracy in their records that those of special interest were formally signed on oath in legal form. (Briffault, 143)

He also wrote:

Not only did the Arabs create those mathematics which were to be the indispensable instrument of scientific analysis, they laid the foundation of those methods of experimental research which in conjunction with mathematical analysis gave birth to modern science (Briffault, 144-145)

In fact, the emergence of science within the Islamic civilization is interconnected to the phenomenon of the Qur’an which provides a clear conception of nature, the laws of nature and causality, thus giving a coherent view of the subject of scientific investigation (i.e. nature). Sciences that emerged in Islamic civilization can be shown to have intrinsic links with the Islamic worldview including Islamic rituals such as the five daily canonical prayers and the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Many branches of science were directly related to Islamic practices and emerged from a specific view of nature anchored in Islam: astronomy used to determine the distance and direction toward Mecca (the direction Muslims face for their obligatory prayers five times a day); geography; cartography, and more. At the time, when the earth was generally thought to be flat, Idrisi (12th century) drew it as spherical.

Muslim scientists were concerned more with the infinite than the finite. Time and space were no longer static concepts (Greeks), but dynamic. Since God reveals himself in this world at every moment of existence, and this world is continuously coming into existence, they regarded the universe not as finite or as being, but as becoming. They expressed this conviction by elevating numbers to the status of functions that imply movement, dynamism, and relational connections rather than separate, static entities.

The Qur’an continuously states in the clearest terms that nothing at all other than God possesses the attributes of Divinity, and that under whatever name, no cause has attributes like maker, creator, giver of sustenance, bringer down of rain from the skies, and raiser of plants from the earth.

Say: “Who is it that provides for you from heaven and earth, or Who is it that possesses full power over (your) hearing and eyes, or Who is it that brings forth the living from the dead and brings forth the dead from the living, and Who directs the whole affair (the universe)?” They will say, “It is God.” Then, say: “Will you not then keep your duty to him in reverence for Him and in fear of His punishment?”

The universe exists in order to make the Creator known. By considering the manner in which beings are created, those who think may find attributes which pertain to their Creator. These Divine attributes are known in the Islamic traditions as the “Beautiful Names.” As such, Muslims are supposed to study the universe in order to get to know their Sustainer through it. Both causes and effects, and particularly their orderly relationships, mirror the Divine Names. The Qur’an points out the numerous and significant benefits in the effects so that it will be understood that unconscious causes are infinitely distant from intending the effects. It may also be understood that causes are only veils and these wise aims are the work of the One Who is All-Knowing, Wise, and Powerful, possessing infinite knowledge, wisdom and power etc. In this way, the Qur’an dismisses causes from owning their effects. A Muslim scholar explains this point with a metaphor: when seen from afar, mountain peaks on the horizon appear to be adjacent to the sky. But as one approaches, it is understood that there is an infinite distance between the earth and the sky. Similarly, when seen from afar, that is, when seen superficially without questioning, causes and effects appear to be adjacent. But on drawing close, and scrutinizing the relationship intentionally, it may be realized that there is a great distance between the cause and the effect. That is, it is understood that even an apparently powerful cause such as the sun has not the slightest influence on a most simple effect. The so-called cause of the effect does not possess the knowledge and will not be necessary for the occurrence of the effect. Cause and effect occur together but they have no relationship by which they affect each other. In fact their purposeful arrangement is a sign from the Creator that has created them side by side. The Qur’an says that should all causes unite, they would be powerless to create even the least significant being, like a mosquito.

The general logic of the Qur’an concerning causality is that:

1. Since causes are extremely commonplace and powerless and the effects attributed to them are significant and full of art, this dismisses causes.
2. And the aims and benefits of effects also discharge ignorant and lifeless causes, and hand them over to an All-Wise Maker.
3. Also, the adornment and skill on the face of effects indicates a Wise Maker Who wants to make His power known to conscious beings and desires to make Himself loved.

This conception of the world by no means denies the uniformity of the world. It is actually quite the opposite; order is itself a proof of unity. Each relation between cause and effect is itself considered to be a sign pointing to the Maker and ascribing all the rest of creation to Him. The crucial point is that these relations are vertical and directly connected to the Maker. The remarkable ordering of the universe is understood to proceed from God’s Wisdom. The rules and ordinances of creation proceed from Divine Attributes. The uniformity of sequence of cause and effect is also a sign (aya) pointing to God and making Him known with His Names and Attributes.

Given the inherent relationships between God, humanity, and nature, it is impossible in Islam to conceive of nature as an independent, self-subsisting entity. Likewise, science—as an organized enterprise that studies and explores the natural world—is conceived as an entity integral to Islam. In fact, the lack of separation of state and religion in Islamic polity is applicable to all other domains, as Muslims believe that Islam is not merely a set of commandments and rituals but a complete way of life, encompassing all domains of knowledge and human activity. This worldview is based on the principle of Tawhid, the Oneness of God, a concept that lies at the heart of the Islamic tradition. Oneness or Tawhid unifies all realms of being and of knowledge, making them branches of the same tree. Everything is interconnected and stems from One Unique source. It may be difficult for the modern materialist mind—accustomed to regarding religion solely as a set of personal beliefs—to understand this aspect of Islam.

Meaning of phenomena and regularity is intentional and there is mercy in this. Order is not a given but is a gift and a sign of care and love. When a baby is delivered out of the womb, the mother’s milk is ready for feeding. There is always the same arrangement for all babies—it is a given. This is where philosophy and science begin to “touch” one another, and where Islam provides a philosophy to what science observes.

Dr. Yamina Mermer is a member of the Scriptural Reasoning Group based at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, UK.
Dr. Eren Tatari is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rollins College, Florida.

The lotus, a radiant and graceful aquatic plant with a magnificent ability to repel dirt, has been the inspiration behind a range of self-cleaning and dirt-repelling technologies. Now a registered trademark, the “Lotus Effect” promises a future filled with objects that rarely, if ever, need washing. Finally, this means owning bathroom mirrors that unfog itself and shirts that shrug off ketchup and coffee.

And the earth, We have spread it out like a couch; and how excellent We are in spreading it. (Adh-Dhariyah, 51:48)

The factory of the universe and the guesthouse of the earth are so pure and clean and so untainted and fresh that … if … the act of cleansing is not attributed to the Creator of the universe, then … [e]ither all the creatures would have a share in the universal act of cleansing… or there would have to be a consultative committee the size of the universe in order to decide and regulate all those acts together… This is impossible not just once, but hundreds and thousands of times over. (4)

Have you ever come across a “stinky forest”? How about a “messy desert”? These questions are primarily posed as rhetoric since various means of sanitation is ubiquitous in nature (Stinky forests and lakes actually exist only thanks to pollution—a modern problem introduced by human intervention via misconduct of technology) where Lotus Effect is only one of the mechanisms contributing to the steady “house-keeping” in nature.

In muddy waters, the lotus plant stands out with its ever-clean leaves making it a symbol of purity in Asian cultures. Moreover, lotus leaves keep dry under even the heaviest monsoon rain. Such seemingly ironical feats are accomplished by capitalizing on a principle named after the plant itself: The Lotus Effect.

The Lotus Effect

At first sight, the cleansing of the leaves by the rainfall seems utterly trivial. However, the cleaning of the lotus plant (Nelumbo nucifera) by the downpour is not something to be taken for granted. Curiously, when raindrops encounter the lotus leaf, they adopt an almost perfectly spherical shape, resembling ball bearings, and start rolling off the surface carrying away all the dirt (Figure 1). Easier said than done, the lotus plant always keeps pristine, even at the microscopic level.

In the early 1970s, soon after the electron microscope (which can yield vivid images of the ultra small details that are at length scales on the order of a billionth of a meter) became commercially available, German botanist Wilhelm Barthlott (of University of Bonn, Germany) started imaging plants using the newly discovered technology. Sample preparations for electron microscopy normally demanded tedious cleaning procedures since even a speckle of dust could ruin the portrayed landscape at such minuscule scales. To Barthlott’s surprise, some plants apparently were “self-cleaning”: They required very little (or sometimes none whatsoever) cleaning for detailed inspection with the microscope and the lotus plant was a prince of these (1). Further intrigued by the fact, Barthlott looked at the lotus leaves through the electron microscope to find out what renders the lotus plant remarkably competent to repel even the tiniest dirt.

Water’s love-hate affair

Before delving into the secrets for lotus plant’s sanitation, let’s look at the interaction of water with other materials. At the molecular level, the electrical charges are unevenly distributed across a water molecule (i.e. water is highly “polar”) which becomes entangled in a love-hate type of relationship with other materials: Some materials “love” water tending to maximize their interaction with it, whereas others “hate” it, trying to avoid their encounter with water as much as possible.1 To put things in perspective, we can immediately tell from everyday experience that oil is “water-hating” since oil and water do not mix, while sugar is “water-loving” because sugar can dissolve in water without much effort.

Macroscopically—that is, one can immediately realize by touching a lotus leaf—the lotus leaf surface feels waxy, and should therefore be water-hating. However, the waxiness is not enough to equip the lotus plant with its unusual capabilities to remain clean since the lotus leaf is not alone among plants in its leaves’ surface waxiness. Indeed, there is more to the lotus leaf’s curious surface properties than that, a property which was first recognized by Barthlott under the electron microscope.

Super water-hating surfaces

When Barthlott looked at the lotus leaf, besides its spotlessness in the microscopic sense, the leaf surface was decorated with numerous bumps a few micron sizes each (a micron is one millionth of a meter). Such bumpiness served to enhance the water-hating aspect of the surface making it “super water-hating,” corresponding to a contact angle that is close to 170 degrees. As a result, water encountering the lotus leaf surface rapidly beads up forming a nearly spherical shape (akin to the scenario when one drips water on a hot cooking pan) and drops roll off the surface even with an ever-so-slight inclination of the leaf. Apparently, a rolling water droplet is much more effective in picking up the surface dirt than one that is merely sliding, and all the surface debris is thus wiped off.

Although discovered first in the lotus plant, the super water-hating surfaces are serving a passive yet effective means of cleaning for animals like butterflies, dragonflies and other insects that are not able to clean all their body parts actively. For plants, preventing the coverage of their leaves by water (or other contaminants) is important to maximize the exposure to sunlight which would otherwise cause reduced photosynthesis. Another great biological relevance of surfaces of such nature for all these creatures is that it provides protection against the growth of pathogens by keeping the surface dry at all times.

Inspirations from biology for technology

There are ever-growing biologically inspired technologies, so-called biomimetics, and the lotus effect provides a nifty example. Unfolding the mystery behind lotus’ exceptional competence in self-cleaning, Barthlott patented the idea of artificially manufacturing microscopically-raised, water-repelling surfaces to mimic the lotus leaf. “Lotus Effect” is now a registered trademark which underlies commercial products such as self-cleaning windows and fabrics, as well as a dirt-repelling paint. Other applications that are waiting around the corner are: swimsuits that stay dry for days allowing prolonged underwater excursions, coatings on metals to avoid the deposits of marine bioorganisms which would enable up to 40% reduction on fuel consumption by decreasing friction (2). Metal coatings will also find applications to prevent ice formation on plane engines alleviating their wear-and-tear (3).

Apparently, lotus does not collect dirt, but only patents.

Note

1 Contact angle is a metric for the water propensity of a surface. Water drop displays a higher contact angle (hence lower contact area) on a water-hating surface when compared to a lower contact angle (hence higher contact area) on a water-loving one.

References

1. Forbes, Peter. August, 2008. “Self Cleaning Materials,” Scientific American.

2. http://www.basf.com/group/

corporate/en/innovations/events-presentations/nanotechnology/basf

3. “Water-Repelling Metals,” Prachi Patel, MIT Technology Review, 2008, http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21530/

4. “The Thirtieth Gleam,” Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur Collection.

How is uterus to be placed in the frontier abdomen?

In order for a baby to survive, a suitable space in which it will be fed and protected is necessary. Therefore, the uterus is in the best location as it is, and its equivalent cannot be maintained in the belly. Let us consider that births would really happen through the belly. If the uterus, where a baby develops in 40 weeks, were placed in the belly, then a set of problems would appear. The opening of the uterus would be turned toward the abdomen wall, and thus there would be no strong bonds to tie it up with the surrounding area. In this case we cannot place the intestines, mesenteric blood vessels, aorta, and the net of nerves in connection to them in any way. If the uterus were in the belly, it would unavoidably pressurize the stomach, liver, spleen, and other internal organs, as the mass inside a pregnant woman grew. This could obviously pose a lethal threat for both the mother and the baby.

How would the birth process begin?

If the uterus were anywhere else than its present position, it would contradict the physiology of birth. The fetus assumes three different positions along the developmental process: as it begins to be formed the head is up and the feet are down. At the sixth month, the baby assumes a horizontal position. When the birth draws near, feet and the hips are positioned on top and the head is turned downward, closer to the opening of the uterus. As the head gets closer to the opening, mechanical pressure increases. Thus, signals for the birth are sent to the brain so that the relevant hormone aid is sent in response. With the effect of the hormones, the uterus begins to contract in order to dispose of the being inside. As the opening of the uterus enlarges, the contractions increase. With its mechanical help, the sacro-coccigeal joint makes a 2-cm stretch to give way and with the support of the pubis bone in front, the birth is realized. If human birth was to occur through the belly, then how would the process—including the brain, pituitary gland, and adrenal glands—be triggered with mechanical pressure without the help of gravitation? If the uterus is placed inside the belly vertically, then a tube or similar opening is needed for a way out from between the legs. Even if there is mechanical pressure and the hormones to facilitate birth are secreted, then what way will the baby move? How can birth be realized through the soft-walled belly without any mechanical support at all? If human birth were possible through the belly without any support from the bones, the duration of birth would be much greater. In addition, as the size of the baby increased, a high positive pressure would be needed in order to balance the effect of gravity. However, the more a belly grows, the weaker its muscles become. If birth would ever be possible through the belly, then the mother would have to deliver her baby by lying prone in order to prevent the soft tissue to be torn. In addition certain flora (beneficial microorganisms) need to be placed to the birth channel in order to prevent relevant complications. Should the genital organ be transferred to the navel? For the best protection against complications, the baby’s head need to be in horizontal position as if it were swimming. The effect of gravitation applies different pressures on the baby’s head while the mother stands, sits, and lies in a supine position. In this case, by which force would the head be directed toward the opening in the frontal abdomen wall to start the birth process? The three different positions of a fetus along its development will never be possible in a uterus located in the belly. Then the fetus would dangle like a tree leaf under the effect of gravitation.

The easiness of normal physiological birth

A form of birth through the belly, a cesarean delivery is only realized in the face of certain anomalies. Although some women assume cesarean as a painless form of birth, findings adds to the cons of cesarean. Accordingly, rate of allergic asthma in cesarean-born children is found six times higher in comparison to others. It is thought that during normal birth, the baby receives some of the microorganisms on the mother’s genital organ and the immune system forms antidote against them, which provides protection against asthma.

Strapping up the uterus?

As the baby develops in a period which lasts more than nine months, the uterus gradually grows. In the mean time, it is necessary to fix the uterus with sound bonds so that it becomes resistible to shakes. Counting in both sides, 14 pieces of bonds fixes the uterus to the bones (ilium, ischium, pubis, sacrum) around the hips. Were the uterus to be in the belly, how could we find such sound structure to support the bonds?

To conclude, God Almighty could have created our body in a different form, and He would have shaped our anatomy accordingly, which would then provide the best means for an ideal birth. Thus, it is nonsensical to seek errors in our present biological makeup in order to dishearten the faithful in their belief. Leaving aside such speculations, one cannot help but admire the perfect arrangement in human anatomy when considered from the perspective of wisdom.

Arslan Mayda is a medical doctor at Sifa Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.