After the discovery of using steel to reinforce concrete, reinforced concrete buildings became extremely popular and presented a significant solution to the housing needs of urban populations.

The composition of concrete

Concrete is a structural material formed via blending sand, gravel, cement, and water. The specifications and ratios of the materials present in the mix directly determine the quality of the concrete. Generally, this ratio is 31 sand, 46 gravel, 15 cement, and 8 water. These ratios may vary depending on the construction needs.

The mixture of sand and gravel is described as an aggregate. Usually, aggregates up to 7 mm are called sand, and aggregates between 7-70 mm are called gravel. The most important role of the aggregate as a fill material is to reduce the volumetric changes of the concrete. The dough composed of water and cement displays great changes in volume. The introduction of sand and gravel into the cement helps to lessen these changes and also saves resources, since it is cheaper than cement. In order to obtain a concrete of good quality and applicable texture, the sand and gravel grains should be as round as possible and have similar diameters to each other.

Cement is produced from grinding a mixture of clay stones and limestone (CaCO3) that are cured at high temperatures. Cement is very important; when combined with water, it helps concrete to quickly solidify. The time the mix takes to solidify is called the setting time, and it is usually between an hour and an hour and a half, depending on environmental conditions. This time is shorter on warmer days and longer on colder days. Concrete begins to gain endurance (hardening) as it solidifies. It takes 28 days for the concrete to reach an endurance of 60-90 , and a much longer time to reach 100, depending on conditions. The cement amount in a cubic meter of concrete is called the dosage. One common and incorrect perception is that concrete endurance changes with the dosage. However in a mixture of a well adjusted sand and gravel ratio, concrete endurance depends on the water-cement ratio.

The water that can be used in the concrete mixture should be drinkable water that does not contain acids and salts. It is important that the water has a pH value higher than 7 and is free of carbonic acid, manganese compounds, ammonium salts, free chlorine, mineral oils, and industrial waste. Therefore, it should not be forgotten that sea water must not be used in the concrete mixture because of the salt it contains.

The properties of steel

Iron alloys that can be processed mechanically – either through pressing or rolling – are called steel. Iron is the most abundant metal in the Earth’s crust, making up nearly 4.5 of it. The most important element that specifies the property of steel is carbon. The role of carbon in steel’s structure is to harden the iron alloy and prevent the shifting of iron atoms. By adjusting the amount of carbon in the alloy, steel’s hardness, ductility, and endurance can be changed. Both the endurance and hardness of steel increases as the amount of carbon is enriched. However, this application increases steel’s fragility, reducing some of its features, such as ductility. Therefore, a 5 carbon level in the raw iron obtained through the melting of iron ore is decreased to 0.1 0.2, enabling steel to be processed. Iron alloys (steel) composed of elements such as carbon, silicon, manganese, chromium, copper, nickel and molybdenum are utilized in building structures.

The conformity of concrete and steel as reinforced concrete

Reinforced concrete materials are used in the construction of buildings, bridges, dams, and tunnels. The use of reinforced concrete became common at the end of the nineteenth century. For the best final product, the concrete and steel should be well integrated, and both should be of high quality.

Concrete and steel are two substances with very different characteristics. However, an inseparable coupling forms by balancing one’s disadvantages with the other’s advantages. Concrete is a material of high pressure endurance. And even though steel also has high pressure endurance, it still faces the risk of bending. The tensile strength of concrete is weak, but it is high in steel. Concrete is fire resistant; steel is vulnerable. Concrete is durable against external impacts, whereas steel is vulnerable, with a high risk of corrosion. Concrete has a brittle, breakable structure; steel, however, has a higher level of ductility. Even though concrete and steel generally behave the opposite of each other, they compensate for each other when they are together. For example, the tendency of steel to bend disappears after it is surrounded with concrete; concrete also increases steel’s resistance to fire and corrosion. Furthermore, with the steel’s presence inside it, the tensile strength of concrete is enhanced.

The first of the three characteristic features of reinforced concrete buildings is the compensation of all tensile forces via steel rods; the second one is the integration of concrete and steel into each other like the adherence of flesh and bone; and finally, concrete and steel have the same thermal expansion coefficients. The thermal expansion coefficient is the value that determines the amount a material will expand or retract when impacted by heat. The thermal expansion coefficients of substances on Earth vary greatly. For instance, aluminum has a coefficient of 2,2×10-5 L/0C, copper of 1,7×10-5 L/0C, gold of 1,4×10-5 L/0C and glass of 0,85×10-5 L/0C (L= Length). It is harder for materials of different thermal expansion coefficients to have conforming movements. The most important reason for the harmonious union of concrete and steel is that their thermal coefficient values are almost the same (1,2×10-5 L/0C). If this was not the case, because of the temperature differences of inside and outside environments, the concrete and steel that make up the reinforced concrete would expand at different speeds, resulting in cracks and fractures of the load bearing elements of the building (columns, beams, flooring).

Though concrete and steel have vastly different properties, their thermal expansion coefficient values are the same and this causes them to move together during temperature changes. A similar system is put to use during the creation of cartilage, bone, and connective tissues in our body. The fibers of the connective tissue resemble the iron and steel, the cells are similar to gravel, and the intercellular matrix resembles the cement. The difference is that this system is renewed dynamically, and is flexible and strong.

In the mechanics of engineering, the force of inertia depends on the acceleration of a moving object along with its mass. Therefore, the force of inertia on an object is equal to the mass times acceleration. Accordingly, the faster an object gains speed, the greater will be the force of inertia. However, this brings along many problems in practice. In machines with pistons (compressors, pumps etc.) which are accelerating and slowing down speedily, a great force of inertia is applied to the machine’s elements. This gives way to a significant amount of resistance and abrasion problems. In addition there are other such troubles inside an engine’s cylinder during the four strokes (induction, compression, expansion, and exhaust). A greater force is required for brake mechanisms at the motion of elevators, banded conveyors, and automobiles. This is why brake linings wear out in a short time.

According to the principles of thermodynamics, where a piston-cylinder system is concerned and the compression or expansion of gases is slower, minimum energy is required during compression and maximum energy is obtained during expansion. On the other hand, if this process of compression and expansion is realized quickly, then the energy consumption is maximum during compression and minimum during expansion. Turning the tap too quickly to stop the flow of water causes a greater force of inertia inside, and if this continues to occur frequently, the faucet may need repair.

Things done too quickly present similar consequences. A person becomes rich as a result of working for long years has a better chance to appreciate his conditions in comparison to someone who becomes rich by winning a lottery. Decisions made in haste without consulting with others mostly yield negative results, which happens rarely in those made after consultation, since the risk of mistakes is reduced.

Living things and gradualness

For living things, adaptation to hot or cold environments is also a gradual process. If adaptation is not realized slowly, they cannot survive. For example, if a man starts by taking showers with hot water, then gradually with warmer water, and in the end with cold water, his body can develop endurance to cold water, even freezing water in winter. Some mothers wrap up their children too well even in good weather, and thereby do not let them adapt to changing weather conditions; such children catch cold easier than others.

Principle of gradualness has an obvious relation with being steadfast and patient, as in the cases of hatching chicks and silkworms in their cocoon. Human intervention to accelerate these processes will naturally have some negative effects. If the wing of a chick is forced to separate from the egg before the due time, it might hurt the animal seriously.

According to dieticians, stomach problems are more commonly found in those who eat quickly than who eat without haste. In addition, it is also known that meals cooked in low heat are more delicious and have higher nutritional value. It is essential for food quality to cool the foods gradually before they undergo freezing. Similarly, before cooking frozen food, it is advised to thaw out the food, gradually bringing it to values near room temperature.

A frog’s nervous system is sensitive to sudden changes, not gradual ones. For this reason, when it is thrown in hot water, it jumps back right away. But if the water is heated gradually, the frog will show no reaction, it will even enjoy it. Despite the increasing heat, the animal feels numb more and more, to such a degree that it fails to escape before it is too late. Even though there may be no obstacle to jumping out, the frog pays a heavy price for the heedless life it led. So, it is very significant to be able to observe the gradual changes and take measures accordingly.

Human life reflects this principle in many ways. From biological development to learning new subjects, different kinds of progress depend on a gradual process. Nevertheless, human beings are too impatient to follow gradual patterns. You may have heard from people who want to learn a new subject-such as a foreign language-express how they wish there were some pills or other quick ways to realize their aim all at once.

Indeed, mankind is ever hasty. Success and joy, however, rest with patience and being in the right tune with gradualness.

If the universe was expanding, then it had to be smaller in the past, and there could even be a moment when the entire universe appeared as a tiny mass. A group of physicists who took these findings seriously, started theoretical research regarding the birth of the universe (that is, the space-time and all of the matter within) and its evolution. Another group of physicists still thought that the universe should have no beginning and insisted in their conception of a static universe. One of these physicists, Hoyle, made a statement during a BBC radio program in order to criticize the idea of an expanding universe and used the phrase “big bang” for the first time. Later on, the phrase, initially used in a sarcastic manner, started to be used as the name of the expanding universe model. It was an entirely new model no scientist had even imagined before. Accordingly, there had to be an electromagnetic radiation (cosmic microwave background radiation) which would emerge after the explosion—this can be compared to the smoke of a gun right after a fired shot. After Penzias and Wilson observed this electro-magnetic radiation in 1964, the doubts about the model disappeared almost completely. As technology developed over time, so many different observations and sensitive measures were made and taken in support of this theory. Since there is no other cosmological model to explain the present data, the Big Bang model has general acceptance among physicists today. We would like to relate some facts about the universe based on contemporary observations and theories before we expand our discussion.

What we know about the Universe

Galaxies are typical formations throughout the universe. The Milky Way galaxy, which hosts our solar system, is a disc-shaped one. The measurements revealed that the diameter of this “disc” is 100,000 light years and its thickness is 1000 light years (one light year is approximately ten trillion kilometers). There are approximately 100 billion other stars in the Milky Way galaxy similar to our sun. Owing to gravitational attraction, the number density of the stars near the center of the galaxy is higher—for the same reason, black holes are thought to exist in the centers of galaxies. The stars visible to the naked eye at night are the ones within the Milky Way galaxy. When further distances are observed through telescopes, other galaxies begin coming to sight as bright spots. Galaxies form galaxy clusters and the clusters form super-galaxy clusters. Even light year appears to be an unimportant unit of measurement in order to express these dazzling great distances. The most successful model we know that describes the universe is Einstein’s theory of relativity. According to this theory, space-time is a dynamic object and it can be curved. As for the force we feel as gravity, it is an outcome of the curved nature of space-time. The Big Bang model appears naturally within the general Theory of Relativity. The essential data we are going to relate here about the universe is mostly based on observations and general theory of relativity.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe was born in a very hot and dense form nearly 13.7 billion years ago. Here, we need to remember that the concepts of “time” and “space” as we know them came to being with the Big Bang. Therefore, asking what was there before the Big Bang is meaningless for this model. Similarly, the common notion of expansion brings to mind something expanding inside something else. However, it is possible to describe the universe without any notions of inside or outside expansion. That is, we do not have to assume another environment inside which the universe expands.

One of the important suggestions of the Big Bang Model is the fact that the universe was at a state of thermal equilibrium in the past. There is important data based on observation in support of this suggestion. Therefore, even though the term Big Bang brings to mind a chaotic happening, there was a very important state of equilibrium at the emergence of the universe. So many physicists have underlined the fact that this state of equilibrium is impossible to happen on its own. Our universe was born out of a very hot and dense state of equilibrium and it began to cool down as it expanded. The heat in the early periods was so high that matter was found in a plasma state formed by the smallest constituents of matter. As the heat decreased, the plasma also changed structure and different cosmic phases took place. For instance, when the heat dropped down to 1010 C atomic nuclei began to form out of neutrons and protons. When it dropped to 3000 C, atoms were formed. There are many observations in support of these different phases. For example, the electro-magnetic background radiation observed by Penzias and Wilson in 1964 is formed out of photons (i.e. light) released after the phase in which the first atoms are formed. The Big Bang model has so many more important details and the calculations made according to this model have been in conformity with observations. Together with that, it should be noted that as the known physics get closer to the moment of the bang (zero time), it loses validity and new theories are needed.

The expansion of the universe in the Qur’an

The Qur’an openly refers to the expansion of the universe. The 47th verse of the 51 chapter (Dhariyat) is translated as follows:

And the heaven, We have constructed it mightily; and it is surely We Who have vast power, and keep expanding it. (51:47)

The original Arabic phrase used, which refers to expansion, is “musiun.” The interesting point is that the sentence is a noun clause which denotes in Arabic grammar a quality of being steady and continuous. Therefore, the meaning can be understood as being “we are expanding it continuously.” According to the Big Bang model, the universe has constantly been expanding ever since it was born. Expressing this fact by saying “We are expanding it,” the Qur’an also guides us to acknowledge that the expanding does not happen in itself but is realized by Divine power.

Other verses related to the Big Bang

The 30th verse of the chapter Anbiya is translated as follows:

Do those who disbelieve ever consider that the heavens and the earth were at first one piece, and then We parted them as separate entities; and that We have made every living thing from water? Will they still not come to believe? (Anbiya 21:30)

According to some scholars of Qur’anic exegesis, the phrase ratq (joined together, one piece) and fataqnahuma (We parted them) can be alluding to the moment of the Big Bang. As we have tried to summarize above, the entire universe was a single and very small mass and then started to expand and grow. As the universe expanded, the matter it contained began to expand and occupy a larger volume. As the universe expanded, its contents also began to separate from one another. So the phrases mentioned might be alluding to this chain of events. Together with that, some scholars thought that this verse alludes to the formation of the solar system, earth, and its atmosphere. The reason is that the verse continues with referring to the creation of living things. Accordingly, ratq might be referring to the phase when the solar system was a single mass and fataqnahuma might be referring to the planets and the earth breaking away from the sun and the formation of the atmosphere. It should be noted that systems forming within galaxies are also considered in the Big Bang model, which is used for referring to all of the phases from the time of zero to ours. Therefore, both possible explanations can be related to this model.

Another phrase which can be related to the Big Bang is the “Originator (Fatir) of the heavens and the earth” used in many different verses (e.g. Yusuf 12:101). Similarly, there is another verse expressing this reality with a verb from the same root (fatarahunna): …your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Who has originated them each (Anbiya 21:56). Normally the phrase “fatara” is translated as “created.” In his study of Qur’anic exegesis (not available in English), Hamdi Yazir (1877-1942) points to the fact that the root “fatara” means to “split” or “split lengthwise,” and to originate something for the first time without a prior model. When these meanings of “fatara” are taken into consideration, “Originator (Fatir) of the heavens and the earth” can be an allusion to the Big Bang. Let us remember the fact that the Big Bang particularly refers to the very moment of the first creation. Therefore, the meaning “to originate something for the first time without a prior model” might be referring to this quality of the Big Bang. In addition, the word “split” expresses the moment of this great explosion better than the word “bang”; and so the beginning of space-time can be compared to splitting of a seed and its emergence.

One of the alternative meanings of “fatara” mentioned by Yazir, “split lengthwise” is very interesting. One of the important misconceptions about the Big Bang is to imagine that the universe was born in a certain spot and began expanding within another space. The Big Bang did not take place at a single spot. According to our theoretical understanding today, the entire space came into being altogether in a single moment. In other words, the Big Bang took place everywhere. When we consider the meaning “split lengthwise,” it might be an allusion to the fact that the Big Bang did not take place at a single point.

Conclusion

Considering the points we have tried to summarize above, the Qur’anic verses related to the creation of the universe can be defined as evidently miraculous. Surely, it is possible to expound on the subject from different aspects. For example we can think about a relation between the phrase “the seven heavens” used in many different verses in the Qur’an and the different phases after the Big Bang (although it is not possible pinpoint the exact number of these phases, figures like seven or seventy are metaphorically used in Arabic for referring to something in relevant multitude). Or they might be referring to some extra dimensions suggested by certain theories (The String Theory, one of the most-studied theories in recent years suggests the existence of seven extra dimensions).

Finally, we would like to underline that this article is an elementary attempt. What needs to be done more seriously is to form a board of scholars, particularly from the fields of cosmology and Qur’anic exegesis, and evaluate systematically all the verses related to the subject, and then try to analyze and understand them without any biased opinions. Such a study can provide deeper insight into the Qur’anic message.

Ali Kaya is a professor of physics in Bogazici University, Istanbul.

Note: This article was translated from Turkish by Korkut Altay.

Expansion can be dealt with in two categories: Our relationship with the created, and our relationship with the Creator.

With respect to our relationship with the created, expansion means that we are careful of our connection with God and the Truth; that we live in our communities as one of its inhabitants, being open with and showing respect to everyone; and that we treat people according to their level of understanding.

The noble Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, was sincere and frank with those around him, and avoided ceremony or formality. He spoke according to his listeners’ level of understanding, and sometimes made wise and meaningful jokes. Although he suffered inwardly from the unbelief, injustice, and sins he witnessed, and was anxious about everyone’s end and afterlife, he always smiled and behaved pleasantly. As said in al-Minhaj: “A heart is like a mirror: too much and too frequent solemnity may cause it to steam up, and the only way to remove that steam is to tell pleasant jokes.”

With respect to our relationship with God Almighty, expansion signifies the simultaneous experiencing of fear and hope in our souls. Being states of the soul, fear and hope are usually found in those who have just started to advance on the path to God. Expansion, on the other hand, is a state of those with knowledge of God and, moreover, is a dimension of the heart’s life. The state resembling the expansion of those still striving to reach this level of expansion is an exhilaration coming from knowledge of God. This may lead them to become relaxed in their relationship with God, and thus lose their self-control and self-possession.

Expansion appears when a traveler on the path of God is completely freed from carnal desire and passion, and becomes a bright “mirror” to reflect God’s Names and Attributes. This station, whether called the Station of Combination (where the traveler experiences God’s Existence and Unity) or Annihilation (where the traveler’s annihilation of self causes forgetfulness of self when in the throes of ecstatic love of God and perception of God’s Existence and Unity), is a mysterious point where the traveler directs himself or herself according to the Divine inspirations received and assumes “colors” unknown to everybody else. It is impossible for such people to conceal their expansion, while it is insolent of those who have not attained it to talk about it. How aptly Rumi expresses it:

If the king’s courtier behaves in an affected manner to attract the king’s attention, you must not attempt to do so, for you do not have the document (to justify your doing so). O one who cannot be freed from the restrictions of this transient life, how can you know what (the stations of) annihilation, drunkenness, and expansion mean?

Indeed, servants of the body cannot be aware of the states of the spirit. It is impossible for those imprisoned in the body to be aware of spirituality. We should ask those souls who have burned and been “roasted” many times in the fire of the love of God about the pains of a heart that has been cleft open, and their expansion and contraction.

O God! Endear belief to us and make it appealing to our hearts, and make unbelief, transgression, and rebellion hateful to us; and include us among those with right conduct and sound thinking. And bestow blessings and peace on our Master Muhammad and his Companions, all of them.

That morning, however, was unusual for one of the ants, Sayhon. He was intrigued by the noises coming from all directions. He had recorded and investigated the noise generated by bugs when carrying chips of wood, the sound a fly makes when landing on a dry leaf, the clamor of the creeks as they hit the rocks, and so on. But regardless of the cacophony of the sounds, Sayhon was always able to filter out a background noise that showed up consistently. It was as if something or someone was omnipresent in every occurrence, making itself heard. After realizing this, the poor ant found himself in seclusion to concentrate on this subtle message. After a while, not able to figure out the source of this constant noise, nor able to come up with an explanation about its meaning, Sayhon spiraled down into an endless depression. In hard times like these, he always took refuge in the warm friendship of Nurson.

Nurson also conducted his own research, modeling the dynamic geometry of the forest. By formulating the variations in the locations of the fruits on the ground or those on the branch, he benefited the worker ants in establishing the optimum routes for collection. Even more challenging was Nurson’s interest in predicting the time and place of the birth of a new fruit. It was so demanding, this prediction effort, that it shook his antennas wildly. During his research, Nurson had come to the conclusion that, existing or newborn, all the fruits were moving apart from each other. This effect was more evident in the observation of a fruit at large distances.

One day when it was raining, Sayhon was observing how the raindrops splashed on the water, how they created a blasting sound. At the same spot Nurson was studying the expansion of the waves in the puddles made by raindrops. After some gloomy moments, Sayhon wanted to open a conversation.

“Hey dude! Do you hear any noise generated by those waves?”

“YES!” replied Nurson hysterically.

Sayhon was not expecting this kind of a “YES” to his question. Rather, it sounded like an answer to something else. This, in fact, was the case, because Nurson had had an epiphany with Sayhon’s question: “The noise you are detecting everywhere is due to the expansion of the forest.”

Sayhon was startled by the answer he had received for his teasing. Nevertheless, he was eager to continue this conversation: “Hey! Easy now, easy.”

“Look! The noise you are detecting everywhere points to an entity or occurrence that is omnipresent. To date, we don’t know an entity everywhere, but we do know an occurrence that is everywhere: the moving apart phenomenon. So, the only thing that can create this noise you are so curious about is the expansion of the forest. Every fruit, every branch-tip in this forest is moving apart from each other, while leaving behind a signature in the form of sound. Now everything makes sense.”

Enlightenment suddenly seized them both with a shiver throughout their bodies. When they came back to their senses, they couldn’t help but smile; it didn’t take long before Sayhon and Nurson started squealing in joy.

Soon, the entire ant colony was in a tumult about the discovery of the expansion of the forest, but with some subsequent thoughts. For example, an ant suggested that the omnipresent noise must be propagating through some unseen but all-pervading substance; but the experiments to verify this suggestion failed. Another thought was about the size of the forest. Some claimed that it was not possible to know the size of the forest, while others said it was finite, since otherwise it would result in an infinitely intertwined forest. A third item in this list of hot discussions was the age of the forest. According to the expansion theory, if the forest is expanding now, and if you rewind this process long enough, you end up with a single tree, and eventually a single seed, out of which this endless forest has formed. They called this unimaginable start the “big germination.” Based on the big germination theory, some ants suggested billions of years of age for the forest; but some others claimed an age on the order of thousands based on interpretation of their ancient texts.

In the fresh vibrations of these findings, the discussions of the ants about the start of the forest eventually became a discussion of their own existence. What was the origin of life in the forest? How had the living beings come to their current states, each with an optimum design for the survival of their own species and for the well-being of the entire habitat? Were they merely fallen off a tree as a result of a coincidence?

As the founders of the big germination theory, Sayhon and Nurson were invited to speak in huge assemblies where thousands of curious ants were gathered. They had given several interviews, and participated in many events on the subject of the origin of life. The two friends had differing points of views on this matter, but their discussion was as respectful as it was rational.

Sayhon held the view that the living beings had come to existence through a chain of events that are not yet readily known to the ants, but can be discovered with advancements in science. As his initial hypothesis, he proposed a common ancestor to all kinds of animals in the forest, like the start of the forest from a single seed. He supported his theory of a common ancestor with the observations of common traits among different organisms. But eventually, he admitted that his hypothesis is only tentative, and needed further scrutiny. He was open to change his views with new findings and observations, and never suggested that his hypothesis be used as the criterion to judge the veracity of new perspectives.

Nurson, on the other side, claimed that the origin of life in the forest was by the hand of the Creator, just like He was the one who had created the forest in the scenario of the big germination. In the same context, he thought that the scientific studies must be aimed at learning how the Creator was making different kinds of animals in the forest. Nurson said that his view did not essentially differ from Sayhon’s views in terms of scientific foundations or implications, but he positioned himself against unscientific interpretations of scientific findings. For example, he requested that, as he admitted his belief in the Creator is an unscientific presumption, Sayhon must admit his claims about a common ancestor is unscientific, since there was no absolute proof to it. Nurson also expressed his resentment about the ants who inferred the absence of the Creator in the scientific texts as a rejection of Him, since such inference was clearly irrational as well. Overall, Nurson neither tried to alienate Sayhon nor curse his views, he merely requested that both parties characterize their views properly, which was wholeheartedly approved by Sayhon.

In return to the request of Nurson, Sayhon invited him to admit that they don’t have a complete understanding of how creation occurs, and that interpretation of implicit information in the ancient texts cannot be binding. Nurson humbly agreed.

Despite the friendly opposition between Sayhon and Nurson, the ant colony was severely divided into two groups: some siding with Sayhon and others agreeing with Nurson. Each group projected their own view as the ultimate truth, unlike the two friends’ admittance of the unscientific parts in their views. Although Sayhon and Nurson both admitted the tentative and immature level of science in the matter, the public preferred to embrace them as complete and unchangeable. Thus, these two groups socially expelled each other, and showed intellectual hostility. Rejecting the other’s views in their entirety, they mutually evolved into antagonists.

Strange enough, as the tension between these groups increased, the climate in the forest started to change dramatically. Rain became more abundant, yet the weather also warmed up incredibly. They had yet to discover the significance of these drastic changes, but this threat to the entire colony acted as a uniting agent among the ants, and mitigated the divisions on the origin of life.

In one of those hot days, the ants noticed large cracks forming in their nests, which eventually evolved into large channels, through which a violent stream came and flooded the forest. Many of the ants were saved by embarking on the leaves. Now everything was underwater, and would be until it soaked completely into the soil, which was unlikely to occur in their lifetimes. Facing extinction, the big germination and the subsequent expansion of the forest felt like meaningless topics in their hopeless state. Yet, the origin of life was of the highest attention. Even the most bigoted ants who denied the Creator wanted to believe in a higher Hand that could penetrate the doom they were facing and deliver them to salvation.

The flood did not return the ants back home but carried them to another one. By the time they arrived at this new forest, the flood had faded to a nice stream, and the ants could safely disembark from their leaves. But with nothing in their possession, everything had to be reconstructed: a home, a safe environment, and most importantly, the hope for restoration.

Sayhon and Nurson were among these survivors. Seeing that their home forest actually had an end had shocked them. In light of this fact, they had to reconsider all their thoughts from scratch. This was not to be done publicly, because the colony was struggling for survival. Amidst this new land of uncertainties, everyone was in need of a certainty to cling to, and the suppositions of Sayhon and Nurson were the last thing they looked for.

As the colony’s efforts for reconstruction and the internal quests of these two ants continued, they came across the most unexpected thing: another ant colony just like them. It was as shocking to the native ants as it was to themselves. And as their relationship deepened, it was a subtle, mind-altering experience for all of them to see that they both had religious texts telling the same brief story about the origin of life.

The spread of Islam would obviously not have occurred without its Prophet, Muhammad, who was able to win support for his spiritual and political status within Arabia in the early seventh century. After having claimed to receive divine revelations, Muhammad slowly acquired a small following and eventually some seventy families had converted to Islam. However, not all of his contemporaries were convinced of the genuineness of his message. This was especially true of the pagan rulers of his Quraysh tribe in Mecca. Consequent persecutions caused the early Muslims to flee to Yathrib, which was located 250 miles north of Mecca. Yet, what appeared to be a backward move for the early believers actually benefited them and their religion as the tribes around Yathrib were enthralled by Muhammad’s spiritual vision and pledged allegiance to the ummah (community). A series of conflicts between the Quraysh and Muslims climaxed in 630 when the Quraysh broke an earlier peace treaty that had been established. This saw Muhammad march upon Mecca with 10,000 men and take the city without bloodshed. He then destroyed the idols around the Kabah and rededicated it to God. By the time of Muhammad’s death in 632, as Karen Armstrong explains, “almost all the tribes of Arabia had joined the ummah as Confederates or as converted Muslims.” As history will show, this was not the end of this remarkable series of events. For unification of Arabia would not cease at the death of the founder of Islam but would rather dramatically gain momentum through his successors, the Caliphs.

With the combination of three important factors: unification, conquest, and religious zeal, the early Caliphs were able to consolidate Muslim rule in Arabia and prepare a launching pad for further conquests. This initial spread of Islam was so rapid that, as H. U. Rahman explains, “in less than one century after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD, Muslim rule covered more of the earth than had the Roman Empire at its peak.” This unification did not however happen overnight, and it must be emphasized that Islamic rulers always had much division to contend with. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, had the difficult job of uniting all of the tribes that had forsaken their allegiance to the ummah after Muhammad’s death. Yet through political, theological, and at times military coercion, Abu Bakr was able to completely unify Arabia before his death in 634. Secondly, despite the assassinations of the next three caliphs – Umar, Uthman, and Ali – which characterizes the bloody period that ensued, the spread of Islam continued to gain momentum as successful military campaigns were carried out abroad. From 634–44, the Caliphate of Umar had conquered Jerusalem, controlled Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and defeated the Persian Empire. Furthermore, in Uthman’s reign (644–50), Muslims conquered Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and established Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and the Sind region. The above two methods of internal unification and successful conquest led to the establishment of the Islamic world during the seventh century, and the speed in which it accomplished this announced to the world that Islam was here – and here to stay.

The third explanation of the rapid spread of Islam throughout Arabia and beyond was – most importantly – the religious zeal of the leaders, soldiers, and general Arab population. Plainly put, without being fuelled with a sense that God was on their side, the Muslim conquests would have fallen far short of their eventual reality. Tamara Sonn explains that the basic tenets of Islamic faith captivated the people and structured Islamic life in Medina, and it was around these practices and core values that the early Muslim community was built. Francesco Gabrieli supports Sonn and places a heavy emphasis on religion as the principal factor underlying and motivating the Arab conquests. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any group achieving geographical expansion without a clear goal and purpose; for the Mongols of the thirteenth century it was a brutal ideological reason, whilst for the Muslims it was the feeling that they were being divinely guided.

Nevertheless the spread of a religious or ideological ideal can only be truly successful if those whom it is trying to gain submission from are disillusioned or unhappy with their own contemporary world. This was the case for the many thousands of people under Byzantine rule. We find that a great number gladly adhered to the conquering Islamic rulers and Quranic law as they found protection and benefits that had not been attained under Byzantine rule. Many minorities had become increasingly dissatisfied with the Byzantine regime due to their insecurities of being persecuted and instead came to favor the secure Islamic rulership who allowed autonomy for minority groups if their taxes were paid. The preference of many of the conquered peoples to favor Islamic rule enabled the Islamic Empire to remain politically stable, which is a prerequisite for any group wanting to expand its geographic borders.

Turning back the clock to the infant stages of Islam, we find that the Muslims were fraught with political struggles for power. With factions developing within the Islamic world following Ali’s assassination (the fourth Caliph) in 661, the unity and prosperity of the new Islamic Empire became threatened. However, it was the way that the Muslims were efficiently able to get back on their feet and consolidate unity that saw these power struggles, which had the potential to dismantle Islamic hopes for expansion, averted. The Islamic world needed a leader who could unite as many of these factions together as possible, and this stability came with the establishment of the Ummayad Dynasty through Muawiyyah I. He ruled from 661–80 and was the first Caliph to move his capital away from Medina, transferring it to Damascus. However unpopular this move was, R. Stephen Humphreys explains that Muawiyyah I saved the Muslim Empire from disintegration as he was, “the only man with the political and military resources available to restore unity within the realm of Islam.” Although the Umayyad period is typically characterized by political and military success, the Umayyad rulers did not forget its founding religion. According to Karen Armstrong, Muawiyyah I was simply “a religious man and a devout Muslim.” Furthermore, a statement of Islam’s superiority to past religions was symbolically made through the establishment of the Dome of the Rock, which was completed at Jerusalem in 691 under Caliph Abd al-Malik. This spiritual construction shows that Islamic rulers could not go forward unless they acknowledged the close relationship between conquest and the Muslim religion, and this was done most emphatically with the construction of this monument.

Despite geographical consolidations made by the early Umayyad Caliphs, discontent remained within the Islamic world with several extremist groups emerging regularly in Islamic culture. This was perhaps a catalyst for Umayyad leaders having a more political conception of Islam than did previous rulers. Although the discontentment of factions within the Islamic world, such as the Shias, could not be eradicated, internal stability generally emerged at the commencement of the Umayyad Dynasty. Paul Lunde explains that the pacification of the central lands under early Umayyad rulers enabled them to focus primarily on conquest so that the spread of Islam could continue. Furthermore, according to Armstrong, conquest was able to be successfully waged during al-Walid I’s reign between 705–715 where the Umayyad dynasty reached its peak and the Muslim armies continued the conquest of North Africa, and established a kingdom in Spain. However, even though the Umayyad Dynasty had expanded its Islamic borders throughout the Arab world, its power soon declined, as internal friction had finally reached unmanageability. Then, the Umayyads – somewhat inevitably – succumbed to the overwhelming power of the Abbasids in 750.

Even though the overthrow of the Umayyad family by the Abbasids was horrific and angered many, this brutal act did not slow the continual geographical or economical gains of Islam. In fact, at the height of Abbasid power in 800 (who had moved the Islamic capital to Baghdad in 762) only Constantinople and Xian, the capital of the great T’ang China, rivaled Baghdad’s wealth. Although military might was the predominant vehicle of Islamic power, the strength of Muslims at the zenith of Abbasid power in the ninth century was represented through a great cultural renaissance which took place in literary criticism, philosophy, poetry, and science. This marked the beginnings of “Muslim genius” as individuals such as Abu Bakr Al Razi (864–925) studied medicine and uncovered unique contraceptive methods; and Abu Nasr Al Farabi (870–950) incorporated logic and politics into philosophy. As Armstrong explains, such was the grandeur of this era that the Muslim scholars made more scientific discoveries during this time than in the whole previously recorded history put together. Hence, these examples symbolize the prestige of the superpower Abbasid Empire of the old world, which asserted itself not only through military conquests but through cultural and scientific discovery.

However, despite the Abbasid period reaching new heights in regards to its geographical expansion, it too slowly declined in prestige from about 935 and would soon be unable to hold off a young and powerful group of Muslims in the centuries to follow: the Turks.

Before the success of one final Islamic Empire is discussed, it is important to reflect on several other specific reasons why Islam spread so rapidly throughout Arabia and to the whole world. Three of these deserve particular mention. First, the Caliphs and Muslim rulers were willing to use existing administrative structures to enforce laws, and it was not uncommon for non-Islamic officials to be used in high places within a conquered society. Second, there was seldom force or coercion used from Islamic forces once a military campaign was successful. As Francesco Gabrieli explains, the traditional theory of the conquests being characterized merely by Bedouin neophytes of Islam rushing from their desert birthplace to convert other nations with the sword has been completely dismissed by modern historiography. In fact, Arabs were quite content with their passive non-Muslim subjects known as dhimmis (those who were second-class citizens under Islamic law, yet protected under this status) and no real effort was made to convert them. This hands-off approach actually led to an increase in Islamic converts regularly throughout the Islamic Empire as individuals were pleased to make their own decision about religion, which is something that had not been afforded them under Byzantine rule.

Finally, further comparisons between Byzantine Christianity and Islam highlight how many became turned off by Christendom but enthusiastic and inquisitive about Islam. Christianity had become heavily clericized by the seventh century and appeared to be exclusive, whilst Islam appealed to individuals by offering unparalleled simplicity through its core principles. According to Abul-Fazl Ezzati, the five pillars of Islam, when compared to Christian orthodoxy, “replaced complexity of religious doctrines with simplicity, trinity with unity, empty theological discussions with concrete observation and fundamental analysis.” Moreover, the extent and rapidity of the success of Islamic military conquests had Muslims feeling that there was something divine aiding their cause. Zealous Muslims and their missionary activities always went hand in hand with the success of Islam and this sense of mission motivated Muslims to assist the expansion efforts in whatever way they could. Hence, Islam appealed to many contemporaries’ needs and with the lure of further expansion, many felt that Islam was the path for the future.

With this understanding in mind, we can finally return to the last great Islamic Empire of the ancient world through looking at the Ottoman Empire. Although Islam had by no means died out in terms of its expansion after Abbasid rule, it had clearly slowed by the fourteenth century. As Armstrong explains, from 935 onwards, “the caliphs no longer (wielded) temporal power but merely (retained) a symbolic authority. Real power now resided with the local rulers, who established dynasties in various parts of the empire.” Moreover, with the addition of the Mongol raids, which began in 1220, Islamic cities became desolate and the spread of Islam was curtailed for the first time in centuries as attention was turned to internal frontiers. However, a final thrust of Islamic expansion would occur through the Ottoman Empire, who slowly consolidated its own power in Anatolia, and by the late fourteenth century had begun to threaten Europe. One of the early Sultans, Murad I (1360–1389), had become the most powerful of the western Muslim rulers and this led to the name of the Ottomans symbolizing hope for a reunified Islamic empire. This hope was fueled by geographical gains made through military expansion by several Ottoman Sultans, such as Murad I (1421–1451), who asserted Ottoman power against Hungary and the West and by 1453 his successor, Mehmed II, who had conquered Constantinople, changed its name to Istanbul, and made it the Ottoman capital. Accordingly, the Ottomans had recommenced Muslim expansion and would look to achieve something past Islamic Empires could not – to successfully challenge Western Europe.

Ottoman expansion continued with Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–66) whose Empire, after conquering Hungary in 1526, had become the greatest power in Eastern Europe. It is important to note here that Suleiman saw the consolidation of Islamic values as the key to his military successes. As Jason Goodwin explains, Suleiman, “oversaw the most detailed codification of sultanic and Quranic law that had ever been known in an Islamic state.” Hence, although the Ottoman Empire did not represent all Muslims, it is clear that great Sultans such as Suleiman did not forget the founder of their religion as they saw themselves as a genuine continuation of early Islamic history. Justin McCarthy puts it clearly for us – “the base of the Ottoman Empire was Islam. Religion was intimately bound up with the ideology and legitimacy of the government … Their Empire was always styled a Muslim empire, one in the line of Islamic empires that had included the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and the Seljuks.” We see once again here, this time under the rule of the Ottomans, that legitimacy and support of a great Islamic Empire went hand in hand with a reflection on the spiritual past of the Muslim tradition.

Nevertheless, during the latter stages of Ottoman rule, the sultans began looking too far outwardly and neglecting inner spirituality, which deadened the degree of support that Muslims would give it. This empire fatally climaxed when the Ottomans looked to secure further lands in Europe. Their efforts fell horribly short, and they lost a vital battle to the coalition of the Holy League in 1683 at Vienna. When they were forced to humiliatingly sign the Treaty of Carlowicz in 1699, they had to yield Ottoman Hungary to Austria, which was the first major Ottoman reversal. Although the Empire did not crumble overnight, this point marks the end of Ottoman expansion – and indeed Islamic expansion – and the beginning of its slow decline.

The powerful Islamic dynasties and empires finally came to an end with the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Yet the legacy that both it and previous rulerships had left behind was remarkable geographical expansion, which had emanated from a small tribe in Arabia. The spread of Islam was orchestrated through the close connection of most Muslims and their leaders to an Islamic way of life, which gave them a sense of purpose for their conquests and expansions. It is important to understand that this was not always done smoothly; the overthrows of Islamic Empires did not always happen peacefully and blood was often internally shed in order to propel a fresher and stronger willed Islamic group forward. Although much internal strife was a common characteristic of the Islamic Empires, the historical reality shows us that enough of the Muslim population was willing to forget past disagreements and get on with a common cause of conquering peoples and gaining territory. Yet the key to all of this success was surely the religious foundation of the Prophet and the early Caliphs. Through future Islamic rulers regularly reminding their adherents of their Prophet and of his message, the Muslims felt as if they were part of something greater than themselves. Despite religious zeal fluctuating from time to time, Islamic faith would always seem to be reinvigorated which led to grand Empires being established and Islamic history being created.

Paul Kearns has a major in history and English from Monash University, Melbourne.

Notes

1. Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, New York, 2000, p. 12.

2. Ibid, 23.

3. H. U. Rahman, A Chronology of Islamic History: 570-1000 ce, London, 1989, p. vii.

4. Tamara Sonn, A Brief History of Islam, Oxford, 2004, p. 23.

5. Armstrong, 2000, pp. 27, 29.

6. Ibid, p. xiv.

7. Sonn, 2004, p. 22.

8. Francesco Gabrieli, Muhammad and the Conquests of Islam, London, 1968, p. 104.

9. Sonn, 2000, pp. 25, 34.

10. R. Stephen Humphreys. Mu‘awiya ibn Abi Sufyan: From Arabia to Empire, Oxford, 2006, p. 84.

11. Armstrong. 2000, p. 42.

12. Ibid, p. 44.

13. Gerald R. Hawting. The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, London, 1986, p. 2.

14. Paul Lunde. Islam, London, 2002, p. 52.

15. Armstrong, 2000, p. 50.

16. Lunde, 2002, p. 56.

17. Akbar S. Ahmed. Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society, London, 2002, pp. 44-5.

18. Armstrong, 2000, p. 56.

19. Ibid, p. 54.

20. Gabrieli, 1968, p. 105.

21. Ibid, p. 115.

22. Abul-Fazl Ezzati. An Introduction to the History of the Spread of Islam, London, 1978, p. 43.

23. Ibid, p. 3.

24. Armstrong, 2000, p. xix.

25. Sonn, 2000, p. 78.

26. Patrick Kinross. The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, New York, 1979, p. 187.

27. Jason Goodwin. Lords of the Horizon: A History of the Ottoman Empire, New York, 1998, p. 83.

28. Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Turks: An Introductory History to 1923, London, 1997, p. 106.

29. Armstrong, 2000, p. xxvi.

In this work we study a verse from the Qur’an, the 47th verse of the Sura al-Dhariyat (The Winds that Scatter), under the light of new discoveries in the field of astrophysics. We note that recent evidence about the accelerating expansion of the universe is also strongly consistent with this verse, although this has shocked the scientific community. In the last part of the article, we discuss possible relations of “metaphysical dimensions” and the concept of “the seven layers” with the word “sama” (translated in to English as “heaven”) as mentioned in the verse.

The existence of the universe is perhaps one of the greatest mysteries in science and philosophy. No convincing argument has been ever put forward that has enabled us to understand this amazing event, not since the beginning of modern science. Religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, on the other hand, explain that the Creator built our robust universe directly out of physical nothingness, independent of any cause. Therefore, the initial creation of such universe would be impossible to explain physically (M. F. Gulen, from his conference on “Evolution and reality”).

In his translation of the relevant verse, S. Yildirim has noted that God keeps the universe expanding and He will continue to do so. Yildirim attributes two meanings to the word musiun in the verse; the first is the owner of great power, strength and wealth; the second is one who expands. Thus, it should not be a surprise to learn that this verse is indeed describing a continually-expanding universe. This might further lead Muslims to think that the Creator has not left the universe unattended after the Big Bang, but rather it is He who has kept creating and expanding it.

In the 1920’s a discovery was made that completely changed our perception of space. It was discovered that distant stars depart from the solar system and leave us even more and more alone in dark space. Then, Fr. Georges-Henri Lemaître, a Belgian astrophysicist, mathematician, and Catholic priest, proposed the idea of the expanding universe. Despite its finite size, it was believed that the universe was expanding.

We can explain this fact simply by an analogy. Think of a toy balloon with spots on it. Mark one of those spots and inflate the balloon. As we inflate it, we observe that all other spots on the surface of the balloon move away from the marked one. So, if we replace the balloon with our universe, the spots will be the stars and planets. If the universe is expanding indeed, then we expect them to be moving away from each other. In other words, the distances between heavenly bodies must be increasing.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a gigantic ruler to measure such immense distances. However, there are other means, such as measuring wave frequencies. Consider the following analogy: Someone throws one ball every second toward a target. Assume that balls travel with constant velocity. If the thrower is stationary, the target will receive one ball every second. However, if the thrower is moving towards the target, it will receive balls more frequently because the balls will be less spaced out. The converse is true if the thrower is moving away from the target. So it is actually the wavelength which is affected; as a consequence, the perceived frequency is also affected. That is, the distances between the waves emitted by objects moving away from us (wavelength) must be increasing, so the frequency decreasing. Likewise, think of an ambulance siren coming towards you and going away from you. It is a good example showing that while an acoustic source that is approaching us emits a higher frequency, the same source radiates lower frequency when going away from us. In physics this is known as the Doppler effect.

Red shift

This phenomenon does not only occur with sound waves, but also with electromagnetic waves. When we think of the spectrum of light, violet at one end has the shortest wavelength and red at the other end has the longest wavelength of visible light. So, any wave of light shifting toward red means the source is moving away from us. It has been determined that the frequency of light emitted by the elements within distant stars shift to a lower frequency, which is called a red shift.

It is this shift that makes astrophysicists think that the universe is expanding. One mustn’t be confused by red shift. This terminology is just used to explain in what direction the frequency is actually shifting on the spectrum. Those signals captured from distant stars have a much smaller frequency (much higher wavelength) than that of red light and they are indeed in the microwave regime and shifting to even much smaller frequency radio waves.

In 2002, an article presenting new evidence of the accelerating expansion of the universe was published by the Royal Astronomical Society. It was not so long ago, only five years, that general opinion concurred with a decelerating expansion. However, the first evidence found by two astronomers in that year led us into a universe that expands in an accelerating fashion, contrary to previous views. This result was absolutely unexpected, because many scientists believed that expansion would slow down due to gravity. Another interesting fact is that if space were to cease expanding, this would be in contradiction to the above verse. God, however, by never allowing this to happen, shows how futile the actions of those who deny His verses are and how extensive His power is, as well as how purposefully He creates.

Dark energy

The groups who worked in the above study figured out, from the brightness of supernovas in distant galaxies, that the universe must expand more and more in the future due to a peculiar dark energy within it. The concept of dark energy was first postulated by Einstein, who named it the “cosmological constant.” However, since this did not fit in well with his theory of general relativity, he withdrew it and said that it was a scientific blunder. Since then, dark energy has had a rather controversial history.

A team of 27 astronomers, directed by Professor Efstathiou of Cambridge University, proposed strong evidence supporting the existence of dark matter, based on completely novel techniques. Their results, which were consistent with previous supernovas, showed that the universe is indeed full of dark matter. Professor Efstathiou thinks that the explanation of dark energy might include additional dimensions like creation (Big Bang) as well. Fr. Lemaître also proposed the expanding universe theory at an opportune time since Edwin Hubble would soon release his red shift observations that strongly supported an expanding universe and, consequently, the Big Bang theory. Here, the Big Bang is seen as the beginning of a continuous expansion.

The verse seems to tell us miraculously that the expansion of the universe will not cease, despite our limited knowledge of the physical reason for its acceleration.

The Hubble Telescope

Another article, published in Nature, presents us the first and deepest picture of space taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. This caused the astronomers to compete in solving the mysteries of the arts of God. The picture, also known as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, was broadcasted and published in various programs and journals. It has not only shown us the farthest stars of the universe, but the youngest as well. It was very difficult to detect such weak light with the former technology. This picture reveals the embryonic universe, with an age of only 500 million years old. Estimated age of the universe is 13-14 billion years. Three physicists from American Natural History Museum in New York started a competition to publish an article on the Ultra Deep Field picture after the data was disclosed. They hope to answer many questions about the past and future universe. A group at the Stony Brook University, New York, directed by Kenneth Lanzetta, analysed the embryonic samples in the picture to try to discover when various galaxies had been born and how they had evolved. Two other groups are studying the motions of stars and galaxies, as the picture is a result of data collected over a month.

Having looked at the expansion of universe under the light of recent discoveries, now we turn our attention to two other arguments that could be relevant to expansion. Namely, ether (a substance which it is believed fills up the vast universe and which is the ultimate building block of the space), and the seven-layer-universe.

Despite the Michelson-Morley experiment, which argued against theory of luminiferous ether, the propagation of electric, light, or heat in space shows the existence of a substance through which they flow. The Michelson-Morley experiment is nothing more than just a test of the non-existence of certain qualities of ether. For example, in order to show the existence of photons, of which light is made up, we cannot go beyond showing the features of photons. In other words, depending on how we have defined its qualities, we can observe different aspects in the photon, ether, or anything else. In fact, even today, we don’t really know what a photon really is, although we observe its affects every day. In short, it is not possible to show the non-existence of phenomena that cannot be absolutely defined. Instead, we can only test the existence of the properties that we have defined and attributed to them, and thus we better understand their nature of existence in the context of those pre-defined qualities. Hence, the existence of ether is still controversial and needs more thorough research.

Seven layers

Regarding the seven-layer-universe, on the other hand, how is it possible for ether to manifest itself in seven heavens? It may be that these seven layers are not all posed above our heads, but rather that they may be found one with another. The universe is composed of many systems and networks that are the building blocks of their counterparts on larger scales. Each system is governed by laws, which differ slightly from one another. Inside the atom there exists a proton with its unique organization and in a proton we find quarks. For example, communication between protons and electrons is mediated by the electromagnetic force, while the quarks inside the protons communicate via the strong force. These interleaved circles show us that the universe is indeed composed of numerous layers.

We may use these layers for the metaphysical world as well. The human being is not only composed of matter, but also has a mind, a soul, and intelligence. Although these components are accepted as existing by all, their exact nature has not yet been explained by positive sciences.

It seems that the universe is composed of at least two different worlds: The material world (physical) and the immaterial (metaphysical) world. Are these two worlds completely separate, or do they have some features in common? In fact, the existence of humanity might prove to be this common set. But, it may also be true for the universe itself. Nursi states that the distant galaxies, stars and planets are not empty, but home to many spirits and angels who have their own consciences. Thus, one can say that despite the boundaries which separate these two worlds, such as different numbers of temporal and spatial dimensions, they constitute a whole, the Universe. The interaction between them will never fail as long as the universe exists.

The existence of two separate worlds is not that difficult to believe, but there is more:

It is He Who (prepared the earth for your life before He gave you life, and) created all that is in the world for you (in order to create you – the human species – and make the earth suitable for your life); then He directed (His Knowledge, Will, Power, and Favor) to the heaven, and formed it into seven heavens. He has full knowledge of everything. (Baqara 2:29)

The Qur’an calls the heaven where the sun, moon and stars are the lowest heaven or the heaven of the world (Mulk 67:5). The other six heavens may be the heavens of the worlds of the Hereafter.1 We are not sure whether this seven-layer heavens can only be attributed to the physical universe. It might be able to apply to the universe as a whole, with its all seen and unseen layers as well. Even the worlds of angels and spirits may be expanding in accordance with the laws therein, to show how the power and the wealth of God are comprehended in those worlds as well. Although our Earth is finite, the expansion may not be restricted to our finite world, but it may continue in infinite worlds as well.

It is possible that the space being filled with ether has an important role in paving the orbits of planets or stars, as well as other heavenly bodies. We believe that future studies on dark matter, ether, and string theory will help us to better understand the expansion process of the universe.

Note

1. What the Qur’an means by seven heavens has been interpreted in different ways. For further information see Unal, 2006, p. 19.

References

• Ünal, Ali, The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, The Light, Inc., New Jersey: 2006.
• Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330, 21 (2002).
• Nursi, S., The Words, The Light, Inc., Istanbul: 2005.

Qur’anic Perspective

At this point it would be interesting to look at what Ali Unal has to say as to why no past civilization could resist decadence and time’s corrosive power. His approach refers more to the individual and free will, rather than visible causes:1

. . . [C]ontrary to the fatalism of all other philosophies, including even Ibn Khaldun’s, the Qur’an stresses the individual’s free choice and moral conduct. Although the Divine Will, as emphasized in the Qur’an, could be regarded in some respects as the counterpart of Hegel’s Geist or as other philosophies’ absolute and irresistible laws of history, the Qur’an never denies human free will

. . . . Ibn Khaldun, Toynbee, Spengler, and other philosophers of history formed a mistaken conception of history because they did not try to discover the real dynamics of historical movements. Rather, they sought to explain the apparent causes behind a civilization’s establishment, flourishing, and decay. Whoever looks to the past will arrive at the same conclusions. But just because no community has remained at its peak this does not mean that this is an inevitable end or a determinist grip on the fate of each nation. Past civilizations collapsed because they did not heed the warnings of what had happened to earlier peoples. Accepting historical determinism causes us to nullify free will and consider the warnings and advice found in the Divine Scriptures and social sciences as useless and absurd.

This is strongly confirmed by the Qur’an in the following verses:

. . . surely God does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition. (Rad 13:11)

. . . God never changes the grace He has bestowed on any people until they first change that which is in their hearts. (Anfal 8:53)

Theories concerning the collapse of civilizations

There are many theories concerning the collapse of civilizations, but of course, if a theory does not conform to reality, it is worth nothing. In this article, I will first give a brief account of widely held beliefs about the collapse of civilizations, explain the weaknesses of these theories, and then give a rationale that I believe better explains the historical data we have. As for most social problems, we will perhaps never know the truth about why societies collapse. However, the stakes at hand are so high that we must make every effort to understand, and to an extent, solve this problem.

The most common explanation for such collapses is some insurmountable natural disaster, like an epidemic, hurricane, drought, or earthquake that leads to the demise of a civilization by killing the population and crippling the economy. Widely-cited examples are the eruption of the volcano in Thera that preceded the collapse of the Minoan civilization, the malaria epidemic in the Roman Empire or earthquakes in Mesoamerican societies. These arguments, which are very appealing to our human nature, that desires simple explanations for all questions, are in fact very unsound. Societies constantly experience such disasters, yet survive them. The potato blight in Ireland in 1845 halved the island’s population but there was no cease of sociopolitical complexity as a result of the disaster. It is strange to think that the Roman Empire, which survived many disasters before, including the eruption of Pompei in AD 79, fell to malaria. We should consider that complex civilizations are designed to absorb such disasters, and they do. Just recalling the constant earthquakes in Japan added to the loss of a world war with two nuclear bombs exploding in the heart of two large cities will sufficiently prove this notion. Japanese civilization did not collapse. On the contrary, it is one of the strongest economies in today’s international arena. It is peculiar then that some civilizations are no longer able to fight such disasters. However, an act of God can certainly collectively destroy any civilization, as it did in the past like Sodom and Gomorrah. This is clearly narrated in the divine scriptures.

The other common explanations for such collapses are intruders and competition with other civilizations. The barbarian tribes, which brought the end of Rome in the fifth century, and the Mongolians that invaded Baghdad in the thirteenth century are clear examples of the intruder argument. This argument suffers from the realization that civilizations are attacked by outsiders throughout their existence, yet for some reason they cannot defend themselves near the time of their collapse. Competition with other societies however, is in principle expected to lead to growth and expansion instead of collapse. There is no end to the examples from this category too, like the competition of the Ottoman Empire with Persia, which indirectly weakened its western front. But the competition argument is both intuitively confusing and it fails to account for major cases, like the fall of the Roman Empire.

Another widely held belief about such collapses is that at a certain point in the life of a civilization a resource is depleted and the civilization that depends on this resource is prone to collapse. The Romans and the Ottomans both depended on military expansion for their economy, and when the relatively weak nations around them were engulfed or when they were barred from further expansion by geographical limitations, such as seas or large mountains, they were no longer able to use this resource. There seems to be some truth and lessons in this argument. To the uninformed, it is a very curious fact that the cradle of civilization was Mesopotamia, where modern day Iraq is. How is it possible that the superpowers of that era, the Sumerians (~3000 BC) and the Babylonians (~1000 BC) chose to live in these deserts? How is it possible that they irrigated the land, raised armies, and built world wonders in these sand dunes? These questions actually are easily answered when we realize that Mesopotamia was not a dessert in that era after all. It is now a generally accepted theory that this place had a fragile ecosystem, which was destroyed after thousands of years of environmental pressure. The potential for these lands to accommodate great civilizations was lost after this fragile ecosystem was slowly destroyed by its inhabitants.

However, the argument of resource depletion inherently asserts that the elite of a civilization facing resource depletion passively waits for the predictable demise. I will argue below that this case, although strange, is true. Another difficulty of the resource depletion argument is that in some instances of collapse resources were never depleted. The fertile lands of Mesopotamia still remained green until later than 1000 AD, while many civilizations experienced collapses. The Romans, who used irrigation as a resource, kept farming till the very end. Finally, one may wonder why societies aim at possessing a higher amount of resources all the time. Population increase is only a partial answer to this question. We can easily imagine a society whose population stays the same; it is not a far-fetched hypothesis that this society will naturally also try to increase its resources to fend off a variety of calamities it may experience, such as intruders and catastrophes. I believe herein lies an interesting rationale that brings together the mentioned theories that are flawed. To understand this, we first have to appreciate a law in economics, called the “law of diminishing returns.”

It is very rare in economics and in general social sciences that some series of observations can be identified as a “law.” However, the “law of diminishing returns,” first put forward in 1965 by Ester Boserup, is so comprehensive in its nature and explains such a variety of trends that it is now universally accepted. It goes: The return for an investment in a particular activity is great at the beginning, and then it gradually decreases. At a point, further investment brings no further benefits. At this point, the facility (a person, a group, a society, a factory) can no longer increase its returns, however much they would invest in that activity.

A simple example will clarify the law. Suppose we have a piece of land that we want to use for irrigation. In the beginning, we would just disperse seeds and wait for the crops to grow. Notice that our investment is minimal (say 1 unit of investment), and we get some food for our investment (again define this to be 1 unit of return). Then, if we want to increase the amount of crops we have, we may dig some canals for watering. It is straightforward to recognize that the canal digging is a lot harder than just dispersing seeds (say 5 times harder). However, it is again straightforward to recognize that although now we make 6 times more investment, we probably will not get 6 times the crop. Nevertheless, we want to maximize our return, so we still dig the canals. The next step would be to use motorized vehicles, which is maybe a 10 times increase in investment, but everybody will surely accept that it is not possible to get a crop that is 16 times greater than our original from the same plot of land. (Readers who may object that once the investments of canals and vehicles are made they will provide constant returns are reminded of the maintenance costs of these investments.) A further increase in returns may require genetically engineered crops that will require years of expensive research (more investment). The return per investment will always decrease for a certain type of activity, in this case irrigation.

This law is everywhere in life: If one week of studying suffices a result of 80 on one exam, in order to get 90, you need to study two more weeks. Most healthy people can run 100m in 20 seconds; to run it in 10 seconds you need years of exercising. Depending on one’s abilities (which determine an individual’s possible investment) these may even be impossible for many people. A vivid example is the heating problem in England during the nineteenth century. Heating, which was primarily carried out by burning wood from forests, with the increase in population had to be switched over to the burning of coal. The mining and distribution of coal, which is much more difficult than simply getting some wood from a nearby forest, was made even more difficult when the easily mined surface coal was rapidly depleted and deeper tunnels with lighting and airing problems had to be developed. It is intuitive why this law is in effect: Obviously, always, the easier solutions are adapted first, then the harder ones. Mining coal when you have easily available and plentiful wood is not reasonable. Consequently, we have a decline for our returns per investment.

The resources that civilizations use are no exception. A civilization that uses irrigation as a resource is bound to be limited by a certain level of return. Resource does not have to be depleted; it just cannot produce a return more than at a certain level. Another civilization that is dependent on taxation, mercenary or military expansion can achieve no more return after a certain level, no matter what adjustments it makes to its existing policy. Having said this, we can understand why a civilization that depends on a certain type of energy or resource cannot expand its influence beyond a certain level. Moreover, when energy becomes scarce, the civilization can become less agile in terms of trying new resources and new ways to produce returns, since agility and innovation mostly depend on using some of the surplus resources on strategies that will most probably yield no returns. Hence the rise of large architectural structures and many inefficient military operations are carried out during the ascent of a young civilization. These activities, which are easily buffered by the large returns that come from initial investment on the main resource of a civilization become impossibly costly later when the returns from the same investment is declining.

One last piece of the puzzle completes the rationale as to why civilizations collapse, and this piece is an easily accepted assumption: A civilization is like a dinosaur. It is large and strong, but it is adapted to the conditions into which it was born. The conditions change, however, the dinosaur cannot change its behavior. It helplessly tries to maximize the returns for the type of resource that it is adapted to use, and after a point, it simply cannot, thanks to the universal and unforgiving law of diminishing returns. At this point, another civilization, that primarily uses another superior resource, will have larger returns, build a larger army to invade the former civilization, build larger ships to cut off the trade routes, and produce goods to cripple its economy… This is just a matter of time, and it is unavoidable (see Figure 1b). The strength of the civilization in its golden age is now its weakness. In such a weakness, since there is no extra resource to fight new problems-all resource is either used up by the population, or goes toward defense costs-even a natural disaster can bring an end to a civilization that once seemed to be indestructible.

The Ottoman Empire’s strength in its rise was its perfect hierarchical organization which led to the accumulation of all power under the Sultan. Its main resource was military expansion and taxation of trade. These adaptations, which were ideal for the time between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, led to one of the most powerful empires that have ever reigned. However, by the sixteenth century, these strategies had become burdens: Due to the strong hierarchy, an intelligentsia that supported science and art as in the West could never develop. Military expansion had to stop. Taxation could no longer work since the Mediterranean Sea was no longer used for trade. The strategies were not abandoned though, instead, more investments were made in order to increase the returns, which as we saw above is a nonviable alternative. Eventually, other civilizations that used better resources brought about the end of the Empire. A similar order of events can be observed for other civilizations that collapsed. The great Arab historian Ibn Khaldun of the fourteenth century likens the lives of civilizations to the natural lifespan of individuals. They are born, they grow old, and they die. In my view, a civilization does not die because it gets old; it dies because it cannot compete with a stronger civilization.

The natural question to ask is if our current civilization will collapse. From the analysis above, we can conclude that there are two reasons for the collapse of a civilization: 1) Dependence on a certain type of investment and failing to adapt to the new conditions. 2) The invention by another competitor civilization of a new type of investment with higher returns. In today’s world, both of these reasons are in some ways different than those that existed in the past. First, with the advancement of science, the current civilizations are flexible in the resources they utilize, the options are constantly evaluated, the heating in United Kingdom does not collapse when wood is depleted; instead, coal, then gas, then nuclear power is used. The return for the investment made for some utility is similar to the curve shown in Figure 1c: whenever the return for a type of investment declines, we can shift to the next resource. Second, by the immense advancement in information processing and communication, the whole world is aware of the types of investments other societies are using, and a leading civilization that follows the developments in other countries is very unlikely to be threatened by a sudden development in a rival civilization. Third, because of progress in international trade, the old sense that any other civilization is an enemy has lost its significance.

Notwithstanding these reasons, only a few decades ago, at the height of the cold war, we witnessed the possibility of the immediate collapse of our civilization. Global warming and the depletion of petrol reserves were only two of the many alarming cues that we may have turned to declining returns for our investment curve. It is imperative to remember again that the stakes are very high. The next civilization to fall may bring about the fall of the human species.

Notes

1. Tainter, J. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1988.
2. Grigg D. Ester Boserup’s theory of agrarian change: a critical review. Prog Hum Geogr. 1979; 3 (1): 64-84.
3. Unal, Ali, Islam Addresses Contemporary Issues, Kaynak, Izmir:1998, p. 142.

Cosmology is the study of how the universe we live in came into being, why it looks and behaves as it does, and what its ultimate fate is. Building on the work of Albert Einstein, cosmologists have come up with a new account of the origin of the universe, the so-called big-bang cosmology. Over the past three decades a series of observational developments and refinements to the theory have led to its wider acceptance. For the present, there are no fundamental challenges to the big bang theory, although there are certainly unresolved issues with the theory itself. Astronomers are not sure, for example, how the galaxies were formed, but it is questionable whether there is a reason not to think the process did not occur within the framework of the big bang. Indeed, the predictions of the theory have survived all tests to date.

Nevertheless, we should always bear in mind that present-day science is not the last word, and perhaps Einstein’s theories, and the big-bang cosmology, will in turn be superseded.

Our present knowledge of the universe is restricted to a handful of observational facts. The expansion of the universe, indicated by the law relating the red shift in light from astronomical objects to their distance, was dis¬covered by Edwin Hubble in the early part of this century. The existence of the microwave background radiation corresponding to a temperature of 2.7K, and the cosmological abundance of helium are more recent discoveries. Together, these three observations suggest that the universe was born in a hot fireball from a very dense state-the big bang. Not just matter was created in the big bang, but space-time as well. There was nothing outside for the big bang to explode into-and this nothing means not even empty space.

Cosmologists today do not claim to know exactly what made the universe explode into existence from a state of zero volume and infinite density-a space-time singularity-but they do claim to be able to describe in great detail how a hot fireball of matter and radiation has evolved from a fraction of a second after the instant of creation over about 15 billion years to produce the cool, dark spread of empty space, dotted with galaxies made up of stars, gas, dust and planets, that we see about us now.

The laws of nature as we currently understand them allow us to trace the observed expansion of the universe back billions of years to what would be a true beginning, a moment when the universe was infinitely hot and dense. Although, theorists are now pushing back their speculations about what happened in the first 10-35 seconds after the big bang, with less confidence, the modern cosmological world view begins at a time when the universe had cooled to only 1012K, about 10-5 seconds after the instant creation. At these extreme conditions, the laws of physics as deduced here on earth can be applied to produce the story of everything that ha happened since. At a temperature of 1012K, particles and radiation would be interchangeable, as the mass equivalent of energy in the radiation would be ample to produce particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons, not out of thin air but out of thick radiation, in line with the rules E=mc2 for a particle of mass m and E=hv for radiation with frequency v (h is Planck’s constant). Here higher black body temperature of radiation corresponds to bigger v, that is bigger energy E, and therefore to more massive particle equivalents.

So, one-hundred-thousandth of a second after it began, the universe would have been a seething mass of particles and radiation, a swirling soup in which particle/antiparticle pairs were constantly being created out of energetic photons, and constantly annihilating with one another to produce other energetic photons. Overall though, the total mass/energy of the whole system was constant. For every E/c2 of mass created or destroyed an exactly equivalent E/h of radiation is destroyed or created.

Things began to get more orderly at 1011, still within the first 0.1 seconds after the big bang, as the universe expanded so that the density of radiation at any point was no longer enough to produce the more exotic particles. Only electron/positron pairs, and the massless photons and neutrino/antineutrino pairs, were light enough to have a continuing involvement in the matter/radiation balance.

About 14 seconds after the big bang, the temperature of the universe had dropped to around 3xl09K, and even electrons and positrons needed too much energy for the weakening radiation to create them. As the universe con¬tinued to expand and cool, creation became slower than annihilation, and almost all the particles and antiparticles disappeared. But for some unknown reason, a small proportion of electrons, protons and neutrons were left over. It is this early excess of matter over an¬timatter that survived to form light atomic nuclei a few minutes later, then (after about a million years) to form atoms and, still later, to be cooked to heavier elements in stars, ultimately to provide the material out of which life would arise. The reason for this predominance of matter over antimatter remains a mystery and has been a source of concern to modern cosmology. It is, nevertheless, one of the key initial conditions that determined the future development of the universe.

As the temperature dropped to 109K-about 70 times the temperature in the heart of the sun today-many protons and neutrons fused into helium nuclei, and by the end of first four minutes no free neutrons were left. Some 75% of the mass of the visible universe had been processed into protons plus electrons (ultimately to be bound into hydrogen atoms) while rather more than 25% mass of the universe had been processed into helium. The abundance of these elements in the universe is detectable today, and provides a constraint on the range of allowable models.

Another 700,000 years later, the expanding universe cooled to the point where electrons can bind to helium and hydrogen nuclei to make atoms, at a temperature of around 5000K. This signalled the end of the last remaining links between matter and radiation on a cosmic scale. Although free electrons and atomic nuclei, being electrically charged, interact strongly with radiation, electrically neutral atoms do not. From then on, the background radiation had nothing left to do but spread thinner in the expanding and cooling universe, to become the faint hiss we now detect at temperature equivalent of 2.7K. The very high degree of uniformity of the microwave background today is a strong indication that uniform, isotropic models provide a good description of the universe.

After the first thousand million years or so, with matter firmly established and radiation playing only a minor and decreasing role, the story of the universe can be taken up in terms of gravity, left as the dominating force because of its long range and its independence of electric charge. Gravitational forces then shaped the galaxies by holding stars and planets together.

However, our grasp of the conditions that prevailed in the early universe does not translate into a full understanding of how galaxies formed. Many scientists believe that the hydrogen and helium gases that filled the universe must have been pulled into concentrations by gravity. But there are problems with this explanation: for, what could cause large, diffuse gas clouds to collapse, even with the aid of gravity, while the universe as a whole is expanding?

Having established that the universe began in a hot big bang, and being tolerably happy with a rough understanding of how galaxies formed, the truly cosmological question remaining for astronomers to puzzle over is whether the universe is open (will it expand forever) or closed (will it one day collapse into a new fireball)?

The answer lies in its density. The symbol used for the mass density of the universe is Omega. If Omega, is less than 1, the universe will expand forever, so that, eventually, all the galaxies and stars will grow dark and cold. The alternative to this ‘big chill’ is a ‘big crunch.’ If Omega is more than 1, gravity will eventually reverse the expansion, and all matter and energy will be reunited. For the present, since we are not sure how galaxies formed, the value of Omega is uncertain-most astronomers put it somewhere between 0.1 and 1.

While eternal expansion is the generally favoured hypothesis; there may be enough of the unseen matter in the universe to produce a gravitational pull capable of halting the expansion and eventually producing a recollapse. Though the case is not yet proven, one current idea is that neutrinos, once believed to be massless particles, may have a rest mass less than 1/10000 of an electron. As neutrinos are thought to be as numerous as photons, their aggregate mass could suffice to close the universe. The fact that we cannot see enough matter to close the universe does not mean that it is not there.

During the next decade, as techniques for measuring the mass of the universe improve, we may learn whether the present expansion is headed toward a big chill or a big crunch. What happens then? Just as we do not know how everything could appear from nothing in the big bang if space-time did not exist, we do not know what happens to the universe at this stage; the laws of physics are inadequate to describe such extreme conditions. If there is ever to be a solution to the mystery of the origin and end of the universe, it must await a substantial increase in our understanding of the quantum nature of gravity-the big bang account of creation has forged an unlikely marriage between cosmology, the science of the very large, and particle physics, the science of the very small.

In any event, the universe we inhabit seems to be very improbable. Random processes and statistical fluctuations on cosmological time scales could easily have made it quite inhospitable to life. Are we just lucky? Or is there some deep significance to the fact that we live in a universe just right for us?

For all its violence-including the possibility of a black hole resident at the centre of our own galaxy-the universe seems to be an ideal place for man. Everywhere we look in the universe, from far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order. The laws of physics can explain beautifully the analytic structure of nature, the behaviour of individual particles and fields, but tell us nothing about the collective, collaborative organization of matter: that is, how the world is put together.

Why is the world the way it is and not otherwise? This is not the type of question scientists normally ask. The customary approach to scientific inquiry is to discuss what we see, not what we might see. Nevertheless, the universe is such a remarkable place, and we, as observers, are perhaps the most remarkable feature, it seems worth while ascertaining just how probable or improbable the present arrangement is.

For example, we do not understand why the fundamental constants of nature have the values they do. Einstein captured its essence when he said: ‘What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.’ Very slight changes in the physical constants of nature could have made the universe unfold in a completely different manner.

Most of the features of the everyday world and the astronomical scene are determined by a few basic physical laws and constants, such as the masses of the elementary particles and the relative strengths of the basic forces that operate between them. In many cases, a rather delicate balance seems to prevail. For example, if the nuclear forces were slightly stronger then they actually are, compared with electromagnetism, the di-proton-an atomic nucleus containing just two protons and no other particle-would be stable; ordinary hydrogen would not exist, and stars would evolve very differently. If nuclear forces were slightly weaker, no chemical elements other than hydrogen would be stable, and chemistry would be dull indeed. In either case, we would not be here to ponder such matters.

Or suppose the constant of gravity were stronger and the gravitational force were, say 1030 times weaker than the electromagnetic force instead of a factor of 1040 weaker. Then we would have a small-scale, speeded-up universe, in which stars-gravitationally bound fusion redactors-had only 10-15 times the sun’s mass, and lived for about a year. This might not allow time for complex systems-such as life forms-to evolve. The question-Was the relative strength of electromagnetic force over the gravitational force there from the beginning of time or is it an accident of today? -remains intractable.

These mysteries are heightened when we reflect how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any of several physical quantities had slightly different values. The best known of these quantities is the energy of one of the excited states of the carbon-12 nucleus. There is an essential step in the chain of nuclear reactions that build up heavy elements in stars. In this step, two helium nuclei join together to form the unstable nucleus of beryllium-8, which sometimes before fissioning absorbs another helium nucleus, forming carbon-12 in this excited state. The carbon-12 nucleus then emits a photon and decays into the stable state of lowest energy. In subsequent nuclear reactions carbon is built up into oxygen and nitrogen and the other heavy elements necessary for life. If the energy of the excited state of carbon-12 were just a little higher, the rate of its formation would be much less, so that almost all the beryllium-8 nuclei would fission into helium nuclei before carbon could be formed. The universe would then consist almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, without the ingredients for life.

Moreover, if the proton and neutron masses were equal, then neutrons and protons could not bind to form deuterium and heavy nuclei, and nuclear burning in stars and, consequently, life would be impossible.

The most ubiquitous examples of orderliness in the universe are the stars. They represent an extreme departure from thermodynamic equilibrium because they burn brightly in a cold, dark space. The source of starlight is the nuclear furnace at the core of the star, where the chief nuclear reaction is the fusion of hydrogen to helium. This is a downhill process, leading to nuclei of greater stability, and the cost paid for achieving it is the redistribution of nuclear energy into the surrounding space in the form of heat and light. This particular orderliness, and with it most familiar examples of terrestrial organization, leads to the question: Is the present structure of the universe-which is made mainly of hydrogen and not helium or heavier elements-just luck, a coincidence? Because, if the universe were made of, say, iron (the most stable element) there would be no stars like the sun.

Also, the structure of our world depends vitally not only on the availability of free hydrogen, but also on the reasonably smooth distribution of the primeval matter. If the big bang had only coughed out black holes-the ultimate triumph of gravity-in which everything is completely obliterated and disappears, no life would have been possible.

Can all these peculiar ‘coincidences’ be understood in terms of some self-evolutionary mechanism?

In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. Observations confirmed this assumption and showed that the expansion is remarkably uniform in all directions. This would seem to imply a collaboration between widely separated regions of the cosmos to expand at the same rate everywhere. Such highly organized behaviour leads us to ask how all the different parts of the universe could synchronize the beginning of their expansion?

Where does the energy that makes the universe expand come from? What could be a permanent, decidedly nonzero source of energy in the universe, with cosmic consequences? Could it be vacuum-as the source of everything yet itself nothing? This is one of the hottest topics in contemporary physics and lies at the heart of perhaps the most important new concept in cosmology of the past decade. If it is correct, could the creation of being out of nothingness occur without the mediation of a Creator?

There are many such peculiar ‘coincidences’ in the universe. Is it just our luck that they have worked out that way, or is there a deeper explanation? One understanding would be that the world is the way it is because it is the creation of a Creator who wills it to be capable of fruitful process: His command, when He desires a thing, is to say to it ‘Be!’, and it is (Ya Sin, 36.82). Without an Organizer, chaos can never be transformed into cosmos. This explanation is not a temporary sop to satisfy our curiosity about phenomena for which we cannot yet work out a satisfactory physical explanation; rather, it is a step guiding us towards a better understanding of the real world.

That does not mean that these mysteries constitute a barrier beyond which science cannot pass. As in the past, we may reasonably expect that, in the future, deeper understanding will be achieved and a more profound pattern discerned at the basis of physical reality, in a new, perhaps new kind, of explanatory theory. It may be some version of supergravity or it may be the novel theory of ‘superstrings’. Or some other theory that we have not yet thought of.

However, we should bear in mind that both our growing knowledge about the universe, and the need, alongside it, to revise it continually, is clear evidence for the inconclusiveness of science and the limitation of its methods.

In addition, the finititude of man’s existence (in this very small part of a vast universe) and the limitations of his senses mean that all our efforts must be considered ‘relative.’ The results of pure and experimental sciences are a limited portion of reality as man can grasp it from his location in the universe and within the very limited time allotted to him, and not the truth itself. There is of course, a great difference between being aware of things and knowing their actual truth. The former is limited to sensible events only, while the latter lies beyond the capacity of our senses.

No inquiry into the nature of creation or any part of it can be closed and concluded. The patterns of God in creation are infinite: there will always be more of them to discover. As we strive to do so, understand more and more about nature, the scientist’s sense of wonder will not diminish but become sharper, more narrowly focused on the mysteries that still remain. The worth of science lies in its commitment to understanding the Divine handiwork. The comprehensibility of the reality around us is among the greatest of God’s favours to us. Einstein remarked this: ‘The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.’

The Qur’an contains many scientifically accurate statements, some of them still relevant to cosmology; it does not contain any statements which are in conflict with the findings of man’s scientific research nor open to criticism from modern science. Many of its verses allude to, and urge, reflection upon the reality around us as a form of worship, as a way to draw nearer to the Creator. I shall conclude by citing (in translation) a verse which draws our attention to the fact that, in a general sense, the future will be the age of knowledge and information, and that as a natural consequence of this, it will be an age of faith and belief:

Soon We shall show them Our signs on the furthest horizons, and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is truth. Is it not enough that your Lord witnesses all things? (Fussilat, 41.53)

USEFUL READING

• GRIBBIN, J. (1982) Cosmology today: A New Scientist Guide
• JAMES, P. et al. (1994) ‘The Evolution of the Universe’, Scientific American, October
• SIMSEK, U. (1986) Big Bang-Kainatin Dogusu, Yeni Asya, Istanbul
• NURBAKI, H. (1989) Verses from the Glorious Qur’an and the Facts of Science, Turkish Foundation for Religion Publications