The surfaces of soap bubbles have a very important feature. These surfaces which have minimum surface-tension potential energy also have minimum areas. That is, soap bubbles or clusters have a natural tendency to minimize area for the volumes they enclose. Two different frames and the areas formed are shown in Figure 1. For a given closed frame, at least one such minimal area can be formed; however, mathematicians have had to strive to prove it.

The famous mathematician Richard Courant (1888–1972), together with his students, did soap bubble experiments with various frames.

Minimal areas can also be formed by using more than one closed frames. Figure 2 shows the minimal surfaces obtained by holding two circular frames parallel. If the frames are kept too far from each other, no surface will form. If they are kept sufficiently near to each other, surfaces similar to those shown in Figures 2a and 2b will be obtained. If they are kept close enough to each other, then three minimal surfaces adjacent to each other as shown in Figure 2c can form.

The minimum energy principle is commonly observed not only in living organisms, but also in lifeless matter. A chain will take the shape which produces the least potential energy of attraction when it is fastened at two points onto a rod as shown in Figure 3. This form (function) is called “catenary” in mathematics.

The areas which are formed as a result of rotating the catenary curve around an axis A are called catenoids. Two different types of catenoids are shown in Figures 4a and 4b. As presumed, catenoids are minimal areas and can be obtained by the use of soap bubbles. If such formations were selected and used in everyday utensils, such as glasses, dishes and so forth, ideal shapes which cause the least loss of heat could be designed.

If the katenoid shown in Figure 5a is cut from its edge as shown in Figure 5b and turned by being slightly extended, a helical form or a helicoid will be obtained as shown in Figure 5f. This helicoid also is a minimal surface. Architects have widely used this form in spiral-shaped staircase structures. See Fig. 6.

Fig. 1-Closed frames and soap film surfaces formed1 Fig. 2a&b–Single foam film surfaces over two parallel circular frames1 Plus, the perpetual screw system which is widely in use in technology is also in a form similar to this geometry.

If a cylinder of the smallest volume that can house a helicoid is drawn (Fig.7a) and the lines on which the surface and the cylinder intersect are marked, then a double helix structure (Fig. 7b) is obtained; this is used in modeling DNA molecules which are the genetic codes of living species.

There are two elementary principles related to soap bubbles. The first principle says that if a bubble touches a surface that supports it, it unites with that surface in a way to make 90° angles. The soap bubble on that plain surface forms into a semi-spherical shape and the angle between the bubble surface and the supporting surface will be 90° at every point of contact. The second principle says that if three soap bubble surfaces come together, they form 120° angles along a line. If soap films come together within a tetrahedron frame as in figure 8, then the angles between the lines will be 109° 28′ 16″.

The Steiner problem which is an elementary problem in mathematics can be solved by the application of the 90° and 120° principles. The Steiner problem investigates how n points over a surface can be united in the shortest way by a web. Two transparent surfaces are connected with thin and parallel pins of equal lengths and then dipped into a soapy solution. When it is taken out, soap films will form. These films have a 90° angle with the supporting transparent surfaces and when three soap films come together, they connect at 120° angles with one another.

When observed from above, the intersecting lines between the soap film and one of the surfaces give the shortest web which unites the points in n numbers. How four points are united is shown in Figure 9a and how five points are united is shown in Figure 9b. Someone seems to have equipped lifeless objects such as soap bubbles with the ability to solve complex problems like a math genius.

Periodically repeated minimal areas have been observed on walls separating organic and inorganic substances in the skeletons of certain sea animals like the sea urchin and the starfish. Figure 10 shows the micro structure of a sea urchin’s skeleton. It has calculated that the geometry of its skeleton has perfectly been shaped in such a way as to prevent the extension of possible cracks.

Experiments with soap bubbles have been a source of inspiration also for architects. Such experiments have yielded inspiration for roof and tent designs. The German architect Frei Otto is one of the most eminent names in this regard. Figure 11 shows the minimal areas which Frei Otto managed to obtain by dipping hair-thin threads in soapy water.

In order for such a soap bubble model to be converted into an architectural structure, it is carefully photographed and precisely measured. Later, solid models are made and tested in wind tunnels. The tensile pressures likely to form under loads of wind and snow are measured by special precision instruments. In real structures, thin steel cables having high tensile strengths replace the hairy threads, and transparent plastic and synthetic materials replace the soap bubble film.

Figure 12 shows roof of the Munich Olympic Stadium, Figure13 shows the roof of the Munich Olympic Athletic Arena and Figure 14 shows the roof of the Olympic Swimming Arena in the same city. All these roofs have been designed and erected using the minimal surfaces obtained from soap bubble experiments.

Children love playing with soap bubbles very much; they usually blow a round circle after dipping a wand into soapy water and then watch the bubbles flying out of it. However, it is not only children who play with soap bubbles and soap films. Scientists have, for hundreds of years, been doing experiments with soap bubbles, developing mathematical theories, obtaining various surfaces and transferring the compiled data into technology.

Experiments with soap bubbles have been a source of inspiration also for architects. Such experiments have yielded inspiration for roof and tent designs.

2) These roofs can easily be erected, dismantled and transported to elsewhere, whereas traditional buildings cannot easily be re-located.

3) These structures which are designed according to tensile strengths are very sturdy all over, whereas the tensile pressures of classical buildings are so high that extremely heavy materials such as concrete and brick are used in order to balance the pressure.

The structures of light and strong materials granted to living things are splendid. The lightness and endurance of our skeleton system, the perfect endurance in the stems of slender plants such as wheat and barley, the extremely thin and elastic structure of a fly’s wing, and thousands of similar examples can be given.2 The word of German architect Frei Otto in this subject are expressive: “Biology has become indispensable for architecture.” Witnessing similar perfections also in inanimate structures such as soap bubbles proves that laws in nature originate from the same hand.

Obtaining minimal surfaces has become much easier as a result of immense increases in computer capabilities. Extremely complicated minimal surfaces which can be obtained through computer-aided-designs and calculations have become easily available as alternatives to soap bubble experimentations. If we, as human beings, are aiming to realize developments in science and technology, we should look,more carefully and meditatively, at events which are seemingly simple and unimportant around us and we should also discover the beauties and perfections that God has granted us and put them into service of humanity. The more our designs are compatible with the laws of nature, the higher our chances of success will be.

References

• S. Hilderbrandt, A. Tromba, The Parsimonious Universe, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.
• M. S. Polatöz, Tabiatta Mühendislik (Engineering In Nature), Kaynak Publications, Izmir, 2003.
• A. B. Smith, The stereom microstructure of the echinoid test. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 25, 1–85, 1981.

These views reflect a shallow understanding of faith and religion as well as the reality of the scientific enterprise. In this article we argue that there are varying degrees of certainty in each piece of scientific and religious knowledge. One can thus imagine two fields of certainty where established knowledge is at the center and the less certain pieces of knowledge form field-like circles around a center. We further argue that this perspective can serve as a unifying paradigm for science and religion.

Science and Religion as Disciplines of Different Realms

The superficial understanding of science and religion as disciplines of different realms asserts that religion concerns the relationship of humanity with the divine and considers human relation-ships on this basis. Religion primarily relies on sacred scriptures and subjective experiences as sources of knowledge. Religious assertions tend to be absolute and they do not accept questioning. The main underlying assumption of religion is the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent Being referred to as God. Science, on the other hand, deals primarily with observable and measurable phenomena. Thus, its main domain is the domain of physical objects. It accepts systematic and objective observations or experimental findings, and inferences on these as sources of knowledge. Scientific assertions appear as theoretical models that attempt to provide objective descriptions of the physical world and predictions of natural phenomena. Science is ambivalent to the existence of a supernatural Being. The underlying assumption of science is that the physical world is governed by universal laws, regardless of the source. This perspective can be summarized in a table:

Based on this superficial understanding of religion and science, we can expect two disjoint spheres of interest that would not have much to do with each other, as illustrated in the figure above.

In this view, science and religion occupy different realms. This view gives complete sovereignty over the non-human domain to science. It leaves the unobservable phenomena to religion, with the condition that it might be claimed by science at any time. The current state of the relationship, however, refutes this simplistic perspective. Both science and religion make assertions that supposedly belong to the other and we perceive conflicts. Examples of perceived conflicts include the following:

– Spherical Earth vs. flat Earth.

– Sun-centric vs. Earth-centric cosmology or astronomy.

– Old universe or Earth vs. young universe or Earth.

– Evolution vs. the miraculous creation of animals and humans.

– A world-wide flood.

– …

We can illustrate the perceived conflict in figure two.

Both the simplistic views of science and religion, as well as their perceived conflicts, are due to shallow understandings of scientific and religious knowledge. Let us first examine the idealized scientific process as the source of the scientific knowledge. The idealized view of the scientific process as taught at many schools is illustrated in the figure below: In this view, the process starts when the scientist makes an observation or becomes aware of a phenomenon that they can not explain with their current knowledge. They first define the problem clearly and hypothesize about potential explanations. They then design experiments to test this hypothesis. They conduct those experiments and make observations. An analysis of these observations may produce one of two outcomes: Either the proposed explanation is valid or invalid. If the proposed explanation is found to be invalid totally or partially, it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation is started. If at one point the hypothesis is validated, then the results are communicated to the scientific community. Other scientists repeat the same or similar experiments with the same goal: Validating the hypothesis. If other scientists also reach the same conclusions then the hypothesis gains certainty and may eventually be viewed as an established theory. An important yardstick for the formation of a new theory is its predictive power. When the theory is young, it is used to make predictions. When these predictions turn out to be accurate then the theory establishes itself. Otherwise it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation starts.

While the idealized process of scientific research appeals as an objective means of building knowledge, it suffers from some important weaknesses: The first one is that real scientists rarely follow this idealized procedure. Even when they do, many human factors, such as prejudices and non-scientific concerns, for example, material gain and reputation may interfere with the objective interpretation of the results. A third, and possibly the most important limitation, is that many subjects are infeasible or impossible to study under idealized conditions. Consider the theory of evolution for instance. It is impossible to re-create the conditions on the Earth at the time when life first appeared on its surface. It is impossible to observe generation after generation of creatures and to observe whether evolution really took place. What we can do instead is to examine the available fossil record, the Earth’s surface and make logical inferences. But as we move away from the systematic and repeatable observation or controlled experiments, our confidence in our knowledge decreases. Hence we witness a plethora of perspectives and explanations, even among believers of the Darwinian evolution, of what really took place. Generalizing from this example, we can see that the various pieces of so-called “scientific” knowledge are not at the same level in terms of their certainty. Instead, they form a field of certainty, like circles around a center, where the most certain pieces of knowledge are located. Moving away from the center, the amount of control over experimental conditions and the repeat-ability of observations decrease as does confidence in the knowledge. The following figure illustrates this concept of certainty fields for scientific knowledge.

The confidence field phenomenon is not limited to scientific knowledge. Revelation forms the basis of religious knowledge, but revelation is conveyed to humanity via messengers, their scriptures, their inspirations, their words, and conduct. While the revelation itself is not subject to uncertainty, the human factor introduces uncertainty mainly in three mechanisms:

1. The deterioration or intentional manipulation of certain religious sources.

2. Human misunderstanding or misrepresentation of certain divine statements.

3. Confusion of human interpretation with the literal revelation or prophetic tradition.

Upon considering the certainty fields of science and religion we can look back at the perceived conflict between them. Now we realize that the perceived conflicts lie at those places where either the scientific or the religious knowledge, or both, are not completely certain in their assertions. When we enumerate all of the perceived conflicts and examine them carefully, we can attribute each one to one of the causes of uncertainty in scientific or religious knowledge.

Let’s take the example of the theory of evolution again as a popular and contemporary matter. On the science side we see that many of the assertions of the theory carry a high degree of uncertainty. We are definitely not at the center of the certainty field of scientific knowledge. On the religious side, the clear assertion is that God is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth, as well as its inhabitants. The way by which God has chosen to create, however, is not as clear. We don’t know, for instance, whether God also works through a mechanism that includes evolutionary elements. Some believing scientists argue that God works through what they call “micro evolution” to adapt or eliminate certain species. Some evolutionists, on the other hand, refer to a concept of “lucky accidents” to explain certain aspects of evolutionary history that cannot be explained within the framework of blind chance and natural selection.

As another example we can consider the perceived conflicts in social sciences. Certain sociologists or psychologists make assertions that seem to contradict religious positions. Again on the science side, when the subjects of interest are humans, it is extremely difficult to control all the factors that are involved. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to have repeatable experiments. Since no human being is an exact replica of another and no society is exactly like another society, it is very hard to repeat any experiment in psychology or sociology. Finally, it is very hard to observe humans without affecting their behavior. Because of this and for similar reasons, some scientists have debated whether psychology and sociology can truly be classified as sciences. But these two disciplines are not alone in having difficulties in studying subject matters with the scientific method. A number of essential questions of personal and social life fall into this category of phenomena that are hard to explore scientifically.

These examples demonstrate that each of the perceived conflicts of science and religion can be attributed to one of the causes of uncertainty in scientific or religious knowledge.

An interesting question that falls under the topic of science-religion is the view of science from a religious perspective. Islamic sources include an interesting view: The “two books of God paradigm.”

The Two Books of God Paradigm

According to Islamic sources, the universe and the revealed scriptures are the expressions of the same God in two different languages, the cosmic language and the human language. While the languages are different, the messages are the same.

According to this paradigm, essentially the same messages are expressed in different forms. The book in the human language sometimes comments on the book in the cosmic language and helps us understand it better. Let us give some examples of messages encoded in these two different languages:

The first message is the unity and omnipotence of the Creator of the Universe. The name and attributes of the Creator of the universe are the main theme of the Qur’an. Faithful scientists and science enthusiasts find this message clearly expressed in the cosmic language.

The second message is found the creation of the Earth and the cosmic objects in a way to provide for the human life on Earth. The Qur’an declares that Adam was created as God’s vicegerent on Earth and the Earth, together with its creatures were made subservient to him, subject to God’s commandments. Again, persons of faith see clear signs of this phenomenon on the Earth, as pointed out in numerous articles in this publication. Our subconscious tells us that the One who has provided us with so many bounties and gifts obviously expects appreciation and gratitude from us. Again, both books clearly point out this fact.

The third message is the display of God’s beautiful names in human beings. According to both Judeo-Christian and Islamic belief, humans were created from a single pair: Adam and Eve. They are thus brothers and sisters and nobody has a claim to superiority, except in virtue and piety. Furthermore, each human is like a mirror reflecting God’s beautiful names. In the perfect design of the human body and face we can observe the names The Most Beautiful and The All-Wise, among others. In the meeting of our various needs through wonderful sustenance, we can observe the names the All-Benevolent and the All-Compassionate.

How Religion and Science Might Benefit from One Another

The last dimension of the relationship between science and religion that we would like to discuss is how the study of one might benefit from the other. In his Twentieth Word (Second Station) Bediuzzaman Said Nursi lists many examples from the Qur’anic references to scientific advances like train, electricity, and states that miracles of the Prophets as well as historical events allude to future inventions and thus might inspire scientists to work in those directions. Thus, religious sources can provide direction and goals for scientific research. Another important problem in science is the question of ethics.

The scientific method itself is unable to produce its own ethical principles as it does not assume absolute truths to exist. Without an external reference, the scientific approach to the generation of ethical principles has to examine each of the plausible options and try them out. This, however, might have some serious consequences. In the process of trying out ethical principles many humans and animals might be hurt. Science, therefore, needs an external source of guidance in the definition and implementation of ethical scientific procedures.

Religious study can also benefit from science in two ways: The first way was alluded to by the “two books paradigm” above. By way of scientific investigation, a believer has the opportunity to appreciate the omnipotence and other beautiful names of God much better than an unbeliever person. Thus, the study of the universe helps increase and deepen our faith.

The second way science can benefit religious understanding is through encouraging common people to base their faith on stronger foundations. By acquiring skills of systematic observation, sound reasoning, and methods of inquiry, both religious scholars and lay people can enhance the strength of their faith and reduce superstition. Science and true religion, hand in hand, can work on eliminating blind faith and blind rejection.

Conclusion

We have touched upon several aspects of the relationship between science and religion. We began by questioning the simplistic views of science and religion and showed that they cannot be regarded as disciplines of totally different domains. We have provided a framework, called the “certainty fields,” which may help explain the perceived conflicts between science and religion. The “two books paradigm” was provided as an example of a paradigm where science and religion do not merely coexist, but also complement each other. Finally we have mentioned two ways whereby scientific and religious inquiry can benefit each other. The reader will no doubt appreciate the vastness of these topics and the need for further study. We have tried to provide pointers and resources for the interested readers. When understood properly and practiced harmoniously, science and religion can open doors to human achievement, spiritual as well as materi-al, that were unheard of in the past.

References

• Nursi, S., The Words, Kaynak, Izmir: 1997.
• Smith, H., Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World’s Religions, Harper, San Fransisco: 1993.
• Shakir, M., The Qur’an Translation, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, 1999.

The first revolution began when scientists agreed that DNA is the genetic material. Study showed that a DNA molecule is made up of nucleotides, in turn made of deoxyribose sugar, a phosphate molecule and one of the four nitrogenous bases: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine. Each DNA molecule has two strands that are twisted in a helical form, as discovered by Watson and Crick. The sequence of nitrogenous bases in the two strands determines the genetic information inherited.

The second revolution was the discovery in bacterial cells of special enzymes, the restriction enzymes, which have the property of being able to cut DNA at a specific point in the sequence.

Recombinant DNA technology was initially developed as a tool to allow scientists to obtain many copies of DNA segments so that it could be studied further biochemically. It actually began with the first studies of the genetics of bacteria and viruses that infect bacterial cells, bacteriophages. A bacterium can accept segments of new DNA and incorporate this foreign DNA into its own chromosome. To a genetic engineer this is a desirable property. The incorporated DNA is henceforth replicated and transcribed along with the cell’s original, native DNA.

Usually foreign DNA is not added directly into a bacterial genome, but into a plasmid, a small circular DNA molecule that exists outside the main DNA of the bacteria. Plasmids are cut by restriction enzymes that cleave the plasmid. In addition, foreign DNA is cleaved with the same restriction enzyme and then combined to the plasmid which is now called a vector. Such a combination is possible only if both DNA molecules are cut by the same restriction enzyme, because of the complementarity of the single strand sequence obtained after the cut. The vector is then injected to the bacterial cell. If this foreign DNA contains a gene, then the cell will acquire new characteristics and is said to be transformed, as a new product, not found in normal bacterial cells, has been produced.

Since the first day of its discovery, recombinant DNA technology caused dramatic changes not only in the field of genetics, but also in many other fields where it has useful applications. The most important of these are such medical applications as production of useful proteins on a commercial scale. In 1982, human insulin, produced by bacterial cells that contain human insulin gene transplant, reached the market. Insulin is a hormone needed daily by millions of people with diabetes. This insulin is also better for some patients who cannot tolerate the slight differences between human insulin and previously marketed insulin taken from pig and cattle livers. Another protein produced in this manner is human interferon, so called because it interferes with replication of viruses in the human body. Genetic engineers were also able to synthesize, by the method explained above, the enzyme urokinase. This enzyme is responsible for dissolving blood clots in blood vessels, the brain or lungs.

Secondly, genetic engineering offered a solution to a number of pollution problems. Scientists were able to transform some aquatic bacteria and introduce into them the characteristics of other bacterial cells found in oil wells. These transformed bacteria can consume oil spills present in water which contaminate the aquatic environment and endanger aquatic life.

There are many other applications of this new and fast-developing technology. Among them: safer vaccines made by engineering a weaker version of the disease-causing agent; enzymes for industry and pesticide accidents produced by engineering bacterial cells that have an enzyme to convert the waste to harmless substances; creating improved strains of crops and farm animals; and replacing defective genes in the human genome.

Not surprisingly, this scientific revolution has raised questions in many people’s minds about its possible negative effects. First, are the transgenic crops safe to eat? Since the new genes and the proteins they encode contain the same nucleotides and amino acids found in all our food, there seems to be little risk from most new genes. However, new crops must be checked to ensure that any new protein produced does not interact with the plant normal chemistry to produce toxic substances. In addition, any plant engineered to produce toxins that fend off insects or disease must be tested to see if the toxin content endangers human consumers. Several experiments are already under way in which genetically engineered plants have been tested outdoors. Researchers watch to see whether such plants are as good under field conditions as in the laboratory, whether they die out or become established and whether they stay put or spread beyond application sites. Genetically engineered crops are also being field-tested.

There has been considerable controversy about the safety of such experimental release of genetically engineered plants into the environment. People have also worried about the possibility of an accident in a genetic engineering laboratory. Suppose a strain of bacteria for a dangerous toxin were let loose on the world? Most workers feel that the chance of this happening is slight because safe-guards and safety procedures are already in place. The bacteria used in recombinant DNA technology experiments are usually E coli, a species universally found in the human intestine. Further, the genetic strains used in the laboratory have been developed so as to be unable to survive outside their test-tube homes. The danger is further reduced by the regulation of laboratories doing DNA recombination research.

However, the biggest anxiety was over the aspiration, expressed by some scientists, to clone human beings. Such a possibility, if ever realized, would undo one of the most important characteristics of our species, the non-existence of two absolutely identical human beings. Some people tried to justify investigation of this possibility by saying that it could ‘duplicate’ geniuses like Einstein!

But first, how is such cloning done? The removal, by special techniques, of the haploid nucleus of an unfertilized ovum; then the addition to this anucleated ovum of a diploid nucleus taken from any somatic cell. The new ovum then acts as a fertilized egg and starts to divide and develop in the uterus of the female to whom it is injected. Dr J. Gordon, from Stanford University, said that these experiments were done on frogs and two identical frogs were produced, albeit after a great many trials. And lastly, as everybody must have heard, the identical of a sheep was also produced in Scotland. However, scientists guess that they will be able to perform such experiments on humans in the not unforseeable future. An indication of this came when Dr Jerry Hall, of George Washington University, and his colleagues, were able to produce several identical embryos from only one fertilized egg. This experiment was done by replicating the genetic material of a fertilized egg and introducing it to another unfertilized anucleated ovum.

Another fearful dimension of genetic engineering lies in the possibility of adapting and amending certain characteristics, thus of producing a ‘superbreed.’ Dr Samia Timatmi, Professor of Human Genetics in the National Centre for Scientific Research in Egypt, has said that scientists have found that it is possible to change particular human characteristics, such as eye colour and height, even intelligence. However, she adds that the aim of scientists at this stage is to seek cures for different genetically carried defects and diseases. Dr Yahya Zakariya, of the same institution, is less sanguine about what is possible. He considers that changing human characteristics is not so easy for many reasons. First, the attempt to change one gene might lead to unknown consequences. Second, he points out that usually a single characteristic is not controlled by a single gene but by a complex set of genes. Because scientists do not yet know and cannot isolate these genes, it seems that the notion of producing a ‘superbreed’ still belongs to the realm of science fiction not fact.

The general public’s unease over genetic engineering experiments has not always stopped at the level of verbal protest. It turned into action when hundreds of people demonstrated near the laboratories of George Washington University against the work of Dr Jerry Hall and his colleagues. Demonstrators described this work as scientific chaos and called for the prohibition of such fearful experiments.

In view of such unease, it is only proper to ask how the Islamic religion considers such experiments and possibilities. How does it regard the positive aspects of genetic engineering? Do Muslims consider such experiments and research to be in conflict with Islamic beliefs and Qur’anic verses or permissible under the general Qur’an injunction to human beings to make observations and experiments, to study and reflect on nature?

Before trying to answer these questions, we should first note that research in this field is still very new. Most Islamic legal experts have therefore paid little attention to this field. They seem to regard the research as if it were only hypothetical and not something that is opening up practicable options and doing so very rapidly. For example, Dr A. Abu Farha, Head of the Qur’anic Sciences department in Al-Azhar, having said that Islam urges man to study and experiment so long as this is for the benefit of the human race, added that the Islamic attitude towards such research is caution. However, other jurists have realized the importance of recombinant DNA technology, and the need to regulate it to secure its benefits and to contain its dangers. As a result, they called for more attention to be given to this subject in particular and to the field in general. Dr Ahmed Sharaf-Eddine showed, in his paper submitted to the Conference on Reproduction in Islam, held in Kuwait in 1983, that the danger of such experiments lies in their consequences for unique, distinguishing human characteristics such as mind and self, which are highly esteemed in Islam. He argued that research in this field must, because its results are going to be applied to the human race, be governed by the basic rules of the Islamic religion.

A view widely held among Islamic scholars is that new concepts in science will never be contradictory with Islamic fundamentals because any new hypothesis will not become established fact or truth unless it falls in agreement with the Qur’an and Sunna. Even though neither the Qur’an nor the books recording the Sunna are scientific books, and though the decision for every single eventuality is not directly stated in them, they do contain general rules that can be applied to every eventuality and enable a rational decision to be taken. God says: Nothing have We omitted from the book (6.38). By using the different sources of legislation, scholars can work out appropriate decisions for different or new situations. However, no one individual scholar can give a detailed, specific decision concerning genetic engineering experiments, especially in these decades, where legal decisions concerning the new developments in science are taken in annual conferences where contemporary Islamic scholars assemble.

Some scholars have initiated the task of applying the general principles of Islamic Law to the recent advances, in order to facilitate a final ruling on both the positive and negative sides of genetic engineering. Dr Abdel Satar Abu Guda, in his paper submitted to the Conference on Reproduction in Islam, stated that, if the aim of such experiments is to cure and help the victims of genetically inherited diseases, then one can say that Islam encourages such technology or at least permits it, since such action falls under the general Islamic injunction to treat disease and bring benefits to the human race. According to the well-known saying of the Prophet, upon him be peace, that for every ailment (except old age) there is a remedy, the search for cures to inherited diseases must be legitimate. In addition, genetic engineering applications on plants are, according to Dr Abu Guda, permitted in Islam as they aim to increase the benefits to mankind from plants, which falls under the Qur’anic verse (31.20): Do you not see that God has subjected to your use all things in the heavens and on earth?

The general consensus of the scholars on the aspirations to change human nature by playing with the genetic make-up of human beings is negative. They are of the opinion that experiments so directed are but the response to the orders of the devil since they aspire to change the innate quality of the human race. God says (4.119): They call but upon Satan, the persistent rebel. God did curse him, but he said I will take of Thy servants a portion marked off. I will mislead them and I will create in them false desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattle and to deface the fair nature created by-God. Whoever forsaking God, takes Satan for a friend has surely suffered a loss that is manifest. Because God has created humans in a perfect way (We have indeed created man in the best of moulds (95.4)), no human experiment

can create a better human being. Also God prohibited anything that can alter human consciousness transiently such as alcohol, drugs, and witchcraft, the effects of which can cause people to ruin themselves in body, mind and character, as well as financially. By analogy, scholars argue that the same general principle of preserving human character should apply to attempts to alter character by genetic intervention.

Shaikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali expressed a very clear opinion on the attempts to produce a ‘superman.’ He said: ‘If we consider human fancies and use medicine to realize them, what is likely to happen? We will damage this world.’ He added that we should master ‘ethical engineering’ rather than genetic engineering. Dr Muhammad Al-Mutajali considered that cloning human beings and seeking to produce a ‘superman’ are to be prohibited on the bases of the verse, No change there is in the work wrought by God (30.30), which proscribes such fundamental alterations. He added that such an action could led to the confusion of lineages and ancestry.

Broadly, the consensus seems to be that the use of science for the benefit of the human race is acceptable in Islam, but that fundamental changes in the fundamentals of human nature and (consequently) human relationships are not acceptable. Man should not think that because he has been able to modify the genetic content of plants, he is at liberty to do all that he desires to do in this life. God says (10.24): The likeness of the life of the present is as the rain which We send down from the skies: by its mingling arises the produce of earth which provides food for men and animals till the earth is clad with its golden ornaments and is decked out in beauty. The people to whom it belongs think they have all powers of disposal over it. There reaches it Our command by night or by day and We make it like a harvest clean-mown as if it had not flourished only the day before! Thus We explain the signs in detail for those who reflect.

Scientists at the end of the Conference on Reproduction in Islam recommended that it is legal to use recombinant DNA technology to produce chemicals and drugs needed for the benefit of society and for the elimination of harm. However, the recommendation is general. It is not restricted to human recombinant DNA technology, i.e. there is no detailed ruling on every specific aspect of these new experiments. (The decision may be contrasted, in this respect, to that taken in Makka a decade ago concerning in vitro fertilization.) What is clear from the recommendation is that human cloning is prohibited because it does not fall within the ambit of the general legal principle: ‘The removal of harm and the obtaining of benefits.’ Also, human cloning would result in many unanswerable questions. For example, How can we regulate the relation between the original person and his copies? A person could, in theory, be his or her own parent! What are the consequences for the laws of inheritance? Moreover, human cloning, if ever realized, would annul human relationships based on the family, as marriage would no longer be the way to get children, something that plainly ignores or even contradicts the law of God who says (30.21): And among His signs is this that he created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them and He has put love and mercy between your hearts. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect. How would humanity fare without love and mercy between the hearts of men and women? What would be the character of children reared in the absence of a family environment or one lacking in such qualities?

There is a further, also fearful, dimension to the problem. What are the likely consequences between nations if one nation is able, long before the others, to realize this dream of producing a ‘superbreed’? Or the likely consequences within even a single nation? Clearly, only the ‘best’ citizens with ‘perfect’ mental and physical health, will be cloned, or would it be only the richest and most powerful? In either case, discrimination is inevitable and will inevitably lead to conflict.

The hope of producing a ‘superbreed’ or cloning ‘supermen’ is based upon a wildly optimistic estimate of the capacity of human scientific knowledge and of human wisdom in the use of it. It cannot but lead to (if it does not already derive from) a denial of Divine authority and power.

The Qur’an states (76.1-3): Has there not been over man a long period of time when he was a nothing not even mentioned? Verily We created man from a drop of mingled sperm. In order to try him We gave him the gifts of learning and sight. We showed him the way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful.

In sum, not all genetic engineering applications are prohibited and not all are allowed. Those directed towards the benefit of the human race are allowed, but those used to fundamentally alter human nature and God’s work are prohibited. Science must be controlled by religion and ethics because a scientist with no restraints is but a devil.

References

• Al-Jundi, Ahmad, Conference on Reproduction in Islam. Ministry of Health, Kuwait, 1983.
• Beck, Liam et al., Life, 3rd edn. Harper Collins. New York. 1991. ‘Genetic Engineering’ Ahidati, 20 (52). p.15.
• Mashing, Abel Rahman, ‘Transplantation of identical human embryos’, Al Moslemoon, 12 Nov 1993, no 458, p.7.
• Verma, I. ‘Gene Therapy’. Scientific American, Nov 1990 V 263 No 5, pp.34-41.

Viking I was launched from earth orbit in August 1975. It traced seven hundred million kilometres in an interplanetary spiral to reach Martian orbit the following June. In July 1976 a car size tripod lander, dropped from the space craft, alighted on the rocky surface of Mars some 1200 miles from the Martian Mariner canyon system. This was the location of man’s first on-site search for life on another planet.

The successful Viking missions to Mars supplied us with most valuable scientific information. Although Mars is a rock-strewn desert, its rocks are enriched with minerals that may support life forms with water, air, and raw materials. This was the verdict of the Viking 1 and 2 missions to Mars. Mars may once have had rivers and lakes, but now the temperatures and the atmospheric pressures are so low that water can only exist in the form of vapour or ice. Scientists also suspect that the planet’s giant volcano, Olympus Mons, overlies a hot spot. Although this volcano may still erupt every 10,000 years, the red planet has essentially been frozen to death. However, there is still hope, because the experiments conducted with Martian soil produced significant results. During the experiments, Martian soil was fed with nutrients and water. The results were most surprising. Unlike the lunar dust, Martian soil consumed the nutrients. Not only did apparent consumption of the nutrients give ‘rise to a steady rate of carbon dioxide production but the introduction of water vapour resulted in a most unexpected surge in oxygen levels.

Eighteen years have passed since these experiments and mankind has not taken a step on Mars yet. Will it ever be possible for man to achieve a settlement on Mars in the future? Firstly, such settlements on the planet need to be as self-sufficient as possible. The first Mars invaders will need to begin a search for crucial supplies such as water and oxygen. Since Mars has little nitrogen in its soil to sustain plants, scientists would need to inject the soil with earthly micro-organisms to free up the crucial element. A base independent from earth is impossible without these necessities of life, particularly water and power sources and raw materials for building an ecosystem. Although the atmosphere is only 0.03 % water, the air is saturated with water most of the time, due to the low temperature. However, rain is impossible because the atmosphere is too thin and it is generally cloudless.

A Martian day is 24 hours and 37 minutes, which is very close to earth’s. The fact that gravity is one third of earth’s, is also an advantage. However, what is important is to produce resources like ammonia (a plant nutrient), hydrazine (for rocket fuel), formic acid (for storing electricity), nitric acid (for oxygen storage) and methane (natural gas). We do not know what will actually be found on Mars when it is completely explored, but the important fact about Mars is that, unlike the moon, it contains all the raw materials that are crucial for a Martian base.

At present the planet is an Arctic wasteland, but scientists say this has not always been the case. Much can be learned from a small core sample of the planet’s polar ice. Scientists need to know what happened to its climate, if it resembled the earth’s in the distant past. The topographical features and the river channels suggest that a few million years ago Mars was a warm planet and probably had a thick atmosphere. The Viking findings and the analysis of some of the data suggest that Mars contains more water than once thought. We must also keep in mind that the Viking probes did not completely rule out the possibility of life on the planet. It might still be possible that Mars supports some kind of microbes. It may be that we have not yet looked in the right place. There are many questions about Mars that remain to be answered. For example: we do not know anything about the interior of the planet, whether its core is liquid or frozen or maybe an earth-like core or if the largest volcanoes in the solar system are still alive. A manned mission to Mars and building bases on its surface is quite possible but we are not sure when it will actually take place.

When we think about the planets in our solar system and their conditions, it is impossible to overlook the fact that the earth was designed purposely for life forms to exist. One has to be out of one’s mind to assume that all this order and harmony is completely coincidental. One important thing we have to understand is that we (living organisms) need the earth and its conditions to survive. It is the only planet in the solar system that could support us. For all we know, it might even be the only one in the galaxy. It is obvious that the earth was specifically designed for human beings, because all other life forms on earth serve mankind. By this token we can even claim that the whole universe was created for the benefit of man. The only reason for this claim is that everything would be completely meaningless without an intelligent thinking being.

Our neighbour, the red planet, might be a hope for the future. Whether we will indeed be able to build bases, grow plants, produce valuable gases and materials, begin settlements and colonies or maybe even achieve the birth of the first human being on Mars, remains to be seen, but until then we have to take care of this blue planet of ours and its inhabitants, since we are its trustees.