This article does not claim to provide answers about social traits or morality in general, but simply summarizes the findings of two recent scientific papers that appeared in the journals Science and Nature, describing interesting research on social ethics and moral behavior. The broader implications of the studies are left to the reader to reflect upon.

The article published in Science magazine presents a line of evidence that spending money on others makes us happier. The Nature article comes up with a – perhaps – more surprising finding: preverbal infants can evaluate social actions, and strongly prefer individuals who help others. The results of the two articles thus suggest that not only do we become happier by doing good to others, but we also feel sympathy for other individuals who do so, even before we start talking.

Spending on others makes us happier

In order to investigate the effects of spending money on others, researchers at the University of Vancouver in collaboration with Dr. Michael Norton of Harvard University, first asked a representative group of 632 Americans to rate their general happiness, report their annual income, and estimate how much they spend monthly on: i) bills and expenses, ii) gifts for themselves, iii) gift for others, and iv) charity donations.1 The first and second items of expenditure were averaged to calculate an index of “personal spending,” whereas the third and fourth items were used similarly to deduce a “prosocial spending” index. Data analysis revealed that significantly greater happiness was associated with higher prosocial spending, whereas personal spending was found to be unrelated to happiness.

Second, a group of employees who received a profit-sharing bonus from their companies were put to a similar test. All sixteen employees reported their annual income as well as their general happiness one month before receiving the bonus. Almost two months after the bonus, the same participants reported their general happiness and were asked to estimate how much of their bonus was spent personally or prosocially. The prosocial spending was again found to be the significant predictor of happiness, whilst the income and the bonus both remained insignificant.

Finally, the researchers designed experiments in order to further decipher the correlation between happiness and prosocial spending. To this end, forty-six university students were asked to assess their happiness in the morning, and were given $5 or $20 (a one time stipend) to be spent by 5 p.m. on the same day. Some participants were randomly instructed to spend the money on a bill, an expense, or a gift for themselves (personal spending condition), and the rest were told to spend the money on a gift for someone else, or a donation to charity (prosocial spending condition). After 5 pm, participants were asked to report their general happiness. The participants in the prosocial-spending group reported greater post-stipend happiness, with the effect of stipend size (i.e. $5 or $20) remaining insignificant. This work hence demonstrated that spending money on others promotes more happiness than spending money on oneself-a result that was apparently counterintuitive. Interestingly, when the conditions of the experiments were described to 109 students from the same university and they were asked their opinion on what condition would make them happiest, they were doubly wrong about their prediction: a significant proportion estimated that the $20 on personal spending would cause the highest happiness.

Preverbal infants can evaluate social actions

The second study by a Yale group describes experimental designs where preverbal infants (i.e. infants having not yet learned to speak) were made to watch animated events.2 (The group of infants chosen for the experiments were 6–10 months old.) In the first scheme (see figure, Scheme 1), a character (a red, circular object with eyes) tries to climb a slope, but fails in its first two attempts (A). At the third attempt, another character comes into the picture, either helping the climber by pushing from behind (B), or hindering it by pushing down (C). When the infants were encouraged to choose between the helper and the hinderer, they almost always reached for the helper (only 2 of 26 infants chose the hinderer). Interestingly, when the climber was made to look like an inanimate object as a control, infants did not show any preference for B or C. (Eyes were removed from the climber, and the climber no longer underwent self-propelling motion with the experiment unchanged in all other aspects.) This suggested that the infants did not choose the helper in the first experiment because they simply preferred the action or the shape or the color (further control experiments) of the helper, but instead their choice was purely social: With the eyes removed from the climber, the infants no longer identified the climber as an individual, and did not perceive the events as social interactions.

It is known that infants look at unexpected events for longer times.2 After the experiment described above, the same infants were subjected to a second test where their observation times were measured. In the display (see figure, Scheme 2), the climber sitting atop a hill initially goes back and forth (D) between the helper and the hinderer, and eventually approaches one of the two (E, the climber ends up approaching the helper; F, the climber ends up approaching the hinderer). On average, the infants stared at the display longer when the climber approached the hinderer (which is a surprising action), compared to the climber approaching the helper (which is an unsurprising action). These findings altogether suggest for the first time that the preverbal infants, although themselves unaffected as third parties (hence remaining unbiased), could make judgments about the value of a social act by differentially evaluating those who perform in positive and negative ways.

Social cooperation

Social ethics is not only puzzling for philosophers and sociologists, but also for biologists because social traits are not inherently specific to humans. For instance, altruistic forms of behavior appear to be ubiquitous in nature and occur in creatures from bacteria to mammals. Even within a rapidly growing bacterial culture, a minority of cells are known to commit to reduced growth rates.3 This slow-growing subpopulation can survive an antibiotic encounter to regenerate the colony, providing an insurance policy for the whole population despite their reduced self-benefit. Towards the other end of the spectrum of living beings, vervet monkeys have watchmen that warn fellow monkeys in the presence of predators by attracting attention to themselves,4 increasing their own risk of being attacked. On first reflection, altruism contradicts the selfishness which is the natural outcome of the underlying assumption of Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest. If only the fittest survive, according to natural selection, how can such magnanimous behavior continue to exist, when individuals who do not maximize their own interest should have been wiped out long before we can come to know them? Biologists are nowadays trying hard to reconcile altruism with selfishness, and altruistic behavior poses yet another challenge for evolutionary biologists (see a recent article in The Fountain for a detailed review5).

Reflections

• Surely We have created human of the best stature as the perfect pattern of creation. (Tin 95:4)
• Those men and women who give alms and lend to God a goodly loan, it will be increased manifold to their credit, and they will have an honorable, generous reward in addition. (Al-Hadid 57:18)
• The Prophet (may peace be upon him) reported that God said, “I created my servants in the right religion but devils made them go astray.” Every child is born with the fitrah (an innate disposition towards virtue, knowledge, and beauty). Everyone is born in the nature of Islam. (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Bill Sayoran is a freelance writer living in Boston. He can be contacted at billsayoran@gmail.com.

Notes

1. “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness”, Science, vol. 319, 21 March 2008.
2. “Social Evaluation by Preverbal Infants” Nature, vol. 450, 22 November 2007. Videos of the animated events can be found at the Nature magazine website: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7169/suppinfo/nature06288.html
3. “Is Bacterial Persistence a Social Trait?”, PLoS ONE, Issue 8, August 2007.
4. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
5. “Darwinism and Altruism: Is There A Problem?,” The Fountain, Issue 64, July–August 2008.
6. http://saifur.tripod.com/religion.html

It is not the intention of this article to speculate on the true motivation behind the printing of the blasphemous cartoons that derided and insulted the blessed memory of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Rather this article is intended to provide the reader with succinct answers to some frequently asked questions that were raised in the aftermath of the event.

The ancient practice of mockery

It would be appropriate to point out first that mocking sacred religious figures is not a practice initiated by the Danish newspaper in question. Prophets of earlier generations were constantly targets of mockery and derision. The following verse from the Qur’an, for example, attests to this fact:

Ah! Alas for those servants! Every time there has come to them a Messenger, they have but mocked him. (Yasin 36:30)

There are explicit Qur’anic references to the ridicule that certain individual prophets were exposed to, but this general verse should be enough to prove the assertion.

The derision suffered by Prophet Muhammad

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was no exception. He became a subject of mockery in his time after he started to communicate the message revealed to him, as indicated in the following verse, as well as in many others:

Whenever they see you, they take you for nothing but an object of jest, (saying): “Is this the one whom God has sent as a Messenger?” (Furqan 25:41)

For the pagans of Mecca, they thought that if the long-awaited prophet were to appear among them, then the notables of their tribes were more worthy to be chosen than the orphan of Abdulmuttalib, peace be upon him. The Prophet constantly had to endure similar ridicule and other hardships in his time.

He also suffered derision from the people of the scripture, as the Qur’an points out in a few verses. For example:

(O Messenger!) Say: “O People of the Book! Is it not that you dislike us only because we believe in God and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down before, and because most of you are transgressors?” (Maidah 5:59)

By asking this question without providing the answer, the Qur’an leaves the answer to the conscience of the audience. Muslims believe in one god, Allah. The Aramaic and Hebrew names Eloah, Elah, Eloi, Elohim are also from the same root as the Arabic word Allah. Muslims believe in the messengership of all the holy figures cited in both the New and Old Testaments. Is the problem with the final message that Muslims believe in that it came after the others? But note – if one and a half billion Muslims hold Moses, Jesus, and Mary, peace be upon them, dearer than their own lives, it is because of this last message.

Idolatry and icon-worshipping

Another common question that was brought up in the wake of the cartoon crisis was about the depiction of the Prophet. It should be mentioned that there are few authentic traditions that place some reservations on representative arts in general, and discourage making the images of living creatures.

In order to understand the wisdom behind these reservations, the following aspects of the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence should be remembered. A general principle stipulates that all acts are judged according to their consequences; if the consequences are evil and detrimental than the act is considered unlawful, otherwise it is lawful. Another principle states that anything that helps or leads to what is unlawful is also unlawful.

Islamic faith is based on pure monotheism, and Islam is very strict against the manifestations of polytheism and idolatry in any form. No one possesses perfect, infinite, or absolute divine attributes other than the Almighty Creator himself. However great they may be, the created do not have a share in the divine attributes of the Creator.

Prophets are no exception to this rule. Islam, therefore, takes necessary precautions to ensure that all ways that could lead to idolatry in the form of hero worshipping are not practiced in the religion.

The following quote from the works of a renowned twentieth century Islamic scholar, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, summarizes this and the wisdom that lies behind the restrictions imposed on images.

Just as the Qur’an forbids in a severe fashion the worship of idols, so too does it forbids the worship of forms, which is a sort of imitation of idol-worship. Yet civilization counts forms as one of its virtues, and desires to dispute the Qur’an on this matter. But forms, whether images or concrete, either embody tyranny, or embody hypocrisy, or embody lust; they excite lust and encourage man to oppression, hypocrisy, and licentiousness. [25th Word]

In summary, making images for educational and other lawful causes is permitted. If the image is made for the purposes of or may lead to idolatry, or if it encourages oppression, hypocrisy, or excites lust, then it is not permitted.

It should be stressed that such restrictions on representative arts are not specific to Islam. Several Biblical verses in Exodus and Deuteronomy, for example, forbid making images. In fact, the second of the Ten Commandments stipulates this.

Moreover, the explanations given above should be enough to make it clear that these restrictions were placed for a specific purpose and they do not, in any way, imply that Islam is an adversary to the arts. As a matter of fact, Islamic civilization has produced the finest works of art in architecture, calligraphy, decorative arts, music, etc. In this matter the reader is referred to the numerous references available on Islamic art.

Calligraphic portraits of the Messenger

Muslim artists used calligraphy to depict a non-visual, thus acceptable, image of the Prophet. They have been commemorating his blessed legacy by depicting verbal images or “calligraphic portraits” of him. Such beautiful artwork that inscribes a description of the prophet in words is known as the hilya al-saadat and is very common, especially in Turkish calligraphy.

Freedom of speech

The protests in the Islamic world, notwithstanding the normative teachings of the Qur’an, may have given an impression that Islam gives little or no value to the freedom of expression. On the contrary, Islam holds that the attribute of speech is a valuable gift bestowed upon mankind as expressed in the following verse:

The All-Merciful. He has taught the Qur’an (to humanity and, through them, to the jinn); He has created the human; He has taught him speech. (Rahman 55:1-4)

Man is the vicegerent of God on earth. Compared to the rest of creation, the divine attributes of God are manifested in the most perfect way in human beings. The sounds that an animal make can never be described as speech. In that sense, the attribute of speech and the freedom to exercise that power is what makes us truly human.

Numerous passages in the Qur’an, the eternal message of God, quote the words spoken by unbelievers. The objections and suspicions they raised are then refuted by Qur’anic evidence and truth. If nothing else, this alone should be enough to establish the significance of freedom of conviction and freedom of speech in Islam.

Every type of freedom is associated with a certain set of responsibilities and ethics that prevent its abuse. Freedom of speech, in particular, should be exercised with respect for all members of the society. Needless to say, ridicule, insults, and harassment do not fall into the category of freedom of expression.

Among several verses in the Qur’an that teach the ethics of speech, the following is related to the main topic of this article:

O you who believe! Let not some men among you deride others, it may be that the latter are better than the former; nor let some women deride other women, it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor defame one another and therefore your own selves, nor call one another by nicknames (which your brothers and sisters do not like). How evil is calling one by names that connote transgressions after one has embraced faith, and how evil it is thereby to be marked with transgression after being marked with faith. Whoever does not turn to God in repentance and give up doing so, such are indeed wrongdoers. (Hujurat 49:11)

Good repels evil

The Qur’an also teaches the errors that can be made in speech and the etiquette of responding to such errors. It is important to stress that the violence witnessed in the protests in Muslim countries that followed the publication of the cartoons in no way reflects the normative teachings of the Qur’an. Read, for example, the following verse:

The true servants of the All-Merciful are those who move and act on the Earth gently and humbly, and when the ignorant, foolish ones address and treat them (in a way that originates from their ignorance and foolishness), they simply continue, wishing peace on them. (Furqan 25:63)

As a general principle, the Qur’an teaches to repel evil with good and encourages forgiving others:

(But whatever they may say or do,) repel the evil (done to you and committed against your mission) with the best of what you can do. We are best aware of all which they falsely attribute to Us. (Muminun 23:96)

However, it should be noted that, The recompense of an evil deed can only be an evil equal to it; but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God. Surely He does not love the wrongdoers. (Shura 42:40)

Responses

Islamic scholars commented on the cartoon crises, denouncing the defamation perpetrated by the editors of the Danish paper as well as the protests that followed. The following excerpt is taken from a transcribed speech of a renowned Turkish scholar, Fethullah Gulen, who also serves as the honorary president of the Writers and Journalists Association based in Turkey:

Freedom of expression does not authorize anyone to defame others. There is certainly a freedom of disseminating one’s thoughts, but if you do not take others’ thoughts into consideration you will leave them with no freedom. There should be boundaries between freedoms.

Bigotry is present in every country and we have seen many examples. In the face of all this foolishness, we still should act upon reason. Our religion does not cause us to disregard other religions; (on the contrary) it causes us to feel respect toward them. Our religion encourages us to get together with everyone, it desires that we open our doors to everyone, and we do open our hearts to everyone. You must be respectful to everyone.(1)

The media is invariably seeking the sensational, and is reluctant to tune in to the moderate voices. As a result, an incurious and indifferent member of the audience is exposed to only one side of the story. Contrary to the expected outcome of telecommunication technology, on occasion the media serves as an agency of disinformation. It is therefore crucial for a world citizen to apply to multiple media outlets in order to attain a balanced view of events on a global scale.

Another important scholar of Egyptian origin and the head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, said:

The sabotage done by some Muslims in some capitals in response to the offensive cartoons is unacceptable and should be denounced.

The final quote is taken from a joint statement issued by the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, and his colleagues:

We fully uphold the right of free speech. But we understand the deep hurt and widespread indignation felt in the Muslim world. We believe freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion, and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions. But we also believe the recent violent acts surpass the limits of peaceful protest.

The Universal Mercy

What could be more erroneous than depicting Prophet Muhammad-God forbid the thought-as a supporter of violence or of terror? Such a claim is nothing but an expression of strong prejudice and hatred. In reality, he was the embodiment of mercy and compassion.

It is impossible to do justice to the compassionate disposition of the Prophet in a short article. Various biographies have devoted chapters in praising his merciful character and there are many books written specifically on this topic. The few traditions quoted below are included for the sake of completeness and are intended to give the uninformed reader a first impression. Anas bin Malik, who was honored in serving the Messenger for ten continuous years, said: “I’ve never seen a man who was more compassionate to his family members than Muhammad.”(2) An insane woman pulled him by the hand and said: “Come with me and do my housework.” He complied with her request.(3)

Such traditions clearly show that he was compassionate by nature and embraced his immediate family as well as other members of his community with abundant mercy.

The Battle of Uhud was a significant turning point in the history of Islam. God’s Messenger was wounded on his blessed face and one of his teeth was broken. As many as seventy companions of the Prophet were killed in the battle. Among the martyrs was his noble uncle, Hamza, whose body was mutilated in revenge by Meccan unbelievers. All these severe circumstances did not prevent him from praying: “O God, forgive my people, for they do not know.”(4)

Does this sound like a description of a man who would support violence and destruction? His mission was to save mankind, not to destroy it. His profound compassion was not restricted to his friends and companions, but was extended to his staunchest enemies. The next few examples show this to an even greater extent. He was full of mercy for all of creation. It is reported that he once said: “Pity those on earth so that those in the heavens will pity you.”

We again hear from him that a prostitute was guided to the truth by God because she gave water to a dog dying of thirst. He noted that another woman was sent to Hell because she confined a cat without food and it subsequently died of hunger.

Did not the Qur’an describe him as an embodiment of mercy? Read:

We sent you not, but as a Mercy for all worlds. (Anbiya 21:107)

The Prophet’s military dimension

It is, in general, not thought proper to describe Islam using restrictive terms. Statements like “Islam is a religion of peace,” “Islam is a religion of reason,” etc. reflect only certain aspects of the religion. However, it may be a comprehensive description to call Islam a religion of balance. Islam establishes a fine balance between the faith and good deed, between this world and the Hereafter, between the material and the spiritual, between the peace and use of force, etc.

Although this is not an article on the Islamic concept of peace and just war, it would be proper to contrast the use of force with universal mercy.

The Messenger Muhammad was a prophet who had to fight for his message and may be compared to previous prophets like Moses. Abraham, according to the Bible, also waged war against his enemies. It is permitted in Islam to take up arms under certain circumstances: in self defense, in defense of the oppressed and in defense of the freedom of conviction. The first verse revealed on this issue in the Qur’an stipulates:

The believers against whom war is waged are given permission to fight in response, for they have been wronged. Surely, God has full power to help them to victory. (Hajj 22:39)

Conflict is a reality of social life, and it may not always be resolved in peaceful ways. Taking up arms to end injustice, for example, is an act of mercy shown for the oppressed. War is seen as an exception in Islam, a religion that gives the utmost value to human life, as explained in the following verse:

He who kills a soul unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for causing unrest and spreading corruption on the Earth shall be (considered) as having killed all humankind; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind. And, indeed, there came to them Our Messengers again and again with clear Revelations (to convey to them such directives so that they might be revived both individually and socially) and signs-miracles-(proving their Messengership). Yet, notwithstanding all this, many of them go on committing all kinds of excesses on the Earth. (Maidah 5:32)

Finally, it may be instructive to give a count of casualties in the battles of Prophet Muhammad. The chart below shows that the total number of casualties did not exceed 400 in the entire 23 years of his lifetime as a prophet.

This supports the general principle of Islam that the use of force is allowed when it is absolutely necessary and to the extent that it is absolutely necessary. In contrast, it may also be instructive to remember the terrible atrocities perpetrated in the twentieth century all over the world, which have claimed the lives of millions and millions of innocent people.

Beautiful minds

It is true that anti-Islamic prejudice is more widespread in the West than it has ever been before. On the other hand, it is also true that many intellectuals, philosophers, members of the clergy, Eastern and Western alike, both

in the past and in the present have voiced their opinions against such bigotry. Many have praised the prophetic and personal qualities of Prophet Muhammad emphatically. Here are few examples from the past:

Lamartine deemed it proper to ask, in his Historie de la Turquie, whether there was any man greater than Prophet Muhammad in regards to all the standards by which human greatness may be measured. Sir Bernard Shaw stated, in The Genuine Islam, that, in his opinion, Prophet Muhammad must be called the savior of humanity. Michael H. Hart, in The 100, stated that Prophet Muhammad’s unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence entitled him to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.

Thomas Carlyle, in his Heroes and Hero Worship and The Heroic in History, grieved the lies heaped round Prophet Muhammad, and labeled them as a disgrace. Gandhi, in Young India, expressed his strong conviction that it was not the sword that conquered lands for Islam, but it was the Prophet’s noble character that won hearts.

Indeed, millions of Muslims travel to Mecca every year to show their love and devotion to God and their gratitude and respect to the rose of their hearts, Prophet Muhammad. It was he who illuminated the lives of billions with the knowledge of God. It was he who taught his followers how to prosper both in this world and in the next. It was he who brought the message of universal mercy and it was he who lived up to it. It is incumbent on every person, whether Muslim or not, to learn more about the pride of mankind. May God shower His boundless mercy, peace, and blessings on him at all times.

It would be fit to conclude this article with the words of M. Fethullah Gulen:

If only mankind had known Muhammad, peace be upon him, they would have fallen in love with him, as Majnun fell in love with Layla. Whenever his name is mentioned, they would tremble with joy and their eyes would be filled with tears.

Notes

1. http://en.fgulen.com/content/view/2179/14/

2. Muslim, Fada’il, 63.

3. Qadi Iyad, al-Shifa, 1:131, 133.

4. Muslim, Jihad, 101; Bukhari, Anbiya, 54.

During the Renaissance, science began to develop rapidly. New discoveries about how the universe functions were termed scientific laws, even though they were actually descriptions of what had been observed. Moreover, they were believed to be the main causes. Science gradually became the ultimate explanation of existence, and caused many people to reject religion as obsolete.

All of this changed with the beginning of the twentieth century. Modern physics showed that the universe functions completely differently from what we see in daily life. The basic laws of mechanical physics, once thought to be the creator of the action, turned out to be valid only under certain approximations. The concept of absolute space-time was replaced with a relative and dynamic one. We discovered our limitations in measuring certain physical quantities, and that some particles cannot be observed directly. We recognized that physical laws are not deterministic, and thus cannot predict how a system’s state will change over time. All they can do is present possible alternatives.

Such drastic changes in our understanding forced many to reconsider science’s claim to provide the final explanation of the universe. Today, new discoveries are termed scientific theories. We know that much remains to be discovered, and are expecting more surprises. It also is becoming increasingly harder to claim that one day we will produce a complete description and resolve all mysteries.

In this article, we will illustrate some of the changes in our understanding of the universe and scientific philosophy by analyzing a simple physical event: a falling rock. Since it is an ordinary event, one may think there is nothing mysterious about it. It seems to be a completely deterministic event with no exceptions. One also may think that there is a simple reason for the rock to fall down: the attractive force between objects with mass. As we will see, however, the story turns out to be completely different.

Newton’s Law of Attraction

From experience, we know that a rock left in the air falls to the ground. We also know from astrophysical observations that the Earth circles around the sun. In these examples, the main interaction between the rock and the Earth, or between the Earth and the sun, is called gravity. Through observation, we know that gravity has an attractive nature. Let’s consider the following question, which science should be able to answer if it is the ultimate explanation: Why does a rock fall down?

A nineteenth-century physicist would reply: “A very simple question! Newton’s law of attraction. Objects with mass apply an attractive force to each other, the magnitude of which is proportional to the objects’ mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects. Since the Earth and the rock both have mass, they are subject to this law. This is why a rock falls down.”

But this only describes a falling rock. Many who believed this claimed that there could be no change in this scenario, and especially no room for a Creator Who actually let the rock fall down. But, we ask, how do masses apply their forces to each other? Why is this force proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance?

We do not have to pursue this argument, for we know that the so-called final explanation is incorrect. If the nineteenth-century physicist could have observed more carefully, he or she would have realized that Newton’s law of attraction could not answer all questions involving gravity. For instance, why is light, a particle without mass, deflected by gravity? Such a physicist also could not calculate correctly Mercury’s perihelion around the sun.

We now know that objects with mass do not apply attractive forces to each other. In describing gravity, Newton’s law of attraction can be used as an approximation when gravity is weak. What we see or feel as gravitational attraction is explained more accurately, but completely differently, by the theory of general relativity.

The Theory of General Relativity

What does the theory of general relativity say about a falling rock? According to it, objects with mass curve space-time, a dynamic object, in a definite manner. In this curved space-time, a free particle that is affected only by gravity moves in a geodesic path. In the space-time curved by the Earth, the geodesic path for an object with mass can be calculated through the Earth’s center. As it has mass, a rock should follow this geodesic path. Thus it moves through the Earth’s center, and we see it as falling down.

This description is radically different from the one derived from Newton’s law of attraction. Space-time is considered dynamic, rather than absolute, and is affected by matter. Also, a falling rock is in free motion and is not acted upon by any of force belonging to the Earth.

The general theory of relativity can describe many physical phenomena related to black holes, gravitational collapse, gravitational radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe that Newton’s theory cannot. It also covers Newton’s law of attraction in a weak gravity approximation, and fits with observations made so far.

However, it has some problems. Starting from its basic principles, it can be proven that the theory cannot describe some physical phenomena properly. Equations governing the dynamics of space-time and matter allow an initial, ordinary configuration of matter to end up in a state that can no longer be analyzed by general relativity. This final state is called a singularity. A black hole’s formation by gravitational collapse is an example of this.

Thus general relativity is also an approximate description that is sensible under certain conditions. Our understanding of gravity and a falling rock is much improved when compared to the past. But this is not the end of the story.

There is another important reason why general relativity is not the final theory of gravity. Other than gravity, three known interactions occur between matter: electromagnetic, strong, and weak. These interactions can be observed in the atomic world, and are described successfully by quantum theory. The basic principles of quantum theory are very different from those of general relativity.

Quantum Theory

While general relativity is deterministic, quantum theory is indeterministic. In general relativity, a system’s state can be specified in the usual physical terms, for instance, by giving positions and velocities. In quantum theory, a system’s state is described in abstract mathematical terms by a vector in a Hilbert space, which has no a priori relation with the physical world. Furthermore, positions and velocities can no longer be known together. The formalisms of two theories are very different and contradictory.

At first, this seems to be a philosophical problem. On a large scale involving planetary distances, quantum effects are negligible and gravity dominates other interactions. But on an atomic scale, gravitational interactions are generically very weak and can be neglected when compared to other interactions. Therefore, quantum theory and general relativity seem to be complementary for a large-scale general relativity. However, quantum theory provides appropriate descriptions on an atomic scale.

Based on these ideas, one may claim that the rather deep philosophical conflict between two successful theories is, for all practical purposes, harmless and unimportant. But this is incorrect, for in some cases both gravitational and quantum effects are not negligible. For instance, a black hole may have an atomic size, which can be described properly by quantum theory. On the other hand, since black holes naturally involve strong gravitational interactions, general relativity plays a crucial role in their description. This is an important feature of black holes, one that makes them interesting objects to study.

The quantum theory of gravity describes both gravitational and quantum effects properly. Apart from the fact that there are few candidates (like string theory), we still do not know this theory’s basic principles, which should cover the principles of quantum theory and general relativity. The two main obstacles to this are that sophisticated (and as yet undeveloped) mathematics are needed to attack theoretical problems, and that direct experimentation is impossible, since such experiments involve energies that cannot be produced on Earth.

This simply means that we do not have a complete description of a rock falling, one of the simplest physical events one can imagine. On the other hand, why is a rather deeper question then describing the event. It seems that such classical deterministic theories as general relativity can answer this question if some basic principles are assumed. But these basic assumptions can be questioned, and it is hard to claim that they are immutable. As discussed earlier, the basic principles of Newton’s theory turn out to be sensible in an approximation involving weak gravity. The existence of such nonphysical states as singularities imply that a similar conclusion holds for general relativity. Therefore, even in classical deterministic theories, the question of why cannot be answered honestly.

The situation in quantum theory is completely different. In classical theories, a system’s state changes over time and in a definite manner. In quantum theory, however, only probabilities of possible changes can be calculated, and the system may change according to one of these alternatives. Furthermore, among the possible alternatives, classically forbidden ones may be present. More important, according to basic quantum theory principles, the question of why a specific alternative is chosen cannot be answered in scientific terms.

It is interesting to see the implications of quantum theory’s uncommon features for our simple example, since the unknown quantum theory of gravity should have all of these indeterministic features. According to general relativity, all rocks left free in the air fall in exactly the same manner. But this description is not completely correct, for general relativity is not the final theory of gravity.

By roughly analyzing the same event from a quantum theory point of view, one can see that, due to seemingly strange quantum effects, a rock left in the air may go up as well as down, although going up is forbidden by general relativity. This seems to conflict with daily experience, and one may wonder why we always see objects left free in the air as falling down but not up. The reason is that for macroscopic objects like rocks, quantum effects are generically very small and a system’s state changes, most probably, as classically expected. Stated differently, the ratio of rocks going up to the ones going down is incredibly small. This is why we believe that every time we let go of a rock it will fall down. However, this does not rule out exceptions.

Conclusion

In this article, we analyzed a simple event to illustrate some of the changes in our understanding of how the universe functions. Many physicists used to believe that the order around us could be explained by assuming simple physical laws. However, the more we learn about the universe, the more we encounter new principles and new surprises-and the more we recognize our ignorance. Furthermore, modern physics states that the universe does not function according to strict causality and determinism.

In light of these developments, it is clear that we should renew our understanding of physical laws and the idea that they have a role in creating the action and the order around us. Being the most fundamental natural science, this conclusion of modern physics also influences other sciences. Therefore, science should be accepted as an important tool for seeking and seeing the beauty of the created order around us, and nothing more.

References

• Hawking, S. W. and G. F. R. Ellis. The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time. USA: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Wald, R. M. General Relativity. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1984.

For centuries scientists had accused religion of being a collection of dogmas and religious people of being dogmatists. However, only with the demonstration of the limitations of classical physics did they realize that they too had become dogmatically attached to their theories. As Bertrand Russell put it: ‘Newton’s law reigned for such a long time and explained so many things that no one believed that it would ever need correcting. But eventually it became apparent that correction was needed. Let there be no doubt about it, one day these corrections will need to be corrected.’ Science advances, if and when it does, by trial and error. In spite of this, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which replaced the classical physics of Newton’s Law is treated in many circles as if it were absolute truth, and the fact that it will need revision is kept hidden from sight. It is quite probable that eventually it will give way to a new theory.

It seems that going to extremes in the pursuit of a single idea is a constant trait of human beings. Whereas, while there is a share of truth in each of these great ideas, they are not the only means nor the only expressions of truth. If we think of truth as a light at the centre point of a circle or a straight line, we see that the light will be reflected ray by ray to an infinite number of points on the circle’s circumference or along the straight line. Each point is touched by a ray of the truth and therefore each can be said to be true. However, the fact is that only the light of the truth in the centre never changes, since it is absolute in contrast to each point which is only a relative truth. What gives the relative truth its particular dimensions and properties, its relevance, is the nature of the receiving point, its own properties, time and conditions. This is true for the natural sciences, as much as for the social sciences; indeed, it also applies to fields of Islamic learning such as tafsir (commentary on the Qur’an) and fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).

But we may ask, Is there no permanent, absolute truth? Yes, this truth exists but it does so on the spiritual rather than the visible, external dimension of things. In fact, from one view even in the principles which relate to the spiritual dimension of things there are exceptions. These principles are not absolute, universal laws because, in their relevance to the visible, external dimension, they operate as general principles, that is, they admit exceptions. In respect of this difference between absolute and general laws, even science cannot affirm its laws, for example the law of cause and effect, absolutely. For this reason scientists say, ‘If the universe is in T1 condition at this moment, it cannot be concluded that a little later it will be in the same condition.’

We have already mentioned that the difference between absolute and general principles can be seen in the social sciences and even in the Islamic sciences like tafsir and fiqh. In the Realm of Unity, single and indivisible truth opens the door to countless relative truths in this material and quantitative world. For example, the Qur’an mentions good works as being virtues, as inherently and always of value. This is so, and yet we know that what are virtues under certain conditions and according to certain people may not be considered virtues under different circumstances, at a different time, by others. An administrator’s seriousness of manner may be considered to be dignity at work, but haughtiness at home. A weak person’s self-respect before a strong person is a quality to be praised, but the same quality in a strong person before a weaker one is considered undesirable. In the same way, what is an act of sin for one person can be a meritorious act for another. For this reason it was said, ‘Pious deeds of ordinary righteous people are the sins of those near to God.’ Again, an act that earns a single merit for one person can earn a million merits for another. Again for this reason, as long as there is no conflict with the essential literal meaning of a word and the rules of eloquence are considered and the rules of the Arabic language are not violated, the understanding of every authorized interpreter of every verse in the Qur’an can be listened to with respect.

The most obvious example of the manifestation of the relative truth of general principles in history is in the sphere of justice. In the absolute, justice would see personal rights and public rights as equal. But sometimes there is such a disturbance of the peace that it is not possible to protect either the rights of the individual or of the public, let alone both; sometimes, even fundamental rights to life and Islam’s basic principles are endangered. During such times relative justice, which sacrifices the individual’s rights for the sake of the public good, becomes necessary and application of it becomes absolutely mandatory. In Turkish history the administration by sultans and even the killing of sons and brothers in the Ottoman dynasty were demanded by relative justice, which, by virtue of the necessity of compelling circumstances, gains authority as if absolute justice.

In this earthly world there is such variety and abundance of colours, shapes, properties, times and conditions, that it is not possible to avoid relativism altogether. It is a reality of this world. Having understood that, we do also need truths which are at least close to absolute so that we can guide our lives by them. The absolute truth is that in the universe there is no real effect created by causes, and everything is in Cod’s hand. It is not predictable with certainty what will happen next, and our lives and the life of the world actually consist of this moment. Living this truth consciously together with faith and surrender to God, from the perspective of free-will given to man, we have also to give due recognition to the experience that causes do operate relatively reliably, though not absolutely, in this life. Because of this, the causes wrapping absolute reality like a shawl or veil, a veil of familiarity or habit, make life livable and thereafter, all technology and sciences get constructed on this veil. This is the broad region of human actions and observations where Newton’s classical physics has precedence over Einstein’s relativity physics.

Relativity is an important matter that reminds man of his vulnerability. The highest station a person who is climbing the ladder of Divine knowledge can reach by means of his heart is the station of amazement. As the greatest human being said, ‘We did not know You as we should, O Known One!’ and ‘How could I see Him; what I saw was light.’ Similarly, the scientist solves one problem, but opens the door to many new ones, and his trust in the century-old foundations of science suddenly falls through. The moment he says that he has found the truth, he sees that everything slips from his grasp. The fact of relativity makes him exclaim, ‘The only thing I know is that I don’t know anything,’ and this leads him, like a moth flying around a light, to eternally flap his wings around the light of unchangeable truth.

Relativity shows that absolute truth lies only in Revelation and never begins with man. It can be directly known only by Revelation. Therefore it is clear that man has an absolute need for religion and definite revealed knowledge. It has been seen in innumerable fields of activity that two people cannot agree on even a simple matter; thus, absolute truth can never derive from man and can only come from God. Man’s duty is to organize his living and dying according to the God-given truth at the point of belief. Understanding that human beings can only attain partial truth is also an acknowledging of the space separating multiplicity from oneness. In pointing to and yearning for the oneness beyond multiplicity, this understanding functions as one of the important proofs of oneness.

Relativity is an important measure for managing (learning to live peaceably with) the differences among professions, temperaments, schools and sects that have arisen in philosophy, teaching methods and religions. All dispositions, sects, schools and methods have a portion of the truth and none of them are absolutely wrong or false. The important thing is for them to be able to unite around a common point. When we look to the past and catastrophes from the perspective of fate, and when we look to the future responsibilities and divine orders from the perspective of free-will and opportunity, then it is possible even to reconcile the conflict between the fatalists and the proponents of unconditioned freedom of will.

The essential thing is to live believing that absolute truth when it touches upon this world, when it becomes relevant for us, is relative to us, conditioned by the points, circumstances, conditions receiving it. In the analogy given above, countless relative truths reflect the absolute truth located at the centre point of the circle or the straight line at innumerable other points according to the properties, colour and design of each. As long as people recognize, acknowledge, and defer to their own distance from the absolute truth, and don’t go beyond their human limits, unmanageable conflicts will not arise. But when people lose this sense of proportion about themselves and their capacity to know and propose the truth, when they take what is relative for what is absolute, they fall into errors with catastrophic consequences.

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.

Biological systematics classifies animals according to its own standards. So far about two million animal species have been distinguished. Each species has distinguishing characteristics and study of a few members of a species gives us general information about the whole of that species. For example, study of a pigeon gives us general information about all birds from nightingales to eagles, from grebes to albatrosses.

Systematic study of a species reveals that the assertions of being more or less developed are of relative nature. Also, study of the general control mechanisms in animal bodies shows a relative complexity in their metabolic and, especially, hormonal and nervous systems from one-celled organisms to mammals. It is difficult to attribute this complexity to chance or coincidences. Determining an entity of such complexity and adaptive effectiveness requires an absolute knowledge, will and power.

The standards by which to determine the degrees of development for animals vary from species to species. For example, with respect to the sense of smelling, sharks, according to our present knowledge, are relatively the most developed among vertebrates. Compared with a shark which can smell a drop of blood in the sea from a distance of about 25,000 feet, man is very much less developed. If we judge the degree of development according to the sense of smell, in place of men or monkeys, sharks will be the first. Whereas, with respect to the sense of seeing, eagles are much more developed than sharks, as well as than men and monkeys. An eagle can see a rabbit on the ground from a height of about 6.000 feet. Also, a bat which catches its prey in the dark with its ultrasonic equipment and a rattlesnake which catches rats with its infra-red eyes are far more developed than human beings in their respective areas of specialization.

Supposing a man was to enter the world of flies, what would flies say about him? ‘How simple and undeveloped that being is! He does not know how to fly. Even with the planes he made, he cannot fly as perfectly as we do. We turn somersaults, alight wherever we wish and take off very easily. Even one-tenth of the subtleties of art in our wings is not to be found in his most elaborate devices. Despite his abilities, skills and knowledge, he is completely unable to make one wing such as ours!

Would it not be true for a honey-bee to say of us:

‘Those clumsy ones can draw with tools and only after calculations the hexagons that I can make so easily and exactly identical to one another. They cannot make so sweet and healing a substance as honey that I produce in great amounts.’ Again, should a microbe or virus not consider itself as more powerful or developed that man seeing that it can cause him to die? With respect to their ability to swim and live in water, are not fish more perfect or developed than us? But then animals living on land are surely more developed than fish in respect of the mechanisms enabling them to live on land.

When we consider the world of insects, we are amazed at the degree of social organization they have achieved: the solidarity in the social life of bees, ants and termites, the communication among them, the absolute obedience of the individual to the commands of the collectivity, and the fulfilment by each individual of its duties to the community- compels us to wonder whether insects or human beings are more developed in this respect. It is for this reason that some socio-biologists tend to think of a society of insects as if it were an individual organism, operated by a single brain, the individuals in the community functioning like separate cells within the larger single organism.

Those who classify creatures according to the complexity of their brain structure and faculties assert that the more complex a brain is, the more developed the animal. However, even though the weight of the brain or the ratio of brain weight to general body weight sometimes appears to confirm this assertion, it usually leads on to wrong conclusions. Those who argue that the mammals whose brains are smaller than the human brain are simpler than human beings, forget that the main difference between human beings and mammals lies in man’s memory and capacity of thinking and speaking, and that there are great differences among the intellectual capacities of human beings. Also, every human being is different from others in many ways-in character, ambitions, attitudes, etc. 

It is function which determines the form and type. That is, an architect does not determine the function of a building after he has built it. On the contrary, he builds the building according to the function it will serve. In the same way, the structural perfection of the human brain corresponds to its functional perfection. That is, man did not become man after he had acquired his brain capacity or complexity. Rather, he was given a brain according to his functions with respect to other creatures and to the duties he was expected to perform. Thinking, as evolutionists do, that brains in animals grew more complex and their ‘intellectual capacity’ increased in parallel with the line of evolution, means attributing all the intellectual faculties and activities like thinking, reasoning, imagination, speaking and so on, to the brain as a physical entity. This is the crudest sort of materialism and reduces man’s existence entirely to matter, rejecting the existence of the spirit and spiritual dimension of man. Also, it is not possible by this hypothesis to explain the differences among human beings in their intellectual capacities, desires, ambitions, and character. If it were possible to increase or strengthen man’s intellectual capacities by making him a bigger and heavier brain, rather than educating him, would it not be more reasonable to try to find ways of enlarging his brain or, as some assert, enabling him to use a greater part of his brain?

How can we regard it as simpler or ‘less evolved’ that in the cytoplasm of one-celled organisms many vital activities like digestion and excretion are carried out? As a small watch is usually more intricate and requires more artistry in its production than a big clock, it may well be said that one-celled animals are more complex or difficult to come about than large, multi-celled ones. Again, although it seems at first sight that the more the number of cells increases, the more complex the creature grows, no one can say that an elephant is more developed than a mouse. Both being classed as mammals, with respect to their bodily activities, one cannot be considered more developed or simpler or requiring more artistry than the other. This leads us to reflect on the following Qur’anic verses:

God does not disdain to coin even a gnat as a parable, or a larger creature. As for those who believe, they know that is the truth from their Lord. But those who unbeliever say, ‘What does God wish to teach by such a parable?’ He leads astray many thereby, and guides many. He leads astray only the corrupt. (al-Baqara, 2.26)

O mankind! A parable is set forth, so listen to it: Surely, those whom you invoke, apart from God, will never create a fly even if they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly took something from them they could not rescue it from it. Hence, weak are both the seeker and the sought! (al-Hajj, 22.73)

It is foolish to regard the bony scales of fish as simple while regarding the pituitary glands on the skin of frogs as developed and the scales of lizards as more developed and the feathers of birds as much more developed and the hair of mammals as the most developed. It is no more than a speculative assertion that those protective parts of the bodies of the animals mentioned evolved each from a simpler one by chance. Is it not more reasonable to accept that each species of animals was given a particular body with its particular parts and systems according to the function it would serve among creatures and the environmental conditions to which it would be best adapted and adaptable?

The Conference was held in the Wembley Grand Hall on Saturday, 29th April, 1995, from 9 in the morning to 7 in the evening. The occasion was formally opened by Dr A. F. Yusuf, who expressed the hope that the Conference would be a means (notably for the media) to see and hear about Islam in another context than that of violent struggle for political and cultural identity; and that it would demonstrate the possibility and scope that exist for mutual respect and tolerance between people of different intellectual and cultural traditions.

Throughout the day the Hall was more or less full. In all, some 3000 people, excluding speakers, organizers and press, attended. Among the audience were non-Muslims as well as Muslims, and many women as well as many men, both young and old. All the different colours of the human race were there, African, Asian and European. Several people remarked that the scene reminded them, agreeably, of the hajj which, among much else, celebrates the world-wide diversity and community that is Islam.

The aim of the Report is to inform those who could not be present.

It is not a transcript of the proceedings. An edited video recording of the Conference is being made available.

A number of points emerged from the papers read at the Conference and the discussion about them:

1. The pervasiveness of Western norms and values in the modern world has meant that it is very difficult to imagine a constructive engagement between science and religion.

2. The old physics led to a deterministic and reductive worldview. The new physics embraces uncertainty, even unknowability as a structural feature of reality, bat it too has metaphysical pretensions and claims, that there is no reality outside human constructions/observations of it.

3. The effort to establish the terms of such an engagement can succeed in a broadly Islamic context because the Qur’an (a) presents the universe to man as the intelligible, harmonious creation of One Merciful, Omnipotent and Transcendent God: (b) encourages observation and study and the use of reason as a mode of worship: and (c) contains many true and accurate statements about natural phenomena and their operative relationships, and no untrue statements.

4. The concept of knowledge in Islam links it to the concept of wisdom. The aim of science is understanding and explaining the attributes of God insofar as these are reflected in nature. Its aim is not to obtain power or leverage over the operative mechanisms in nature. The Muslim scientist therefore aims to be a worshipper, as well as an expert.

5. The achievements of Muslims in laying the foundations of many modern scientific disciplines, most particularly in their use of observation and experimental method, should encourage the conviction that being a good Muslim is compatible with being a good scientist.

6. The failure to acknowledge, in the past, the contributions of Muslims to modern science is probably owed to the European scientists’ belief that the hostility they faced from the Church would have been even worse if their work were associated with Islam. Despite recent specialist studies which correct this neglect, ignorance about the achievements of Islamic science is general. This general ignorance effectively blocks discussion of a possible pattern of relationship between scientific inquiry and religious commitment on the Islamic model.

7. For the immediate future, scientific research will no doubt continue with its present assumption of the irrelevance of religion. This is inevitable given that the physical instruments as well as the intellectual concepts applied in the pursuit of scientific knowledge are Western. The structures of education and training, and subsequent career opportunities, are modelled on the Western pattern of very narrowly specialized expertise, with little opportunity for inter-specialist work even among researchers within the same discipline, let alone inter-disciplinary co-operation or cooperation between scientists and religious scholars. The mutual incomprehensibility of specialist dialects used by experts makes the situation even less susceptible of change.

8. The hurdles in the way of change are forbidding but not impossible. The old Islamic idea of a university as the gathering-place of different branches of knowledge will remain, for a while yet, just a cherished hope. But if it is sincerely cherished, specialists trained in the Western disciplines will work harder in their spare hours at qualifying themselves as Islamic scholars. Gradually, the definition of procedures and purposes in their field will evolve, through their own character as informed, practising Muslims, to give an Islamic shape to their specialist work. To begin with, only minor additions and modifications of existing curricula (both in schools and universities) will be possible.

9. To establish a truly Islamic curriculum in the sciences, but one that is practical from the point of view of training Muslims to be effective in the real world in which they find themselves, can only be a long- term goal. The first step towards that goal must be to provide Muslims with the relevant information and the means to exchange thoughts about it. Therefore:

a. We need case studies of past Islamic achievements which focus on the methods used, not the results. This will involve analyzing particular projects and comparing them with similar projects outside the Islamic tradition. Such studies need not be limited to comparing individual physics and chemistry experiments. They should also include skills and techniques applied in many areas, from town-planning and water management to lexicography and textual analysis. Any publisher(s) willing to undertake the task would need to plan a consistent series format aimed at the general reader.

b. We need an accessible account of how Muslim scholars and scientists maintained contact with each other, and how their work was funded and supported.

c. We need The Fountain or a magazine like it, preferably one that publishes monthly, to reserve a few pages for practising scientists to try and discuss the work they are currently doing from a Muslim perspective.

d. We need more focused (not necessarily smaller) conferences to discuss in detail particular issues that are debated widely but without much input from Muslims.

e. Beside the many essays we already have which associate modern scientific ideas and discoveries with the words of the Qur’an, we need studies that demonstrate a movement in the other direction, namely from the Qur’an to scientific knowledge. (The link between Qur’anic principles and injunctions and specific Muslim achievements in science and technology has been made in many books, but it has not been the central theme of any widely accessible study.)

Speed, movement over distance in time, is as old as the universe; the sensation of speed was ‘experienced’ as soon as man was created and covered distances by walking. Man has ever since extended and advanced his power of movement until speed has reached its present, dizzying level and continues to increase. Man first ‘enjoyed’ speed through his feet, then on the back of domesticated beasts, then in carts and carriages, then bicycles and motor-driven vehicles. Today, man is on the verge of defeating, even annihilating, distances. The annihilation of distance is already a reality in the case of sound and image transmission by processes far ahead of the transportation of objects.

Speed has brought more ease and comfort, but has also had negative consequences. Whether the positive consequences outweigh the negative ones is still an open question, one we can only answer by balancing the technological advances against real and substantial gain in human happiness and in the meaningfulness of human life.

Buses, trains, ships and planes, running on some advanced form of electrical energy, or in the further future space-craft run on some form of pure light energy, will make it possible to cover huge distances in minutes. We will, at the same time, be able to press a button and receive sounds, images, colours, even smells, from long distances. As ‘time’ and ‘space’ are effectively reduced, the earth will really become a global village.

Human conquests over time and space are, as we have noted, set to go much further, bringing with them, in addition to many facilities, numerous problems. We are bound to admire advances in scientific research, new inventions and their application – all the wonders of civilization. However, need this prevent us from asking whether the dazzling speed – attained through man’s commitment to investigating every detail of the ‘book of the universe’ – has really served the nobler aims, those rather more important for human life than speed by itself. If, by subjugating time and space, by contracting the world into a village and reducing time costs to near zero, speed cannot reach the higher goals, does it really benefit mankind? If science, penetrating into the universe’s remotest corners for knowledge of the whole of existence, made the whole world as familiar as our own neighbourhood, uncovered everything in it, making it, as it were, naked, and did not do so for the sake of the higher human values, needs and desires, would it not be a kind of ignominy to use such a science – to be familiar with the secrets of an individual or a nation, and able to expose them?

Is speed an end in itself? That is, are inventions and developments in transportation and telecommunication made just to indulge a crazy, unreflecting addiction to doing things ever faster? It is doubtful if these sophisticated means of transportation and communication have led to any great advance in human values. We wish that they had, so that we might look forward to the peaceful co-existence of the world’s peoples in a world contracted to a village. But it is impossible to claim that the technologies of speed serve any such goal at present.

If we argue that speed is desired, not for its own sake, but for the service of mankind’s loftier goals, can we also argue that faster cars or trains or planes really contribute to the attainment of these goals? If they do, we can aim to contract time and space still further – to the very limits of science-fictional imagination. But it is difficult to give a positive answer to that question: the present applications of speed technology are far from achieving the desired goals.

If speed is meant to save time, to get things done faster or to reach somewhere faster, but the time saved, the things done or the destinations reached, are not part of some higher aim more important than speed, then what is all the effort for? If we have no general aim for our speed technology and no specific intention to realize this aim, then all our effort and the time saved will be in vain – like streams of water flowing nowhere, or rain falling on barren ground. Today, some proponents of speed, heedless of any general aims in life, are greatly impressed by a technology that allows one to leave the earth’s atmosphere in a few minutes, to carry sounds and images many thousands of kilometres almost instantaneously. They value only the speed, they evaluate only the technology, detached from its general consequences. However, speed is only a material phenomenon. Without specific goals it can be neither a foundation for progress and civilization nor a means to the realization of human values.While mankind found happiness in centuries when they travelled on foot or horseback, they have in this century, unfortunately, suffered from the most horrifying kinds of brutality despite very sophisticated technology.

Speed has never been the most urgent need of mankind. It was and is only a means to an end. A balanced view is important. Some have idolized speed and glorified technological advances, regarding these as everything; others, reacting against the uselessness of speed without purpose, have become hostile to modern mechanisms of transport or communication.

Speed should serve specific aims. It is to be welcomed and valued as long as it enables the realization of human values and human aims; as long as it brings peace and happiness and ends pangs of separation; as long as it contributes to the general harmony of the world and the solution of worldly and other-worldly problems; and as long as it advances scientific research and empowers scientific establishments. Without these benefits, speed in movement or communication is no more than a meaningless, insecure illusion.

I once asked an Austrian friend of mine who had just qualified as a doctor where he went when he was sick. The surprising answer was that he and most of his colleagues went to a homeopath. He reminded me of our family G. P. who didn’t believe in medicines. I was told ‘just take your son home and make sure he eats well’.

My friend’s preferring a homeopath to one of his fellow professionals, was as I later found out, a rejection of what he had learned during his many years of study. He felt that he had been taught a set of beliefs, which, in his words, ‘did more harm than good’. He believed that he had been trained to ‘manage symptoms using chemicals’ and that his profession had nothing to do with looking for cures or curing people. He told me that he felt dirty when he had finished his shift and that he wasn’t being ‘true to himself’.

My friend may be an exception and is probably frowned upon and dismissed as a crank by other doctors, but, his views raise many interesting issues relevant to professionals and non-professionals alike.

There is an increasing interest in alternative approaches to health. The rise in health shops and alternative clinics show that the world of commerce is cashing in on this fact. Most bookshops stock books on acupuncture, homeopathy and other forms of Eastern medicines. However, the West’s search for an alternative has overlooked the medicine of the Muslim world, sometimes referred to as al Tibb al Nabawi, the medicine of the Prophet or Islamic medicine.

At Tibb al Nabawi

The name al Tibb at Nabawi literally means prophetic medicine. It is based upon the sayings of Muhammad, upon him be peace. However, it encompasses much more than the relatively small number of prophetic sayings. It incorporated Greek and Indian philosophy and practice wherever they were found to be in accordance with the general principles of Islam. The sayings of the Prophet set down general guidelines and principles which later led to the great discoveries and observations of the likes of Ibn Sina and other Muslim thinkers.

This series of articles will be an introduction to some of these principles.

Illness

The word illness, mard, is used in the Qur’an in two different ways. ‘It is no fault in the blind nor in one born lame, nor in one afflicted with illness (mard)’ (Al-Nur, 24.61). This example and the verses like it give special licenses to one who is sick. These licenses include delaying the compulsory fast and not having to fight during wartime. Verses such as ‘and any of you who is ill or has an ailment in his scalp should in compensation either fast or feed the poor’ (Al-Baqara, 2.196) which refer to the sick pilgrim not having to shave or cut his or her hair, led Muslim scholars to attempt to find a legal definition of the word mard illness.

The jurists set out the basis for practical diagnosis. They identified the means by which one could judge illness which included irregularities in the blood, urine, stool, and semen; imbalance in patterns of sleep, eating and drinking and the appearance of wind, sneezing and vomit.

Illness was defined as being ‘out of balance’. This encompassed both physical and mental states. The mental or emotional state is the second usage of the word mard in the Qur’an. ‘In their hearts is a disease (maid)’ (Al-Baqara, 2.15) The heart (qalb), here, refers to ‘the seat of the emotions’, Physically, one is considered to have an illness if one is ‘out of balance’. Likewise, one is emotionally sick if one is out of the natural and pure state that we were created in.

Doctors are needed for some of these emotional and physical illnesses; for others they are not. Tiredness is a symptom of being ‘out of balance’ which can be rectified simply by sleeping.

Islam sees the ultimate curer of these states to be the One who created them. He sent doctors to His creation such as Jesus who cured the leper as well as those suffering from pride and inflated egos. The last of these great doctors was Muhammad, upon him be peace, who, through his advice and practice, set out principles for curing both types of illness.

The state of balance

Common to many systems of alternative medicines is the concept of ‘balance/imbalance’. One’s natural healthy state is a balance between the four qualities of dryness/wetness and hot/cold. The reason a person may have left this state can be either ‘material’ or ‘consequential’. Material sickness is where a substance has entered the body and has caused its balance to shift in one of the several directions. Once the substance is gone the body will return to its natural mizaj, the model of balance.

A ‘consequential’ illness is where the effect of a substance in the body remains after it has left the body. The body is left with an excess of heat/cold or dryness/moisture.

Prophetic medicines sees illness as being caused by either this state of imbalance or damage to an organ or to the natural weakening caused by old age. The doctor’s first job is to discover the cause of illness, consider its cause, think what might encourage it to return it to its correct state act upon that and then depend on the Creator.

SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES

Preparation of medicines

Most medicines in al Tibb al Nabawi are based on the dietary advice of the Messenger, upon him be peace. A simple illness requires a simple medicine. The cure for imbalance leaning towards heat would be something cold. The classic example is the fever. The Prophet said ‘fever is from the hell, put it out with water.’ (Bukhari and Muslim)

A complex illness e.g. one leaning to hot-dry would require a complex mixture, in our example a cold-dry cure.

Every illness has a cure

The Prophet, upon him be peace, said ‘for every illness there is cure. If the cure matches the illness, improvement will take place by the permission of God.’ (related by Jabir in Muslim) and ‘God did not send down an illness except that He sent down a cure (Bukhari).

The above sayings establish there important principles. Firstly, they encourage the administration of medicines. There is agreement among the majority of Muslim scholars that it is a must. Secondly, they imply that, if administering medicine is a compulsion, then searching for a cure must also be a compulsion. Finally, they emphasise the dependence on God. In this modern age of ours we tend to depend on the medicines and not on the True Curer. It is interesting to look at how few remember God in illness until they realise their illness is terminal and that there is no hope for a cure. My own experience is that it is extremely upsetting and often devastating for both patient and doctor when the limitations of modern medicine dawns on them.

Cure may include spiritual as well as physical medicine

Muhammad, upon him be peace, described specific cures which included the likes of honey for the chest and liver. He also described procedures and principles, e.g. ‘emptying the stomach and putting out the fever with water’. In addition, he prescribed prayers and supplications for things like headaches and general sickness. These can be found in the books of hadith, traditions, as well as in the various books of prayers of the Prophet.’

Diet is the key to good health

Himya meaning both precaution and diet. Himya, with both of these meanings is the central pillar of Islamic medicine. The principle is found in the Qur’an which permits the use of sand in place of water in ablution and washing, if the latter is found to be detrimental to health. There was an occasion when the Prophet came with his cousin, Ali, to the house of Um al Mandari bint Qays al Ansari. They began to eat when Muhammad, upon him be peace, stopped and said to Ali ‘you are recovering.’ He took some barley and chard and gave it to him saying ‘this is better for you (related by Ibn Majah)’ The incident is an explanation of the principle of himya in its fullest sense.

Harith, described as the doctor of the Arabs, said ‘himya is the source of every cure, the stomach is the home of every illness.’ The Messenger said: ‘The stomach is the well of the body and the veins drink from it. If it is healthy, the veins pass on good health, if it is sick the veins pass on poison’.

Dietary precaution himya, can be used in three stages.

1. As a cure

2. To keep the body healthy.

3. To aid recovery

Based on the model of Ibn al Qayyim, hakims and traditional doctors have developed a sophisticated system of dietary medicine.

General behaviour and basic hygiene

The Messenger came to perfect behaviour. He taught not only us what foods we should eat hut how they should be prepared. Things like covering food, washing hands before eating and boiling food thoroughly when cooking were all stressed by the Prophet. The same is true of the etiquette of eating. The Messenger taught us to sit in such a manner that our stomach can be filled only to a third of its capacity.

Dieatry advice

The Messenger, upon him he peace, mentioned over seventy specific foods which he considered healthy. Modern science has confirmed that he was right. Among the foods mentioned were honey, dates, vinegar, fish and ginger.

*This article was based on Al Tibb Al Nabawi which is the final section of the book Zad al Ma’d of Ibn al Qayyim al Jawzi. It will be followed by a series of articles expanding on some of the points mentioned above.

References 

1. AL BUKARI (1980) Jami al Sahih
2. AL HAKIM (1965) Majmu’ Zawaid
3. IBN AL QAYYIM (1987) Al Tibb al Nabawi al Taiba
4. MUSLIM (1965) Jami al Sahih

Individualism is a philosophy which, like Nietzsche’s nihilism and Kroptkin’s anarchism, encourages people to turn away from religious values. It rejects divine authority altogether and any kind of religion-based command. It regards human beings as creators and human intelligence as the only guide in life.

A study, done in the United States and Germany between 1984 and 1986, produced remarkable findings about the social and economic characteristics of people living alone in these countries:

The numbers of such people have increased from 6.9 million to 20.6 m. in the United States and from 4 m. to 8.8 m. in Germany. Similar increases can also be observed in the other European countries.

Other research studies named SOP (Sozio Economisches Panel) and SIPP (Survey of Income and Program Participation) give the general reasons for this increase as follows:

a- Life conditions have become easier due to economic and technological development

b- Women have moved into different occupations and stations in life

c- New methods of contraception

d- Changes in social norms and values, in particular a decline in family life

e- Desire to live free of responsibilities

According to the SOP survey rest homes in Germany were overfilled after the Second World War with war widows and a generation of people made hopeless and desperate by the unfavourable psychological effects of the war. Marriage rates fell over the same period. The same research states that the young unemployed in many European countries account for an average fifty percent of the number of those who have chosen solitude.

The individual, who has lost all attachment to the society in which he or she lives, and has no feeling of responsibility to that society, abandons all links with its cultural values and symbols and its norms of behaviour: the individual becomes alienated and, probably, anti-social.

Sociologists suggest that this trend is eroding societies. If the bases on which social orientation is built have been weakened, if, in other words, there is no longer any trust among the members of a society, then that society will begin to disintegrate. Durkheim calls this collapse ‘anomie’. Suicides, homicides and general disorder are inevitable since so many individuals do not have a sufficient reason to respect life, not even their own.

This kind of survival or persistence in a life of which the individual can no longer make much sense turns around mere calculation of advantages, difficulties and, if any, of pleasures. The isolated individual is, because of isolation, over-attached to personal advantages, too alone to deal effectively with the difficulties that inevitably arise, and too self-oriented in the pleasures available to him or her. Life is thus reduced to a mere shadow of what, deep down, the individual knows it ought to be, and the envy. loneliness and selfishness which the individual feels makes the situation ever more painful and hopeless.

Lack of religious education and a near absence of devotional and contemplative habits are the background condition which urge people into a form of self-limitation and self-imprisonment. Their moral imagination atrophies so that they do not know of, or if they know, they do not much care about, the suffering and hardships that others endure. It is all too obvious that modern Western individualism has brought unhappiness, depression and disorder into many human lives and societies. Nor can the deterioration be reversed until people return in sufficient numbers and with sufficient sincerity and wisdom to the true faith.