There is blood and sweat on the brow of the past
Iron fetters on its feet,      
A bitter smile on its lips.
What a red spirit it clashed with…


There is still occasional darkness on the horizon;
However, day follows the night…
Autumn fell in and all the orchards decayed.
Leaves turned yellow and flowers faded.

The hero died, and his steed was tired;
He had fought with a huge malicious demon.

Now even if it seems impossible for him to return, 

We’re waiting for him at rosy dawns…
The crowns that once shone,
The slopes that opened their bosoms to the crowned.

Emerald trees on golden slopes,
Reached the caravan of separation and left.


There’s a spark from that frightful extinction

There are messages in the spark from the return.

“There are numerous perfect mechanisms put to work by our Creator in a fashion that is impossible for us to know; it is equally impossible for us to control each of them.”

“This body is mine! Thus, I have a right to use it as I like!”

How do we own our body? How much of it belongs to us? Can we still stand behind the phrase “this body is mine!” when we explain “scientifically” that it is not? To what extent does that statement meet the truth?

First paragraphs of human biology textbooks strongly mention the phenomenon that the sustenance of life takes place outside our will. Does our first creation in our mother’s womb, when we become existent out of nowhere, happen by our will? Do we have a say in the creation of our body, which is the dress of our soul? Of course we don’t. Even our senses, which are involved in eating and drinking, exist outside of our will. The feeling of hunger, for instance, does not come forth from our control; it is dependent on the emptiness of the stomach, and low blood sugar. Hunger is not only a sense of alarm or warning, but also a feeling that forces one to eat; it disappears when one is full. If it was only a sense of alarm, one could get away with it. This situation shows that the human is not a machine composed of flesh only. If we refuse to respond to this feeling of hunger, it may eventually lead to serious, even fatal, consequences, such as patients suffering from Anorexia nervosa, a severe psychological disorder that can lead to self starvation.

If there were no such thing as hunger or appetite, humans would not be interested in working. The feeling of hunger is a remembrance to the One who provides. As a matter of fact, all our emotions are temporary belongings that provide for the sustenance of life, and for the continuation of generations. Sexual desires are provided so that we can have families and can continue the human race; an appetite for food is given so that we can maintain our lives, and the sense of cold is given so that we dress.

In our village, one of our neighbors suffered from a stroke. All of the senses of pain, hot or cold, and touch disappeared from his legs. A pathological sense urged the patient to ask care takers to warm the stroked leg. Upon the patient’s strong request, care takers tried to warm the underside of the foot with a hot iron over a piece of cloth. As a result, the patient suffered severe foot burns all the way to the bone, since neither the patient nor the care takers noticed the damage. The nerve endings embedded in our skin are in charge of sensing hot or cold; and nerves that are buried deep in our legs and arms are tasked with relaying those senses to our brain.

Despite feelings of cold or excess heat being connected to certain areas of the brain and nerve cells, these senses are not completely delivered to brain. That is to say that we are not simply machines made out of elements found in the earth. We do have emotions and a soul in charge of controlling those emotions, and a spiritual world connected to it. It is such that even senses of hot and cold do not belong to us and we cannot even generate or control them.

We cannot start our body just like we start a washing machine. We do not have a button to restart our heart in case it stops. How does a heart work? Have we ever thought about the number of nerves employed in sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomous nerve networks that make the heart work? All of the muscle cells of the heart contract with perfect timing. Do you know that special channels called “gap junctions” in between neighbor muscle cells are put to work wondrously in order to let electric signals pass from one cell to another? If millions of muscle cells in a heart did not have to work like that, how could all our cells get their nourishment, necessary substances, and oxygen in time? All of these processes happen outside our will.

How many red blood cells or white blood cells do you have, and how are they working? When the hemoglobin molecule reaches cells, it releases the oxygen molecule that is bound in lungs. Does the hemoglobin do this act of binding and releasing by its own discretion? Red blood cells get accelerated with proper speed so that cells get their nourishment on time. Is this something we do on our own? Our body is protected from diseases as white blood cells recognize and attack foreign microorganisms and substances. How can a white blood cell separate normal cells from harmful bacteria? There are numerous perfect mechanisms put to work by our Creator in a fashion that is impossible for us to know; it is equally impossible for us to control each of them. We do profit-loss calculations in every business of ours. Our body employs a great principle of economy; do we know how that is put to life or who makes that work?

Neurons, axons, dendrites, synapses, and neuro-transmitters exist and function in amazing numbers in our brains. Countless connections between neurons, and electric currents through synapses, happen without us even noticing them. How do neurotransmitters only bind with their own receptors and open ion channels? How does this relay of information occur in our brain when Na and Ca ions, existing in soil, rocks, and salt – which we use as a condiment – pass through these electrically controlled ion channels? Even if we know about these intricate works, it is still not up to our will to enable or control them.

How do nerve networks function? How many types of neuron circuitries exist, and how do they work? How does membrane potential form in nerve and muscle cells? How is action potential generated? When we touch a substance, which nerve tracks are utilized to transport the information? Do we have the option to pull the plug of pain and feel free of it? If this machine-like body belonged to us, then we could control and regulate it.

When we are purchasing a computer, we get the hardware according to our budget. We ask and order for the processing speed, memory, and the capacity of a computer to meet our needs. Do we get to arrange the capacity of our brain that we think we own?

Do we know that more than 75% of chewing is a reflex and happens outside our control and will? How good is it that we realize that only one of the three phases of swallowing is actually under our control and the rest of the process happens by our reflexes during eating and drinking? If swallowing was to be in our control, it would be highly likely that pieces of food and fluid droplets would easily choke our lungs and might cause death. How do our stomach and intestines work? At what speeds do secretions and movements take place? The content and amount of oral, gastro-intestinal, and pancreatic secretions are regulated according to the amount and type of food we intake. These regulations continue through our lifespan without any cessation.

Are we able to stop our heart beat when we are just a baby in our mother’s womb even for a minute? How does our heart work? How much blood is pumped in a minute? Approximately how long after the conception of egg and sperm does the heart start to beat: weeks, days? Do we know that our heart starts beating when we are as small as a tiny piece of flesh around week four?

How can we assert that we control our body, even when, to this day, scientists do not have a solid comprehension other than some assumptions of the rhythmic continuation of respiration during sleep or coma?

Since we own this heart and lungs, therefore can we manage to die whenever we want to stop them? Never!

We can conclude that the assertion of “this body is ours” is a deceptive, misleading perception. This body is given to us as a temporary belonging. It is very clear scientifically that all of the works, acts, and wondrous arts of the body do not belong to us, but to the One who created them. Our responsibility is to keep that in mind and be thankful for all the bountiful blessings.

Omer Arifagaoglu is a professor of medicine in Turkey.

If life is a book of colorful pages, I cherish each color I shared with you. Colors of laughter, love and joy, emotions I can never pen down. Such were the 20 young pages of my life, with 85 of yours. Your companionship was indeed incomparable to any other object of the world. But holy wisdom lays in a calm surrender my friend; life is in fact no more than a brief existence, and we are sole travelers. It’s neither ours to give nor ours to take. Like a shell imprisoning the pearl. This body is a prison for the soul that demands to fly away one day, without any khalil, close friends, up onto the final abode, where He has blessed the Prophets, the foremost believers, martyrs and the righteous ones. So today is a plain deal my friend, conditioned by death and remorse, tomorrow all the spirited ones leave the world at a constant loss.

Indeed sometimes to say goodbye to someone you love is quite impossible.

I know memories tend to fade away but they say the heart retains its scars longer than any other part of the body. Along with the pleasant memories I hold in my heart, there are some regrets too that make me ache but make me love you more and more with each passing moon. Surely, I stand firm because of Him whose love is greater than our disappointments. It’s not easy my friend, but it’s His decree. I hear, I obey, and I surrender. So does every man.

You have gone away my friend. Your soul is free. But you’re still alive in my heart. I like to go back in time and remember old days, our offering Jumu’ah, Friday, prayer together in your favorite mosque, that white dress of yours and your beautiful embroidery veil, a veil that sheltered me once from the sunrays, on our return to home; your old kind eyes full of wisdom and your face gentle and calm. The times you used to sit by my side whenever I was sick and pray with tears in your tender eyes. I still dream of your hands my friend, when I think of you, so soft like silk caressing my teary face.

Indeed sometimes to say goodbye to someone you love is quite impossible.

They say I am your reflection my friend, what a lie they tell. How could I possibly be as pious as you? You were the height of righteousness while I… Oh! How badly I wish, if I could turn back time and end my grief. How badly I desire to right the wrongs of yesterday, bring you back and sit next to you again. But Alas! Life is momentary and uncertain my friend, death is its part.

As patience is retained by the desert without rain, I shall have patience and remember you as my friend, O my beloved Nano . I shall pass your love to my children’s children. I shall walk in your footsteps and keep you alive in my heart. As time goes by, my memories will fade away but I shall always remember the one who caressed me and took my worries away. You and I belong to different worlds now but death is only a pause in this momentary life, a new life awaits. So when He will shower His rain upon me I shall meet you again. Until then I pray thee peace, my friend, whenever I kneel before Him in my prayer. I’ll grow older and older with each fleeting moment and memories will grow fainter so they say, but as long as my mortal heart will beat, I’ll keep in heart the day the angel of death took you to your heavenly abode, an unseen place…

Indeed sometimes to say good bye to someone you love is quite impossible.

But …We All belong to God my friend, and to Him we shall return!

May God rest your soul in peace, my beloved Nana! I miss you. But One day, if God wills, we’ll surely meet. They ask me over and over again Nano, why life does everything in its power to return to death? I say hush, silent…believe and pray. Death in itself is a desire to live young, forever and ever again!

“God is He to Whom belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He gives life and causes to die. And you have, apart from God, neither a guardian (who will protect you and to whom you can entrust your affairs) nor a helper.” (Tawbah, 9:116)

Pervisha Khan is a student of B.S. Hons. Mass Communication at Lahore College for Women University, Pakistan.

On the basis of the omnipotence puzzle, one can reject the existence of God as an absolutely perfect, omnipotent and eternal being because the notion of such a being seems to be incoherent, thus it has no real referent. However, there are various theistic views that try to make sense of this puzzle by preserving omnipotence as an essential property of God. Let’s examine Aquinas’s and al-Ghazali’s views regarding omnipotence and see how an answer to such questions can be produced.

Aquinas

Aquinas was one of the most prominent figures of Christianity in the Middle Ages. He attempted to systematize the Christian faith within the framework of Aristotelian philosophy. His philosophy is known as Thomism and accepted as the official doctrine of the Catholic Church to this day. One of the central issues Aquinas dealt with was God’s nature and His omnipotence. Let us examine his ideas on this.

According to Aquinas, hypothetical cases such as God killing Himself or lying, imply contradictions in relation to God’s nature. God is eternal and truthful by nature. And in his terms, “anything that implies a contradiction does not fall within the power of God” (Aquinas, 1963, Q. 25, art. 3, p. 165). Contradictory cases are impossible; they could never happen. Since they are not genuine cases, divine power is not applicable to them. However, Aquinas did not carefully formulate the idea he proposed here. In expressing this intuition he used the modal verb “cannot” with the subject term “God” in most cases. Take into account the following of his remarks:

God cannot make yes and no true at the same time, not because of His lack of power, but because of the lack of possibility, such things are intrinsically impossible (Aquinas, 1952, I-18, 19).

Even though he did not think that the term “cannot” in the sentence above does not pose a limitation on divine power because the case in question is not a genuine case, the linguistic meaning of “cannot” implies that God’s power is applicable to such a case, and therefore He is unable to do it. Let’s continue with al-Ghazali’s view on omnipotence.

Al-Ghazali

Al-Ghazali can be regarded as one of the most influential Medieval theologians in the Islamic world. His criticisms directed to Avicenna’s or al-Farabi’s attempts to interpret Islam in terms of Aristotelian philosophy had a major influence on the formation of the Islamic world. He is usually considered to be a dogmatic theologian who attacked philosophy and prevented free thinking and intellectual progress in the Islamic world. However, if his criticisms are examined carefully, we see that his target was not the activity of philosophy but the false beliefs produced by certain philosophers. Avicenna and al-Farabi were critized by him on the grounds that their philosophies included some elements coming from Aristotelian philosophy, which is not accepted by Islam. It should be noted that his way of critizing them is not any less philosophical than his opponent’s way of arguing. He was certainly not dogmatic in rejecting them and engaged in philosophical activity in doing so. One of the most recurrent topics in his work was the omnipotence of God.

Like Aquinas, al-Ghazali excludes contradictions or impossibilities from the scope of divine power. That is to say, impossibilities are not objects of power. Let’s examine what he says exactly in his masterwork, Tahafut al-Falasifa (The Incoherence of the Philosophers):

The impossible is not within the power [of being enacted]. The impossible consists in affirming a thing conjointly with denying it, affirming the more specific while denying the more general, or affirming two things while negating one [of them]. What does not reduce to this is not impossible, and what is not impossible is within [divine] power (al-Ghazali, 1997, 17th Discussion, 29th paragraph, 179).

However, al-Ghazali is more sensitive than Aquinas in expressing this idea. In his main works where he analyzes omnipotence, the Tahafut and al-Iqtisad, he never uses “cannot” as a modal verb in a sentence whose subject is God. I think this was a conscious decision, because the semantics or meaning of the term “can” or “cannot” includes the idea of ability or inability to do something, which is closely linked to the notion of power. The sentence “God cannot do x” presupposes that x is included in the extension to which divine power is applicable but God is unable to do it. To avoid this, al-Ghazali simply says “the impossible is not within divine power.” The idea assumed here by al-Ghazali is expressed by the notion of category mistakes in contemporary philosophy of language.

Category mistakes

When an expression systematically misleads us because of category confusion in representing a certain fact, then it is a “category mistake” (Ryle, 1949, 16). For example, referring to faculties, libraries, museums and scientific departments as being in the same category with universities is a category mistake. The university is not a member of the class of which the listed units are members of, but it is rather the way in which all of them are organized (Ryle, 1949, 16). We can give more examples. Predicating colors of numbers is another category mistake. For example, “Number 2 is yellow” is a sentence asserted as a result of category confusion. Numbers are not the things to which the color predicates apply. In other words, color-predicates have a certain range or extension of applicability, which excludes numbers. On the other hand, the properties of “being odd” or “being even” apply to numbers but not to material objects. To say that this chair is even is another category mistake.

So each predicate has a certain extension to which this predicate legitimately applies. Things or expressions that are not in the scope (extension) of a certain predicate lead to a category mistake if they are associated with this predicate. So the sentence “God cannot do x” includes a category mistake if x is a contradiction because contradictions are not within the scope of divine power.

As a result, the question of whether or not God can kill Himself can be answered in the following way by supporting al-Ghazali’s unnamed intuition of category mistakes: this question presupposes that divine power is applicable to such a case, but this is a category mistake. Because of that, this is an illegitimate question that can be answered neither by “yes” nor by “no.” It is like the following question: How many times did you kick your dog? Assume that you don’t have a dog. If you do not have a dog, then there is no point in asking the number of times you kicked the dog that you do not even have. Considering the reality, it is an absurd question.

The notion of Omnipotence

An answer formulated in this way, in response to the puzzle, treats the notion of power as a crucial element in understanding the relation between God and the universe. It also allows us to understand the meaning of omnipotence clearly. An omnipotent agent is an agent who can perform everything that falls under the scope of the notion of divine power. An omnipotent agent cannot be characterized as a being that is able to do anything unqualifiedly. Cases that do not fall under the scope of power are not legitimate cases to which divine power is applicable. The classical criticism of this view is that God is limited by proposing such a scope of limitation. However, what is limited is not an agent, namely God, but a notion, which is divine power. Contradictions are used in determining the notion of divine power. So they put a limitation on the definition or meaning of “divine power,” rather than on the agent who is powerful. By excluding these contradictions from the scope of power and including things that are within this scope, the notion is defined. In this sense, defining is putting limitations on the notion of power. God conceptualized in this way has infinite power, i.e. He can create everything that falls under the scope of power. Otherwise, allowing such contradictions within the scope of divine power will undermine of the very concept of God. Then, for instance, we should have said that God can kill Himself. If God can kill Himself, then He could not be accepted as God anymore because God is essentially eternal by definition. In order to have an intelligible idea of God, the scope of divine power must exclude such absurdities.

Conclusion

As it is shown in the sample case of omnipotence, the apparently theological problem has logical and linguistic aspects. This puzzle can be handled by some clarification of the meanings of crucial terms regarding this puzzle. Both Aquinas and al-Ghazali were aware of this aspect of the problem even though they did not clearly express the intuition, which we call “category mistakes,” in contemporary philosophy of language. Much confusion is encountered in daily life, especially in the topic of religion, that stems from the misuse of language. If we want to get rid of such confusion and be clear in our thinking, then we should seriously ponder on the use of language.

Bibliography

• Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid. Tahafut al-Falasifa (The Incoherence of the Philosophers). Michael E. Marmura (tr.), Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1997.
• Al-Iqtisad fi al-Itiqad. Ibrahim Agah Cubukcu and Huseyin Atay (ed.s), Ankara: Ankara Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Yayinlari, 1962.
• Aquinas, Thomas. On the Power of God (Quaestiones disputatae de potentia Dei). Lawrence Shapcote. Trans. Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1952.
• Summa Theologiae. Latin text and English Translation. T. Gilby. (ed). 60 vols. London, 1963.
• Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. London: Taylor and Francis Books. 1949.

We dream of a generation who will embrace and build the future upon interpreting problems not according to the sources or reasons from which they arise, but with respect to their ideals. If we are passengers who are on different paths and using different strategies, but all heading for the same destination, then why should we defame the others who are with us on this sacred journey that has such a lofty goal?

The circumstances that will shape humanity in the future, in particular current world affairs, are forcing us to act with utmost care and alertness; in fact, they are forcing us to do so to such an extent that any decision hastily taken for temporary measures will result in errors that have no compensation. The architects of the future are obliged to build their world on the foundations of what human love and respect stand for and what they appear to be.

With its many dimensions, the modern world has pushed humanity into many dark alleys. And we have come face to face with many problems, the nature of which we have no idea. We are trying to cope with these problems, but they are extremely slippery and inconsistent, and in due proportion the outcomes are full of contradictions. There are thousands of Khidrs who are committed to fetch the water of life from Mount Qaf for humanity, but none of them possess any sign of the elixir of immortality. Despite all the efforts of these people who are “apostles-to-be,” respect for the human soul has been severely challenged by real dangers.

We have struggled for many years in this way; nevertheless, we have not accomplished any synthesis that will constitute the pillars of tomorrow. This has indeed been impossible. Our feelings and thoughts have promised and brought about discrete things, and we were like musicians with a broken record and an incomplete composition, swaying from one door to another, looking for a producer. When every individual denies all the other truths because of the portion of truth which they hold in their hands, and when they compel others to stick to their respective portions, will it ever be possible to have ideas line up one after another, to attain new syntheses, or to discover remedies that save? Can this ever be possible while some are harassing others with accusations of unbelief and sinning, or even physically assaulting them?

The present situation that we have reached today is very dramatic and thought-provoking. Those who walked side-by-side in the past are strangers to one another today. The truths and untruths have been shifted, in accordance with group preferences, from their foundational pillars to rest on slippery rails. Under such chaotic conditions, it is impossible to discern either the loftiness of the goal or the differences of the means to attain it.

Humanity today appears to have become fixated on a single flower alone, although they had set out to enjoy the spring. They have lost all their hopes for reaching the goal that is on this path; the means to do so are what they have been fighting for. Their efforts and actions are merely to engage in effort and action. Just like a guide who has forgotten the responsibility of serving the temple and their servanthood to God, who is absorbed by trying to entertain the visiting tourists, so too have those who devoted themselves to a clique or a party today become foreign and indifferent to the ideal and the goal.

The humanity of our time has been imprisoned by focusing on one flower on the way to the spring, and has been deceived by a drop while chasing the ocean. I feel that such slavery will be impossible to overcome until we have liberated humanity and given them a new outlook. We are burdened with the task of expressing the truth . . I wish that we had been able to have done so!

No matter how charming and enchanting the atmosphere that catches the eye or fills the heart is there is no permission for us to forget the truth to which we are committed. We cannot stay alien toward each other while we are in the same camp. We do not have a monopoly of the good and the beautiful; therefore we cannot be allowed to wage a war with the passengers who are heading to the same destination but on a different path.

We may have some criticisms about the path and system of someone who thinks differently from us; this is an expression of minds that operate in different ways. But, if we are striving to reach the same horizon, we must at least respect the way others think. This is a prerequisite of heading in the same direction, sharing the same belief, utilizing the same terminology, and finally and above all, of respecting the sacred meaning glorified by God Almighty.

Let us be respectful to humankind! Let us respect the exalted truths they possess. Let us love them because of their Almighty Creator. If we can raise a community upon this perspective, people will eventually recover and they will manage to compensate for whatever they have lost.

These “interpretations” attempt to show that there is no such thing as a miracle and that everything in the world obeys the immutable laws of nature. According to such a view, all miracles narrated by the Holy books either must be reinterpreted, or if this is not possible-rejected.

The use of science as an argument against the possibility of the extraordinary acts of God is conceptually incorrect; today’s science starts from the assumption of the impossibility of miracles. In other words, scientists believe that miracles are impossible. Yet, a belief in the opposite is no less a legitimate position to adopt. Therefore, science’s statement that miracles are impossible is based on the assumption that they are impossible; this is not a logically acceptable argument.

There is a need to prepare the ground for such arguments by considering the definitions of science and its method. We have to realize the limits of the scientific method that is based on observations and experiments. The reliability of the human mind and its perception and the relativity of time are some of other issues that need to be considered.

Whatever happens around us is normally bound to a time scale. Billions of living creatures are born every day; some by cell division, others through the long process of pregnancy. Since these events abound in nature we consider them to be normal, nothing extraordinary. On the contrary, if we were to witness a child being conceived and born in one minute, as if someone had pressed the fast forward button, we would be amazed. In this case, a miracle would have occurred, not by the violation of the cause and effect principle, but rather from a change in time scale. Thus, our familiarity with phenomena is very important in distinguishing between a miracle and a non-miracle.

Science is based on what we can observe and what is understood from these observations by making generalizations. First of all, we cannot observe every moment and every place in the universe. Our experiments are limited in space and time. For example, if all experiments done by us confirmed Newton’s second law, F=ma, we still would not be able to rigorously prove that this law still holds true in some distant galaxy. We could not even prove that it were true for Earth throughout all of its history; it is not possible to say that that things happened in such and such way simply because they happen in that way today! However, at this point the scientific method with all its pros and cons comes into play to assert that this law is true for all of the Universe, for all of its past and future. This fact alone is enough to demonstrate that science has its limits.

Many miracles of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, happened in the presence of many of his followers or enemies. The splitting of the Moon, walking trees, and talking stones were just a few. One could try to explain these by saying that the people who witnessed them had undergone hypnosis or were having dreams; however there are miracles that resulted in people being able to drink water from his fingers or plenty of food emerging from a small amount. It is impossible to deceive one’s friends with a small lie even for a short time (the cold fusion scandal of 1989 should be a good example!); how could somebody possibly deceive thousands of enemies for fourteen hundred years? Thus, it is impossible to deny the authenticity of the miracles of Prophet Muhammad.

Before the advent of positivism, miracles were used as a powerful means to convince people in the truth of religions. Prophet Jesus was born without a father, Prophet Moses parted the sea and crossed it without drowning, Prophet Abraham emerged unharmed from the fire and Prophet Muhammad split the Moon and ascended to the Heavens; these are among the most prominent examples of miracles.

However, nowadays because of scientific “terror” people are afraid even to mention miracles. People have been so affected by scientific dogma that everything unusual is categorized as being nothing more than a “fairy tale.” The reason for this historical error is the inability of science to draw a demarcating line between observations and interpretations to date.

Positivism has its roots in the 16th century and thus all religions were affected by its destructive dogma. Before that time, people made explanations for natural phenomena, saying “a seed starts to evolve to produce a tree, it rains because the tree needs water, and the tree produces fruit because people need to eat,” or other simplistic explanations.

The realization of the fact that the same phenomenon can be interpreted in several ways brought up the question of what the mechanism was that lay behind the process. This in turn lead people to discover the cause and effect relationship inherent in nature. As a result, ordinary events were interpreted as happening without any interference from God, leaving the concept of God to be found only in the realm of miracles. However, the next century was to come with even more destructive dogmas, presented under the guise of science.

The modern usage of the term “laws of nature” was first coined in the 17th century. Scientists of the time believed that physical and biological systems were self-regulating and God was only “the first cause” capable of changing the laws of nature. However, Locke and Hume argued on the basis of Newton’s physics that the natural laws were unchangeable and hence miracles were impossible. In the 17th century, with its notion of an impotent God, the foundation of religious beliefs was shattered, but not to the same extent as happened in the 19th century.

In the 19th century, developments in quantum physics brought about new points of view. The already existing notion of an impotent God made people suppose that Divine Power was limited to conducting probabilities. When it was discovered that particle motion and interactions were based on probability, they began to think that God’s power was limited at the micro level, as well as believing that He was unable to change physical laws or work miracles.

Nowadays, the biologic uncertainty that was produced by molecular biology and “the exploratory journeys” into the depths of the cell has caused a significant debate, particularly in the discipline of sociobiology. In biology, you can arrive at a decision based on statistics. However, it is impossible to reach a result that is as precise and universally accepted as a formula in physics; this is because living systems maintain their lives in a continuously changing, but stable dynamic equilibrium. For example, we cannot say that there are 763 pores on the leaf of an apple tree, or that there are 5,891,633 erythrocytes in a cubic millimeter of blood, but we can express some relations based on some approximations and averages.

Having said this, we cannot tie the situation of miracles to the principle of uncertainty; in an inorganic physical world there is a much stronger determinacy than there is in biology. For instance, an apple that is separated from the tree falls to the ground because of gravity. However, we encounter large uncertainty when we get to the level of subatomic particles. Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty states this very clearly. Therefore, if we were to descend to the subatomic level for miracles like the splitting of the Red Sea or the division of the Moon that were witnessed in the inorganic world, we come across an indeterminacy of physical laws rather than a determinacy. In fact, it may not be correct to call this uncertainty, because although it may be uncertain for us, it is not uncertain for the Creator; therefore, it may be better to call this determinacy based on the knowledge, will, power, and free choice of the Creator.

In order to form a common ground or argument against miracles, it would be necessary to say that all rumors are incorrect and to refuse to believe all the people who claimed that they had witnessed these miracles. However, scientists have concluded that the rumors are false only because they think that miracles are impossible; namely, they remain in the same vicious circle. Yet, according to the main principle of logic, just one confirmation against thousands of denials is enough to be a proof. For example, if one person were to find a black swan, even if one million people claim that there is no such thing as a black swan and even if they say that they have searched the entire world, all these claims about the nonexistence of the black swan will be refuted. The miracles of the prophets took place for the most part in front of large crowds and have been transmitted to us as centuries as real events, not just rumors that can be disproved.

Hume’s point of view attacking miracles has been shown to be lacking valid support as well. According to Hume, every event has a unique cause and the event can be explained if this unique cause is known. Logically this is an erroneous view. One event may have multiple causes; in particular, causes that influence the events that occur in the dimension belonging to the different layers of living beings do not have to be confined to material events. Causes that are of a different nature that affect the same object may produce different outcomes; the same causes, on the other hand, may generate different outcomes because of a hidden characteristic of the object that is beyond the range of our knowledge. These elements are not controversial; on the contrary, they complement each other. By the same reasoning, it does not go against being “scientific” to explain miracles as being a product of Divine Power rather than a result of an incorrect observation or an unknown cause. Moreover, such an interpretation does not need a cause and effect relationship that will continue as a chain.

Medawar points out precisely that scientific understanding has limits “. . . The last questions of Karl Popper are even now being asked by children. How did everything begin? Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Rigid and fanatical positivism did not consider these questions as real questions or neglected them. According to positivism these questions are only asked by the stupid, and only charlatans dare to answer them. However, the avoidance of these questions does not satisfy people because they are meaningful both for the people asking them and for the ones trying to answer them. It is a universally accepted fact that it is not in the realm of science to provide answers to such questions. As a matter of fact, the scientific approach has some definite limits.”

When we consider miracles, we can apply this approach as follows: it is impossible to verify or refute the miracles based on scientific measures. Moreover, the fact that we understand the mechanism behind a miracle does not prevent it from being a miracle.

In conclusion, it is easy to deny the possibility of miracles by finding scientific interpretations for them. However, to go down the opposite road is more profitable. Realizing that the refutation of miracles is no more scientific than the acceptance of them and that there is considerable evidence in their support will urge us to understand the limits of science and its methods.

Before discussing this further, it will be useful to define our terms. By ‘creation theory’ is meant something like this: the Creator, by an act of will which occurred outside of the cosmos, directly willed into being the first plant and animal species, separately and independently of each other. Any subsequent changes or mutations were accomplished only within the species boundaries. No essential modifications or evolution (such as of more complicated species from simpler ones) occurred after that. In the past the earth was at least once flooded extensively. Geological investigations show clearly that this extensive flooding led to the destruction and extinction of a large number of living creatures.

According to the modern ‘evolution theory’, all life evolved from one simple primitive cell, which came out of dead, lifeless matter by chance, then hit upon a method of replication and adaptation which (again by random trial and error over vast periods of time) led to the many varieties of living species each fitted for competitive survival in its particular niche in the environment. The whole process of evolution took several hundred million years. Large geological events are explained as natural phenomena occurring in specific periods of time and without a world-wide destruction of the earth by flood.

The first creation of man was not observed by man; it is an unrepeatable historical event, unsuited to ‘testing by experiment’, the standard procedure in modern science. Further, creation cannot be disproved: it is impossible to devise or conduct an experiment that could falsify the claim put forward by the creation theory. It is for that reason unacceptable as a scientific theory. That does not mean it is false; nor does it mean it is true. However, it is clear that the creation theory shows good correlations with the results of fossil investigation. To some extent, it can be tested in the same way as other historical claims are matched and tested with appropriately corroborative historical documents.

Evolution theory likewise does not fulfil all the criteria which would justify calling it a scientific theory. The great modifications of evolution were never observed; the claims of the theory fall outside of experimental and scientific methods. Nobody has ever observed or could ever observe how a fish became a frog or a monkey became a human; no human witnessed or could ever witness the origin of the cosmos or of life.

A well-known bit of evidence often used to argue for evolution theory is the case of the moth Biston betularia. The moths of this species found in England before the industrial revolution were predominantly white. The effects of industrial pollution blackened rocks and tree-bark. The number of white moths in the population, now fatally exposed to their predators, fell drastically, while the number of black moths rose. Today in the industrialized regions of England, 95% of the moths are black: they had better camouflage and therefore a higher survival rate, eventually dominating the population. Thus, the environment ‘selected’ or favoured the black over the white variety.

While this case clearly illustrates adaptive evolution within a species or, more precisely, the adaptation capacity to certain conditions with which all living beings are endowed by creation, it equally clearly does not illustrate evolution from one species to another. The latter kind of change or ‘macro-evolution’ is never observable. As a famous supporter of evolution, Dobzhansky, put it-evolution can never be repeated or reversed (no life-form ever evolves back to what it allegedly had once been); the time periods reckoned for major changes to occur exceed by far the life-span of mankind as a whole; it is impossible to test the theory scientifically and therefore it cannot be presented to anti-evolutionists in a way that would force them to change their position.

Some evolutionist scientists are objective and honest enough to accept that evolution theory is no more scientific than the creation theory. For example, providing a short list of the theory’s weaknesses, Harris pointed out that creationists demand from the evolutionists an explanation of (a) how random mutations led to adaptations, (b) why natural selection acts only for the benefit of some species, (c) why natural selection allowed the survival of organs which are obviously not used. We now understand, Harris maintains, that neither theory is rational, that both depend on axioms.

In the Preface of the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, Mathews, pointing out that the evolution of the animals has never been demonstrated, asks: Is biology now a science or a belief system?

It does not follow from the fact that neither theory is ‘scientific’ according to the strict criteria, that either is necessarily wrong. However, since evolution theory claims that evolution occurred according to natural laws, these laws must be valid at the present time (as in the past), and the theory may not contradict those laws. But the evolutionists insist that the non-demonstrability of evolution, its central weakness as a scientific theory, must be accepted as a consequence of the enormous slowness of evolutionary processes. They further insist that creation theory should be removed from scientific textbooks, it should not be investigated scientifically, and certainly not presented as an alternative to evolution. But their argument that creation theory cannot be scientifically tested applies equally to evolution theory. Similarly, their objection that creation theory promotes religion and belief in supernatural agency, applies equally to evolution theory which promotes atheism as a belief system and accords to random ‘natural’ processes the role of supernatural agency. If it is wrong or improper to teach the former, it must be wrong or improper to teach the latter also.

In practice, evolution theory has become an unofficial state-supported religion sponsored directly by its exclusive place on all curricula; a dogma that binds students of biology to the closed horizons of evolution theory in schools, colleges and universities. However, more and more scientists are finding the courage to assert that grave inconsistencies between evolutionary theory and scientific laws or experimental results exist. Also, many scientists are arguing that the creation model is free from such inconsistencies and offers a better explanation of the established facts about the origin of living organisms. Even some followers of evolutionary theory are admitting to being dissatisfied with it and to seeking a ‘better’ theory that fits and explains the known facts in a properly scientific way.

The essential claim of modern evolutionary theory is that the processes of evolution resulted from natural selection of the coincidental mutational modifications in the genetic code. This selection was realized in relation to modifications of the environment. Natural selection is an agent, acting through coincidences and working in mutated genes. But that does not explain (as it was once thought and hoped it would) very much at all. There is a fatal circularity, a fatal self-validation, in the theory of selection. Which living creatures survived? Answer: those that adapted to the changes in their environment. Which living creatures adapted? Answer: those that survived. There is no explanatory effectiveness in this kind of reasoning.

It is impossible to explain, why some species only live until they produce the next generation. We only know that because they were created in that way. Scientists who support the creation model believe that natural selection leads to species extending modifications towards ever-increasing complexity. Natural selection has the merely negative function of eventually removing from the environment species that have failed to realize their potential to adapt.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all processes of change are initiated by mutations. Mutations are random, heritable modifications in the chromosomes or genes, which are complete functioning elements. Whatever happens randomly can nevertheless be calculated according to known and established mathematical principles. Therefore, it should be possible to calculate and predict the numbers of mutations necessary to effect a change in the organism. In short, if we really believe that evolution resulted through coincidence, then the time period needed for the transformation of a protozoon to a human can be worked out. One group of mathematicians who support the evolution theory did compute the time needed. The results of their calculations were that it would take one billion times longer than the five billion of years that the world has existed. In sum, it is impossible for evolution to have happened by chance. Why then do we allow that impossibility to be taught in schools presented in textbooks as if it were truth? It is impossible to justify.

Following the classical Newtonian physics and under the spell of developments in science, physicists of the 19th century claimed that they could explain every phenomenon in the universe. E. Dubois Reymond, at a meeting held in memory of Leibniz in the Prussian Academy in 1880 was a bit humbler: ‘There have remained eight enigmas in the universe, three of which we are unable to solve yet: The essential nature of matter and force, the essence and origin of movement and the nature of consciousness. The three of the rest that we can solve although with great difficulties are: The origin of life, the order in the universe and the apparent purpose for it and the origin of thought and language. As for the seventh, we can say nothing about it. It is the individual free will (quoted in A. Adivar, Ilim ve Din (Science and Religion), Istanbul 1980, p. 282).

The sub-atomic world threw all scientists into confusion. This world and the ‘quantum cosmology’ which it introduces, rather than being a heap or assemblage of concrete things, is made up of five elements: the mass of the electron in the field where an action occurs (M), the mass of the proton (m), the electrical charge which these two elements carry, the energy quanta (h)-the amount of the energy remaining during the occurrence of the action-and the unchanging speed of light (c). These five elements of the universe can even be reduced to action or energy waves travelling through space in tiny packets or quanta. Since the quanta required for an action are special to it and exist independently of the quanta required for the previous action, it becomes impossible to predict the exact state of the universe. If the universe is in t1 state now, it cannot be predicted that it will be the same in t2 state. Paul Renteln, assistant professor of physics at California State University, writes: ‘Modern physicists live in two different worlds. In one world we can predict the future position and momentum of a particle if we know its present position and momentum. This is the world of classical physics, including the physics described by Einstein’s theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity. In the second world it is impossible to predict the exact position and momentum of a particle. This is the probabilistic, subatomic world of quantum mechanics. General relativity and quantum mechanics are the two great pillars that form the foundation of 20th-physics, and yet their precepts assume two different kinds of universe.’ (American Scientist, Nov.-Dec, 1991, p.508)

The real nature of this sub-atomic world and the events taking place in it make it impossible to construct a theory to describe them, because they cannot be observed. One reason for their unobservability is that, as Renteln writes in an attempt to propose a theory which he calls quantum gravity to reconcile the two different worlds of classical and quantum physics, ‘the events take place at a scale far smaller than any realm yet explored by experimental physics. It is only when particles approach to within about 10-35 meter that their gravitational interactions have to be described in the same quantum-mechanical terms that we adopt to understand the other forces of nature. This distance is 1024 times smaller than the diameter of an atom-which means that the characteristic scale of quantum gravity bears the same relation to the size of an atom as an atom bears to the size of the solar system. To probe such small distances would require a particle accelerator 1015 times more powerful than the proposed Superconducting Supercollider.’

At the outset of this century, electrons surrounding the nucleus of an atom were thought to orbit the nucleus like planets in a miniature solar system. However, later researches modified that view. The electron is now understood to be more of an energy field cloud fluctuating around a nucleus. The nucleus itself seemed to be composed of two smaller constituents-protons and neutrons. However, in the 1960s, physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig confirmed by experiments that protons and neutrons were made up of even more elementary particles, which Gell-Mann called ‘quarks.’

Quarks cannot be seen, not just because they are too small but also because they do not seem to be quite ‘all there.’ Quarks are better described as swirls of dynamic energy, which means that solid matter is not, at its fundamental level, solid at all. Anything you hold in your hand and which seems solid, is really a quivering, shimmering, lacy lattice of energy, pulsating millions of times every second as billions of fundamental particles gyrate and spin in an eternal dance. At its most fundamental level, everything is energy held together by forces of incredible power. This is not all that makes us unable to predict even the nearest future of the universe. According to Werner Heisenberg’s theories, at just the time when we can know either where a particle is or how fast it is travelling, we cannot know both. This is because the very act of measuring the particle alters its behaviour. Measuring the particle’s speed changes its position, and measuring its position changes its speed. 

However, the unpredictability in the sub-atomic world does not change anything in our everyday, predictable world. Everything works according to the basic laws of classical Newtonian physics. Why is this so and how should our view of the world and events be? Scientists who believe in the existence of God and His creation of the universe suggest that creation was not a single event. That is, God did not create the universe as a single act and then leave it to operate according to the laws He established. Rather, creation is a continuous act (creatio continua). In other words, roughly like the movement of energy or electricity and its illuminating our world by means of bulbs, existence continuously comes from God and returns to and perishes in Him. Through the manifestation of all His Names, God continuously creates, annihilates and re-creates the universe. Some medieval Muslim scholarly saints such as Muhy al-Din ibn al- ‘Arabi and Mawlana Jalal al-Din al-Rumi called these pairs of acts as the continuous cycle of coming into existence and dying. Because of the incredible speed of this movement, the universe appears to be uniform and continuous. Rumi likens this to the fast spinning of a staff on one end of which there is fixed a light. When spun at speed, the light on the end of the staff appears as if a circle of light. Unable to explain the extreme complexity of existence and the events taking place, some scientists assert that everything is in chaos and attribute the formation of the universe as it is to mere chance. According to them, other universes could have formed, they simply did not, and there is no reason that the universe is the way it is. Given that it is impossible for even three or more unconscious things moving at random to come together by themselves to form even the simplest entity, it is highly questionable whether a rational person can accept that the wonderful order prevailing in the universe according to which we can direct our lives can be explained without attributing it to a supernatural intellect. A. Cressy Morrison writes:

The proverbial penny may turn up heads ten time running and the chance of an eleventh is not expected but is still one in two, but the chance of a run of ten heads is very small. Suppose you have a bag containing one hundred marbles, ninety-nine black and one white. Shake the bag and let out one. The chance that the first marble out is the white one is exactly one in one hundred. Now put the marbles back and start over again. The chance of the white coming out is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white coming out first twice in succession is one in ten thousand. Now try a third time, and the chance of the white coming out three times in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one in a billion. Try another time or two and the figures become astronomical. The results of chance are as closely bound by law as the fact that two and two make four. All the nearly exact requirements of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the thickness of the earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of carbon dioxide, the volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his survival-all point to order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to the fact that, according to the inexorable laws of mathematics, all these could not occur by chance simultaneously on one planet once in a billion times. It could so occur, but it did not so occur. (Man Does Not Stand Alone, New York, pp.98-9.)

Attributing the impossible to chance is a trick of the human mind, its stubborn resistance, which confuses a theoretical possibility with the actual facts. For example, it is possible that the Pacific Ocean has now changed into milk, but actually it has not. As it is impossible to construct a building on a flowing stream, God Almighty spread over the unpredictability of the sub-atomic world the veil of the speed of its movement and made the universe dependent on what we call laws. It is for this reason that everything in the outer face of nature works according to the basic laws of classical Newtonian physics. However, it is a matter of controversy between the two schools of Ahl al-Sunna wa ‘l-Jama’a whether the universe has a continuous existence working according to established laws and things accordingly have perpetual properties or God continuously creates the universe and orders each component of it what to do at every moment. The followers of the Maturidi School assert that God created the universe and set it to operate according to certain laws which He established, giving each thing certain properties. For example, fire burns because God gave it the quality of burning. Whereas, the followers of the Ash’ari School maintain that the universe does not have a perpetual, established existence and reality. Nor do things have essential qualities of themselves. God creates the universe anew each ‘moment’ and directs it continuously by ordering each thing to do what it must do. For example, fire does not essentially have the quality of burning, rather, God gives it the order to burn and it burns. Since according to the dictates of life in the universe, He usually orders it to burn, we think that fire essentially has the quality of burning.

As we accept the ‘relative’ truth of both Newtonian and quantum physics at the same time, we can also accept the truth of the views of both schools of Muslim faith. As a matter of belief and as life at the most fundamental level of existence as in the sub-atomic world points out, God is continuously active, creating the universe anew and directly administering it. While at practical level, life will be impossible for us if we do not accept or assume the uniform continuity or stability of existence. What would life be if we were conscious that the sun would not rise tomorrow morning or that we might not live a second longer, although it is theoretically conceivable both that the sun might not rise tomorrow and that we might not survive a second longer?

The first and foremost quality of the heir is perfect faith. The Qur’an determines the purpose of man’s creation to be belief in God, which is woven from the threads of the knowledge of God, love, enthusiasm and spiritual fulfilment.

Indeed, it is only in the light of faith that man, by realizing his essential nature with all its dimensions and the existential aims of creation, can penetrate the inner reality. Contrary to this, lack of belief is a suffocating dungeon. In the view of an unbeliever, existence began with chaos, developed in the frightening uncertainties of coincidences, and is speeding towards a terrible end. In this uncertain movement of existence there is neither a breath of compassion to relieve us, nor a place of security to embrace us in our human desires nor even a piece of ground to step on.

A believer, who knows from where he came and the destination of his life, together with his responsibilities, sees everything as clearly as ‘daylight’ and, because of this, he travels to his destination in utmost security.

During his sojourn, he carefully studies existence and what lies behind existence. He examines things and events over and over again and tries to establish a connection with everything around him. He never refrains from making use of the studies of others and, where he lacks in sufficient knowledge and experience, he goes on with his researches, without tiring and losing hope.

There is an inexhaustible source of power on which a believer relies during his travel – the realization that there is no strength and power save with God. This off-repeated phrase is a source of power which a person who has obtained it, feels no need for another. A believer who has equipped himself with this source of power aims for none but God. He leads his life to secure His approval. He has an abiding optimism with which to overcome every obstacle and challenge all kinds of worldly opposition.

The second quality of the heir is to become overflowing with love. A person with a heart content with belief in and knowledge of God feels, in proportion to the degree of his belief and knowledge, a deep love for all human beings and even the whole creation. It is this person who spends his whole life-span in the colourful fluctuations of universal ecstasies, raptures and spiritual pleasure.

Today, as in every era, there is need for hearts to be enraptured with love and overflow with zeal so that a new revival could be realized. Without love, it is impossible to accomplish any permanent movement, especially if the movement is related to the Hereafter. The Divine love which we feel in order to gain God’s approval is a boundless and mysterious source of power. The ‘heirs to the earth’ should never be heedless of this source and should make as much use of it as possible.

We need to look into the origin of existence from the perspective of the Qur’an and the Example, Sunna, of the noble Prophet. The origin of man, his place in the universe, the Divine purpose for his creation, and the way he should conduct in his life as well as his final destination are in such a harmony in these two sources – the Book and the Sunna – with human thoughts and feelings and aspirations that we cannot help but be filled with wonder and admiration. These two pure sources are, for men of understanding, a spring of love and enthusiasm, and a means to ecstasy. Those who have recourse to them with pure intention and with petitions of needs are not refused, and those who take refuge in them gain immortality. They need to do so, however, with the sincerity of people like Imam Ghazali, Imam Rabbani, Shah Waliullah and Bediuzzaman. They need to approach these sources with the excitement of Ghalib and Mehmed Akif, and turn to them with the conviction and activity of Khalid, Salah al-din, Mehmed the Conqueror, and Yavuz Saleem. Indeed, by combining the love and enthusiasm of those personages with modern methods and styles, we will penetrate into the ever-fresh essence of the Qur’an and arrive at a universal metaphysics.

To turn to sciences with a sensible synthesis of intellect, logic and consciousness is the third quality of the generation who are promised the final inheritance of the earth. This turning, which will also provide a direction for the general inclination of humanity which is lost among some obscure hypotheses, will be a significant step in the liberation of mankind.

As pointed out by Bediuzzaman, mankind is increasingly concentrating on sciences and technology, deriving all their strength from sciences. He also pointed out that in order to present to the masses the product of scientific knowledge, eloquence and rhetoric will gain momentum and ascendancy. In fact, we no longer have any other way to escape from the cloudy atmosphere of illusions enveloping us. We no longer have any other way to reach truths and, most importantly, the most manifest Truth.

In order to compensate for the last few centuries, it is necessary to rise to the highest level of scientific knowledge and, by removing the inferiority complex from our subconsciousness, to realize self-assertion. To achieve this, we must re-evaluate sciences in the light of the prism of the Islamic thought and become unique representatives of scientific knowledge.

Since we have not been able so far to assign a true direction for sciences and, consequently, confused revealed knowledge with scientific theories, and sometimes scientific knowledge with philosophy, serious confusions have appeared in scientific thought and scientists have lost considerable esteem. In Turkey, this void has been exploited by foreigners very well and many foreign schools have sprouted up. The younger generations, as a result, have been alienated from their society. After a while, these inexperienced generations lost all their religious and moral values, with the result that as a whole nation we were all degraded in thought, ideals, art and life. In these schools to which we entrusted our children without any worries, Western culture and values were given priority ever science and scientific thought. It is for this reason that our young generations, although they had to cope with the age in science and technology, split into different parties like Marxism, Durkheimism, Leninism, and Maoism. Some consoled themselves with the dreams of a communist system and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some were drained in the complexes of Freud. Some were carried away by the existentialism of Sartre, Marcus, Camus, and the like. Indeed, we witnessed in this land all such deviations, all of which were unfortunately nursed and promoted in supposed centres of science and knowledge. Meanwhile, religion and religious people were unceasingly attacked by destructive representatives of unenlightenment and evil aspects of Western civilization were propagated. It is impossible for us to forget that dark period of our history and those who were responsible for it will always be remembered as the national and historical criminals in the conscience of people.

What remains now is to build a happy, bright future. This requires us to realize a revival through scientific thought which we have to inculcate in the minds of the young generation. The suffering of the people on account of what befell them in the past, the exasperation produced in their hearts by servility to foreign powers, and the national reaction to centuries of exploitation cause us to sigh and lament in equal proportion to the regret of Adam, the weeping of Yunus (Jonah) and the pains of Ayyub (Job). Such thoughts and feelings together with historical experiences stimulate and guide us to further exertions towards our destination.

The fourth characteristic of the generation to whom the final inheritance of the earth belongs is to review and re-evaluate the established views of man, life and the universe. The following points should be considered in this respect:

Firstly, the universe is a book written by God for us to study over and over again. Man is a transparent index of all the worlds, a being able to discover the depths of existence. As for life, it is the manifestation of the meanings filtered from that index and book, and reflected by Divine Expression throughout the universe. If man, life and the universe are three aspects of a single reality with each having a genuine colour of its own, then a partial approach to them will be a disrespect to both man, in particular, and the whole creation, in general, as it will demolish the harmonious composition of reality.

As it is indeed incumbent upon man to study, understand and obey the Divine revelation derived from God’s Attribute of Speech, so too is it necessary for him to perceive all things and events to which God gives existence through His Knowledge, Will and Power. Being the manifestation of the Divine Attribute of Speech, the Glorious Qur’an is the spirit of existence and the sole means of happiness in this world and the Hereafter. The ‘Book’ of the universe is the embodiment of this spirit and is an account of the branches of science originating in it. It is therefore a very important dynamic of both worlds, direct in relation to this life, indirect with respect to the other. For this reason, there will be reward for understanding both of these books and applying their principles in practical life. Those who neglect or ignore them will meet the consequences of their neglect.

Secondly, a man’s humanity lies in his feelings, thoughts and character, which are also the standards in determining his esteem in the sight of both the Creator and the created. Sublime human attributes, depth in thought and feelings, and a sound character are valued by everybody. The one who adulterates his faith and conviction with irreligious thoughts and causes distrust in his character will neither be able to receive God’s support and help nor preserve his esteem and dignity in the sight of people. It should never be forgotten that God, as well as people, evaluates a man according to his human character and qualities. For this reason, those with a weak character and who lack real human values are not able to perform great feats even if they appear to be good believers. On the other hand, it is impossible for those who are distinguished with laudable virtues and a sound character to be always subject to utter failure despite their apparent weakness in living in conformity with Islamic principles.

Thirdly, an Islamic goal can be achieved through Islamic means and methods only. It is absolutely incumbent on a Muslim to pursue Islamic goals and adopt Islamic methods in attaining his goals. As it is impossible to secure God’s approval without sincerity and purity of intention, so, too, neither can Islam be served nor Muslims directed toward their real targets through diabolic means and methods.

The generation who will take on the responsibility of bringing justice and happiness to the world should be able to think freely and respect freedom of thought. Freedom is a significant dimension of man’s free will and a key to the mysteries of human identity.

The Muslim world has been under pressure for centuries both from within and outside. Under such conditions where restrictions have been put on our feelings, thoughts, culture and education, it is almost impossible for a person to remain with human faculties, let alone realize a renewal and development. In a climate where it is difficult to remain even as a common man with human values, it must be quite impossible to bring up a person of true greatness. Only people with weak character, inactive disposition, palsied brains and paralyzed feelings grow in such climates. Distorted thoughts and wrong criteria produced and propagated in both families and surroundings and in educational institutions and art circles in the later phase of our history have upset everything unique to us -our view of matter and spirit and our physical and spiritual worlds. In this critical period, the leading elite presented their prejudices as free thought, lived an egocentric life, showed no respect for other beliefs and opinions, and went so far in maintaining different assertions or convictions that they did not refrain from resorting to force whenever they deemed it necessary to crush the free will and free thinking of the people. We are not sure whether that period has ended, though it remains necessary for us to review, on the one hand, our centuries-old historical dynamics and to question, on the other, the changes and transformations’ to which we have given impetus for the last one and a half centuries. We are still, in our decisions, under some ideological taboos, in which case it is impossible for us to re-shape our world according to the requirements of a bright future. Such conditions as these give rise to nothing but political disputes, internal struggles and international conflicts. That is why there is a continuous internal discord in our community, in particular, and unceasing savagery worldwide, in general. Were it not for the egoism, greed and ruthlessness of mankind, the world would most probably be more different than it is today.

If this is so, we should realize the need to be more tolerant and more altruistic when we move forward toward a better future. We need today more than anything else magnanimous hearts and open, profound minds which are respectful of free thinking and open to the sciences and scientific research and which are able to perceive the harmony between the Qur’an and the Divine laws of the universe and life. This requires the existence of a community in which genius can flourish. In the past a single person of genius could succeed in leading a nation toward high objectives but today when everything has taken on an incredibly elaborate form, and specialization has gained prominence, counsel and collective consciousness have replaced geniuses. This is the sixth point which should be given due consideration by the generation who aim to give a better shape to the world.

We have not been able, in the latest phase of our history, to establish a desirable coordination between the vital institutions of the society. At a time when modern schools concentrated on ideological dogmas; institutions of religious education (madrasas) broke with life; institutions of spiritual training (takyas) were immersed in sheer metaphysics, and the army restricted itself to sheer force, this coordination was essentially not possible.

It is, indeed, a fact that modern schools could not save themselves from the influence of modern ‘scholasticism’ and ideological dogmas; institutions of religious education were closed to sciences and scientific thought, devoid of the spirit and the power to bring about new formations. The representatives of spiritual training lost their love and enthusiasm, consoling themselves with virtues and wonders of the saints who had lived in previous centuries. As for the army, which had once been the representative of the religious energy and activity and the symbol of national subsistence, it has developed the complex of self-assertion in the internal arena. Consequently, everything was upset, and the tree of the nation’ was convulsed so violently that it nearly toppled. Sadly it seems that, until the fortunate representatives of the bright future re-form those vital institutions in a way that they can perform their real functions, and bring forward the wedding of mind and heart so as to make the ground propitious for the bringing-up of the perfect man of thought, action and inspiration, such convulsions of different degrees will not cease.

Finally, the generation who aim to give a better shape to the world should be equipped with mathematical thought. Mathematical thought implies a comprehension of the enigmatic connection between creation and the ‘laws’ of mathematics, and a discovery of the mysterious world of numbers. Without mathematics, it is not possible to perceive the mutual relations between man and things; it is mathematics which illuminates, like a source of light, our way along the line from the universe to life and shows us the depths of the world of possibilities beyond human imagination, thus enabling us to attain our ideals.

In order to obtain a full perception of existence, we should follow the laws of mathematics in all fields from physics to metaphysics, from matter to energy, from body to soul, and from law to spiritual training (tasawwuf). This implies the need to adopt both spiritual training and scientific research. The West, in order to compensate for a real or true system of spiritual training, has had to have recourse to so- called mystical movements. But Muslims have no need to search for a foreign system to quench their thirst for spiritual satisfaction. Everything a person may need to design his life on sound foundations, scientific, spiritual, rational, sociological, economic, politic and so on, can be found in Islam, provided that he is able to understand Islam in its pristine purity and original comprehensiveness.

The era of illumination which began with the coming of our Prophet, upon him be peace, lasted for centuries. Then, we began to lose the dynamism of our civilization, to collapse. As a result, we came to regard the enemy as more powerful than ourselves. Our power of will and strength of spirit were paralysed. We sought excuses for our defeats, and considered the enemy invincible. The people, in consequence, lost their hope and resolve.

For many centuries we have deluded ourselves into believing our enemies irresistible, singing the praises of their military superiority. On occasions, we have even accused our ancestors of failing to match the technical advances of our opponents and have spoken ill of them. At other times, we have moaned that the enemy is cruel and pitiless. What we have not done is to criticize ourselves and honestly evaluate our own attitudes. In doing so, we have inflicted further heavy blows to the hope and resolve of people. It will remain impossible to establish the real reasons for our collapse, impossible to achieve a true revival as long as we continue to ascribe our defeats only to the military or technical superiority of the enemy and the superior number of their mechanized troops.

So ask yourselves, and then tell me, have you actually fulfilled your obligations? Have you been able to pursue the right road in your activities? Do you have enough will-power and resistance to overcome the obstacles that you face? Are your thoughts and actions in conformity with your beliefs? Have you been able to keep clear of such sinister motivating forces as hatred, malice and vengeance? And your plans and projects–are they carefully, accurately and appropriately thought out?

Only those afflicted with paralysis of will-power and spirit are so blind to their own faults that they busy themselves in finding fault with others. Such poor souls will never be able to perceive the truth, nor make a spiritual recovery, unless they admit that they are themselves fallible.

Every defeat and decline from greatness arises, first of all, from spiritual bankruptcy, and it will continue until there is spiritual recovery. What is most ominous for the well-being of the community is that the spiritually bankrupt individuals do not hold themselves responsible for the decay of the social order, and persist in laying the blame for it on others.

For God’s sake, stop blaming others, and allow yourself to carry a little of the blame. Be self-critical, at least a little. If indeed you are on the right road, if indeed your hearts are set on the service of the truth, and fully alert to your responsibilities, then no one will be able to do you any harm. Remember that only by the Will of God does harm or good come to anyone. Remember that the way has always been paved by Divine Destiny for those pure, loving souls who are determined to serve and support the truth.

How often has a small, resolute band, devoted to jihad, overcome, by God’s leave, a more numerous host. Many devout, godly persons have spent their whole lives in the way of God, and not quailed in front of whatever has befallen them. They have neither been weakened, nor brought low. They are the fortunate ones who are welcomed by the angels, and it is they who will be commemorated by succeeding generations.