Have you ever seen a rainbow? Until recently, I had looked at many rainbows, but had never truly seen a rainbow.

In his writings on faith and logic, religious scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi maintained that looking and seeing are two different things. In his book, The Words, he says: “The eye is a window through which the spirit looks at this world. If you use it on behalf of your carnal soul, without selling it to God Almighty, by gazing at transient, impermanent beauties and spectacles, it panders to lust and other carnal desires.”

Using Nursi’s reasoning, you might look at a magician who is right in front of you, for example, but never see how a trick is accomplished. The same thing happens when you look at a mathematical equation but don’t see what the x value is – unless you are good at mathematics.

After watching MIT physics professor Walter Lewin’s lecture “The Hidden Beauty of Rainbows,”[1] I am finally able to see the rainbow, instead of just looking at it. To share my fascination about this topic, and reinforce my own knowledge, here are some notes I took during Lewin’s lecture. Walter Lewin is the author of For the Love of Physics. This book is really a perfect book if you love Physics.

Figure 1.0

There are four fundamental facets we need to cover to understand a rainbow (Figure 1.0). The first is the “radius” of a rainbow. Since every rainbow has a radius, this means a rainbow is a circle. And every circle has a center point. A rainbow’s center point is below the horizon. Here, we can ask these follow-up questions:

1.1 How we can find the radius of a rainbow in degrees?

1.2 Do all rainbows have the same radius?

The second question is about the colors of a rainbow, specifically red. If you see a rainbow, there is always a red color. But:

2.1 Is the color red always on the inside or outside of the rainbow?

2.2 Does the position of the red color depend on the time of the day and year?

It’s obvious that light determines a rainbow. If there is a rainbow somewhere, there is an enormous difference in the brightness of the sky above and below a rainbow. We can now ask:

3.1 Where is it bright?

3.2 Where is it dark?

There are some additional questions we need to discuss regarding the second bow in Figure 2, specifically:

4 Have you ever noticed the second bow? If yes, then;

5 Where do you look for the second bow?

6.1 What is the color sequence of the second bow?

6.2 Is it the same as the primary bow, is it brighter, or is it reversed?

Figure 2.0

In order to understand rainbows better, we need to review some basic physics. Let’s start with reflection and refraction.

Mediums, reflection, and refraction

Definition: A medium[2] is the substance that carries a wave from one location to another.

When light goes from one medium to another, like from air to water, one of two things happens:

● Some of that light bounces back, which we call reflection. The light will reflect at the same angle at which it hit the surface.

● Part of the light doesn’t reflect, instead continuing into water at an angle. We call this refraction.

Each medium has an index of refraction, which tells us what the speed of light in that medium is. The index of refraction of air is 1.0003, and the index of refraction of a vacuum is 1.

That means the speed of light in air and in a vacuum is almost the same. That speed is 300,000 kilometers per second, and that’s why the index of refraction for air and a vacuum is 1. But in water, the index of refraction is approximately 1.33. The difference between 1 and 1.33 means that in water the speed of light is 33 percent slower than it is in air.

Snell’s law and an angle of incidence

There is also a connection between angle of reflection, angle of refraction, and the index of refraction. We call it Snell’s law.

Snell’s law illustrated:

Figure 3.0

To understand this formula, you need to know the definition of the sine of an angle.

Definition:The sine[3] is a trigonometric function of an angle. It is found by taking the length of the side opposite the angle and dividing by the length of the longest side of the triangle.

If α is 0°, then sin (α) = 0.

If α is 30°, then sin (α) = 0.5.

If α is 90°, then the sin (α) = 1.

Let’s do an example where we can apply Snell’s law (Figure 4.0).

Light comes from air to water at an angle of 60°. (This is possible, because the angle at which water comes in, the angle β, will be 40.6°.)

Definition: The angle of incidence[4] is the angle between the incoming light and the vertical on the surface.

Figure 4.0

Like professor Lewin said, “very simple, very straightforward.”

Figure 5.0 | Figure 5.0. Example of refraction and reflection. See also [5].[5]

Figure 6.0

Figure 6.0 displays a true wonder of water. Sunlight is coming from the left side, landing everywhere on half the surface of that raindrop. We can choose one very narrow beam of all that sunlight with a 60° angle of incidence. We call the angle of incidence “i” and the angle for the refraction “r.”

Of course, that narrow beam is the only a small fraction of the total.

At point A, two things happen (in accordance with Snell’s law);

● A little bit of light reflects.

● The remaining light refracts.

The light reaches point B inside the water drop. At point B, two things happen:

● Some of the light goes back into the air (signaling refraction).

● Some of the light gets reflected. (Therefore, at point B, the angles are the same, “r.”)

Then the reflected light goes on its way to point C. Here, a little bit of the light is reflected and goes back into the water. Most of it comes out of the water, which results in refraction.

At this point, if we use Snell’s law at point A, the reflection law at point B, and then Snell’s law at point C again, we will see that our angle for the refraction at point C will be, surprisingly, “i.”

Now, if we check the line that comes out from the water at point C, we will have a changing angle. We can call it φ (Phi). And for the angle φ, we have an algebraic formula, as follows:

φ= 4r — 2i

If you check the figure, you will see that we have 4 r and 2 i.

By the way, if we take the narrow beam which passes through the center of the raindrop, we can easily see that the angle of incidence is zero. In accordance to Snell’s law, this narrow beam goes straight through. Then it reflects back and finally it comes out of the water. This is true because:

if i = 0, then r = 0 and therefore φ = 0.

Let’s do something interesting and change the value of “i.” If the light hits the water drop higher up, the angle “i” increases. At some point, the angle φ also increases and reaches a maximum value.

Figure 7.0

If you recall, the index of refraction for water is 1.336. If we take any value of “i” on the table and apply Snell’s law, we can easily calculate values of r. And then, if we use the formula φ=4r — 2i, we can come up with the values of φ. This is illustrated in Figure 7.0.

If this doesn’t seem all that special, there is something else that you wouldn’t expect: φ reaches a maximum value, and when you go to higher values of i, then φ goes down again. This plays a key role in the formation of a rainbow.

The index of refraction depends on the color of the light.

Figure 8.0

As seen in the table, when the angle of incidence for red light is very close to 60°, the value of φ is at its maximum, which is 42.3°. In other words, the value of φ can be smaller than 42.3°, but it cannot be larger. For blue light, the angle of incidence is slightly lower, and the φ maximum is at 40.7°.

Water drop and a cone

A key question arises: Let us say we have one water drop, and the sunlight falling onto that water drop is coming from the left. What is that one water drop going to do with the white light from the sun that covers half of the rainbow?

Let us check first for red light and then for blue light.

Light beams will come out of this drop, and that cone will be filled with red light. But the angle for the light beams cannot be larger than 42°, meaning they can be smaller. Then we will see a cone of lights.

But why is it a cone? Because, if we go back to what was previously discussed, we will remember that one light beam comes in with an angle i, and then comes out with an angle i.

Figure 9.0

Figure 9.0 shows a representation of a water drop. The light that comes in at the angle of incidence is 60°. It refracts and reflects inside the droplet, then goes to point C and comes out of droplet at an angle of 42°. And, surprisingly, if the angle of incidence is 60°, when the light beam comes out, it has to be red light. On the other hand, there is not only one light beam coming in with an angle 60°. The entire surface of this water drop is illuminated by the sun, so there are an enormous number of beams for which the angle of incidence is 60°.

If we go back to Figure 9.0, we see the black line on this water drop. Any light beam that comes in anywhere on that black line will have an angle of incidence of 60°.

Figure 6.1

Now we will do the same for blue light. This time, we will have another cone which is completely filled with blue light, but when the blue light beams come out, the angle will be at a maximum of 40.7°.

Interesting fact: All the colors except for red and blue that are in the sunlight will be in between the red and blue.

Figure 6.2

A journey: refraction, reflection, and refraction

We know that when the light comes in, it goes through a journey. A light beam refracts, then reflects, and then refracts. That’s all. But, how about the light on the right side of the cone? Is there any light? When the sun shines in, does this water drop bring light there?

If the angle φ is larger than 42°, then, yes, it is possible. But we have already proven that the angle φ cannot be larger than 42°. So, it is impossible: There is no light outside the cone.

Another question… What will be the color of the light inside the blue cone? We should remember that the red light is everywhere in this cone, because as long as the angle φ is smaller than 42°, red light can be anywhere. The blue light is also almost everywhere because the blue light is allowed to be smaller than 40°. This means all the colors that we didn’t mention are coming out inside the blue cone and there will be just white light.

Figure 6.3

To summarize, if we have a water drop, and a bright light shining onto this water drop, we will see red, blue, green, white, and other colors inside the cone or circle. In other words, all the colors of a rainbow. And of course, there will be no light outside the cone. There are some experiments on YouTube that you can watch if you want.

Figure 6.4

You may think that at the location where blue comes out, if all the other colors can come out — which they can because the angle is smaller than 40° — the light should be also white, not blue. It is a nice approach, but wrong.

It is wrong, because of the light intensity. If you check the graph for the intensity of the light, you will see that different colors have peak points where φ reaches the maximum value. If all the colors are present and equal intensity, we see white light. That’s why the inside of the cone is white. However, when the color red spikes up, it dominates its location. We don’t even notice the other colors.

Figure 6.5

Looking at the sky

Let’s say you are standing at point A and the sunlight is coming from the left. Since the light comes from infinitely far away, all these lines are parallel to each other. Let’s say you look at the sky in direction B and pick a raindrop at any point. Any point you pick will cast the cone in the direction of the sun with the angle 60°.

When you look at the sky in the direction B, will you see light? You will not, because you are outside the 42°.

Figure 10.0

What if you look in a different direction? We will look at point C (it doesn’t matter where), and take a rain drop on line C. Light beams will do the same thing. Again, they will produce a 42° red cone. However, you will see white light. Yes, you read that right, white light, because you are looking straight in the middle of the cone of white light.

Let’s say we choose another angle and look at point D. If we choose a raindrop anywhere on line D, it will make no difference. It will cast into the sky the famous 42° angle because that’s the angle that was chosen there. If we look in that direction of the sky, what will we see? Yes, only red. No other color!

Figure 10.1

And now, we know where we will see red light, blue light, or white light. And we also know which direction has no light.

A rainbow is a bow in the sky

Let’s suppose the sun is on your left and you are standing at point A (Figure 11.0). Since there is light, you will have a shadow on the ground. As long as you look 42° away from any direction, you will only see red. That is because a cone is a spherical object. And that explains why the rainbow is a bowl in the sky. As long as it is 42° away from a line in any direction, you will always see red light. And if you decrease the angle, you will see the other colors in the sky.

And so now, we can make a picture of a rainbow.

When we look at the horizon, sometimes we see a rainbow. And we will have a center point somewhere below the horizon. The radius with 42° has red light. The blue light is closer to the 40° radius. This tells us that the red bowl is always on the outside and the blue light is always on the inside. That’s what we always see.

Figure 11.0

Double Reflection in the Rainbow

We can also include two reflections in the rainbow. If we do, we get refraction, reflection, another reflection, and then another refraction. So, the light beams reflect twice. And if we do this hocus-pocus again and again, we can come to a conclusion: There is no maximum value for the various colors, but there is a minimum value. In other words, various colors cannot be lower than a certain value, but they can be higher.

And if we do some calculation for the angles, we will see something very similar. We will find out that the second bow is pointing at the sky, and the angle is 10° above the first one (which is 52°). And, surprisingly, the colors of the second bowl reverse. In other words, red is the one on the inside, and blue is on the outside this time.

Figure 11.1

Interesting fact: There is no light between the two bowls. This is because of the φ maximum and minimum. We call that dark part Alexander’s dark band.[6]Additionally, since the second bowl is formed by φ minimum, sunlight can come out at angle φ or larger and there will be sunlight above a rainbow.

Figure 11.2

Some examples…

Image 1: René Descartes’ sketch of how primary and secondary rainbows are formed (probable engraver: Frans van Schooten the younger).

Image 2: This diagram was drawn by the famous physicist Newton who was one of the first to understand the rainbow, from his book Optics.

Image 3: Double rainbow. The primary red bow is on the outside, and blue is on the inside. Alexander’s dark band can be seen in between the two bows. It shows up really dark. For the secondary bow, red is on the inside, and blue is on the outside.

Image 4: Walter Lewis’ backyard and his rainbow. When you water your garden when the sun is high in the sky, you can get a rainbow all the way around you. 42° away from the line is always red. If you turn around and look back, it is red.

Image 5 | A white rainbow. It is very unique and rare. It is also called a fog bow, because fog has small water droplets that create this effect.

Image 8 | Red rainbow. Let us imagine that there is a rainbow at sunset. What would you expect to see? We would only see red light because there is only red light. What would happen to the white light inside the bow? It would be red too.

Abu Hanifa (d. 767 CE) is considered a leading scholar of Islamic law and his thoughts led to the formation of the Hanafi school of Islam, which has the greatest following among schools. Abu Hanifa’s time was an era of intense political and social mobility. While new conquests brought in new cultural and religious components, the political authority aspired to disseminate an official form of Islam; at the same time, new groups and formations emerged to respond to changing conditions. Unfortunately, these conditions led to some groups being radicalized. Abu Hanifa’s stance against radicalism was exemplary and his arguments are still worthwhile today.

His political attitude

Abu Hanifa represents the prototype of an independent scholar. He was wary of state power, believing that it corrupted intellectual honesty in the interest of preserving power; thus, he did not hold an official political position. This was a brave stance, as he was seriously persecuted for it. Yet his independence allowed him to see radicalism – on both sides of the political spectrum – for the danger that it was.

Understanding of Islamic jurisprudence

Abu Hanifa is considered the pioneer of the school of sound opinion (ray), which advocates seeking solutions to social-judicial problems by using reason together with religious essentials and scholarly comparison (qiyas). Deductive reasoning (ijtihad), juristic preference for the better (istihsan), and acceptable custom (urf) have an important place in his understanding of Islamic jurisprudence. We can infer that he also believed in the necessity of taking social and psychological realities into account when making religious judgments; this was what he did in practice.

Abu Hanifa did not choose a reductionist approach by restricting himself to the frame of religious essentials, but produced solutions to the questions he faced—or could possibly face—by benefiting from the sources mentioned along with the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is possible to define his approach to jurisprudence as an understanding that places humanity in the center; his views expanded the domain of legitimacy and accepted components of historical and cultural heritage that do not contradict the spirit of religion and belief of Divine oneness, such as local customs and practices. This broad perspective ran contrary to radical beliefs. Because the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence does not disregard real problems in life, it is more capable of solving them.

Abu Hanifa viewed education and debate as essential to his jurisprudence. He would bring a certain problem – some of them contemporary, and some hypothetical – to the attention of his students, each of whom was an expert on an Islamic discipline such as tafsir, hadith, and fiqh; he would let them discuss that matter in detail, follow the discussions with patience, and come to a conclusive judgment according to the strength of the arguments. But he would still tolerate the opposing thoughts of his disciples, such as Imam Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, and let those thoughts come to life. All of their opposing thoughts were recorded, and people acted upon most of them.

We can accept Abu Hanifa’s educational method as a pluralist and democratic one, which also teaches how to forbear different opinions with patience. It shows the value of viewing an issue from different points of view. Despite its value, there were some groups that did not support Abu Hanifa’s methods.

His understanding of belief

Some groups had formed prior to Abu Hanifa as extensions of the extremist Kharijites. They not only directly declared believing Muslims who sinned were apostates, but they also attacked them and tried to exterminate them in the name of religion. The Kharijites even declared Caliph Ali – and many other devout believers – apostates. Though the Kharijites were the most violent, other groups – including the Mutazilites – also persecuted certain religious groups when they came to political power. Unfortunately, this act of dividing society into groups inevitably led to more violence.

According to one definition, it is possible for religion to be a dividing or uniting factor within a society. It can be a great force for good when it is kept separate from the political machinations of power. In his work Fiqh al-Akbar, Abu Hanifa defined the concept of religion (din) in terms of its contents by saying, “Religion is the title given to the entirety of religion, faith, submission, and religious judgments.” Abu’l Muntaha, the scholar who annotated this definition, states that the word religion has different uses, sometimes meaning belief, sometimes submission, and sometimes as the Divine judgments conveyed by a certain Prophet. However, at his answer to the question directed to him about the difference between religion and religious law, Abu Hanifa he expressed that he saw a difference between them. He did not only acknowledge this difference, but also gave a religious and rational explanation for it.

According to Abu Hanifa, religion (din) and religious law (shariah) are separate concepts. He accepted religion as the principles to be believed in – namely, the belief of Divine unity, and faith in the existence and unity of God. Religious law, however, is a body of judgments related to different aspects of human life such as worship, interpersonal relations, and the like. Abu Hanifa interpreted the Qur’anic verse meaning, “I have not created the jinn and humankind but to worship Me (exclusively)” (Dhariyat 56), in the sense of, “So that they know Me and acknowledge my Oneness.”

He believed the origin of religion is the belief in the unity of God. Obviously, this definition is based on the distinction between the essence of religion and what it necessitates. Here, belief is the absolute condition of religion, because a person belonging to a certain religion is a matter of accepting the essential teachings of that religion, rather than observing the acts of worship commanded by that religion.

Abu Hanifa came to this conclusion about religion by considering the fact that the essentials of belief brought by the Prophets are the same, but there are certain differences on other issues, such as worship. The Prophets of God did not belong to different religions. None of them commanded their people to forsake the religion of the previous Prophets, since their faith is the same. On the other hand, every Prophet invited their people to follow the law they conveyed, as decreed by God Almighty for that specific people, not necessarily following the exact law conveyed by the previous Prophets. There were many different codes for different peoples. It is for this reason that God Almighty states, “(For each community) …We have appointed a clear way of life and a comprehensive system (containing the principles of that way and how to follow it). And if God had so willed, He would surely have made you a single community (following the same way of life and system surrounded by the same conditions throughout all history)” (Maedah 48).

The faith of Divine oneness is always the same and religion does not change from one Prophet to another in this sense; it is the systems and their rules that change. If “religion” were fulfilling everything God commands and avoiding everything He forbids, then a person who fails to observe only one command or commits one forbidden act would be an apostate. As such, the legal judgments between fellow believers such as marriage, receiving an inheritance, attending a funeral, and the like would be invalid. However, it is having belief that makes them lawful between fellow believers. Other commands come after having accepted religion. If the commanded acts were faith itself, then God would not call His servants believers until they fulfilled the acts He commanded.

In order to support the point stated above, Abu Hanifa asserted the fact that when believers are excused from certain acts at certain times, they are still considered to have faith: a menstruating woman who abandons the daily prayers, a man who has a valid excuse abandons the Ramadan fasting, or a poor man who cannot give the alms of zakat are still considered believers. If such observances were identical to having faith, failing to observe them for some excuse would have the same meaning. However, it is impossible to make such a claim. According to Abu Hanifa, there is no complete relation between faith and deeds, since they are separate things.

Abu Hanifa stated that the following verses and others of similar meaning also point to the same fact:

“Tell those of My servants who believe that they must establish the Prayer in conformity with its conditions…” (Ibrahim 31); “O you who believe! Prescribed for you is retaliation in cases of (deliberate, unjust) killing…” (Baqarah 178); “O you who believe! Remember and mention God much” (Ahzab 41).

If the commanded acts were identical with belief or faith (iman), then God would not address people as believers until they fulfilled those acts. In addition, God Almighty separates having faith and good deeds in other verses as well:

“Except those who believe and do good righteous deeds…” (Asr 3); “No! Rather, whoever submits his whole being to God (and does so) as one devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing him, his reward is with his Lord, and all such will have no fear, (for they will always find My help and support with them), nor will they grieve” (Baqarah 112); “But whoever wishes for the Hereafter and strives for it as it should be striven for, being a believer…” (Isra 19).

This distinction proves that faith is not the same as deeds. Believers observe the prayers, fasting, zakat, Hajj, and they make remembrance of God owing to their faith – but they are not considered to have faith for having observed these. This proves that they do good deeds after having faith (iman) already.

In his letter to Uthman al-Batti, a scholar from Basra, Abu Hanifa stated this view with reference to different proofs. He used the following example: an indebted man firstly acknowledges his debt and pays it afterwards, but not vice versa. His acknowledgement of the debt is not for having paid the debt, but his paying is for having acknowledged the debt.

Abu Hanifa did not believe that a person who sins is out of the sphere of faith; nor are they an apostate. He expressed this point, saying, “Those who have acknowledged the direction to turn for worship are believers. I cannot count them as having forsaken faith owing to some command they do not observe. As for one who abandons some obligatory acts in spite of having faith, that person is a believer, but a sinful one (he is not a disbeliever).”

Abu Hanifa argued that what would make one an unbeliever is not committing a forbidden act, but considering it lawful; not abandoning an obligatory command, but considering it unnecessary.

Abu Hanifa also pointed out that real believers commit sins not by considering them lawful, but by giving in to their carnal soul. When asked, “If God is dearer for a believer than everything, why does a believer rebel Him? Is it possible for a person to rebel while having sincere love for God?” the great imam replied, “Yes, a child loves his father, but sometimes disobeys him. The situation of a believer is the same…He commits sins not owing to a lack of love for God, but for giving in to the feeling of lust or something similar.”

Some claimed that this stance aligned Abu Hanifa with the school of Murjia, whose adherents believed that sins would not nullify one’s faith, but Abu Hanifa soundly argued that it is not possible to guarantee anything in matters of faith:

“We cannot say that sins do not harm a believer at all. Similarly, we cannot say that a person who commits sins will not enter Hell. Neither can we say our good deeds are accepted and our evil deeds are forgiven… However, who commits good deeds in conformity with all of the conditions of validity…and dies as a believer without nullifying those deeds, then God does not let those deeds be in vain, but rewards them.” We need to clarify at this point that by this definition Abu Hanifa did not refer to an argument as if religion was a matter of conscience only; religion for him is a comprehensive system of life that concerns all aspects of believers’ existence.

While founding the most developed school of Islamic jurisprudence, Abu Hanifa defined religion with reference to its essence, pinpointing the difference between religion and other factors related to religion. His definition of religion as the faith of Divine oneness is very important in terms of maintaining social unity. Such a definition does not lessen the importance of religion’s other requirements. Moreover, the political and social conditions of his time called for such a definition. For this reason, Abu Hanifa made a definition that referred to the essence of religion and aimed to maintain unity in society by counteracting the tendency to easily condemn those with different opinions.

This is valuable even today, as taking belief in Divine unity as the basis of religion allows followers of different monotheistic religions to meet on common grounds. In the Qur’an, God Almighty addresses Muslims in the person of the Prophet and demands them to call People of the Book to a common word between them: “O People of the Book, come to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but God, and associate none as partner with Him, and that none of us take others for Lords, apart from God” (Al Imran 3: 64).

Conclusion

When Abu Hanifa’s world of thought and understanding of life are studied, it’s clear that his viewpoint valued differences and did not permit persecution. This perspective still bears significance in terms of peaceful coexistence in today’s societies. Such a magnanimous attitude can help to combat radical attitudes and inclinations for violence.

Can an apple move the earth? Physics says it can. The power that gave an apple the ability to move the world, also gave us humans the capacity to make use of the natural laws and be a true vicegerent on the earth.

In a universal arrangement of objects, from the smallest to the largest, in terms of length, time, and mass, where is the human located? In between the diameter of an atomic nucleus (10-14 meters) and the distance of the farthest galaxy from the earth (1026 meters), the human being occupies a zone between one and three meters. The human lifetime can be measured to be around 109 seconds in temporal length, to the duration of a ray of light passing through a proton (10-24 seconds), to the age of the universe (1017 seconds). And the human mass is located around a 102 kg zone, on a scale from the mass of an electron (10-31 kg), to the mass of the Milky Way galaxy (1041 kg).

Based on this data, understanding the human that is trapped in this enormous universe is crucial. Humans are just a speck, jammed between mote and sphere, living in a frail state of weakness and poverty. “Do not strut about the earth in haughty self-conceit; for you can never split the earth (no matter how hard you stamp your foot), nor can you stretch to the mountains in height (no matter how strenuously you seek to impress)” (Qur’an 17:37).

Humans, who need a vast amount of grace and support, are in search of answers to improve themselves. “Who am I?” they often ask; “where am I?” As scientists and researchers discover the excellence of the universe’s artistry, we begin to comprehend just how blessed humans are. Within the laws of science lie the answers to our questions. Laws are relative principles that operate according to the constants wisely built into the universe. These laws are veils to the majesty of creation. Each law is created anew every moment, thus we perceive them as if they are eternal patterns. For example, the human body gravitates to the center of the earth with a force equivalent to their mass multiplied by the average gravitational velocity of the earth, which is 9.8 m/s2. The law of gravity is created every moment in such fine measures that it is possible for us to walk on the ground.

It helps to remember Newton’s three laws in physics. The first is the principle of inertia, which states that unless there is an external force, or if the sum of all forces cancel each other out in direction and size, then an object is either at rest or moves at a constant velocity. The second law is that force equals the mass of an object multiplied with its acceleration. And the third is the action-reaction principle, which states that when a force is applied to an object, the object exerts a force in opposite direction, equal in magnitude. This means that when an apple is thrown into the air, and the apple accelerates in opposition to gravity, the earth is distanced from the apple with the same amount of force. Similarly, when the apple falls down because of gravity, the apple is also pulling the earth with the same magnitude. If this was to repeat constantly, theoretically a movement like the one made by a yo-yo should have happened between the apple and the earth. Because of its huge mass, the earth’s acceleration is very small, thus this yo-yo movement would not be felt. An object as small as an apple actually moves an object the size of the planet. This means that the power that gave an apple the ability to move the world, also gave us humans the capacity to make use of the natural laws and be a true vicegerent on the earth.

Nothing in the universe has been created in vain – all phenomena occur because of a purpose they are assigned to fulfill. In a universe in which everything is bound by a complicated web of laws that are created without a moment’s lapse, humankind surely has a significant role to play in the unique position with which they are graced. This position undoubtedly requires a sense of humility in the face of all the grandeur around us, yet also being aware of our given capacities, which enable us to master over all existence.

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

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

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

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

What science seeks to explain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The solution

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

Every human being asks the question “why,” though at different levels, to explain the unexplained. It follows a pattern of questions, like “Why did the financial crisis in the U.S. happen in August 2008?” “Why did the space shuttle Challenger explode?” “Why did the terrorists commit the September 11 attacks?” In statistical terms, such unexpected events are named “outliers,” however, they are part of the system and among the components constituting the overall system’s complex behavior. Thus, they need to be part of the explanation in order for the explanation to be complete. We are naturally tempted to come up with universal explanations of the complexity behind these major events so that we can be ready when a similar thing happens again. Though simple mathematical equations or relationships relate to us better and provide a universal explanation, they are typically practical only when the outliers are excluded from the system behavior. Statistics help us greatly in quantifying and characterizing the outliers, especially in the form of probabilistic expressions, such as “there is a 30% chance of a hurricane next week.”

Understanding the complexity around us involves the development of a model that is simple enough for us to comprehend but yet universal enough to capture most of the dynamics of the complexity. The simpler and the more universal the model, the more powerful it is. The universality of a model, however, is hindered by the potential inability to capture something unexpected. The tradeoff between simplicity and universality exists in all modeling efforts; and the models finding the delicate balance in this tradeoff are the most effective ones. A simple mathematical relationship known as “the power law” has been used extensively to characterize and model various natural and social phenomena.

What is the Power Law?

The “power law” does not refer to a misconception that “whoever has power will rule,” but rather it refers to a particular way of characterizing dependency between two quantities. When the number or frequency of an object or event varies as a power of some attribute of that object (e.g., its size), the number or frequency is said to follow a power law. In more general terms, there exists a power law relationship between x and y if y is growing or reducing polynomially when x is growing linearly (y _͌ x^–α). Mathematically speaking, this means that the relationship between y and x is mainly characterized by the exponent -a. An exponent is simply shorthand for multiplying that number of identical factors. So, 4³ is the same as 4x4x4; that is three identical factors of 4. As shown in Figure 1, a quantity with an exponent has three components: the base, the exponent, and the coefficient. So, for 4³, the base is 4, the exponent is 3, and the coefficient is an implicit 1.

Figure 1: Description of an exponent in a power law relationship.

Figure 2: Sample power law relationships between x and y, where y = x^–α.

The power law relationships are traditionally expressed with a negative exponent, which simply means the inverse of the quantity. That is, y _͌ x^–α is equivalent to y _͌ 1/x^α. For example, when a is 2, y will reduce from 1/4 (i.e. 0.25) to 1/9 (i.e. ~0.11) if x grows from 2 to 3. Likewise, when a is 0.5, y will reduce from 1/2 (i.e. 0.5) to 1/3 (i.e. 0.33) if x grows from 4 to 9. For those who enjoy graphs, Figure 2 illustrates these mathematical relationships in linear and logarithmic scales.

Power law on different scales: Atoms to planets

To start with, gravitation, acoustics, electrostatics, and light and electromagnetic radiation, all exhibit a form of power law in that physical quantity or strength that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, which corresponds to a power exponent of 2. [1] Gravitational force between two particles, the electrostatic force of attraction between two electrically charged particles, the intensity of sound signals coming from a source, and finally the intensity of light or electromagnetic field coming from a source all follow a power law with respect to the distance.

What makes the power law relationships more interesting is their independence from scale or size of the measures being related to each other. This is why we sometimes call power law relationships as “scale-free” relationships or “scale-invariance.” For example, the gravitational force between two spherical particles decays with a power exponent of 2 regardless of the sizes of the particles though the actual force is certainly dependent on the particle sizes. So, the particles can be at nano scales (e.g. a group of atoms) or macro scales (e.g. a planet), but the relationship stays the same!

Power law in frequency: Wealth, terror, and earthquakes

A common usage of power law relationships has been to model and understand frequency of a varying measure. A power law typically very well represents the distribution of wealth in a society. [2] According to a recent study, the distribution of wealth in China during the years 2003–2005 follows a power law with an exponent ranging from 1.758 to 2.285. If we consider an average exponent of 2 for Chinese wealth distribution, this means that if there are 1 million Chinese people who owned $1000 there were 1000 that owned $1M. Thus, the power law essentially expresses how skewed the distribution of a frequency is (see Figure 2). The larger the power exponent, the more skewed the distribution. In this case, a larger power exponent means a more imbalanced wealth distribution while a power exponent of 1 refers to an evenly distributed wealth.

Many other social patterns exhibit power law. A recent study showed that it exists even in terror events! The number of casualties per insurgent event and the number of insurgent events per day follow a power law. [3] Historical data for the last two centuries show further that the number of casualties per war or a terror attack follows a power law distribution. What is even more interesting is that the number of casualties and the number of attacks within an insurgent conflict both follow power law. That is, when only a particular conflict between two countries or ethnic groups is considered, the number of casualties per insurgent event and the number of insurgent events per day follow the power law. This suggests a “self-similar” pattern. Likewise, traffic measurements for many systems show power law distributions of size. For instance, if one observes the data traffic on an Internet connection and counts the number of bytes being transmitted per hour over that connection, a power law distribution of the count of bytes will emerge. Further, if this counting is done per minute instead of per hour, a similar distribution will still emerge – again showing a self-similar pattern. [4]

The power law has been observed in several natural phenomena as well. The frequency of earthquake magnitudes follows a power law. [5] This refers to the intuitive notion that the number of earthquakes with small magnitudes (which humans do not even feel) is much larger than the number of earthquakes with large magnitudes, (which can kill many humans). Small earthquakes are the norm while large ones the outliers. However, without the outliers, there is no power law distribution! Thus, the power law distribution of a quantity comes with an interesting observation: If a quantity is indeed following a power law distribution, then the likelihood of an outlier event increases as the time goes by without an outlier event. This is why geoscientists would make comments like “The region X is due for a major earthquake!” indicating that the region X has not been receiving a major earthquake (i.e. an outlier) for several years. The issue, though, is determining the threshold for an outlier is typically ambiguous and may require many years of measurements and data, which may be impractical.

Power law in growth: Rich get richer

Growth of systems also exhibit power law in various ways. Social growth follows power law due to the well-known “rich get richer” rule, which refers to the intuition that “important” people in the society attract more of the attention of newcomers. This dynamic situation is observed, for example, in the growth of the Internet. Several studies [6] showed that the connections between Internet Service Providers (ISPs) (e.g., AOL, Yahoo!, AT&T, Sprint) follow a power law distribution in that the number of connections per ISP (which shows how well an ISP is connected to the rest of the world) is represented by power law. In other words, there are few ISPs with many connections to other ISPs while most ISPs have a few connections to the others. This is believed to be due to the “rich get richer” rule since an existing ISP with many connections is more likely to gain the business of a new ISP who is joining to the Internet. So, it is somewhat an economic pattern too.

If economics (or the money) is taken out of the picture, social growth still exhibits power law. Online social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Flickr are clearly following a power law distribution. It is found that the power exponents are in the range of 2.5 to 3.7, indicating a highly imbalanced social growth pattern where few people are at the “center” of the social network with hundreds or thousands of friends, and many people have only one or two friends. [7] Again, the typical explanation for this growth pattern has been the “rich get richer” rule, but “richness” refers to the number of existing friends in this context rather than money.

Physical growth shows power law too in many ways. For instance, roughness of a growing surface as time goes by follows a power law distribution with an exponent ranging between 0 and 1 where an exponent of 0 refers to a smooth growth and 1 refers to a stiff growth. The surface roughness is measured by the variance of heights of surface locations. [8]

Does it really exist? Why does it exist?

Verifying existence of a power law distribution is not easy and requires enough number of samples to show the “tail” of the distribution. The tail of the distribution refers to the samples with large (or rare) values. For example, for the power law distributions in Figure 2, the portion of the distribution when x is greater than 10 (i.e. x>10) roughly corresponds to the “tail.” The tail corresponds to the rare samples. Though statistical theory calls those rare samples “outliers,” the distribution will not be a power law distribution without them. They are strictly parts of pieces that constitute a power law relationship, and observing them typically requires long periods or large numbers of measurements. Due to this difficulty, the existence of the power law is questioned for many real systems. Most of the time, claims of the existence of the power law typically come with an error factor indicating the confidence of the claim. The bottom-line is to observe trends in the samples and thus establish sufficient confidence (e.g., more than 95%) that the power law distribution does exist in the samples.

For those systems with clear exhibition of power law, the root causes of it have been of high interest. The “rich get richer” rule is intuitively one of the root causes, and it is intuitively a natural dynamic to get attracted by a rich member rather than a poor one. Growth certainly naturally follows the “rich get richer” rule, but we have system components slowing their growth, flattening, and then deteriorating. So, not everything is growing, and actually, we have as many things deteriorating as growing. For instance, participants join or leave the Internet or the social networks, and likewise, people join (i.e. birth) or leave (i.e. death) society. How does the power law stay in such systems then?

Due to the “rich get richer” intuition, the power law is considered to be the signature of “self-organization.” The fact that so many natural or synthetic systems are exhibiting this signature deserves the question: “Is it really self-organization?” Maintaining a global power law distribution for a system requires either (i) every member joining or leaving the system according to the “rich get richer” rule and having global knowledge of the whole system or (ii) somebody who knows everything about the system and gives explicit direct orders to each member when they are joining or leaving. Which one is more likely?

Murat Yuksel is an Assistant Professor at the CSE Department of The University of Nevada – Reno (UNR), Reno, NV.

References

[1] Wikipedia, “Inverse-square law,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

[2] M. A. Santos, R. Coelho, G. Hegyi, Z. Néda, and J. Ramasco. 2007. “Wealth distribution in modern and medieval societies,” The European Physical Journal, Volume 143, Number 1, pages 81-85.

[3] J. C. Bohorquez, S. Gourley, A. R. Dixon, M. Spagat, and N. F. Johnson. 2009. “Common ecology quantifies human insurgency,” Nature, Volume 462, December, pages 911-914.

[4] T. Karagiannis, M. Molle, and M. Faloutsos. 2004. “Long-Range Dependence: Ten Years of Internet Traffic Modeling,” IEEE Internet Computing, September/October, pages 57-64.

[5] T. Lay and T. Wallace. 1995. Modern Global Seismology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

[6] M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos. 1999. “On power-law relationships of the Internet topology,” ACM Computer Communication Review, Volume 29, Issue 4.

[7] R. Kumar, J. Novak, and A. Tomkins. 2006. “Structure and evolution of online social networks,” Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD, pages 611-617.

[8] A. L. Barabasi and H. E. Stanley. 1995. Fractal Concepts in Surface Growth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Therefore, holy war can be an element of jihad, but is restrained by strict rules. Many modern interpretations of jihad are not congruent with classical jihad and many physical aggressions by Muslims today cannot be classified as the specific kind of holy war that is legitimized by the Qur’an.

The Prophet Muhammad described jihad as the “apex of lofty Islam.” Jihad literally translates to struggle or striving in English and it is derived from the root Arabic word jahada—to strive, strain, or exert oneself to the utmost. Jihad is a very important duty of Islam; some even consider it the sixth pillar of Islamic faith. Jihad encompasses many types of struggles that Muslims are meant to overcome throughout their daily life in different forms. In the Qur’an, jihad is striving in the name of Allah through four stages: jihad against the soul, jihad against Satan, jihad against disbelievers, and jihad against dissemblers. Jihad against the soul is meant to solidify firm belief within a person while jihad against Satan will create tenacity. For jihad against disbelievers, Muslims are meant to strive by pen, tongue, hand, media, and only if inevitable, with arms. Jihad against disbelievers is not purely peaceful and at times, the use of arms is inevitable in this stage, described in the Qur’an as qital, or fighting.

Contrarily, jihad against dissemblers is by the tongue, through educated arguments and persuasion. Therefore jihad is much more than physical aggression, and far greater emphasis is placed on striving by all other means before war. The most important struggles for Muslims will come from inside themselves, which will be a lifelong jihad of following Allah and living by his way. Jihad should then be described as the striving journey of Muslims to become aware and learn the injunctions of Islam, teach them to others, and make constant practice of them in their life while encouraging others to do the same. It is also the act of calling others to Islam and dealing with any obstacles that may arise from fulfilling this journey. This journey will encompass many obstacles that do not relate to physical violence and emphasize the importance of striving by other means throughout one’s life. Jihad with the tongue is viewed as very important because Muslims are meant to be peaceful in their struggle if possible and it is important to be expressive verbally rather than resorting to violence immediately. However, when words are not sufficient and qital, physical fighting, is necessary within jihad, there are strict guidelines that must be followed in the aggression. Not every war fought by Muslims can be defined as jihad; not every jihad can be generalized as holy war. In order for physical jihad to be legitimate, the opposing side receiving the aggression must be in a state of war against Islam, or a large group of Muslims, or non-Muslims who have had their personal freedoms and civil rights violated. A classical interpretation of jihad from the Qur’an clearly outlines that any physical jihad must be conventional warfare, with ambush fighting and the killing of civilians prohibited. There have been many examples of physical jihad in history that were legitimate in the eyes of the Qur’an, and exemplify the rules that limit aggression, as well as the circumstances necessary for a holy war to be considered jihad.

In Islamic history there are many instances when jihad was a holy war. This can partially be explained by the era. Arabia was engulfed in constant warfare throughout the Prophet Muhammad’s time, and for the centuries of empire rule that followed. Muslim tribes were often provoked by aggression and forced into numerous defensive jihads with their surrounding neighbors. The original physical jihad originated from Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to the city of Yathrib, modern day Medina, in 622. The Prophet and his Muslim followers were met with violent pilfering by the Meccans and Muhammad delivered verses from the Qur’an authorizing the Muslims to fight against the Meccans. The Muslim war with the Meccans began Muhammad’s career as military commander, a title that he had to carry in the remaining years of his life. This jihad follows the rules outlined by the Qur’an because it was in defense of Muslim land that was being physically threatened; it also follows the rules of jihad by keeping the warfare traditional and targeting only those directly involved in the aggression. Muhammad had decided physical jihad was necessary and fought in the name of Islam. But upon returning from battle he said, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad,” underlining the importance of a believer’s internal struggle against his or her carnal self. While the time demanded physical jihad from the Muslims for their very survival, the significance was placed on the other forms of jihad, most importantly those within the hearts of each Muslim. In addition to Prophet Muhammad’s own view of physical jihad, Muslim scholar Said Nursi supported physical jihad in response to physical aggression but also believed in continuing jihad through the written and spoken word. When he was required to fight, his jihad was with his pen. Nursi highlighted the shift between pre-modern civilization and modern civilization and believes jihad should follow this shift. Pre-modern civilization was plagued by violence and conquests from Islam’s neighbors and required defensive war in response. Modern civilization has seen the rise in science and reason, secularism and materialism, and therefore the most appropriate jihad is one that persuades hearts and minds. Muslims are called to fight a cultural and economic war through ideas and thoughts, not arms.

The battles fought by Muhammad and Nursi are historical examples of jihad as holy war used to protect Islam and guarantee its growth within the world. There is a physical aspect in battle, but the focus on Islamic law as derived from the Qur’an is never ignored in jihad. Jihad includes, but is not encompassed by, legitimate, defensive warfare against aggressive enemies, which contrasts with the modern usage of jihad among a minority of Muslim laymen and mainstream society. Most conflicts engaged in by some Muslims today are a crime under Islamic law, and jihad is defined solely as war, with its other aspects ignored. Today in Muslim-majority countries, and in non-Muslim media and discussion around the world, jihad means war. The usage in Muslim countries can be interpreted as rationalization, that all wars their governments involve themselves in are just, similar to the justification most countries do that any war they are involved in is just.

Though it is debatable whether a war is just and follows Islamic law, the more troubling factor is the shift of the entire meaning of the word jihad. Jihad has evolved from meaning struggle, usually internal, sometimes external by the written or spoken word, to simply being a synonym for war. This semantic evolution has perpetuated misunderstandings of Islam as a violent religion, with war and physical aggression central to its tenets. Jihad has evolved from struggle in classical Islam, with the occasional legitimate war, to representing necessary, continuous physical aggression within modern Islam. This linguistic shift has created a grave misunderstanding of jihad around the world, and its sole definition as holy war in popular culture.

Jihad has come to hold a new meaning with the general population because of the differing interpretations of jihad by classical and modern Muslim scholars. Without background knowledge of jihad’s origins in the Qur’an, most people would believe that jihad is a holy war without rules or guidelines, based on modern scholars and media portrayal. Most laymen are not aware that classical jihad explicitly prohibits aggression towards civilians, and must be limited to conventional war tactics. This misconception of jihad is a result of the rise in world terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims who claim their actions as jihad in the name of Allah and the Qur’an. The misinterpretation of jihad by a small group of Muslims has spread around the world because of globalization and effective media coverage. This misinterpretation has resulted in the current perception. Some modern Muslim scholars and popular figures within Islam who have catalyzed this new definition, refer to jihad as, “war against oppressors, particularly those who oppress Muslims.” Osama bin Laden said in many of his speeches that Americans resemble the medieval Crusaders, with the desire to subjugate the Muslim world in a colonial war. Therefore, bin Laden believed that Muslims are currently fighting a defensive jihad against the West in response to their actions. The West as an enemy is described as similar to the Christian knights of the Crusades who also attacked Muslim civilization. Egyptian Islamist Adb al Salam Faraj called for a new jihad against the subjugation of the Muslim world, and Osama bin Laden has expanded on the ideas of a new jihad to legitimize terrorist attacks against the West that result in the death of civilians. In addition to Faraj, the Muslim scholar Maududi’s thesis on the change in Muslim society has also been viewed as spawning the modern interpretation of jihad. Maududi believed that because not all Muslim societies were ruling based on Sharia law, there was a decline in the society as a whole, and the only viable response was to wage a jihad against this dark age. In order to confront the decline of Muslim society and loss of Muslim lands, Sharia law and the doctrine of jihad had to be reinterpreted and applied both internally within Muslim societies as well as externally to the West for its role in seeking Muslim land and fighting against Muslim civilization. Muslim countries have witnessed an internal “jihad” through the removal of leaders classified as un-Islamic based on an unwillingness to impose Sharia law within their nations. This internal “jihad” has taken place historically with the Iranian Revolution’s removal of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat, and the overthrow of Sudanese President Jaafar Nimeiry. External “jihad” against foreign occupiers of Muslim lands has taken place many times throughout history, recently in the Afghan fight for independence against Soviet occupation and Palestinian and Lebanese liberation movements against Israeli-occupied territories. Modern “jihad” has become a war with the goals of reshaping Islamic society by ridding it of Western influence and presence, economically and politically.

What has been described as jihad, and then reported by worldwide media, is far removed from classical jihad described in the Qur’an. Terrorist attacks that aim at killing large numbers of civilians, including women and children, are unilaterally condemned under Sharia law. Their fights do not comply with the rules outlining when physical jihad can take place and how it may be fought. It is not wrong for people to believe jihad can be violent, but it is wrong to only hold this belief without an understanding of the other aspects of jihad. Some modern Muslims have provided this misinterpretation and perpetuated the fear that Islam as a violent religion able to wage wars at any time, on any grounds.

Jihad is popularly misunderstood in today’s world as a synonym for holy war. This misunderstanding has been prevalent for decades but has become more widespread because of a handful of terrorist attacks being labeled as jihad against America and Europe by radical Islamists. By examining jihad, as defined by the Qur’an, and analyzing historical accounts of jihad, it becomes clear that jihad can involve physical violence if all the rules outlined by the Qur’an are followed, including only the use of conventional warfare and killing of combatants. The modern interpretation of jihad does not consider the context of the Qur’an or classical Islamic law, and it ignores the other aspects of jihad. Jihad is the internal struggle Muslims face to fight off evil, the striving effort to become a better person, a more pious follower of Islam. Jihad focuses primarily on internal struggles, with external struggles such as warfare being secondary, and only if physical force is necessary and legitimate. It is very unfortunate that the true meaning of jihad has become lost in today’s society. Jihad is one of most admirable and good-natured duties within Islam, from which many could learn from to better themselves and their lives.

References

• Ali, Afroz. Overcoming Misunderstandings: Understanding Jihad http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/jihad.pdf, accessed 20 May 2010.
• Bonner, Michael. Jihad in Islamic History, Princeton, 2006, p. 39.
• Bonney, Richard. Jihad: From Qur’an to Bin Laden, New York, 2005, p. 27.
• Chittick, William and Murata, Sachiko. The Vision of Islam, St. Paul, 1994, p. 21.
• Esposito, John L. “VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM.” In What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford Islamic Studies Online, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/article/book/islam-9780195157130/islam-9780195157130-chapter-5 accessed 25 May 2010.
• Gerges, Fawaz. The Far Enemy, New York, 2009, p. 43.
• Greenberg, Karen. Al Qaeda Now, New York, 2005, p. 213.
• Kelsay, John. Arguing the Just War in Islam, Boston, 2007, p. 41.
• Muhammad, Noor. “The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction,” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 3, no.2, 1985, p. 395
• Napoleoni, Loretta. “Modern Jihad: The Islamist Crusade,” SAIS Review, vol. 23, no. 2, 2003, p. 53.
• Tibi, Bassam. Political Islam, World Politics, and Europe. New York, 2008, pp. 41-42.
• Vahide, Sukran. Jihad in the Modern Age: Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Interpretation of Jihad, at http://www.nur.org/en/nurcenter/nurlibrary/Bediuzzaman_Said_Nursi_s_Interpretation_of_Jihad_168, accessed 22 May 2010.

Existence is in two kinds: self/independent and dependent. “The One that essentially exists” exists by and of oneself and this attribute is exclusive only to God Almighty, the unconditionally rich One Who is in need of nothing, the absolutely Independent, the One free from all shortcomings, Who is neither a matter, a substance, nor a quality, nor is He bound with space, the one and only Lord of eternity and the Possessor of all perfect attributes. The Truth in this sense is one of the beautiful names of the Divine, and all other truths and rights are nothing but Its manifestations and disclosures in their respective ways. The agreement between oneself and the outer world and their uniform nature are not as such by themselves or by their own rights; they exist by His right, because He deems them necessary, thus granting them the right to exist and be. It is false to bind their being to themselves, for self-existence is not possible for them—things are real only in relation to the Truth. They maintain temporarily in this world bound with the calendar of Divine destiny, and indefinitely in the world to come.

In this respect, truth is One in its independent existence. It is the absolute and immutable existence of the Divine Truth; everything else is a ray thereof. All things other than Him exist dependently, thus are defective due to their permanent need for a point of support. Yet, because they exist through the rays of the Truth, they are considered to be existent and constant. All that we consider constant in its existence is a ray of the light of the Truth’s existence. Each emergence, development, work, activity, duty, and responsibility that occurs in “the realms of acts and works” carries a value as long as it is related to the Truth. Any activity that cannot be connected or related to the Truth, anything that is not operated, started with, analyzed or synthesized according to this relationship, is false and a means of devastation. All kinds of operations, initiations, and activities, and whatever outcome they may yield, even faith and virtuous deeds (if virtuous is still the right word) that are not related to the Truth are nothing more than delusions, propositions, and—in the words of the lawgiver Prophet—“fatigue in vain.”

True believers relate all their deeds to the Divine name of The Truth; it is indispensable, and with this conviction they take action. They consider being faithful to The Truth as a compulsory levy, and as a sign of Divine grace (jabri-lutfi). Respect for The Truth adorns their lives, and they are always occupied with it. They value transient, perishable, and seemingly deceptive things—things that are in one sense the opposite of truth because of their dependent, relative worth, which is the measure of their engagement with them. Believers seek for what is eternal and permanent—for that which promises direction and a good ending, for that which reminds of Him, for that which speaks of Him in plain words, for that which falls within the Truth in the true sense of it, for that which prompts considerations of the Truth in the spirit. They always thrive to walk along the axis of truth determined by the True One. Their path is as wide as a highway along which they believe in truth, act in truth, relate in truth, speak in truth, stand with truth, and behave in truth. They call upon the Truth to overcome all obstacles as they head for the True One’s pleasure. They carry out their works faithful to the truth, are always occupied in truthful activities, and tirelessly work to elevate truth. When they are supposed to take, they take only what is due to them. For the rights they are expected to grant, they do so without failure. They are always cautious about those things that do not have any relationship to the truth, for they lead to falsehood.

Truth—and rights in relation to it—has a wide domain of connotations: the opposite of falsehood, the heavier side of the scale balancing power, everyone’s lot, and the fulfillment of individual rights pertaining to interests, privileges, needs, and obligations as recognized by a legitimate regime.

The real proprietor of all these rights is God, the Truth, to whom all parts and wholes, substances and qualities, causes and effects belong to. Nevertheless, through some authorized posts, He conferred these rights to some in the form of interests and authorizations, and to others with the capacity to benefit from these interests and to assume authorities. Those who take on these capacities have to maintain a balance by caring for public rights as much as individual rights.

On the face of what we can see in this world, these rights are assumed by individuals or corporate bodies. Still, as touched upon above and to emphasize once more, all rights belong to God, the True One, and they have been entrusted to human beings as gifts. What we call “the rights of God,” “the rights of human beings,” or “civil rights” arise from legal judgments developed from these rights and pertain to the jurists’ terminology. Now, let us open a small window into the jurisprudential classification that deals with rights under three headings:

1. The rights that are due only to God, as God Almighty is the true Owner of everything. Public law that “relatively” belongs to the society is considered within these rights.

2. Rights of individuals by virtue of natural provision that allows people with the capacity to possess, appropriate, increase, and benefit from them.

3. Rights bound with provisions under common law that relates to both individuals and the society with respect to interests, benefits, and capacity to appropriate.

Rights that are due to God only are superior to all other rights. These rights are immune from all interventions, the way they operate cannot be changed, and they have priority—no other right can surpass them. Pardons cannot be operated, conciliations cannot be sought, nor can they be forfeited, not even can it be attempted. Violation of any of these rights, in whatever form and nature, relates to the public and renders all of society the plaintiff; however, the protection of these rights has been conferred to the state on behalf of the public to investigate violations. Every member of society has the right to complain about such violations and testify when necessary.

Rights of God in Islam include worship (salah), fasting (sawm), purifying alms (zakah), pilgrimage (hajj) as well as taxations like ushr (tithe), sadaqa al-fitr (compulsory charity paid after the month of Ramadan), haraj (land tax), legal punishments and expiations. Rights in kind, receivables, and provisions on individual freedoms under private law are also considered within this category according to their respective degree of significance. In Islam, individuals are granted the full discretion of things they are eligible to use, as long as they do not waste and use extravagantly. They may choose not to benefit from some of their due rights, and redistribute them to others, or spend in learning and education, establish foundations and thus convert their charity into a lasting one. Individuals may give up from some of their rights and forgo some of their claims from other individuals or the public.

Benefits and interests in common law belong to both individuals and the public, thus decisions over these rights are made according to the balance whether a certain right weighs heavier on the scale of the individuals or the public. Such matters are usually taken care of by jurists.

Human rights are what we speak of more than ever in our age. According to Islam, every human being is born free. Every one is equal to one another in their rights and worth. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience are indispensable rights of every individual. Islam recognizes the same rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of race, sex, language, and religion. As a whole these rights cover the spiritual and physical aspects of human beings, in addition to the rights defined today and those that will be defined in the future.

Throughout human history, human rights have evolved through lengthy processes until we have attained the current level of understanding; yet, it is questionable whether this level is sufficient. There have been great struggles in this direction many times: definitions were stretched to extremes, and many false actions were taken—while correcting one falsehood, another was produced. When a certain framework was finally drawn, efforts to perfect it with revisions, editing, and fine-tunings have never come to an end, and are not likely to very soon. Corrections, expansions, and elaborations have brought along new sets of mistakes. Frequently, good will and endless efforts have brought about nothing but disappointment, which either resulted in a loss of hope or back to square one. Problems have never ended, neither have alternative searches. Many thoughts have been rendered worthless due to oppositions and disputes, while many fantasies have been chased after in delirium for no greater purpose than to fill in the gaps; this delirium does not appear to be coming to an end soon.

Human rights were comprehensively defined with the advent of Islam. These rights, which were expressed in earlier religions only in general terms, or left latent as allusions that needed explanation with independent reasoning, were established once more by the very clear style of the Qur’an and the Prophet’s practice, without leaving room for deviation.

The Holy Qur’an has outlined human rights in detail in an utterly unique language. One can see a great emphasis on the protection of these rights in the Qur’an, which declared certain sanctions according to the conditions in question. The lawgiver Prophet clearly delineated these rights with the transactions he carried out himself. He warned insistently that these rights also pertain to the rights of God, and being in full compliance with them is necessary.

In Islamic terminology, all rights originate from God’s will, and each are a blessing entrusted as a sign of His grace even if out of our will (jabri-lutfi) to humanity. Rights, therefore, are granted to every human by creation and they cannot be purchased or traded, reduced, increased, or exchanged; they cannot be passed on to the discretion of the sovereign nor can they ever be used as a commodity. The greatest assurance of rights is when members of a society and the respected and honest authorities embrace this definition of rights wholeheartedly, and make it a part of their nature, honor it like their own souls, and strive for its protection.

This perception of rights is only be possible in a society that recognizes these rights as gracefully bestowed by God Almighty, a society that is appreciative to all the blessings of the Divine, a society that proceeds straightforward with an extraordinary refinement, believing in the fact that they will be held accountable tomorrow for what they do today, a society that upholds the truth and respects all rights. It is not possible to talk about human values and human rights in the truest sense of the word among masses who have no faith in God and the Day of Judgment, masses who do not follow scriptures or acknowledge messengers—they do not value rights nor do they show respect to truth. They have no appreciation for essential matters of belief; they give the impression of having some kind of faith, but a faith of their own, which revolves around sensuality. For them, it is not faith if it does not give way to their carnal desires; it is not science if it does not comply with their wishes. Those who are not from among them cannot be a scholar, and—when completely lost in delirium—they consider everyone other than themselves ignorant and every believer reactionary. They defame those who do not think the same as outdated, and in classifying individuals they divide society into camps. Indeed, their thoughts do not stem from common sense, and their behavior is bigoted. The satanic intellectual legacy they have inherited is an overused, worn-out conflictual dialectics that is deceptive. The crude power they employ against truth is a desperate, diabolical product of impotent reason; when they fail intellectually, it is customary for them to resort to demagogy or conflictual dialectics, a method implemented for the first time by Satan at the mysterious order of God to prostrate to the Prophet Adam. Thus, Satan can be considered as the inventor of conflictual dialectics; its later subcontractors have been the abusers of power who failed against the truth.

Muslims always strived at the highest of their capacity to observe human rights in the most scrupulous manner, not least during the Age of Light—the time of the Prophet. Their firm faith in God and the Hereafter, their well-settled spiritual conviction for the superiority of the rule of law, and their determination to continue on the straight path required them to act in harmony with the nature of their being. A genuine aspect of their condition was to be in sincere servanthood to God Almighty. They painstakingly fulfilled what was expected of them, and remained upright by their inner inclinations, which were shaped by the consciousness of “perfect goodness,” or ihsan—consciousness that God is All-Aware and All-Seeing. They did what they did because they were ordered to do so, aware of the fine line between obedience and disobedience. They welcomed all the orders and advice of the Prophet, the Master of the Law, wholeheartedly; during his time, opposition was limited to a small circle of hypocrites. None of the Prophet’s words were left floating; whatever he said reached its target and went far beyond mere semantics.

When the Prophet honored Medina, he meticulously observed the stipulations of the Charter he signed with a diverse community of different faiths, worldviews, and ethnicities. Regardless of religion, race, and social rank, the law was equally implemented for everyone, and the city of Medina became a safe haven for each community. It was a golden age and the town of the Prophet was like a garden of Paradise. Those who remained close to this age have been close to God and to fellow human beings, while others who failed to strive against their carnal desires and ambitions and darkened their centuries have turned to dust.

Neither the Medina Charter, nor a few examples confined within this framework, were all Islam had to say about human rights. The Sultan of Messengers taught us about human rights throughout his lifetime. He warned us to pay the utmost attention to all rights, and never to ignore even seemingly minor ones. For him, anything that is underestimated is no longer minor. He reminded us how far the respect and fear of God Almighty could reach, so that he could prevent the violations of major rights. He was determined, and always implemented what he said. He was known for his sensitivity and virtue, and these qualities made every believer set a throne for him in their hearts.

Just before he passed away to his Lord, he gave his farewell to an angelic community of tens of thousands during the hajj—his one and only major pilgrimage—and addressed not only them, but all his followers to come until the end times. One last time, he recounted all the principles he had been teaching for years, and each of his statements during the sermon were a human rights declaration. Masters of speech could indeed discern that every word of his final sermon resonated with his lifetime message. His audience, not unfamiliar with these sayings, perhaps was honored to hear those pearls from him again, though they were stated rather differently this time. The Prophet declared his message one last time to his community, a community of loyal followers who drank in his words and practiced them, to pass them on to the next generation.

The Sultan of Speech touched on many diverse issues that day, from the rights of God to family law, and laid down in one sense the core of his mission. The majority of all rights belongs to God, and thus he started his sermon, naming other rights according to their significance, though it may be to the extent of a passing note or an implication. “Fear God and refrain from disobeying Him” was his first word. As a matter of fact, belief in God and obeying Him with due respect would be an assurance and sanction of respect for all human rights. Lack of it would render respect for human rights very difficult, perhaps impossible.

Then he pointed to the duties and responsibilities of spouses to one another, repeatedly emphasizing that women are blessings preciously entrusted, and must be treated accordingly. He warned about the harmony within the family as an essential principle that makes a society what it is and urged us to fear God in this respect. He trod on all the deeply rooted customs from the time of ignorance.

Protection of one’s property, life, mind, religion, and progeny was one of the key issues he stressed over and over with refreshed breath, as if he was speaking from beyond, standing on the rim of the other world. “Your Lord is one, and your father is one: all of you are of Adam, and Adam was of soil,” and he raised his voice, offering a golden key to solve a major problem that afflicts our age like a plague.

In the sermons he delivered during the farewell hajj, he always referred to a grand court where each of us will be questioned on the minutiae of our lives, and enjoined us to carefully observe rights of all kinds. Certain issues of human rights have not yet been resolved even in modern times. Islam, however, established very firmly the principle of lawfulness centuries ago. Unless definitely judged, no one is a criminal, and even the convicted has certain rights that can never be taken away. No one should be interrogated based on probabilities; no one should be tortured. Each right is precious and should never be undermined. The power should be dependent on the right, and no right can be sacrificed against power.

Power has always been like the arch-enemy of truth, be it in social, economic, administrative, and political life. Those who have crude power used this power according to their own self-interest. They interpreted life as an arena of conflict and struggle, thus denied rights to others as much as their power and prevailing circumstances allowed them to; “I have the power!” they cried, as they deliriously raised their sword to the sky.

But for those who take the truth and what is right as their point of support, they have preferred the good pleasure of the True One, placing virtue over their personal interests as well as they could. They considered all rights as manifestations of the beautiful Divine name of the Truth, and observed them accordingly, as they have embraced all human beings as brothers and sisters, and rushed to their help when needed. Such truthful believers strived to restrain their carnal desires, and tried to live as mystics, spending their lives turned toward Heaven, thus turning this world into a heavenly garden.

These people of light used lasting solutions for the protection of minorities, laborers, children, the sick, the homeless, and the unemployed, through various funds and foundations. It was not basic human rights only that were under care in the world of Islam: others also had rights over the possessions of Muslims—it was a tax on the wealthy for those who were in need. And as they shared their belongings, believers were very careful not to make others feel indebted for this favor.

For as long as we represented our values, this is how we have believed, lived, and behaved. When significant junctions like belief, religion, and goodness have cracked apart, then falsehood has replaced the truth, the powerful have oppressed the weak, and rights have been violated. Then God has taken away from us consciousness of fraternity, feelings of security and compassion, respect for rights, and all the blessings He had graciously entrusted. Would He give them back? I do not know. But He always granted them to those who were truthful in their liabilities, faith, submission, and patience. He never deserted those who were loyal to their word and turned to Him in devotion to truth.

God has an infinite number of names, starting with the Truth
How great it is for a servant to uphold it,
Think, why did the blessed Companions read sura Asr,
Before they adjourned.
For well-versed in this chapter is the secret of salvation
True faith comes first, followed by prayer
By truth and perseverance: this is humanness,
When all four are combined, there are no more worries for you.
M. Akif

Our Friend

in the beauty of

countless vibrant hearts

strongly sinewed

in purifying love.

We meet you

Our Friend

in the steadfast

prayerful care

of blessing hands

and radiant faces.

We meet you

Our Friend

in attentive minds

and quickened spirits

devoted to guiding

our journey together.

We meet you

Our Friend

in crescendoed voices

reverberating the praises

of the Only Holy One

Whose lowly servant you are.

Salaam.

– Bernadette & Daniel Skubik

Bernadette and Daniel live in Riverside, CA. Daniel Skubik is a professor of law, ethics, and humanities in California Baptist University.

Variation in forms of democracy

Although it is common to discuss democracy as if it is problematic only in the Muslim world, in reality democracies all over the world have to deal with a number of controversial issues about the diverse forms of government, varieties of representation, the types of freedom citizens require or demand, the unlegislated distribution of political power, uneven separation of powers, and the breach of the system of rule by the accumulated powers. (Diamond, 2008: 17-24, 30-33)

Gulen’s intellectual contribution to the global discussion of democracy, which is determined by his adherence to Islamic values, is not limited to an analysis of democracy’s value and meaning for individuals and societies. In addition, he examines how democracy is affected by the crises which people and systems undergo, as well as the complexities of life in modern industrialized societies, and the contraction in the space available for individual and collective expression of cultural, moral and spiritual values. (Cetin, 2008: 226-30)

According to Gulen the understanding of democracy and human rights within the theoretical heritage of Islam is not dogmatic but it centers around values such as compromise, stability, the protection of the life, honor and dignity of the human being, justice, equity, dialogue, and consultation. Islamic political theory is flexible and does not bind Muslims by any rigid limits in the choice of concrete forms of government and political system. The main principle in Islamic political theory is the implementation of three fundamental values: equality, justice and consultation. The forms and means of enactment of these are vested in the hands of the community. Thus, the actual realization of the three pillars can and must take into account the conditions of Muslims’ lives, their traditions, cultural preferences, and other factors. Gulen argues that the social, cultural, political and historical aspects of societies, should be taken into account in the development of democracy in the entire world.

Observers discussing the compatibility between Western and Muslim perspectives on democracy and human rights sometimes make the error of attacking “Islam” and demanding its reform, instead of commenting on the approaches or methods of particular activists, regimes or countries and reforming those. Some observers even claim Islamic principles and institutions directly contradict democratic values in their modern meaning, and so any step by Muslim societies towards the establishment of democracy must be accompanied by rejecting Islamic political and legal traditions. At the other extreme, ideologically motivated Muslims claim to have the only correct understanding of Islam, and that Islamic fundamentals of power, politics and believers’ rights have nothing in common with Western democratic institutions. These extremists often argue that “the power of the people” is alien to Islam, which puts forward the principle of the supremacy of Islamic law instead. (Sykiainen, 2007: 122-3)

In fact, the concepts advanced in this type of argumentation are taken out of the whole context of Islamic thought and its socio-political heritage and are addressed to less well-educated Muslims (and others) in order to justify political extremism. Nevertheless, within both traditional and modern Islamic political and legal thought, there are several different perspectives on government which are more genuinely representative of the Islamic legal tradition and which do not justify extremism. (Gulen, 2004:220; also <http://en.fgulen.com/a.page/press/interview/ a1203.html>).

Islamic jurisprudence embodies the divine revelation, the art of lawyers, local and global cultures, and global relationships. Islamic law and the legal system, its common principles and the majority of its concrete norms are similar to the fundamental ideas and particular provisions of other legal systems. Islamic legal culture has always cooperated closely with and been receptive to other legal cultures. In this sense, Islamic law is of benefit not only to Muslims but to the whole of humanity. Over many centuries a great variety of views on the fundamentals of the executive and the legislature have developed within Islamic culture, and diverse notions of the relations between the state and the individual have been elaborated. (Sykiainen, 2007: 119-132)

One of the key features of the Islamic understanding of democracy is the concept of shura (collective and community consultation). Without any qualification or limitation, all members of a community are eligible to give or request consultation on any matter, except one covered by a clear-cut revelation from God. Consequently, all political matters concerning the selection of the ruler, the structure and shape of the government, the form of political system, the running of the government and of the various affairs of the state, and all other related matters are to be decided by consultation through the participation of all the members of the community. (Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

In public and government affairs collective consultation is concerned with two main issues: the selection of the head of state and running of the government together with reviewing the legality and propriety of governmental and presidential actions. On the selection of the head of state, collective consultation is flexible and adopts various forms. Elections, whether direct or indirect, are considered to be an Islamic method of selecting the head of state or members of the legislative body which satisfies the consultation process. With regard to the running of the government and control over the legality and propriety of the executive’s actions, Islamic law is also very flexible. The establishment of a representative body through direct or indirect elections is compatible with Islam and is a good application of community and collective consultation. In addition to their reviewing authorities, representative bodies may be empowered to legislate on different matters provided that such regulations do not violate any unambiguous and clear-cut principle or rule of Islamic injunctions. If democracy is the government of the people by the people for the people, shura is a process which guarantees that all affairs of the people are decided by the people and for their interests. So, the basics of democracy and the fundamentals of shura in the political field are not opposed. (Gulen, 2004:223; Sykiainen, 2007:110, Cetin 2008: 218; Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

This genuine Islamic idea is one of the most basic human rights and a means of protecting and preserving all other human rights under Islamic law, especially the right to equality, the freedom of thought, and the right to express oneself freely in order to correct or demand the correction of what is not right, even if it is something committed by the highest officials, including the head of state. State officials and authorities do not have political immunity while in office in Islam. (Gulen, 2006)

Law, order and, human rights

Gulen analyzes the different rights recognized in Islam, including freedom of religion and belief, thought and expression, to own property and the sanctity of one’s home, to marry and have children, to communicate and to travel, and the right to an unimpeded education. He underlines that the principles of Islamic jurisprudence are based on these and other rights, all of which have now been accepted by modern legal systems, such as the protection of life, religion, property, family life, and intellect, as well as the basic understanding of the equality of people, which is based on the fact that all people are human beings, and subsequently, the rejection of all racial, color, and linguistic discrimination. (Ünal and Williams, 2000:135-8)

Every single right must be respected in Islam. In particular, the right of an individual cannot be violated for the interest of the community. This idea is central to the concept of human rights in Islam and the interpretation of Islamic tradition with regard to this issue. Gulen recalls that if there are nine criminals and only one innocent person on a ship, in order to punish the criminals, Islam does not permit the sinking of that ship because of the innocent person. Though this may sound utopian today considering the mass and “collateral” damage caused by modern nations at war, Gulen argues that the bar should be set at the highest possible level for democracy and every effort to reach that level should be attempted. (Gulen, 2006; also personal correspondence, 08.11.2008).

Gulen underlines that people everywhere always demand freedom of choice within their beliefs, that is, in the way they run their affairs and in their expression of spiritual and religious values. He stresses the separation of the eternal and the evolving judgments (ijtihad) of Islamic jurisprudence. Specifically, political affairs in general and democratic institutions and human rights in particular are covered by Islamic legislative provisions which can relate and respond to the needs of changing circumstances and times. Gulen points out that democracy will continue to evolve and refine itself in the future. Islamic principles of equality, tolerance, and justice can help in this regard, provided that the injunctions of the Qur’an and the Sunna as well as any definite judgments of Islamic law are re-examined and restored in the light of advancing knowledge and changes in societies. (Sykiainen, 2007: 129-30)

It is possible to envisage a kind of democracy with a spiritual dimension. It is a democracy which contains respect for and observance of human rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, expression and religion, a democracy which prepares the necessary conditions for people to live and practice as they believe, which renders people able to fulfill their wish and need for eternity, and which takes or deals with human beings as a whole with regard to their all material and immaterial needs. For, human life does not start and end with life in this world; the world is only a temporal, transit station, and people are ceaselessly moving toward their eternal abode. The system that governs them must not ignore or neglect this crucial matter. We therefore have to seek ways to sophisticate and humanize democracy. No such stage or democracy has been attained yet, in east or west, north or south, but we can aspire to and work for such an aim. (Gulen, 2006; Gulen in Saritoprak and Ünal, 2005: 452)

Democratic culture

In Gulen’s view, therefore it is vital to encourage the building of a strong civil society in order to have and retain a ‘culture’ of democracy, and this can only be done through sound education. In a democracy, where people are entitled to freedom of speech, expression, religion, and the right to sell their labor, and other such rights, every individual should know what kinds of rights they have and what authority, weight and say they have in state and government affairs. (Gulen, 2006; Cetin, 2008: 216-20)

In all societies on some occasions, or even for extended periods, some interests will not be happy about all individuals being aware of their rights; they may see such education as an obstacle to their gaining political or economic power or even arbitrary rule. Consequently, they may attempt to limit citizens’ access to information and institutions and try to guide them in directions which do not serve citizens’ own true interests. (Gulen, 2006)

However, it is impossible to enjoy and practice democracy in a society where people are unaware of their rights and freedom, where people do not know how to seek and pursue their rights, where, in short, they do not have a developed democratic culture. In such societies occasional openings or temporary freedoms might be enjoyed, but it is always possible for special interests to come up with further impositions and undemocratic interventions. In many parts of the world we see tyrannical, authoritarian and dictatorial leaders who exploit or manipulate, for example, the electoral process, the legal system or the constitution not in the name of the progress or development of the country but for the continuance of their own power or in pursuit of self-interest or the interest of a select group around them. (Gulen, 2006)

To counteract the activities of vested interests, while individuals are being asked to fulfill their rights and duties in democratic system, in addition to knowledge they also need to have the self-confidence and the civic courage to own and defend their rights (Gulen, 2006). Here Gulen’s contribution to the development of democracy around the globe lies not only in his intellectual contribution to debate, but also in his ability to inspire action; this practical ability has led to the development of schools, universities, intercultural and interfaith dialogue groups and other institutions throughout the world.

Conclusions

Gulen’s approach is powerful proof of the democratic ideas propagated by Islam, as he is convinced that Islamic democracy and secular political liberalization are not two separate phenomena. He points out that the dominant Islamic culture in the Muslim world co-exists with democratic arrangements on the global level. So, the concept of modernization and democratization does not inevitably mean Westernization but can involve the possibility of adoption of many Western democratic achievements within the Islamic framework. Thus, political culture and democracy practiced among Muslims develop not by their isolation from or opposition to others but by giving of their own achievements and taking the best from others. Gulen proves that Islamic intellectual heritage and political culture must be revisited and respected and that Muslims’ progress depends on the development of knowledge in Islamic sciences (‘ilm) and contemporary technical education (fen). Finally, Gulen life’s work has shown that there is no inherent conflict between Islamic thought and tradition and modern democracy. He has contributed positively to the understanding of democracy, civil society and human rights. (Cetin 2008: 219; Hunt, 2007:8-9; Barton, 2005: 43; Eickelman, 2002:4.)

Muhammed Cetin is the Publications Co-ordinator of the Institute of Interfaith Dialog (IID) and also writes weekly as a columnist in the international daily Today’s Zaman. He has a PhD in sociology.

References

• Barton, G. (2005) “Progressive Islamic thought, civil society and the Gulen movement in the national context: parallels with Indonesia.” Presented at the conference “Islam in the Contemporary World: The Fethullah Gulen Movement in Thought and Practice,” Rice University Conference, Houston, Texas, November 12-13, 2005, pp.51.
• Çetin, M. (2008) “Reductionist Approaches to the Rise and Aims of the Gulen Movement,” at the conference “Islam in the Age of Global Challenges: Alternative Perspectives of the Gulen Movement,” November 14-15, 2008, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., pp. 204-40.
• Diamond, L. (2008) The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. Times Books.
• Eickelman, D. F. (2002) “The Arab “Street” and the Middle East’s Democracy deficit.” Naval War College Review, LV(4), p.10. Available from: <http:// nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2002/autumn/pdfs/art3-a02.pdf> [October 9, 2006].
• Gulen, M. F. (2004) Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2005) The Statue of Our Souls: Revival in Islamic Thought and Activism. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2006) “Demokrasi Yokusu”, 02.01.2006 [Herkül online] http://www.herkul.org/kiriktesti/index.php?view=article&article_id=2846
• Hunt, R. (2007) “Challenges in Understanding the Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 1-10.
• Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007) Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: Contributions of the Gulen Movement. Somerset, New Jersey, IID Press & The Light Inc.
• Saritoprak, Z. & Ünal, A. (2005) An interview with Fethullah Gulen. The Muslim World Special Issue, Islam in Contemporary Turkey: the Contributions of Gulen 95(3), 447-67.
• Sykiainen, L. (2007) “Democracy and the Dialogue between Western and Islamic Legal Cultures: The Gulen Case.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 121-32.
• Ünal, A. & Williams, A. (2000) Fethullah Gulen: Advocate of Dialogue. Fairfax, VA, The Fountain.

Law and literature

The relationship between law and literature is ages old. If we go back to the origins of law, among the ancient Greeks it was aligned with rhetoric, speaking and writing. Rhetoric was originally intended to present arguments in court. As law became more professional, it was closed off from this. Thus, law and literature have taken different ways, literature being more and more concerned with the expression of human emotions and feelings, while law became increasingly concerned with the maintenance of social order.

Nexus between law and literature

Law and literature are closely interrelated. One of the sources of law is “legal fiction.” Legal fiction, that is, fictio juris means “any assumption which conceals or tends to conceal the fact that the rule of law [has] undergone any alteration, its letter remaining unchanged but its operation being modified” (Islam, 2002). By means of a legal fiction, a child can be adopted from one family into another. In the eye of the law a limited company is given a personality which is distinct from that of its members. Case law is based on a fiction that while enacting a particular rule of law, the legislature had a particular intention. Fiction also played an important role as a source of law in ancient times. There was a rule of procedure in Rome by which a non-Roman was allowed to make a false allegation that he was a Roman citizen and thereby a praetor urbanus was able to try his case. The fiction of citizenship was adopted merely for the purpose of extending the Roman law to the non-Romans. All were under the same “lex gentium.” In England the Court of Exchequer took jurisdiction over civil cases by means of a legal fiction that the plaintiff was the debtor of the king. These fictions were adopted by the courts as devices to add to the jurisdiction of the courts. The old Roman law was laid down in the Twelve Tables, and additions to it were made by Responsa Prudentium-the judgements of the men learned in law. The teachings of the most highly qualified of various nations are still considered as a source of international law.

Fictions stand in the way of the codification of law. A property may be in the actual possession of X, but at the same time may be in the constructive possession of Y, the owner. No trust may have been created, but law may presume the same. By fiction, a Hindu child in the womb becomes entitled to family property.

Legal fiction and legal presumption, however, are not the same. Legal fiction is a source of law while legal presumption is a rule of law. One fact is recognized by law as sufficient proof of another. A notification in the official gazette is presumed by law to have been duly signed by the person by whom it is purported to have been signed. These few examples are perhaps enough for us to understand that law can be regarded as literature.

In this context, we can very relevantly talk about the Holy Qur’an which gives the impression of a perfect piece of exposition on one hand and a storehouse of law on the other. The Qur’an may sound astonishingly literary in terms of content and style, and at the time of its revelation poetry and oratory skills were the most outstanding forms of art in Mecca. Having heard the Qur’an’s enchanting verses, the best poets of the time tore apart their poems for they thought they could not challenge it. But as the Qur’an is the word of God, ascribing literary characteristics to the Holy Scripture is to devalue it. Nevertheless, various powerful forms of expression are found in the Qur’an to convey the message of Islam. The chapters and verses of the Qur’an maintain phonetic and thematic structures so that people can recall the message of the text. The narrative style of the innumerable events, particularly their dramatic presentation, have continued to amaze the scholars throughout the centuries. Sells says, “The values presented in the very early Meccan revelations are repeated throughout the hymnic suras. There is a sense of directness, of intimacy, as if the hearer were being asked repeatedly a simple question: what will be of value at the end of a human life?” (Sells, 1999). But these very verses are basically the laws meant to be for the whole humanity. Coupled with the Prophet’s practice the Qur’an as a main body of Islamic religious law undoubtedly covers almost all the aspects of human life ranging from family, sexuality, hygiene, social issues, business, economics, to politics both national and international. Thus the ultimate law comes in the form of a perfect exposition.

The impact of literature on law is far reaching with regard to teaching, legal writing, statutory interpretations and duly submission of petitions before the bench. Many authors have tried to show the human condition and the law’s effect on it through their literary works from a neutral point of view. The fictional situations presented in literature, they assert, can tell a great deal about political and social situations, and the individuals that often find themselves before the court. Ronald Dworkin in his article, “Law as Interpretation” stated, “I propose that we can improve our understanding of law by comparing legal interpretation with interpretation in other fields of knowledge, particularly literature” (Dworkin, 1982).

Intermingling of law and literature as reflected in the works of some great authors

Some popular as well as critically acclaimed literary works by prominent writers like Shakespeare, Kafka, Dickens, Camus, have dealt with the theme of law. Almost every careful reader would know that these writers were influenced by the legal system of their own time and were aware of its impact both the personal and social level. It would be wrong to think that they took law as the subject matter of their novel or play just to tell an interesting story. In fact, through skilful plot development their views about the then legal system are expressed. What is most interesting here is that they were influenced by the law and have definitely influenced the law as well.

The Stranger or The Outsider is a novel by Albert Camus where the virtues of truth confront the deceits and corruptions of law. We also come to know about the justice system of the time and existing loopholes as the trial for the murder of an Arab proceeds. Furthermore, the novel addresses the issue of the inevitable conflict between defective legal proceedings and a man’s individual way of thinking.

Franz Kafka’s The Trial is another novel where the author exposes how law is abused and made to bring enormous suffering to a man’s life. The main character, Josef K., awakens one morning and, for reasons never revealed, is arrested and subjected to the judicial process for an unspecified crime. Some crucial questions of judicial proceedings like a backlog of cases, arresting on suspicion and detaining a person for an uncertain period, absence of proper investigation, and absence of the right to self-defence are brought to our attention.

Shakespeare’s works contain a remarkable quantity of law terms and they are used very accurately. The use of legal jargon in Hamlet is particularly impressive. But it is The Merchant of Venice, a controversial tale of a Jewish moneylender, that examines themes of justice and the bias of legal systems.

Dickens’ popular novel Bleak House is particularly known for the novelist’s blunt attack on the flaws of the British judiciary system. Dickens’ experience of working as a law clerk in London came in handy in unearthing and depicting the law’s flaws so vividly. The plot concerns a long-running legal battle that takes place between two parties claiming the inheritance of a large property, a battle which in the end costs both parties dearly. Many believe that Dickens’s harsh portrayal of the lengthy Chancery system made way for the reforms that took place in the 1870s.

Benefits of intermingling of law and literature

The intermingling of law and literature produces certain benefits for both the subjects. First, literature is exceptionally capable of probing human psychology and conditions through text. This capacity can be combined with the legal framework which regulates human actions in real life and truly pave the way for a democratic judiciary which is a prerequisite for establishing a just and moral society. Second, literature is considered to be a carrier of human will and freedom of expression. This characteristic can be positively incorporated into the judicial system to facilitate more humane legal decisions. Third, literature helps us understand the text’s role in defining human experience as used in legal rhetoric. Fourth, by applying literary methods in legal writing, laws can be more readily interpreted and legal decisions can be conveyed more effectively. Fifth, reading and writing literature helps improve clarity of expression which is a must for everybody involved in the legal profession. Moreover, every citizen of a society should also acquire this clarity to enable them to defend themselves in the legal arena. Next, special cases can be accommodated through the application of literary standards to legal documents and thus despotism can be reduced to a great extent. In this regard some proponents of the admixture of law and literature argue that this looks back to and restores the image of the lawyer as a person of letters possessing a broad liberal education and being well versed in languages, rhetoric and literature, who views law as an aspect of the humanities and the public life, not a science or a business. Lastly, one of the skills literature teaches lawyers is the power of the imagination so that lawyers learn to place themselves in the shoes of the client, the opponent, the witnesses, the judge, and the jury in order to anticipate reactions to their pleadings, presentation of evidence, arguments, and settlement proposals.

However, one need not think that only law will benefit from this intermingling; rather, it is advantageous for literature as well. The law has immensely enlarged the area and scope for literature already. The law enriches itself every day and this ever widening sphere of law can be a great source for literature. Until now most literature in which law plays a major role has concerned criminal law, ignoring the many disputes over inheritance, contracts, divorce and real property. These very issues can be presented with more legal focus in literature if the writers are interested in knowing a bit more about law and the legal system. In this context we do very well remember the nineteenth-century British novels which are rich sources of thinking about law and lawyers and offer insight into the legal heritage, mainly because the novelists Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Anthony Trollope and others participated in the debate about the best way to implement legal reform. In this regard more scope will be created to consider human feelings, emotions, and the environment where a person is raised. Then theories of punishment-as there are different theories available, like reformative, punitive, deterrent, expiation, preventive, and so on-should be analysed thoroughly. This is where literature can open up windows of thought for the reformers.

In fact, law is not at all a stagnant subject, rather it has undergone huge changes over the ages and literature can very well claim to be the greatest contributor. Different writers in different ages have made the lawmakers think about the loopholes of the prevailing laws through their writings. This is how new interpretations of different laws have come about, and thus the loopholes have been exposed. Similarly, writers have provided us with new ideas about how to define crime and punishment under different circumstances and helped clarify law. Likewise, the discretionary power of the judges and its effects on the justice system can be viewed in a broader literary perspective. In this context the effort of Lord Denning, the greatest law-making judge of the century is worth mentioning. Lord Denning showed his willingness to override precedent to do what he saw as justice and foreshadowed the move towards moulding the law to suit changing times and circumstances.

The definition of an offence can be scrutinised even more critically if it is seen through literature. Taking lessons from literature, life can be improved, which can substantially help the law-enforcement agencies to maintain order in society with ease and comfort. Social and communal conflicts are commonplace in every country and they are well-depicted in literature; law can borrow these materials to deal with them. Literature also helps to find ways of dealing with psychological problems which are quite common in human life and have certain effects on the whole of society. Again literature tells us how to look at these sensitive issues and therefore may help the law manage them in a more delicate way. As edification is one of the objectives of literature, the blending of law and literature ultimately helps the moral development of anybody concerned with the law. Since literature critiques lawyers and the overall legal system, this intermingling will certainly widen the scope for criticising the different shortcomings of the legal system, such as delays in trial proceedings, imprisonment without trial, torture on remand or interrogation, lack of sincerity in investigation, corruption, and so on, and will no doubt help to find ways to curb them.

Recently, in the global perspective, law has expanded its sphere and in the process problems like eviction, mass killing, war crimes, arbitrary power, and illegal occupation by foreign armies have come to the fore. All these issues are the themes of many literary works by different writers, which can assist legal experts to find ways to think about and deal with them. Literature also helps in building a better society by illustrating the consequences of committing crimes and the dreadful conditions of a criminal life.

To conclude, the intermingling of literature and law can give us hope of having a legal system touched by humanity. It may help writers to produce literature with more experience of life and society. At the same time, we need not forget that law is a part of our culture, not a mere technical study and it has a lot to offer to literature as well. As literature is a storehouse of alternative visions of law and society, the more literature comes into the thoughts of a lawyer or a law student, the better is the chance of law in a society paying due regard to human values and emotions, a quality which many people believe law seriously lacks. Likewise, literature should be more concerned with the everyday problems of life and a true reflection of society in the broad view. The times demand that writers do not just project a series of imaginary pictures playing in their minds, and law can truly help literature meet this demand.

Ahamuduzzaman is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Law, ASA University, Bangladesh. Sharif Rakib Hasan is a Lecturer at the Department of English at the same university.

References

• Brooks, Peter and Gewirtz, Paul. Law’s Stories: Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law, London: Yale University Press, 1996.
• Campbell, John. Shakespeare’s Legal Acquirements, London: Kissinger, 2001.
• Camus, Albert. The Stranger, USA: Tandem Library, 1999.
• Dickens, Charles. Bleak House, London: Yale University Press, 2000.
• Dien, Mawil, Izzi. Islamic Law: From Historical Foundations to Contemporary Practice, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004
• Dworkin, Ronald, M. “Law as Interpretation,” Critical Inquiry, 1982, Vol. 9, No. 1. p. 179.
• Islam, Mahmudul. Constitutional Law of Bangladesh, Dhaka: Mullick Brothers. Second edition, 2002, pp. 58–60.
• Minda, Gary. “Law and Literature at Century’s End,” Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, 1997, Vol. 9 No.2, pp. 245–258.
• Kafka, Franz. The Trial, Munich: Kurt Wolff Verlag, 1925
• Sells, Michael. Approaching the Qur’an, USA: White Cloud Press, 1999.
• Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. USA: Dover Publications, 1992
• –. The Merchant of Venice, USA: Penguin Group, 1998.