“Philosophy considers force to be the point of support in social life, and life as the realization of self-interest (as its goal) and conflict (as its principle).”1 When Said Nursi wrote this sentence in The Words, he was looking at the Cyclops-like aspect of the European philosophy of his time, which totally excluded spirituality from the interpretation of the relationship between humans and the universe. There was only one eye on that face which concentrated solely on the materialist side of the creation. Said Nursi called this face “philosophy”; he was opposed to nineteenth century materialist philosophy, but rather favored one that was open to metaphysics and the spiritual as well as to the rational, an approach that he would later call “the marriage of the mind and the heart.”

This materialist philosophy, which considers “power” to be the point of support in social life, actually shaped the social and political movements of the twentieth century. Those individuals who were empowered with personal and financial resources built production facilities and had the less powerful individuals in society work for them in exchange for little remuneration. Capital thus quickly accumulated in the hands of an increasingly prosperous minority, whereas the majority of the members of the “developing” society were barely able to make a living. Mercy seldom descended from the narrow top of the pyramid to the base-and envy and resentment rose in dark clouds from the wide base to the top. Power became the main determining effect in social life, as individuals or groups tried to realize their self-interests to the degree that their “power” allowed them to.

When there was a conflict between interests, might was used as the arbitrator. Revolutions simply shifted the building blocks of the pyramid, but the shape of the pyramid always remained the same. “Natural selection,” a misconception thought to be observed in nature, became the very basis of civilizations. The political arena always had its actors whose pockets were full and waves of ordinary people were merely directed, explicitly or implicitly, in what they should do with their lives. Nations with less economic power became oppressed, their lands and resources were looted, and their futures were thrown into a deep, dark well of uncertainty. The world saw the bloodiest wars of all times as humanity descended to the lowest of the lowest, “asfal al-safilin.”

There has not been any single event in the course of social history which has not been motivated by a system of thought. The intellectuals of the last century tended to strip human beings of their inner dimensions and consider them as a piece of walking/talking machinery. This machine was supposed to produce goods constantly in order to satisfy the increasing needs of mankind. Simultaneously, the circle of the needs extended itself to the farthest point of the imagination, until there was no way that circle could be encompassed. Most of these needs took the shape of carnal desires, and the machine became dedicated to gratifying these desires. Relations between individuals and their families, in neighborhoods and within countries, started to deteriorate. Divorce, domestic violence, deceit, murder, and other crimes-enough to make anyone with a heart grow mute-began to seem and sound normal to the general public. Thus, the machine began to annihilate itself and its surroundings. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi brought the matter to public attention at that time with the following words: “Force calls up aggression, seeking self-interest causes battles over material resources, and conflict brings strife.”2

Since life was considered to be the realization of self-interest, the self became the center of all interests. Individualism was raised as the banner of victory, while the bonds that connected selves together began to disappear. “Country, religion, family, ideas of civilization, all the sentimental and historical forces that stood between cosmic infinity and the individual, providing some notion of place within the whole, have been rationalized and have lost their compelling force.”3

Contrary to accepting power as the fabric of social life, such as it has been in the past two centuries, the Holy Qur’an accepts “rights” to be the constant point of support in social life. The first Caliph of Islam after the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, the honorable Abu Bakr, stated this Qur’anic approach in his first speech to the public: “The weakest among you is the strongest in my eyes until his rights have been delivered to him, and God willing I will accomplish that; and the strongest among you is the weakest in my sight until he delivers the rights to their real owner, and God willing I will pursue that.”4

One of the five pillars in Islam is the prescribed alms, zakat. According to the Qur’an, every Muslim with adequate financial resources is obligated to give one-fortieth of his wealth to people in need. This portion of the wealth of the rich is considered a right that is given to the poor from God. This is a very interesting point, because the Qur’an draws a circle around the rights of the powerless within the circle of the powerful. In so doing, the Qur’an effectively silences brute force and allows “rights” to speak instead. Thus, the Qur’an teaches and commands believers to practice “giving precedence to the common interests of the community over one’s own interests.” The fact is that all unrest in human social life proceeds from two sources or attitudes: “Once my stomach is full, what do I care if others die of hunger?” and “You work, I will eat.”5 These statements symbolize a world where labor and capital confront each other and zakat, as a moral imperative, is abandoned; yet mankind has been advised to use charity as a form of purifying alms that is essential to the establishment of social welfare and order.

Human rights, huquq al-ibad, are a very important issue in the Qur’an. A devout believer who has pursued a virtuous life in this life may be pardoned for all their sins. However, the violation of the rights of others is excluded from this pardon, for such a violation must be resolved between the person who violated the rights and the one whose rights has been violated. The “others” here can be Muslims or non-Muslims and they can be of any race, ethnicity, belief, or worldview, in fact, anybody whom God has created. An anecdote from the time of the third Caliph, Umar is noteworthy here. It occurred in the city of Hims (Syria) in 635. The Muslim army was in retreat and leaving the city at the approach of a huge Roman army. The commander of the Muslim army ordered his men to reimburse the people of the city for the taxes that had been collected. The tax collectors told the Christian population of the city that the Muslim army would not be able to protect the city against the Roman army, and that since the taxes had been collected in payment for the protection of the city, the army no longer had any right to keep the taxes.6

The Qur’an does not leave the individual by themselves in the universe. “Does man think that he will be left uncontrolled (without purpose)?” (Qiyama 75:36). Human beings have the willpower and determination to choose between evil and good. Humans are responsible for their choices as well as their actions, and they will be held accountable for every deed they commit. This very fact should urge everyone who hears this message to adjust their standing within the community. The Qur’an commands each soul to uphold righteousness and forbid evil. This command is not limited only to the person’s interactions with the rest of the society. Rather, each person is also responsible for their own physical and psychological being. Nobody can commit suicide, harm their own body, or fall into despair or cut themselves off from society.

From a Muslim’s point of view the holy books that preceded the Qur’an also hold “rights” to be paramount within the community for the establishment of justice and harmony; the Qur’an states, “And we have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (the Qur’an) in truth confirming the Scripture that came before it” (Maida 5:52). If we want to live in a safer and a happier world, where every human being’s rights are secured, the followers of the Holy Scriptures should refer to the enlightening realm of the revelation, advocating “right” rather than “might” as the criteria for any decision that affects the destiny of humanity. Rights have to be promoted at every level of society, and this cannot be done without taking the metaphysical dimensions of the individual into consideration. Looking at how people all around the globe are returning to the warm home of religion and how members of different faiths are striving to understand each other, one can hear the joyful celebration of the marriage between the mind and the heart and can see rights sitting on their throne supported on the shoulders of might.

Notes

1. Nursi, Said, The Words, The Light, Inc., NJ: 2005 p. 146-7.

2. ibid. p. 146-7.

3. Bloom, Allan, The Closing of the American Mind, Simon & Schuster Inc., 1988, p.85

4. Hz. Muhammed (s.a.s.) ve Hayati (Prophet Muhammad and His Life), Diyanet Yayinlari, Ankara: 1996, p. 435, Turkish Religious Council Publications, p. 435

5. Nursi, Said, The Letters, 22nd Letter, Truestar, London: 1995, p. 74.

6. Belazuri, Futuhu’l-Buldan, Beirut, 1987, p. 187.

Hi, I am still alive. Yeah, I was talking about how we serve an aircraft. By adjusting our distribution, we provide the necessary forces for the aircraft to fly and maneuver. Some of us help the engines burn their fuel; and the heat released from this combustion is again used to provide thrust to the aircraft. Although the duties we perform may sound harsh, it is our pleasure to do them; because this is what our Lord wants from us: to serve humans. The only contention we have is the way we are treated by humans. As all other creatures in this universe, for the continuation of all the services we provide, we need some food for survival. Your fellow engineers call this food “air resistance,” which disappoints us. They are talking as if we are stealing their property from them without any return. They do not give credit to the continuous service we provide. Moreover, they delineate the lift force as something that they came up with, disregarding our major role in it. I, and my other fellow air particles, hope that one day you will learn to consider us as living organisms just like you; then you will change your vision of your and our lives.

Sincerely,

Air Particle

Reading these sentences of the air particle changed my vision of science about which I have been learning for the past 18 years. The new vision I have now has sent me on a journey in which I have started to criticize and, if necessary, amend the scientific understanding of nature. So it is my intention now to convey some of the milestones of my journey. Aside from a personal discourse, you can also consider the following discussion as a conversation between your heart and the air in your lungs. The air is very close to us; it functions in our bodies at every moment. But on the other hand, we are very distant from it as we fail to use our hearts to communicate with it. We consider it to be an unconscious slave, and therefore do not respect it. Even if the air particle cries out to us, we do not hear it, because we consider it to be inanimate.

This situation is the result of what we have been taught over the past few centuries. The materialist philosophy, with the scientific advancements of the 19th and 20th centuries, concluded that we humans are alone in this universe to make our way, and that our survival is dependent on the strength we display in the conflicts that make up life. Is it only the understanding of life that exhibits the characteristics of the materialist philosophy? One’s perception of reality depends on the paradigms that are built in one’s mind. Therefore, a person raised in the atmosphere of materialist philosophy develops a perception accordingly, which tells us that it is possible to find the materialist paradigms not only in the positive sciences but also in all of the fruits of the same mentality: individual and social life, scientific models, religious philosophy, etc.

Individual and social life

A contemporary thinker from the materialist age, although himself not a materialist, Nursi summarizes the materialist philosophy’s view of the individual life as follows.¹ According to the materialist philosophy, every thing that exists in this universe stands as a separate entity on its own, and its life has a meaning only for itself. The formations in the universe are results of a deterministic succession of events in the macroscale and non-conscious coincidences in the microscale. Hence, life is another accident which we experience. In terms of the continuity of life, the past is a completely lost domain of time, and the future is constantly under the threat of a sudden death that will bring life to a halt. As a result, the present is the only slice of time that humans can enjoy; hence the phrase “carpe diem – seize the day.” Being the sole zone of influence, the value of the day is only as great as its benefits to the individual.

In terms of social life, the value of individuals for each other is measured by their mutual interest. The continuity of friendship is therefore based on the continuity of interest.² Each individual and every part of nature in general,³ by considering its own existence as the ultimate criterion, tries to optimize things according to its own self. This motive ultimately leads to the destruction of the bonds that keep a society intact. In order to re-establish the connection, a relation based on action-reaction is considered between the individuals. This consideration suggests “do unto others the way they do unto you,” instead of “do unto others as you would have them to do unto you.” The emphasis on the individual ego along with the action-reaction principle leads to the result that “might is right”; i.e. “get the power to have the right,” instead of “be righteous to have the power.”

The ideal gas theory and the Ideal Individuals’ society

The ideal gas theory was primarily developed based on two famous laws of Newton: the 1st law, defining the inertia of an object, and the 2nd law, which relates the force acting on a body to the consequent acceleration. The purpose of the ideal gas theory is to explain the relationship between various gas properties (e.g. pressure, temperature) under stable conditions. Although the development of the formulation continued with the emergence of quantum mechanics, the core of the theory, which was based on the deterministic view, was completed between the 17th and 19th centuries with contributions from several scientists, such as Robert Boyle, and Gay-Lussac. The ideal gas theory is still in use for many engineering applications.⁴

The following is a sample explanation of the ideal gas theory. The gas molecules fill the space provided for them in a container. This means that they form a continuum between the boundaries of the container. If the boundaries undergo some changes due to heat transfer or wave propagation, the gas molecules communicate these changes to their fellow gas molecules. The ideal gas theory explains the communication among the gas molecules in terms of mutual collisions. Therefore, according to the ideal gas theory, a gas is made of individual molecules that are either traveling with constant speed (inertia) or changing properties due to collisions. The existence of other interactions, such as gravitational, electric, or magnetic, are potential causes of divergence from the ideal gas behavior. Therefore, a real gas will manifest ideal gas behavior only if the inter-molecular forces do not exist or have a negligible effect as compared to the effect of the collisions. From this, it can be concluded that strong collisions form the basis of an ideal gas.

Although the ideal gas theory has significant success in explaining gas properties in equilibrium conditions, it has difficulty in explaining the behavior of gases during a flow process. The reason is one of the manifestations of the intermolecular forces: viscosity. In terms of the macroscale properties of gases, viscosity is explained as the resistance of the gas particles against deformation, or in other words, their resistance against flow. This means that during a flow process, the gas particles rip off useful energy from each other and convert it to their own personal energy. That is why we have to burn fuel continuously while driving or flying. So, we consider viscosity as an adverse effect because of its cost, but it is also a problem for scientists because of the complications it causes in formulations.

Having identified the fundamental characteristics of the ideal gas theory, which are inertia, neglect of intermolecular forces, and strong collisions, let’s look at the corresponding image of the same fundamentals in social life.

1) Selfishness: This is the corresponding image of inertia on personal life. Individuals do not share their wealth with others unless they are physically forced to do so. The wealthier they are, the higher their inertia, and the less they are affected by their interactions with others, as they have the power to do as they wish.

Another way to see this is the pursuit of individual interest rather than communal interest. This is a result of neglecting moral values that tie individuals to each other (a neglect of intermolecular forces). Individuals pursue their own benefit regardless of the morality of the means they use to achieve it. In other words, they try to maximize their personal interest despite the poor condition of other people. Ideally, they indulge in this so much so that they do not care about the misery going on in the lives of others, which reflects the level of corruption in their hearts. This state of interaction is depicted by the famous Adam Smith (1723-1790) model5 in economic theory that idolizes individual interest as the source of ultimate good in society;

2) Conflict and clash: This mode of communication among people is the same as the collisions in the ideal gas theory. Every individual is supposed to retain its personal power and wealth as long as possible (inertia). As a result of neglected moral values, there is only one way for these to be transferred to others: to clash. The members of society have to clash with each other to achieve equilibrium. This is how wealth and power are distributed among the members of society. This conclusion is in parallel with the famous theory of the clash of civilizations,⁶ which foresees such a future for humanity.

The materialist understanding of science and consequent religious understanding

One of the very first scientific facts most of us learn is from the Newtonian mechanics, originating from the 18th century. This formulation was able to explain the motion of both particles and heavenly bodies. Newtonian mechanics is based on a deterministic view of nature, which sets everything on a predictable path of change. Witnessing the capability of this theory to explain nearly all of the existing natural phenomena in the heavens and on the earth, many scientists denied the role of God in the universe. This meant that, at best, God created the universe at the beginning and everything has progressed since then on its own. It also meant that God is not capable of changing the fate of the universe, since we can predict the future of natural events successfully.

Later in the early 20th century, with the development of quantum mechanics, the indeterministic, i.e. unpredictable, character of nature on a small scale was revealed. Although this theory broke the strength of the deterministic view, it further inculcated the materialist philosophy. This was to say that God does not and/or cannot interfere with micro-scale events. Urged by his religious sensitivities, Einstein replied: “God doesn’t play dice.” With the support of several experimental results that confirmed the quantum theory, some scientists later argued: “Indeed He does.”

The theory of evolution was the reflection of the same phenomena on biological sciences. This suggested that accidental events at the micro level, which are out of God’s control (!), gave birth to life. So, living beings have nothing to do with God, since they came into being out of His control. The theory of evolution also propounds the “survival of the fittest”; hence, living creatures are reflected as enemies to one another, as the survival of one means the death of the other. Therefore, they are in a continuous clash. What is more, God has nothing to do with this struggle for survival, which He started, but which is now out of His control.

As a result, the deterministic views expulse the concept of God from the macro-scale universe, and the indeterministic views do the same at the micro-scale. Both views, as explained above, are used to free humans from their responsibility to God; or at least, they are used to impair the understanding of God in our minds.⁷

The Reflection of Materialist Philosophy on Science-Fiction

Science-fiction is an art form that was inspired by scientific developments. Therefore, science-fiction is another domain where the impact of materialist philosophy can be observed. The topics of such movies and novels are dangers coming from unknown creatures, or people who are trying to conquer the entire universe at the expense of the lives of millions. Both themes reflect the same characteristics that we have been observing so far: absence of moral bonds between individuals and communication through clashes. The underlying reason for these violent and selfish motives is that every individual living being in the universe is thought to have an instinct to modify things according to its own interests, which again brings us to emphasize the individual ego. In other words, it is assumed that every individual creature idolizes its own ego so much that it can sacrifice everything else for the sake of this ego. This is what is depicted for us by current science-fiction. Therefore, materialist philosophy is not only influencing us today, it is also outlining a horrible future image for humanity through science-fiction.

Model people for new understandings

The above discussion may trigger many questions concerning all human endeavors, such as science, economy, education, etc. Although a materialist perspective of nature and life is presented in this article, there exists a moral understanding of the same phenomena as well; these have been explained and discussed in detail in many articles and books. However, what is missing from the moral view is a modern representation in real life; i.e. actual achievements by those people who both sincerely practice moral values and participate in the advancement of science and technology. Without these achievements, all of the good words about a new and better understanding of nature and life are going to be no more than romanticism or another “once upon a time” story. We hope that the days for the appearance of such scientists are close.

Notes

1. Nursi, S., The Words, “23rd Word”, The Light, Inc., New Jersey: 2005.
2. ibid, “12th Word-3rd fundamental.”
3. ibid, “30th Word-1st aim.”
4. Cengel, Y.A., Boles, M.A., Thermodynamics – An engineering approach, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, p. 137.
5. Smith, A., Cannan, E., Krueger, A., The Wealth of Nations, Bantam Books, 2003.
6. Huntington, S.P., Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 1998.
7. Nursi, S., The Words, “30th Word-1st aim,” The Light, Inc., New Jersey: 2005.

The universe is not passive. It is not neutral. We cannot interpret it as we wish. There is only one correct way of looking at the world, one universal world-view which is common to all humanity. This view is taught to us in the Qur’an as well as in the book of the universe by our Creator.

This does not mean that the Qur’anic world-view does not recognize that the perception of the world differs from one person to another. It allows for plurality within unity so that a universal dialogue is possible. In this world-view there is no fragmentation and no conflict. There is only harmony, assistance, peace and compassion.

The materialist scientific world-view is based on radical fragmentation. Materialist science takes nature to mean a mechanism with no inherent value and meaning. It isolates an object by cutting off its connections with the rest of the world and studies it within its immediate environment.

Whereas our perception of ourselves tells us that we are meaningful and part of the whole universe, and everything must have a meaning and must be part of the whole universe, materialist science has left the subject. i.e. man, out of the universe, and insofar as this science is taking over, people feel that they have no place in this world. They are isolated from other people. Their lives have no meaning, except in a very limited, egoistic sense. Man is alienated from his environment and from himself.

In the light of modern physics, the mechanistic view is an incoherent description of nature. The developments of modem physics call for a radical revision in our concept of reality. They shattered all the principal concepts of classical physics.

Many concepts, like the causal nature of physical phenomena and the ideal of an objective description of nature, changed with the advent of the new theories of modern science, quantum, relativity and, more recently, chaos theory.

However, these changes have not been matched by parallel changes in the world-view of science. The modifications took place only on a mathematical level. Because all that counts for scientists is the development of mathematical formulations of the behaviour of physical phenomena. Such a goal is not regarded merely for its technical utility; rather most scientists believe that prediction of this kind is all that knowledge is about.

They claim that our concept of reality is of little or no importance. However, it is clear that our concept of reality has a tremendous effect on how we behave in relation to nature and to other people, and also on the meaning life has for us as individuals. We cannot dispense with a world-view.

This attitude of the scientists is in contradiction with modern science. Classically it was thought that science could describe and explain everything in the world ‘objectively’ i.e. as it actually is in reality and that the ‘observer’ i.e. the scientist himself, could describe the world by means of mathematical models which were independent of his judgement. The discoveries of modern physics, however, point towards the unity of all things, an unbroken wholeness which denies the classical fragmentation of the world into separate and independent parts. In the quantum theory, every particle is linked to the rest of the universe and cannot be isolated from it. This oneness of the universe includes human beings as well. The quantum theory, together with abolishing the notion of fundamentally separate objects, has introduced the concept of ‘participator’ to replace that of the neutral observer. Modern science therefore restores man to his central position. It puts an end to the notion of neutral, objective description of nature and thus to impartial objective science.

Up to the present, materialist science has been based on a deterministic, causal view of the world. Although the latest theories like the quantum and chaos theories are leading to a world-view where there is no room for fragmentation and determinism, materialist scientists still insist on following the fragmented and causal approach. They have to be reductionist because they believe in causality. At the same time they do realize that their materialist world-view is collapsing. Theoretically they understand that, in order to explain one thing, they need to know its connections to all other things. This is obviously impossible because these connections extend in time and in space beyond human capacities; they are infinite and cannot be embraced by human beings who are also parts of those connections.

The materialist scientists understand that the unity of the universe points to an Absolute Creator. For the things we study do not bear meanings limited to themselves but testify to the Absoluteness of their Creator. But in order to be able to claim that their scientific studies produce knowledge, the scientists insist on denying the Absolute Creator. And because their scientific method is based on causality which cannot accommodate the unity of the universe, they ignore that unity and compartmentalize the universe so that they can study each compartment as the product of a limited number of causes. In this way, they can pretend the universe has no Creator and its meaning is limited to what they tell us about it. They thus claim their science to be the source of knowledge.

There have been many controversies over the conceptual foundations of modem physics. The mechanistic model of reality is not appropriate to modern science. Scientists avoid this issue by adopting the attitude that the paradoxes and contradictions of their science are inherent in nature, thus implying that those paradoxes and contradictions have nothing to do with the inadequacy of their world-view.

But how one can apply the reductionist scientific reasoning to the inseparable universe? It has been widely discussed by scientists and philosophers, but what hasn’t yet been realized is that the nature of the materialistic approach to scientific reasoning is incompatible with the unity of the universe. Therefore, either that approach to scientific reasoning or the concept of the unity of the universe has to be reconsidered.

That the universe is an inseparable whole is not in dispute. Indeed, the unity observed in the totality of the universe including man is so manifest that no one can deny it.

Therefore the materialistic approach to the scientific method has to be reconsidered. This method is reductionist. It reduces every thing to fragments then attributes each fragment to causes. However, in reality, all things are interconnected and interdependent. For this reason it is impossible to attribute anything, however small it is, to causes which are themselves transient and contingent. Because whatever is responsible for one thing must be responsible for everything. We cannot have one thing without the whole.

Why can we ascribe a thing to its antecedents in time, but not to its neighbour in space? Why should a thing be able to produce another thing just because it happened before? All modern scientists know that space and time are fully equivalent. They are unified into a four-dimensional continuum in which ‘here’ and ‘there’ ‘before’ and ‘after’ are relative. In this four-dimensional space the temporal sequence is converted into a simultaneous co-existence, the side by side existence of all things. Thus causality appears to be an idea which is limited to a prejudiced experience of the world.

Causality leads to the vicious chain of cause and effect. For each cause is also an effect. Also the effect is totally different from the cause. Things and effects are usually so full of art and beneficial purposes that let alone their simple immediate causes, even if all causes gathered they would be unable to produce one single thing.

In short, in order for a cause to produce an effect it has to be able to produce the whole universe in which that effect takes place, for that effect cannot exist without the whole universe. They cannot exist separately. Causality is therefore the antitheses of ‘There is no god but God,’ the core of the Qur’anic world-view. Materialist scientists imagine powerless, dependent and ignorant causes to be responsible for the existence of beings and things and thus fancy them to possess absolute qualities. In this way they are implying (tacitly believing) that each of those causes possesses qualities which can only be attributed to God.

However, the latest discoveries of modern science, like the unity of the universe and the inseparability of its parts, exclude the possibility of all the explanations put forward by materialistic science. They demonstrate that all entities, whether in nature or in the laws and causes attributed to them, are all devoid of power and knowledge. They are contingent, transient and dependent beings. But the properties attributed to any of such entities need infinite qualities like absolute power and knowledge.

This shows that causality is by no means necessarily to be linked with ‘objective’ study, ‘neutral’ scientific investigation. It is no more than a personal opinion. Moreover, it is an opinion that is irrational, a non-sense. Nevertheless, there is still a widespread conviction that science can do without a Creator. This seemed possible in classical physics, but in quantum mechanics the situation is untenable.

Physics is full of examples of ingenuity and subtlety that exclude the causal interpretation and make known the All-Powerful, All-Knowing One. A few illustrations will, I hope, suffice to convince us that the universe with all that is within it is His product.

The idea that the universe began with a Big Bang is something of a paradox. Of the four forces of nature, only gravity acts systematically on a cosmic scale, and in our experience gravity is attractive, a pulling force. But the explosion which marked the creation of the universe required a very powerful pushing force to set the cosmos on its still continuing path of expansion. It is puzzling that the expanding universe is dominated by the force of gravity which is contracting, not expanding. Careful measurements show that the rate of expansion has been ‘very fine-tuned’ to fall on this narrow line between two catastrophes: a little slower, and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. The materialist scientists can see that such a precisely calculated explosion requires infinite power and knowledge, and yet deny the act of creation. Therefore they are compelled to say, ‘It just happened; it must be accepted as a special initial condition’

The initial condition, however, had to be very special indeed. And the rate of expansion is only one of countless cosmic miracles. But in their misguidance, they fancy those miracles of Absolute Power to be ‘remarkable’ coincidences, and imply that the universe is a random accident.

So, strikingly, the most fundamental theory of recent modern science is totally compatible with the notion of the Absolute Creator. Moreover, it is not compatible with causality. Thus, the need for God, the Causer of causes, enters science in a fundamental way.

Classically, it is believed that a measurement performed in one place cannot instantaneously affect a particle in another, very distant place. The basis for this belief is that interactions between systems tend to decline with distance. For according to causality a cause has to be in the immediate vicinity of its effect. Otherwise how can particles several metres, let alone light years apart, influence each other’s position and motion?

Quantum mechanics, by contrast, predicts a greater degree of correlation, as though the two particles are co-operating by telepathy. This forces us to ask how it is possible to explain this remarkable degree of co-operation between different parts of the universe that have never been in communication with each other without mentioning their Creator. How can they achieve this miracle? Divine Unity is obviously the only reasonable, consistent and acceptable, to the point of being necessary, explanation of this miracle and indeed of the universe and all that is in it, including man.

To the materialists this situation is a paradox because it cannot be explained with causality. But to the believer in God, this is a beautiful aspect of His Unity. It envisions a universal coherence and points to all-encompassing principles that run throughout the cosmos.

When we break the vicious chain of cause and effect, the meaningless world of materialism gives way to a world illumined with meaning and purpose. The universe becomes like a vast book addressing man and making known its Author so that its readers take lessons and constantly increase in knowledge of their Maker and strengthen their belief and certainty in the fundamentals of faith.

In short, everything is full of art and is being constantly renewed, and, like the effect, the cause of each thing is also created. For each thing to exist there is need for infinite power and knowledge. Thus there must exist a Possessor of Absolute Power and Knowledge who directly creates the cause and the effect together, which together demonstrate the attributes of their Maker. They are proclaiming the Divine Power and perfection through their own powerlessness and deficiency. They are all announcing. ‘There is no god but God.’

Just as the universe points to this truth of Divine Unity so does the Owner of the universe teach us this truth in the sacred books He has revealed. The phrase ‘There is no god but God’ is the fundamental of revelation and it is confirmed by the testimony of beings. It is the key to the Qur’an. A key that makes it possible to know the riddle of the creation of the universe, a riddle that has reduced materialist science and philosophy to impotence. The path of Unity is the path of Revelation. It is the only path that shows man his Master and Owner, and causes him to recognize his True Object of Worship who possesses an absolute power that will guarantee all his needs.

The Qur’an is the only source that teaches us that the universe and the beings within it do not bear a meaning limited to themselves but testify to their Maker’s Unity. It teaches what the universe is and what duties it is performing.

For this reason, every Muslim should study the universe and see that all beings, through their order, mutual relationship and duties, utterly refute the false claims of materialist and atheistic reasoning. They affirm that they are nothing but the property and creatures of a Single Creator. Each rejects the false notions of chance and causality. Each ascribes all other beings to its own Creator. Each is a proof that the Creator has no partners. Indeed, when the Creator’s Unity is known and understood correctly, it becomes clear that there is nothing to necessitate that causes should possess any power. So, they cannot be partners to the Creator. It is impossible for them to be so. Then the Muslim scientist will say through his investigations and discoveries, ‘There is no god but God, alone and without partner.’

The universe is a document to be used by the believers. Believing in God is, as the Qur’an informs us, to assent with one’s heart to the Creator with all His attributes supported by the testimony of the whole universe. The true affirmation of God’s Unity is a judgement, a confirmation, an assent and acceptance that can find its Owner present with all things. It sees in all things a path leading to its Owner. It does not regard anything as an obstacle to His presence. For, otherwise, it would be necessary to tear and cast aside the universe in order to find Him. and that is impossible for us.

The universe is not the property of materialistic science which has used the universe in a destructive way precisely because it has been unable to find the meaning of the universe.

There is no dichotomy between true science and revelation. Rather true progress and happiness for mankind can only be achieved in the way of the Qur’an. All scientific and technological advances are merely the uncovering of the way the universe is created. When the universe is seen to be a vast and meaningful unified book describing its Author and the beings in it as signs of their Creator, all these discoveries and advances reinforce belief rather than causing doubt and bewilderment.

The most serious disease afflicting modern man in his search for happiness and the meaning of life is to regard science, the study of the created world, as separate and irreconcilable with revelation, the word of the Creator. But as man learns to heed the universe and his senses, rather than the materialist scientists, he will wake up to the contradictions of their scientific reasoning. More and more people are beginning to realize that their scientific reasoning is no longer valid. Faced with beauty, awesomeness and purpose, attempts to explain creation with causality are becoming increasingly untenable. Then they will feel the need and importance for true science and knowledge which yield knowledge and belief in God.

We all know there are laws in creation and everyone can benefit from them. However, man has been given the freedom to interpret them as he wishes. What is wrong is not the laws or the benefit from them, but the materialistic interpretation of those laws – modern science is a materialistic interpretation of the laws and of phenomena. Indeed, it never alludes to God or His existence. The method of materialist science, the so-called scientific method, is deterministic. It is based on causality. That is, it claims that things are causally related to each other, i.e. that causes produce their effects. However, in order for a cause to produce an effect it has to be able to produce the whole universe in which that effect takes place. For, an effect cannot exist without the whole universe being there first to enable it. Materialist science speaks about causes as though they were creative agencies or ‘gods’. Belief in causality is the antithesis of the belief that ‘there is no god but God’, which is the core of the Qur’anic world-view.

In order to begin to develop an appropriate method of inquiry, we need first to define the general goals of the Qur’an, to understand how it instructs us in its basic aims such as the Divine Unity, prophethood and resurrection, and how it teaches us to look at creation.

The Qur’an does speak about the natural phenomena around us. For instance, it mentions water about 60 times, the heavens 310 times, and the earth 451 times. Drawing attention to the countless benefits and purposes in the creation of each entity, the Qur’an reminds us that such benefits and purposes can only proceed from absolute knowledge, will, power, and mercy.

While causes are adjacent to their effects, in reality causes and effects are both created. The Qur’an leads our attention from causes to the Creator of causes. It calls us to read the signs of His wisdom in the universe, leading us to knowledge of our Maker with all His Beautiful Names. In short, the Qur’an teaches us that none other than Him, no thing, no cause, can be an object of worship, that all thanks and praise are due to Him alone. It makes us understand that we have been created to be worshippers.

The aim of Islamic science, corresponding to the aims of the Qur’an, is to make known the Creator with all His Beautiful Names and to confirm Divine Unity, resurrection and prophethood.

Materialist science on the other hand studies entities for themselves, in order to master (and exploit) their properties. By contrast the Qur’an speaks only briefly of the nature of entities and their material properties, but dwells at length on their duties of worship, i.e. how and in what respect they point to their Maker’s Names there is nothing but extols His limitless glory and praise (17.44).

Indeed, when Muslim scientists, thinking Islamically, look at the universe around them, they understand that they are glorifying their Maker, reciting and revealing His Names, hidden behind the veil of causes.

Resisting epistemic tyranny

Muslims must choose either the Qur’anic method or the scientific method, since the two are incompatible. That does not mean reading the Qur’an and neglecting study of the universe. It means studying the universe under the guidance of the Qur’an and not studying it, as materialist scientists do, only under the guidance of unassisted human reason.

For strictly materialist scientists, any hypothesis that does not argue according to the scientific method and accept its authority is to be disregarded. The extreme version of this position, expressed in Eddington’s famous remark – ‘What my net won’t catch isn’t fish’ – is an attitude that can only be described as epistemic absolutism.

Muslim scientists should not submit to this tyranny; if they do, they are bound to become imitators of scientism. Muslims know that materialist science does not produce knowledge of God, yet they dare not question it. They proclaim that they accept revelation as the basis of knowledge but, in practice, they test it for consistency with the scientific method. They seem not to realize that a scientific method that does not yield knowledge of God cannot be acceptable to Muslims.

Only when we take Revelation as our point of reference and follow the Qur’anic method do we begin to see how biased and illogical the scientific method of justification is. Consider this example:

Take two plants, both exposed to normal sunlight. Water one regularly; do not water the other. After some time, we see that the plant which has not been watered wilts. This is supposed to demonstrate that water is one of the causes of normal plant growth. In fact all that we observed was this:

In the absence of water plants do not grow. This is altogether different from saying that water is among the causes that make plants grow. The growth of plants depends on innumerable factors. The absence of only one of these factors is enough for a plant not to grow. The experiment does show that plants do not grow in the absence of water. It is logically unjustifiable to leap from there to the conclusion that ‘water is an agent or cause of the growth of plants’.

This sort of reasoning reminds us of the incident in the life of the Prophet Abraham, upon him be peace, when he faced the tyrant Nimrod (Qur’an, 2.258). Nimrod argued with Abraham and claimed that he could give life as well as death. To prove his claim, he asked for two prisoners to be fetched, ordered the death of one and spared the life of the second. Nimrod’s reasoning was that if he had had the second prisoner killed, he would not be alive. Therefore, he had given him life. This is similar to how the scientists argue that if there is no water, plants will wilt and die: therefore water gives life to plants.

The reason is that materialists take the conjunction of events for causality. That is, if two events coexist, they imagine that one causes the other. And in their determination to deny the Creator they make claims like: water causes plants to grow. They never ask how water knows what to do, how it does it and what qualities it has that enable plants to grow.

Asking positive questions

The Qur’an teaches us to ask questions, to lift the veil of causes and investigate the reality behind. It asks us to look, for example, at the endless benefits found in water and in the growth of plants and food so vital for life. Then it instructs us how to ask positive questions like:

Does water possess the knowledge and power to grow plants? Does it know the laws and properties of the formation of plants? Does it know their structures and have authority over them? Indeed water acts in a masterly way in all living organisms. Without its help we would perish. Yet, how can we claim that water possesses such qualities as power, knowledge, will, compassion?

Water is an unconscious entity; it has no will, knowledge or power. It can only be the submissive servant of One who has the power to create it and all plants and food, who knows all living beings and their needs. That is, the Creator and Disposer of water knows everything and has control over everything. His mercy and compassion encompass all things. Water must be in the employ of the One whose knowledge, will, power and compassion are all- comprehensive, absolute.

Consider a flower. How does its beauty come about? Can the unconscious seed, or soil or sunlight produce it? Do they have the knowledge, the power or the will even to make a flower, let alone make it beautiful? A flower can only exist with the whole universe in place first: to produce one single flower, therefore, one must be able to produce the whole universe in which it exists, that is, have absolute power, knowledge and will, which are the attributes of God alone.

In short, when we ask positive questions like ‘Can water cause the growth of a plant?’, ‘Can soil or sunlight produce a flower?’ belief in causality collapses. From this, we conclude that the scientific, or rather the materialistic, paradigm of knowledge, does not constitute sound knowledge.

Qur’anic method: the staff of Moses

The efficacy of the Qur’anic method may be likened to the staff of Moses. It swallows all the deceptions of materialist science.

And (then) We inspired Moses, ‘Throw down your staff!’ And lo! It swallowed up all their deceptions: Whereupon the truth was established, and vain was proved all that they had been doing. (7.117-8)

Materialist scientific knowledge cannot meaningfully explain the phenomena around us. Rather, it conjures up the idea that, for example, water is a strange entity that can mysteriously achieve miraculous things. Such distorted descriptions cannot fulfil our need for knowledge and understanding. Indeed, to attribute absolute knowledge, will and power to an unconscious entity is nothing more than superstition.

By using technical words like photosynthesis, mitosis, etc., to describe events, materialist scientists ‘cast a spell’ on people’s minds so that they appear to have given them a wholly satisfactory explanation:

And when they threw down (their staffs), they cast a spell upon the people’s eyes and struck them with awe, and produced mighty sorcery. (7.16)

In fact, the ‘mighty sorcery’ of materialist science is no more than that: They follow nothing but surmise and their own wishful thinking (53.23).

Whereas materialist science seeks mechanical advantages over the phenomena of nature, knowledge following the Qur’anic paradigm seeks understanding and meaningfulness. It tells us about things in order to make known their Creator with His Attributes and Names. It produces new knowledge, the knowledge of God. As if a molecule of water were saying in its own way ‘Look! I am unconscious and powerless, but I perform infinite duties which require absolute knowledge and power. Do you not see that I am acting at the command of the Possessor of Absolute Knowledge and Power?’ For this reason, a Muslim scientist is not merely an expert, but essentially a worshipper, an ‘abd, one who should not imitate the modern-day sorcerers of the Pharaoh but say, instead:

‘God’ and leave them at play with their vain talk (6:91).

To Muslims, study of the universe is desirable and acceptable because (and if) it yields knowledge of God and belief in God.

An Islamic science must work hand in hand with Revelation and proceed under its guidance. Otherwise it will fail to explain anything; it will fail to produce sound knowledge. It must seek out the wisdom and mercy in the creation, and thereby improve human beings’ understanding of themselves, the universe and the Creator. Bare information about natural phenomena can be transformed, using the Qur’anic method, into knowledge of God and wisdom (hikma). In this way, the purpose of creation, which is the worship of God, is fulfilled:

And I have not created the jinn and men to any end other than that they worship Me (51 :56).