Coming to the Canadian experience, which has no doubt been hovering in the backs of our minds, with a nation requiring so much intellectual mediation, we may well worry that as the memory of the parties who fought on the Plains of Abraham fades into the background of the national consciousness, only homo economicus may survive, who looks to the nation only to optimize consumerism in the quest for status, rationalized as the summa of self actualization.

And we may justifiably worry that the universals of human nature which have obstructed utopian visions will continue to haunt the national dream, among them nepotism, inequality of intellectual and social potential, and the quest for dominance through violence, which is also embedded in our genes. And by the way, on the score of economic man, you’ll be amused to know that the most sophisticated instrument for the study of national identity, called the National Identity Scale, is not the work of academics or Statistics Canada, but of marketing agents. You can google it. Their goal is to profile all of our nationalist sentiments, loyalties, and proclivities in order to target our purchasing inclinations. How ironic is it that interested parties are seeking to brand us as consumers by profiling our diversities of national feeling?

There are other obstacles to national experience and identity worthy of mention. The word itself is derived from “natio” which essentially means birthplace, taken from “nasci,” to be born. We may well wonder whether our place of birth is our life’s destiny. He or she who swears an oath to the Queen in a citizenship court is making a vow that is tantamount to a religious conversion. Yet where people are born remains a huge part of their identity. A group of Canadian nationalist academics back in the 1970s, in a narrow spirit of mind, confirmed that very belief by stating that anyone not born in Canada lacked a true national experience and should therefore be barred from all positions of influence within our university systems. What a doctrine to impose upon an essentially immigrant nation, eager to recruit talent from abroad to maintain its national dream!

Yet that issue will never ultimately die, because we will never ultimately agree about how we construct identity and fashion allegiances, who is really in and who is not. How malleable are we, and how much baggage from our pasts is too much when it comes to forming a new national community? And how much superiority can the native born claim for themselves?

Something once said by George Bernard Shaw cuts both ways: “There is nothing that can be changed more completely than human nature when the job is taken in hand early enough.” The gist of it is that we are indeed malleable, but only when we are young. Each of us here is as apt to speak Japanese as any child born in Japan, had we been born there. Yet nothing makes learning Japanese more difficult than first speaking English, because we were born here. So is birth tantamount to the only nation we can experience? How much plasticity do we have? Can a second language ever equal a first? That debate is likewise yours to discover.

The topic of memory in this context is also significant. It is not possible to dwell on all its complexities here, for memory is both key to the construction of t he self and key to those common experiences that define national identity. But self and nation entail different kinds of memory. A self is a point of view concerning its own lived history. National memories are preserved through books, paintings and pictures, letters, and journals housed in national archives and libraries. A nation emerges only when historical memory becomes personal memory, when the story of a people is internalized, inviting us to feel for and with those who created our national past.

Can a nation shed this component and still be a nation? I ask in innocence. Perhaps we can thrive together on current events. But if we require a deeper historical memory, how is it to be framed and disseminated? It is a real challenge for educators, who must referee among the embarrassing facts, the touchy opinions, and political correctness. Can we even afford an embattled Canadian history? Or do we beat our breasts and construct it as one long trail of colonializing abuse and ethnic misunderstanding? After all, two of our three founding peoples are conquered nations, and much of the history of Canada has been devoted to assuaging the loss of those former identities.

The Quebecois have a dearly-held sense of themselves as a first experience quality of nation centered on birth, language, a common history and culture, and at one time a common religion, yet they too must seek to embrace the contractual, legal, and secular components of a modern pluralistic society. The most intense intellectual debates within Quebec today are concerned with this very question. There is a lot of nostalgia in la belle province, and who can blame them? At some level, we all crave the kind of oneness they hope to find in a society still tenuously held together by a common language and traditions, made urgent by a history of perceived subjugation and collective hope.

Meanwhile, it is easy to imagine how irrelevant those confrontations must seem to newer Canadians who have no stakes in that conversation and can only hope for a second order gesellschaft nation or retreat into former national feelings; our historical solitudes go in many directions. Yet this part of our national experience cannot and should not be pretended away. And thus, how do we shape the collective memory of Canada? An attempt will be made in the transformation of our National Museum of Civilization into a Museum of National History, which I think we all recognize as an effort in nation building, in selectively representing the Canadian past in ways which will instill national pride in all its citizens. But whether this new institution will represent a faithful and comprehensive history or a cheerleading version of it remains to be seen. Behind it all is an admirable goal, to give our national memory a monument or shrine to make visible who we are, and to make it accessible to all the people.

I have thrown up a lot of obstacles to the realization of national identity in modern diversified societies. Unfortunately, I cannot resolve all the stressors and dilemmas which I have raised. I would be bigger than God if I had a band-aid for all our national divisions, and I would be a menacing tyrant if I had the power to imprint nationalist universals by fiat in the mind of every citizen.

What I would venture is that we all desire to be members of a national community—to participate personally in that cluster of ideas which not only holds us together but distinguishes us from all other nations, and to experience it as part of our extended personal identity. It is a level of the self that is big, but not too big, and still within imagining. National sentiments are strong when Canada does well in international ratings concerning our financial fundamentals. We are justifiably proud of our social welfare net, our peacekeeping objectives, or when planes fly overhead in formation, or when we take Olympic medals or win the World Series.

But we sense there is even more pro patria to be felt through education, historical consciousness, generous feelings toward our fellow citizens, and openness to dialogue and exchange. Emotions cannot be coerced, but when we feel them, they can help form the bonds that hold us together. In Canada, a dialogue among cultures has replaced the monolithic orientations of older and more traditional societies, which is now as it must be, but it is an ongoing experiment all the same, with an uncertain outcome. That brings us back to the intercultural and interfaith dialogues sponsored by such organizations as the IDI (Intercultural Dialogue Institute), which are vital to the shaping of our national ethos; we become one in sharing our differences and in understanding just how those differences still pertain both to our common humanity and to our national aspirations. In that regard, we can champion Fethullah Gulen’s great commission when he urges that “Each person who loves his or her country has to be a proper representative of that nation. Every member should invest in its values and put energy and aid into its development, and follow this pathway throughout life.” It is a great reciprocity conducted by granting identity to others and assuming an informed identity for ourselves.

A nation is dialogic. It is made by thinking it together. My purpose has been to think about the self and its experience in the context of nation, and how buying in cognitively adds to our experiencing of the self as a thinking participant. I can’t imagine a working nation without conditions like respect for law and the rights of others, respect for democratic institutions, and fiscal integrity. And here we get into the hard points for discussion. We need working languages to avoid our own Tower of Babel; thus it seems reasonable that we foster the two official languages of Canada as efficient vehicles of communication. We need citizens with religious sensibilities, even if they are confirmed atheists, but we must be wary of guiding ourselves in matters of the collective secular nation by religious principles more specific than generic ethics and civic morality; the French Revolution got that right. We need residents who imagine the common good and respect the dignity of life by instinct. And I would add my support for extending the historical consciousness of the nation, because Canada has had a rich history in its scant 400 hundred years of urban settlement. Canada has been pluralistic from its inception, yet we have forged a sense of a single dominion historically grounded and tied to a precious social and political formula based on reason and the spirit of order and cooperation. Yet I think we can remain true to our inspiring cultural diversity through discussion and sharing. Upon such a heritage, minds can build a nation.

I seem to recall that it was a beer company that branded us with a bit of national self-affirmation through its “I am Canadian” campaign. It was a “good feeling” ad. But Gulen said it more eloquently: “It is vital for citizens of a nation to say, ‘this is my country.’ The altruism of today will lead to the happiness of tomorrow’s generations.” And all this we do with our brains and minds in the most remarkable and mysterious of ways are, as a cognitive philosopher, are matters of eternal fascination to me. Nation-building we accomplish only by synchronizing our minds. We build an invisible yet compellingly real national community just by thinking in a collective way. Nation, in that sense, is a cognitive and emotional opportunity for the construction of the self, and clearly as a collective idea, nation has its adaptive value as a point of view from which we exercise our interests in the world. That alone gives grounds for the instauration of national bonds.

Donald A. Beecher is Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Editor’s note: The first part was published in the previous issue #99.

Even though Kant has very original insights that opened new gateways in the history of philosophy, his so-called “critical philosophy” is not devoid of defects. This article aims to present Kant’s account of causation and critically evaluate it.

Kant’s famous remark about his awe for “the starry heavens above me, and the moral law within me,” which is written in his gravestone, shows his orientation in philosophy. While he was interested in explaining the features of the universe and the nature of our theoretical knowledge, he did not ignore the practical aspect of our life that concerns with how to act in the right way. That is to say, ethics and natural science were main disciplines Kant tried to understand. However, this paper examines his analysis of theoretical knowledge and the natural science by focusing on his account of causality.

An introduction to Kant’s “critical philosophy”

Before Kant, there were two important traditions in modern philosophy: rationalism and empiricism. On the one hand, the rationalists assumed that we could obtain knowledge of the world by trusting in the power of our minds. Kant considered them to be dogmatic in the sense that they dogmatically assumed this idea without examining the nature and limits of our minds so as to see whether we can really achieve this goal or not. On the other hand, the empiricists usually distrusted the power of the mind in its attempt to know the world, and in its most extreme case, in Hume, it led to skepticism. In response to these two approaches, Kant suggested to examine critically the nature and limits of the mind and see to what degree we can have knowledge at all. This is called “critical philosophy.”

For Kant, our minds are not passive receivers of representations like mirrors. A normal flat mirror reflects the image from an object as if it is the same except in a two-dimensional way. It was a common attitude among philosophers before Kant to treat the mind like a mirror. The mirror does not change the form of the object. Likewise, the mind does not affect or change the form of the objects, it just receives them. However, Kant changed the whole picture. He treated minds as active filters. Whatever is reflected on it is shaped in a certain way. On this view, the mind is like a concave or convex mirror, or colormatic glasses but it is not like a flat mirror.

According to Kant, the mind has three faculties with different functions. These faculties are sensibility, understanding and reason. Through sensibility we get the raw material of experience. This material is structured and shaped by space and time which are not outside the mind but are the pure forms of the faculty of sensibility. What we get through this faculty is called “intuition.”

The faculty of understanding provides us with concepts, especially with “the pure concepts,” or categories, of which there are twelve in total, and are used in organizing the intuition. In brief, what is reflected on the mind as coming from the world is structured by the a priori forms of intuiton (space and time) to which the twelve categories of mind are applied.

Kant’s postulation of the mind as an active factor in obtaining knowledge is considered to be “the copernican revolution” in philosophy. Kant has a formula which depicts his system very well: “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitons without concepts are blind.” In order to have understanding, we should both have intuition and concepts. These two conditions should be fulfilled for a genuine and reliable understanding. First, concepts without intuiton do not give us understanding; we can just think about them and never be sure whether they are something about real or not. According to Kant, concepts such as soul, God, and free will are ideas to which no intuition corresponds. Second, if there were no ordering role of the mind, all the information we got from the world would be chaotic. For instance, we would not be able to identify a certain individual as a human being, an animal of a different sort or even as an object, because we lacked an ability to order and classify the information. Therefore, according to Kant, the world appears to us differently from as it is in itself due to the ordering character of the mind.

Kant calls the world as it appears to us “phenomena” and the world in itself “noumena.” The latter is beyond the limits of the legitimate realm of theoretical knowledge. We cannot understand it, and we cannot theoretically know anything about it: we can only think about it. Ideas such as those of God and free will are directed toward the nounemal realm. They belong to the faculty of reason and have a regulative role in ordering and unifying our experience. However, they are empty according to Kant. That is to say, there is no corresponding intuition to them in our experience. Thus, we cannot decide whether they really exist or not by theoretical knowledge. This conclusion of Kant’s critical philosophy may suggest an agnostic position towards God, (actually it led many people to become agnostics) according to which human beings can neither affirm nor deny the existence of God. However, Kant thought that he found a reason for believing in God in another domain, namely in practical reason and knowledge. Nevertheless, Kant’s attempt to show the illegitemacy of theoretical knowledge regarding neumena undermines itself. This can be seen especially in his analysis of causality.

Synthetic a priori truths

Kant takes mathematical science and natural science for granted. He accepts them as successful sciences and tries to understand the conditions under which they are possible. His conclusion is that these sciences can be grounded only on “synthetic a priori judgments.” There are two important conceptual distinctions here: the analytic-synthetic and the a priori-a posteriori. The former is a semantic distinction, the latter is epistemological. A statement is analytic if its predicate-concept is included in the subject-concept, otherwise it is synthetic. The proposition that all black cats are black or that bachelors are unmarried is analytic. A black cat is black, the predicate is embedded in the subject here. And bachelors are by definition unmarried because a bachelor is a single male. However, the color of my cat is not included in its definition. A priori judgments are known independently of experience whereas a posteriori ones are known by appealing to experience as a justification. We know that everything is identical to itself without any experience. But we need some experiential evidence to affirm the statement that the Morning Star is identical with the Evening Star. It was a scientific discovery that those stars were actually the same, namely Venus.

For Kant, all analytic judgments are a priori. He also claims that there are synthetic a priori statements. This is a bit unusual because we normally know synthetic statements by experience. How can we know a statement a priori if its predicate is not included in the subject? Kant explains the possibility of such judgements by appealing to the mind’s role in shaping experience. According to him, by applying the categories to intuition, we put what is in our minds into our experiences. So, “we can cognize of things a priori only what we ourselves have put into them.” In other words, the categories shape the experience and we know that aspect of experience a priori since it belongs to us. The conceptual distinctions presented so far enable us to understand Kant’s account of causality better.

Causality

From a historical point of view, Kant’s account of causality was a response to Hume’s scepticism about causation. Let us first see what Hume said about this issue. Hume points out that we only observe correlated events in nature, and that there are some regular correlations and some irregular ones. For instance, we always observe that lightning precedes thunder. On the basis such regular correlations, we infer that the events in question are also causally related. That is to say, lightning causes thunder. However, according to Hume, we never observe causation between events. What is observed is just that two events are correlated in a regular manner. Causation is what our mind is inclined to infer when faced with such regularities. Causal links are produced by the human mind as subjective mental operations. So, there is no objective causality between events: it is our subjective interpretation of the regularity between them.

If we consider the fact that electrical charges are regarded as the common causal factor behind lightning and thunder by contemporary scientists, we can appreciate what Hume said. We do not observe causal links. Perhaps, sometime in the future, scientists will propose another physical factor as the cause for thunder, lightning and maybe for electical charges. Since we do not observe causal links, we can never be sure about what causes what. Hume extends this skepticism so far that nothing really causes anything else. There is no objective causation; there are just correlations in our experience. In other words, he also denies the objectivity of the universal causal principle, namely that every effect or event must have a cause.

As a response, Kant distinguishes two different levels in analysing causation. On the one hand, he tries to prove the objectivity of the universal principle of causality. Kant is aware of the difficulty of proving it on the basis of experience. Such a universal principle cannot be based on experience. Kant considers this univeral principle as a synthetic a priori truth. It is valid for anything we experience because all our experience is shaped by the category of causality. He formulates this principle in the following way: everything that happens presupposes that which it follows in accordance with a rule.

According to Kant, the phenomena consisting in irreversible sequences indicate the causal order. As an example of irreversible sequence, he mentions the sequence when we look at a ship moving down the river. In this case, what we apprehend is an objective process. And its order cannot be arranged otherwise than in this very succession. So, when we watch the ship’s departure, the order in which our visual states occur is not up to us. As a conclusion, Kant argues that in irrevesible cases, the apprehension of one perception which occurs necessarily succeeds that of the other which preceded according to a rule called “the law of the connection of cause and effect.”

On the other hand, Kant’s analysis of irreversible sequences does not suggest anything about particular causal relations. A particular sequence of irreversible representations does not enable us to identify the cause of the event in question: it only indicates that the event in question must have a cause (in the sense that some other event precedes it), even if we do not know what this cause is. Kant expresses this point by saying that “Everything in nature, as well in the inanimate as in the animated world, happens or is done according to rules, though we do not always know them….”

While there are some ambigious passages indicating as if Kant has identified some necessary causal links between particular events (such as that the sunshine caused the warmth of a stone), those passages should be interpreted under the light of this general statement here. The reason simply is that Kant aims to exemplify his view of causation in such contexts rather than identifying some particular causal links.

A fundamental problem with Kant’s analysis of causality

As we have seen, Kant treats the universal principle of causality as a synthetic a priori truth. In doing so, he limits causal ascriptions to the phenomenal realm because it is the phenomenal realm not the noumenal realm, which is shaped by our minds. So, according to Kant causal talk about noumena, things in themselves, is not legitimate and does not give us theoretical knowledge.

However, the question that should be answered in this regard is if the human mind interacts with noumena. If so, how does it interact? In some passages, Kant seems to consider noumena to be an empty and limiting concept. We cannot know anything about this realm (even whether or not noumenal objects such as free will, soul and God exist), therefore it is just a heuristic device indicating what is beyond our theoretical knowledge. Thus, we cannot say anything about the relationship between the mind and noumena, because noumena are beyond our understanding. Otherwise, anything we say can only be an illegitimate speculation.

Nevertheless, such passages do not represent Kant’s whole philosophical outlook. As a fundamental aspect of his critical philosophy, Kant assumes that our experience is shaped by us but not totally created by us. There is an external element to experience that is independent of us. He must accept that there are noumenal objects even though we do not know what they are. They are not just conceptual tools formulated to define the phenomenal realm. In fact, there are several passages in which Kant explicitly ascribes causal efficiency to the noumenal realm.

For instance, when Kant distances himself from the idealist philosophers who claim that everything we perceive is mind-dependent and there is no objective reality outside the mind, he claims that “there are bodies without us, that is, things which, though quite unknown to us as to what they are in themselves” and that we know them “by their representations which their influence on our sensibility procures us.”

As another example, this time regarding the free will of human beings, Kant thinks that human beings are free with respect to the noumenal realm but under causal determination with respect to phenomenal realm. When he tries to account for moral responsibility, he presents the free will as having its own causal power to be able to appropriate particular human actions. The following is an explicit remark: “The will is a kind of causality of living beings so far as they are rational.”

As it is clearly seen, Kant is forced to accept that the realm of things in themselves (noumena) causes the realm of appearances (phenomena) and this is exactly what undermines the very foundation of his critical project as limiting theoretical knowledge to phenomena.

Conclusion

Kant certainly has an insight in making a distinction between phenomena and noumena; however, his way of distinguishing these two realms undermines his own critical philosophy. There is a similar distinction made by Muslim theologians between dhahir (phenomena) and batin (noumena). In their case, categories of causality and existence for instance are legitimately applicable to noumenal realm, but they argue that we do not know how they are applicable. According to them, for instance, we know that God exists but we do not know how He exists. His existence is quite different from our existence. As Descartes says: “A finite mind cannot grasp [adequately] God, who is infinite. But that does not prevent [the finite thinker] having a perception of God, just as one can touch a mountain without being able to put one’s arms around it.” As a conclusion, Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena should be improved so that it enables us to ascribe existence and causality to the noumenal realm even in a minimal sense.

Through this religion, humanity welcomed the most profound and rewarding transformations spreading in ever-widening circles from the center and witnessed the most vital changes. It was Islam which indicated the paths leading to absolute peace and salvation; it offered decisive solutions to the problems of humanity that had amassed over centuries. And today, despite the age-long efforts of many aggressive and brutal people to defame its luminous face and prevent its advance, Islam still maintains its position as a unique source of hope and treats everyone who takes refuge in it with an elixir of immortality.

Although there have been some who chose to darken their fate by breaking away from Islam during a gloomy period or by opposing it for the sake of obstinacy in a false cause, Islam’s ever fresh and fulfilling message has always been like a lighthouse for those on the voyage and a safe haven for those in peril. For all some people may say, the entire world will one day appreciate this great truth thanks to the real representatives of this religion and will run to its climate of soothing breezes. Who knows? This religion may embrace us all, just like in the first ages of revival, and blow a new soul into this moribund world! May the followers of this religion not disappoint those who pin their hopes on them by dallying and wavering; may they not shake the trust in them that has started to grow in public opinion.

In a single breath, this religion once saved the masses that had sunk up to their throats in heedlessness, ignorance, and aberration, and it elevated them to lofty horizons beyond imagining; likewise, it will certainly be a source of inspiration for today’s dispersed and aimless masses and speak to them of the privilege of being human.

One day, with its well-preserved heavenly nature, this religion will wake the riotous masses of this age to being truly human and will reveal the divine in Islam’s essence to everyone; for this religion is not an empty system that consists of nothing but abstract measures, principles, and theories. Islam is a combination of systems that is perfectly compatible with human nature and rich enough to meet all the material and spiritual needs of humanity. It is the voice originating from the realms beyond the heavens that promises a bright future for every individual and society. And now, with its unique rhetoric and enchanting effect engrossing everyone, it offers to humanity a mysterious key to unlock the gates of this world and the afterlife by way of carrying them to the heavenliness once attained in the past.

Although our religion is not being fully expressed due to some of its disloyal followers and destructive enemies-as is no doubt the case today-its voice will be heard in the skies and beyond at a providential period of time, by means of the efforts of its auspicious students who have managed to wed their heart with their mind; this will be the true shab-i arus (wedding night) for the people of their time.

If such splendors were achieved in the darkest days of history, why should they not be realized once again? As long as they are aware of their own wonder and spiritual merit, human beings are the same human beings that they were in the past, happiness in this world and in the hereafter is the main goal as it was in the past, the disciplines need to reach the goal are the same disciplines as they were before …. All that remains is for the representatives who are spiritually alert with faith, hope, and tenacity to roll up their sleeves ready for work. Hearts are under God’s control; so all this can come true one day. “When God manifests Himself with His favor, He makes everything easy / He creates the means for attainment, and grants it instantly” (Ibrahim Haqqi). We cannot say representatives of the necessary caliber do not exist at all today. It is true that there is some slackening of enthusiasm and we are acting slowly, but it is also true that many exceptional projects have been realized so far.

So many of our precious values have been revived all over the world that to ignore that fact would be ungrateful, just as it would be unfortunate to remain in despair while they stand before our eyes. How many other developments can we refer to that have been achieved as fast as that in our day? How many other revivals were there that have been as immediate as that of our day? And how many philosophies and worldviews have we seen that have been embraced by the masses in a time as short as this revival we see in our day? The world is the same planet, humanity is the same humanity, the goal is the same goal; then, why should past achievements not be realized again? Once the long-awaited truthful representatives can make their voices heard, albeit at low volume, but in a tone appropriate for all humans of diverse natures, and if those with sensible minds and spirits are made aware of their own true values, then fair-thinking souls who have always sought a glimpse of light throughout the ages will be saved from the confinements of this world and will rush forward to the expansive lands of these enlightened representatives, discovering a very different life.

Opposing revivalist movements, hedonistic circles try to sabotage every positive development; resistance comes especially from a powerful minority whose minds are completely fixed on gaining this world at the expense of the afterlife. These circles go all out to damn and smear the most positive and innocent activities that do not fit into their worldview, if it can be called a view. While they engender a new conflict every day by attacking every thing that is carried out on behalf of religion, sometimes with words like “backwardness” and at other times with delirious slanders like “fundamentalism” and “fundamentalist,” the pure souls who have awakened to true human values have always smiled back and entreated God the Ever-Patient, hoping that even those hostile circles-who are also favored with the wonder of being human-may one day feel regret for what they have done and ask pardon.

What falls to our share today is to put our faith in God, to walk with added determination on the path we know as straight, to embrace everyone as compassionately as we can, and to pronounce even to hostile groups our overflowing love for humanity. What remains beyond this is to be content with God’s will, to assume active patience against the exasperations of the time, and to move forward with consideration.

No one else, you, the candidly expected

A voice unreserved, sentimental

Nourishing sermons forever in memories

The sublime pundit,

Within an exalted sound

You left us an earnest legacy

More than a touching discourse

Guiding the devout minds

Into soulful sincerity.

Therefore, we must work within the Islamic world with its understanding of faith; its own acceptance and interpretation of Islam; its consciousness of the good; its zeal and yearning for spiritual ecstasy; its reason, logic, mode and system of thinking; its style of expressing and communicating itself; and its own institutions, which will lead to a comprehensive renewal. The fundamentals of our spiritual life, religious thought and imagination are responsible for our past success. Religion gives meaning to humanity and the universe, explains us to ourselves, and embraces and influences every aspect of our individual and collective life.

The axis of all believers’ acts is worship, which is directed toward the Hereafter and seeking God’s good pleasure. There is no “this world/that world” or “mind/heart” dichotomy, for the believers’ emotions and reason are united and their understanding does not ignore their inspiration. So in their mental world, experience stretches up to the mind and knowledge is a high bastion, reinforced with understanding, wisdom, and intuition. Their understanding contains no gap.

Religion does not contradict science and reason and cannot be blamed for clashes among social sections. Such conflicts arise from ignorance, ambition, or vested interests. Clashes between religious people occur because they do not have the same degree of belief and so cannot preserve sincerity or overcome their feelings. Indeed, such conflicts can be avoided only by establishing religion and its institutions in our daily life so that it becomes our society’s life-blood.

The Islamic community needs to be revived by combining serious efforts to preserve Islam’s original principles with the Qur’an’s extensiveness and universality, so that it meets the needs of all people in all times and places, and so that it embraces all facets of life. Islamic history has recorded many renewals, reforms, and revivals. Legal schools represented new developments in jurisprudence and law, Sufi orders turned paths to the heart and the soul into broad highways, and our schools and colleges sought to make sense of the universe and its inhabitants. This latest renewal and revival must combine all of these, for without turning to certainty in faith, sincerity in deeds, and excellence in thought and feeling, it will not occur.

All acts of worship should be performed completely and as outlined in the Qur’an and Sunna. Words should be the means of prayer, and soul and sincerity are essential; the Sunna should be the guide and consciousness a necessity. Only God should be the goal, for if these acts are not performed as required, how are they different from comparable mundane activities?

Somehow, we must mobilize ourselves to raise the physicians of the soul and essential reality who can fill this vacuum in us, eradicate our weaknesses, rescue us from being slaves to our body and carnal desires, and direct us to a level of life in the heart and the soul. We need physicians of spirit and essence, spirit, and reality, physicians whose hearts are open to all fields of knowledge and all spiritual inspirations and Divine blessings. In short, we need whole comprehensive minds.

Such people must be in constant contact and interaction with the atoms, molecules, and particles of the people, just as the mind is in constant contact with the body. They will embrace everyone. By conveying the messages of their soul to all and elevating them to the level of people who have knowledge, skills, and genius for the future, they will present them for the common good and society’s benefit. They will purify everyone of the foulness of the age and guide them toward human perfection.

Moreover, they will transform the media into the voice and breath of social and religious life, and use it to teach the owners of the darkest feelings, thoughts, and voices how to become human. And they will save our educational and training institutions by once again making them open and responsive to the requirements of the present, reorder and organize them according to historical perspectives, and raise them, through the use of styles, methodologies, and planning of a high standard, to a higher level.

Thus we will rise as a society from the misery of rigid and empty formalism to true scientific understanding; from dignifying diverse vile and disgraceful works with the title of “art” to true art and aesthetics; from customs, addictions, and obsessions of unknown origin to the consciousness of a morality based on history and religion; from the snares of various gnawing thoughts in our hearts to the oneness of service, submission, consciousness, and resignation.

Capitalism, communism, socialism, the hybrids of social democracy, and liberalism have nothing new to offer. Our world is open to the new world order. It might even be our renaissance. This revival will make our world of thinking and feeling, and also our understanding of art and aesthetics, gain a heretofore unknown depth and variety. We will find our own aesthetic pleasures, reach our own music, and discover our own romanticism. In short, we will secure our people’s future.

Our flag will be effort and dynamism; our source of strength will be our consciousness of faith and truth. We will no longer have to look for handouts, for we will regain our honor and remain honorable only by holding fast to our own values and surrendering wholeheartedly to God.

Toward Our Own World

Many eras and lands have seen movements that claimed to be reformations and reconstructions. Such claims have always been controversial. One domain is now ripe for a genuine reformation that will embrace all creation: the Muslim world.

Once, almost all of the natural and religious sciences, from Sufism to logic, as well as from urban planning to aesthetics, were embodied in geniuses who studied phenomena in minute detail. Such names are too many to mention here. By mobilizing all of our brilliant minds and souls, Muslims may soon realize a second or third renaissance. Yes, we will start by recognizing Islam’s soul and essence, spirit and reality, and reach toward the re-interpretation of existence, from the boundless Divine climates of Sufism to universal metaphysics; from Islamic self-accounting and self-control to the vigilance, circumspection, and self-possession that make humanity gain value; from the cities and urbanization, in which our inner world takes repose and breathes, to the aesthetics that will be the property of all; from the art that embroiders the soul and essence, spirit, and reality everywhere and seeks infinity in all that it embroiders, to the true pleasures of an aesthetic, which becomes more and more other-worldly and refined, and integrates with the beyond. By all of these means, we can open a new chapter.

Our spiritual life has been to a large part extinguished for many years; our religious world has become dysfunctional; our hearts’ tongues have been tied as people have forgotten intense, ecstatic love and spiritual ecstasy; we have transformed all minds that read and think into minds devoted to a hard positivism; bigotry has been built instead of firmness of character, strength of religion, and perseverance in truth. Even in asking for the Hereafter and Paradise, petitioners have in mind some continuation of this world’s ordinary happiness. It is therefore impossible to open a new chapter without ripping such misdirected, deep-rooted thoughts and considerations out of ourselves.

This does not mean that the foulness that has sullied our souls for centuries cannot be eradicated. However, as this foulness caused us to fall, we must get rid of it before we can make any progress. For example, we must abandon our greed, laziness, ambition for fame, selfishness and worldly-mindedness, and replace these with the spirit of contentedness, willpower and courage, modesty and humility, altruism and spirituality, piety and godliness, all of which are the essence and truth of Islam.

Fortunately, we have such heroes among us, and the renewal and change that they will bring about will be shaped by the Qur’an and tempered by human nature. Both its enemies and the masses will be unable to prevent it, for history proves that only a few individual geniuses bring about a renaissance. Such people, who have emerged with a complete spiritual awareness in almost every age, established schools of law and schools of thought, both of which breathed the spirit of reconstruction and reform into the masses. Their successors followed them and their thoughts, as did the masses that sheltered in their enlightened climate. Such great guides became the people’s life-blood and soul, and lived with them like a spirit. In their absence, society and the people declined.

Now, as the days turn to spring and dawn chases dawn, we are becoming hopeful and expectant, praying to our Lord: “Grant us willpower supported by your Will, which will be the foundation of our souls. Make our hearts blossom as the flowers in Paradise, and make our souls reach the secrets of the innermost part of Your Divinity. Show our people the ways to revival in the Muhammadi line.” To ask for and expect this is both our right and duty, the natural consequence of our faith. However, we must refer frequently to our glorious past and take shelter in the values that made it magnificent. This is the way that other civilizations renewed themselves.

As long as we can recover our thoughts, feelings, methodology, and philosophy, it will be enough to bring them together to find our heavenly and immortal style. Thus, we should first re-examine all of the roads that we will take, and then repair and reinforce them. We must cultivate the inspiration and fruitfulness of religious longing and desire, firmness, gravity, sobriety, and wisdom in our reasoning and logic; stability and humanity, with the freedom to be ourselves; philosophical depth, refinement, and contemplative abstraction in our arts and philosophy. All of these should be logical at their core and inspired by revelation.

God’s good pleasure is the ultimate goal. The soul is before and ahead of the body. The self is an essential dynamism that will ignite the consciousness of duty under the heart’s rule. The love of humanity and country is an indispensable passion, and the duty to be moral is a vital provision for the journey. We must adhere to the Qur’an, and recognize humanity’s character and real human values as significant sources of power. Goals and objectives must be just, fair, and sacred, and the ways leading to them must be indicated by the Qur’an and the Sunna.

A: Atheism means denying God’s existence, rejecting His commandments, avoiding religious reflection and seriousness, and considering oneself independent of Him. As such beliefs negate the concept of sin, people imagine that they can live as they please and thus begin to corrupt their hearts and minds. Atheism spreads because education is misused, young people are neglected, and schools defend and foster it.

Ignorance about the essentials of faith and religion is the primary cause of atheism. People whose minds, hearts, and souls are not directed toward the truth become vulnerable. Only God’s help and grace can save them. If a community does not counter this trend, its members’ hearts and minds open to deviation.

Atheism first manifests itself as a lack of interest in the principles of faith. Such people say this is a positive attitude, for it represents a desire for the mind’s independence and freedom of thought. As the demands of faith are strenuous, indifference turns toward what is easier. Seeking to avoid honest and serious reflection, it easily falls into neglect and then heedlessness, atheism, and even contempt for religion. Given this, atheism is not the result of sound reasoning, intuition or experience, or scientific truth, but of a lazy yet sometimes active and militant mood of not caring and of rebellion.

God’s countless manifestations testify that there is only One Creator and Governor who administers, directs, and sustains this universe. We may think of each manifestation as a letter or book from God to us, reflecting His Divine Attributes in a comprehensible way. These Attributes are seen everywhere in creation. However, some who do not understand these things correctly present nature, as well as it principles and relationships, in ways designed to make many people (especially the young) abandon true faith.

Does Science Support Atheism?

Much has been said and written about the natural world’s delicate balance and innumerable subtle harmonies. Such an order can be attributed only to the All-Mighty. Planets and stars move within an interrelated complexity of drifts and orbits that are infinitely more precise than anything we can design or make. If what we make is accepted as evidence of intelligent design, why is the far more vast and complicated universe considered an exception?

Nature resembles a huge factory of enormous generative power. Its working principles are astonishingly subtle and supple, yet firmly established in reassuring patterns and rhythms. From where does nature get these operating rules? Claims that nature is self-created are not convincing. Of course one of the operating rules is a measure of self-organizing power. But what is the origin of this rule?

Principles are non-essential attributes of a thing or being and, as such, are secondary and dependent on substance and essence. Attributes cannot exist before or independently of the compound or organism of which they are attributes. Thus if a plant demonstrates some self-organizing power by seeking light, moisture, and nutrients for its growth, it means that a limited self-organizing power has been embedded in its seed. Similarly, the principle of attraction in physics operates in and through existent masses, distances, and forces. To claim that such principles are the origin or source of existent things or beings is untenable. Just as untenable is the confidence with which such claims are asserted. To claim that this extraordinarily subtle and ordered universe is the outcome of haphazard coincidences is absurd, contradictory, and quite unscientific, for no evidence supports this claim.

As the result of long experiments and reflection, Muller declared that reason could not explain the origin of life.1 He established, on behalf of science and scientists, the absurdity of coincidence as a possible explanation. Similarly, after a 22-year series of studies, the Soviet Institute of Chemistry, under the chairmanship of Aleksandr Oparin, proved that the laws of chemistry and chemical reactions shed no light on the origin of life, and that science still has no answer to this question.(2)

When these scientists acknowledged the limitations to human inquiry, they did so on behalf of all science and scientists. Yet such work has not undone the damage done by earlier, less careful scientists, who offered guesses as reliable scientific theory. Unfortunately, general attitudes and values continue to be shaped by such guesses instead of the realities established by better scientists.

For example, many textbooks and encyclopedias continue to present Darwin’s theory of evolution as fact instead of theory. Meanwhile, a growing number of scientists, particularly evolutionists, argue that Darwin’s theoryis not a truly scientific theory. Many critics admit that we still have no idea how this evolution took place. While scientists and other experts have produced various ideas about probable causes and the actual process, the general public and less-informed scientists continue to believe in this theory.

Research projects and published studies cast doubt on evolution and seek to give a truer picture of nature as creation and our place in it. Works like Why Do We Believe in God? help those who considered non-believers in evolution as rather odd people reconsider their opinion and reflect more wisely on the matter.

Given the fact that a sound, reliable understanding of the natural world leads to belief in a single, universal Creator, atheism has more to do with obstinacy, prejudice, and a refusal to give up illusions than with the mind’s independence or freedom of thought. Young people remain vulnerable, for they do not fully understand their behavior’s nature and consequences, their spiritual being and their resulting deep-seated spiritual needs, and the balance between material and non-material values that characterizes a total human existence. Thus they are easily deceived by outdated concepts presented as scientific truths, although scientists know (and have said) that they are no more than theories. This is why teaching and learning about the truth are more important today than other duties and obligations.

If this vital task is not taken up, we may be unable to rectify the situation later on. Some of those evil consequences are with us already. We, this unlucky generation, are deprived of good teachers teachers possessing inner unity and harmony of mind and heart, self-knowledge in their deepest thoughts and feelings, a desire to teach others, and a willingness to suffer to promote others’ happiness and welfare. We hope such noble-minded teachers will arise to rescue people from their current moral and spiritual suffering.

If this can be done, present and future generations will acquire the necessary stability in their thinking and reasoning about life’s great questions. They will be able to resist the lure of false beliefs and illusions, and thereby be saved from the anxiety of constantly doubting the nature and purpose of their lives. They will be immunized, at least partially, against atheism and its attendant self-centered and neurotic behaviors. Atheism is caused by a lack of knowledge and learning, an inability to synthesize one’s inner and outer life, and is the result of an undernourished heart and soul. People cling to what they know, and resist what they do not knowor at least try to remain uninterested and unconcerned.

External Influences

The mass media continually presents ideas, lifestyles, and character types that encourage self-indulgence and self-abandonment. Such messages encourage young people to become punks or whatever the latest craze is; to seek immediate gratification and pleasure; and to prefer triviality and banality, loudness and vulgarity to cultivating their minds. People quickly adopt ways considered exciting and attractive. What they do not know becomes even more strange and alien, and eventually a matter of total indifference. Thus we have to find effective ways of introducing young people to the deeper ways of religious life, ways that lead toward tranquillity and light, and away from anxiety and darkness. Young people are excitable and susceptible. They crave limitless freedom and have countless unsatisfied appetites and desires. Their overly generous hearts and minds cause imbalance and disharmony, which can lead them toward atheism. They prefer immediate pleasure, however slight or brief, to the misery and distress that come in the wake of indulgence. They jump at the pleasures and enjoyments that Satan displays to them, and so prepare their own calamity. They fly to the fire of atheism just as moths are drawn to light. While ignorance and unfed hearts and souls increase, materialism and carnality gradually subvert the desire for truth and annul any nobility of purpose. This is what happened with Faust.3

This man, who desired extraordinary powers to do whatever he wished for a limited period, sold his soul cheaply to Mephistopheles, Satan’s agent. He then wasted these powers by pursuing trivial pleasures instead of serving humanity. When the soul is dead, the heart dies, compassion disappears, and the mind and reason become so confused that people become helpless victims of their own whims or current fads. Those who indulge in carnal and sensual passions will suffer crises and change direction continually, applaud every new fashion in thought as if it were the truth, and swing from one ideology to another from confusion to doubt and back again. Faith, a steady sense of duty, or a patient and enduring heart will not attract them. Nor will they find any merit in moral education, self-discipline, contemplation, the soul’s improvement, or strengthening their morals and manners. Wholly addicted to triviality and self-indulgence, they will deny our ancestors’ achievement and remain willfully ignorant of what real culture and civilization can make possible: a balance between spirituality and sanity, between virtue and happiness.

As not everyone can be saved, we should focus on educating those young people who have not yet been overtaken by the worst habits. We must teach them the fundamental principles of the system upon which we depend and to which our existence belongs. We must lead them to a systematic, straight, and honest way of thinking. If we cannot, we will see our community or nation continue to sink into moral and spiritual corruption. An additional cause of atheism is the deliberate rejection of all constraints and prohibitions. This tendency entered Muslim societies from western Europe via a degenerate form of existentialism (mainly French) that replaced traditional values and formal religious education with absolute individual freedom. The theory was that the individual would (and could) mature and develop into a noble, moral being through personal experience. This theory has never produced sane, caring, and compassionate people. All it has done is intensify misery and selfishness by isolating individuals from their families, traditions, and their selves. Its adherents cultivate no morals or tastes and do not try to find the truth, for all they are interested in is their own shallow private life.

In short, they simply survive from moment to moment in the illusory hope of one day finding happiness. These few reflections do not cover the whole subject. Yet I hope that future guides, teachers, and leaders with discernment and foresight will consider them when trying to stop the spread of deviation and atheism. I have presented a brief insight, with the prayer that some people may be alerted to the truth, conquer the self, and regain the means to do what is good.

Footnotes

1. Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin (d. 1980): Russian biochemist noted for his studies on the origin of life from chemical matter. By drawing on the insights of chemistry, he extended the Darwinian theory of evolution backward in time to explain how simple organic and inorganic materials might have combined into complex organic compounds and how the latter might have formed the primordial organism. (www.britannica.com)
2. Hermann Joseph Muller (d. 1967): American geneticist best remembered for his demonstration that mutations and hereditary changes can be caused by X rays striking the genes and chromosomes of living cells. His discovery of artificially induced mutations in genes had far-reaching consequences, and he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1946. (www.britannica.com)
3. Written by Goethe (d. 1832), this classic work is the story of a person’s spiritual journey and self-discovery.

We see these qualities in the following Qur’anic verse, as well as in many others: Lo, We have created humanity in the most perfect form and nature. Such people would understand this to mean that they are the most adorned and beautiful form of creation, be it material or spiritual. They enjoy the perfect state of creation, and are conscious of the unlimited gifts they have received.

Comprehending the verse: Humanity took on the burden that the earth, the sky, and the mountains rejected in fear of not being able to carry it out, they perceive that humanity is the sole candidate for reaching immortality.

These people may be considered as travelling the path to becoming a complete person, as long as they continue to develop further the gifts with which they were adorned and to live according to divine inspiration.

Such mysteries like the meaning of life and death, the reason of existence, and our responsibilities storm such people’s minds. They think deeply on concerns related to sin, doing good, and being pious. The meaning of catastrophes that harm humanity agitates their minds, the light of divine wisdom shines in their hearts, and the rays of this light reflects on their souls.

All of this allows them to see behind the curtain… Their astonishment and amazement turns into love and affection, and they turn to the Creator of their souls and feel contentment. Souls at this level are not spoiled by Divine benevolence or shaken by its loss, for they see benevolence and loss as one and understand that reward and punishment are the same. While others are spoiled by such favors and descend into pessimism at the first sign of tribulation, ideal people gain even when they seem doomed to lose. They manage to grow roses in the desert, to produce sugar from a dry cane.

Ideal people know that they are being continually tested and refined so that they may attain bliss. Even though they face fatal catastrophes and fall into the most terrible whirlpools, even in those most helpless and distressing moments they hear comforting and consoling whispers from the other world coming from right inside their souls, and bow in gratitude and admiration.

Such people have absolute confidence and trust in God, because they believe and trust in that omnipresent and omnipotent Immortal Power. The pure belief dwelling in the depths of their hearts, their conceptions that give them unbelievable perspectives, and their knowledge and thoughts raise them to such a point that they almost can hear a voice say: œDo not fear, do not be sad! Enter the eternal home of Paradise as a reward for your good deeds! And then they would witness the most wonderful pleasures of all.

Ideal people try to remain far from sin, for they have designed their lives according to the Divine Law in which they believe so sincerely. And, because they always struggle against their egos, they have no time or energy to engage in ignorant pastimes or bohemian lifestyles their eyes always watch their Friend’s beauties, their minds are on the Hereafter, their hearts are bright and colorful gardens open to visits from spiritual beings and they themselves are travelers in and explorers of this mystic land and atmosphere

Worldly people, enslaved to their egos, live to fulfil their carnal desires. Never content with themselves, they feel no tranquility. But ideal people are always at peace with themselves. They are content and, furthermore, place their knowledge and understanding at humanity’s service. They courageously devote themselves to ridding the world of injustice and tyranny, and are not afraid to protect their land and honor. And, at times, they gracefully spread their wings of forgiveness over their brothers and sisters.

Knowing that everything but God is mortal and will fade away, ideal people do not bow to that which is not God. They resist the material world’s seductive attractions evaluate and use in the way of God that which has been bestowed upon them, just like heavenly beings examine all that occurs, like a scientist in a lab dedicate their lives to humanity and leave a much better world for the coming generations.

Ideal people constantly pursue God’s blessing and strive to be true. Neither their bodily passions nor spiritual goals cast doubt on their sincerity. They value all servants of God as the greatest of people, and appreciate each one as their peer. In their hearts, they melt any harshness or bad feelings coming from others, thus showing how kindness defeats wrong.

In their bright atmosphere, spears of lightning fade away and melt Nimrod, a merciless emperor who ordered Prophet Abraham to be thrown into a bonfire, would see his fire dim and turn into a green garden to soothe harsh and ill-tempered souls.

Most of us have not reached this level yet. We cannot confront wrong-doing with kindness. We confront harshness with harshness and hate with hate. We convince ourselves that our thoughts are objective and not really our own selfish desires. Thus we besmirch our struggle in the way of God and lose, although we had set out to gain. If it were not for the Qur’an’s own beauty, attractiveness, and life-giving rays, the misconceptions we have caused and the bad examples we have set would have prevented our religious mission from seeing this day. 

Unfortunately, the biggest millennial issue was the Y2K syndrome. Instead of focusing on this temporary problem, we should have been concentrating on evaluating the century we so recently left, and devising ways to improve people’s mental and spiritual capacity. However the focus was Y2K, which showed once more that advances in technology and science are not enough to make us happy. Now that this particular “crisis” has passed, to what issue should we turn our attention? In our opinion, we should focus on our need for a new philosophy to unite our hearts and minds.

Science and religion have been separated for centuries, and religion has been accused of being implausible and superfluous. But during the last years of the twentieth century, we saw some new approaches to understanding religion and reconsidering human beings as believers. Despite this positive development, some futurists still claim that the next century will be one of religious polarization. The strongest answer to this claim is to understand the meaning and purpose of-life: “Altruism, beauty, and sincerity are the essentials of the world. No matter what happens, the world will come to those essentials.”

The continued call for interfaith and intercivilizational dialogue are strong indications that the next century will be one of mutual understanding. This is the position taken by the author of our first article, who writes: “I believe and hope that the world of the new millennium will be a happier, more just, and more compassionate place, contrary to the fears of some people. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all come from the same root, have almost the same essentials, and are nourished from the same source. Although they have lived as rival religions for centuries, the common points among them and their shared responsibility to build a happy world for all creatures of God make interfaith dialogue among them necessary. This dialogue has now expanded to include the religions of Asia and other areas. The results have been positive.”

The second coming of Jesus is another factor for hope. Perhaps he is the one who will unite our hearts and minds, and remind us of the reason behind creation. In this issue, one of our authors deals with this topic from an Islamic point of view.

We sincerely hope that the new millennium justifies our optimistic expectations…

Alexander Graham Bell, the famous inventor and scientist, mentioned three rules designed to keep people mentally young, alert, and strong. These are: observe, remember, and compare. Following these easy rules shows us how to build our perceptions, sharpen our intellect, and discover new ways of thinking. The first step is to observe concrete facts that can be found all around us, the second step is to remember the observed facts, and the third step is to compare them and formulate conclusions. As Bell said: “These conclusions are real knowledge, and they are your own.”

These three simple rules always keep our brains busy and alert, lead us to think and become aware of the facts around us, and help us make connections between these facts that will take us to real knowledge. Human beings are the only creatures who can think and who are always trying to acquire more knowledge. Dr. Kopil states that only man makes his own history by using his free will in conjunction with his knowledge. In humanity’s attempt to deal with the difficulties of the surrounding world, many men and women have used their minds and their search for more knowledge to make many inventions and discoveries. Today, men and women still struggle to give shape to the world by pursuing knowledge. In the words of Dr. Bell, who changed the faith of the world with his works and inventions: “The great advantage in pursuing knowledge is that we may capture something that will contribute to the welfare of the world.” The essential point is to use the power of the mind to bring safety and happiness to this world. Dr. Mahmud states that this is possible only by mental and spiritual purification. When the power of knowledge is used for other purposes, it often leads to dangerous and embarrassing results.

Dr. Bell gives us detective stories as an example, and asks us: “What is a detective story, if it is not a record of observing, remembering, and comparing facts and of then drawing conclusions?” Let’s put ourselves in place of detectives. Our first and most important goal is to be aware of the facts around us, to pursue that knowledge which will lead us to the best solution. We need to remember each clue we collect, and to make sure that we do not miss a single detail. At the end, we will find ourselves trying to draw the correct conclusion by comparing all of the knowledge that we have gathered. It is easy to reach conclusions from established facts. But what is important for us is to reach our own conclusions by thinking, asking, evaluating, and keeping our minds busy and alert-just like detectives. I think this gives us more satisfaction and pleasure than having answers just given to us free-of-charge.

It is also necessary to emphasize the mental education of very young children. Dr. Caprio states that knowledge is not objective and does not have an absolute structure. What we know and understand is only our perceptions of reality. The essential thing is not to tell children things directly, for this might kill the child’s imagination, creativeness, and, most important of all, the mind’s power to think. Instead, encourage them to discover things for themselves. Asking them questions is alright, but also encourage them to find the answers themselves. Dr. Wood claimed that knowledge is the product of active construction, which we make and share with others. According to Dr. Bell, if children arrive at the wrong answer, do not give them the right answer and do not tell them that they are mistaken or wrong; rather, ask other questions to help them realize their own mistake and push their inquiry further.

Dr. Bell gives us several examples: “Suppose you wanted to teach a child about moisture and condensation. You should state to him that there are minute particles of water vapor in the air exhaled from the lungs, and that this water vapor will be condensed under certain conditions.”

In the first example, you did not allow your child to discover the fact and to reach his or her own conclusion, whether it is right or wrong. However, you gave the general conclusion or an established fact and asked the child to memorize it. You did not encourage your child to think, understand the facts, and reach his or her own conclusions. You gave the child the answer without requiring any effort on his or her part.

“Now suppose you tell him nothing, but simply ask him to breathe into a glass tumbler. He sees the moisture on the glass. Ask him where it came from. Have him breathe against the outside of the tumbler. Have him try the experiment with a glass that is hot and with one that is ice-cold. Have him try it with other surfaces. Do not do his thinking for him. Make him observe what takes place, stimulating him to remember the different results he observes and, by comparing them, to arrive at conclusions.”

The second example shows us that parents should be guides for their children. Be patient and let them make the observation. Let them do their own thinking, which will enable them to reach their own conclusion.

It is a well-known fact that we use only a fraction of our brain’s potential power. Moreover, we are not sure how far our minds can go. However, what we know for sure is that we can stretch our mind’s capacity and increase our brain’s potential power. I will end my article with Dr. Bell’s words: “Self education is a lifelong affair. It comes, naturally and inevitably, through using the mind and following this Rule of Three: Observe, Remember, Compare.”

REFERENCES

1. Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, “Alexander Graham Bell,” Association review (Washington, DC: 1899).
2. Caprio, In Steffe, L. P., and Gale, J., Constructivisni in Education ( Lawrance Erlbaum: 1995)
3. Kopil, Alexa., ” Is the Brain the Origin of Man’s Mind?” The Fountain vol. 2., no.21 (Jan-Mar.1998).
4. Mahmud M. Sadat., “Thinking Straight and the Ways to Achieve It” The Fountain vol. 2., no.24 (Oct-Dec.1998).
5. Wood, T. “From Alternative Epistemologies to Practice in Education: Rethinking What It Means to Teach and Learn.” In Steffe, L. P., and Gale, J., Constructivism in Education (Lawrence Erlbaum: 1995).

– Is there fresh bread and cold, fresh water like this on the tables of our fighting brothers, or have you offered me such a table just because I am the commander?

– We set aside that bread and water for you, o Commander, they answered.

This answer made Abu Ubayda angry and, pushing the table away. he commented:

– I cannot conceive of a behaviour worse in the sight of God Almighty than sitting at a table different from what is offered to our brothers shedding their blood in the way of God in the same lines with us. I could not sit at such a special table even if I were the Caliph, not a commander.

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, the famous Muslim scholar and thinker, who launched a major Islamic movement of revival in Turkey in the second quarter of this century, offered this challenge to those who deny the Prophethood of Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings:

Consider how, eradicating their evil and savage customs and immoral qualities to which they were so fanatically attached, he equipped and adorned the desperate, wild and unyielding peoples of the seventh century Arabian Peninsula with all the praiseworthy virtues, and made them teachers of all the world and masters to, especially, the civilized nations.

His was not an outward domination; rather, he conquered their minds, spirits, hearts, and souls. He became the beloved of hearts, the teacher of minds, the trainer of souls, and the ruler of spirits.

You know that despite all the advanced techniques and methods, modern communities are unable to remove permanently so small a vice as cigarette smoking. However, the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, with apparently little effort over a very short period of time removed numerous ignoble habits from large communities in whom those habits were long ingrained, and in their place implanted and inculcated noble qualities in such a way that they became inherent in their nature. To those who refuse to see the testimony of the blessed age of the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, we present as a challenge any part of today’s civilized world. Let them go there with hundreds of philosophers, sociologists, psychologists and pedagogues and educators, and strive for a hundred years. I wonder whether they will be able to achieve in that period a hundredth part of what the Prophet Muhammad achieved in a year.

Abu Bakr, in the early days of his Caliphate, managed on the wage he earned by milking the cattle of one of his neighbours. Some time later, some Companions led by ‘Umar made him this offer:’As the Commander-in-chief of the Muslims, you have much work to do. Therefore, give up milking cattle and let us assign a fixed salary for your needs as Caliph.’

Abu Bakr spent from this salary for his living expenses and stored any surplus in a pot. He told those around his death-bed to hand that pot over to the one nominated to replace him as Caliph.

Umar was chosen after Abu Bakr. During his rule, Islam spread as far as Afghanistan in the east and Caucasia in the north. One evening during the holy month of Ramadan, ‘Umar was a guest of one of the Companions. When he was offered a sherbet of honey, he refused it, saying:

‘I can drink this only when all of the people, the responsibility of governing whom I shoulder, have become so rich that they can drink the sherbet of honey with their meals.’