There are a great many similarities between the three monotheistic traditions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The central goal of the religious journey in these Abrahamic traditions is to acknowledge the Creator and to love Him by obeying His wise and compassionate guidance. A common area where almost all the doctrines of the three traditions are overlapping is unquestionably “morals.” Decency, chastity, modesty, righteousness, and purity are virtues that believers are encouraged and required to struggle to achieve.

When people look at Muslim women who wear a headscarf, usually they only notice the headscarf as being different than Western-style clothing. Many believers who wear a headscarf prefer to use the term “modest dress” since it captures the essence of the practice better. Modest dress is prescribed to both men and women in the Qur’an. The general guidelines include covering certain parts of the body, wearing loose and non-transparent clothing to conceal the silhouette, and to dress in such a way as not to draw attention to one’s self. Modest clothing and covering the body is enjoined for men as well as for women; men are advised to cover at least between the knees and the navel, whereas for women the only parts that can be revealed are the face, hands, and feet. This difference is solely due to the physical nature and attractiveness of the female body, and should not be misinterpreted as gender inequality. Still, most men prefer to cover themselves from head to toe especially during prayer as a sign of respect in the presence of God Almighty.

Nevertheless, some people have a hard time grasping why the hair is so important. First, the hair is only one of the many parts that need to be covered. Second, if hair was not so attractive, women would not spend hours in front of the mirror or spend hundreds of dollars to make their hair pretty! However, the concept of covering in Islam is not restricted to only the headscarf, which would be undermining the meaning and effect of this practice. The underlying principle is to keep your beauty to yourself, your spouse, and those of the same sex, so that you will not be viewed as an “object.” The ultimate goal is to be modest before God and other human beings. Western feminists contend that one of the greatest problems of our age is the reduction of women to mere objects that are valued only for their physical beauty. I must add, though, that in Islam, physical beauty and marital relations are not viewed as a sin or something to be ashamed of. They are a gift of God and we are to enjoy them within the limits prescribed by God.

In the Qur’an, God has commanded believing men and believing women to act in certain ways to avoid indecent interaction with the opposite sex, which has great repercussions for individuals and society in this world and the Hereafter. Islam is a religion of prevention and protection, rather than a religion of punishment. All aspects of Islamic law aim to prevent sin in order to avoid punishment that would otherwise be necessary to ensure perfect justice. (It is also important to point out that in Islam, sin is regarded as a transgression against one’s self or a state of being away from God and acting contrary to our own nature) In other words, God knows His creatures and their weaknesses best and lays down guidelines to keep them from sinning because of His love and mercy for His creatures. Modest dress also has the same logic and nature. God has commanded it in the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad implemented it in his life and taught it to his followers for sound and compelling reasons.

The practice of wearing modest dress existed in various cultures and religions prior to the advent of Islam. Hence Islam did not invent the covering of one’s hair or modest dress in general. Veiling (I use the term here to refer to wearing a headscarf and not to covering the face as the term “veil” may also connote) was a common practice in the Byzantine Empire during the Hellenistic era and also among the Sassanids of Persia. The veil was a sign of respectability and high status and was used to distinguish noblewomen from slaves and unchaste women who were not allowed to cover their heads. Subsequently, the practice was established in the Judaic and Christian systems ¹ and the Arabic peninsula at large (even prior to the advent of Islam).

Judaic doctrines and traditions have emphasized the covering of hair and modest dress throughout history. Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman, since it is considered nudity. ² Jewish women in Europe wore the headscarf until the end of the nineteenth century when the pressures of a secular society triumphed over religion. Today, many Jewish women cover their hair in synagogues, yet only certain sects such as Hasidic Jews continue the practice in everyday life by wearing a wig.

The place of veiling in Christianity is as prevalent as in Judaism. The most obvious sign is the modest dress nuns have been wearing for centuries. Veiling was part of the Christian tradition, not exclusively for nuns: “And Rebekah lifted up her eyes and when she saw Isaac… she took her veil and covered herself” (Genesis 24:65). The Catholic Church had a canon up until the 1950s requiring women to cover their hair inside a church. Certain Christian denominations such as the Amish and the Mennonites still retain a head covering for women.

Likewise, there is a strong connection between clothing, modesty, and morality in Islam. Thus, the concept of modesty extends beyond mere clothing and encompasses austere manners. This ideal code of conduct and modest dress are required from both men and women. There is strong emphasis on the protection of people’s dignity in the Qur’an. (For instance, assaulting someone with words or slander is a grave transgression.) One of the most compelling reasons for modest dress in the Qur’an is modesty and to protect women from molestation. It is not a sign of male superiority or of high status, as was the case in ancient societies.

And tell the believing women that they (also) should restrain their gaze (from looking at the men whom it is lawful for them to marry, and from others’ private parts), and guard their private parts, and that they should not display their charms except that which is revealed of itself; and let them draw their veils over their bosoms, and (tell them) not to display their charms to any save their husbands, or their fathers (and grandfathers and both paternal and maternal uncles), or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands (both their own and stepsons and grandsons), or their brothers (and foster- and step-brothers), or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or the Muslim women and the women of good conduct with whom they associate, or those their right hands possess, or the male attendants in their service free of sexual desire, or children that are as yet unaware of femininity. Nor should they stamp their feet (i.e. act in such a manner as) to draw attention to their charms (and arouse passion of men). And O believers, turn to God all together in repentance that you may attain true prosperity. (Nur 24:31)

Reasons for wearing modest dress

First and foremost, it is essential to know that “There is no compulsion in religion” (Baqara 2: 256). Faith is a personal matter between a believer and her Creator. Likewise, choosing to put one’s faith into practice is a natural outcome of the believer’s spiritual journey. I decided to start wearing the headscarf after about two years of soul searching.

Despite being raised in a Muslim family and a predominantly Muslim society, I was taken by the numerous positivist philosophies sweeping away the young generations. I did have a vague belief in God that I never really thought about or confirmed in my heart and my mind. Hence, I did not really know what I believed in and why, which made it all the easier to drift away on the currents of disbelief. I cannot thank God enough though for bringing certain seemingly difficult incidents into my life that forced me to question who I was and where I was going.

As a matter of fact, every person is endowed with the inner urge to find meaning in his or her existence. If and when we choose not to shut off these existential questions and try to find satisfying answers, our personal quest for our Creator begins. We are all given numerous faculties, such as our mind, heart, senses, and so forth, that are meant to be used in this quest. By observing the universe and our own continuous creation, we can witness that there is no deity but God, and that He is the Creator of causes and effects simultaneously. This confirmation compels us to heed the message of God (the scriptures) and to read it with an open mind and heart to verify its truth. Once we confirm that the Qur’an is indeed our Creator’s message sent to us personally to inform us of the purpose of our creation, then our worldview is transformed. In a way, the Qur’an is like a manual. It is “our” manual, teaching us how best to use our faculties and our lives. God is telling us why and how He creates us (what our reality is) and what sort of attitude and conduct is in harmony with our creation (our nature, fitrah). If we follow His recommendations, which are glad tidings (bushra), we will be at peace with ourselves and the universe. He also warns us that when we do not follow the instructions in the manual, we may harm ourselves. In other words, we will be unhappy and live in a “hellish” state of mind and heart in this life and the Hereafter. It is ultimately our choice (since we are given free will) to heed and follow this manual or not. Every believer can experience and attest to the truth of the message in their life (or not).

Analyzing the messages in the Qur’an from this paradigm, we may find endless wisdom and mercy in its recommendations. The following is a summary of the many wisdoms and the mercy I see in the prescription of modest dress for all believers who may choose to adopt it in their lives, and this is why I decided to start practicing it:

A. Individual level: Inner peace and harmony

Adhering to the guidelines of Islamic modest dress brings inner peace to the individual for several reasons. Modesty and striving to mold one’s self in Islamic manners helps to discipline our ego which is the main source of personal ills. When I use the term “Islamic.” I am particularly referring to the literal meaning of the word Islam, “submission.” So, a Muslim is someone who tries to submit her free will to the Truth, that is, the truth that we (and everything else around us) are being sustained and created continuously by God, and do not exist independently. Our ego, which is only one of the many faculties we have, is given to us as a tool. By striving to discipline its excessive desires, and channeling them in a positive direction, we transform ourselves for the better. ³ Submitting to the wisdom and compassion of God and obeying His recommendations about how we should dress is only one of many aspects of trust in God. Adhering to modest dress always reminds us that God is Ever-Seeing and that we are constantly in the presence of God. This is the utmost source of inner peace.

As a side note I would like to also add that many women mention that wearing modest dress frees them from the pressures of society to conform to a particular physical type or to fashion. Knowing that they are not being judged as feminine “objects” helps to enhance their self-esteem. When we dress and act modestly, others value us as human beings based on character and intelligence.

B. Family life: Solidarity and peace

The family is considered a vital unit in Islam. A peaceful marriage is essential for many reasons, one of which is the adequate upbringing of children. The break up of families leads to crisis for family members as well as society as a whole. That is why divorce is described as the most disliked of the permissible practices. The practice of modest dress and piety by both husbands and wives may help to maintain the solidarity of the family. Being extremely careful about the way one acts, talks, and dresses around the other sex may serve as a barrier preventing many indecencies from occurring. As I mentioned above, Islam is a religion of prevention (vs. punishment). Therefore, all the ways to temptation are blocked in case we destroy our lives in this world and the Hereafter. Statistics leave no doubt that these incidents are very common in both Western and Eastern societies in this century due to the decay of the role and importance of religion in the face of the rise of materialism.

Thus, the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions on the matter of modest dress and manners aim to reduce these indecencies and preserve peaceful marriages. Even though many examples of men and women who claim to be pious, yet engage in unlawful acts with the opposite sex, may be cited, the ideal of Islam still proves to be true. God knows that human beings are imperfect creatures and the guidelines are there to set the perfect standards one should struggle to achieve.

C. Social level: Perseverance of society

Islam does not only seek to guide the individual out of the context of her surroundings. The realities of everyday life require human beings to interact with others unceasingly, hence social matters are also addressed in the Qur’an. The modesty of an individual’s dress and manners automatically affect society at large. Indeed, the problems of sexual harassment of women and sexual assault are widespread in our societies. Trying to catch and punish the perpetrators of these offences after the harm is done does not solve the problem. Individuals should reform themselves, learn good morals and values. Only in such a way can the entire society be reformed. When and if women practice ranges of nudity, the society at large is affected negatively. For instance, harmony among married couples and the piety of individuals may deteriorate. This does not mean that only women must watch the way they act and dress, but as the Qur’anic verse 24:30 states, men are obligated to lower their gaze and adopt modest dress and manners as well.

Tell the believing men that they should restrain their gaze (from looking at the women whom it is lawful for them to marry, and from others’ private parts), and guard their private parts and chastity. This is what is purer for them. God is fully aware of all that they do. (Nur 24:30)

Men are first warned to control themselves, and then the required dress for men and women complements the decency of society. Also, to reduce the debate only to the matter of clothing is indeed wrong and misrepresentative of Islam. God is concerned with our inner selves primarily. Thus, modest dress serves its purpose only when it is appropriately complemented by the right morals and manners, and a whole Islamic way of life.

Eren Tatari is a PhD student in the Political Science Department, Indiana University, Bloomington. Her research interests include Muslims in Western politics, gender studies, and the political representation of minorities.

Notes

1. Esposito, John. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Modern Islamic World, OUP, 1995, pp. 108–111.
2. Muhammad, Sherif. “Women and their Legal Rights in Monotheistic Religions.” The Fountain, Issue 41, Jan-Mar 2003, pp. 30–44.
3. For instance, the ego falsely claims or wants to be independent. It does not like to recognize authority or feel gratitude. Hence, the challenge is to use the other faculties God has given us (such as our intellect and heart) to discipline our ego and submit our free will to God’s will. In Islam, human beings are not deemed intrinsically evil. We have the potential to be higher than angels or lower than animals. We have been given many faculties as tools to find and stay on the Straight Path.

References

• Unal, Ali. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, NJ: The Light, Inc., 2006.

As this news spread throughout the world, people began to ask if one day a human being could be cloned. Certainly, at least in theory, it seemed possible. Some people even claimed that it would be a good idea to clone such geniuses as Einstein and others who had passed away. On the other hand, others argued that such knowledge could lead to cloning such people as Hitler, and that this was reason enough never to open the door to this potentially dangerous technology. 

The role of environment

But is DNA everything? Is DNA the only item that makes us human? Case studies of same egg twins’ show that there is more to us than DNA. Researchers have noticed that such twins, despite having the same DNA and being brought up mainly in the same environment and the same manner, somehow follow different paths, acquire unique personalities, and show evidence of different characteristics, although they may show similarities during childhood. Thus we can see that environment is an important factor on human behavior.

Used in this context, environment refers to the surrounding society, culture, belief, and moral values in other words, that which separates human beings from animals. DNA, the acronym used for a person’s genetic code, plays the key role in the beginning of any biological life form. This key molecule functions similarly in both animals and plants to produce living cells.

Human beings have a special life-giving feature: the soul. Although its nature remains a mystery, its existence is felt deeply in the conscience and gives us a distinct nature that is not shared by non-human life forms. Although a person’s first biological body is evident in the DNA even before it assumes an identity, it is the soul that determines his or her character and temper. Another shaping factor that should not be underestimated is the surrounding society (e.g., family, school, and economy) that unites with the soul and contours the body.

The era in which one lives also has a role in determining one’s character. Given that a society is made up of individuals, it is subject to changes in moral values over time. Thus it is quite likely that if Einstein or Hitler were cloned, the resulting person would be an ordinary contemporary man who is obsessed with sports cars and the Internet, and a man who carries his cellular phone wherever he goes.

What made Hitler a monster was the era and society in which he lived, not his genes. What made Einstein a genius was the chance to explore and use his own capabilities and intelligence. It is quite certain that genes are the sole parameters that affect a person’s intelligence and other intellectual features. In addition, the wonderful and unknown nature of a human being would be more conclusive and understandable if the complex interactions between the spiritual properties and cultural effects were taken together as a whole.

The role of the soul

People can be cloned. In fact, clones that are biologically similar and yet behaviorally unique would be the best proof of the soul’s existence. Since the soul cannot be cloned, as it issues from a different world, cloning a person’s body may not be that dangerous. But it also would not make any sense. Moreover, the cloned individual could end up as a dangerous animal.

Consider the following example of inter-species breeding: When a horse and a donkey are mated, the resulting animal is a non-fertile hybrid. If a female horse and a male donkey are mated, the result is a non-fertile mule. If a male horse and a female donkey are mated, the result is a smaller and weaker animala hinny. But since half of the DNA comes from each animal and thus each hybrid offspring has the same DNA, how can this difference be explained? Obviously, the DNA contained within the mitochondria of the female horse’s egg cell makes a huge difference.

Other issues

The patent dilemma: The patent (copyright) system prevents any illegal copying and imitating and ensures that the actual researcher and inventor is rewarded. Drugs and chemical substances are the most patented items in medicine. After a large portion of the human DNA puzzle was solved, the issue of how to patent this information was put on the American agenda.

President Clinton declared that most parts of human DNA had been determined. However, such information was not to be placed in the hands of humanity at large, for the pharmaceutical companies had spent vast sums of money to produce this information. Also, it would be a serious violation of basic commercial sense for the companies to just give this information to the general public for free.

In addition, paying for the copyrights to acquire the technology does not mean that you are totally free to with it what you want, for these same copyrights limit the usage of that particular technology. This means that if cures are found for AIDS, cancer, and other currently incurable diseases, only the wealthy will be able to afford them.

Determining does not mean understanding: DNA consists of exons and introns. Exons form the meaningful parts of DNA by uniting with each other. We call the result genes. Introns are the non-meaningful parts of DNA. What is interesting here is that these non-meaningful introns make up 97 percent of all DNA. One wonders if they have functions, other than protecting and shielding the meaningful parts from external radiation and ultraviolet light, that are unknown to contemporary scientists? For example, each human cell contains about 4 meters of DNA chain in its nucleus. Surprisingly, introns and exons are represented by the same symbolic letters (A, C, G, and T), so determining the DNA chain is nothing more than a new beginning. The more important task is to identify the genes made of exons, which are non-trivially embedded into the introns.

The exact number of human genes remains unknown. According to some scientists, this number is either 25,000 or 32,000. Determining the DNA chain written with a four-letter alphabet is like trying to determine the meaning of an ancient inscription. Just seeing what it looks like does not mean that one can read it, for the latter is far more difficult than the former. This suggests that just determining the DNA chain is not enough, and that truly understanding the genes and their exact locations requires more time.

Conclusion

Human DNA has been determined, but we must remember that there are as many combinations as there are people. Also, the claim that DNA has been determined’ is true only for a select group of people. Human DNA differs from race to race, society to society, and even from disease to disease. Thus it will take more time to develop a full comparative table of human DNA. It would be great if our current technology somehow could devise a single formula to represent the gene map of every individual.

References

• Anderson, Kenneth N. (ed.), Lois E. Anderson (ed.), and Walter D. Glanze. Mosby’s Medical Dictionary. 5th ed. Mosby Year Book, Inc.: 1997.
• Erturk, Hikmet, DNA Her Sey mi?’ Siziniti, no. 269 (June 2001): 228-29. Translated by Emrah Altunkaya.

In the context of biology, evolution claims that life developed by chance out of inorganic material, and then acquired more and more complexity and sufficient variety to fill the Earth with the different existing species today. In this context, evolution has some subdivisions. First, according to where it takes place, it is divided into microevolution or “variations” (both within a species), and macroevolution (between species). Second, scientific progress has caused evolution itself to evolve into such different versions as classical Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and punctuated equilibrium. As our space is limited, we will concentrate on the very basics of evolution, and leave some of the alternatives aside. Also, we will not cover many of the oppositions and objections in minor evolutionary issues or detail.

Slick writes: “The driving forces behind evolution are considered to be random genetic transformations (mutations) and natural selection. Mutations provide genetic variation and natural selection (predation, environmental conditions, etc.)” (Slick 1998). Thus, beneficial genetic combinations are sorted from non-beneficial ones and carried from generation to generation. In other words, the organism that survives natural selection [process] passes the new (improved) genetic information to future generations, who continue to pass them down with every new generation.2 At first, all of this might seem self-consistent and even logical. But an inquisitive mind should not accept anything on the basis of apparent “logic” without exploring, because observation without extensive searching can be quite misleading. (See the example of a recent discovery about dinosaurs.)

In his The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin described the basics of his theory and sought to substantiate it by fossil findings. More specifically, he based his theory on intermediate links between species (ancestors to descendants). Even though this is his strongest evidence (!), in the same book he asks: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record”3 (Darwin, 1859, chapter 9). He himself agrees that the strongest evidence of evolution assuredly does not exist, and foresaw that the fossil record will be a thread against evolution in future.

The above argument might raise the question:

“Well, in the 1850s geology was not that developed, so now we might have some geological evidence about intermediate links.” Yes, geology has developed a lot since then, but it has provided no strong evidence for such a link. For example, we are all familiar with the term “missing link,” because after 250 years of exploration such “links” are still “missing.” Not only is humanity’s ancestral line formed of missing links, but so are the ancestral lines of such other living things as animals, birds, fish, and plants.4

As Jepsen L.Glenn states: “Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many ‘links will continue to be missing”5 (Jepsen, 1963, p.114). And he was right because they are still missing. “The missing links between man and the apes…is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated… Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school…”6 (Newsweek, Nov. 3, 1980, p. 95).

Due to such difficulties, which have been around since Darwin’s time, evolutionists have transformed the theory into Neo-Darwinism and other versions (see above). This means that the quest for truth in this matter has not been settled. On the other hand, due to insufficiency of historical data, sources, and methods to reproduce the beginning of life, some scientists classify the origin of life as either unknowable or unanswerable7 and hence as best left to belief or logic. Even though the process of life and its adventure is not reproducible, science is increasing the hfstorical data about the origin of life and the history of living things. But surprisingly, the new data do not support evolution.

As for observation (together with historical findings), we still have to search beyond our eyes and imagination. For instance, museums, textbooks, scientific magazines, and movies traditionally portray dinosaurs as standing up 12 meters high or more, because dinosaur fossils had very long necks. This was enough for scientists to deduce that they were tall, ate tree leaves, and fought with other creatures standing upright. But a recent study at Northern Illinois University, showed that the joint structure in their necks allowed them to lift their head at most 2 to 3 meters.8 Therefore, seeing is not enough for sound deduction, and drawing pictures, assembling bones, and one’s imagination does not necessarily produce sound logic.

Alterations to the theory of evolution over the last 250 years imply that as science progresses, it does not support the theory but rather changes or at least modifies it. As mentioned earlier, due to the lack of evolutionary links between species, the theory adopted “punctuated equilibrium.” which states that “evolution took huge sudden jumps … in 100,000- or 300,000-year increments or so, during different periods of earth history.”9 Thus there can be no gradual improvement. This is not a mere modification of the theory, but a total digression from Darwin’s original version. When scientists discovered huge gaps between species, they were so predisposed to evolution that they changed its basic theoretical premises and still called it “evolution.” Unfortunately, the public is usually unaware of such advances or modifications, and continues to believe that the theory of evolution is “scientific.”

As regards supposed “missing links,” we give the most argumentative evolutionary record, the alleged evolutionary record of man, as an example:

1. -Ramapithecus – 10 to 14 million years ago.

2. -Australopithecus-1 to 4 million years ago.

A. -Afarensis – 3 to 3.6 million years ago.

B. -Africanus-2.5 to 3 million years ago.

C. -Robustus-3 to 1.8 million years ago

D. -Boisei-1.8 million years ago.

3. -Zinjanthropus (also known as East Africa Man) -1.5 to 2 million years ago.

4. -Homo Habilis-2 million years ago.

5. -Pithecanthropus-500.000 years ago.

A. -Nebraska Man (also known as Hesperopithecus haroldcookii).

B. -Piltdown Man (also known as Eanthropus dawsoni, or Dawn Man).

6. -Homo Erectus-300,000 years ago (also known as Java Man and as Peking Man or Sinjanthropus pekinensis)

7. -Sapiens

A. -Neanderthal-30,000 to 75,000 years ago.

B. -Cromagnon-10,000 to 50,000 years ago.

C. -Modern-10,000 years ago.

D. -Homo Sapiens-present.

These dates were taken from the November 1985 issue of The Notional Geographic magazine.10 Now, let’s see what really constitutes these links one by one:

Ramapithecus: Ramapithecus, which consists of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments, is considered to be a hominid (human evolutionary ancestor) solely on the basis of its dental record.11 David Pilbeam, one of the first to state that Ramapethicus was a hominid, says that he now is not so sure that it is a human ancestor, and that he has found new fossils of the species that invalidate earlier conclusions.12

Australopithecus: Found by Dart in 1924, Australopithecus Africanus, consists of a skull, a jaw, some teeth, and pelvis, limb, and footfragments. This creature is divided into two main species: Australopithecus Africanus and Australopithecus Robustus. Australopithecus is not considered a human ancestor.13

Zinjanthropus: In 1950, Louis and Mary Leakey found 400 pieces of a skull in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa. They claimed that this hominid ancestor was 1,750,000 years old. This age was determined on their dating of the rocks in which the bones were located by the potassium argon method. In 1960, they found a child’s skull of a more advanced type 12 inches deeper in the rock. This led Leakey to say that Zinjanthropus was not hominid, but rather entirely ape. Carbon 14 dating of mammal bones in the same stratum suggests an age of only 10,000 years or 3,100 years.

Nebraska Man: In 1922, a geologist named Cook found a tooth in Nebraska’s Snake Creek bed. Professor Osborn (The New York Museum) and Sir Smith C. Aubrey of London said it belonged to an ape man. It was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.14

Piltdown Man: In 1912, Charles Dawson and others found a skullcap, jawbone, and teeth in a gravel pit in Sussex, England. From these, they constructed an ape man, named him Piltdown (or Dawn) Man, and dated him at 500,000 years BC. In 1953, British scientists discovered that the jawbone belonged to a monkey that had been stained to indicate age, that the teeth had been filed to make them look human, and that the skullcap was really an elephant’s kneecap. The hoax fooled experts for many years.15

Java Man: In 1892 in Java (now part of Indonesia), Dubois found a skullcap, teeth, and femur bone about 60 feet from each other. He said these belonged to the same hominid ancestor, and that it was about 500,000 years old. He failed to mention that he had found two human skulls nearby in virtually the same level of burial. In 1908, the German Selenka expedition found that lava flows in Java made an age of more than 500 years impossible. In 1936, Dubois admitted that Java Man was an ape.16

Peking Man: Between 1922 and 1939, the bones of 38 individuals were discovered at Choukoutien, southwest of Peking. Experts in several countries said these belonged to ape men. Mr. O’Connell, a missionary in China, claimed this was a lime pit and that local men and women killed monkeys and then ate their brains. When the hill collapsed, people were buried and fossilized. The mixture of bones was used to create an ape man. The original specimens were lost in WWII. O’Connell says Peking man is altogether human.

Neanderthal Man: The first bones of Neanderthal Man, found in Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1856, indicated a stooped posture. He was said to be one step above apes, and was dated at 200,000 years. Later, he was found to have arthritis. Since then, skeletons in an upright position have been found in caves in Palestine. Their brain size is larger than that of modern man.

Cromagnon: Cromagnon bones of have been found in caves in France. Although they are dated at 50,000 years,their brain size is larger than that of modern man.17,18

As seen above, these so-called human ancestors are either apes or based solely on teeth, or they are just human beings with larger brains and bigger bodies, which might mean more complexity. So what makes the above table of links scientific? I think only the make-up is scientific: fancy Latin names, estimated millions of years by some questionable method, and publication in a scientific journal. It is this presentation that makes people view this as not make-believe but rather a sophisticated track record of human ancestors. If the Carbon 14 method is reliable (it is questionable), we should accept that man’s real ancestors are Neanderthals and Cromagnons, who were still men and appeared around 30,000 to 75,000 years ago with no hominid (human ancestor) predecessors. Thus they emerged immediately, and hence were created in this excellent form. As for other species: “Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.”19 (New Scientist, No. 1295, p. 581).

Let’s return to the basics of evolution-did life appear on Earth out of inorganic material spontaneously and by chance? Scientific evidence suggests the formation was spontaneous, but not by chance. The formation of life out of inorganic material by chance would require an enormous amount of time and combinations of molecules. Even if we assume that all these combinations existed on Earth, is it possible that life can emerge by chance? Is it mathematically probable?

Let’s give some probabilistic results in exponential notation for the sake of simplicity. For those who are not familiar with such notation, here is a brief description. 42 is 4×4, or 16 where 2 is the exponent and 4 is the base. Likewise 53 equals to 5x5x5 or 125. When the exponent is negative, like 3-3 it means 1 divided by 3x3x3 or 1/27th. Now for a quick illustration of why we use exponents: consider that we take 250 pieces of paper each 1/10 mm thick and put them in stack. How high will the stack be? The answer is 250 x 1/10 mm, which seems quite perceivable and not so large (due to the simplicity of the notation). However, the result is approximately 1.1258×1014 mm or 112,589,990.7km, which is 17,652.87 equatorial radii of the Earth. Of course, the first notation’s simplicity is due to the exponential 250, which is in fact 1,124,899,906,842,624. As another example, consider the estimated approximate number of the atoms in the universe, which is 1079 atoms. This is a one with 79 zeroes after it. Now the exponents in quotes and example below will be more familiar.

“To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10-20 giving a maximum combined probability of 10-2000 ” 20 (Denten, 1985).

“The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 1046 occasions is then about 10-255. The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected” 21 (Quastler, 1964, p. 7).

“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer”22 (Dawkins, p. 130).

There are hundreds of such quotes from well-known scientists and experts on this subject.

Thus, the probability of life coming from inorganic material by chance is virtually zero. Hence evolutionists had to devise another idea from probability theory. The principle follows as: “Given an infinite amount of time, the probability of something happening, no matter how remote the probability is 1.” 23

But does this idea save evolution? Before putting this idea on test, let’s present the estimates of Earth’s24 and the universe’s25 age.

Note that the highest age estimate for the Earth is 4.6 billion, and that the highest estimate for the universe’s age is 18 billion years. Thus, as the universe existed for a limited amount of time, the basic premise of the evolutionists using probability theory is refuted. What is the probability of a 100-part organism (no living cell has this few) forming if for 30 billion years, a generous estimate of the universe’s age, there were 1 billion billion billion billion combinations of its parts every second (1036 combinations per second). In other words, is that enough time? Here we take an artificial cell of 100 parts (since any living cell has more than 100 parts, this is a very low estimate),overestimate of the universe’s age (to silence opponents), and overestimate the number of events per second beyond what really is possible.

Living cells are composed of DNA. The simplest life forms on Earth are viruses, which consist of thousands of parts. Let our artificial organism be a 100-part virus. If we suppose that these parts can only lie on a straight line, the total number of all possible orderings is 100! (100! means 100 factorial, or 100x99x98x ……x4x3x2xl). This straight line assumption favors evolution, since there may be many other ways on which DNA-parts may lie. To illustrate further: if we have two sticks, how many ways can we arrange them? 2! = 2×1 or 2 different ways; if we have 3 sticks? 3! = 3x2x1, or 6 different ways, Had we 5 sticks?, 5!=120 different waysand so on. Note that as the number of sticks increases, the number of possible arrangements increases dramatically. As the virus can have DNA-parts in many forms other than a straight line, the total number of possible arrangements of DNA-parts is more than 100!. But for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that it is 100!. Then 100 parts can combine in 100!=9.32258232×10157 different possible ways. Hence the probability of our virus to form in its particular order is approximately one in 10157.

The next question addressed is: Is 30 billion (3×1010) years enough for this very simple virus to form? The possible number of combinations per second is 1036 , and 30 billion years is equal to 3×1036 (years)x365(days)x24(hours)x60(minutes)x60(seconds), or 9.4608×1037 seconds. Now to find the total number of combinations for all life in the universe, we multiply 1036 combinations per second with 9.4608×1037 seconds, for a result of 9.4608×1073 combinations. Hence only a tiny fraction of all possible formations could have occurred, and the probability of our virus to form from the beginning of the universe till now is 9.4608×1073 over 9.32258232×10157, which is approximately one in 1083 combinations (virtually zero). (This example is a slight modification of the one given by Matthew J. Slick of CARM.26)

Some evolutionists claim that since life exists on Earth, this minute probability actually occurred. But here they are completely losing track of objectivity, a necessity in science. When they presume that evolution is a fact, they do not allow contrary evidence to influence them. Their obstinacy prevents them from seeing that this case is not like a lottery, in which all the possible number of combinations are sold, so that a winner will be for sure (here winner is analogous to our virus). Keep in mind that only 0.000….% (there are 81 zeroes after the decimal) of all combinations could be covered until now. Therefore, the probability of living cells forming by chance is very close to zero, and the universe’s presumed age is not sufficient for even the formation of a 100-part virus. If we look at cells with hundreds of parts, which would be more realistic, the odds against their forming are multiplied exponentially. Yet evolutionists maintain that the spontaneous formation of life on the Earth is a fact. Hence it is created spontaneously by a Supreme Being.

The third basis of evolution is the continued formation of genetic material, which is credited to mutations and the selection of favorable genetic formation by nature (natural selection). But the primary problem with mutation is that it is almost always destructive (one should draw a clear line between genetic engineering and arbitrary alteration of the genetic code, the latter is called mutation). Since a favorable genetic code is needed for natural selection, mutations should occur a priori. In other words, mutations should be responsible for genetic variety, not natural selection, which operates only on existing genes (it cannot create new genes). Mutations occur randomly and should transform the existing gene into a new gene possesing an advantage. But many evolutionists continue to assert that natural selection drives the genetic transition. This implies that genes should perform their newly evolved functions before they evolve into new genes. This is like claimimg that birds can fly when they are still in their eggs. Therefore, random chance and not natural selection is responsible for evolution of new genes. Hence, until a new gene offers a competitive advantage, natural selection cannot occur.27

Now a careful reader might recall that the probability of a 100-part virus (a virus whose genetic code consists of 100 DNA-units) was I in 10157, and given l036 possible combinations per second the probability of this virus to form since the beginning of the universe (assumed to be approximately 9.4608×1037 seconds) was 1 in 1083 combinations. Here there is no need to find the probability of a 100-part virus evolving into a 1,000-part bacterium (the simplest bacterium consists of millions of DNA-parts), since the probability of a virus forming from inorganic material was virtually zero. But for curious readers, here is a very simplistic approach: There are two extremes in this problem: 1) an additional 900 parts form and combine with the previous 100 parts, and 2) every part of the 100 existing parts evolves into 10 new parts. Every other possibility of 100 existing parts evolving into 1,000 new parts falls somewhere between these two cases.

Case l: 900 parts can combine in 900!=6.75×102270 different possible ways. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that these 900 parts will just join the previous 100 parts at one edge of the existing DNA. Hence the odds of combining 900 parts with the previous 100 parts to form a specific 1000-part straight-line formation is 1 in 6.75×102270 combinations. With 1036 possible combinations per second and 9.4608×1037 seconds as the universe’s age, even if a 100-part virus existed at the beginning of the universe, the probability of the forming a 1,000-part bacteria from that virus is 9.4608×1053 /900!=l.4×10-2216.

Case 2: The probability of 10 parts evolving from each one of 100-existing parts. The likelihood of forming a new one part from an existing part is (either it forms or not). Hence the probability of 10 new parts evolving from one old part is (1/2)=10 = 2-10 =1/1024. There are 100 such events; hence, the probability is (2-10)100 =9.33×10-302. Given 1036 events per second and 9.4608×1037 seconds as the universe’s age, the probability of forming a 1,000- part virus out of a 100-part virus is (9.4068×1053) /(21000 )=8.83×10-248.

Now keep in mind that a virus has thousands of parts, and that a bacteria has millions of parts. Also, consider the evolution of multicelled organisms from unicellular organisms, plants from multicelled organisms, animals from plants, and men from animals. There are quadrillions of parts to be evolved at each step, and the above probability should be multiplied exponentially in the denominator. In sum, there is no way evolution can happen by chance.

As seen above, whatever is claimed to support evolution turns out to not support it. Now recall that for natural selection to occur, favorably evolved genes should exist and each gene’s evolutions should be cumulative. As we have proven that the large-scale change of genetic material is impossible, can natural selection drive cumulative small-scale changes in genes? The study shows that by preserving the functionality of existing genes, natural selection fights evolution, for existing genes are not free to evolve into new genes. The genes are locked by natural selection, that is, if a gene evolves into a new gene the original gene is lost. Now, if the original gene benefits the organism, its loss will be a competitive disadvantage to the organism (hence the organism will be eliminated or disfavored by natural selection). If the gene is non-beneficial, it would be eliminated by natural selection. Therefore natural selection locks existing genes into their place. Theoretically, genes might transform at the expense of losing their previous functionality, but this transformation is not cumulative. The only opposition might arise in the case of the new gene being more beneficiary than the previous one. This is slightly misleading, for if the new gene offers more benefit on the same characteristic, then no variation is possible even within a species (which is not the case on Earth). If the new gene offers a beneficial new characteristic, the original characteristic is lost and hence a disadvantage occurs. This is not much of a benefit.

This discrepancy in evolution was first observed by a scientist named Ohno (1978), who says: “Yet, being an effective policeman, natural selection is extremely conservative by nature, from a bacterium only numerous forms of bacteria would have emerged. The creation of metazoans, vertebrates, and finally mammals from unicellular organisms would have been quite impossible, for such big leaps in evolution required the creation of new gene loci with previously non-existent functions. Only the cistron (a segment of DNA that is equivalent to a gene and that specifies a single functional unit as a protein or enzyme) which became redundant was able to escape from the relentless pressure of natural selection, and by escaping, it accumulated formerly forbidden mutations to emerge as a new gene locus.”

As Ohno said, even if a virus or a bacteria existed in the beginning, only these and their variations would be alive today. Also, those redundant gene loci are the only genes that can escape from natural selection, and all mutations must occur on them. However, only a new trait can result from this mutation. Then this locus is again under the lock of natural selection, since it gained a new functionality. Furthermore, it does not allow the creation of new genes to acquire the complexity of metazoans, vertebrates, and finally mammals. Hence “as long as a particular function of an organism is under the control of a single gene locus, natural selection does not permit perpetuation of mutations which result in affecting the functionally critical site of a peptide chain specified by that locus. Hence, allelic mutations are incapable of changing the assigned function of genes”28 (Ohno,1978). This observation is quite important, because evolution needs numerous, successive small changes of existing genes-the above observation proves that changes at a gene locus are not cumulative.29

Why then is Darwinism so prevalent in the scientific world? Why is it still taught in schools and shown in documentary films as a fact? Are the evolutionists unable to see the discrepancies and improbability of evolution? The answer to these questions lie mostly in the fact that the primary motivation for advancing Darwinism was philosophical, not scientific.30 The underlying philosophy behind Darwinism is naturalism, whose roots are in classical Greek philosophy. Darwin knew little about genetics, but the spread of Darwinism was the result of combination of Darwinism with genetics in 1930s and 1940s. This combination is a result of the prevalence of naturalism among philosophers and scientists in recent centuries. Therefore, there is a close relationship between Darwinism and naturalism-indeed, Darwinism became the branch of naturalism in biology. Therefore, in a future article we will examine the source(naturalism) that Darwinism nourishes and elaborate on the aspects of Darwinism that we did not cover or about which we just gave tangent remarks.

FOOTNOTES

1. Merriam-Webster, Inc, ‘WWebster Dictionary (1999) at http://www.m-w.com.
2. Matthew J. Slick, CARM (1998) at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm.
3. http://hjein.get2net.dk/Paleontology, online books, Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter 11: “On the imperfection of the geologic record” (1859).
4. Slick, CARM (1998) at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm.
5. L. Glenn Jepsen, Ernst Mayr, and George Gaylord Simpson, Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (New York: Athenaeum, 1963), 114.
6. “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” Newsweek [Nov. 3, 1980), 95.
7. Selim Uzunoglu, Upon the Unknown and the Unknowable (1998).
8. Zaman / America, International Newspaper (May 3, 1999).
9. Slick (1998) at http://www.cann.org/evfactor.htm.
10. The National Geographic, vol. 168, no. 5 (Nov. 1985), 568-73.
11. E. L. Simons, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 167 (1969), 319; E. L. Simons, ScientificAmerican, vol. 211 (1964), 50; D. R. Pilbeam, Nature, vol. 219 (1968), 1335; E. L. Simons and D. R. Pilbeam, Science, vol. 173 (1971), 23.
12. New York Times (February 18, 1979), 41.
13. C. Oxnard, University of Chicago Magazine (Winter 1974), 11-22 A. Montagu, Man: His First Million Years (Yonkers, NY: World Publishers, 1957), 51-52.
14. S. K. Gregory, Science, vol. 66, p. 579 (1927) as cited in Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No (San Diego, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 1981), 130.
15. 5. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger, 1970), 75-94 as cited in Gish, Evolution, 132.
16. W. Howell, Mankind in the Making (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday and Co., 1967), 155-56 as cited in Gish, Evolution, 125.
17. For further information on evolution, consult Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, Santee, CA 1984); Gish, Evolution; Marshall Hall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution?: The Craig Press, 1974); and A. E. Wilder-Smith, Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1975), 55438.
18. The reference numbers 10-17 can be tracked at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm.
19. Tom Kemp, “The Reptiles That Became Mammals,” New Scientist, vol. 93, no. 1295, (March 4, 1982), 581.
20. Michael Denten, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Warwickshire, UK, Burnett Books Limited, 1985).
21. Henry Quastler, The Emergence of Biological Organization (New Haven, CT, and London, UK: Yale University Press, 1964), 7.
22. Richard Dawkins, “The Necessiiv of Dazwinism,” New Scientist, vol.94 (April 15, 1982), 130.
23. http://www.gogoscience.com/forums/messages/6267.shtml.
24. http://www.ozemail.com.au/~sjdando/mutation.htm.
25. http://ast.leeds.ac.uk/research/age.html (Optical astronomy group at Leeds, UK).
26. Slick (1998) at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm
27. Stu Pullen (1998) at http://www.darwinsmistake.com/BOOK/.
28. Ohno, Susumu Evolution by Gene Duplication (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978). HYPERLINK
29. Stu Pullen (1998) at http://www.daiwinsmistake.com/BOOK/.
30. William A. Dembski et al., Mere Creation, Science, Faith and Intelligent Design (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998).),p.74

Although the world’s inhabitants have continuously suffered from moral, spiritual and cultural erosion for centuries, this erosion has not been at the same level throughout the world. In some parts of the Muslim world, specifically, the noxious winds of several recent trends such as positivism, atheism, materialism, fascism, racism, and pure rationalism have not been able to trample everything in their paths. In addition, certain values have not been utterly destroyed, and the flowers of faith and morality have not completely withered away. Although these trends have altered the spiritual framework of many people, out of the ashes has risen ‘torch bearers’ to illuminate the way to the cleansing springs of faith, devotion, holistic morals, sound thinking, and hope. To find the ‘torch bearers’ one need only to go to places where the remembrance of the Creator occurs. Many of these light bearers are to be found among the youth. One can find these young men and women in schools where ethereal or spiritual values are not shunned. It is there one can see that the voice of spirituality has not been silenced. It is our belief that a considerable part of the world population has come to the awareness that a world devoid of spiritual inclusiveness is a world in need.

It is generally difficult to build a world based on tranquillity without belief in and worship of the Supreme Master of creation. Thus, the new revival toward spiritual awareness that we have observed in many parts of the world allows us to feel optimistic that humankind will reestablish the balance between the corporeal and the spiritual. This new ‘balance’ among the material and spiritual, physical and metaphysical, and worldly and other worldly, will hopefully lead to a civilization that is unafraid to explore the nature of existence in relation to its dependence on the creator. In the future, these fortunate generations will see their expectations of life realized because of this newly found balance. They will be satisfied with their collective destinies and will be satisfied with what the future will bring. If our hopes for a bright future could be visualized, the scene would be evergreen valleys and sloping hills, and the climate would be illuminated with faith. The turmoil and chaos that was at one time so pervasive would be a distant memory. We believe, and have always been hopeful, that the day will come when the ‘harbingers of good news’ will call people to salvation and happiness. These ‘heralds’ will, with permission of the Creator, establish in the souls of people a captive understanding of the spiritual plane. Following this, these newly informed individuals will understand the mercy, tenderness, and inspiration the spiritual realm offers.

On the other hand, when those who in the past, impeded individuals on their spiritual journeys, become aware that they and not their spiritually inclined counterparts have failed, their gaunt faces will be grim with hopelessness. When they see their aspirations of ruling by the iron fist have come to naught, they will then see the futileness of their actions. On that day, people with strong will, eyes bright with hope, hearts filled with faith, and the determination to establish balance in the world, will step forward.

We are convinced that in many parts of the world there are those who preserve because of their faith and loyalty to perennial traditions and human values. These individuals have succeeded in maintaining a balance between faith and reason, scientific knowledge and pure spirituality, while remaining culturally sensitive to their surroundings. One might ask at this point, “How can all of this be achieved?” The foundation for this revitalization will be based primarily on two things. One is service to humankind, and the other is having the ability to overcome all obstacles by having faith and confidence in and reliance upon the Eternal Being. Will it be easy to find this balance? No, it will not. However, one key element to bringing these aspirations into fruition is the collective softening of hearts. Hearts must be softened with love to the degree that they can be entitled to receive their rewards. Eyes must be warm with love to such an extent with love in order to reflect the zeal and affection that is in the heart, and souls must flourish to the extent that they can receive the gifts pouring forth from the spiritual realms. In addition, it must not be forgotten that building such a world requires great effort and forbearance. Those who carry humankind to the summit of happiness will have to struggle with many difficulties and overcome many obstacles; they will experience moments of depression coupled with moments of extreme joy. These individuals will also encounter innumerable hostilities. Many of their plans and projects will seem to bear no fruit and many times they will feel they are on the verge of despair. Those who are less spiritually evolved may try to block their paths; however, compassion will help the embattled individuals attain their goals. It should be noted that the road to justice and tolerance is often paved with struggles and difficulties. When we think of the obstacles of those who walked before us had to overcome to obtain and preserve the values we are making use of today, we are silenced by awe. What a price they paid for the ethical and traditional values many treat with apathy, disdain, and disrespect. All creations should beg the Creator to refrain from asking us to pay the true cost of the bounties that are given to us. For even if we could worship twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, our efforts would still pale in comparison to the many blessings we are given.

Imitation of nature

Some scientists assert that the 21st century will be a century of biology. They are of the opinion that an ideal, peaceful community life is attainable by imitating nature. This kind of thinking is not new. There is a history of application of some socio-biological information about animal behaviour in some studies of human social behaviour, and the application in manmade artefacts of the design and structure of some living creatures (so-called bio-engineering). Adaptation of the structures which enable birds to fly in the design of planes is a well-known example.

Whether the sensitive measures in the human body, which is the most perfect of biological structures, and the ideal, economical balance in its bio-chemical and biological mechanisms, are applicable in the organization of human societies is a question that has attracted the attention of many scientists. If a living body is a perfect organism composed of billions of cells and millions of physiological and bio-chemical processes take place in it without any error or failure, and, in parallel with this, the living system itself both grows and reproduces and defends and repairs itself, then must it not be possible to apply such a system to a community of such living creatures?

Share of values

Although the brain and spinal marrow have the main functions in directing the operation of human or animal bodies that have a nervous system, the ‘lower’ systems such as stomach and intestines also make a contribution. Each of these organs or systems plays a significant part in the working and maintenance of a healthy body. However conspicuous the function of organs such as the brain, heart and liver, it cannot be said that any of the other organs like kidneys or stomach or intestines are less vital. Especially when we bear in mind that the existence of anything depends on the existence of all its parts, and that its death or non-existence may be effected by the lack of any of those parts, or that a single, cancerous cell may ultimately cause the death of a whole body, we realize that each part has a vital function in the operation and maintenance of the living whole.

The health of the parts is necessary to the health of the whole. If the stomach and intestines fail to secrete the necessary enzymes for digestion, however healthy the brain and heart are, you will die of hunger and lack of necessary energy. Likewise, if your pancreas does not work well enough to secrete the necessary insulin, it will cause the failure of the metabolism of sugar. If, again, fat accumulates in your veins because of a failure of even a single bio-chemical mechanism, then the health of your heart will not suffice for you to survive. These simple examples suffice to show that there is nothing unnecessary or superfluous in the system. Even if some organs have relatively greater value in maintaining the body, that does not mean that other organs are less valuable. The same should be the case with the health and maintenance of a community.

No negligence however little it may be

The least failure in any of the organs or systems of the body manifests itself as a pain or uneasiness. For example, a pain caused by a callous on your toe which prevents you from treading normally, may lead to pains in your waist or knees. An insignificant-seeming callous may upset the balance of your legs and waist vertebra.

The same is true for a community. Seemingly negligible failures in the life of a community may frequently give rise to great problems later on. The health of non-central parts of a community corresponding to such bodily extremities as the toe is almost as important as the health of those parts corresponding to the brain and heart in a body. If any defect or failure in any of the former is seen as negligible and attention needed to remove or remedy the problem is not given, it may lead to disorder of the whole system.

Economic structure

Inflation, shortage of means of livelihood (employment), poverty, insecurity, and social ills such as bribery and abuses, and social crimes such as theft, are among the primary diseases undermining the health of a community. Every duty to be done within the structure of a community is like the wheels or parts of a machine, each with a unique function and value of its own. Each of the parts of a social structure should contribute to economic development and take its share in that development in return, and on occasions of economic crisis, then each of those parts should share the responsibility and results. Again in this respect the working of a body can be imitated.

When a body cannot get sufficient food, its metabolic rate, the rate it uses up the food taken in, is reduced. The body, as it were, tightens its belt, adapts to a lower standard of living. It slows down its work- rate and uses energy economically to survive. A lower pulse rate uses body energy more economically.

A body works automatically in accordance with the rules its Maker has established for it. By contrast a community is composed of people having free will. Therefore, the imitation of a body by a community depends on its members disciplining themselves. They must know how to restrain their bodily urges and control some bad qualities common to men such as greed, selfishness and refusal to be content. In a biological system, the commands issuing from the central nervous system and the stimulants coming from glands take into account the structure, working system and endurance and tolerance capacity of each and every organ and tissue and their molecular structure. Also, since all sorts of stimuli and responses coming from organs and tissues are carried by the central nervous system with due care and attention, nothing wrong emerges in normal conditions. Thus, in order for a community to be as well ordered as a body, those who hold its reins, those who occupy the governmental positions should know all the units forming it well enough with all their compositions and needs and give due consideration to their reflections and the responses coming from them.

Sharing happiness and sorrows

If, for example, there is not sufficient sustenance in blood and the stomach and intestines suffer shortage of food, the brain never lets the body amuse itself or relax in pleasures and extravagance. Any pain or problem which emerges in any part of the body is shared by the whole body itself. If, by contrast, the leaders of a community indulge in luxuries and pleasures while some sections of it suffer from deprivation of the basic necessities of life, then it is not possible to talk of it being a healthy community.

The balance of income and output

It is inevitable for a body to grow fat and become diseased when too much food enters it and, by contrast, get thin and become diseased if it cannot get enough food. A healthy, balanced nourishment depends on the balance between the food taken and used up as energy. This balance of supply and demand or income and output changes according to the periods of babyhood, youth, full development and old age. Like the body, a community must be careful about establishing a balance of supply and demand. Unbalanced development, imbalance between income and output, and deepening of the gap between the rich and poor are some of the social diseases leading a community to disease or death.

System and energy

A system needs sufficient energy to survive and preserve its vitality and to develop. There is no difference in needing energy between an insect and a whale and between an elephant and a man, nor does a state or community differ from a factory or work-shop in needing and using it rationally. In order to be able to grow and make new syntheses for production, besides raw material, a living system is in dire need of energy. We can use the substances which we take by eating and drinking and will serve as building material for our bodies only by burning carbohydrates and fat to produce energy. A body which cannot take the kinds of food supplying energy loses its vitality. Tissues begin to separate and cells break down and die. Similarly, the amount of the energy a community needs for a good economic life and the cost of it are of vital importance for the health of that community. The more abundant and less expensive energy is, the more balanced and productive its economic life is.

Feed-back

One of the significant features of a living organism is, that it operates under control by a feed-back system. Every event in this system is connected with others, none of them being independent. If any substance increases above a certain measure, the increase is blocked up by a mechanism beginning to work just at that time. For example, in the process of the kidneys separating waste liquid from the blood to discard it from the body with some amount of water, the density of the waste substances in it such as urea, uric acid and superfluous salt is sensitively regulated. If it is hot and the body requires to be cooled through sweat, the kidneys hold more water and prevent dehydration. If, by contrast, it is cold and there is no need to sweat, this time, they discard more water and thereby regulate the inner balance of the body.

Maintenance of the balance of the body requires sensitivity to whatever happens within and outside the body. There are sufficient receptors in each of the sense organs, particularly the skin, in tendons and in the walls of the veins, to feel any change of heat, pressure, light, food and oxygen, etc., in the inner and outer environment, and inform the central nervous system accordingly. In this way, the body is adaptable to a wide range of conditions in the world.

Similarly, in order to maintain the order of a community, it must have the same adaptability. This is possible through a loose structure of bureaucracy, a sophisticated communication network and a well- ordered system established on well- working principles.

Co-ordination within the system

Co-ordination and making good each other’s shortcomings are important characteristics of a living body. For example, when we are eating or are full after eating, the veins in the stomach and intestines swell and more blood is pumped into them so that the stomach and intestines can work efficiently. While one is running or doing physical exercise, the muscles need more oxygen and glucose which are carried in the blood: the veins in internal organs become narrow so that more blood can be sent to the muscles. If someone unaware of this attempts to do severe physical exercise on a full stomach, the body will have to exert more effort to send blood to both the stomach and muscles and become exhausted, as well as causing the heart to become overworked and tire.

Similarly, co-ordination among its institutions and members, division of labour and putting things in order of importance are vital for the institutions of a healthy community as well as for the community itself. Just as too much heavy exercise or overeating may cause the brain to be left without sufficient blood or the kidneys to stop filtering, excessive expenditure on some sections of labour or discrimination between the sections or institutions of a community may result in great disruptions and uneasiness in it. 

Education and collective consciousness

Many more examples may be given for the correspondence between a living body and a community. We can take lessons from a living body to realize a healthy social life. However, what is particularly worthy of mention here is that while a body works automatically according to a magnificent program or system which requires infinite knowledge to prepare and establish — knowledge of the structure of all the cells, tissues and organs of the body and their way of working, and of the nature of their relation among themselves and the relation of the body with its near and remote environment, in short, knowledge of the whole of the universe — the members of a community have free will and therefore require to be disciplined and controlled. This is possible through a perfect educational system fully aware of the nature of man and his material, spiritual and social needs and having the necessary equipment to satisfy them.

So that he may survive and fulfil his functions among the creatures in the world, man is empowered with three principal faculties. These are his appetites — for the opposite sex, offspring, livelihood, commodities, etc.; his anger or forcefulness in defence and struggle; and his power of reasoning or intellect. In order that man may attain moral perfection by struggling against excess in the use of these three faculties, they are not restricted in nature. However, mans individual and collective happiness lies in his disciplining them for the sake of a harmonious, peaceful individual and social life. He also needs to be in transactions with his fellow-men to exchange the fruits of his skills and labour with those of others. This requires an overall justice in society. So, unless man disciplines his faculties, they may drive him to immorality, illicit sexual relationships, unlawful livelihood, tyranny, injustices, deception, falsehood, and other vices. To prevent the chaos and suffering that must follow undisciplined exercise of human powers and establish justice in society, man must submit to an authority that will guide and regulate his collective affairs. Seeing that there is a perfect harmony in the working of his body, a working which displays infinite knowledge, wisdom and consciousness, although his body is made up of parts completely unconscious, ignorant, deaf and blind, the authority to which man must submit must be the same as that which governs his body and environment. And, just as the body works, although unconsciously, in perfect co-ordination, the members of a community must endeavour to establish a like co-ordination and achieve an effective collective consciousness, that is, responsibility to and for each other.