In his The Death of Criticism, Terry Eagleton spoke of the rude shock a clerk in his office might experience if she stumbled upon the thought that her boss is actually paid, and paid very well for that matter, for just reading poetry and prose. If she realises this, and perhaps begins to make noise about it, the authorities might again realise that, indeed, they might be wasting money on a venture that has no purpose. If they were to realise this, it would mean the death of criticism.

Terry Eagleton chose this anecdote to show how people might view literary education as an exercise in futility because, as Edward Said demonstrated in his Orientalism, literature or the cultural realm, and its expertise, seem institutionally divorced from their real connection with power (see Said, 2003: 2-3). In fact, what Said wanted to say was that literary education should be taken very seriously, because it contained things needed to build a man or woman for social change. In other words, as earlier mentioned in the abstract, texts contain macro and micro types of information; if these are properly harnessed and transformed, they have the capacity to change our world.

We derive an extraordinary amount of information from texts – information about politics and history, sociology and psychology. A great deal of information is available in texts, but it also demands transformation into knowledge. It is at this stage that information transformed to knowledge becomes power. This power that the individual – that is, the scholar of literature – possesses is actually a cognitive state he has attained that makes it possible for him or her to become a better person or a bad person. This state must, however, be made concrete and practical through the application of the knowledge gained, which has actually made him or her powerful.

Thesis

The ability of the scholar or critic of literature to become a mediator in Conflict Resolution is only one aspect of his or her method of making his knowledge practical. He or she may decide to apply his or her knowledge, for it has become a source of power for him or her in fighting against oppression and injustice. He or she may decide to go into party politics and seek elected office as a way to improve the lives of others. Or, he or she may even begin to apply words to paper – that is, to become a writer. The fact of a writer being a person who is making his or her knowledge practical or functional lies in the fact that, first of all, he or she has a reason for wanting to write –what the Marxist critics would call authorial intention in writing: if the writer is not trying to reform a morbid psyche, he or she might intend to teach or raise issues about a condition that he or she thinks needs to change. They could even inspire a revolution. They might decide to report events as well as ensure that people become informed, because it is in being informed about something that makes change become inevitable.

Today, Nigerians are faced with the challenges of insecurity occasioned by religious extremism that borders on terrorism. This extremism is based on the misappropriation of scriptural injunctions. They are used – through a medley of religious, political, and ethnic reasons – to justify the actions of extremists.

The chaotic state of Nigeria’s present could be compared to the situation of Victorian England, where the progress made in science and technology brought man to the brink of apostasy. The fact that science could not verify the existence of God led many to trust solely in the proven capacity of the human mind. The German philologist and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche boldly declared, in his fictional work Thus Spoke Zoroaster or Also Sprach Zarathustra, that “God was dead … that He died in his pity with humanity” (see Nietzsche as translated by Hollingdale,1975: 114). The Godlessness of the age, as well as the doubt cast upon the divine authority of the Church, led Mathew Arnold to propose in his Literature and Dogma (2002) the need for Literature to take the place of religion (see Arnold). This he thought was possible because in his Culture and Anarchy (2004), his social criticism and his own way of defining Humanism, literature is the carrier of culture. His humanism consists of getting rid of ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and prejudice; it is defined by a continuous quest for the ideal. Therefore, in his Literature and Dogma (2002), he argues that sacred texts should be read as literature because values and morals are derived from them, and as such, they contained things to make us better people. In other words, people should read sacred texts whether or not the existence of God is verifiable or not, because reading them will eventually make them men of culture, or people who have overcome their ignorance, prejudice, narrow-mindedness and continually pursue the ideal of perfection.

By implication, therefore, literature must rescue religious bigots. As George Gordon, the early Professor of English Literature said, “England is sick and … English Literature must save it. The Churches (as I understand) having failed, and social remedies being slow, English literature now has a triple function: still, I suppose to delight and instruct us, but also, and above all, to save our souls and heal the state.” Rephrased one may say: Nigeria is sick and literature must save it. Our religions have faltered, and social remedies have been slow; thus literature must now not only delight us, but also instruct us, heal the state, and save our souls.

Recently, the Federal Government of Nigeria had shown interest in getting to the root causes of religious extremism among Muslims in Nigeria. The Almajiri factor has been identified as one of the causes of religious extremism in Nigeria. Somehow, they have decided that the high rate of poverty and ignorance among some individuals or Almajiris in the North, whose condition was precipitated by certain perceptions and beliefs, caused the frustration that led to this cataclysmic turn of events in Nigeria. The federal government is thinking of rehabilitating these individuals through education. Now the question is: what type of education do these people need? What type of culture will the education teach them? Education liberates the mind – especially good education in the humanities. Vocational education will no doubt teach them practical skills, which could help them in creating employment for themselves; however, for their ignorance to be conquered, for their minds to be liberated, for them to become truly free and genuine human beings, who will harness the potentialities of their mental faculties, and who will make their knowledge functional and applicable, they need the type of education that will make them become men and women of culture. They should be exposed to the transformational effect of knowledge. Their education should be such that occurred in the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe (see Johnson, 2001:44), where literary humanism and a method of careful approach to textual issues evolved. Like a humanist, they should be encouraged to look at things objectively, to value the power of reason without necessarily rejecting the Godhead, to question the origins, authenticity, and credentials of texts – even sacred texts – to practice rational Islamism and see whether it is possible to evolve Islamic humanism, which has taken root in countries like Turkey, where the great Islamic scholar, Fethullah Gϋlen has emerged as a force for love and peace(see Gϋlen, 2010:31). They should be bombarded with literary texts of various shades, simplified if need be, so as to promote sympathy and camaraderie among them; literature should be made to train them in the habits of pluralistic thought and feeling, persuading them to acknowledge that more than their viewpoint exists…(see Eagleton, 2008:22).

Ile, Onyebuchi James is the Head of the Department of English Language and Literature, Nigerian Turkish Nile University.

References

• Arnold, Matthew. 2004. Culture and Anarchy. London: Neeland Media.
• ——. 2002. Literature and Dogma. London: Fredonia Books.
• Eagleton, Terry. 2008. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Gϋlen, M. Fethullah. 2010. Speech and Power of Expression: On Language, Esthetics, and Belief. (translated by Korkut Altay) New Jersey: Tughra Books.
• Johnson, Paul. 2001. The Renaissance. London: Phoenix Press.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1975. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (translated by Hollingdale, R.J.) Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.
• Said, Edward. Orientalism. London: Penguin Books, 2003.

In this post-9/11 world, the word “Muslim” conjures up many images and has many connotations. Real knowledge or understanding of Islam and Muslims however, is few and far between.

In her book Surrendering to God, Dr. Tatari starts by expounding on the literal meaning of what it means to be a muslim, which we find is the verbal noun “submitter.” She explains that a person is a submitter (muslim) if and when he or she submits their mind, heart, and actions to the Will of God. From this perspective, the book not only appeals to those who profess a Muslim identity, but to everyone who strive to find answers to their existential questions and submit to their Creator.

The book addresses the basic existential questions that torment us when they remain unanswered. For those who are swept amidst the chores of life and feel they are about to drown without meaning, the book gives them the opportunity to pause and reset.

This book helps bridge the divide between what we know as Islam and what really is Islam. As a Christian, I found the overlap in the principles of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism comforting in an era when there is all too much emphasis on our differences.

Surrendering to God is not a how-to, nor is it an academic text. Instead, it is an occasionally biographical account of one woman’s journey deeper into her religion that manages to address the larger points of what being a follower of Islam means. Tatari is clear in emphasizing that this is her account, and should not be seen as the definitive guide. She also emphasizes that the relationship one fosters with their Creator is a personal one, that “Faith is a personal matter between a believer and her Creator.”

While very grounded, Surrendering to God frequently makes reference to beautiful passages that illustrate the beauty the author finds in her devotion. One example is when she states: “In Islam, human beings are not deemed to be intrinsically evil. We have the potential to be higher than angels or lower than animals.”

Dr. Tatari makes an important point that religion and science are not incompatible, and that questioning one’s religion is not a sin: “I have learned that this natural … questioning is a gift of God to find Him and that in numerous Qur’anic verses He urges us to question everything.” This is important because all too often to express curiosity, to question, and yes, to occasionally doubt is seen as the currency of the faithless or the “doubters” when in reality it is often the means of getting closer to God.

This book opens a fresh and insightful window into Islam as a practical lifestyle and way of life. Although it deals with theoretical concepts, it is wholly practical. It sheds light on Islam as a religion that is lived rather than just read.

While perhaps intended for Muslims (or muslims, as I have learned from the book that there is a distinction), this book makes great reading for those early on in their relationship with Islam, and for those who are just generally curious about Islam and what it means to be a muslim.

Surrendering to God is a thought-provoking read, no matter what one’s background is. This book will be inspiring to anyone who is trying to grow closer to God and reflect on what is truly important in life.

Dr. Rayna Flye is Research and Evaluation Specialist at Beaverton School District in Oregon.

Optimality is defined as the “most favorable condition or greatest degree or amount possible under given circumstances.”¹ It denotes a general equilibrium in which no improvement in one part of a system is possible without a larger sacrifice in another part. Thus, optimality is not mere order; rather, it is the highest state of it. Every optimal state is also orderly, but every orderly situation does not have to be optimal. The houses that we live in are examples of this. It is quite clear that our houses are not the optimal design for a house, but they are still orderly, hence the result of intention and intelligence.

A common trend among today’s evolutionists is to consider apparent sub-optimality (or “poor design” as some put it) sufficient proof for the nonexistence of a designer (hence, God). Biologist Richard Dawkins, for example, contends that “evidence of telling imperfections” in design is important evidence that “no designer exists.”² However, there are serious problems with this argument. First, judgments about optimality require knowledge of the entire set of objectives and available means, whereas we have no complete knowledge of divine objectives as to the creation of anything. The Bible refers to this point in Job 38:4, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Similarly, the Qur’an states, “I did not make them witnesses of the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor of the creation of their own selfs” (Kahf 18:51). As we were not witnesses to the creation of the universe and human beings, we can never confidently say that something is “sub-optimal.” As one political scientist, George Tsebelis, has noted, cases of apparent sub-optimality are in fact cases of disagreement between “the actor” and “the observer”: “while the observer focuses attention on only one game, the actor is involved in a whole network of games”-what he calls nested games.³ What appears sub-optimal from the perspective of only one game is in fact optimal when the whole network of games is considered. Consequently, all conclusions about sub-optimality in the universe are unwarranted because as observers we have no comprehensive vision and understanding regarding God’s plans and objectives, which relate to multiple issues and platforms. Indeed, most sub-optimality arguments regarding creation are based on the assumed objectives of scientists, which do not necessarily correspond with the more complex and comprehensive objectives of God.

The sub-optimality arguments of evolutionists come in two forms: biological and theological. A famous example of the former is the “poor design” argument regarding the “inverted” arrangement of the vertebrate retina.⁴ Several neo-Darwinians have taken issue with the way retina is typically situated in vertebrates. The vertebrate retina is inverted in the sense that the photoreceptors sit at the back of the retina, so that light has to pass through a layer of neurons before it reaches them. Evolutionists have argued that this invertedness results in inefficiency in vertebrate vision, which is sufficient for them to conclude for the nonexistence of an all-knowing and all-powerful God. Yet, later research proved that in return for the above-mentioned negligible loss in vision, the current structure of the vertebrate retina is found to make possible better absorption of excess light⁵ and superior supply of blood to photoreceptors,⁶ both of which are essential for healthy vision. They are so essential that “[i]f the human retina were ‘wired’ the other way around,” concludes Peter Gurney, “the photoreceptors would be left in darkness.”⁷ This brings us to a verse in the Qur’an: “Were the truth to follow their lusts and fancies, the heavens and the earth and all those who live in them would certainly have gone to ruin” (Muminun 23:71).

A prominent example of the theological sub-optimality arguments of the evolutionists is the so-called “problem of evil,” which goes back to Darwin himself in the evolutionist tradition; Darwin had troubles with the apparently cruel acts in the animal world. Some of Darwin’s famous contemporary followers also take “the existence of human evil as well as of natural catastrophes and diseases” to mean that a benevolent God does not exist.⁸ For these evolutionists, the coexistence of evil and good is a sub-optimal situation and this is sufficient proof to reject the idea of a benevolent God. This argument suffers two ailments, though. The first and most ironic one is that the argument itself is more theology than science. From a scientific point of view, the question for which an answer is sought is whether the universe and everything inside it could have come into being by chance or not. The nature of God and how He ought to act are not questions that science seeks answers for. Second, these arguments stem from evolutionists’ own expectations regarding how the things should be, which are bounded by their strictly earthly considerations. When transcendental and other-worldly considerations are also taken into account, the problem almost evaporates into thin air. Throughout history the “problem of evil” (or theodicy) has been debated by hundreds of scholars in almost all religions. The reconciliation of worldly pains and sorrows with the mercy of a benevolent God has been one of the most challenging topics in the history of religion. Scholars of many religions have offered diverging explanations with varying degrees of consistency and persuasiveness. Some Christian explanations for human evil, for example, have rested on God’s wish to love and be loved out of free will. From this point of view, a genuine love requires a genuine free will, which results in evil actions as well good ones.⁹ Muslim scholars have also developed explanations that would account for all types of “evils.” First, similar to the previous Christian argument, human evil is argued to have been allowed for the realization of a genuine relationship between God and human beings. As for other “evils” such as natural catastrophes or diseases, most Muslim scholars do not view them as evils to start with. In the Muslim faith, everything that takes place happens out of a divine wisdom, which ultimately aims at the well-being of a believer in the afterlife. In this line of thinking, an adversity such as a disease can play three main possible divine roles. It is either a punishment for a believer’s sins or misbehavior in this world, which would replace a harsher punishment in the hereafter; or a test to be passed for spiritual development; or a tool to make a believer approach God by increasing his or her supplications meanwhile.¹⁰In each of these cases, the disease is given to the believer with a benevolent wisdom on the part of God. Moreover, some Muslim scholars have pointed out that sick people also remind other healthy people to give many thanks to God for their health, thereby channeling the whole community to the path of God. As such, what evolutionists claim as sub-optimalities are indeed essential parts of the divine plan, and they collectively function for the realization of the ultimate goal of creation. Thus, for Muslims, a disease is a gift of God with an evil face. As the Qur’an states, “it may well be that you dislike something while God has set in it much good” (Nisa 4:19). Again, a holistic view renders sub-optimality arguments unwarranted.

What these examples suggest is that most sub-optimality arguments are premature and assumptive. Proving a “poor design” argument requires more work than many evolutionists believe. Given our lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding the universe, it is safe to believe that we can never be sure whether something is ultimately sub-optimal. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily doom the study of optimality to a state of impasse. Although it is almost impossible to prove the theoretical optimality of things, we can assume tentative practical optimality in cases where we cannot suggest some practical means to improve on existing things. Thus, a practical test of optimality can be replacement of any purportedly sub-optimal thing in the universe with its artificial counterpart that is produced by human beings. If we can manage to replace any sub-optimal part with a better alternative without introducing new sub-optimalities elsewhere, then we might have a right to a tentative claim for sub-optimality. What is interesting is that all human attempts to improve on natural goods have failed so far. A prominent example to these failures is sugar substitutes. After the scientific discovery of the relationship between sugar consumption and certain health problems such as obesity and tooth decay, several scientists have advised that certain, if not all, people should refrain from or minimize sugar consumption. This resulted in a scientific interest in as well as a popular demand for sugar substitutes (or artificial sweeteners) that would give us the same sweet taste without sugar’s adverse effects. Surprisingly though, recent studies have demonstrated that sugar substitutes create more problems than they solve. Sugar-free sweeteners like aspartame and saccharin come with dozens of side effects, some of which are lethal.¹¹ Consequently, an increasing number of dietary experts advise us today to refrain from “diet” products, most of which include artificial sweeteners.¹² Thus, here we might be justified in claiming that natural sugar has practical optimality because it is proven to be superior to all other alternative sweeteners so far. Another prominent example is baby formulas. Despite all improvements in biochemistry, all baby formulas continue to come second after breast milk. Until human beings succeed in producing an infant formula that is overall more nutritious than breast milk and that is inexpensive enough to be produced in mass quantities, we are safe in saying that breast milk has practical optimality.

Finally, I should note that even if any sub-optimality does exist in the universe, it does not by itself provide any evidence for the absence of an all-powerful Creator. True, most believers believe in a God who is perfect in its self or essence and in its creation. Yet, this does not come to mean that any sub-optimality in the universe would necessarily negate the idea of God. From an Islamic point of view, for example, as everything in this life is part of a test, negligible sub-optimality might have also been purposefully included in God’s “design” as a test for human beings. If everything in the observed world was as perfect as each and every one of us would like it to be, there would be little room for disbelieving in God. However, the Qur’an states that this is not something God wished for human beings. Faith requires a struggle; and minimal sub-optimalities (if there are any) might be part of that struggle as well. If one in a thousand parts comes in seemingly sub-optimal character, it is not rational to conclude for the absence of intelligence or design.

Kaan Kerem has a PhD in Political science. He is freelance writer on philosophy and scientific thought.

1. Wordnet Online dictionary: http://dict.die.net/

2. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), p. 91.

3. George Tsebelis, Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics (University of California Press, 1991), pp: 6-7.

4. Dawkins, pp. 93-4.

5. Juan Ramon Martinez-Morales, Isabel Rodrigo, and Paola Bovolenta, “Eye Development: A View from the Retina Pigmented Epithelium.” BioEssays. 26:766-777, 2003.

6. Helga Kolb, “How the Retina Works,” American Scientist, 91:28–35, 2003. 7. Peter W.V. Gurney, Technical Journal, 13(1):37–44, 1999.

8. Massimo Pigliucci, “Design Yes, Intelligent No.” Skeptical Inquirer, September 2001.

9. Richard Swinburne, Is There a God? (Oxford University Press, 1996). Also see, Casey Luskin, Good Theology and Bad Design or Bad Theology and Good Design? http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/722

10. Said Nursi, The Flashes, trans. S. Vahide (Istanbul: Sozler Publications, 1996), pp: 26, 28, 334–336.

11. Janet Starr Hull, Sweet Poison (New Horizon Press, 1998). Visit author’s website www.sweetpoison.com for detailed information.

12. Michael F. Roizen and Mehmet Oz, You: The Owner’s Manual (Collins, 2005).

The specific neurobiological processes, brain structures, genes, and other factors involved in human intelligence are still largely unknown. Current research on brain anatomy and physiology suggests that various levels of intelligence may be associated with such things as the number of connections between neurons or the degree of branching in cortical neurons. Important factors may include brain metabolism and how fast nerves conduct signals.

Types of intelligence

Measuring intelligence depends on which of the three intelligences one relies on and uses the most. For example:

Static Intelligence: The accumulated knowledge measured by IQ (Intelligence Quotient) tests. Psychologists call it cognitive content. Standard IQ tests have changed very little since their first appearance over 100 years ago, while cognitive psychology’s understanding of how the brain and mind function has made great progress over that same time period.

Fluid Intelligence: How quickly the mind learns and adapts to new problems and conditions. Also known as practical or dynamic intelligence, this important aspect is hardly ever measured.

Brain Intelligence: Also known as BrainQ or cognitive capacity, this is the speed and efficiency at which the brain processes information. In electronics, Q is how efficient and well-tuned the circuit or system is. So BrainQ is how tuned the brain is, which is reflected in mental quickness, memory, and concentration powers. It is fluid and variable, as it is e very sensitive to environmental and lifestyle conditions.

Both static and fluid intelligence depend on BrainQ. Academic, professional, and even personal success depends mostly on BrainQ. In fact, studies have shown very little correlation between one’s IQ score and monetary success. Most importantly, BrainQ (also known as brainpower) is highly trainable (improvable) with the appropriate type of exercise.

Emotional Intelligence (E-IQ) and BrainQ are correlated. According to Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey, emotional intelligence is composed of being able to identify, perceive, express, and understand emotions in different contexts; emotional understanding; and emotional management.

Measuring intelligence

Abundant research proves that thinking about and testing for human intelligence is no small matter. Yet, Robert J. Sternberg, professor of psychology at Yale University, says that, in many ways, we have it all wrong: There are major problems with conventional thinking about intelligence at best, our notions are incomplete, and at worst, simply wrong.

The dominant psychometric approach to studying intelligence claims to measure intelligence through IQ tests. One’s IQ is the result of dividing a person’s mental age by his/her actual age. This procedure has been dropped, but IQ is still used to refer to the scores obtained on intelligence tests and to the tests themselves. Such scores are normally scaled so that the mean is 100 and standard deviation is 15. Ninety-five percent of the population scores within two standard deviations around the mean (between 70-130).

Many IQ tests exist to measure verbal, spatial, mathematical, and analytical skills, while others depend on reaction or recognition time to a visual stimulus. Several IQ tests combine multiple subtests, each testing a specific skill. Regardless of the test’s nature, many researchers believe that factor analysis can extract a general statistical factor (g) from thes results of to obtain a general measurement of intelligence. There is evidence suggesting that g correlates with academic success and, to some extent, with measuring non-school accomplishments.

Despite its wide acceptance, not all researchers agree with the concept of a general, measurable intelligence factor. Some experts believe that g measures some types of intelligence (e.g., analytical problem solving) but not others (e.g., creativity and practical intelligence). Other theorists have abandoned the idea of accurately measuring intelligence, saying that there are multiple kinds of intelligence that cannot be measured with pen-and-paper tests.

Sternberg has proposed a new definition of intelligence that includes analytical skills (the ability to analyze and judge, compare and contrast) and creative and practical abilities. He adds the second and third factors to make the definition of intelligence more meaningful, although he acknowledges that analytical intelligence is an important component of intelligence. Creative intelligence is measured by problems assessing how well an individual copes with relative novelty and can create or invent new products, while practical intelligence measures the ability to handle daily problems.

Increasing IQ?

Some studies have shown that young children exposed to stimulation-rich environments in kindergarten had higher IQ scores than their non-exposed classmates. However, such increases were mostly gone upon graduating from elementary school. Despite this temporary improvement, evidence suggests that the exposed children tended to perform better in school, were less likely to need special education, and were more likely to finish school. Thus, some cognitive functions as well as one’s quality of life were enhanced.

The results of such test suggest that stimulation is a key factor in increasing cognitive performance. Could this positive effect be prolonged by continued exposure to enriched environments? Recent studies in neuroscience show that neuronal synapses in a highly stimulated environment tend to grow and expand, at least in the visual system, compared to those that receive only background static (white noise) input. Also, synapses tend to grow stronger with regular stimulation, which suggests that cognitive function may be improved by a variety-rich environment, stimulation, and activity.

Another suggestive study is the Mozart effect. Researchers picked his Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major for its complexity, and showed that college students who listened to it before taking a spatial-temporal reasoning test performed better than control subjects. However, the effect only lasted 15 minutes and seems to be specific to the piece of music and to experimental conditions.

Although these results are limited to specific circumstances, they still have promise. The results are temporary, but one can make an analogy between these effects and those of physical exercise, which are also usually temporary. The key in maintaining and potentially improving cognitive function may be the forms of mental exercise. Solving puzzles, reading, learning new language or a musical instrument may have positive effects. Again, the important point may be in optimizing overall cognitive function rather than in increasing measured IQ scores, which research shows to be relatively stable after childhood.

Physical exercise clearly provides optimal results when combined with a proper diet. The same is likely to hold for mental exercises. Severe malnutrition while a child can have negative effects on intelligence, and the brain requires nutrients to function properly on a daily basis. Also, physical exercise seems to have a positive effect on mental performance. For example, aerobic exercise appears to increase memory retention, improve some types of creative problem solving, and has positive effects on general well-being. Also, exercise can help relieve stress, which has a negative impact on learning and memory. Various relaxation techniques are also beneficial.

Overall, it does not seem likely that measured IQ can be increased permanently. But other supporting factors of cognitive function might be enhanced, thereby optimizing overall mental performance. The best ways to do this seem to be combining physical and mental activities to create a stimulating environment, and to get enough nourishment.

Sternberg’s theory of intelligence

Sternberg has made some interesting points that have been borne out by research results. For example, he has demonstrated that people can handle cognitive challenges in real-life situations. For example, housewives and Brazilian street children have difficulty calculating in a classroom, but not in a supermarket or while making a deal on the street, respectively.

Another consideration is the importance of family expectations on children’s learning. For example, Kenyan families typically do not value formal Western, but do value knowledge of the indigenous environment. He found that when Kenyan children were tested on their knowledge of the indigenous environment, those who scored high on the indigenous tests scored low on conventional IQ tests.

Sternberg also has shown, in a study of Yale students, that students in the high-analytical group were much less diverse in terms of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and educational backgrounds than those in the high-creative and high-practical groups.

Sternberg’s research has critical impacts on teaching. He asserts: First of all, it is important to note that all three abilities analytical, creative, and practical can be taught. When students are taught in a way that best fits how they think, they do better in school. Children with high levels of creative and practical abilities, who are almost never taught or assessed in a way that matches their pattern of abilities, may be at a disadvantage in course after course, year after year.

Abusing IQ test scores

However, Sternberg is aware that resistance to change in measuring intelligence is great and widespread. He adds: The U.S. has developed a multi-million dollar testing industry whose tests are based on conventional notions of intelligence. The modern version of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence tests or the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales have not evolved much over the years. Whereas old computers and old VCRs and old telephones rapidly go out of date, old tests never seem to die, except for updating of norms and cosmetic changes.

Sternberg is confident that conventional notions of intelligence can be surpassed, despite the reluctance and opposition to change, and that doing so will benefit everyone. He concludes: In fact, the most important abilities for science are creative abilities, and if we continue to measure students with conventional tests and do not value creative abilities in training, the result may be that we are picking the wrong people. People who are highly creative may be denied the opportunity to go into science, and science may lose its best potential to advance.

The current misuse of IQ or similar tests is not as problematic as the ones in past. Murray and Herrnstein’s controversial The Bell Curve summarizes research allegedly purporting that blacks are innately less intelligent than whites. This conclusion depends on culturally biased IQ tests or content-oriented SAT tests. However, these conclusions neglect the social limitations, unequal conditions, underprivileged situations, low-quality education, malnutrition, and poverty. The famous Milwaukee Project of the 1970s showed that nurturing plays a vital role in a child’s intelligence. And Goddard’s results, obtained in the early 1900s and based tests given to newly arriving immigrants who had spent months on a boat, who were mainly laypeople, and often had little if any grasp of English, has been disproven by those very people and their descendants, many of whom went on to build quite successful careers in America.

IQ tests are culturally biased. However as Reynolds points out: The argument is whether the brain’s processing speed determines how well one can do in an IQ test. The IQ tests and SATs are very content-oriented. If you weren’t taught some important element, you’d be at a disadvantage (Report From Biomedical). Rather than this, an IQ test should check how quickly one’s brain can process information.

Conclusion

In conclusion, intelligence depends on many things: daily diet, physical and mental exercise, emotional state, stress, and so on. It is not fixed or static, so one can improve it by a combination of techniques that suit the individual. In spite of the developments in cognitive science and medicine, measuring intelligence is still in its crawling stage and open for research. One can be filled only with awe before such a vital yet mostly unknown organ, whose functions have tantalized humanity for centuries. Thus, each person should appreciate having such a distinguishing feature and thank the Creator.

References

• Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Free Press: 1996.
• Mayer, J. D., D. Caruso, and P. Salovey. Selecting a Measure of Emotional Intelligence: The Case for Ability Scales. (Second submission version), 11 January 2000. Chapter in: R. Bar-On and J. D. A. Parker (eds.), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. Jossey Bass: 2000.
• NIH Behavioral and Social Sciences, NIH Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Seminar Series, 1999.

It is an aspect of the Divine Mercy that everyone of those actions which a practising Muslim is required to do in a particular way and with a particular intention combines a moral-spiritual value with a utilitarian value. For example, it has been objectively demonstrated that, if done properly and regularly, wudu contributes to having clean, healthy skin (see Fountain, 1, pp.33-6). Of course, that is not the point of doing wudu. The point of doing wudu is to get oneself in a state of readiness for worship–for the explicit occasions such as doing the prayer or reading the Qur’an, or, more generally, for initiating any action which the Muslim hopes may be acceptable as worship. The practical benefit of doing the prescribed acts in the prescribed manner is not what makes them acceptable or worthy as acts of worship. If a non-Muslim does the same actions, copying every detail with exact care, or if a Muslim does them but without the proper intention, only the practical benefits are to be hoped for: it is the intention that earns the moral reward. The practical benefit can then be understood as the additional (and not the essential) merit of the prescribed actions–a part of the rationality, the universality, the sheer ease of Islam.

It is in this general perspective that we can best grasp the benefits of slaughtering animals according to the manner prescribed to Muslims. The four conditions of it, after the condition that the animal be one lawful for Muslims to eat, are: 1) that the person doing the slaughtering is a Muslim of sound mind (not mad, not drunk, not legally a minor); 2) that the name of Allah is pronounced before any incision is made; 3) that the instrument used is extremely sharp; 4) that the incision is made in the neck just below the glottis, cutting the throat and oesophagus, the jugular vein and the carotid artery, but (and this is most important) without cutting the spinal cord or severing the head from the body. We should add that it is improper to interfere with the carcass (for example, to begin skinning or dismembering the animal) before convulsions have ceased and its life fully departed.

Plainly, the first and second conditions have to do with the intention, the state of mind, of the person doing the slaughtering. The subsequent conditions have to do with the practical details of carrying out the intention. Studied objectively (that is, without the prejudice of anti-Muslim sentiment), the practical details are found to be the most reliable way of producing wholesome meat without causing undue distress or pain to the animal.

The sharpness of the instrument guarantees the speed of the incision. The speed ensures that, just as when a man cuts himself shaving with a razor, the incision itself is painless (even if, much later, the wound may not be). The particular incision, the cutting of the major blood vessels in the neck, produces an immediate stunning effect: it causes the most massive possible haemorrhaging of blood which, by straightaway cutting the supply of blood to the brain, renders the animal unconscious. However, because the spinal cord is not (must not) be cut, the brain continues to send its electrical impulses to the heart, urgent messages demanding the supply of blood: that is why the animal convulses violently, pumping blood ever more vigorously and so speeding up the haemorrhaging process, until life leaves the body. Certainly, these violent convulsions (the result of rapid muscle contraction) look distressing, but in fact they are painless to the animal which, as we have noted, is unconscious during this process. The body’s own mechanism is thus used to rapidly drain the carcass of blood. Not until the draining of blood is finished is it permissible to proceed with skinning or dismembering the carcass. Why?Blood carries nutrients round the body to feed its tissue cells and carries away the waste product left after the nutrients have been extracted; after processing in the kidneys the blood is purified of these wastes and again circulated. The same blood also carries organisms which are responsible for disease but which in a healthy living body do not present as clinical symptoms. Separated from the body, these disease-carrying organisms are indeed harmful and it is for that reason (among others) that the consumption of blood is forbidden. Moreover, blood in a carcass is the principal breeding- ground for all kinds of bacteria. The failure to drain a carcass adequately renders it liable to rapid putrefaction, making the meat unfit for consumption. The convulsions of the slaughtered animal are the most efficient and (despite appearances) the most painless method of pumping the carcass free of blood.

It is obvious that the methods used for animal slaughter in the industrialized countries are designed for maximum ‘productivity’. That is why various mechanical techniques are used to ‘stun’ the animals in order to speed up the mechanical handling of them. The argument that these techniques are more humane is, frankly, dishonest propaganda put about by the meat trade. There is a great difference between paralysis and unconsciousness: the stunning techniques used, unless very precisely calculated and very accurately administered to each individual animal, may cause paralysis rather than unconsciousness. This means that the animal is motionless (paralysed) and so easy to harness and hoist up, and it looks as if it is not suffering; in fact, it may be quite conscious and in terrible pain. Further, because it is paralysed, the animal’s nervous system is largely disabled so that drainage of blood has to be achieved by rapid, total dismemberment of the carcass by machines–blood is lost by gravity, not by the natural pumping action described above. However, drainage is not as thorough by this method which severely affects the wholesomeness, colour and taste of the meat. Readers of the Qur’an (5.4) will know that (as well as blood and carrion) the meat of animals harassed or strangled or clubbed to death is haram the reason (among others) is that, in a condition of terror, hormones and chemicals are released into the body and bloodstream which distress the tissues and render them unfit for consumption. The Western techniques of stunning before slaughter, because they do not guarantee unconsciousness and do not minimize the terror suffered by the animal, are not acceptable under Islamic rules of slaughter. (Details of the legislation in a number of Western countries–following controlled experiments and government surveys of stunning and slaughtering techniques with different animals–may be consulted in Karodia, 1988.)Let us turn to the two first conditions for lawful slaughtering–namely, that the person be a Muslim of sound mind, that the name of Allah be pronounced. The person must be conscious of what he or she is doing and do it, as it were, in the full awareness that Allah has permitted it and witnessed it. It does not take much imagination to work out that the act of slaughtering an animal is, by this means, individualized: the mechanized, assembly-line taking of life is not acceptable. It may well be that the further preparation of the meat for sale and consumption can (perhaps should) be mechanized so as to increase efficiency and reduce waste. But the act of taking of sentient life, allowed for the purposes of food, must be done mindfully, and may not be handed over to a machine. The moral purpose of these conditions is that human beings do not become arrogant in the dominion they are granted over the animals they farm or hunt for food. That purpose becomes clearer when we recall that there are further stipulations in the Sunna the knife must not be sharpened in front of the animal; one animal should not be slaughtered in sight of another; the animal should be (as a vet does when examining an animal) lain on its side, soothed, and held still before the knife is applied.

All these conditions taken together mean an individual and collective mindfulness, a taking of responsibility. Because the laws of Islam are moral laws, they are not required to be applied where they cannot be applied: something that is impossible to do cannot be commanded to be done–except by mad tyrants. Thus it is that, under the direst necessity, without desiring the unlawful, the unlawful is also permitted. How then is it that Muslims will not understand the mercy, the ease, of that which is prescribed for them to do, but will instead –alas too often–fall under the sway of alien persuasions and do what they must only half-heartedly, sometimes even becoming so impudent as to complain of what benefits them? How should such ingratitude be rewarded except by the reward of all moral stupidity–that, in practice, Muslims come to accept that what is good is bad, and what is bad good? The occasion of ‘Id al-Adha, the ‘Id of sacrifice, is an occasion of mercy remembered and celebrated with thanksgiving and repentance. Let it be, also, an occasion to remember our indebtedness to Islam, for the wisdom, the sanity and spirituality, of what by Allah (through the example and teaching of His Messenger, upon him be peace) is prescribed to us to do.

REFERENCE

KARODI,. A.M. (1988) ‘The Muslim methods of animal slaughter and its scientific and social relevance in non-Muslim societies’, Journal of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, 9 (l),pp.173-85.