In his book, Flew states, “I should point out, moreover, that this is not the first time I changed my mind on a fundamental issue. Among other things, readers who are familiar with my vigorous defense of free markets may be surprised to learn that I was once a Marxist …” Flew in fact consistently mentions throughout his book that it is not actually the first time he changed his mind. These statements may disappoint those readers who want to hear more reliable arguments on the question of God. However, as a philosopher, Flew is confident in his decision and leaves it to readers to decide how to deal with his reasons for changing his mind. Given the possibility of progress in philosophy, Flew considers it a principle to follow the argument wherever it may lead him. Therefore, before reading this book, one should keep in mind that the book has a philosophical perspective rather than a religious one. Philosophical thought is inherently unbiased (or unguided) and quite evolutionary as opposed to any given religion (say Christianity, Islam or Judaism), which usually has its own well-defined and self-consistent structure.

It is not possible in this short article to summarize all of the reasons which led Flew to believe in God in the later stage of his life. Below, we mainly discuss how Flew’s decision was influenced by the origin of the laws of physics. We also show how his final thoughts compare with modern Muslim scholars Nursi and Gülen, who have roots in revelations rather than philosophy. Then we explain why we believe Flew’s methodology is not safe as long as it stays within the territories of traditional philosophy.

Laws of physics and “mind of God”

When Flew discusses the origin of the laws of physics (or undeniable design in the universe), he gives statements from the founders of quantum physics, all of whom connect the laws of nature with the “Mind of God,” as described by Einstein. He refers to Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Paul Dirac. Below, we only quote Schrodinger’s statement:

“The scientific picture of the world around me is very deficient. It gives me a lot of factual information, puts our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a word about the sensation of red and blue, bitter and sweet, feelings of delight and sorrow. It knows nothing of beauty and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity of which we somehow form a part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God, with a capital ‘G.’ Science is, very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we have said this is not astonishing. If its world picture does not even contain beauty, delight, sorrow, if personally cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to the human mind?”

Nursi and Gülen, two great scholars of our modern times, have the following views on this. According to Nursi [2,3], only through the light of faith in God and His Divine Revelation, can humans understand their true essence, the universe that they reside within, their past, present, and their future. Otherwise, things and events surrounding them would be highly difficult to comprehend, because the only mechanism that would remain to interpret the purpose behind would be the ego equipped with limited knowledge and experience, which is too subjective to rely on and far from being convincing. Most of the time, the ego misguides people into the darkness and heedlessness. However, with the light of faith, believers do not fall into such catastrophes. Believers better understand and appreciate the universe and do not suffer as unbelievers do; rather they enjoy the whispering galleries in the universe and beyond.

Gülen’s perspective [2,4,5] is similar to Nursi. Although it might be possible for some brilliant scientists to discover how things work at the most fundamental levels of particles, it is impossible to fully comprehend how these particles actually constitute the whole in such a perfect harmony. This is because there is infinite knowledge of the Omniscient behind the scenes. Those who deny the existence of the Omniscient are shocked by the incredible harmony in nature and yet attribute it all to the creatures themselves. These limited, shortsighted perspectives and prejudices leave so many gaps in the quest for existence that the systems developed based on them cannot convince anyone, but rather open up greater questions in the heart, mind, and soul, all waiting to be answered. However, a person equipped with the former perspective can reach more conclusive results in very short times with much less efforts compared to those unbelievers who consume their lives to understand existence. Believers feel the signs of God in everything they explore and live their days as if in the avenues of Paradise. If the reason is integrated with the revelation, only then can it elevate us to the realms of the unreachable. It opens the doors to the true universe, which is otherwise hidden in darkness and chaos. With revelation, the universe turns into a great book of existence, telling about its Creator on every page. Then those struggling in emptiness and tyranny are awakened to humanistic ideals and the truth.

On the different pages of his book, Flew reminds the reader that scientists like Paul Davies and John Barrow have received the Templeton Prize for further developing the insights of Einstein, Heisenberg, and other scientists into theories of the relationship between the rationality of nature and the Mind of God. Flew draws attention to the existence of natural laws and cites Paul Davies, who says, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us.” The critical question Flew asks is, “whose laws?”

Flew thinks, no matter what, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. He says, “the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.” Once the physical laws are set correctly, one can think of our resultant universe; however, the question that needs to be answered is ‘who set the laws and why did they set them this way?'”

Flew also reminds the reader of the following question related to the origin of life, a question that has not been answered: “How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and coded chemistry?” He quotes from Paul Davies again, “The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.” Flew makes an important distinction between this question and what is being addressed by “evolution.” He says that the latter is dealing with the interaction of chemicals, whereas the above question is interrogating how something (chemicals) can be intrinsically purpose driven.

Nursi explains this as follows [6]:

“If you do not accept that the particles in your body are tiny officials in motion in accordance with the law of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, or that they are an army, or the nibs of the pen of Divine Determining, with each particle as the nib of a pen, or that they are points inscribed by the pen of Power with each particle being a point, then in every particle working in your eye there would have to be an eye such as could see every limb and part of your body as well as the entire universe, with which you are connected. In addition to this, you would have to ascribe to each particle an intelligence equivalent to that of a hundred geniuses, sufficient to know and recognize all your past and your future, and your forbears and descendants, the origins of all the elements of your being, and the sources of all your sustenance. To attribute the knowledge and consciousness of a thousand Plato’s to a single particle of one such as you who does not possess even a particle’s worth of intelligence in matters of this kind is a crazy superstition a thousand times over!”

Here Nursi argues that the intelligence and consciousness that are exhibited in the universe can only be understood by the existence of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One. He guides these mindless particles toward a Divine Determining and in accordance with the law. Nursi also draws attention to a subtle point which is missing in the philosophers’ question above. The particles and the law they are bound to are created so intelligently and consciously that they do not only give rise to the sustenance of the current universe, but we can tailor them for our future sustenance and well being. To give an example, consider a 10 billion year old particle, an electron. How did this particle lead to today’s electronic revolution? How did it know it could function one day as part of a flowing current in a computer chip?

Pilgrimage of reason is not safe

In his book, Flew considers three evidences which require an Intelligence explaining not only its own existence but also that of the world. These are the laws of nature, life, and the existence of the universe. Flew admits that the journey to his discovery of God has so far been a pilgrimage of reason. He has followed the argument where it has led him. The arguments led him to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient being.

Although it’s quite impressive what Flew has gone through and he put forward reasonable arguments, no one can actually guarantee that his arguments will ultimately lead to Truth, since they can be neither proved nor disproved. Worse, a smarter philosopher or scientist may well appear in the future and challenge him. Then, how can we actually make sure that Flew is actually right in his arguments?

The answer is, “we can never be.” There is a need for a strong “point of support,” since science and philosophy alone, by definition, as admitted in Schrodinger’s statement above, cannot provide absolutely convincing arguments. If God exists and wants man to know Him, there is a need for a clear message immune from any kind of ambiguity and understandable by virtually anyone. Nothing would be clearer than direct revelations from God. Interestingly, there are, in fact, many verses in the Quran [7], for example, which draw attention to such clarity in God’s messages:

• “A.L.R. These are the Ayats of Revelation, of a Quran that makes things clear.” (The Rocky Tract 1)
• “We have already sent down to you verses making things clear, an illustration from (the story of) people who passed away before you, and an admonition for those who fear (Allah).” (The Light 34)
• “Thus we have sent down Clear Signs; and verily Allah guides whom He will!” (The Pilgrimage 16)
• “We have sent down to you Manifest Signs; and none reject them but those who are perverse.” (The Heifer 99)
• “A.L.R. (This is) a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning), further explained in detail, from One Who is Wise and Well-Acquainted (with all things):” (The Prophet Hud 1)
• “A Sura which we have sent down and which We have ordained: in it We have sent down Clear Signs, in order that you may receive admonition.” (The Light 1)
• “This is the Way of your Lord, leading straight: We have detailed the Signs for those who receive admonition.” (The Cattle 126)

Revealing the Message of God

Flew finishes his book with a very beautiful analogy of a satellite phone discovered by an island tribe. The sage in the tribe suggests that the phone is a medium of contact with other humans. After some investigation, the tribe confirms that the phone is connected to a network which transmits the voices of intelligent beings that exist. They go even further and decipher the patterns and rhythms and their whole world changes. Similarly the discovery of phenomena like the laws of nature-the communications network in this parable–has led the thinkers to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Although Flew summarizes his pilgrimage in a very beautiful fashion with such a parable, we should agree, however, that the direct revelation of God through his messengers is the integral part of this communication network. Even Flew subconsciously acknowledges the role of the “sage” in his parable.

Acknowledgment: This article was produced in Mergeous [8], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realms of science and spiritual thought. The longer and live version of the article [9] is also available in Mergeous for interested readers.

References

1. A. Flew, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” HarperCollins Publishers (New York, 2007).

2. Kainata Imanla Bakis, http://www.mergeous.com/projectcon.asp?aid=21

3. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Sozler, Sayfa 281-299 (risaleinurenstitusu.org).

4. M. F. Gülen, “Islam’in engin ufku,” Yagmur, Sayi 30, Ocak-Mart 2006.

5. M. F. Gülen, “Marifet, Muhabbet ve Medyuniyet,” Kirik Testi, http://www.herkul.org/kiriktesti/?article_id=7978

6. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Flashes, pg. 237 (translated by Sukran Vahide).

7. A. Y. Ali, The Qur’an Translation, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc. (New York 2004).

8. Mergeous, Online article and project development service, mergeous.com

9. There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind, by Antony Flew (Review), http://www.mergeous.com/articlecon.asp?aid=16

When a father’s inquisitive daughter asks him, “Why he is God invisible?” he thinks he’s getting off with an easy question. But the answer is far more complex, and wise, than he could have imagined.

Having an adolescent at home is a challenge, but answering their questions without triggering other question is a totally different one. And I should know this, because what else can you expect from the curious daughter of a researcher-father? Almost every day, she unloads a question on me, and the rest of my day is buried into deep thoughts over the answer.

Well, this time, I thought her question was an easy one. She asked, “Dad, why is God invisible?” Wow, that was easy. I felt like a child who knows the answer to the question the teacher asked:

“Our eyes are not capable of seeing Him. There are other things, too, that are invisible for us; like love or intelligence.” That was it. I was smiling in celebration of my effortless success. But my daughter, she wasn’t smiling:

“I didn’t ask why we can’t see Him. I said why is He invisible; that is why did He choose to be invisible to us?”

Good grief! How in the world should I know? I just tried to save the moment by giving the most straight forward answer: “Well, this life is an examination for humans. God invites us to find Him, and choose to submit to Him without seeing. That’s the rule of the game, or the challenge of the exam.”

She didn’t look satisfied with what I said. After a few seconds of silence, she blurted out: “Ok, it is part of what I am looking for, but not exactly.”

“If you can define what you are after, we can search for it, you know.”

“Dad! I remember you telling me that you can ask the perfect question only if, and when, you know the answer. If I don’t know the answer, how can I perfectly ask about it?”

Right there, I was shot with my own gun. I had used those words a few times to escape a mental fight or to avoid getting caught with an insufficient explanation. But, being daddy’s girl, she picked it up too quickly and she was expecting me to figure out what in her mind without her telling me. So this was something I was used to. All I needed was to focus: “Why is God invisible? Why did He choose to be invisible?”

Being invisible while being there… Things are better understood when juxtaposed with their opposites. So, I started thinking about being visible but not being there. This sounded like the people who shake hands with you while talking to somebody else, or those who can’t help looking at a computer or cell phone screen while talking with you. Then I remembered the cliche father depiction in the movies: a person who exists but no more – and the rest of the movie is focused on filling that void from lack of a father’s love! I realized that my brainstorm was taking me far far away… But the concept of parenthood? Maybe there was help in it.

Being good parents… I recalled the examples in the books and seminars about parenting. “Helicopter” parents would help their child in everything to the point that they would not let the child enjoy the feeling of success. Such kids would have difficulty in developing self confidence and entrepreneurship. “Absentee parents,” on the other hand, would not bother themselves, even if their kids were crushed under incessant failure. Such kids would have difficulty in developing trust and establishing long-term commitment. But what about these musings? Were they of help to probe into my daughter’s curious mind?

I remembered that parents were extremely important because the relationship between them and the child was the framework for the relationship between the individual and God. And conversely, God’s lordship was a model for parenting. So, if God chose to be invisible, was it a lesson for me as a parent?

For example, He was invisible, but He was not absent. People discovered God best when they were in their most desperate situations. And in normal times, He was enabling us to enjoy success and self-confidence by helping and guiding us in our actions without overriding our egos. Had this help and guidance been substituted by His infinite Will and Power always, we could not have controlled our actions, and so, we could not have developed even the notion of self.

I felt like I found a great gift for my daughter. But was this enough? Was this what she was looking for? Or part of it? Who knows? Perhaps, I should keep thinking. After all, I was her hero; I should not ruin her dreams.

I remembered how I was disappointed by some of my superheroes. In my childhood, superheroes were depicted as people who were there only in times of danger and emergencies. So, they were never put into contexts that would reveal a lack of character or a need to be cared for. But in recent times, superheroes were likely to be depicted with defects in their personalities. Even sometimes, they were shown trying to cover up those defects with their powers, making the picture even worse.

I did not want to disappoint my daughter. But as much as I was her hero, I was a human: a regular human with insufficiencies and mistakes. And, so was she. In any case, I didn’t want to be remembered through my negatives. Wasn’t I educated not to hit people in the face with their mistakes – but on the contrary, to cover them, if possible? Right at that moment, I saw that being invisible was the perfect way God did this for us. If He revealed His presence every time we did something wrong, how shameful would that be?

But, whether covering a flaw or doing a favor, what crowned those good deeds was when the person who committed them didn’t expect anything back. The best help was described as “done by the right hand without the left hand being aware of it.” Doing favors while being invisible like angels was the ideal. So, the other person only knows that they have been covered, and that’s it. They can’t see anyone who is going to ask for a return by reminding them of the favor; they can’t remember a face whose appearance would rekindle the regrets of the past mistakes. Their pride is not wounded, and their dignity is intact. They are left with a gratitude that can only be paid forward by doing the same for others. I thought, in this context, being invisible was another way by which God taught us benevolence and magnanimity by example.

Having gone through all these thoughts, I was guessing that I had found enough answers for my daughter. But since I had not figured out a way to deliver those answers without being visible, I was expecting her to have enough of me after a minute, and without much listening, to produce another question. I was wrong, and I was correct. She listened to me completely and attentively. Then she added:

“Today, during the exam, the teacher stood beside me for a minute. You cannot imagine what a stressful minute it was. Not that I was doing anything wrong, but seeing her made me so nervous. I remembered that you had told me that we were in an exam in this life. Then it dawned upon me that God being invisible was not only a part of the exam, but also a part of the help to success.”

This time, we both smiled… until she reloaded me with:

“Then why did God give the need for self-confidence and success, if they potentially lead to arrogance?”

If you want to know why some of us are so poetic, while others are strictly straightforward, then read on this unprecedented discussion and see how the Left Brain and the Right Brain discuss their differences.

Moderator – Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight, we have two guests that have long been the focus of media attention: Left Brain and Right Brain. We are going to discuss their opinions on various issues. Without losing much time, I want to get to the first question. Many public figures who have inspired people go through a period of self discovery, after which they define their identities and their surroundings anew. Did you have a similar self-discovery period? And if yes, how do you define yourself now?

Left Brain – I guess I never had a distinct enlightenment period, but I kept building on top of what I already knew about myself. So, my self discovery starts with my babyhood, really. For example, as the eyes gained the ability to distinguish colors and to focus on objects at different distances, I realized that I can collect information about the outside world through colors, shapes, and distances. As the muscles became stronger, I felt free to move my body and developed the notion of being distinct from other things around me. I also realized that I can gather data about what is where, how I can find what I need… When I learned to speak, I developed the notion that there are other people like me out there, for whom I am the other. And so on…

Right Brain – Before I say anything, I would like to bring to your attention that the way I am named is not something I came up with or something I am delighted by. For me, there isn’t a left-right distinction. There is a brain, and that’s it. And actually, I would not call the eyes separate organs. They are only a different part of the same organ, i.e. the brain. Muscles are alike. They are not distinct entities. We are all part of the same organ. So, for me too, self discovery started with my babyhood, but realizing my new abilities forced me to redefine myself, again and again. For example, when I discovered my legs, I did not become a brain with legs, but opened my eyes to a new dimension of my existence. I realized that I was not just about what I thought I was. The same goes for vision, or smell. When you smell something for the first time, that is a creative act. When you taste a fruit for the first time, that is an invention for you. All these culminate in a notion in which everything unifies. Walking is thinking, thinking is walking. Seeing is tasting, tasting is seeing. So, for example, if you cannot solve a problem, try smelling it, tasting it, walking it.

Left Brain – Let’s not get poetic here. If you cannot solve a problem, that’s because you either haven’t gathered enough data or haven’t yet developed a known pattern of solution. It’s also possible that your attention, in the moment, is distracted, due to things like walking, smelling, tasting; you know what I mean?

Moderator – Let’s not lose our focus here. The next topic I want to bring forward is a little more subtle: love and marriage. What do you think love is, and why are marriages today more restrained than before?

Left Brain – There are different categories of love. For instance: the love between couples, the love between parents and their children, and the love between friends are not the same kinds of love. So I am assuming that you are specifically talking about the one between couples. Even in this type of love, there are various facets. Sometimes, it means dedication to support each other. Sometimes it is being valued by the other. You can extend this list. Love is like light. The same phenomenon can display itself in different colors and strength. Today, there is a lot of research about the physical manifestations of love, and the properties of successful marriages. There are also studies on divorces. It seems that, for the moment, there is no predictor of the fate of a given marriage in the long run. Having said that, I should admit that there are some proxies of an imminent divorce. For instance, addiction or a lack of intimacy often lead to divorce. Aside from the factors that are related to the conscience of individuals, there are more subtle factors that need extra focus. The fast pace of change in modern life versus the slow change of cultural settings definitely brings stress to many couples. The norms and expectations from each other depend on one’s cultural and emotional baggage. Whether one can fulfill those expectations given the modern conditions is another story. All these are playing a role in restraining the family in our times.

Right Brain – Like anything else in the universe, we look for unity. If you love someone, you want to be with them, because love is a realization that part of your existence is in the other. We all crave for being one with those we love. But why don’t we feel such emotions for anyone but only for certain people? Perhaps, this is one of the points where the veils before destiny are pulled open. When we tell someone that we love them, we actually mean, “I need you… and I need to be needed.” This is a two-way hunger which is quenched by the unity of the lovers. This is why love inherently demands continuity; for unity is only established when all separations in time and space are eliminated. And this is why, perhaps, marriages are most troubled today. Life conditions and individual choices are not made in order to nourish continuity. Staying side by side is mistaken for unity.

Moderator – Have you ever fallen in love?

Left Brain – Is there anyone who hasn’t? As one colleague of mine says, “we are wired for love and belonging; that’s why we are here.” Love is one way of becoming a part of something bigger than us: having a family, raising children, and contributing to the well-being of our society through various love-inspired activities. Even ascetics and saintly people pursue a path of love inspired by God. So, love is all around us.

Moderator – But I asked if you ever “fell in love.” I understand if you don’t want to go that deep into your private life.

Left Brain – (pauses for a second) … I might have felt special things for some people. But, in the long run, I saw that those feelings did not bear any meaning for the real life. And this realization gave me immunity towards those special feelings. If you can stand back, and take a deep breath… Oh yes, and let me say this as an aside: this is how love works. You cannot step away from the situation and breathe deeply or think clearly. Love only works when you can’t think clearly. This loss of brain power is eliminated when you hit the bottom of the love you are falling into. So, what was I saying? If you stand back and take a deep breath, you’ll see that there are thousands of people with whom you can get along with at least as well as the one you are with at that moment. Nobody is irreplaceable. There is always another one more beautiful, friendlier, more generous, more sacrificing, etc. There is always going to be another love following the current one. So, no need for falling!

Moderator – What about you, Right Brain? Have you ever fallen in love?

Right Brain – I can’t breathe without love! For me, life and everything in it gains meaning only through love. And this meaning is not always visible at first sight. “L’essentiel est invisible pour les yeux. On ne voit bien qu’avec le cœur.” As the fox tells the Little Prince, what’s essential is invisible to the eye; one only sees well with the heart. So, falling in love reveals the meanings hidden behind objects and events. It’s not that you fall in love with something that is extraordinary, but that love makes the ordinary things extraordinary. It is the intertwining of their destinies that make people special for each other. Imagine this: the Great Author of the universe is writing a love story of you and your beloved one. What greater meaning can you ask for? For me, each and every person I fell in love with is special, no matter how the story ended. I always keep a room reserved for them in my heart.

Moderator – In the last century, scientific thought and technological achievements led many people to question their religious teachings and affiliations. Their faiths were shaken as a result of their experiences in intellectual and social areas. I even remember a book titled Youth’s Faith Is Stolen by Questions. My question to you is: how do you define the relationship between religion and science?

Left Brain – This question has been asked on many other occasions. For me, this is a straightforward issue. Personally, I am a believer. For me, science gathers information about the outside world. Religion tells me about the purpose of the world. A more cliché way of saying the same thing is, “science answers how, religion answers why.” Therefore, I don’t see why the two should contradict or clash. You can have a user’s manual for a car or a computer. But what you are going to do with it is totally up to you. Science and technology are like that manual. From them, we learn to make use of what is available here in this world. But religion guides us in what we should do, or how we should do it.

Right Brain – If you go back in history, you’ll see that religion and science were not different entities. Even the several branches of science we have today were united as a single body. If you were a knowledgeable man, you knew everything. Of course, with the accumulation of more and more information, a classification was needed, but unfortunately this classification led to oblivion among these different classes. Nowadays, people are rediscovering the value of the unity of knowledge through interdisciplinary studies. The same, I think, is true for religion and science. Had things taken a different route in history, one in which the sense of unity was essential, the definitions we are using today would have been completely different. Science would not be the study of how the universe functions but how God executes his will in the physical realm. Similarly, instead of being perceived as a set of rules that bound both God and people, the laws of nature would be defined as the stable patterns (straight paths) of creation that host the travelers in life. Accordingly, those stable paths would be a restriction for us, as humans, but not for the Lord of the worlds. Such an understanding would have, perhaps, fostered a completely different history than what we have now. Reading the creation as verses from the Perfect Designer, treating life events as personal instant messages from the closest Friend would transform our journey in this world from a merciless struggle of survival to being the hero of our stories, which are produced by the Supreme Sustainer.

The same goes for how religion is perceived and practiced. Instead of becoming a set of precise actions and words, religion would be the way to educate our conscience and will in order to be respectful lovers of God. Instead of becoming a formula that “ensures” heaven solely for its followers, religion would be the means to spread peace and prosperity to everyone, just like the All-Merciful one sustains even those who deny His existence.

Moderator – Finally, I would like to ask you the ultimate question. Where is the world headed regarding its current economic, ecological, and political unrest? Do you see hope for the future?

Left Brain – Oh, absolutely! People have been voicing similar concerns for such a long time. Even when the world population was a third of what it is now, there were debates on whether food would be enough, and so on… But today, we are here with 7 billion people. It may be painful, but I am sure in the long run, things will get settled.

Moderator – Painful? What do you mean by that?

Left Brain – Of course there are wars , and there is a disparity in the distribution of wealth, and healthcare is not accessible in many places. So, it is going to take some time until a global welfare and healthcare system is established to cover everyone. But with the advent of technology in communications and transportation, this is going to become easier over time, and we’ll get there. Until that point, though, there are going to be losses.

Right Brain – There is an old saying: “If He didn’t want to give, He wouldn’t give us the need to ask from Him.” I think the fact that we are yearning for a better tomorrows is a sign that we’ll get there.

Moderator – Then, would you blame the turbulence of today to yesterday’s lack of desire for better tomorrows?

Right Brain – You’re making me smile. Desire for a better tomorrow is not the same thing as desire for a better income. If everybody dreams for a better tomorrow, then this becomes a global prayer for peace and prosperity. If everybody wants what’s best for themselves, things don’t add up. This is even worse if some people think of their prosperity at the expense of others. So, in this sense, I think we can talk about a lack of desire for a better tomorrow, which governed the world for most of the last century. Today, though, through the growing means of communication and transportation, interfaith and intercultural dialogue activities are blossoming. These carry the potential to initiate a global prayer for peace and prosperity. When that happens, I am hopeful that that prayer will be answered.

Moderator – Thank you Left Brain and thank you Right Brain for allowing us to have a peek into your personal worlds.

Undoubtedly, throughout history these states engaged in war with other states. A crucial point to understand is that war has always been a form of engagement between states caused by political, economic, or militaristic reasons. Therefore, in a hostile relationship where long-term dominance and its benefits play a major role, it would be wrong to call such conflicts religious wars solely because the opponents have differing religious identities. Such conflicts are embarked not for religious dominance but for political dominance. Additionally, it is possible for Muslims to be attacked solely for religious differences (this still happens today). In this case, it is natural to react to the attack by defending oneself and one’s religion, for, in fact, it actually becomes an obligation for Muslims to defend their religious freedom (22:39-41), themselves (2:190), and those being oppressed (Haleem 65).

Jihad, a crucially controversial concept in Islam, is often misunderstood by many Westerners, and even some Muslims. Whenever the word comes up, what comes to mind is an armed struggle by Muslims against non-Muslims, such as fights, clashes, and holy war. Jihad is a very comprehensive and dynamic term that can take on different forms, depending on historical circumstances and the needs of Muslims (Heck 95).

The word jihad comes from the Arabic root “j-h-d” and its dictionary meaning denotes doing one’s best, struggling against every kind of difficulty. In a religious context, it refers to the struggles one faces for the sake of God. In the words of Gülen “Jihad is … the inner struggle of a believer against all that stands between the believer and God” (Gülen 191). As Campanini clarifies through al-Ghazali’s teachings, there are two meanings for jihad. “The ‘great’ jihad is the struggle for self-purification, in order to conquer the evil inclinations of character and behavior, while the ‘small’ jihad corresponds to war” (Campanini 54). Delving deeper into the former category for purposes of clarification, the great jihad refers to a person’s struggle to overcome destructive obstacles within the carnal self such as feelings of resentment, hatred, envy, arrogance, and haughtiness – feelings that Islam orders followers not to harbor.

The following explanation for why jihad is confused with terrorism can be made: for the Muslim world, the 20^th century was one that was full of oppression and colonialism. Dating back further, to the 19^th century, a majority of Muslim lands were struggling for independence. In these battles and wars, Islam was conceived as a means to unite and mobilize people. During these wars, jihad was naturally the most frequently used concept. The war was against these invaders and colonizers, and the people were fighting to protect their country, their people, and their religion. Religious concepts – Qur’anic verses and the sayings and practices of the Prophet – were the main motivational factors driving Muslims during their hard struggle. Muslims called these wars, which were carried out in legitimate self-defense, jihad; however, there is a barrier between war and jihad in Islam that needs to be clarified.

The primary source of information in Islam must be the Qur’an; thus, I will refer to the Qur’an and its usage of the word jihad. Jihad is used in three verses in the Qur’an in the imperative form, as “jahid” and “jahidu,” to mean fighting against non-Muslims.

The other verses that contain jihad refer to its greater meaning, the personal struggle against feelings raised by the carnal self. Actually, the Qur’anic verses concerning war are mostly expressed by the word qital (fighting) rather than jihad (Haleem 64). In terms of the etymological meaning of qital, the relative context of the verses in which it is used and the events on which these were revealed support the fact that this word was mostly used in expressing war in the Qur’an. To give a few examples[1]:

Fight in God’s cause against those who fight against you, but do not exceed the bounds (set by God), for surely God loves not those who exceed the bounds (Baqara 2:190). But if they break their pledges after their treaty (with you) and assail your religion, then fight with those leaders of unbelief – surely they have no trustworthy pledges – so that they may desist (from aggression) (Tawba 9:12-13).

Reading these verses raises an important question: would it be wrong to identify jihad with war, or to give an emphasis to the aspect of war? The simple answer is no, for almost all of the verses related to jihad and qital were revealed in a situation of warfare. Furthermore, it would not be possible to interpret other verses in the Qur’an referring to the great jihad, such as striving with wealth (4:95, 8:72), without these terms’ relation to the aspect of war. This is the very point where the concepts of jihad and qital intersect.

When people devoid of the necessary knowledge of history and Qur’anic commentary methods interpret Qur’anic verses concerning war, they often take it out of context, ignoring the previous verse and subsequent ones, thereby presenting Islam as a religion that gives no value to non-Muslims. This is absolutely wrong. I shall support my argument with a few Qur’anic verses that are commonly misinterpreted:

… kill them wherever you come upon them, and drive them out from where they drove you out. Disorder (rooted in rebellion against God and recognizing no laws) is worse than killing. Do not fight against them in the vicinities of the Sacred Mosque unless they fight against you there; but if they fight against you (there), kill them – such is the recompense of the (rebellious) unbelievers. (Baqara 2:191)

To understand a Qur’anic verse correctly, two essential things need to be kept in mind. First, the verse needs to be considered both independently and within its context. Second, the event for which the verse was revealed needs to be considered. If we consider the above verse with its previous and subsequent verses, we understand that there is an armed group that does not want to let the Muslims live. Thus, God allows the Muslims to put up a legitimate defense, and particularly commands them not be on the side that starts the fight. Furthermore, God reminds them that they should accept any possible offers of peace from the other side, no matter the stage of war.

This verse refers to the idolaters of Mecca, who tortured every Muslim they could, declared a boycott on all relations with Muslims, sent them into exile, drove them out of their homes, tried to force them back to paganism, and when Muslims began to gain power after settling in Medina, the idolaters constantly violated their peace treaties. When the verse is considered in this light, one may even ask the question: why did the Muslims even wait for a revelation to defend themselves – isn’t it common sense to strive to survive?

Let’s take a look at another commonly misinterpreted verse: “…seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and do not take to yourselves any of them as confident, nor as helper” (Nisa 4:88). This verse is often known to be quoted separately to detach it from its context. When one reads this verse as I have presented it, one sees the image of a ruthless and aggressive Muslim, sword in hand, ready to fight. However, as we experienced with the previous verse, reading the context (Nisa 4:88-91) alone will suffice in giving us a better idea behind this verse. After reading the context of the verse, we see that the people mentioned here are the hypocrites of Mecca and Medina. They pretended to be on the sides of the Muslims, but they were not sincere in their faith. Moreover, these hypocrites took every opportunity to act against the Muslims. An additional point to emphasize with this passage is not the command to kill, but the command by God to accept peace if it is offered. Thus, Muslims are not to be on the side that starts a war, but if they are attacked by an enemy, they are allowed to defend themselves.

These were just two examples of verses that are often misinterpreted when stripped from their contexts. These misinterpretations lead to the misinterpretation of Islam and obfuscate the true meaning of jihad. We can also give examples that clarify the meaning of jihad from secondary sources, such as the Prophet’s sayings, or hadiths. God’s Messenger was the conveyor of the Qur’an; therefore it is impossible for his words or practices to contradict the Qur’an in any way. When we look at the Prophet’s sayings on the topic of jihad, we see the same truth behind it.

One example that often comes up when jihad is mentioned is as follows: on returning to Medina after a battle, God’s Messenger told his companions: “We are returning from the lesser jihad to the greater one.” After having fought a battle in which many Muslims had lost their lives, the Companions were surprised to hear this statement from God’s Messenger. When they asked what the greater jihad was, he explained that it was fighting the carnal self (Ajluni, Kashf al-Khafa, 1:424).

An additional example is what the Prophet told a Companion who asked for permission if he could join a military campaign. The Prophet asked the man whether his parents were alive, upon which the man replied affirmatively. The Prophet said in return: “You perform jihad by serving them” (Bukhari, Jihad, 138). God’s Messenger had a plethora of other cases in which he used the word jihad in a wider non-militaristic sense. Two more of these sayings are: “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for truth in the face of injustice,” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, 13) and, “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for the truth before an unjust and cruel ruler” Abu Dawud, Malahim, 17). More importantly, the gravity of this form of jihad is strengthened when looking at one of the statements of the Prophet: “Whoever dies trying to protect his property from a usurper dies a martyr” (Abou El Fadl, 123).

Hitherto, we have looked at jihad in a theoretical sense, using definitions interpreted from the Qur’an and the Prophet’s sayings to reveal its true nature. It is not unreasonable for the reader to wonder how the Prophet acted in times of warfare to further dispel notions of jihad being considered a “holy war”; after all, there were wars and battles in which the Prophet was present. To give a brief account of the Prophet’s example in this light, let’s consider the Battle of Badr. The enemies of the Muslims in the Battle of Badr were the Meccan pagans, who were afraid that the Prophet was amassing enough supporters to pose a strong threat to the Meccans. Consequently, the Meccans sent a letter of ultimatum to their allies in Medina, appealing for the exile and the execution of the Prophet and his followers.[2] These harsh letters caused great upheaval in Medina; however, the actions that the Prophet took quickly eliminated the anxiety of the people of Medina.

The first of the Prophet’s actions was to sign a pact of truce with nearby tribes. The essential elements that he signed with the neighboring tribes were aimed at preventing the neighbors from assisting the Meccans against the Muslims. The Meccans proved to be determined, and despite all of the Prophet’s actions aimed at holding peace, the Meccans wanted to fight. When everyone knew that the battle was inevitable, the Prophet made a last attempt by sending Umar with an offer of peace[3], which was refused and provided the spark for the Battle of Badr. Similarly, when looking at accounts of the other battles of the Prophet – Uhud, Khandaq, and Khaybar – one sees that God’s Messenger always strived to maintain peace and worked to avoid engaging in the Western, ill-defined “jihad” – the spread of Islam, the taking of lives of non-Muslims, and the acquisition of new lands.

Now that the true definition of jihad has been clarified using the Qur’an and accurate interpretations as a primary source and the Prophet’s sayings and actions during warfare as a second source, we have to consider some broader questions. When is jihad complete? How can we accept one interpretation as the proper one? Why is jihad so misunderstood by some Muslims? Does it play to their advantage to intentionally misrepresent it? Lastly, does violent jihad justify terrorism?

Jihad, as mentioned earlier, has two meanings: the “great” jihad – corresponding to self-purification in the path of God, comparable to the Christians’ miles Christi (Peters 206) – and the “small” jihad – corresponding to war. The former type of jihad is essentially never complete; it is everlasting throughout one’s life, for situations that necessitate “great” jihad emerge everyday in a Muslim’s life. In example, if we look at the citizens of Syria today who are opposed to the ruthless oppression of their dictatorial leader, we see that they experience jihad everyday, for the Prophet has stated that, “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for the truth before an unjust and cruel ruler.”[4] And the tens of thousands of Syrians who have already lost their lives in the face of injustice in Syria’s conflict have died martyrs, for the Prophet has stated that “whoever dies trying to protect his property from a usurper dies a martyr” (Abou El Fadl, 123). If we consider the “small” jihad in this question, we can say that it is intermittent, experienced by Muslims whenever they need to engage in warfare for self-defense to protect their country and their religious freedom.

When faced with the question of the accuracy of interpretations, one cannot bluntly state that one interpretation is more accurate than the other. When presented with a similar question, John Esposito, a Professor of Religion at Georgetown, pointed to a Surah from the Qur’an, which recalls how “God made humankind into nations and tribes for you to get to know one another not that you may despise one another.”[5] These words support a language of religious plurality, a concept that is contrary to religious extremism. Esposito further argued that there is no central authority in Islam or Christianity who can speak for all Muslims or for all Christians. Although the Pope is the central authority for Roman Catholicism, he does not speak for the Orthodoxy or for Protestantism. Every denomination has its own individual religious authority. Islam, similarly, supports the idea of ijtihad, the individual interpretation of the Qur’an. The important point in this question behind interpretations is the broadening of the base of religious authorities. Esposito argues that although this diversification may lead to more chaotic situations, it also serves as a check for religious authorities who legitimize illegitimate wars. Therefore, this system of checking can prove beneficial in stopping wars, though it may pose more problems in other aspects of interpretation.

Earlier in the paper, I gave an example as to why Westerners might misunderstand jihad; this poses the inevitable question: why is it misunderstood by Muslims? More specifically, does it play to their advantage to intentionally misunderstand it? Rahman describes the true meaning behind the propaganda slogan “Islam was spread by the sword” in his book Major Themes of the Qur’an. He writes: “What was spread by the sword was not the religion of Islam, but the political domain of Islam, so that Islam could work to produce the order on the earth that the Qur’an seeks” (Rahman 63). However, Rahman also points out that armed jihad was often used by later Muslims whose primary aim was territorial expansion and not the worldview they were asked to establish by God. This, unfortunately, answers the question posed above with a yes; it does play to some Muslims’ advantage to intentionally misinterpret jihad for selfish reasons: territorial expansion, political power, and economic benefits, all under the pretext of “religious duty.” These kinds of interpretations of Qur’anic verses and hadiths outside of their more important contexts render the practice of religion astray, allowing selfish extremists to justify their illegal behaviors. However, it is important to note that their justifications behind their actions are largely unaccepted by the greater Muslim community around the world, those who know the distinction between the two jihads and how to apply them in their lives.[6] This brings us to the final question: does violent jihad justify terrorism?

In the Muslim world, there is and always have been radical thoughts and political ideologies; the same is true in Christianity, Judaism, and other religions. However, it is wrong to identify the thoughts and the beliefs of radical groups with religion. One of the focuses of this paper was to emphasize the importance of using the Qur’an and the statements of the Prophet to seek answers in Islam, and the aforementioned radical thoughts are not found in either. Nonetheless, there are still those who commit terrorist acts “for God” or “in the name of religion.” These terrorists also believe in Islam. This leads to a paradox: on one hand, we have Muslims who commit terrorist acts, and on the other hand, we have a religion that forbids these acts. If we view this paradox from the lens of Muslims, we do not see a paradox at all; it is merely a situation that is generated by a wrong perspective. If we take a look at all perspectives – the political, economic, historic, cultural, moral, and humanistic – we see that there is a perceptible dichotomy between religion and terrorism, and are able to consequently establish that terrorism does not stem from religion, but that it has other political, economic, and cultural roots. Therefore, jihad does not justify terrorism; nothing in Islam does, for terrorism is essentially forbidden in Islam.

In conclusion, jihad is a crucial concept in Islam due to the wide misunderstanding it causes amongst people around the world and the concept’s import in Islam on a global scale. While the term Islamic Terrorism – an oxymoron within itself – is inaccurate in all aspects, its existence is not the issue; its degradingly common usage, especially in the media, advertises a negative Muslim image to non-Muslims, imbuing a subconscious belief that all Muslims are terrorists. The reverse of this scenario often happens in the Muslim world as well, especially after the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. These wrongful representations of both sides do nothing but aggravate tensions between the two sides, which leads to further conflict and a discordant world. Instead, if books or news reports that clarify the true meaning of jihad and other misunderstood concepts of various religions and their applications were broadcasted for the world to hear, we would not witness as much religious conflict around the world as we witness today. What a beauty that sight would be: a harmonious society of people living with a plurality of religious beliefs.

References

• Abdel Haleem, Muhammad. 2011. Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Style. I.B. Tauris.
• Abou El Fadl, Khaled. 2001. Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Campanini, Massimo. 2011. The Qur’an: Modern Muslim Interpretations. London: Routledge.
• Gülen. M. Fethullah. 2012. Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance, NJ: Tughra Books, p. 191.
• Hamidullah, Muhammed. 2011. Islam Peygamberi. Beyan Yayinlari.
• Heck, Paul L. 2013. “Jihad Revisited.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 32.1 (2004): 95-128. JSTOR. Web. 22 February.
• Peters, F. E. 2003. Islam: A Guide for Jews and Christians. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Rahman, Fazlur. 2009. Major Themes of the Qurʼan. University of Chicago Press.
• Ünal, Ali. 2006. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English. NJ: Tughra Books.

[1] The reader may also refer to (Tawba 9:36) and (Tawba 9:5) for additional examples on the usage of qital that were omitted due to their length.

[2] Hamidullah, Muhammad, Islam Peygamberi, I, p. 217.

[3] Hamidullah, Hz. Peygamber’in Savaslari (Wars of the Prophet), p. 55–92.

[4] Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi 13.

[5] “Who Speaks for Islam and for Christianity?” Voice of America News, 2008.

[6] This is also true in other non-religious cases. When Timothy McVeigh caused the Oklahoma City Bombing and resulted in the death of 168 people, he thought he had legitimate reasons to do so; however, a majority of the people did not accept his thoughts as sound justification behind his actions.

A question can be defined as any sentence that has an interrogative form or function (Cotton 1988). Asking and answering questions are among the most common human behaviors we experience in many different areas of our lives (Samson, Syrowsky, Weinstein, & Walberg 1987). For instance, as mentioned in Sahin and Kulm (2008)’s study, questions have been used for many purposes such as provoking students and making them listen carefully, analyzing their thoughts and thinking critically. Moreover, the questioning method serves to initiate discussion and review material. Unsurprisingly, research has found that classroom talks are dominated by teachers’ questions (Redfield & Rousseau 1981). Indeed, teachers use anywhere from 35 to 50 percent of their instructional time posing questions (Cotton 1998). Thus questioning is a common and pivotal teaching skill which needs special attention for maximum benefit. Additionally, the type of questions teachers ask and how often these questions are posed to students also needs examining.

Question types

The questioning method has been a well-studied topic in education for centuries because it has been thought to be a good measure of a teacher’s quality (Stevens 1912). Therefore, a number of studies have taken place to examine the types of questions asked by teachers. Even though different categorizations have been set out in various researches, it is possible to see that there are several types of questions studied most and these include: higher-order, open-ended, divergent, evaluative, lower-order, factual, convergent, closed, and procedural questions. But when looked at these questions closely, it is possible to group them under two categories, probing and factual, based on the answers you expect from your students. The first group of categorization might include higher-order, open-ended, divergent, and evaluative question types under probing since all those question types require students to think deeply, provide wider responses, and justify answers. Indeed, Sahin and Kulm (2008) found that probing question was like the first group of question types requiring the following:

• Asking students to explain or elaborate on their thoughts
• Asking students to use prior knowledge and apply it to the current problem or idea
• Asking students to justify or prove their ideas (p. 3).

Examples of probing questions include:

1. How do you know that these fractions, 3/7 and 9/21, are equivalent?
2. Why do you agree with your friend?
3. How do you know that your answer is right?
4. What if you were in his shoes, what would you do to stop him from stealing?
5. If you were the President of the United States, would you liberate Libya? Why or why not?

The second group consists of lower-order, convergent, closed, and procedural questions that require students to recall specific facts and provide short answers. Sahin and Kulm’s (2008) study described indicators of factual questions which was very similar to the second group of questions:

• Asking students for a specific fact or definition (Vacc 1993)
• Asking students for an answer to an exercise
• Asking students to provide the next step in a procedure.

Examples of factual questions include:

1. What is the definition of a ratio?
2. When is the Independence Day of America?
3. What do you get when you divide 16 by 4?
4. Do you agree with him?
5. How many blue chocolate candies do you have in your M&M bag?

In practice, 60 to 80 percent of teachers’ questions are factual and around 20 percent of them are probing questions according to Cotton (1998). So it is important for teachers to be knowledgeable about those questions types.

How to develop questioning skills

Cotton (1998) found that teachers’ questioning method was the second most used teaching skill after lecturing in K-12 education. This is an interesting finding because even though it is used widely in teaching, research shows that teachers receive little training on how to ask, what to ask, and when to ask questions and how much time they need to wait after they pose a question. For instance, Sahin (2011) found that training or workshops on questioning was not a common practice in Texas. Four teachers said that they never took a course or a workshop specifically focusing on questioning and wait time. Interestingly, they said that they still used different questions to teach what they teach. When they were asked how they developed their questioning skills, they attributed it to watching and observing a good teacher as the number one technique to learn how to ask questions.

Another common method to learn how to pose questions is going out in the field and working in a classroom with real teachers and students as described by a middle grades mathematics teacher:

When I was an undergraduate, the time in the classroom, the classroom experience, going out in the field, being in the classroom with actual teachers and helping them out, seeing how they are doing it. You pick up things and you get exposed to different strategies in the classroom. So, I think, having the exposure in the classrooms is very beneficial because you are taught a lot with a lecture at A&M or at any college but real life exposure out in the classrooms with real kids, what kind of questions kids are asking and how they are responding to the questions, I think, is very helpful (Sahin 2011, 39).

Also the importance of workshops on questioning techniques and wait time cannot be ignored since teachers tend to and are encouraged to attend workshops regularly to grow and become better teachers. But Sahin’s findings illustrate that teachers cannot locate a specific workshop on questioning. There was only one teacher who said that she attended a workshop on teachers’ questioning method in her fifteen years of teaching. So, trainings or workshops on different teaching skills should be organized and teachers should be highly encouraged to attend a certain number of professional development workshops each school year.

Wait time

Questions and wait time are two sides of the same coin. As a coin cannot be valid without one of the sides, questioning techniques will not be successful without sufficient wait time. More precisely, you may ask quality and timely questions to your students but it will not extract learning unless you provide them with enough time to absorb and process the question and produce an answer. Cotton (1998), in her review on questioning and wait time, defined wait time as “the amount of time the teacher allows to elapse after he/she has posed a question and before a student begins to speak” (p. 5). Interestingly, research shows that the average wait time teachers allow students to generate response is one second or less (Rowe 1974). Naturally, no one can expect students to understand a question, process it, and formulate a response in such a short period of time.

Increasing a wait time of three or more seconds is an immense improvement for better responses and eventually for more effective student learning. Studies such as Cazden (2001) have revealed that three or more seconds of wait time help students give longer responses, provide better responses with more evidence of learning, further elaboration, encourage more questioning, and added engagement with increased student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions. This is why it is crucial for teachers to go through trainings to develop proper wait time habits encouraging further student learning.

The use of questioning skills in daily life

Scholars, religious leaders, and/or prophets can be categorized as teachers as well since they are in a position to communicate to people certain things by lecturing, preaching, or posing questions. In that sense, Socrates was not alone in his use of questioning techniques to teach something or convince someone about a misunderstood value. The following story presents an excellent example of a well-constructed questioning method with enough wait time. In the story, Turkish scholar Said Nursi talks about how wrong or exaggerated fear can make one’s life unbearable:

An important man (may God’s mercy be upon him) was afraid to travel by boat. One evening, we went to Galata bridge to take the ferry to Eyup. He did not want to get on, saying that he feared he would drown. When I asked him how many boats were in the Golden Horn, he replied that there might be as many as one thousand. When I asked him how many boats sank each year, he replied usually one or two, and sometimes none. I made this analogy: “Since a year has 365 days, your chance of drowning is 1:365,000. Why does such a small chance scare you?” I asked: “How much longer do you expect to live?” He answered: “Maybe 10 years; I am old already.” I continued: “As there are 3,650 days in 10 years, your chance of dying today is 1:3,650. But since we do not know when we will die, you could die at any time. So repent and weep! Write your last will and testament!” Seeing the truth in my words, he got on the boat even though trembling. (Nursi 2007, 401-2)

In the example, Nursi uses a series of questions to help a person overcome his fear of boarding a boat. In this example, Nursi achieved a couple of things through questioning: first, he asked a series of (factual) questions to help the person determine his underlying beliefs about death. Nursi formulated this information in such a way to show the man how small the possibility of a boat sinking was through a set of factual questions. He posed each question cleverly and effectively to help the person realize how his feelings of death were exaggerated. Also, Nursi gave his addressee enough time to think about the questions, use prior knowledge and apply it to a current problem or situation. He did not rush him to give answers. Moreover, the information Nursi obtained was not something that his addressee did not know, rather it was a tool to help the person overcome his fear of death when boarding a boat. In a short period of time, Nursi persuaded the person that his fear was needless through the use of a questioning technique combined with adequate wait time. As Myhill and Dunkin (2002) stated, “Just like a good barrister, a good teacher knows how to use questions for maximum impact” (p. 8).

In conclusion, teachers’ questioning skills are one of the primary and most influential set of pedagogical skills in use in classrooms. Therefore, teachers should be trained in order for them to become knowledgeable about what to ask and how to ask. Additionally, teachers should know that they should wait at least three seconds after posing a question for more effective student responses and understanding. Teachers’ questioning skills and wait time should complement each other for better outcome. Colleges, districts, and schools should seek ways to improve both prospective and in-service teachers’ questioning skills.

References

• Cazden, C. B. 2001. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Cotton, K. 1998. Classroom questioning. North West Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.learner.org/workshops/socialstudies/pdf/session6/6.ClassroomQuestioning.pdf
• Nursi, Bediüzzaman Said. 2007. The Letters. NJ: Tughra Books.
• Myhill, D., & Dunkin, F. 2002. What is a good question? Literacy, 8.
• Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. 1981. A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research 51, 237–245.
• Sahin, A. 2011. Teachers’ awareness and acquisition of questioning. (Manuscript submitted for publication).
• Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. 2008. Sixth grade mathematics teachers. Intentions and use of probing, guiding, and factual questions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 221-241
• Samson, G. E., Strykowski, B., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. 1987. The effects of teacher questioning levels on student achievement. Journal of Educational Research 80, 290–295.
• Socrates.(n.d.).Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
• Stevens, R. 1912. The questions as a measure of efficiency in instruction: A critical study of classroom practice, Teachers College Contributions to Education, 48, 95. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.
• Vacc, N. N. 1993. Implementing the professional standards for teaching mathematics: Questioning in the mathematics classroom. Arithmetic Teacher, 41(2), 88–91.

There are many examples of inspirations in history. Sometimes it comes with a dream, as it happened to famous chemist, Friedrich Kekule (1829-1896), helping him to make one of the most amazing discoveries of his time. He saw atoms in his dream whirling, dancing and reassembling themselves in a snake-like motion, and the snake snapping its own tail. This dream provided him with the inspiration to discover the benzene ring. Benzene, a colorless and highly flammable liquid, is an important industrial solvent in the production of drugs, plastics, and dyes. Kekule is not the only person who found inspiration to an important question in his dream. For example, Otto Loewi, a famous German scientist, was inspired by a dream about an experiment that became the foundation for the theory of chemical transmission of the nervous impulse and led to a Nobel Prize. Once you contemplate on a question long enough, it becomes an important part of your life. You start seeing things in a different way, and everything becomes related to that question.

Ten years ago, a close friend of mine asked me a very interesting question. He said, “Did you ever read or witness any inspiration from Holy Scriptures, like the Qur’an, pointing to the Internet? After this question, I started to think deeply about the texts I had read, or the things I saw in my environment, and selected my readings more carefully. This helped me to capture more inspirations from my life.

It did not take long for me to relate many verses from scriptures to the question posed by my friend. It was an easy process to go backwards from the result to the possible starting ideas (verses). The hard thing about inspiration is that both the starting point and the result are unknown. Once we know the result that we wanted to achieve, it is easy to relate many things and find similarities around us that might get us to the same point. This can be either a scientific fact or a religious belief.

The relationship between science and religion, and inspirations from scriptures are the two most common controversial topics. Science and religion are the two strongest forces influencing humans. Some people use science to justify religious claims, while others start from religious information to reach unknown scientific points. Both approaches have many challenges, and may lead to consequences that conflict with one’s belief. Scriptures can help us think outside of the box, and provide many inspirations for science. However, it is important to keep the balance between both worlds, while working hard on understanding science and building our faith on a solid ground.

So, how did I find the verses that pointed to the idea of the Internet in the Scriptures? I started to think of the core properties that make up the Internet. What will be my first words if I wanted to define the Internet? Some of the key definitions or features of the Internet that came to my mind was “a world-wide network of computers,” “connecting people to each other,” “storing or accessing world of information,” “removing physical boundaries,” “easy and cheap communication,” or “freedom of speech.”

Which feature of the Internet would sound too intricate to ever exist a thousand years ago? Probably, the possibility of storing and accessing all the information available throughout the history of mankind would be the most challenging feature. We haven’t reached that point with the Internet yet, but so much ground has been covered towards this goal. Let’s see how much progress is made on this road of storage and retrieval.

Wikipedia, a free web-based multilingual encyclopedia project, has over 22 million articles (over four million in the English Wikipedia). There are roughly 40 million books in US libraries. Google is building the largest online library in the history of the world, and already scanned over 20 million books. ISI Web of Knowledge, an online scientific database, is a source for thousands of journals with millions of articles published from 1900s to present. Everything published in the last couple of centuries becoming available online from handwritten books to newspaper archives, magazines, and journals.

Chemistry databases list information (e.g. structures, spectra, reactions, syntheses, and thermo-physical data) for tens of millions of organic and inorganic compounds known to man that are used in various industries. Biological databases provide information (e.g. gene sequences, textual descriptions, attributes and ontology classifications, citations, and tabular data) for living and even extinct organisms.

Besides the published information, other types of data from various types of arts, music and picture libraries are becoming an important part of the Internet. More and more museums provide virtual galleries that make all paintings, sculptures and other art pieces accessible to remote users. E-government projects make personal records, health and financial data of all citizens available to related parties. More personal information is available online through personal blogs, image galleries, video sharing, and discussion forums.

Could you make a person, fifty years or even fourteen hundred years ago, believe that one day all the information would be available in a book, a box or a device? This was my starting point to find clues about the Internet in the scriptures. This journey led to many interesting ideas and understanding of my environment. In the middle of the search, the Holy Qur’an provided an important message to summarize this journey:

“With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder, that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may think and reflect.” (Qur’an 16:44)

As an explanation to this verse, Ibn Mas`ud, the sixth person to embrace Islam, said “[Allah] made it clear that in this Qur’an there is complete knowledge of and about everything.” The Holy Qur’an contains many verses about events in the past and future, what is lawful and unlawful, and information about the religion, our life in this world, and our destiny in the afterlife. Divinely inspired Scriptures, Prophets, and laws were sent successively, in part as an assurance of the true knowledge.

Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish Muslim scholar, lists the types of knowledge and understanding as follows; “… that is based on beholding or actively seeing something, inner (comprehensive knowledge) or outer (description and measurement), implementation of the lesser understanding (technology) or of the spiritual understanding (contemplation and worship, which yield wisdom), learning and teaching, self-based or other-based, the learner’s or teacher’s belief in independence of action or being, and of the believer’s surrender and trust to the Creator …” [1]. We need to learn how to “read” the universe and scriptures consciously to acquire true understanding and wisdom.

My search for the inspiration for an idea of the Internet led me to find many verses from the Holy Qur’an. Here are some of the verses that I personally think is a starting point to inspire the idea of storing all the information known to mankind.

“… there is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor anything fresh or dry (green or withered), but is (inscribed) in a clear record (to those who can read)” (Qur’an 6:59)

“… nor is hidden from the Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. And not the smallest and not the greatest of these things but are recorded in a clear record” (Qur’an 10:61)

“… and there is nothing hidden, in heaven or earth, but is (recorded) in a clear record” (Quran 27:75)

These verses can be interpreted in different ways. Some scholars refer these verses to the knowledge of the All-Knowing God, or a book called Lawh al-Mahfuz that stores the information on the destiny of mankind. Actually relating these verses with the Internet, and the traditional interpretations have a very interesting connection. With ever-growing capacity and capabilities, the Internet is like a small book of destiny that stores our everyday life. However, it is far from storing every single event in the universe. This helps us to realize how mighty and vast the knowledge of the God is, and the capacity of Lawh al-Mahfuz.

When I recited the verses from Qur’an that related to the idea of the Internet, my friend was surprised. As in this example, scientific discoveries and inspirations can be connected with the verses from the Qur’an in many ways. It is important to make this connection for the greater good. Gülen says, “… Recent scientific discoveries have clarified certain Qur’anic verses. Such advances in knowledge occur successively, as the universe proceeds upon its decreed course and in the measure of understanding appointed for us. We must acknowledge and praise the efforts and achievements of researchers and scientists, but they should not lead us to ingratitude and insolence (the roots of unbelief). Rather, we should reaffirm our dependence upon the Creator for guidance both in our quest for and application of knowledge…” [1]. There is no doubt that the Qur’an drives us to deep thoughts, creativity, inspirations and great ideas.

Our further discussion raised another important question, “What is the purpose of reading scriptures?” To know why we read scriptures is as important as reading itself. The Qur’an explains the meaning of reading and draws attention to creation [2] by saying: “Read, in the name of your Lord, Who created” [Qur’an 96:1]. The Qur’an suggests us to observe the universe and learn from its laws and processes so we do not repeat the mistakes of the previous generations, and instead, build a better future.

Acknowledgment: This article was produced at MERGEOUS [3], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realm of science and religion.

Halil I. Demir is an internet entrepreneur and freelance writer.

References

1. Gülen, Fethullah. Questions and Answers about Islam, NJ: The Light, Inc.
2. Gülen. Fethullah Religious Education of the Child, NJ: The Light, Inc.
3. Mergeous, http://www.mergeous.com

The Innocence Project, founded in 1992, at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University assists prisoners who could be proven innocent through DNA testing. To date, 280 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 17 who served time on death row. These people served an average of 13 years in prison for different reasons like false eyewitness identification, coercing false confessions, withholding evidence from defense, or bad lawyering, before exoneration and release. (From www.dna.gov; www.ornl.gov; www.innocenceproject.org)

I find myself handing my cell phone to the officer at the entrance of the courtroom shortly after getting a speeding ticket after a call from my principal to get to school urgently. My kids are at school, my husband at work; I am all by myself at the court house. I sit at one of the back rows and start waiting. The announcement fills my ears : “People for traffic charges will be called by last name after a few trials.” Wait a minute… My heart normally does not beat this fast. Is it the woman they brought from the back of the room in the orange outfit with handcuffs? Is it her story that makes me so nervous? Or do I finally realize that I would soon get up in front of everybody and answer the frightening question: “Are you pleading guilty?” What am I going to say? I feel as though if I blinked twice, I would find myself in a movie. Is there a way out of this? I remember the radar in the police officer’s hand. He showed me the number on it. My heart starts to beat faster. I remember my friend’s husband going to jail for 3 days after a situation similar to this. A chill passes through my spine. Then there it is, my name. I get up. All eyes are on me. Here is the question. What am I going to say? The radar was wrong?

Suddenly, it feels like a thousand veils in front of me are being lifted one by one. I am dead. All the guardians, officers, and the judge are angels. The people sitting alongside me are other people died with me. The “big angel” is asking me if I did it. It is as if I am watching myself from up above. I hear myself saying, “Yes.” He wants me to come over to the podium and explain myself. I start walking. Everybody is looking at me .You can almost hear a pin drop. What a long distance to cover. It seems like I have been walking forever.

I stand at the podium. I start telling honestly and exactly what happened. On the other side is the police officer, the other “angel” who caught me and brought me here in the first place. The big angel turns his attention to him and asks about my records. The officer tells him I am a “plus one”.

What on earth does that mean?

Never mind. I guess that’s a good thing. After the big angel hears this, I am forgiven. Free to go… No handcuffs… My poor little kids, I can see them again!

I step outside. The cold weather hits my cheeks. I take a deep breath and tell myself to relax and come back to reality. Then I think to myself, what could be more real than death? Well, first of all, it happens every single day. Every minute actually, millions of times. The reality is that I will also die. I don’t know when and where, with whom and doing what. I just know for sure that some day I will die to be born into a new world, and that first, I have to answer questions. Is there a possibility of there being no questioning? If this beautiful country has rules and regulations, how can this universe being so big, crowded, sophisticated, and wonderful, not have any laws and regulations? Furthermore, how can you not be questioned when you do not obey them?

Maybe more than death itself, I am dreading the questioning part, millions of times more than that moment ten minutes ago when I was worried about that one simple question. My blood pressure peaked for a single traffic ticket. How am I going to handle answering and accounting for my entire life? Will there be an angel telling that I am a plus one? What a relief that would be!

I recall the story of a man who comes to Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and says “Who shall give life to decaying bones?” The Qur’an relates the story and answers: “He shall give them life who first gave them life, and He is All-Knowing concerning all creation,” (Ya Sin, 36: 78-79) drawing attention to the fact that making something the first time, creating something original, is much more difficult than making it after the plans are once complete and the outcome is seen. So, I start thinking, that when I die and I am about to answer for what I did with my life, God Almighty has the power to create the scene, the places that I shed my DNA at, and myself from a stain as small as a salt crystal and even smaller, and ask, “Did you commit that sin” right there and then?

What am I going to say? There is no possibility of God’s radar or cameras being wrong. I will most probably find myself saying “yes” just as I did at court today, confessing everything with utmost honesty. That is if I can speak under all that stress.

It is not only the “what I did” part that makes me nervous about answering questions, but what I “did not do” as well. I think about the past. Have I been using it wisely, or did I just waste it, for it seemed like it was something given to me for free.

I am a shy person by nature. It is not easy for me to get used to a new neighborhood, community, or school. How am I going to manage to go into a new world, see and live with totally new creatures that I have never seen before, like angels, spirits, and jinn. Contrastingly, I am wondering about what the other world is really going to be like. What is it like to not have any responsibilities, not having to pray or fast, wash the dishes, prepare dinner, do the laundry… ever?

At least I believe, the new world where we will all die to be born into, there will be no wrong guilty sentences. Everything promised from the beautiful paradise to the scary hell will be there. No wrongful convictions, no unfair treatment. But still, am I ready? Or is there going to be a time that I would totally feel ready? On the other hand, I feel like an ignorant person living in a humble home in a small village—a person who is invited to the palace by the King, to this festive occasion, with the most important people; a person who has a chance to receive precious gifts and drink the potion for eternity, but is still hesitating to go; a person wants to give a present to the King but is unsure whether she has anything to offer that would please him. Besides, wasn’t whatever this person took with her to the King given by the very King himself? When I prayed five times a day, didn’t I do it with the healthy body He gave me? If I made donations, wasn’t it with the belongings He handed over to me in the first place. It is as if for every good I did, I was paid beforehand. Then, even if I do whatever He asks me to do, I can’t be hopeful because of what I do. Rather, I would build my hopes on how generous, compassionate and loving He is, setting my intentions right with utmost sincerity.

There is one other reason that would make me eager to leave this world and go to the other side. It’s because of all those emotions, talents, intellect, and love—faculties of our body and soul which we are not and won’t be using in this world because of reasons like not knowing, not being trained, being too young, too old, sick, or just missing out on the windows of opportunities. Do they not need to get out? Aren’t they like the baby in the womb, squashed in there and wanting a greater place to grow? Seriously, what percent of my brain and heart am I really using? If God gave me more potential in them, it seems impossible to me that he won’t create a place that they will grow and flourish. And I can’t think of a better place to be when that happens.

…

Finally, I found where I had parked my car and the keys that always fall into the black hole of my bottomless purse. I head back to work. I missed first period, but I need to make at least the third to fulfill my plans. It is the time of the day when everybody is already at work. I’m lucky; there is no traffic at all. The roads are so empty. In fact, there are no cars in front of me on the spacious road. Suddenly, it becomes so appealing to me to go a little faster. Just a little bit… My right foot starts itching… Who would know at this time of the day, in the middle of nowhere anyways? Maybe just one more time…

Nihal Zeren Dila is M.S. in Microbiology and Molecular Biology, GMU, Science Teacher at Pinnacle Academy, VA.

This particular kind of freedom is presented as one of the causes of war in the book Muhammad: The Messenger of God by Fethullah Gülen. If one approaches the problem from a partial analysis, rather than a holistic one, then one can easily come to the conclusion that “war can be waged to ensure spiritual guidance and communication.” In the aforementioned book, Gülen basically says that force is allowed if there is a resistance against the preaching of Islam and others are prevented from listening to its message.

Viewing the issue from this aspect, it is not correct to reach a conclusion that Gülen, thus Islam, does not recognize freedom of religion and conscience. Those who reach such a conclusion means, they are disregarding Islamic verses and the literature on the traditions of the Prophet that pertain to the freedom of religion and conscience, as well as the important interpretations made by Gülen in this issue. There are also some circles who never tire of spouting their biased discourse, manifested by slogans such as, “Islam is the religion of the sword,” “Islam is an oppressive and coercive religion,” or “either Islam or death.”

In contrast, it is very clear in Gülen’s message that no war can be fought in order to communicate one’s faith. A war can be fought when faith, Islam in this case, is prevented from teaching its message “in peaceful ways.”

In my opinion, restriction of the communication of any religion is a violation of a birthright and rights agreed upon in international human rights declarations. In other words, the prohibition in question, if one indeed exists, is a sheer atrocity that has been imposed on people living in a particular social system. Living in the West, where such debates have occurred, I have two alternatives: either to investigate the written and oral literature of Fethullah Gülen in order to examine the accuracy of this approach, or to ask him directly. I preferred to take the easier way and directly asked him my question: Here I give you his reply:

“It is possible to categorize all the battles the Prophet fought, when analyzed thoroughly with their basic characteristics, within the concept of defense. If there is an attack by an enemy, or if there is evidence acquired by a very reliable intelligence that there is going to be an attack, then war will be necessary. The Qur’anic evidence that supports this is Baqara 2:191: “fight against them, if they fight you.'”

Another remark by Gülen, made at another time, confirms this:

“Take a close look at his battles at Badr, Uhud, and the Trench. All of them took place in the vicinity of Medina, while the enemy, the polytheists of Mecca, were living 500 kilometers away. What could the Muslims do? Should they welcome the enemy forces, who had come to the front line and inside the town, trying to kill them? The Battle of Haybar, on the other hand, was fought because previously signed treaties were violated, and these treaties stipulated violation as a cause for war. While emphasizing the fact that the Prophet only fought defensive battles, there is no need to claim “there is no war in Islam by any means,” evoking some kind of an inferiority complex. On the other hand, Islam does not give the right to any nation to clamp on another nation for no reason, or just for the sake of her national sovereignty. This critical balance was maintained in the eras of the Prophet and the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs. But it is not possible to state that the same sensitivity has been preserved by some Islamic states after the Abbasids until today-the Ottomans included. Several wars were waged for the sake of gains, or to extend territory. They treated their enemies with justice during and after the war; but this is a different issue.”

The issue is crystal clear: war is the very last thing to do, when other solutions are exhausted, in order to eliminate an injustice that restricts the freedom of communication and guidance for teaching one’s religion. Thus, from where does this confusion stem? There are two reasons for this. The first is the inability to delineate the Prophet’s actions as the Messenger of God-which bind all Muslims until the Day of Judgment-from some of his actions as a statesman, which were basically formed in keeping with the policies of the day according to the prevalent context.

The second reason is that some concepts that pertain to war are predicated in their religious rather than political connotations, arising from the fact that war is a sphere where religion and politics intermingle; in other words, the “literalist” approach is adopted.

These two reasons, in the final analysis, give rise to misinterpretation of some of the concepts in a far distant meaning than what they were originally constructed for. Take the concept of “fi sabilillah,” as an example. This concept, which is repeated many times in the Holy Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet, literally means “in the way of God.” However, the role that this concept plays in the field of religion differs from that which it plays in politics in the Arabic language. “Fi sabilillah” in the field of religion covers all the good deeds aiming to acquire merit, whereas it signifies to ensure the rule of law in the field of politics.

In conclusion, fundamental rights and freedoms are not issues that are open to question. All people are free to choose their religion. No state should be able to revoke this right from her citizens. The ordinances of the Qur’an and the Sunnah which pertain to this issue are clear enough. Regulations and applications that inhibit these freedoms should not be allowed. Restrictions may be exercised by the authority of a legitimate state only if an encroachment of the rights of other people is in question, particularly in the fields of public security, common order, public decency, and health. As regards the case of war, a war can only be declared in keeping with the will of the legitimate political authority. The fact that people prefer to believe in a religion other than Islam is not considered to be a cause of war. On the other hand, if a state does not allow its citizens the freedom to choose their religion, whichever religion that may be, this is oppression. To prevent this kind of atrocity is a legitimate cause of war if all possible means of peaceful settlement have been tried and failed.

“Fear” and “hope” are two great blessings that God has given us or will do so in the future. Using these two blessings in a measured way as a vehicle to reach God is another blessing, indeed a greater blessing.

This question carries an implied assumption that there exists an association between one’s sense of security and a life of comfort and possibly luxury while fear is connected with leading a life in poverty and destitution. At first glance, this may readily provide a partial explanation, but it would be wrong to assume that this is an exhaustive commentary. Another way to understand this hadith could be as follows:

“I will not give my servant two assurances at the same time.” If a person is living carefree and in indulgence in the world, is not concerned about the next life, and has no worries about the destruction of his soul and spiritual life, and if that person has no fear of the losing his subtle qualities, no fear of the death of his feelings and the extinction of his spiritual faculties and thus lives without fear, that person cannot be without fear in the next world.

If a person lives with fear in this world-fear in the sense mentioned above-and is always anxious both in his words and actions, saying, “O my Lord! If it were not for Your benevolence, I could not protect my faith; if not for Your grace, I could not protect my subtle points; if not for Your generosity, I could not survive; if not for Your Compassion and Mercy, I cannot enter Heaven. If not for the Beloved, the Mercy of the World, I would not have found my way and would have remained in depravity.” If he can always exist in this fear and frequently take himself to account, control himself, and take the opportunity to renew himself, in the next world-God willing-there will be no fear for him.

However, there is an indispensible truth in the way this question is phrased, and it is not far from the meaning expressed in the hadith. If a person acts without concern and fear as if he came to this world only to live, and if he never feels any anxiety, then that person should be concerned about himself. In fact, even if this does not happen often, he should worry about living only in comfort and languor and feel shame for it. The following example clarifies the matter a little more: As related in sound narrations, Umar b. Abdulaziz would sometimes repeat the verse, “When the chains are around their necks, and fetters (around their legs). They will be dragged,” (40:71) and would fall on the floor. In addition, he would read this verse many times and pass out: “You consumed in your worldly life your (share of) pure, wholesome things, and enjoyed them fully (without considering the due of the Hereafter, and so have taken in the world the reward of all your good deeds). So this Day, you are recompensed with the punishment of abasement because of your scornful arrogance on the earth against all right, and because of your transgressing (the bounds set by God)” (46:29).

Yes, it is very normal for a believer with a sound heart to have such a concern, and actually this fear is the result of profound contemplations. But God may have also given this world in terms of substantial health to a person as He gave to Abdurrahman ibn Awf and Uthman ibn Affan, two giant believers. In that case, believers should make use of their wealth for the sake of lofty purposes and serve humanity for the sake of God. It is not necessary to give away possessions entirely; it is better to give in measured terms to those who are in need. A part of the assets should be retained so that they can be invested and wealth multiplied; thus, in the end one can donate a greater amount. Let it suffice that our intentions are pure, that we know this wealth is a trust from God and that we are ready to give it away when our Lord wants it.

This should be a benchmark against which we frequently check the level of our hearts. Can we comfortably say, deep within our consciences, that we are ready to give every time we hear the command and suggestions by Our Lord? Can we say, “Yes, O My Lord, I am ready to give!”? If we can do this, in other words, if the state of our heart is not attached to the possessions we have, then an increase in wealth can bear no negative impact upon us, and our property will not be the cause of any worry concerning the Hereafter, if God so wills. On the other hand, if a person insists on living heedlessly, having no belief or spiritual quest, simply, yet unwisely seeking to please the never-pleased carnal self-may God forbid-such a person will be bogged down in the swamp, headfirst. Let these two points not be confused.

This is the Winner essay of our 2010 writing contest conducted in cooperation with Everest Productions. Participants were asked to write down to live out what truly mattered to them most assuming they were told they had only three days left in this life.

Time-our most precious commodity-may seem infinite, but it is also unrecoverable. Once a moment is spent, it is gone forever. This is because we are linear beings. We are born into this world at Point A-our Arrival-and then move forward from there, making some detours along the way. We wander-sometimes aimlessly-to Point B, taking a spouse, perhaps, or throwing ourselves into our careers. Later, we meander to Point C, which is trying to enjoy our lives on the way to old age. But ultimately we all arrive at the same destination, which is Point D-our Death. There are no exceptions to this rule, and it is not an arguable point. We cannot sue God to recoup the losses of our misspent youth, and the universe has one iron-clad policy regarding time: YOU WASTE IT, YOU’VE LOST IT. So, with this information firmly in mind, I ask myself: “What would I do if I had only 72 hours left to live?” It is an interesting question that is difficult to answer because I have spent the majority of my adult life in prison. Which, incidentally, is where I am now.

I am currently serving a 6-year sentence and have no way of knowing if I will ever see the streets again. I am forty-five years old and healthy, but as we all know-tomorrow is promised to no one. So this question of 72 hours intrigues me on several levels, the first of which is: “What would it be like to die alone in prison?” I rarely speak with my family, and while I do have a couple of good friends, they are not here. So here I would die, and alone it would be. The implications of that statement have shaken me in a way that until a few days ago I would have thought impossible. I can barely imagine lying here on my prison bunk, knowing that soon I would close my eyes, never to open them again. I have accomplished nothing of importance in my life, and with 72 hours to live there would be virtually no chance of me doing anything to benefit this world or anyone in it. Sure, I have written five novels, but much like me, they are lying dormant doing nothing to benefit anyone. The thought that they would never be published makes me want to cry. In fact, I can feel that thought wrenching my heart as I write this very sentence. Nevertheless, all of that is a very selfish way of thinking, but it is with that self-centered attitude that I am most comfortable. Due to my addiction and abuse of alcohol, I have led a very selfish life. I rarely gave more than a passing thought to the feelings or well-being of others. Now, however, I will admit this: I feel quite remorseful of the way I have treated others. I am not a heartless person; I just had to close my heart to combat the pain of addiction, and then the emptiness of long-term incarceration. I wasn’t always like that, of course. I was even in love once-a long, long time ago. I remember it like it was yesterday, but that is only because nothing of importance has happened to me since. It’s funny now, more than twenty years later, but I can still remember the way she kissed. I still miss her sometimes. If I had only 72 yours left to live, I would probably think a lot about her. It was the last time that I was truly happy.

But happy memories are self-indulgent, and with my life-clock ticking down, I believe that the time would have finally arrived for me to make peace with myself. I have never forgiven myself for wasting the talents and gifts that God has given me. I am not a stupid man: I know for a fact that I could have helped others. I could have made a difference. I could have shown people how to avoid walking down the same lonely roads that I have traveled. I could have shown them how important it is to be able to smile at yourself in the mirror, and how empowering it is to thank God every day for all that has occurred-good or bad. But I didn’t. Instead, I spent my life at the bottom of a vodka bottle, doing nothing but feeling sorry for myself. What a waste. What a complete and shameful waste.

So here, now, lying on a prison bunk contemplating the prospect of having 72 hours to live, sadly, I suppose, that for me it would all come down to regrets. The biggest of these would be that I never had children. Not because I don’t like them-because I do-but because I grew up without a father, and I could never bring myself to inflict that kind of pain on my own child. And since I was unable to stop drinking, it was a certainty that I would always be in prison. Nevertheless, I have to say that just once in my life it would have been nice to get a big goodnight hug along with an, “I love you, Daddy.”

But in the end I suppose that I would use my last few hours searching for the meaning of life. Not in some universal sense, but in a very personal-and, as usual-selfish way. I would like to say that I would put aside my life-long obsession with gratifying my own immediate desires, but the truth is – I have no idea how to do that. Selfless acts seem a mystery to me, yet I don’t know why. Even in the past when I’ve done the smallest of kindnesses, such as giving spare change to a homeless person, I am sure that somewhere in the back of my mind I was thinking, “Did you see that God? When you get a chance, could you jot that down on my scorecard?”

And-yes-I do believe in God. So in those last few hours I would be constantly calling Him on His cell phone, asking Him to forgive me for my past indiscretions. He would forgive me, being the loving and merciful God that He is, and maybe that is what my entire existence here on earth would boil down to those last few moments in which I realize that I have done nothing to be worthy of God’s mercy and grace, but will receive it anyway.

So again-here, now-lying on this prison bunk, it’s difficult to find any one thing that I could do to make a difference. I am open to any revelations or epiphanies that God might like to place on my heart because after having caused so much pain on my brief journey through this world, I would dearly love to “shuffle off this mortal coil,” believing that I have left this place a little better than how I found it.

It’s a lovely thought.

It is an interesting question.

Which is why I find it so disturbing that in an infinite universe full of limitless possibilities, I am still unable to offer a satisfactory answer.