I join you in mourning the passing of Hocaefendi, known to the world as Fethullah Gülen. It is with a deep sense of respect and reverence that I share my impressions of his profound impact on those who met him and studied his works. Through this reflection, I hope to offer words of consolation and to inspire hope as we look to the future.

As a Rabbi devoted to healing relations between Jews and Muslims, I have found in Gülen a foremost leader in this historical process. Gülen’s approach is deeply rooted in the Quran and Hadith and expands beyond tolerance to embrace the “Other” as a blessing from God—each person valued and seen through the divine perspective. These principles of humility and respect resonate deeply in my own tradition and personal mission.

Last year, I had the honor of visiting Gülen at his home. Though unwell, he graciously accepted the visit. I brought with me a copy of the Torah translated into Arabic, symbolizing a bridge between the Torah and the language of the Qur’an. He lifted the Torah with joy, signifying he was accepting the gift both with appreciation and humility. It was a gesture reminiscent of the Hadith (Sunan Abu Dawud 40), in which Muhammad (PBUH) rose to honor a Torah scroll brought to him, an expression of profound respect.

Later that day, one of his students presented me with a beautiful calligraphic rendering of a verse from the Book of Psalms, inspired by Gülen’s teachings. The Quran, after all, acknowledges Psalms’ unique place among the sacred books: “To David We gave the Book of Psalms” (Surah Al-Isra 17:55). The selected verse, Psalms 145:10, reads: “All Your works shall praise You, O LORD, and Your pious shall bless You.” This, too, reinforced the shared heritage of reverence and respect for sacred texts and a universal vision for the world.

When I met with Gülen, I had many questions regarding the status of Jewish people, Judaism, and the Torah within Islam. These inquiries lie at the heart of my work as Director of the Ohr Torah Stone’s Blickle Institute for Interfaith Dialogue. In our shared story, I believe it is God’s will that Jews and Muslims, in mutual respect and fraternity, fulfill the vision of Zephaniah 3:9: that humanity, united, will call upon the name of God and serve together. I was advised to submit my questions in writing, and I received a comprehensive, respectful response on October 4, 2023. This document, I believe, will stand as a historic testimony to our shared values and aspirations.

Religion is often cited as a cause of conflict, but it must also be part of the solution. Our religious identities, rather than dividing us, should be a source of connection. This connection flourishes when we understand and feel that the God we worship is the same God loved and served by others.

In closing, I offer words of hope for the millions of Hizmet followers. The letter “H” at the beginning of Hizmet holds special significance for me, as I have experienced firsthand the virtues of Hospitality, Humility, Hope, Healing, Heart, and Humanity within this movement. I would add an additional “H” as a precedent for a path forward: Habad.

Habad, an Orthodox Jewish movement rooted in service and spiritual engagement, resonates with Hizmet’s ideals. Its last leader, the Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, is remembered for his profound spirituality and vision. Though he passed away in 1994, his movement continued to grow, sustained by his ideas, his messages, and his vision. In a similar way, Hizmet, inspired by the teachings of Gülen, has the potential to grow and continue impacting humanity, spreading his message of service and unity.

May Gülen’s memory be a blessing and may Hizmet continue to bring blessing to the world.

To date, many have spoken for Islam: experts, apologists, extremists, politicians, religious leaders, even fiction writers. In this cacophony of voices everyday Muslims have remained silent. Many have speculated on their silence, promoting causes and foreseeing the clash of civilizations and the end of world.

The silenced majority of Muslims have spoken for Who Speaks for Islam? written by John L. Esposito, professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University and Dalia Mogahed, a senior Analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, provides a comprehensive analysis on a multiyear, mammoth, Gallup poll data – “the largest study of its kind” – which attempts to answer popular questions such as: Is Islam to blame for extremism? Why is there so much anti-Americanism in the Muslim world? Who are the extremists? What do Muslim women really want?

The Gallup Institution surveyed over 55,000 Muslims in over 35 Muslim populated countries. When we ponder on the role this data may play in the betterment of relations with 1.3 billion inhabitants of the world, we can’t help, but appreciate in depth the painstaking efforts shown in this project. Readers can also read about the challenges and method of the survey at the end of the book.

Most of the answers of the surveyed go against the popular perceptions and shed light on the level of misinformation and distortion we all are exposed to, reminding us one more time of Einstein’s advice that a man should look for what is and not for what he believes should be. Constructed in a comprehensive design and plain language, the data can easily be grasped by say, even the statistics illiterate. Every effort is made to ensure a wider readership. The book is organized in five chapters under five crucial questions:

Who are Muslims?

After exploring the five pillars of Islam (i.e. profession of faith, prayer, fasting during Ramadan, almsgiving, and pilgrimage to Mecca), the books touches upon sensitive issues such as the meaning of jihad, the role of family and culture in Islam, nostalgia for a glorious past, and politics.

Democracy or theocracy?

Many important questions are tackled in this chapter such as: Why is democracy absent in so much of the Muslim world? Is Islam the problem? How do Muslims view democracy? Should support for Sharia make the West panic? What do Muslims believe the chances are of improving relations with the West? Many Muslims view democracy as necessary for progress but skeptical about America and Europe’s intentions in promoting democracy in Muslim countries.

What makes a radical?

Extremists and terrorists were thought to be uneducated, poor, religious fanatics who reject modernization and technology, yet within weeks of 9/11, the media reported the “stunning discovery” that many of the attackers were, like Bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al- Zawahiri, well educated (some of them in western universities), middle to upper class, and from stable family backgrounds. Investigating diagnosis and misdiagnosis, this chapter explores the causes of extremism based on poll data.

What do women want?

When asked by the Gallup Poll of American households, “What do you admire least about Muslims or Islamic world?” American women answer “gender inequality” as among the top responses. Many have engaged in struggle to liberate the Muslim woman, yet her voice rarely makes its way in the discourse. Interesting answers are given by Muslim women to questions, like: How do Muslim women feel about Islam and the Sacred Law (Sharia)? Do they want to be liberated by the West? How do they view gender equality?

Clash or coexistence?

Confronting myths vs. realities, this chapter offers insights into what can be done to end global terrorism. The ability to move beyond presuppositions and stereotypes in our attitudes and policies and to form partnerships that transcend an “us” and “them” view of the world is critical to this cause. According to data findings, public diplomacy, defined as winning minds and hearts, is required. Finally, here is a trial size bite from the book without spoiling it. There is a prevalent assumption about Islam and democracy being incompatible. Yet that the majority of the respondents declared democracy as one of the things they admired most about West. Another impressive finding of this book was the answer Muslims gave to the open ended question: What can the West do to improve relations with Muslims? The answer was: Show respect. Respect comes with better understanding and reading Who Speaks for Islam? may be an important step toward it.

What do you think?

Christian and Jewish scripture

Islamic theology is strictly monotheistic. Consequently, the Qur’an denies such Christian doctrines as the Trinity and the resurrection of Jesus, which can seem to suggest that God works in a partnership (Jacques 2004, 16). Yet Jesus is always honored in the Qur’an. He is referred to as a “sign” of mercy and an “example.” Nowhere is he or any other Prophet criticized (Jacques 2004, 16). Moses is also revered in the Qur’an, where he is referred to more than one hundred times (Khan 2001, 35.

The Qur’an does not claim to supersede the scriptures that came before it, but is understood to complete the revelations of the Prophets (Jacques 2004, 298). It is a culmination of the history of divine revelation, which includes stories from the Old and New Testaments such as the stories of Abraham, Moses, Noah, and Jesus. Sura 61:6 is an example of how the Qur’an affirms the validity of Jewish and Christian scriptures: “And when Jesus son of Mary said, ‘Children of Israel, I am indeed God’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah that has gone before me…’” (Murata and Chittick 1994, 165).

Qur’anic doctrine about the “People of the Book”

In the Qur’an, Jews, and Christians are referred to as Ahl al-kitab, meaning “the People of the Book.” The Qur’an makes distinctions between the People of the Book. Many verses acknowledge that there are both wrongdoers and righteous ones among them (Sarýtoprak 2000, 323).

Where the Qur’an criticizes the People of the Book, it generally makes clear that it is referring only to those who do not adhere to the message of the Prophets (tawhid) (Murata and Chittick, 1994, 170):

Those who persistently disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the polytheists would not abandon until there had come to them the Clear Evidence … Surely those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and from among the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell a seed of which unbelief bears, abiding therein. (98:1, 6)

Some verses that criticize the People of the Book without making a distinction are open to various interpretations. For example, Sura 5:55 states: “Oh believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they’re friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them as friends is one of them.” Said Nursi suggests that the verse may refer to particular groups of Jews and Christians who committed treachery during the days of the Medina Charter. Nursi points out that at the time of the Prophet, people hated and loved each other solely on the basis of religion, so close relationships with non-Muslims were considered hypocritical (Sarýtoprak 327). As the basis for friendships has changed, hypocrisy in this respect is no longer an issue.

Another reason why such verses should be interpreted broadly rather than literally is because some of the words used in their original Arabic forms are ambiguous. In this verse, the word for friend (wali) can mean guardian. The sentence might mean that Muslims cannot make Jews or Christians their guardians. In some verses, the People of the Book are referred to as kafir, meaning either “one who denies the existence of God” or “one who denies the prophethood of Muhammad.” Non-Muslims are not necessarily kafirs in the first sense of the word (Sarýtoprak, 328).

The Qur’an commonly advocates tolerance, respect, and goodwill towards the People of the Book. For example, Sura 60:8 declares:

God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, nor drive you away from your homes, to be kindly to them, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable.

In addition to advocating tolerance, the Qur’an praises the People of the Book. In Sura 21:7, they are referred to as “People of Knowledge” (ahl al-dhikr) (Sarýtoprak, 328) and verses 3:113-15 declare:

Yet, they are not all alike: among the People of the Book, there is an upright community, reciting God’s Revelations in the watches of the night and prostrating (themselves in worship). They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin and promote what is right and good, and forbid and try to prevent evil, and hasten to do good deeds, as if competing with one another. Those are of the righteous ones. Whatever good they do, they will never be denied the reward of it; and God has full knowledge of the God-revering, pious.

This sura provides an example of how the Qur’an recognizes that the People of the Book worship the same God as Muslims. This recognition of a common ground is repeated in other verses, such as 3:64, which commands:

Say (to them, O Messenger): “O People of the Book, come to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but God, and associate none as partner with Him, and that none of us take others for Lords, apart from God.”

Another implication in Sura 3:115 is that the People of the Book will be rewarded. A general theme in the Qur’an is that those People of the Book who accept tawhid will have salvation (Murata and Chittick, 168). For example, Sura 2:62 states:

Those who believe (Muslims), the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabaeans, whosoever believe in God and the Last Day and do good deeds, they shall have their reward from their Lord, shall have nothing to fear, nor shall they come to grief.

Tolerance in Practice

The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) protected and defended the People of the Book. In the hadith by Al-Munawi, he is quoted as saying: “Who wrongs a Jew or Christian will have myself as his prosecutor on the day of Judgement.” In Al-Bayhaqi’s hadith he is quoted: “Whosoever persecuted a dhimmi [non-Muslim who paid a protection tax] or usurped his rights, or took work from him beyond his capacity, or took something from him without his permission, I shall be a complainant against him on the Day of Resurrection.” Al-Bukhari tells of how Muhammad would not exclude Jewish people when he visited the sick. On one occasion, when a Jewish funeral procession passed by him, he stood up out of respect, and when asked why, replied: “Is it not a human soul?”

The Prophet’s respect for the People of the Book was an example to others during his time. One of his companions, Hizam b. Hakim, reproached the Governor of Syria when he saw a group of group of Christians standing out in the hot sun as punishment for not paying their taxes.

Said Nursi also advocated tolerance, affirming that Muslims and non-Muslims are equal before Qur’anic law, and that people should be praised and loved based on their individual attributes (Sarýtoprak 326–327).

Dhimmi law and jizya

Soon after the Hijra (the migration of the Prophet to Medina), the Prophet signed a pact with the local tribes of Medina. Famously known as the Medina Charter, the Prophet aimed at generating a peaceful, pluralist society in this town, which was torn apart with decades-long civil strife and bloodshed. However, when this pact was violated by some Jewish tribes who supported the Meccans against Muslims, Jews were eventually driven out. Yet cooperation was renewed when the Prophet concluded a treaty with the Jews of Khaibar (Jacques 14–16).

Under an Islamic government, dhimmi law was developed in relations with the People of the Book which required them to pay a poll tax, or jizya, which is sanctioned in the Qur’an (9:29).

In exchange, Muslims were responsible for the protection of the People of the Book in their society. During the reign of the second Caliph, the Governor of Homs (in modern-day Syria) returned the poll tax to his Christian subjects because he realized he could not protect them against the Byzantine army (Jacques 14–16).

The policies surrounding jizya were relatively fair. Under a Muslim government, non-Muslims were not required to pay zakat (prescribed charity), which was a legal and religious requirement for Muslims. Furthermore, the poor, the blind, the elderly, the rescue workers at the houses of worship, women and children were all exempt from jizya. If it was not paid, the maximum punishment was imprisonment, and if a person died without having paid it, it could not become a debt transferred to his estate or heirs (Jacques 14–16).

Interaction between Muslims and the People of the Book

Muslims, Jews, and Christians socialized among one another regularly and rather freely in the Islamic Middle Ages, creating bonds (Cohen 2000, 39, 42). For example, they met in public baths, and business partnerships between Muslims and non-Muslims occurred despite disapproval of some authorities. Some Muslims even took part in Christian and Jewish religious celebrations. Jews and Christians had many ample opportunities in daily life “to cross barriers in the hierarchy of Islamic society” (Cohen 2000, 39). Dhimmis enjoyed acceptance in intellectual circles (majalis) and studied with Muslims at universities, particularly during the “renaissance of Islam” in cosmopolitan tenth-century Baghdad. Cohen states that “Jewish physicians were found in Arab society in numbers disproportionate to the Jewish presence in the population at large … They also formed part of the interdenominational circle of physicians working in state hospitals and adorning Muslim courts” (Cohen 2000, 42).

In the early Abbasid period, Muslims and Christian theologians frequently corresponded by sending letters to each other, or in debates. Although the dialogue was concerned with both parties trying to prove the superiority of their religion over the other, it was nevertheless constructive and meaningful (Sirry 2005, 365–73).

Life in Spain (al Andalus) between 711 and 1492 is a prime example of harmonious coexistence between Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Jews and Christians enjoyed participation in Arab cultural activities, such as poetry competitions and intellectual circles (Menocal 2002, 173–80).

In 1856, full egalitarian rights were given to all citizens of the Ottoman Empire. Citizens of any religion could be accepted into government service and enroll in military and state schools (Sarýtoprak, 322).

Restrictions in Muslim-Dhimmi Relations

In the fourteenth century, jurist Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya wrote an influential book compiling general Islamic laws for dhimmis: Ahkam ahl al-dhimma (The Laws pertaining to the Protected People) (Cohen 53). Among these, he states that Muslims may convey condolences to non-Muslims or congratulate them on marriage, birth or good health with the exception of occasions, which contradict Islamic tenets (Jacques 39).

In some domains, such as marriage and dining, Muslim interaction with the People of the book is given Qur’anic sanction.

This day (all) pure, wholesome things have been made lawful for you. And the food of those who were given the Book before is lawful for you, just as your food is lawful for them. And (lawful for you in marriage) are chaste women from among the believers, and from among those who were given the Book before, provided that you give them their bridal-due, taking them in honest wedlock, and not in debauchery, nor as secret love-companions. Whoever rejects faith, all his works are in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (5:5)

Sunni law permitted the eating of animals slaughtered by the People of the Book. Muslims could eat food provided by Jews as the Prophet Muhammad himself had done (Cohen 41). It was more problematic to eat in Christian homes, as pork might be served. However, Shia Islam rejected food prepared by dhimmis as unclean.

Sura 5:5 allows Muslim men to marry dhimmi women, not the other way around. This is to protect the woman’s rights, because the man might forcefully impose his religion on his Muslim wife (Cohen 41). If the wife of a Jewish or Christian couple converts to Islam, the marriage becomes invalid and from then on she may only marry Muslim men (Spectorsky 2000, 274). A Muslim husband is required to permit his non-Muslim wife to observe her religious rituals in the household and to read her own scriptures, and not encourage her to break rituals such as fasting and (for Jews) keeping the Sabbath (Cohen 41).

Conclusion

In studying the Qur’an, it is evident that Islam is inherently tolerant of Judaism and Christianity. It requires Muslims to respect the validity of the Scriptures of the People of the Book, and their right to be treated with kindness. The practice of the Prophet is consistent with this view as is the example of many influential Muslims throughout history, such as Said Nursi and Rumi. In today’s world of pluralism and multiculturalism, understanding is essential for adherents of different religions to coexist in peace and harmony. Muslims, Jews, and Christians must understand the tolerant message of Islam and the great Muslim role models. Exclusive focus on seemingly negative Qur’anic verses such as 5:55, without understanding the context, can lead to fear and hatred. They must embrace their similarities to see that they are brethren, and embrace their differences as a chance for learning. Amidst the twentieth and twenty-first century conflicts between the Islamic World and the West, one might see peaceful coexistence between religious groups as idealistic. But one needs only to look at the experience of Jews and Christians under Islamic rule in the Middle Ages to see that religious pluralism is possible.

References

• Cohen, A. 1984. Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Cohen, M.R. 1994. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• ——. 2000. “Sociability and the Concept of Galut in Jewish-Muslim Relations in the Middle Ages” in Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communication and Interaction: Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner. Edited by B.H. Hary, J.L. Hayes, and F. Astern. Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 27. Leiden: Brill.
• Huda, Q. 2003. “Knowledge of Allah and the Islamic View of Other Religions,” Theological Studies 64: 278–305.
• Jacques, W. 2004. “Christians, Muslims, Jews and Their Religions.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 15: 13–33.
• Khan, I.A. 2001. “The Qur’anic View of Moses as a Messenger of God from the Children of Israel to Pharaoh.” In Jewish-Muslim Encounters: History, Philosophy and Culture, Edited by C. Selengut. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.
• Lewis, B. 1984. The Jews and Islam. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• Menocal, M.R. 2002. “Culture in the Time of Tolerance: Al-Andalus as a Model for Our Own Time.” Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture 8/9: 173–180.
• Murata, S., and W.C. Chittick. 1994. The Vision of Islam. New York: Paragon House.
• Sarýtoprak, Z. 2000. “Said Nursi’s Teachings on the People of the Book: A Case Study of Islamic Social Policy in the Early Twentieth Century.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 11: 321–32.
• Sirry, M.A. 2005. “Early Muslim-Christian Dialogue: A Closer Look at Major Themes of the Theological Encounter.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations Vol. 16: 361–76.
• Spectorsky, S. 2000. “Problems of Intermarriage in Early fiqh Texts.” In Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communication and Interaction: Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner. Edited by B.H. Hary, J.L. Hayes, and F. Astern. Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 27. Leiden: Brill.

In this article we will review these three concepts and the relations among them by giving examples from the realms of both physical and metaphysical concepts.

Even though there is no universally accepted definition of analogy, or metaphor, or literal similarity, the purpose of their use is unanimously defined as “throwing light on an unfamiliar concept or situation using a familiar one.” The past few decades have witnessed several attempts of redefining these terms or at least extending a definition that is somewhat agreed-upon to an all-encompassing one. In so doing, researchers tended to employ mathematical structures that are by no means simple. What seems to differ from one approach to another is the method used in the process of establishing a correspondence between the familiar and the unfamiliar. Our purpose is not to give a full account of these approaches here, as there are so many of them, but rather to adapt one that is more convenient for conveying our examples.

Analogy: The word analogy is derived from the Greek word analogia. Originally, this was a mathematical (actually a musical) term before becoming a grammatical and linguistic one, meaning “proportion” (Szabo 1978, 23). An example of Aristotelian analogy is “spine is to fish as bone is to animal.” This simple analogy is generally formulated as A:B = C:D. We say, in this case, A and C are analogous. The sense in which A and C are analogous could be a property they have in common as well as the similarity between their relations to B and D, respectively. In the spine and bone example above we observe both. In the analogy “feet are to animal as wheels are to automobile,” however, feet and tires have virtually nothing in common, but they are analogous with respect to their functions within the bodies that they are part of, i.e., both are used as a means of transportation. Therefore, common relations are essential to analogy, but common objects are not. (Gentner-Markman 1997, 46).

One of the recent approaches to analogy which is widely used is the structure-mapping theory (SMT) (Dedre Gentner, 1983). It presumes a mapping between the familiar (domain or base) and the unfamiliar (target). The domain and the target consist of objects and relations among objects. SMT establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the objects of the domain and the target in a way that preserves the relations between objects (Those who are familiar with the category theory in mathematics will notice the resemblance of this mapping to a “covariant functor” between two “categories”). This is a “structural alignment” between the domain and the target (Gentner-Markman 1997, 47). In the “feet and wheels” example the mapping occurs between a body and an automobile. It maps feet to wheels and the relation TRANSPORT (feet, body) to the relation TRANSPORT (wheels, automobile). One can find more matching elements between a body and an automobile. For instance, we can match the heart of the body to the engine of the vehicle and observe that the relations RUN (heart, body) and RUN (engine, automobile) are preserved.

One might ask where do the arms get mapped? The answer is “nowhere.” We do not expect this mapping to match every object in the domain to an object in the target. The “power of the analogy” is not in the number of objects that are matched or the common attributes that the objects share. It is rather the degree of matching among relations that makes an analogy more powerful (Gentner 1982, 110).

Having introduced the concept of analogy by using some simple physical examples let’s now consider a not-so simple metaphysical situation.

In the 1920’s two mathematicians proved a very interesting but at the same time very puzzling theorem, known as the Banach-Tarski Paradox. In plain English, the theorem states that it is possible to divide a solid ball into a few pieces and reassemble those pieces together to make two balls, each of which has the same size as the original ball that was divided. A more striking consequence of their theorem is (you may want to sit down before you read this) a solid ball the size of a small pea can be cut into a number of pieces and reassembled into a new ball the size of the sun! Strange as it may sound, it is a valid mathematical argument, not a myth. (We have to note that it is not something one can do at home using a knife and a cutting board, because some of the pieces have no volume!) The analogy that we would like to establish under SMT is to map that solid ball of the theorem to a small amount of water which could quench the thirst of an army of about 30,000 in Tabuk in year 631. This was a miracle given to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. A similar miracle of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, is described in the Bible, Matthew 14:21 (Volker Runde, in the Sky 2 (2000), 13–15).

Metaphor: The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 104) Simple examples are “What a sweet baby!” “Your car is a lemon, let’s take mine.” Obviously babies are not candies, nor are vehicles some sort of fruit. We use this sort of “identification” in order to communicate our ideas/feelings in a more striking way. Here are more examples of metaphors: “he is the apple of my eye,” “it’s raining cats and dogs,” “he has a golden heart,” “she cried rivers” etc. As these examples show, the distinguishing characteristic of metaphors is substitution, for example, rivers taking the place of tears in the last example. And this substitution takes place between different domains. If we say “a nightingale is a bird,” that’s not a metaphor; it’s a literal categorization, as both nightingale and bird signify the same domain (Gentner 2005, 200).

As long as the correspondence is not purely attributional, but some relations are also preserved we can also talk about structural alignment for metaphors (Gentner 88, 49). From this perspective, many metaphors are in fact analogies, but it’s the form of the language that helps us differentiate them. For example, “the engine is the heart of an automobile” is a metaphor, but it uses the same structural alignment of the analogical comparison that we mentioned above.

Nonetheless, not every metaphor is of this sort. Consider, for example, the verse (48:10) “God’s hand is over their hands” from the Qur’an; this was revealed in connection to some 1,400 believers’ pledging allegiance to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, under a tree in Hudaybiyah in year 628 by giving their hands to him. Whatever “God’s hand” in this verse refers to, whether it is to His power, His victory, His protection and blessings for the believers, or His acceptance of their pledge, it is far from being a physical hand. Therefore, we can not imagine a relation between dissimilar objects (Gentner 1982, 109; Gentner 2001, 204) that is mapped to the relation (Hand, God) under a structural alignment using SMT.

Literal similarity: If there is a considerable number of common attributes that are shared by the objects of the domain and the target then the comparison is more likely to be a literal similarity (Gentner 1982, 110). For example the comparison in the following verse of the Qur’an is a literal similarity: “Indeed, the example of Jesus to God is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, “Be,” and he was” (3:59). In this example there are a great number of attributes that Jesus and Adam (peace be upon them) share but only one of them is the subject of the comparison here, which is that both Jesus and Adam had no father. If Jesus also had no mother this would be an “identity,” not a similarity (Gentner 1982, 110).

The statement “Jesus is like Adam” makes much more sense than “Jesus is Adam,” even if we make it clear in what sense we use this identification. Typically metaphors use the word “is” and literal similarity comparisons (similes) use either of the words “like” or “as.” Mathematically speaking, if metaphors are equalities, then similes are approximations (Casnig).

Even though metaphors are substitutions, they are not necessarily “two-way” identifications. In other words, most of the times they are asymmetric; i.e., there is a sense of direction in the “identification.” For example, we never substitute a car in the place of a lemon and say “this lemon is a car.” This is because the first and foremost requirement of any comparison is that it be informative. What information do we obtain from the statement “rose is love” or “iron is fist”? In that respect many metaphors are irreversible, like similes: “a butcher like a surgeon” is quite different than “a surgeon like a butcher.” One is a compliment but the other is not! (Gentner 2001, 224). Perhaps irreversibility can also be taken as a distinguishing character of (at least attributional) metaphors.

Mathematical and metaphysical examples: Although there is no consensus on how mathematical ideas come about, it is certain that they are introduced into our world of knowledge by symbolism. Whether we associate a symbol to something physical, such as the symbol 70 to the weight of an object or the letter g to gravitational force, or to an abstract mathematical concept, such as the letter i to √–1, we are substituting one thing to mean another thing. We even associate symbols to concepts we cannot even describe, such as the concept of infinity and the symbol ∝ that is used to represent what it signifies in mathematics. From this perspective, mathematical symbols can be viewed as metaphors (Pimm, David 1981).

On the other hand mathematical formulas preserve the relations among the objects or concepts that they represent. In that respect, it is possible to see them as analogies as well. Therefore, they can be subjects of structural alignment. In the next example we will use SMT to form an analogical comparison between infinity and human life in order to better understand a Qur’anic verse.

In verse (5:32) of the Qur’an reads: “…he who kills a soul unless it be (punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind…”

In a sense this verse means “one equals many.” How can that be? How can one be equal to a million? Or a billion? Those who know something about mathematics with infinities will remember that it is a quite different thing from mathematics with ordinary numbers. For example, if we add two infinities we still get infinity, i.e., ∝+∝=.∝=∝, something that never happens with any finite number, except for 0 (0+0=2.0=0). Likewise, if we add any number of infinities together we still get infinity: ∝+∝+∝+…∝=∝.Therefore, for any positive number m if we write m.∝=∝ it would be a perfectly acceptable mathematical statement.

Now, everyone will agree that there is no value one can associate to human life. Therefore, it’s fair to say that the value of human life is infinite. Let’s map “∝” to “saving the life of one person” under a structural alignment and let counting people in the target correspond to adding infinities in the domain. Now, if m represents the total number of lives on earth then what element should we associate to saving them altogether? The answer is m infinities added together, in other words m.∝ But seeing that m.∝ is equal to ∝ we can say that saving the lives of all people on earth is no different than saving the life of one individual! That’s how one can equal many. Now, if we map “killing an innocent person” to “–∝” then we clearly see that the mathematical statement m.(-∝)=-∝translates into “killing all innocent people on earth is as grave a sin as killing one.”

Note that this “one equals many” situation is not a violation of the requirement that structure mapping be one-to-one (Gentner-Markman 1997, 47). It’s a relation that occurs between the objects of the domain and the objects of the target and that relation is preserved under a one-to-one structure mapping.

Another relation between infinities is that “∝-∝” is indeterminate. In particular “∝-∝” is not necessarily 0. Using the analogy we just constructed we can translate this as “killing one innocent person and saving the life of another does not balance out.” Then, “∝-∝” is indeterminate” translates as “we cannot know if God will forgive that person for saving a life or punish him/her for taking one; it depends on which ∝ is greater!” Indeed, those who have taken calculus will remember that “∝-∝” sometimes turns out to be a positive number and sometimes a negative number; as well as 0 or ∝ or -∝

One could ask, what about m.0=0? Isn’t this also true? Yes, indeed “the sum of m zeros is equal to zero” is another mathematically accurate statement. Then, what meaning could this equation be given? Perhaps this would be the “murderer’s” version of the Qur’anic principle that we mentioned above: “When the life of an individual has “no value” in your heart, killing one person or a million people should be equally disheartening (!)”

Another mathematical tool that would be helpful in interpreting the above-mentioned principle is a technique that is used in mathematical proofs. When proving a fact about a set of elements in mathematics one proves it for an arbitrarily chosen member of the set and it is automatically generalized to the rest of the elements in the set. For example, in order to prove the statement “the square root of every prime number is irrational” we choose a prime number, say p, arbitrarily and prove the statement for it. Once we do that it is as if we proved that √2 is irrational, √3 is irrational, √5 is irrational etc. It covers all the numbers in the form √p, where p is a prime number. In the same way, when one kills an innocent person the message that it is acceptable to kill “any” innocent person is given, as the choice of person has been made arbitrarily. Therefore, this can be likened to killing all of mankind because being able to kill one person is simply generalized to all people who could be in that person’s shoes.

Summary: In this article we have given examples of analogy, metaphor, and literal similarity and have tried to indicate some distinguishing characters that set them apart. We included some uncommon metaphysical phenomena which have been placed in analogical correspondence with mathematical quantities with the intention of showing that mathematics can be used to shed light on purely religious concepts as well.

Yusuf Ziya Gurtas is an assistant professor of mathematics in Queensborough Community College, CUNY.

References

• Casnig, John D. 1997–2009. A Language of Metaphors. Knowgramming.com. Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
• Gentner, Dedre. 1982. “Are scientific analogies metaphors?” in David S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor, Problems and Perspectives, Brighton, England: Harvester Press, pp. 106–132.
• –. 1983. “Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy.” Cognitive Science, 7, pp. 155–170.
• –. 1988. “Metaphor as Structure Mapping: The Relational Shift.” Child Development, 59, 47–59.
• Gentner, Dedre & Markman, Arthur D. 1997. “Structure Mapping in Analogy and Similarity.” American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.
• Gentner, Dedre, Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. 2001. “Metaphor is like analogy” in D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 199–253.
• Gentner, Dedre & Bowdle, Brian F. 2005. “The Career of Metaphor.” Psychological Review, 112, pp. 193–216.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Pimm, David. 1981. “Metaphor and Analogy in Mathematics.” For the Learning of Mathematics, 1, 47–50.
• Runde, Volker. 2000. “The Banach-Tarski Paradox or What Mathematics and Miracles Have in Common.” in the Sky, 2, 13–15.
• Szabo, A. 1978. The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

The root of the word Islam, silm, refers to “making peace, being in a mutually peaceful environment, greetings, rescue, safety, being secure, finding peace, reaching salvation and well being or being far from danger, attaining goodness, comfort and favor, keeping away from troubles and disasters, submitting the self and obeying, respect, being far from wrong.” The “submitting the self and obeying” here means “submitting to justice and righteousness in order to reach peace and safety and being in a peaceful environment by one’s free will.” In fact, salaam and salaamat, mean “to reach salvation,” and their rubai form (with four radical letters) aslama means “submitted, became Muslim, and made peace.” “Islam” as either a noun or a verb with these meanings is mentioned in many verses in the Qur’an.1

From this perspective, Islam is “submission to God, accepting His authority as well as obeying His orders”; “one’s total submission to God and serving only Him”; “embracing the messages of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and abiding by them.” In this sense, a Muslim is one who is under the peaceful and safe shade of Islam. God wants a Muslim to live in a safe and peaceful environment and to make efforts for the spread and continuity of peace.

Since Islam means living in a peaceful environment that emerges as a result of submission to God, the Qur’an asks that all humanity should embrace silm, that is, peace, and reminds us to avoid following Satan. As stated in the verse, O you who believe! Come in full submission to God, all of you, (without allowing any discord among you due to worldly reasons), and do not follow in the footsteps of Satan, for indeed he is a manifest enemy to you (seeking to seduce you to rebel against God, with glittering promises) (Qur’an, 2:208), Satan is the enemy of peace. This verse is followed by a reminder of God’s All-Glorious with irresistible might if believers “stumble and fall back” from following God’s way to realize peace and agreement.

The purpose of Islam

In order to be able portray a fair image of Islam, we have to consider its divinely inspired purposes, which yield, as a result, a just worldly order. By applying preventive measures to ensure security of wealth, life, mind, religion, and reproduction, Islam aims to build a society in peace, serenity, friendship, collaboration, altruism, justice, and virtue.

According to the Qur’an, all Muslims are brothers and sisters to each other and if a disagreement appears among them they make peace and correct it (Qur’an, 49:10). They help each other to avoid what God forbids and to observe their religious awareness at every stage in their life (Qur’an, 5:2); they carry out important tasks after shura, that is, consultation (Qur’an, 3:159; 42:38); and they always witness truthfully and are just even if it is against their close relatives (Qur’an, 4:135).

Again, as mentioned in the Qur’an, a true Muslim follows the straight path. That means that he or she is faithful, honest, and just, is calm, lives to perfectly observe his or her religion and in guidance of reason.2 Pursuing the straight path can be understood as being absolutely truthful and honest in all circumstances, as well as embracing a moderate way of life that encourages good relations with everyone.

Living on the straight path is the most significant desire for any Muslim. Upon the revelation of the verse, Pursue, then, what is exactly right (in every matter of the Religion), as you are commanded (by God), and those who, along with you, have turned (to God with faith, repenting their former ways, let them do likewise); and do not rebel against the bounds of the Straight Path (O believers)! He indeed sees well all that you do (Qur’an, 11:112), the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “The chapter Hud has made me older.”3 In this sense, the Companions commented on the verse, “There was no verse revealed to the Prophet Muhammad that is more powerful than this.” Such a verse that so powerfully enjoins “what is right” should have the power to eradicate all kinds of violence and oppression, which are obviously not the right path to follow in social relations.

Mercy and forgiveness

Divine compassion and Prophetic mercy assign special importance to forgiveness and tolerance. As God the Most Gracious is merciful to all people, His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is merciful and compassionate to all believers (Qur’an, 9:128). God’s clear order to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is to embrace forgiveness. The verse Adopt the way of forbearance and tolerance, and enjoin what is good and right, and withdraw from the ignorant ones (Qur’an, 7:199) indicates this.

By the blessing of God, the Prophet succeeded in establishing unity among people by acting with compassion and mercy. If he had treated the people around him severely and rudely, they would have left him and their unity would have collapsed (Qur’an, 3:159).

Since God and the Messenger of God are merciful and compassionate to believers, those who take the divinely prescribed ethics and the prophetic character as their example should obviously treat one another with mercy and compassion. Therefore, those who have received the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) message can never be severe, arrogant, antagonistic, or hostile.

Furthermore, God Almighty advises His Messenger to be forgiving and to consult people by asking for their ideas (Qur’an, 3:159; 42:38) since exchanging ideas increases feelings of unity and cooperation while reducing tension between people. As a result, a desire for change that transforms hatred into peace and serenity appears in society.

According to the Messenger of God, people are equal before God as the teeth of a comb are equal. Characteristics like language, ancestry, race, wealth, and poverty are not signs of superiority.4 In the thirteenth verse of the chapter Al-Hujurat, the creation of humankind from a female and a male, the division of humanity into ethnic groups or nations and tribes in order to know one another, and the importance of fearing God in order to become valued in God’s view are pointed out.

The verse approves having an identity and being known by an identity; nonetheless, it rejects the abuse of affiliation (to different gender, social or ethnic groups) as a means of superiority. Thus, it assesses a person’s honor and value in terms of universal values that he or she gains through his or her own will and effort, and not in terms of gender or ethnic ties, which are not obtained through free will.5

In Islam, the individual is considered as a person that gains value within the society, as someone who is responsible to the community in a social context.

According to Islam, the life of a human being is a trust from God, irrespective of his or her ancestry, color, or language, and hence should be protected meticulously. The main idea in Islam is to praise God the Almighty (Qur’an, 1:1; 6:45), to show compassion to creation. Humankind is the best of all creations (Qur’an, 17:70) and is created of the best stature (Qur’an, 95:4). So, every human deserves respect by nature; approaching them with lenience, tolerance, and humility is certainly virtuous. Hence, staying away from hatred and having a tolerant attitude is essential for humanity.

God the Almighty asks from the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) in particular and from all Muslims in general to be forgiving (Qur’an, 42:37; 3:134). Thus, God loves good attitudes such as spending and serving for the sake of humankind at all times under all circumstances, forgiving people, and avoiding doing something wrong when we become angry.

Even if one has the right to retaliate in response to an evil action, forgiveness is more appropriate for those who are more pious. The Qur’an enlightens all humanity on this issue: The recompense of an evil deed can only be an evil equal to it; but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God. Surely He does not love the wrongdoers (Qur’an, 42:40; see also Qur’an, 42:43).

Besides, each of us lives on the path that God has ordained for him or her. For this reason, it is important to emphasize serving rather than fighting. God says in the Qur’an (5:48), Strive then together as if competing in good works, and also, Say: Every one acts according to his own character (made up of his creed, worldview and disposition), and your Lord knows best who is guided in his way (17:84). Therefore, individuals should not dispute and fight over their different ideas to satisfy their ambitions and self-interests. Rather, on the contrary, they should compete to show good character and to serve in the best way; they should support each other not in wrongdoing, but in doing good.

Trustworthiness

An important dimension of being a Muslim is trustworthiness. Every Prophet is introduced in the Qur’an with the attribute of trustworthiness.6 First and foremost, the Prophet Muhammad, the most trustworthy of the heavens and earth, and all the prophets preceding him, made efforts to promote trustworthiness in their societies.

In a place where trust does not exist, love, respect and solidarity are also absent. The lack of trust destroys family, as well as social, cultural, and economic life. For this reason, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) states that trustworthiness and treachery cannot exist together7 and asserts, “One, who betrays, harms, or deceives a Muslim, is not of us.”8 He describes the ideal Muslim as thus: “A Muslim is one from whose hand and tongue people are safe. A believer is one from whom people know that their wealth and lives are safe.”9

In one hadith, the Messenger of God describes those who are good and those who are bad: “The good amongst you is the one from whom good things are expected and by whom people are sure that they will not be harmed. The bad amongst you is the one from whom good things are not expected and from whose evil people do not feel safe.”10 From this, it can be understood that a believer is one who is trustworthy, and therefore, no one would fear any danger from him or her under any circumstances.

In Islam, good morals, love and respect for God and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are expected from believers. Appropriate love, mercy and compassion are to be shown, not only to people but also to every creature in nature since, according to Islam’s core understanding, every creation is a blessing from God and the protection of a blessing is the most fitting behavior for a human being.

Social peace

In Islam, the right to life is an absolute value: He who kills a soul unless it be (in legal punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind (Qur’an 5:32).

When the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) explained Islam’s potential to contribute to safety and peace in society, he specified one goal in his time as the following: “A rider will travel from Sana’a (a city in Yemen) to Hadhramaut (a region in the southwest of the Arabian peninsula) fearing none but God, or a wolf as regards his sheep.”11

If we consider the troubles due to the extreme violence Muslims were exposed to both in the Medinan and Meccan periods, we can understand how meaningful was this message expressed by the Prophet. It does not include any desire for revenge against any person or any group; instead, it only expresses an ardent desire for a violence-free world for all.

The Prophet commanded us to maintain social solidarity and cooperation, to open our hearts to our fellows, and to help one another at all times. He said, “Do not cut relations between each other! Do not turn your backs on each other! Do not grow hatred between each other! O God’s servants! Become brothers and sisters!”12

Peace, reform, and virtuous deeds

The Arabic terms islah (reform) and sulh (peace) are from the same root. Islah means one’s reach of peace and serenity while leaving conflicts and deviations; in other words, it refers to leaving confusion by settling a dispute between two people or two sides.

Good deeds are actions that are beneficial for people and society, as well as actions that are taken to establish peace and serenity. This concept not only includes offering worship and spending in a good cause but also smiling, behaving warmly to others, establishing friendships, pleasing people by kind words, exchanging greetings, having warm conversation, and controlling bad feelings such as pride, arrogance, anger, envy, animosity, hypocrisy, rancor, and burning ambition. Thus, essentially, virtuous deeds are acts that purify humankind of aggression and bring them to peace.

In the Qur’an, it is recommended to cease disagreements by peace and not to commence further disputes, fights, confusion, and discord; in addition, people are asked to take a balanced approach and seek justice (Qur’an, 8:1; 49:9–10). It is forbidden to spoil peace and tranquility by corruption; there are penalties for those who do.13 It is possible to apply the verse, Peace is better (Qur’an, 4:128) which was specifically revealed to eradicate disagreements between couples, to all kinds of human relations. Islam recommends a united and mutually helpful society, and this vision does not only refer to the level of nation, but includes international relations, too. In this sense, from an Islamic perspective, international law should take the establishment of peace as a foundation.14

Conclusion

The Qur’an emphasizes peace and reconciliation as basic to all social and even international relations. As mentioned in the Qur’an, Paradise, which is the reward for the pious, is a place of serenity. One of the ninety-nine names of God is Salaam, which means peace. Throughout history, Muslims have made every effort to establish peace and serenity everywhere in all divergent fields, only taking military measures when their enemies tried to hinder these efforts for humankind. Over the course of history, the general approach of Muslims has been supportive of maintaining peace, spreading an environment of serenity and trust, and constructing a civilization of love, compassion, and mercy to share with other people in peace.

Professor Huseyin Algul is a Faculty member, specializing in Islamic History, in the Department of Theology at Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey.

Notes

1. See Mustafa Sinanoglu, “Islam-Giris”, DIA, XXIII, 1-2; Hamdi Donduren, “Islam”, SIA (Samil Islam Ansiklopedisi), III, 179-191.
2. See Qur’an, 1:6-7; 11:112.
3. Tirmidhi, Tafsir, 58.
4. See Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 73; Abu Dawud, Adab, 111; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, V, 411.
5. Karaman Hayrettin, et al (edited by). Kur’an Yolu, Turkce Meal ve Tefsir, Ankara: Diyanet Isleri Baskanligi Yayınları, 2006, V, 97–98.
6. See Qur’an, 7:68; 26:107, 125, 143, 178; 44:18.
7. Musnad, II, 349.
8. Muslim, Iman, 101,102.
9. Bukhari, Iman, 3, 5; Muslim, Iman, 64, 65; Nasai, Iman, 8, 104, 105.
10. Tirmidhi, Fitan, 62; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, II, 368.
11. Bukhari, Manaqib, 25, Ikrah, 1; Abu Dawud, Jihad, 97; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, V, 110-111.
12. Muslim, Birr, 23.
13. See Al Baqarah, 2/27, 205; Al Ma’idah 5/32-33; Al A’raf, 7/56, 85; Ar-Ra’d 13/25; Ash-Shu’ara’ 26/183
14. For a scientific research and detailed information on this issue, see Ahmet Yaman, Islam Devletler Hukukunda Savas, Beyan Yayınları, Istanbul 1988.

One recent example of such phenomena is the Schrödinger equation that explains the behavior of matter at the atomic level. This relation just happens to work, and its derivation is intuitive rather than rational. It also has the simplest mathematical form among its possible competitors in terms of expressing nature.

We will now look at another example of such axiom-like relations that we usually ignore, although it is frequently encountered in our everyday life. Before revealing it as fully as we can, let us relate one situation where this effect is very apparent.

We usually move objects by pushing or pulling them. Suppose now we are on a motorboat and we have run out of gas in a place very close to the shore. We (the strong crew members) surely do not want to be carried away from the shore by the backwash from the waves. One of us has the brilliant idea to push on the sides of the boat until we reach harbor. What would you suggest? Some of us think that it is not a good idea because the boat is very heavy and our pushing will be negligible. It is true that the boat will not move. However, the failure has nothing to do with the weight of the boat. On the other hand, some other crew members suggest using oars, which will obviously work, but why? (Personally, with all my respect to other opinions, I would suggest using the phone to call the beach police to get some help; but this would distract us from our subject matter.)

Impulse, direction, and momentum

If you think about the “why” question above, you will guess that we are talking about impulse in the loose meaning of the word. In physics, impulse has a more precise definition. This definition arose from the need to describe an object’s ability to have an impact on other objects, but the idea is still vague: How do we quantify this ability in order to put some flesh on this notion? Let us try to figure out an answer to this question.

Now, let us consider a few possible ways of defining impulse that look reasonable. We may decide intuitively that an impact should be related to an object’s speed: the higher the speed the greater the impact. If you ever played marbles in your childhood, you will recall that the easiest way to dislodge the marbles in the targeted row is to cast your own marble as fast as you can. Impulse should also have a relation to mass. Certainly, the impact of as many as a thousand bullets aimed at a train will not move the train even a meter. These are some simple observations anyone can experience or have a feeling of from their daily life.

We also expect that this strange quantity should somehow be transferred by the interaction of two objects. One object colliding with another stationary object transfers something that causes the latter to travel in a direction. With this example, another important feature of our impulse idea emerges: direction. Those who like to play the game of American pool or billiards know this very well. (I am sure everyone does it for the noble reason to experiment the laws of physics.) It makes a significant difference in a collision of two masses if they hit each other at an angle.

Wait a minute! We have been talking about the effect of an object’s impact, but the object has something that it is carrying even before the impact, and this “something” is the reason why we have an impact in the first place. So, what is this “something”? Let us call it momentum so as not to violate the traditions of physics.

All this stuff so far is good, but we are not done yet: how should these ideas appear in our equations? Now, let us bring together all our findings. We know momentum manifests itself as the impact (P) of one object on another. From its effect (impulse), we understand that momentum is related to the mass (M) of the object and its velocity (V). We also know that momentum has a directionality, which is termed vectorial. Then, perhaps momentum is something like:

P = a x M + b x V

where a and b are constants. This seems acceptable since it satisfies our observation: the more the mass, the more the momentum. But for a stationary object (V=0), there is no point in talking about impulse; so the axM terms looks unnecessary. If there is no good reason for a physical quantity to appear in a physical equation, then the simplicity principle says it should be removed. Therefore, we look for a simpler alternative relation with only one term like below:

P = c x M2 x V5

where c is a constant. But this one is a highly non-linear relation with exponential terms, so it is really not looking good. Another problem with this equation is that it does not fit our daily experience very well. If we reconsider our train example, with a high velocity power term like this, even the very small bullets can have a considerable effect on a train, enough to move it in fact. As a simple example, let c be equal to 1, take 0.1 kg as the mass of a bullet and 105 kg (100 tons) as the mass of the train, and give 400 m/s velocity to the bullet. Assuming that the impulse of the bullet is transferred to the train (conservation of momentum), we roughly get:

Pbullet = c x m2 x Vb5 = 1011

Ptrain = c x M2 x Vt5 = 1010 Vt5

By equating both sides we roughly get, 1.6 m/s (5.7 km/h) for the train velocity.

A single bullet moving a big train at such speed? This is a very counter-intuitive result. However, we will not give up easily. How about if we try an expression which is more familiar?

P = d x MV2

where d is a constant. This relation also agrees with our intuition (i.e. it has mass and velocity terms proportional to P.) I can already hear some objections from those who are acquainted with physics saying “No! This is the energy formula of a body with mass M and velocity V.” Indeed, this equation is reserved for energy which is a non-vectorial quantity. As a matter of fact, none of the above is a correct description for momentum. The actual expression is, interestingly, the simplest of all possibilities:

P = MxV

So, why not the more complex ones but this, the simplest one? The rigorous answer is subtle and requires a thorough analysis of linearity and homogeneity of space, which could be the subject of another essay. But we repeat the remark that we made in the beginning: if there is a simpler and more beautiful way of describing a natural law, then that description often turns out to be the correct one in the end. In fact, for some giants of physics like Paul Dirac, the beauty of a theory is more important than its results and is a better indication of the theory’s correctness. There is more to it than that. There are whole theories like Dimensional Analysis which are implicitly based on the idea of writing down the equations in the simplest (and most beautiful) form.

So, the final point is that, like other fundamental relations in physics, the idea of impact or momentum is best described in the simplest and most intuitive way: P= MxV. And behold! This gives us exactly the relation that has passed all the scientific tests in the range of classical physics. This result implies that the beauties we see in nature can be explained in terms of the simplest possible physical relation. Pondering all these, one cannot help but ask how in the world a mindless, blind natural law could exhibit beauty based on simplicity.

“The subjective experience of emptiness represents a temporary or permanent loss of normal relations of the self with object-representations, that is, with the world of inner objects that fixates intrapsychically the significant experiences with others and constitutes a basic ego identity and, therefore, a stable integrated self and a stable integrated world of internal objects.”(3) Existential psychotherapists call this “existential isolation,”(4) an unbridgeable gulf between self and other, a separation from the world. Yalom asserts that even fully satisfying relationships with other people, complete self-knowledge, and a sense of wholeness cannot overcome this feeling.

Fromm agrees that existential isolation is inevitable: “The awareness of his aloneness and separateness, of his helplessness before the forces of nature and of society, all this makes his separate disunited existence an unbearable prison … The experience of separateness arouses anxiety; it is indeed the source of all anxiety. To be separate means to be helpless, unable to grasp the world-things and people-actively; it means that the world can invade me without my ability to react.”(5)

Yalom writes: “A defamiliarization occurs when meanings are wrenched from objects, symbols disintegrate, and one is torn from one’s moorings of ‘at homeness.’”(6) This is true, for the two concepts most closely related to emptiness and existential isolation are meaninglessness and alienation.

We have self-knowledge only when other things have meaning, and relations with them when their meaning is understood. Reinhardt describes the alienation caused by the loss of meaning as: “Something utterly mysterious intervenes between him and the familiar objects of his world, between him and his fellowmen, between him and all his ‘values.’ Everything which he had called his own pales and sinks away, so that there is nothing left to which he might cling. What threatens is ‘nothing,’ and he finds himself lost in the void.”(7)

Even if this is inevitable, Yalom still asks: “How does one shield oneself from the dread of ultimate isolation?” In his view: “One may take a portion of the

isolation into oneself and bear it courageously or resolutely.“ His second solution is relationship, for it alleviates-but does not dispel-the sense of loneliness and basic isolation. Psychology stops here. Said Nursi, author of the Risale-i Nur and one familiar with emptiness and alienation, goes further.(8)But how was this feeling of emptiness initially caused? Kernberg provides the most useful clue: 

What does he mean?

Internalization of Self and Universe

No person begins life with a tabula rasa.(10) “The infant is equipped with basic feelings, as well as the basic ability to communicate them through expressive-motor mechanisms that are mainly concentrated in the face system.”(11)

A baby’s existing senses must be developed. According to Said Nursi, animals are born already perfected, whereas we need years to acquire the same skills and knowledge.(12) He concludes that a person’s innate duty is “to be perfected through learning and to proclaim his worship of God and servitude to Him through supplication.”

For the first 6 months, infants live in an “undifferentiated” world, an “us” system formed with the mother, and are unaware of any “self” and “other.”(13) But they are not passive, for they perceive and respond to stimulants as a “we.” This engenders a strong sense of security, like being a drop in the ocean (ocean feeling). “Self” and “other” are seen as not completely distinct, but as closely joined-mainly biologically-within one system.(14)

When they are around 2 years old, infants become more aware of themselves and thus of duality. The first thing encountered is the “self.” Through this developing “I,” they gradually acquire an awareness of “self” and “other,” and divide the world accordingly.

Internalization and self- and object-representation formation now begin. Children experience countless interactions, mainly with the mother, and begin

representing their self and objects, as well as the self-image and the object-image.(15) When they are around 2.5 years old, they enter the “identification” stage and begin internalizing their own and the other’s image and function.(16) “Just as the world settles in the child’s inner world, so the child’s inner world starts to become established in the world.”(17) This stage ends with the onset of puberty.

People, being alive and conscious, have relations with all things. Living but unconscious beings, such as birds and trees, also have relations but are unaware of them-only consciousness “illuminates” life and makes the being aware of its own existence.(18)

The sentence “a human being is able to move through the rooms of his house through his consciousness and mind, which are the light of life,”(19) means that we can internalize ourselves. We become aware of our existence through consciousness and mind, and come to know our spirit, consciousness, body, intellect, senses, and feelings. Conceptualizing and reaching conclusions about ourselves and values, we gain a “self” whose image is reflected and represented in our spirit’s mirror.

But we do not stop here, for “that conscious and animate being may go in spirit as though as a guest to those worlds [and].… those worlds too come as guests to his mirror-like spirit by being reflected and depicted there.”(20) Our consciousness and intellect convey the things with which we have relations to the spirit’s mirror, where they are reflected and their representations are formed. Thus each person becomes “a universal within particularity, and a world within … insignificance,”(21) a being who internalizes everything to understand His Names and experience His bounty. Each person first was given life, then consciousness, and so gained the comprehensive nature needed to “understand and take pleasure in the Divine Names.”(22) Such comprehensiveness enables us to have relations with the universe, for it makes each person “like a tiny index and miniature specimen of the universe, and so displays the embroideries of all the Names.”(23)

These representations make us reflect the manifestation of Divine Oneness and function as the Creator’s vicegerent on Earth. This manifestation is the simultaneous manifestation in one thing of the Creator’s Names, which are manifested in everything. It also includes the duties of beings, which constitute representations by forming images in our spirit’s mirror.(24) Since we are conscious, the universe can be “established” in us. Our representation of all beings’ glorifications and worship, realized primarily as an inner duty, means that we must know, be aware of, and internalize them.

Duality and Loneliness

The more self-aware we become, the more we are differentiated from the “other,” for “consciousness is an aspect of existence according to which beings are distinct from one another.”(25) The “ocean feeling” disappears, and each child becomes “aware of being alone, of being an entity separate from all others. This separation from a world, which in comparison with one’s own individual existence is overwhelmingly strong and powerful, and often threatening and dangerous, creates a feeling of powerlessness and anxiety.”(26)

Unconscious beings cannot expe-rience separation, for they are unaware of duality. Consciousness engenders individuality, yet recaptures and joins what has been separated. Consciousness and intellect want to establish relations with everything. Since “the realms of beings in the universe are so interwoven they have made the universe into a totality,”27 we seek reunification within a framework of meaningful ties between self and other in order to live as part of the universe’s system.

We search for that lost “ocean feeling,” hoping to establish relations with our self and all things. We do not want this biologically, but within the framework of meaningful ties.

Kernberg and others conclude by saying that a person’s inner world is filled with self- and object-representations. Said Nursi, however, presses onward.

Said Nursi’s Analysis

Said Nursi mentions three sorts of representation or reflection.(29)

First Representation: The reflection of dense, physical objects, such as a tree (“other”) reflected in a mirror, water, or a shining surface. Said Nursi says such reflections are “other than the thing reflected …without life. Their only quality is their apparent identity” [emphasis added]. This is how such people see and then represent the tree in their spirit.

In this case, we deny creation by claiming to be self-created, self-owning, powerful, and able to realize our own existence. We give ourselves and others whatever meaning we wish.(30) Our “I” functions in its own name, seeks to satisfy its physical desires, and wants no connection with its true Creator. Thus the self’s internal representation has no connection with its real, created self. The reflected image and the self’s representation are dead. We see a tree as owning itself, and therefore meaningless and limited to providing fruit.(31)

Our consciousness and intellect convey the self and the other to the spirit’s mirror, where their reflections form representations and images. As the tree’s reflection and representation are separate from its reality, its form is dead and meaningless, and there is no communication. The spirit remains unnourished, for mere similarity in appearance cannot nourish it.

This results in alienation, for both remain unknown to each other, as well as anxiety and fear, for fear of the unknown is intense and keeps us alert to danger. Thus alienated, the “I” sees itself as meaningless, the internalized and reflected self becomes dead and meaningless, and we feel pain. The absence of relations causes pain, and the object-representations continue to disappear.

This view fills our world with loneliness and emptiness. The lack of relations between the self and the object-representations engender feelings of nothingness (existential emptiness) and distress, of non-relation to the external world, for both are dead and thus unable to communicate. So, we cannot connect with reality.

Second Representation: “The reflection of physical luminous objects,”(32) such as the sun’s reflection in shining objects. The sun and its reflection are neither identical nor completely different. They do not resemble each other in essence, but the reflection has most of the sun’s characteristics and may be considered as living and having some of its attributes (e.g., light and its seven colors, and heat radiations).

In this case, our “I” accepts that it is a work of the Creator’s art,(33) tasked with recognizing and knowing Him, and serving as a mirror for His Names’ manifestation. Its representation in the spirit’s mirror is like the sun’s representation in a mirror, meaning fairly close to reality.

This “I” sees the tree as meaningful and created, and so forms a relation with its Creator to “read” it. This relationship gives the tree meaning, enabling it to be read as a mirror reflecting His Names and to be related to all beings. As the reading is close to its reality, the tree becomes something living and charged with duties. Our intellect and consciousness convey it to the spirit’s mirror, where its representation and reflection are like the sun’s reflection, for the reflection is neither the tree nor different from it. The tree’s representation, now a living missive, tells us of His Attributes and makes Him known. As they can communicate with the Creator, the tree becomes luminous like the sun, its representation gains luminosity, and it nourishes the spirit.

Through the Creator, all representations are related to each other. Here, the representation is formed of the tree’s meaning within itself-its function (role representations). The spirit feels no pain when the tree dies, for its representation remains alive. As the tree is not independent or existant in its own name, but only through and in its Creator’s name, its role/function representation persists in the spirit. The object-representations are never lost, for if the Creator exists, everything exists, has meaning, and exists as representations and role representations.

Our personal universe is full of living representations, neither identical with nor different from the actual things, that nourish the spirit. Thus we feel no existential emptiness, for the actual things form relations with the living representations. We cannot be nourished by a fruit’s reflected image, but just as the sun’s reflection may warm and illuminate us, living and meaningful object-representations may nourish our spirit and heart.

Not seeing ourselves as self-created or divine, we experience a warm feeling of belonging. We see ourselves as living in a friendly, stable,and interconnected world in which the “other” conveys His messages to us.

But something is missing. Our “belief consciousness” enables us to read the Creator’s art, but the unconscious “other” cannot read us.

Third representation: The reflection of luminous spirit beings belonging to unseen worlds. These reflections are identical to-and thus are-the beings themselves.(34) Said Nursi places angels, other spirit beings, and Prophet Muhammad in this group. He also emphasizes that the reflections in such representations are living. However, since the representation appears according to the mirror’s capacity, he sees a difference between the spirit being and the representation: The reflection and the thing are not the same in essence.

In this case, the third person is the second person’s articulation. This solves the following two problems: First, if people are unaware of the Creator’s Names, if their consciousness cannot understand them, or if they are aware of but cannot read them properly, the manifestation seems to be unnecessary, for all beings’ decorations, beauty, and inscriptions “require the gazes of thoughtful admirers and wondering, appreciative lovers; it demands their existence.”(35) Second, there is no real relationship, for the unconscious other is unaware of the conscious person.

If a tree’s attributes (e.g., art, beauty, order, perfection, knowledge, power, intention, and care) are unperceived or denied, they become meaningless. If they are not recognized by consciousness and read properly, they serve no purpose: “[C]reatures exist for, find their perfection and rejoice through, and are saved from futility through conscious beings.”(36)

However, angels understand the unconscious beings’ duties of worship and glorification, utter and represent them in the inner worlds, and offer them to the Divine Court. Like people, angels are “spectators of the palace of the universe, observers of the Book of Creation, and heralds of the sovereignty of dominicality.”(37) Their activities save unconscious beings from meaningless. Since angels present the duties of beings “knowingly at the Divine Court,”(38) all beings perform their functions consciously.

Angels and spirit beings, inhabitants of the unseen worlds and who necessarily exist, change our concept of the “other.” They “are not restricted to this manifest world, and existence is not limited to it,”(39) and remind us that we cannot perceive all levels of existence. Angels are created beings-not creators-who convey the Divine Names to our world.

This expanded definition causes visible beings to gain consciousness. An angel makes its tree meaningful and conscious, and its duties known and recognizable. Thus the first problem is solved, for angels and spirit beings have consciousness in the inner world. Each being’s angel observes and gazes upon the Divine Names manifested on that being, and represents its duties in the name of beings that formerly appeared to be unconscious.

This transforms all formerly meaningful missives into conscious envoys who visit our spirit and speak to us. No longer are they go-betweens waiting to carry our reply. The tree is the angel’s words in this world, for “the All-Wise Maker causes all the realms of beings in the universe to speak.”(40) The second problem is solved, for “the universe is seen to be full of angels, spirit beings, and intelligent beings.”(41)

Since we can internalize, be aware of, and experience relations with the other, we want the other to know and internalize us and so form a stable two-way relationship. As angels also want this, the relationship moves into further dimensions. Angels love us, pray to their Compassionate Sustainer for us, seek our forgiveness, and call blessings upon us.(42) There is a real relationship, for both sides are aware of, and can communicate with and “read,” the other.

Since an angel’s or spirit being’s representation is identical with its actual being, a tree is represented in the spirit as it actually is. Belief in the Creator gives life to a representation; belief in angels gives it consciousness. The tree’s reflection serves as a mirror to its Sustainer’s Names, glorifies Him, and is conscious; its angel offers its manifested Names and glorifications to the Divine Court. As both the actual thing and its reflection are conscious, our spirit is filled with reflections of conscious beings. Finally able to establish conscious relations with all beings, we represent their duties while their angels represent their reflections.

This is a basic existential need, for each person searches for the “ocean feeling” of infancy.(43) In order to say “us creatures,” all beings must be able to say “we.” The tree proclaims its createdness through the tongue of disposition only. However its angel, who is conscious and aware of and proclaims that the tree is created, enables it to say “us.”

The resulting relationship, mutual recognition, and knowledge of each other’s duties gives a sense of “us” without removing any individuality. We become friends with everything, for now they are conscious beings. Knowledge of God and belief in angels have removed all dualism. The universe remains the scene of all beings’ constant renewal, transformation, disappearance, and replacement, and yet our spirit suffers no pain. As its angel’s representation never dies, it continues to represent the tree’s glorification, even after the real tree’s death, and be light and sustenance for our spirit.

Our companionship with angels continues after death, for Azra’il, the angel of death who represents the glorifications offered at the moment of death, becomes our companion on our journey after death.(44)

Footnotes

1 I. Yalom, Love’s Executor and Other Tales of Psychotherapies (New York: 2000), 3.

2 T. Zeldin, Insanligin Mahrem Tarihi [Turk. trans.] (Istanbul: 1998) 67, 68.

3 O. Kernberg, Sinir Durumlar ve Patolojik Narsisizm [Turk. trans.] (Istanbul: 1999), 192.

4 I. Yalom, Existential Psychotheraphy (New York: 1980), 355.

5 E. Fromm, The Art of Loving (New York: 1956), 7.

6 Yalom, Psychotheraphy, 358.

7 K. Reinhardt, The Existential Revolt (New York: 1957), 235.

8 Said Nursi, Letters 1928-1932. 2d ed. [Eng. trans.] (Istanbul: 1997), 42 ff.

9 Kernberg, Sinir, 192.

10 V. F. Guidano, The Self in Process (New York: 1991), 17.

11 Ibid., 18.

12 Said Nursi, The Words. new ed. [Eng. trans.] (Istanbul: 1998), 324.

13 N. G. Hamilton, Self and Others: Object Relations Theory in Practice (London: 1988), 36.

14 Ibid., 38.

15 O. Kernberg, Object Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis, (London: 1995) 29.

16 Ibid., 38.

17 D. M. Orange, G. E. Atwood, R. D. Stolorow. Quoted by C. Ardali and Y. Erten, Psikoanalizden Dinamik Psikoterapilere (Alfa, 1999), 88.

18 Nursi, Words, 523.

19 Ibid., 524.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., 338.

22 Said Nursi, The Flashes Collection. new ed.

[Eng. trans.] (Istanbul: 2000), 456.

23 Ibid., 458.

24 Nursi, Words, 523-24.

25 J. Kovel, Tarih ve Tin: A–zgurlesme Felsefesi Aœzerine Bir Inceleme (Istanbul: 1991), 95.

26 E. Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: 1941), 29.

27 Nursi, Flashes, 415.

28 Guidano, Self, 15.

29 Nursi, Words, 210; Said NursA, Mesnevi-i NA riye [Turk. trans. Abdulmecid NursA] (Istanbul: 1977).

30 Nursi, Words, 560.

31 Ibid., 560.

32 Ibid., 210.

33 Ibid., 320.

34 Ibid., 210.

35 Ibid., 522.

36 Ibid., 98.

37 Ibid., 191.

38 Ibid., 531.

39 Ibid., 528.

40 Nursi, Letters, 339-40.

41 Ibid., 342.

42 Qur’an: 33:56; 40:7-9.

43 Yalom, Psychotheraphy, 362.

44 Said Nursi, The Rays Collection [Eng. trans.] (Istanbul: 1998), 277.