Finkelstein S.L et al., Nature, October 2013

Astronomers have recently spotted a faint ray of light using the Hubble Space Telescope, a ten-meter telescope at Keck Observatory, located at the summit of Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano in Hawaii. Analysis of light showed that it was a galaxy formed 13.1 billion years ago, which is only 700 million years after the Big Bang, when our universe came into existence. This is so far back in time, it would be about 8 billion years before our sun was born. The new galaxy is called z8_GND_5296, and it is the oldest and most distant galaxy ever discovered. Because the universe is expanding, the lights coming from distant objects would be stretched, and their wavelengths changed, as they travel through the expanding universe. This phenomenon is called Redshift. It makes visible light look redder, and redshift increases proportionally with the distance to an object. Lights coming from z8_GND_5296 looked more redshifted than anyone had seen before. More detailed analyses showed that the mass of gz8_GND_5296’s stars was equivalent to 1 billion suns, which is approximately 50 times less than the Milky Way’s stellar mass. Even more surprisingly, the new galaxy is found to have an unusually high star-formation rate. This rate is typically calculated by how much raw hydrogen the galaxy yearly converts into new stars. gz8_GND_5296 converts hydrogen 300 times the mass of our sun, while the Milky Way produces 1 or 2 solar masses per year. One of the explanations for this extraordinary star-formation rate is that the early galaxies contained or drew in much more gas than scientists expected. The search for distant galaxies aims to find the very first galaxies formed after the Big Bang, perhaps the ones that produced the first natural elements. To this end, NASA plans to launch the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in 2018. JWST will reside in an orbit 1.5 million km from the earth and hopefully it will help astronomers to look further and further back into the origins of the Milky Way, and ultimately, the history of our universe.

Vast Freshwater Reserves Found Under Ocean

Offshore fresh groundwater reserves as a global phenomenon.
Post V.E.A et al., Nature, December 2013

As earth’s population rises, we face a serious problem of fresh water supplies. The United Nations predicts that half of the world will be struggling to find clean, fresh sources of water by 2030. Luckily, Australian scientists discovered huge freshwater reserves, and in the most unexpected place: under the ocean floor. Newly discovered reserves are estimated to contain 500,000 cubic kilometers of low-salinity water, located off the coast of South Africa, North America, Australia, and China. This vast reserve is approximately 100 times greater than the volume of the fresh water used since the beginning of the 1900s. This water reserve is thought to develop earlier in Earth’s history, perhaps over thousands of years, when oceans were not that deep and when the coastline was further out. Scientists hypothesize that rainwater leaked through the ground and had created these fresh water aquifers beneath layers of porous rock and/or soil. Around 20,000 years ago, the polar ice caps began to melt and these regions were covered by ocean. Fortunately, layers of either clay or sediment seemed to protect the reservoirs from salty contamination: the salinity of this water is low enough to be readily transformed into drinkable water. These water reserves can be extracted by constructing drilling platforms, either at sea or from the mainland, close to aquifers. However, drilling projects are usually very controversial due to environmental and economic costs. Scientists are currently seeking alternative, more environment-friendly ways to use these reserves. Nonetheless, mankind may have found a new vital water resource for the future.

Crows Don’t Forget a Face; Crow Intelligence Decoded

Abstract rule neurons in the endbrain support intelligent behavior in corvid songbirds.
Veit L. and Nieder A., Nature Communications November 2013

Scientists have long suspected that members of the corvids – a family of birds that includes ravens, crows and magpies – are extraordinarily intelligent. They make and use tools, remember multiple feeding locations, and exhibit highly social behaviors. Last year, scientists even demonstrated that crows captured in Seattle would never forget the face of their abductor and they would still taunt and dive-bomb the threatening face several years after the incident. To understand the mechanism of crows’ amazing face recognition process, neurobiologists designed an experiment, in which they trained the crows to perform memory tests on a computer. The crows were first shown an image and shortly afterwards, they had to select one of two test images on a touchscreen, using their beaks, based on switching behavioral rules. One of the test images was identical to the first image; the other one was a different image. Sometimes, the rule of the game was to select the very same image, and sometimes it was to select a different one. Remarkably, the crows were able to carry out both tasks and to switch between them almost perfectly. These tasks require a high level of concentration and mental flexibility that few animal species can manage – they even require a great effort for humans. By recording single-unit neuronal activity from an association area of the crow’s brain, known as the nidopallium caudolaterale (NCL), the researchers were often able to guess which rule the crow was following, even before the crow made its choice. The cerebral cortex in human brain is very large and it is thought to be home to complex cognitive functions including face recognition. However, since a bird’s cerebral cortex is much smaller than humans, people long thought that birds could not perform intelligent tasks. This study shows that birds use a unique non-cortical brain region, nidopallium caudolaterale (NCL), to sort sensory information and decide how to react.

Love is like Solomon, Borne aloft on the heart, its throne.[1]

The heart is humanity’s most essential feature and its greatest treasure. It is the expression of our spiritual existence, the source of our feelings and beliefs, and the pathway to our soul’s ultimate depths. Those who walk on the path of the heart will not experience any darkness, and those who soar on the wings of their hearts will surmount any obstacle. Human virtues are cultivated on the hillsides of the heart; faith, love, and spiritual pleasures are the fruits of its garden.

If your heart is like a desert, your thoughts and feelings will inevitably wither and fade. In our history, human reason enjoyed its golden age when it submitted to the rule of the heart. Under the heart’s guardianship, reason left behind countless immortal works. In those times, matter was melted and re-forged in the furnace of our spiritual essence. Then our experience became a fairground of the hereafter, this world intermingled with the next, and the treasures of the transcendent realms were on offer here. It is according to the measures of the other world that the objects of this one become priceless. In those times, the sugar was separated from the cane, the bud was pregnant with a flower, and the soil was imbued with the lights of the other world.   Things of this world found fulfillment and were perfected. The tulips and lilies of the earth began to dance in the presence of the heart, and the charms of the next world were felt in every corner.

But we gave our minds to idle gossip and our reason gave way to deceit. And as the tongue of conscience and the melodies of the heart fell silent, the earth became like a graveyard, and our homes like coffins. Life became a drudgery, and our spirits were stifled by the smog of our misplaced longing. In such malaise, carnal feelings and corporeal thoughts ambush our souls like bandits. They present us with various poisons, and we become a deluded crowd: a mob that cannot hear the voice of conscience and is closed to reason, that contemplates and understands nothing.

Today, we yearn for the stories of the heart, for in them we feel the reviving breaths of Jesus.^[2] Since the beginning of the world, the people of the heart have always been the fortunate ones, traveling in the realms beyond the heavens with wings like angels. These heroes transcend the limits of the bodies to hold the reins of both worlds. While others beg from door to door, they live among the blessings of Paradise with contentment. The dust and the grime of this world do not blacken their horizon, nor does the colorful attraction of the hereafter distract them from their purpose. In every deed, they enjoy the friendship of God; thus their devotion is the most profitable trade.[3] In this way, they faithfully realize their heart’s purpose in a way that befits humanity. These fortunate ones sing of their love in the eternal melodies, raising their voices to the furthest galaxies.

The heart is the intersection of God’s grace with humanity’s essence. Therefore, with the seal of the Sovereign on it, the heart unifies the spiritual and material worlds. Our inner and outer beauties are in fact different dimensions of the life of our heart, and the radiance of our appearance is intimately tied to our inner life. When a word is spoken from the heart, the mind is ignited and our consciousness glows like the corona of the sun. At this moment, when the spirit turns its face to the secret voice of the heart, our feelings begin to resonate as if they had been plucked by a mysterious plectrum, and our conscience begins to whirl like a dervish in joy and respect. We feel the fire of love on all sides, and tears of joy quench the suffering of our longing.

When we lose our self and our will in ecstasy, we may temporarily lose our balance, but the heart always remains humble in the presence of God. When we travel in the realm of the heart, we are neither perplexed nor inhibited. If the hero of the heart halts with fright or struggles in his way with difficulty, love succors him like Khidr, holding the reins of his horse and carrying him swiftly over the pits of hesitation.^[4] Our senses, inner and outer, are soldiers at the heart’s command; they are moths fluttering around its brilliant light. The heart speaks with the highest authority, and all our senses submit to its rule. Like the pole star, it orbits only itself, chanting the name of God, while all other senses turn around it, prostrate.

All of us are guests in the house of the heart. Let us sacrifice our hearts to the One whose sovereignty is felt in this house. We are determined to offer our souls to the Sovereign, and we await His judgment. Since the day He breathed life into our hearts, our longing for reunion has bound us to Him, and we have diligently tended to our love as to a great weaving. Our soul trembles with excitement when we feel the nearness of the Friend, but we wait patiently for Him to open the door, with our heads bowed in respect.

As we walk on this way, singing the ballads of longing and love, the heart is our gracious guide. Until our last breath, we promise to follow this blessed guide.

[1] Muhammed Lütfi (d. 1956), Turkish Sufi poet.

^[2] According to the Qur’an, Jesus revived the dead with his word or breath. (See Qur’an, 3:49)

[3] A reference to the Qur’anic concept of the spiritual “trade” mentioned in the verse: “Those who recite God’s scripture, keep up the prayer, give secretly and openly from what We have provided for them, may hope for a trade that will never decline.” (35:29)

^[4] Khidr is a spiritual personality and a man of wisdom in Islamic tradition, who lives in an angelic way, serving God to execute divine commands and succoring people in hard conditions.

Every human being asks the question “why,” though at different levels, to explain the unexplained. It follows a pattern of questions, like “Why did the financial crisis in the U.S. happen in August 2008?” “Why did the space shuttle Challenger explode?” “Why did the terrorists commit the September 11 attacks?” In statistical terms, such unexpected events are named “outliers,” however, they are part of the system and among the components constituting the overall system’s complex behavior. Thus, they need to be part of the explanation in order for the explanation to be complete. We are naturally tempted to come up with universal explanations of the complexity behind these major events so that we can be ready when a similar thing happens again. Though simple mathematical equations or relationships relate to us better and provide a universal explanation, they are typically practical only when the outliers are excluded from the system behavior. Statistics help us greatly in quantifying and characterizing the outliers, especially in the form of probabilistic expressions, such as “there is a 30% chance of a hurricane next week.”

Understanding the complexity around us involves the development of a model that is simple enough for us to comprehend but yet universal enough to capture most of the dynamics of the complexity. The simpler and the more universal the model, the more powerful it is. The universality of a model, however, is hindered by the potential inability to capture something unexpected. The tradeoff between simplicity and universality exists in all modeling efforts; and the models finding the delicate balance in this tradeoff are the most effective ones. A simple mathematical relationship known as “the power law” has been used extensively to characterize and model various natural and social phenomena.

What is the Power Law?

The “power law” does not refer to a misconception that “whoever has power will rule,” but rather it refers to a particular way of characterizing dependency between two quantities. When the number or frequency of an object or event varies as a power of some attribute of that object (e.g., its size), the number or frequency is said to follow a power law. In more general terms, there exists a power law relationship between x and y if y is growing or reducing polynomially when x is growing linearly (y _͌ x^–α). Mathematically speaking, this means that the relationship between y and x is mainly characterized by the exponent -a. An exponent is simply shorthand for multiplying that number of identical factors. So, 4³ is the same as 4x4x4; that is three identical factors of 4. As shown in Figure 1, a quantity with an exponent has three components: the base, the exponent, and the coefficient. So, for 4³, the base is 4, the exponent is 3, and the coefficient is an implicit 1.

Figure 1: Description of an exponent in a power law relationship.

Figure 2: Sample power law relationships between x and y, where y = x^–α.

The power law relationships are traditionally expressed with a negative exponent, which simply means the inverse of the quantity. That is, y _͌ x^–α is equivalent to y _͌ 1/x^α. For example, when a is 2, y will reduce from 1/4 (i.e. 0.25) to 1/9 (i.e. ~0.11) if x grows from 2 to 3. Likewise, when a is 0.5, y will reduce from 1/2 (i.e. 0.5) to 1/3 (i.e. 0.33) if x grows from 4 to 9. For those who enjoy graphs, Figure 2 illustrates these mathematical relationships in linear and logarithmic scales.

Power law on different scales: Atoms to planets

To start with, gravitation, acoustics, electrostatics, and light and electromagnetic radiation, all exhibit a form of power law in that physical quantity or strength that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, which corresponds to a power exponent of 2. [1] Gravitational force between two particles, the electrostatic force of attraction between two electrically charged particles, the intensity of sound signals coming from a source, and finally the intensity of light or electromagnetic field coming from a source all follow a power law with respect to the distance.

What makes the power law relationships more interesting is their independence from scale or size of the measures being related to each other. This is why we sometimes call power law relationships as “scale-free” relationships or “scale-invariance.” For example, the gravitational force between two spherical particles decays with a power exponent of 2 regardless of the sizes of the particles though the actual force is certainly dependent on the particle sizes. So, the particles can be at nano scales (e.g. a group of atoms) or macro scales (e.g. a planet), but the relationship stays the same!

Power law in frequency: Wealth, terror, and earthquakes

A common usage of power law relationships has been to model and understand frequency of a varying measure. A power law typically very well represents the distribution of wealth in a society. [2] According to a recent study, the distribution of wealth in China during the years 2003–2005 follows a power law with an exponent ranging from 1.758 to 2.285. If we consider an average exponent of 2 for Chinese wealth distribution, this means that if there are 1 million Chinese people who owned $1000 there were 1000 that owned $1M. Thus, the power law essentially expresses how skewed the distribution of a frequency is (see Figure 2). The larger the power exponent, the more skewed the distribution. In this case, a larger power exponent means a more imbalanced wealth distribution while a power exponent of 1 refers to an evenly distributed wealth.

Many other social patterns exhibit power law. A recent study showed that it exists even in terror events! The number of casualties per insurgent event and the number of insurgent events per day follow a power law. [3] Historical data for the last two centuries show further that the number of casualties per war or a terror attack follows a power law distribution. What is even more interesting is that the number of casualties and the number of attacks within an insurgent conflict both follow power law. That is, when only a particular conflict between two countries or ethnic groups is considered, the number of casualties per insurgent event and the number of insurgent events per day follow the power law. This suggests a “self-similar” pattern. Likewise, traffic measurements for many systems show power law distributions of size. For instance, if one observes the data traffic on an Internet connection and counts the number of bytes being transmitted per hour over that connection, a power law distribution of the count of bytes will emerge. Further, if this counting is done per minute instead of per hour, a similar distribution will still emerge – again showing a self-similar pattern. [4]

The power law has been observed in several natural phenomena as well. The frequency of earthquake magnitudes follows a power law. [5] This refers to the intuitive notion that the number of earthquakes with small magnitudes (which humans do not even feel) is much larger than the number of earthquakes with large magnitudes, (which can kill many humans). Small earthquakes are the norm while large ones the outliers. However, without the outliers, there is no power law distribution! Thus, the power law distribution of a quantity comes with an interesting observation: If a quantity is indeed following a power law distribution, then the likelihood of an outlier event increases as the time goes by without an outlier event. This is why geoscientists would make comments like “The region X is due for a major earthquake!” indicating that the region X has not been receiving a major earthquake (i.e. an outlier) for several years. The issue, though, is determining the threshold for an outlier is typically ambiguous and may require many years of measurements and data, which may be impractical.

Power law in growth: Rich get richer

Growth of systems also exhibit power law in various ways. Social growth follows power law due to the well-known “rich get richer” rule, which refers to the intuition that “important” people in the society attract more of the attention of newcomers. This dynamic situation is observed, for example, in the growth of the Internet. Several studies [6] showed that the connections between Internet Service Providers (ISPs) (e.g., AOL, Yahoo!, AT&T, Sprint) follow a power law distribution in that the number of connections per ISP (which shows how well an ISP is connected to the rest of the world) is represented by power law. In other words, there are few ISPs with many connections to other ISPs while most ISPs have a few connections to the others. This is believed to be due to the “rich get richer” rule since an existing ISP with many connections is more likely to gain the business of a new ISP who is joining to the Internet. So, it is somewhat an economic pattern too.

If economics (or the money) is taken out of the picture, social growth still exhibits power law. Online social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Flickr are clearly following a power law distribution. It is found that the power exponents are in the range of 2.5 to 3.7, indicating a highly imbalanced social growth pattern where few people are at the “center” of the social network with hundreds or thousands of friends, and many people have only one or two friends. [7] Again, the typical explanation for this growth pattern has been the “rich get richer” rule, but “richness” refers to the number of existing friends in this context rather than money.

Physical growth shows power law too in many ways. For instance, roughness of a growing surface as time goes by follows a power law distribution with an exponent ranging between 0 and 1 where an exponent of 0 refers to a smooth growth and 1 refers to a stiff growth. The surface roughness is measured by the variance of heights of surface locations. [8]

Does it really exist? Why does it exist?

Verifying existence of a power law distribution is not easy and requires enough number of samples to show the “tail” of the distribution. The tail of the distribution refers to the samples with large (or rare) values. For example, for the power law distributions in Figure 2, the portion of the distribution when x is greater than 10 (i.e. x>10) roughly corresponds to the “tail.” The tail corresponds to the rare samples. Though statistical theory calls those rare samples “outliers,” the distribution will not be a power law distribution without them. They are strictly parts of pieces that constitute a power law relationship, and observing them typically requires long periods or large numbers of measurements. Due to this difficulty, the existence of the power law is questioned for many real systems. Most of the time, claims of the existence of the power law typically come with an error factor indicating the confidence of the claim. The bottom-line is to observe trends in the samples and thus establish sufficient confidence (e.g., more than 95%) that the power law distribution does exist in the samples.

For those systems with clear exhibition of power law, the root causes of it have been of high interest. The “rich get richer” rule is intuitively one of the root causes, and it is intuitively a natural dynamic to get attracted by a rich member rather than a poor one. Growth certainly naturally follows the “rich get richer” rule, but we have system components slowing their growth, flattening, and then deteriorating. So, not everything is growing, and actually, we have as many things deteriorating as growing. For instance, participants join or leave the Internet or the social networks, and likewise, people join (i.e. birth) or leave (i.e. death) society. How does the power law stay in such systems then?

Due to the “rich get richer” intuition, the power law is considered to be the signature of “self-organization.” The fact that so many natural or synthetic systems are exhibiting this signature deserves the question: “Is it really self-organization?” Maintaining a global power law distribution for a system requires either (i) every member joining or leaving the system according to the “rich get richer” rule and having global knowledge of the whole system or (ii) somebody who knows everything about the system and gives explicit direct orders to each member when they are joining or leaving. Which one is more likely?

Murat Yuksel is an Assistant Professor at the CSE Department of The University of Nevada – Reno (UNR), Reno, NV.

References

[1] Wikipedia, “Inverse-square law,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

[2] M. A. Santos, R. Coelho, G. Hegyi, Z. Néda, and J. Ramasco. 2007. “Wealth distribution in modern and medieval societies,” The European Physical Journal, Volume 143, Number 1, pages 81-85.

[3] J. C. Bohorquez, S. Gourley, A. R. Dixon, M. Spagat, and N. F. Johnson. 2009. “Common ecology quantifies human insurgency,” Nature, Volume 462, December, pages 911-914.

[4] T. Karagiannis, M. Molle, and M. Faloutsos. 2004. “Long-Range Dependence: Ten Years of Internet Traffic Modeling,” IEEE Internet Computing, September/October, pages 57-64.

[5] T. Lay and T. Wallace. 1995. Modern Global Seismology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

[6] M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos. 1999. “On power-law relationships of the Internet topology,” ACM Computer Communication Review, Volume 29, Issue 4.

[7] R. Kumar, J. Novak, and A. Tomkins. 2006. “Structure and evolution of online social networks,” Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD, pages 611-617.

[8] A. L. Barabasi and H. E. Stanley. 1995. Fractal Concepts in Surface Growth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

The spread of Islam would obviously not have occurred without its Prophet, Muhammad, who was able to win support for his spiritual and political status within Arabia in the early seventh century. After having claimed to receive divine revelations, Muhammad slowly acquired a small following and eventually some seventy families had converted to Islam. However, not all of his contemporaries were convinced of the genuineness of his message. This was especially true of the pagan rulers of his Quraysh tribe in Mecca. Consequent persecutions caused the early Muslims to flee to Yathrib, which was located 250 miles north of Mecca. Yet, what appeared to be a backward move for the early believers actually benefited them and their religion as the tribes around Yathrib were enthralled by Muhammad’s spiritual vision and pledged allegiance to the ummah (community). A series of conflicts between the Quraysh and Muslims climaxed in 630 when the Quraysh broke an earlier peace treaty that had been established. This saw Muhammad march upon Mecca with 10,000 men and take the city without bloodshed. He then destroyed the idols around the Kabah and rededicated it to God. By the time of Muhammad’s death in 632, as Karen Armstrong explains, “almost all the tribes of Arabia had joined the ummah as Confederates or as converted Muslims.” As history will show, this was not the end of this remarkable series of events. For unification of Arabia would not cease at the death of the founder of Islam but would rather dramatically gain momentum through his successors, the Caliphs.

With the combination of three important factors: unification, conquest, and religious zeal, the early Caliphs were able to consolidate Muslim rule in Arabia and prepare a launching pad for further conquests. This initial spread of Islam was so rapid that, as H. U. Rahman explains, “in less than one century after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD, Muslim rule covered more of the earth than had the Roman Empire at its peak.” This unification did not however happen overnight, and it must be emphasized that Islamic rulers always had much division to contend with. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, had the difficult job of uniting all of the tribes that had forsaken their allegiance to the ummah after Muhammad’s death. Yet through political, theological, and at times military coercion, Abu Bakr was able to completely unify Arabia before his death in 634. Secondly, despite the assassinations of the next three caliphs – Umar, Uthman, and Ali – which characterizes the bloody period that ensued, the spread of Islam continued to gain momentum as successful military campaigns were carried out abroad. From 634–44, the Caliphate of Umar had conquered Jerusalem, controlled Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and defeated the Persian Empire. Furthermore, in Uthman’s reign (644–50), Muslims conquered Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and established Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and the Sind region. The above two methods of internal unification and successful conquest led to the establishment of the Islamic world during the seventh century, and the speed in which it accomplished this announced to the world that Islam was here – and here to stay.

The third explanation of the rapid spread of Islam throughout Arabia and beyond was – most importantly – the religious zeal of the leaders, soldiers, and general Arab population. Plainly put, without being fuelled with a sense that God was on their side, the Muslim conquests would have fallen far short of their eventual reality. Tamara Sonn explains that the basic tenets of Islamic faith captivated the people and structured Islamic life in Medina, and it was around these practices and core values that the early Muslim community was built. Francesco Gabrieli supports Sonn and places a heavy emphasis on religion as the principal factor underlying and motivating the Arab conquests. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any group achieving geographical expansion without a clear goal and purpose; for the Mongols of the thirteenth century it was a brutal ideological reason, whilst for the Muslims it was the feeling that they were being divinely guided.

Nevertheless the spread of a religious or ideological ideal can only be truly successful if those whom it is trying to gain submission from are disillusioned or unhappy with their own contemporary world. This was the case for the many thousands of people under Byzantine rule. We find that a great number gladly adhered to the conquering Islamic rulers and Quranic law as they found protection and benefits that had not been attained under Byzantine rule. Many minorities had become increasingly dissatisfied with the Byzantine regime due to their insecurities of being persecuted and instead came to favor the secure Islamic rulership who allowed autonomy for minority groups if their taxes were paid. The preference of many of the conquered peoples to favor Islamic rule enabled the Islamic Empire to remain politically stable, which is a prerequisite for any group wanting to expand its geographic borders.

Turning back the clock to the infant stages of Islam, we find that the Muslims were fraught with political struggles for power. With factions developing within the Islamic world following Ali’s assassination (the fourth Caliph) in 661, the unity and prosperity of the new Islamic Empire became threatened. However, it was the way that the Muslims were efficiently able to get back on their feet and consolidate unity that saw these power struggles, which had the potential to dismantle Islamic hopes for expansion, averted. The Islamic world needed a leader who could unite as many of these factions together as possible, and this stability came with the establishment of the Ummayad Dynasty through Muawiyyah I. He ruled from 661–80 and was the first Caliph to move his capital away from Medina, transferring it to Damascus. However unpopular this move was, R. Stephen Humphreys explains that Muawiyyah I saved the Muslim Empire from disintegration as he was, “the only man with the political and military resources available to restore unity within the realm of Islam.” Although the Umayyad period is typically characterized by political and military success, the Umayyad rulers did not forget its founding religion. According to Karen Armstrong, Muawiyyah I was simply “a religious man and a devout Muslim.” Furthermore, a statement of Islam’s superiority to past religions was symbolically made through the establishment of the Dome of the Rock, which was completed at Jerusalem in 691 under Caliph Abd al-Malik. This spiritual construction shows that Islamic rulers could not go forward unless they acknowledged the close relationship between conquest and the Muslim religion, and this was done most emphatically with the construction of this monument.

Despite geographical consolidations made by the early Umayyad Caliphs, discontent remained within the Islamic world with several extremist groups emerging regularly in Islamic culture. This was perhaps a catalyst for Umayyad leaders having a more political conception of Islam than did previous rulers. Although the discontentment of factions within the Islamic world, such as the Shias, could not be eradicated, internal stability generally emerged at the commencement of the Umayyad Dynasty. Paul Lunde explains that the pacification of the central lands under early Umayyad rulers enabled them to focus primarily on conquest so that the spread of Islam could continue. Furthermore, according to Armstrong, conquest was able to be successfully waged during al-Walid I’s reign between 705–715 where the Umayyad dynasty reached its peak and the Muslim armies continued the conquest of North Africa, and established a kingdom in Spain. However, even though the Umayyad Dynasty had expanded its Islamic borders throughout the Arab world, its power soon declined, as internal friction had finally reached unmanageability. Then, the Umayyads – somewhat inevitably – succumbed to the overwhelming power of the Abbasids in 750.

Even though the overthrow of the Umayyad family by the Abbasids was horrific and angered many, this brutal act did not slow the continual geographical or economical gains of Islam. In fact, at the height of Abbasid power in 800 (who had moved the Islamic capital to Baghdad in 762) only Constantinople and Xian, the capital of the great T’ang China, rivaled Baghdad’s wealth. Although military might was the predominant vehicle of Islamic power, the strength of Muslims at the zenith of Abbasid power in the ninth century was represented through a great cultural renaissance which took place in literary criticism, philosophy, poetry, and science. This marked the beginnings of “Muslim genius” as individuals such as Abu Bakr Al Razi (864–925) studied medicine and uncovered unique contraceptive methods; and Abu Nasr Al Farabi (870–950) incorporated logic and politics into philosophy. As Armstrong explains, such was the grandeur of this era that the Muslim scholars made more scientific discoveries during this time than in the whole previously recorded history put together. Hence, these examples symbolize the prestige of the superpower Abbasid Empire of the old world, which asserted itself not only through military conquests but through cultural and scientific discovery.

However, despite the Abbasid period reaching new heights in regards to its geographical expansion, it too slowly declined in prestige from about 935 and would soon be unable to hold off a young and powerful group of Muslims in the centuries to follow: the Turks.

Before the success of one final Islamic Empire is discussed, it is important to reflect on several other specific reasons why Islam spread so rapidly throughout Arabia and to the whole world. Three of these deserve particular mention. First, the Caliphs and Muslim rulers were willing to use existing administrative structures to enforce laws, and it was not uncommon for non-Islamic officials to be used in high places within a conquered society. Second, there was seldom force or coercion used from Islamic forces once a military campaign was successful. As Francesco Gabrieli explains, the traditional theory of the conquests being characterized merely by Bedouin neophytes of Islam rushing from their desert birthplace to convert other nations with the sword has been completely dismissed by modern historiography. In fact, Arabs were quite content with their passive non-Muslim subjects known as dhimmis (those who were second-class citizens under Islamic law, yet protected under this status) and no real effort was made to convert them. This hands-off approach actually led to an increase in Islamic converts regularly throughout the Islamic Empire as individuals were pleased to make their own decision about religion, which is something that had not been afforded them under Byzantine rule.

Finally, further comparisons between Byzantine Christianity and Islam highlight how many became turned off by Christendom but enthusiastic and inquisitive about Islam. Christianity had become heavily clericized by the seventh century and appeared to be exclusive, whilst Islam appealed to individuals by offering unparalleled simplicity through its core principles. According to Abul-Fazl Ezzati, the five pillars of Islam, when compared to Christian orthodoxy, “replaced complexity of religious doctrines with simplicity, trinity with unity, empty theological discussions with concrete observation and fundamental analysis.” Moreover, the extent and rapidity of the success of Islamic military conquests had Muslims feeling that there was something divine aiding their cause. Zealous Muslims and their missionary activities always went hand in hand with the success of Islam and this sense of mission motivated Muslims to assist the expansion efforts in whatever way they could. Hence, Islam appealed to many contemporaries’ needs and with the lure of further expansion, many felt that Islam was the path for the future.

With this understanding in mind, we can finally return to the last great Islamic Empire of the ancient world through looking at the Ottoman Empire. Although Islam had by no means died out in terms of its expansion after Abbasid rule, it had clearly slowed by the fourteenth century. As Armstrong explains, from 935 onwards, “the caliphs no longer (wielded) temporal power but merely (retained) a symbolic authority. Real power now resided with the local rulers, who established dynasties in various parts of the empire.” Moreover, with the addition of the Mongol raids, which began in 1220, Islamic cities became desolate and the spread of Islam was curtailed for the first time in centuries as attention was turned to internal frontiers. However, a final thrust of Islamic expansion would occur through the Ottoman Empire, who slowly consolidated its own power in Anatolia, and by the late fourteenth century had begun to threaten Europe. One of the early Sultans, Murad I (1360–1389), had become the most powerful of the western Muslim rulers and this led to the name of the Ottomans symbolizing hope for a reunified Islamic empire. This hope was fueled by geographical gains made through military expansion by several Ottoman Sultans, such as Murad I (1421–1451), who asserted Ottoman power against Hungary and the West and by 1453 his successor, Mehmed II, who had conquered Constantinople, changed its name to Istanbul, and made it the Ottoman capital. Accordingly, the Ottomans had recommenced Muslim expansion and would look to achieve something past Islamic Empires could not – to successfully challenge Western Europe.

Ottoman expansion continued with Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–66) whose Empire, after conquering Hungary in 1526, had become the greatest power in Eastern Europe. It is important to note here that Suleiman saw the consolidation of Islamic values as the key to his military successes. As Jason Goodwin explains, Suleiman, “oversaw the most detailed codification of sultanic and Quranic law that had ever been known in an Islamic state.” Hence, although the Ottoman Empire did not represent all Muslims, it is clear that great Sultans such as Suleiman did not forget the founder of their religion as they saw themselves as a genuine continuation of early Islamic history. Justin McCarthy puts it clearly for us – “the base of the Ottoman Empire was Islam. Religion was intimately bound up with the ideology and legitimacy of the government … Their Empire was always styled a Muslim empire, one in the line of Islamic empires that had included the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and the Seljuks.” We see once again here, this time under the rule of the Ottomans, that legitimacy and support of a great Islamic Empire went hand in hand with a reflection on the spiritual past of the Muslim tradition.

Nevertheless, during the latter stages of Ottoman rule, the sultans began looking too far outwardly and neglecting inner spirituality, which deadened the degree of support that Muslims would give it. This empire fatally climaxed when the Ottomans looked to secure further lands in Europe. Their efforts fell horribly short, and they lost a vital battle to the coalition of the Holy League in 1683 at Vienna. When they were forced to humiliatingly sign the Treaty of Carlowicz in 1699, they had to yield Ottoman Hungary to Austria, which was the first major Ottoman reversal. Although the Empire did not crumble overnight, this point marks the end of Ottoman expansion – and indeed Islamic expansion – and the beginning of its slow decline.

The powerful Islamic dynasties and empires finally came to an end with the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Yet the legacy that both it and previous rulerships had left behind was remarkable geographical expansion, which had emanated from a small tribe in Arabia. The spread of Islam was orchestrated through the close connection of most Muslims and their leaders to an Islamic way of life, which gave them a sense of purpose for their conquests and expansions. It is important to understand that this was not always done smoothly; the overthrows of Islamic Empires did not always happen peacefully and blood was often internally shed in order to propel a fresher and stronger willed Islamic group forward. Although much internal strife was a common characteristic of the Islamic Empires, the historical reality shows us that enough of the Muslim population was willing to forget past disagreements and get on with a common cause of conquering peoples and gaining territory. Yet the key to all of this success was surely the religious foundation of the Prophet and the early Caliphs. Through future Islamic rulers regularly reminding their adherents of their Prophet and of his message, the Muslims felt as if they were part of something greater than themselves. Despite religious zeal fluctuating from time to time, Islamic faith would always seem to be reinvigorated which led to grand Empires being established and Islamic history being created.

Paul Kearns has a major in history and English from Monash University, Melbourne.

Notes

1. Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, New York, 2000, p. 12.

2. Ibid, 23.

3. H. U. Rahman, A Chronology of Islamic History: 570-1000 ce, London, 1989, p. vii.

4. Tamara Sonn, A Brief History of Islam, Oxford, 2004, p. 23.

5. Armstrong, 2000, pp. 27, 29.

6. Ibid, p. xiv.

7. Sonn, 2004, p. 22.

8. Francesco Gabrieli, Muhammad and the Conquests of Islam, London, 1968, p. 104.

9. Sonn, 2000, pp. 25, 34.

10. R. Stephen Humphreys. Mu‘awiya ibn Abi Sufyan: From Arabia to Empire, Oxford, 2006, p. 84.

11. Armstrong. 2000, p. 42.

12. Ibid, p. 44.

13. Gerald R. Hawting. The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, London, 1986, p. 2.

14. Paul Lunde. Islam, London, 2002, p. 52.

15. Armstrong, 2000, p. 50.

16. Lunde, 2002, p. 56.

17. Akbar S. Ahmed. Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society, London, 2002, pp. 44-5.

18. Armstrong, 2000, p. 56.

19. Ibid, p. 54.

20. Gabrieli, 1968, p. 105.

21. Ibid, p. 115.

22. Abul-Fazl Ezzati. An Introduction to the History of the Spread of Islam, London, 1978, p. 43.

23. Ibid, p. 3.

24. Armstrong, 2000, p. xix.

25. Sonn, 2000, p. 78.

26. Patrick Kinross. The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, New York, 1979, p. 187.

27. Jason Goodwin. Lords of the Horizon: A History of the Ottoman Empire, New York, 1998, p. 83.

28. Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Turks: An Introductory History to 1923, London, 1997, p. 106.

29. Armstrong, 2000, p. xxvi.

The rule of Muslims represents a particular period in Spanish history. It was at this time that a substantial part of Spain, known back then as Al-Andalus, came under the control of various Islamic groups. The entire period of Islamic rule lasted from the first conquest in 711 to 1492 when the Christian King Ferdinand reconquered Granada (La Reconquista), thereby extinguishing the rule of Muslims (Crow 1985, p.78).

The Umayyad prince, Abd-ar-Rahman I, established himself as Emir of Cordoba in 756, after the Abbasids supplanted Umayyad rule in Syria (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Umayyad dynasty first ruled as emirs (756–929), then as caliphs (929–1031), but eventually fell to the invading Berber tribes of North Africa, the Almoravids (1090–1147) and then the Almohads (1147–1248) (Fletcher 2000, p.64). The Muslims of Spain ushered in a period of great creativity and scholarship, in which significant advances in poetry, art, music, calligraphy, botany, historiography, medicine, mathematics, and astronomy were made (Fletcher 2000, p. 65).

Maria Rosa Menocal argues that Al-Andalus was a peaceful society in which Jewish people were free to practice their religion without being subject to the threat of forced conversion or persecution. She further claims that the rulers of Al-Andalus not only gave the Jews the right to maintain their religious identity, they also offered them the opportunity to fully involve themselves in what was then a predominantly Muslim society. Al-Andalus is, therefore, a truly unique example of religious toleration and cultural interaction, one which stands above all others in Medieval Europe.

Menocal claims that the Jews of Spain, that is the Sephardic Jews, enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy as they were considered to be people of a particular status. They were members of the Dhimmi, or “pact,” whereby the Muslim rulers agree to protect and care for non-Muslims insofar as they accede to the laws and regulations of the state (Menocal 2002, p.29). Jews, like Christians, are particularly important to this contract as they are “People of the Book” (Ahl al-Kitâb), the book being the Torah or the Bible, both of which are considered to have been revealed by God in Islam (Lassner 1999, p.106). As monotheistic religions of the Abrahamic tradition, Islam, Judaism and Christianity share common ground.That Spanish Jews were treated with respect by their Islamic rulers is evidenced by the way in which they were permitted to be directly involved in the political process. Menocal refers to several Jewish people who rose to claim positions in the Umayyad dynasty, one such person being Hasdai Ibn Shaprut.

Shaprut served as vizier to Caliph Abd-ar-Rahman III (911–961), while also acting as the “prince” or nasi of his own religious community (Menocal 2002, p.79). Shaprut, through his skill and intellect, was able to secure a position of considerable influence and prestige, while retaining his role as a representative of the Jewish community. He served the Umayyad rulers in a variety of ways, including several stints as a foreign ambassador and general secretary (Glick 1979, p.172). Menocal claims that this was not an unusual occurrence or isolated event as Al-Andalus was in fact a “world brightly lit for Jews,” in which they were free to participate in the politics of the state (Menocal 2002, p. 84).

Samuel Ibn Naghrela (Samuel the Nagid, or “prince”) also showed how a Jewish person was able to enjoy a position of power under Islamic rule. Born in 993, he pursued success in a number of fields including as a high-ranking official, poet, statesman and warrior. At thirty-four he was chosen as the first Nagid, or head of the Jewish community, and was later appointed as a vizier and prime minister of Granada (Menocal 2002, p. 104). Jewish people also served as viziers in Zaragoza, Seville, and Almeria during the Muslim rule (Perez 1993, p.10). They were also very active in the economy of Al-Andalus as they had “virtually unlimited opportunities in the booming commercial environment” (Menocal 2002, p. 85). Jewish people were allowed to pursue their vocational interests, and, in time, they came to dominate the financial and mercantile activity of the region (Glick 1979, p. 176).

Menocal attributes the success of the Jewish people in Islamic Spain to their willingness to assimilate, or be “Arabized.” Arabization is the process whereby the Jewish people of Spain sought to understand and to engage with Arabic culture-its language, art, tradition, and values- while still retaining their own sense of identity as a separate community. It is said that the potential for this style of acculturation was great because much of Islamic Spain was highly secular (Glick 1979, p.175). Therefore, the religious affiliation of the individual in Islamic Spain had far less importance, and thus far fewer consequences, than it did elsewhere.

The Jews of Spain excelled in many areas of their society, owing to the tolerance which they had been accorded by their Islamic rulers. They ensured a climate in which Muslims and Jews could live in a state of peaceful cooperation. This happened not by the imposition of one culture on that of another, but a cultural exchange wherein Jews were “able to openly observe and eventually enrich their Judaic and Hebrew heritage and at the same time fully participate in the general cultural and intellectual scene” (Menocal 2002, p. 87). Therefore it can be said that Spain, under the rule of Muslims, was quite tolerant of its Jewish population. The Jews, according to Menocal, did not have “to abandon their orthodoxy to be fully a part of the body politic and culture” (Menocal 2002, p. 86).

Maria Rosa Menocal offers a particular interpretation of this period, one that is certainly not shared by all. Bernard Lewis agrees that the Islamic rulers in Spain treated their Jewish counterparts with some degree of respect (Lewis 1984, p. 9). Lewis refers to the Qur’anic verse (11:62), “Those who believe [the Muslims], and those who profess Judaism, and the Christians and the Sabian, those who believe in God and the Last Day and act righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord,” as the injunction by which Muslims must treat Jews with tolerance (Lewis 1984, p. 13). But Lewis also sees the seeds of hostility and intolerance in the way Muslims treated Jews.

In reality, however, Jews, like Christians, were still defined by their supposed inferiority to that of the Muslim. They were possessors of a religion that was based on authentic revelation, but that incomplete or distorted. They had failed to realize God’s truth in its most perfect form, as it is in Islam.

Bernard Lewis does not limit his perspective to “religious inferiority.” He argues that Muslims restricted Jews’ movement into the wider community. According to him the poll tax, or jizya, a fixed tax that was to be paid by all non-Muslims to the Muslim rulers in return for certain immunities like not going to war, was a “symbolic expression of their (Jews) subordination” to the Muslims (Lewis 1984, p. 14). Restrictions, Lewis argues, were certainly not limited to fiscal servitude, but also applied to the way in which Jewish people conducted themselves in public and private life. A Jewish man could not enter into a marriage with a Muslim woman as that would make a Muslim subordinate to the will of a Dhimmi, though a Muslim man could marry a Jewish woman (Lewis 1984, p. 27).

Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject “were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character” (Lewis 1984, p. 26). That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population.

Norman Roth claims, much like Menocal, that the Jewish population was quite prominent in Spain during the Muslim rule. According to Roth, rarely did “Jews reach such prominent positions of power as they did in Al-Andalus” (Roth 1994, p. 79). This was due, in part, to the fact that they were perceived by the Muslims and Christians of Spain as being “neutral,” that is, without allegiance to either side (Roth 1994, p.79).

While Al-Andalus was a society in which Jews enjoyed a certain degree of freedom, particularly after the advent of the Almohads, Roth claims, some restrictions in clothing were strictly enforced (Roth 1994, p. 167). For instance, the Almohad ruler Abu Yusuf Yaqub (1184–99) made it compulsory for Jews to dress in certain colors (Roth 1994, p. 167), perhaps to distinguish non-Muslim citizens from the Muslims. According to Joseph Perez, the Almohads also instituted religious persecution and forced Jews to convert (Perez 1993, p. 12). In this way, Perez draws a parallel with this period and the one that was to follow, in which Jews were expelled from the newly reclaimed Christian Kingdom of Spain.

The rule of the Moors is a unique period of Spanish history, one that has received much attention from scholars and theologians alike. It was, according to Maria Rosa Menocal, a time in which Jews and Muslims lived a relatively peaceful existence. While the evidence suggests that Jews and Muslims did integrate to an extent, there are also some scholars who suggest that Jews were subject to persecution. Therefore, this period of history offers a lot to be learned for our modern times.

References

• Crow J, 1985, Spain: The Root and the Flower: an interpretation of Spain and the Spanish people, University of California Press, Berkley.
• Fletcher R, 2000, “Islamic Spain,” in Carr R, Spain: A History, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Glick T, 1979, Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
• Lassner J, 1999, “Abraham Geiger: A Nineteenth-Century Jewish Reformer on the Origins of Islam,” in Martin Kramer, The Jewish Discovery of Islam, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
• Lewis B, 1984, The Jews of Islam, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
• Menocal MR, 2002, Ornament of the World, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
• Perez, J, 1993, History of a Tragedy, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
• Ray, J, 2006, The Sephardic Frontier: the Reconquista and the Jewish community in Medieval Iberia, Cornell University Press, New York.
• Roth N, 1994, Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims In Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict, Leiden, New York.

Nowadays, children and parents are estranged, employees and employers are continuously at odds, the government is deaf to the public and the public seems to be unaware of the government, the teacher and the pupil no longer talk the same language; these phenomena can all be explained when we realize the serious lack of communication that we are facing. What has gone wrong?

The reason that we are removed from one another in terms of communication, despite physical distances having been lessened, is that we either are unaware of that important component of human communication, empathy, or we are not giving it due consideration. There are many definitions of empathy; a brief definition is that it is the ability to recognize and understand another person’s perceptions and feelings and to accurately convey that understanding through a com- passionate response. In other words, it means understanding another person so well that you feel as he/she does. Native Americans expressed this as walking a mile in another person’s moccasins. It is being able to listen so intently and to identify so closely with another that you experience that person’s situation, thoughts and emotions. Empathy has many different descriptions, but they all narrow down to the same thing: developing the ability to see the world from another’s point of view without judging. Being empathetic is a bit like being an anthropologist; when an anthropologist goes to study a different people or tribe, there is no judgment or criticism involved, the anthropologist just accepts and describes the way of life, the way of seeing things. One must develop the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes, to see the world as they see it, without judgment or criticism or over-identification and agreement. Good therapists are said to do this; the same can be said for good friends. It is only with empathy that we can understand each other thoroughly and proceed to build close and reliable relationships.

Empathy acts as an inhibitor of aggression and violence. A person with greater empathy tends to act in pro-social ways simply because such a person is able to identify and recognize the plight of others. On the other hand, people acting in antisocial ways are likely to lay the foundations for violent and aggressive patterns. In this respect we can say that there is a strong relationship between empathy and morality. Morality can be explained as a set of principles or ideals that help an individual distinguish right from wrong. It is a term used to cover those practices and activities that are considered significantly right or wrong, the rules that govern these activities and the values that are embedded, fostered or pursued by these activities and practices. It would be correct to say that a man of high moral values is at the same time highly empathetic. This is true because the ability to see the world from another person’s point of view without personal biases or judgments usually leads one to a correct understanding of the situation and therefore assists one in making a correct decision. An empathetic person always places him/herself in the place of the people with whom he/she is in contact, looks at events from their perspective and thereby is able to attain a deep understanding of the situation. When it comes to making comments about the situation, such a person still assumes that he/she is still in the other person’s place and talks as if he/she is not talking to somebody else, but to him/herself. The result of such behavior is perfect comprehension and a correct evaluation of the situation.

To be empathetic in this way is a difficult human relations skill to gain. It would be relatively easier if there were only few people with whom one is in contact. At least then one would know each of these people’s characteristics and could understand each of their situations more easily. But what if there are many people with whom one is in contact, each having his/her own personal differences? Now it is that communicational ability arises and that one must be able to adapt to each situation, without being self-centered. This can only be achieved by a skill that has been fostered by high moral values. A person who has such skills is one that creates a feeling of intimacy and well-deserved trust in others. Such a person becomes someone to whom a story can always be told in confidence, and such a person may even understand a situation better than the person involved.

This is how the Almighty Creator wants us to be and how he expects us to be. This reality is evident in the religions that God has sent to us with His messengers. What is called The Golden Rule is a prevalent idea of Christianity. The golden rule is best interpreted as saying: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. To use this rule, one must imagine oneself to be in exactly the same place of the person who is involved in the action. If we act in a given way toward another person, yet are unwilling to be treated that way ourselves under the same circumstances, then we have violated this rule. To apply the golden rule adequately, we need both knowledge and imagination. We need to know what effect our actions will have on the lives of others. And we need to be able to imagine ourselves, vividly and accurately, in another person’s place in a given situation. With knowledge, imagination, and by applying the golden rule, we can progress far in our moral thinking.

The golden rule is best seen as a principle of consistency. It does not replace regular moral norms. It is not an infallible guide by which to judge the correctness of an action; it does not provide all the answers. It only prescribes consistency – that is that we not let our actions (toward another person) be out of harmony with our desires. It tests our moral coherence. If we violate the golden rule, then we are violating the spirit of fairness and compassion that lies at the heart of morality.

Moreover, Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, the Messenger of Islam, says He who does not feel the hunger of his neighbor when he goes to sleep in his comfortable bed cannot in any way share our values. It is of utmost importance to put effort in empathizing with another’s circumstances and to understand other people well. Islam actually states that the most important of all the divine characteristics that a person should have is their personal relations with other people. That is the only thing for which God, the All Merciful, will not directly show His compassion when the time comes to account for our sins after death. In other words, suppose that you have mistreated somebody in this world; God will first ask the person who has been mistreated whether you are to be forgiven. This is God’s absolute justice, an important part of His character.

There is no doubt that God gives particular importance to communication among people and to their understanding of one another. Taking into consideration the scientific finding that almost 90 percent of human communication is comprised of non-verbal elements, empathy plays a great role in the part of good communication. In the history of humanity so much has changed, but the main component of communication, empathy, has maintained its place as before. It is the invisible bridge that connects our hearts to one another through which we understand and feel one another, a bridge that God wants us to construct to span our hearts, a bridge via which God’s love can be acquired.

Jalal: Let me begin first. Basing myself on the Islamic viewpoint, I argue that in an Islamic political regime, sovereignty can belong only to God. However, given that democracy means popular sovereignty, democracy is anti-Islamic.

Jamal: Your argument is based on your reductionist worldview. There is only right or wrong for you. Your world is black and white, and has no room for any gray area. Real life is fuzzier than your rigid opinions.

Contrary to your claim, God’s ontological sovereignty and the people’s political sovereignty are not contradictory. I believe that God, in His capacity as the ultimate Creator, created everything. Therefore, God is sovereign in the universe.

However, His creation in the material universe is different from His creation in social life. He has given each person the freedom of choice and free will; no other member or part of creation has these abilities. Given this, God can create something in social life even though it does not seem appropriate. For instance, He creates heroin and creates the people’s actions when they use it. However, God does not like the people to use it. In other words, He orders them not to use it but does not force them not to use it. God provides the people with free will and thereby makes them responsible for own decisions.

So, God creates whatever happens. Therefore, electing a leader is ontologically a creation of God and cannot contradict His sovereignty, although we cannot know whether this is an appropriate election in His sight.

Jalal: I still think that any popular vote is incompatible with Islam. Think about the designations of Prophethood. God is the ultimate decision-maker Who chooses the Prophets, regardless of what the people think.

Jamal: Perfect example! Of course, the people cannot elect a Prophet through voting, because by definition a Prophet is God’s messenger. Political leaders, however, are the people’s representatives, not God’s. Also, the Qur’an states that no Prophet will come after Prophet Muhammad. Thus, the people are free to elect their own leaders.

Furthermore, democracy based on popular sovereignty is an alternative to monarchy and oligarchy, not to God’s sovereignty. Why don’t you accept that monarchical and oligarchic sovereignties also contradict His sovereignty? Can you really claim that the various royal dynasties received their right to rule from God? Similarly, are the militaristic regimes the shadow of God upon Earth? I don’t think so.

Jalal: Frankly, I never thought of that. But I’m still curious about what you would say if a man-made rule happens to contradict a Divine rule. In Islam, the Qur’an and the Hadith reflect God’s commands and so are accepted as absolute truth. In a democracy, however, ideally the people have the absolute power and legitimacy to create the law.

Jamal: But there is no paradox here. First, Muslim populations normally do not support laws that contradict the Revelation. Second, the Qur’an or Hadith contain no concrete and fixed political principles. Politics deals with temporary and mundane issues, which are subject to change according to time and place. Thus, the people can pass laws that are compatible with the constant, general, and universal principles of Divine rule on one hand, and with changeable sociopolitical contexts on the other. Third, it is more likely that the sovereignty of dictators, dynasties, or oligarchies will contradict the Divine rule than the sovereignty of the people will.

Finally, democracy has different forms, such as direct and representative. In direct democracy, the people vote directly in referendums for almost every political issue. In representative democracy, however, politics is conducted by the people’s representatives. Moreover, some representative democracies (e.g., the U.S.) have a Supreme (or Constitutional) Court to restrict law-making. In sum, possible contradictions between popular sovereignty and Divine rule can be minimized by creating institutions (e.g., a representative system and a Supreme Court) that include some Divine rules as pillars of the constitution.

Jalal: You try to show that democracy is compatible with Islam

Jamal: Moreover, I accept democracy as being more compatible with Islam than with non-democratic systems. The Prophet’s statement that my community will never agree upon an error reveals that the people are the source of political legitimacy. Moreover, the fact that the four Rightly Guided Caliphs were elected shows that election is a more suitable political institution for Muslims than any monarchic or oligarchic alternatives, despite the fact that such elections may not necessarily be considered purely democratic according to modern standards.

Jalal: If everything is so smooth, why did classical Islamic thinkers oppose democracy?

Jamal: First, evaluating classical thinkers by modern paradigms is an anachronism. Historical ideas need to be examined in their historical contexts. Don’t forget that until the French Revolution, monarchy was the dominant political institution. Second, many classical Islamic thinkers (e.g., al-Baqilani and al-Mawardi) generally emphasized the necessity of elections in determining a new caliph. They did not legitimize hereditary systems. Finally, the non-democratic components of classical thought are the results of historical sociopolitical contexts instead of the essence of the Islamic thought. Therefore, Islamic political thought can easily adapt, adopt, and legitimize democratic systems.

Jalal: If Islam and democracy are so compatible, why are so many Muslim countries non-democratic?

Jamal: As I have tried to demonstrate, Islam does not necessarily oppose democracy and is not the only cause of non-democratic regimes in the Muslim world. While discussing the lack of democracy in Muslim countries, one should consider such other factors as the economic, cultural, and international conditions that shape these countries’ political systems.

Second, Islam can be interpreted from different political viewpoints. While Islam encourages obedience to the rulers (4:59), it also encourages resistance. For example, the Prophet said: The best jihad is to say the truth to a tyrant’s face. Non-democratic Muslim rulers have their own interpretations of Islam, which have been shaped by their particular conditions. Therefore, their practices cannot represent Islam’s theoretical principles and essentials and its relations with democracy.

Jalal: Sounds interesting. Are you saying that democracy is the only political system compatible with Islam?

Jamal: No. Muslims may have changeable opinions, although Islam has absolute and universal values. The essentials of Islam are unchangeable and eternal truths. Political ideas, however, depend upon circumstances. Thus they are not absolute and change along with the sociopolitical and economic transformations. For that reason, Muslims could accept multiple political arguments. At this point in time, I personally prefer democracy to other political systems. However, if another system proves to serve humanity better, I might favor that one.

Fethullah Gulen has spent much of his life as a religious teacher in Turkey. He is author of more than forty books, most of them best-sellers in Turkey, and his writing appears regularly in Turkish journals. This article was translated from Turkish by Elvan Ceylan.

Religion, particularly Islam, has become one of the most difficult subject areas to tackle in recent years. Contemporary culture, whether approached from the perspective of anthropology or theology, psychology or psychoanalysis, evaluates religion with empirical methods. On the one hand, religion is an inwardly experienced and felt phenomenon, one mostly related to life’s permanent aspects. On the other believers can see their religion as a philosophy, a set of rational principles, or mere mysticism. The difficulty increases in the case of Islam, for some Muslims and policy-makers consider and present it as a purely political, sociological, and economic ideology, rather than as a religion.

If we want to analyze religion, democracy, or any other system or philosophy accurately, we should focus on humanity and human life. From this perspective, religion in general and Islam in particular cannot be compared on the same basis with democracy or any other political, social, or economic system. Religion focuses primarily on the immutable aspects of life and existence, whereas political, social, and economic systems or ideologies concern only certain variable, social aspects of our worldly life.

The aspects of life with which religion is primarily concerned are as valid today as they were at the dawn of humanity and will continue to be so in the future. Worldly systems change according to circumstances and so can be evaluated only according to their times. Belief in God, the hereafter, the prophets, the holy books, angels, and divine destiny have nothing to do with changing times. Likewise, worship and morality’s universal and unchanging standards have little to do with time and worldly life.

Therefore, when comparing religion or Islam with democracy, we must remember that democracy is a system that is being continually developed and revised. It also varies according to the places and circumstances where it is practiced. On the other hand, religion has established immutable principles related to faith, worship and morality. Thus, only Islam’s worldly aspects should be compared with democracy.

The main aim of Islam and its unchangeable dimensions affect its rules governing the changeable aspects of our lives. Islam does not propose a certain unchangeable form of government or attempt to shape it. Instead, Islam establishes fundamental principles that orient a government’s general character, leaving it to the people to choose the type and form of government according to time and circumstances. If we approach the matter in this light and compare Islam with today’s modern liberal democracy, we will better understand the position of Islam and democracy with respect to each other.

Democratic ideas stem from ancient times. Modern liberal democracy was born in the American (1776) and French Revolutions (1789-99). In democratic societies, people govern themselves as opposed to being ruled by someone above. The individual has priority over the community in this type of political system, being free to determine how to live his or her own life. Individualism is not absolute, though. People achieve a better existence by living within a society and this requires that they adjust and limit their freedom according to the criteria of social life.

The Prophet says that all people are as equal as the teeth of a comb.(1) Islam does not discriminate based on race, color, age, nationality, or physical traits. The Prophet declared: ‘You are all from Adam, and Adam is from earth. O servants of God, be brothers [and sisters].'(2) Those who are born earlier, have more wealth and power than others, or belong to certain families or ethnic groups have no inherent right to rule others.

Islam also upholds the following fundamental principles:

1. Power lies in truth, a repudiation of the common idea that truth relies upon power.
2. Justice and the rule of law are essential.
3. Freedom of belief and rights to life, personal property, reproduction, and health (both mental and physical) cannot be violated.
4. The privacy and immunity of individual life must be maintained.
5. No one can be convicted of a crime without evidence, or accused and punished for someone else’s crime.
6. An advisory system of administration is essential.

All rights are equally important, and an individual’s right cannot be sacrificed for society’s sake. Islam considers a society to be composed of conscious individuals equipped with free will and having responsibility toward both themselves and others. Islam goes a step further by adding a cosmic dimension. It sees humanity as the “motor” of history, contrary to fatalistic approaches of some of the nineteenth century Western philosophies of history such as dialectical materialism and historicism.(3) Just as every individual’s will and behavior determine the outcome of his or her life in this world and in the hereafter, a society’s progress or decline is determined by the will, world-view, and lifestyle of its inhabitants. The Qur’an (13:11) says: “God will not change the state of a people unless they change themselves [with respect to their beliefs, world-view, and lifestyle].” In other words, each society holds the reins of its fate in its own hands. The prophetic tradition emphasizes this idea: “You will be ruled according to how you are.”(4) This is the basic character and spirit of democracy, which does not conflict with any Islamic principle.

As Islam holds individuals and societies responsible for their own fate, people must be responsible for governing themselves. The Qur’an addresses society with such phrases as: —O people!— and —O believers!— The duties entrusted to modern democratic systems are those that Islam refers to society and classifies, in order of importance, as —absolutely necessary, relatively necessary, and commendable to carry out.— The sacred text includes the following passages:

—Establish, all of you, peace— (2:208);

—spend in the way of God and to the needy of the pure and good of what you have earned and of what We bring forth for you from earth— (2:267);

—if some among your women are accused of indecency, you must have four witnesses [to prove it]— (4:15); —God commands you to give over the public trusts to the charge of those having the required qualities and to judge with justice when you judge between people— (4:58);

—observe justice as witnesses respectful for God even if it is against yourselves, your parents and relatives— (4:135);

—if they [your enemies] incline to peace [when you are at war], you also incline to it— (8:61);

—if a corrupt, sinful one brings you news [about others], investigate it so that you should not strike a people without knowing— (49:6);

—if two parties among the believers fight between themselves, reconcile them— (49:9).

To sum up, the Qur’an addresses the whole community and assigns it almost all the duties entrusted to modern democratic systems. People cooperate with one another by sharing these duties and establishing the essential foundations necessary to perform them. The government is composed of all of these foundations. Thus, Islam recommends a government based on a social contract. People elect the administrators and establish a council to debate common issues. Also, the society as a whole participates in auditing the administration. Especially during the rule of the first four caliphs (632-661), the fundamental principles of government mentioned above–including free election–were fully observed. The political system was transformed into a sultanate after the death of ‘Ali, the fourth caliph, due to internal conflicts and to the global conditions at that time. Unlike under the caliphate, power in the sultanate was passed on through the sultan’s family. However, even though free elections were no longer held, societies maintained other principles that are at the core of today’s liberal democracy. Islam is an inclusive religion. It is based on the belief in one God as the Creator, Lord, Sustainer, and Administrator of the universe. Islam is the religion of the whole universe. That is, the entire universe obeys the laws laid down by God, so everything in the universe is —Muslim— and obeys God by submitting to his laws. Even a person who refuses to believe in God or follows another religion has perforce to be a Muslim as far as his or her bodily existence is concerned. His or her entire life, from the embryonic stage to the body’s dissolution into dust after death, every tissue of his or her muscles, and every limb of his or her body follows the course prescribed for each by God’s law. Thus, in Islam, God, nature, and humanity are neither remote from each other nor are they alien to each other. It is God Who makes himself known to humanity through nature and humanity itself, and nature and humanity are two books (of creation) through each word of which God is known. This leads humankind to look upon everything as belonging to the same Lord, to whom it itself belongs, so that it regards nothing in the universe as alien. His sympathy, love, and service do not remain confined to the people of any particular race, color, or ethnicity.

The Prophet summed this up with the command, —O servants of God, be brothers [and sisters]!— A separate but equally important point is that Islam recognizes all religions previous to it. It accepts all the prophets and books sent to different peoples in different epochs of history. Not only does it accept them, but also regards belief in them as an essential principle of being Muslim. By doing so, it acknowledges the basic unity of all religions. A Muslim is at the same time a true follower of Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and of all other Hebrew prophets. This belief explains why both Christians and Jews enjoyed their religious rights under the rule of Islamic governments throughout history. The Islamic social system seeks to form a virtuous society and thereby gain God’s approval. It recognizes right, not force, as the foundation of social life. Hostility is unacceptable. Relationships must be based on belief, love, mutual respect, assistance, and understanding instead of conflict and realization of personal interest. Social education encourages people to pursue lofty ideals and to strive for perfection, not just to run after their own desires. Right calls for unity, virtues bring mutual support and solidarity, and belief secures brotherhood and sisterhood. Encouraging the soul to attain perfection brings happiness in both worlds.

Democracy has developed over time. Just as it has gone through many different stages in the past, it will continue to evolve and to improve in the future. Along the way, it will be shaped into a more humane and just system, one based on righteousness and reality. If human beings are considered as a whole, without disregarding the spiritual dimension of their existence and their spiritual needs, and without forgetting that human life is not limited to this mortal life and that all people have a great craving for eternity, democracy could reach its peak of perfection and bring even more happiness to humanity. Islamic principles of equality, tolerance, and justice can help it do just that.

Notes:

1. Abu Shuja’ Shirawayh ibn Shahrdar al-Daylami, Al-Firdaws bi-Ma’thur al-Khitab (The Heavenly Garden Made Up of the Selections From the Prophet’s Addresses) (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 1986), 4:300.
2. For the second part of the hadith see the sections —Nikah— (Marriage Contract) in Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari, ed., al-Jami’ al-Sahih (A Collection of the Prophet’s Authentic Traditions) (Istanbul: al-Maktabat al-Islamiya, n.d.), ch. 45; —Birr wa-Sila— (Goodness and Visiting the Relatives) in Imam Abu Husayn Muslim ibn Hajjaj, ed., al-Jami’ al-Sahih, op. cit., ch. 23; and for the first part see —Tafsir— (The Quranic Commentary) and —Manaqib— (The Virtues of the Prophet and His Com-panions) in Abu ‘Isa Muhammad ibn ‘Isa al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih (Beirut: Dar al-Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.), chs. 49 and 74, respectively. The original text in Arabic does not include the word —sisters— in the command. However, the masculine form used refers to both men and women, as is the rule in many languages. An equivalent in English would be —mankind,— which refers to both men and women. By saying —O servants of God,— the Prophet also means women, because both men and women are equally servants of God.
3. See Karl R. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, trans. Sabri Orman (Istanbul: Insan yayinlari, 1985).
4. ‘Ala al-Din ‘Ali al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-‘Ummal fi Sunan al-Aqwal wa al-Af’al (A Treasure of the Laborers for the Sake of Prophet’s Sayings and Deeds) (Beirut: Muassasat al-Risala, 1985), 6:89.

All these brutalities may make us think that the strong and powerful always try to dominate and treat unjustly the less powerful. The fact is, however, that some societies have displayed great mercy and tolerance to the people under their rule regardless of their belief and race. This article tries to give some information about the tolerance of the Ottomans toward minorities, especially the Jews who were mistreated under the Byzantine dominion. They experienced expulsion from Spain after which they were accepted in the Ottoman lands and lived in peace and comfort.

Let us first look at the lives of the Jews during the Byzantines.

Jews of Byzantium

Jews were well-treated in Byzantium. The people of Byzantium did not like the Jews for religious reasons. They regarded them as damned by God since they denied the words of God and allegedly killed Jesus. They thus subjected the Jews to restriction and persecution:

Byzantine Jews were nominally free to follow their own faith, but the Byzantine Emperors excluded Jews from rights of full citizenship and restricted the locations of their settlement and synagogues as well as their rights to engage in trade and professions (Shaw, 1991, p.18).

After Christianity was declared to be the religion of the state by Theodosius 11(408 – 450), conditions for the Jews in Byzantine Empire became worse. Theodosius excluded the Jews from most of the privileges of citizenship while imposing all sorts of burdens on them. He prohibited them from building new synagogues. Soon afterwards, during the reign of Emperor Maurice, all synagogues were changed into churches and Jews were ordered to be forcibly converted to Christianity.

The situation became even worse for the Jews as the Byzantine Empire declined. In order to restore religious unity within the collapsing empire, rulers increased the pressure upon the Jews by reissuing the old legal restrictions and condemning anyone who happened to favour Jews by allowing them to live and work beside Christians (ibid., pp.2l-3).

Jews of the Ottoman State

The collapse of Byzantium was a fortunate event for the Jews under its dominion. Even before the Ottoman State was born, as Seljuk Turks established their state around central Anatolia in the twelfth century, Byzantine Jewry sprang rapidly to their assistance welcoming the tolerance and prosperity which the rule of Islam offered them. Thousands of Jews fled from Byzantine persecution to Seljuk protection. In the following century, Ottoman Turks established their principality in north-western Anatolia. Within two centuries Ottomans had taken over most of western Anatolia and gained control of Syria, Iraq and Egypt in the East. In the West they expanded through South-eastern Europe all the way to Vienna. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent extended the Ottoman rule across North Africa almost to the Atlantic and controlled much of Caucasia.

This Ottoman expansion marked a very substantial change for the Jews of the Middle East and Europe. In complete contrast to their situation under the Byzantines, Jews entering the Ottoman dominions were allowed to practice whatever profession they wished, to engage in trade and commerce without restriction and to possess landed property and buildings in town and country (ibid., p.26). After Sultan Mehmed II conquered Istanbul in 1453, he allowed Jews to settle in Istanbul and carry out their commerce. From the start, Sultan Mehmed II encouraged the emigration of Jews from Europe even more than the Jews already living in the expanding Ottoman Empire itself. Just as the Jews of England, France, Germany, Spain, and even Poland and Lithuania were being subjected to increasing persecution, blood libels, massacres, and deportations, the Turkish rulers of the expanding Ottoman state actively encouraged them to come and live under conditions of tolerance and freedom. Mehmed II himself is said to have issued a proclamation to all Jews:

“Who among you of all my people that is with me, may his God he with him, let him ascend to Istanbul, the site of my imperial throne. Let him dwell in the best of the land, each beneath his vine and beneath his fig tree, with silver and with gold, with wealth and with cattle. Let him dwell in the land, trade in it, and take possession of it.’’

As a result of these efforts, during the three decades following the Ottoman conquest, according to a Turkish register, Istanbul’s population increased to 16,326 households including 1,647 Jewish households. By the mid-l6th century, according to a similar census in 1535, 8,070 Jewish households were listed in the capital city. The city’s Jews numbered some 40,000 – a tenth of the population. Salonica, which had no Jewish population represented in the census of 1478, had 2,645 Jewish households by 1535. (Kedourie, 1992, p.165).

Similar increases were to be found in many Ottoman centres in the Balkans and Asia Minor because the Turks trusted them. They preceded the Greeks and Armenians as bankers, physicians and interpreters, and eventually gathered most of the empire’s trade into their hands (Thubron, 1978, p.189).

The following quotes provide clear evidence that Jews of that time were happy with the Ottoman Empire as well. Rabbi Isaac Tzarfati invited the Jews who were suffering in Germany to the Turkish state:

“…Listen my brethren, to the counsel I will give you. I, too, was born in Germany and studied Torah with the German rabbis. I was driven out of my native country and came into the Turkish land, which is blessed by God and filled with all good things. Here I found rest and happiness. Turkey can also become for you the land of peace. ..If you who live in Germany knew even a tenth of what God has blessed us with in this land, you would not consider any difficulties, you would set out to come to us…Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes, and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap, and everyone of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow hat as a badge of shame, as is the case in Germany…Arise my brethren, give up your lands, collect your forces, and come to us. Here you will be free of your enemies, here you will find rest…(Shaw, 1991, p.32).”

The most significant example of tolerance Ottomans displayed for the minorities, especially the Jews, is that they opened their land to those who were expelled from Portugal and Spain.

Jews found refuge in Ottoman lands

During the 15th century in Europe, slavery, race discrimination, religious intolerance and the cruelties and atrocities of the inquisition resulted in the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Christians were becoming more powerful and grew confident in the wake of victories over Muslims. The defeat of the Muslims in Spain made things difficult for the Jews who had been living in peace under the rule of Andalusian Muslims. They now faced restrictions and difficulties. As Christian rule solidified, there was less need for Jews, and since they were accused of the death of Jesus, Spanish Jews were subjected to the same persecutions by Christians as had taken place elsewhere in Western Europe. These persecutions and restrictions culminated in a decree of expulsion. After Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain had accepted the capitulation of the city of Granada, they decreed the expulsion of the Jewish population from their united realms.

Since the Jews in Western Europe were already under pressure, the neighboring states of Spain did not seem to be happy about large-scale immigration of Jews. Sultan Bayezid, the ruler of the Ottomans at that time, heard of the evil nature of the king of Spain and the inflictions on the Jews who were seeking refuge and a resting place. He took pity on them, wrote letters and proclaimed that the Jews were to be given a gracious welcome. Despite considerable religious conservatism of his own, Bayezid went on to decree that all Jews fleeing from Spain should be admitted to his dominions without restriction, and with the same inducements that had been offered during the reign of his predecessor. Ottoman officers were ordered to do everything they could to facilitate the entry of Iberian Jews into Ottoman territory, and strict punishments were provided against all those who mistreated the immigrants or caused them any sort of damage (ibid., p.33).

It is estimated that 250,000 Jews came from the Iberian peninsula to the Ottoman realms and settled in all parts of the Sultans territory including modern Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Egypt, and in Anatolia at Bursa, Gallipoli, Manisa, Izmir (Smyrna), Tokat and Amasya. But most commonly they settled in places that became the centres of Jewish life in the Ottoman State in the capital, Istanbul, in Eastern Thrace at Edirne (Adrenapolis), along the shores of the Aegean at Salonica. This made the Ottoman Jewish community not only the largest but also the most prosperous Jewish community in the world, during the sixteenth and early seventieth centuries, a period which constituted the golden age of Ottoman Jewry.

The Ottoman Jews did indeed live in great relief and comfort. They were allowed to follow their religious requirements and build their own synagogues as well as being free to deal in commerce. There is no evidence that shows Jews were forced to change their religion. However, a considerable number of them willingly converted to Islam.

Conclusion

The reason why the Ottomans displayed such tolerance to all minorities under their dominion and why they allowed Jews to enter their territory and live peacefully though they gained no benefit from doing so originates from their religious values.

Islam takes into consideration that Jews, like Muslims and Christians, were a people to whom a Divine Book was sent, although they corrupted it in the course of time. Great figures of the old Testament, like Aron, David, Solomon and Job, are all prophets and, like Jesus Christ, are mentioned in the Qur’an. God chose Moses as the Messenger for the Children of Israel. Jews, like Christians, are considered to be a people of the book, ahl al-kitab, and enjoy special religious tolerance and autonomy.

All ‘people of the book’ were allowed to preserve their religions and recognized as religiously- based communities. They paid a special ‘poll tax’ called harac or cizye. The poor, the sick and the clergy were exempt. All minorities were exempt from military service and they were admitted the right to maintain their own forms of government within their communities. While they lived in great comfort and prosperity, there were some limitations. For example, they could not marry Muslim women or bear arms. Compared to the active persecution to which Jews were subjected in the Christian lands of Europe, the world of Islam was indeed paradise for them (Shaw, 1991, ph).

The modern world may be depressing with its catalogue of holocausts and massacres which continue up until today. However, we can learn from the tolerant attitude shown by the Ottomans towards their Jewish minority that co-existence in peace is possible through the observation of Divine principles. It should give us hope. Our real hope is that all tyrants will give up their cruelty and treat others as fellow human beings.

References 

• BACON, 1. (1990) Atlas of Jewish Civilization, Andr Deutsch, London, p.144.
• KEDOURIE, 5. (1992) Spain and the Jews, Thomas and Hudson, London, p.165.
• SHAW, S.J. (1991) The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and The Turkish Republic, Macmillan, pp.11-33.
• THUBRON, C. (1978) The Great Cities: Istanbul, Time-Life International, Netherlands, pp.189-90.U