We certainly fail if we try to consider time as only a matter of determining the hour. It is, in fact, a dimension like depth, height and length. One reason of our difficulty in perceiving time may be caused by the fact that our optical perception is sensitive only to three dimensions, but no others. Many animals cannot comprehend the dimension of depth. Some animals see their environs in two dimensions as in pictures. We have difficulty perceiving other dimensions just as animals which see the world in two colors live without any awareness of other colors.

Humankind, with the most sophisticated aspects, has a very different and privileged position above all creation. In spite of this, we have limited sight, hearing, and other senses. Many a world that is beyond our senses remains imperceptible to us.

Another aspect of time that supports its dimensional feature is that it is in full conformity with and proportional to other dimensions. In terms of its extent, duration of events increases or decreases in parallel with spatial dimensions. Man lives for around sixty to seventy years, while microscopic animals live around one or two days. The life of the sun and the universe which constitute the macrocosmos is expressed in billions of years. On the other hand, the life of subatomic particles is expressed in billionths of a second. Thus, we assume them as being resonances. There is time reduction together with and compatible with space constriction on the sub-atomic scale, and this fact is yet another proof that time is also a dimension.

How shall we understand the other dimensions of space? What does the fourth dimension of space mean? Let alone describing, it is not easy to even imagine this.

If a is the length, a2 is the area and a3 is the volume of a thing, then what is a4? If we see space as a giant plain sheet of paper, that sheet of paper has no depth but only a surface. If we fold crumple it into the shape of a sphere, we obtain “Riemann space.” Just like we perceive the three-dimensional earth as a two-dimensional surface while we are on it, this 3-dimensional sphere made of 2-dimensional paper will be perceived as 2 dimensional by us. We can only talk about the third dimension after we generate a depth, that is, after we step outside the paper and move above and below it.

The fourth co-ordinate of space is a tunnel. Let us suppose that the universe is two-dimensional, that is, it is like a thin sheet of paper, and let us human beings be like pictures with no thickness over its surface just like the pictures on a newspaper. We are free to move in all directions on this sheet of paper. We can sense four directions. But we will never perceive the terms “up” and “down” (or “upper” and “lower”) since we will never leave the surface of this sheet of paper. Such terms will seem unacceptable to us even we are told of them. Accordingly, we will never hear of a third dimension and our vocabularies will never contain such terms as “up” and “down.”

If a three-dimensional object existed above our fictional paper realm and if this object even slit our paper realm and went away, we still would not see it in three dimensions but only the part of it intersecting our paper realm. If such a thing were a sphere, for instance, we would see its projection in a circular form. Its latitudinal sections would gradually expand starting from the poles, reach their largest on the equator line and its ring-like (circular) shape would gradually decrease and finally disappear at the other pole. That is, we would see it only as its cross section or shade. Such a three-dimensional object would seem two-dimensional to us since we would suddenly see its cross section. The sudden appearance, expansion, decrease and final vanishing of that spherical object in our two-dimensional realm would seem quite amazing to us since our shapes are fixed and immovable.

The three-dimensional shade of an extraterrestrial four-dimensional object overshadows our three-dimensional space. We see the linear tunnels in cross-section, not longitudinally, just as we see the sphere as circular. Though the sphere is a simple object, it amazes us.

Let us now imagine a more complex form. Let us, for instance, reflect the shadow of a vase onto a wall and obtain various shades by turning it repeatedly. A fixed and immovable portrait on the wall would regard the shadow and its variations reflected over the same plane with surprise and fear, since that portrait, or that person without depth, sees only what is reflected on the wall, but not us and the vase. The wall is the only realm for him and there is nothing for him beyond and behind the wall even if we say so.

We humans tend to assess events within the narrow limits of space and within certain dimensions, since we are bound within a single space–time cone. The conceptualization of space with its dimensions of height, length and depth is possible for us. However, the fourth dimension, time, is an abstract and metaphysical measure even though it is studied within physics. The tunnel thus seems to us like an incredible dimension.

Our perceptions with the five senses in the visible universe can be considered as the projections of non-physical and multi-dimensional realities (the eighteen thousand realms) to our domain. Clearly, in order to gain a better understanding of those realms, which we do not see but which we feel exist, with the help of the physics, we need to emancipate ourselves from the narrow patterns of time and space in this world of trial. We need to travel toward the horizon of spirit and develop an all-new scientific language which approaches physics and metaphysics together. Finally, we can say, in Bediüzzaman’s words, that the physical and observable universe which is the domain of research for modern physics is an ornamented curtain veiling the world of the unseen.

Osman Cakmak is a professor of chemistry at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey.

Let me give you some everyday examples. For instance, most customer complaints (eighty percent) stem from a very few reasons (twenty percent). Eighty percent of problems in a company are caused by twenty percent of the employees. This idea is often applied to data such as sales figures: twenty percent of clients are responsible for eighty percent of sales volume. Eighty percent of our expenditure, stems from twenty percent of the items we buy. If we can differentiate cheap items from expensive items, then, we can develop ways to save on our shopping. We need to realize that we make eighty percent of our phone calls to the same twenty percent of our acquaintances. If we look at the clothes we wear, we realize that eighty percent of the time we wear the same twenty percent of them. We can also use this principle to plan our daily schedule and to order things according to their importance. For example, we may calculate the length of the time to do something and determine the importance of the thing we are to do. We calculate the percentages according to all the things waiting to be done. Later, with twenty percent of our time, we put our attention and energy into the things which carry eighty percent of the importance. We leave the things with twenty percent importance to later because those things require eighty percent of our time. What needs to be observed here is that quality is preferred over quantity. Some of us postpone tasks which can be done in a short time, due to the belief that we can somehow do it later. According to the Pareto Principle, it is not a good idea to delay things which are important in terms of quality even if they take a bit of our time to carry out.

Bediüzzaman used this rule very intelligently in his works in terms ofat explaining the wisdom behind seeming realities. manay-Ii harfi. For example, in the answer to the second question under the Twelfth Letter, Bediüzzaman uses the Pareto Principle persuasively as an answer to the following question: “As sending Prophets has caused many or even most people to become unbelievers because of Satan’s seduction, how can you say that creating evil things and acts is good, that raising Prophets is a mercy for humanity?”

In this answer, Bediüzzaman emphasizes the importance of quality over quantity. According to him, quantity has no importance in relation to quality. Moreover, Bediüzzaman shows that it is not an evil to lose atheists and hypocrites, who are many but less important in terms of quality, when you compare them with prophets, saints, and the righteous who are few, in terms of quantity. It is interesting that he uses a twenty percent to eighty percent ratio in each of his two examples:

“As quality is always far more important than quantity, we should consider only qualitative values in making our judgment. To cite an example: 100 date-stones are worth only 100 cents until they are planted and grow into palm trees. But if only 20 grow into trees and the remaining 80 rot because of over-watering, how can you say it is an evil to plant and water them? Everyone would agree that it is wholly good to have 20 trees at the expense of 80 date-stones, since 20 trees will give 20,000 date-stones.

Again, 100 peacock eggs are worth maybe 500 cents. But if she sits on the eggs and only 20 hatch, who can say it is an evil that 80 eggs were spoiled in return for 20 peacocks? On the contrary, it is wholly good to have 20 peacocks at the expense of 80 eggs, because the 20 peacocks will be worth far more than the eggs and will lay more eggs.”

In another example, Bediüzzaman explains why he remained distant from politics in the Thirteenth Letter as a response to the third question:

“…We are travelers in this world. Basing myself on the Qur’an’s light, I say that humanity has reached a marsh in this century. Whole caravans of humanity are trying, with great difficulty, to advance in this putrid marsh. A small minority follow a safe way and some have extricated themselves, but the majority continues to flail around in the dark. Although 20 percent of this majority seems quite happy with this struggle, mistaking its dirt and filth for musk and ambergris, whereas the other 80 percent knows that it is in a filthy marsh but cannot see the safe path (leading them out). We must bring that majority out of the marsh. To do so, we must use a mace to knock the 20 percent back to its senses or provide the 80 percent with a light to see a way to safety. I see that most people hold maces, but almost no one gives light to the helpless 80 percent. If some still have light, they are not trusted because they also carry maces. People are afraid of being beaten after being drawn to the light. Besides, the light may be extinguished

if the mace is broken.”

In this example, Bediüzzaman states that the first thing that needs to be done for those who have deviated from the right path is to show them the Qur’anic truths instead of helping them through politics which is associated with hitting someone on the head. Again it is interesting to see that Bediüzzaman used the Pareto Principle to explain the example. Bediüzzaman considers human beings to be walking in a dark swamp. Moreover, he believes that the priority is to enlighten most of the people’s road (eighty percent) with a small (twenty percent) effort, rather than to help a small number of people (twenty percent) with a large amount of political power (eighty percent of effort).

In the Twenty-Eighth Letter’s seventh matter, Bediüzzaman emphasizes that twenty percent of scholars surpasses the other eighty percent in terms of quality while he is examining how strong truths seem weak in the hands of weak people: “Eighty percent of mankind are not investigative scholars who can penetrate to reality, recognize reality as reality and accept it as such. They rather accept matters by way of imitation, which they hear from acceptable and reliable people, in consequence of their good opinions of them.”

Therefore, it is possible to say that Bediüzzaman, an investigative observer, found the Pareto Principle without using any contemporary methods such as surveys. Besides being known as an eminent Islamic Scholar and Saint of Islam admired by most of the people, Bediüzzaman use of mathematics, physics, astronomy, and sociology in the Risale-i Nur show us how to contemplate the universe using modern science.

Persuasion through Probability in the Risale-i Nur

Bediüzzaman often uses mathematical logic and probability in his works which were written to save the faith from evil (thought). For instance, under the section on the stratagems of Satan in the Twenty-Ninth Letter, Bediüzzaman states how harmful it can be if you use the feeling of fear against its purpose of creation. He gives an example of how he persuaded a person, who had to fear of drowning, to embark on a boat willingly without any fear through giving an excellent example of probability:

An important man (may God’s mercy be upon him) was afraid to travel by boat. One evening, we went to Galata bridge to take the ferry to Eyup.

He did not want to get on, saying that he feared he would drown. When I asked him how many boats were in the Golden Horn, he replied that there might be as many as one thousand. When I asked him how many boats sank each year, he replied usually one or two, and sometimes none.

I made this analogy: “Since a year has 365 days, your chance of drowning is 1:365,000. Why does such a small chance scare you?” I asked: “How much longer do you expect to live?” He answered: “Maybe 10 years; I am old already.” I contunied: “As there are 3,650 days in 10 years, your chance of dying today is 1:3,650. But since we do not know when we will die, you could die at any time. So repent and weep! Write your last will and testament!”

Seeing the truth in my words, he got on the boat even though trembling. On the boat, I told him: “God Almighty placed fear in our nature so that we might preserve our life, not ruin it. He did not give us fear to make life an unbearable burden full of pain and torment. If there is a risk of 1:2 or 1:3 or 1:4, or at most 1:5 or 6, it may be permissible and tolerable to fear and avoid the risk. But to fear a chance of 1:20, 1:30, or 1:40 is groundless suspicion, a sort of paranoia that changes life into a torment.”

According to a recent report by the UN, factors like climate change and high demand for energy are the main reasons for switching to alternative sources, among which biogas is an essential one. The same report also indicates that increasingly higher shares of budgets are spent on biogas, solar and wind energy research.

What is Biogas?

Biogas is a mixture that is produced by microorganisms during the decomposition of vegetable and animal wastes in an oxygen-free environment. It consists of methane (60–70%), carbon dioxide (30–40%) and hydrogen-sulfide (0–2%). For its production, plant seeds that are rich in oil (e.g. sunflower), vegetables rich in carbohydrates (e.g. potato, wheat, corn, beet), fiber-rich plants (e.g. flax), other plant and tree remains (e.g. branches, hay, roots, bark), and animal remains can be utilized as raw material. Municipal and industrial waste can also be utilized on the condition that they are purified from inorganic materials like plastic and glass.

Biogas is an environmentally friendly energy source that is easy to produce almost anywhere. Biogas production capacity is directly proportional to the agricultural level of a country. Its ease of production and relatively higher efficiency compared to other renewable energy sources make it particularly important for countries which are not self-sufficient in energy production.

Biogas production in reactors

Biogas is produced by two main methods. In one case, the amount of biogas that can be extracted from the available organic waste is calculated. Then reactor tanks are designed according to the rate of production. In the other case, the energy requirement of a certain system (in terms of biogas energy) is calculated first, and then the reactors are built accordingly. The main concern in both designs is of course achieving the maximum efficiency and ease with minimum cost.

We can list the parameters in the design of a reactor tank as follows:

– Type and amount of organic material

– Type and amount of raw material

– Meeting the heat requirement of the chemical process

– Mixing various materials in appropriate proportions

Currently, reactors that are fed with raw materials on a daily basis are widely used in rural areas. This type of reactor is known as a continuous reactor. In cases where daily feeding is not possible, semi-continuous reactors are used instead. In this second type, re-feeding of the reactor is not necessary till the end of the first production cycle, but at the end of each cycle, the reactors have to be emptied and cleaned for the next cycle.

Keeping the temperature of the medium at the correct level is crucial. Solar energy can be used to manage this. It can help heat the liquid mixture up to the desired temperature and prevent the heat loss in certain designs by providing the green-house effect.

Implementing in daily use

How to implement biogas as an alternative source of energy in real life is surely an important subject. Currently, energy production from biogas is carried out either by direct burning or enriching and converting it into other forms of fuel to be used in industry.

One may wonder how good biogas really is compared to current energy sources. In terms of biogas production capacity, 440 lbs of food waste is equivalent to the daily manure production from 5 cows. From this much food waste or manure, 88 ft of biogas can be obtained. In terms of energy, this is equivalent to 9 lbs of wood, or 3 lbs of charcoal or 0.16 gallons of coal oil, 1.5 lbs of gasoline and finally 56.50 ft of natural gas. What can we really do with this much energy? Here is a small list of things we can do:

– cook 3 meals a day for a normal size family for 3 days

– run a 2-horsepower engine for an hour

– keep a 60–100 Watt lamp on for six hours, which is approximately 1.25kWh electrical energy

– heat two bedrooms daily

Humanitarian issues

Although when the western developed countries are considered, biogas is an excellent way of making use of waste food and other organic remains, it still calls for global thinking. In western countries, cutting food waste and turning it into useable energy is an advantage of biogas. Whether that energy is really needed is another issue to think about. People need to evaluate honestly how much energy they really need; they must consider the lights that are left on for no purpose, the heating and cooling systems that are over-used for extreme comfort, the excess of food they leave on plates and the pots of food dumped in the trash… Besides, in much of the rest of the world, there is malnutrition and a shortage of food. So, a straightforward question is, “Is it fair to consume edibles to make energy that we do not necessarily need, while there are people suffering from hunger?”

Biogas clearly holds promise to resolve both the energy problem and the environmental crisis of our modern days. However, will it ever be possible to find resources that can satisfy the consumption needs of a humanity that lacks virtues such as contentment and the desire to share?

Bekir Mugayitoğlu is an environmental engineer. He lives in West Virginia, USA.

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

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

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

Impulse, direction, and momentum

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

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

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

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

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

P = a x M + b x V

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

P = c x M2 x V5

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

Pbullet = c x m2 x Vb5 = 1011

Ptrain = c x M2 x Vt5 = 1010 Vt5

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

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

P = d x MV2

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

P = MxV

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

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

“It is I who created you out of a pool of mud and it is again I who resurrected you after your death. Yet, you object to me and complain about the good things I have done for you?”
“Father! God commands me to respect my parents but not to obey them if they should encourage me to associate partners with Him. You are no more than a servant bringing the blessings of God to me; and you are no more than a human, just like me.”
“You have been blinded by the stories of old times…”

Science and technology have developed tremendously over the last century and are still developing. Almost everyday we see new and improved instruments entering our daily lives, such as cellular phones, the Internet, faster cars and planes. Each of these instruments changes our life styles and affects our relations with other people. However, there are always two ways to use the technology that produces these instruments. It can be used for the common good of humanity, thereby turning this world into a paradise. Alternatively, technology can be exploited for the benefit of a certain group of people at the expense of human rights and moral values. Particularly in the twentieth century, we have witnessed several examples of genocide, terrorist bombings, and destructive actions that threaten humanity, each carried out with a strong technological infrastructure. Therefore, humanity is facing a severe challenge in the face of the opportunities brought by technology. One has to ask, “How are we doing in terms of evaluating the powers we have been given? Considering the future of science and technology, are we ready to handle much greater power?” In this article, let us travel to the future to see the state of science and technology so that we can have an idea about the increasing importance of moral values in the face of the expanding powers that mankind can exercise.

First, we need a reliable means of transport to take our imagination to the future and to obtain accurate and useful data. According to Said Nursi, the miracles that the messengers of God showed and other miraculous historical events related in the Qur’an are clues about the future limits of science and technology.¹ So, we are going to embark on these miracles and survey the future level of science.

Transportation and communication

The miracles that help us on this way come from the prophets Muhammad, Solomon, and the people of the cave (the seven sleepers). It is reported that on the night of the Ascension (Isra 17:1), Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem and from there to the heavens, receiving direct revelation from God, and then returned to Mecca (621 AD). When he returned, his bed was still warm.

The other event, which is from Prophet Solomon, is concerned with the transportation of the throne of the queen of Sheba. It is reported that either Solomon himself or a servant of his brought the throne of the queen of Sheba from a long distance in a time less than a blink of an eye (Naml 27:38-40). It is also said in the Qur’an that Solomon was able to travel one month’s distance in a night. It is interesting that the distances referred to are given in terms of time and not with an exact distance as “so many kilometers.” This shows that the distance traveled within a given time frame is relative. It is a fact that we can observe if we compare the mode of travel today to that of the 1700’s. Today, the distances traveled in spaceflight correspond to years of travel in the past. Similarly, one month’s travel with the available technology today will be traveled over night in the future. Therefore, this verse gives an indication that it will be possible to cover long distances in a short time as technology advances.

The people of the cave are reported as the few Christians of their time who escaped the prosecution of the local Roman government. During their seclusion or refuge in a cave, they felt that they had slept for a night or even less. However, the Qur’an tells us that they slept for 300 years (Kahf 18:9-26).

The first three events explained above, i.e. the Miraj, the transportation of throne of the queen of Sheba, the travels of Solomon, are related to traveling long distances in a very short time, which can be understood as the contraction of space, as well. Traveling one month’s distance over night and the passage of 300 years over night, on the other hand, are related to the slowing of time for a group of people, which can be interpreted as the contraction of time. If we look at the future with the clues given in these miracles, we see that distance in space and time will lose its meaning. Due to the high speed of transportation, the entire world, perhaps even the solar system, will become a village. This fact is depicted in a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad in which he says that “the approaching or contraction of time and space is a sign of the end of time.”²

Medicine and cybernetics

Medicine has been the common point on which many prophets showed miracles. Therefore, much can be said about this subject, if all of these miracles are examined. For brevity, some key events are going to be discussed here. Both Jesus (Al Imran 3:49) and Muhammad,³ peace be upon them, showed many miracles concerning the healing of the ill or disabled people. Considering that those illnesses were incurable at the time, the mentioned miracles tell that every illness eventually can be treated with a proper cure.⁴ For instance, it is known that both prophets healed the blind by God’s leave. It is not surprising today to hear some blind people gaining the ability to see after a successful operation. Another promise in this context is the removal of the effects of old age. This is expressed by “the conception of a baby at old age,” which happened with the wives of the Prophets Abraham (15:53-55) and Zachariah (19:2-11). These prophets had sons as a response to their prayers when both themselves and their wives were at significantly old age.

In terms of human birth, the creation of Adam, and the birth of Jesus are examples of human birth that did not follow the regular ways we are used to. According to Qur’an, Jesus, peace be upon him, was created without a father (Al Imran 3:47); and Adam was created with neither a father nor a mother (Hijr 15:28-29), but rather he was created out of mud. In conjunction with these birth cases, consider the following miracle of Jesus. It is told in the Qur’an that, with an order from God, Jesus made the figure of a bird out of mud, and then blew on to it. With the leave of God, the “bird-shaped mud” became an actual bird and flew off (Al Imran 3:49). These two unusual birth cases and the creation of a living bird out of mud give a clue about the possibility of obtaining human generations, or even other animals, without needing biological parents. The creation of living organisms out of mud can also be interpreted as a sign of the future level of cybernetics, when humans will be able to make androids that can emulate the living creatures in many aspects.

Another branch of the miracles under this subject is about the reviving of the dead. Prophets Moses (Baqara 2:72-73), Jesus (Al Imran 3:49) and Muhammad,⁵ peace be upon them, all showed miracles about reviving of the dead. Prophet Abraham, also, experienced a parallel event as a response to one of his prayers (Baqara 2:260). He asked for a sign from God about the resurrection. God told him to acquire four birds, and tame them; then to slaughter the birds, mix their flesh, and distribute this mixture to four mountaintops. When Abraham called the birds back, each flew back to him all resurrected to their original bodies. All these mean that near the end of time, with the advancements in medicine, it will be possible to sustain the life of the people who have deadly illnesses or injuries, or in other words, people who might have died according to our understanding today.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to take a moment here to discuss the meaning of certain terms in conjunction with the abilities given to humankind through science. When we refer to the creation as done by God, we talk about an action that needs nothing as its starting point, i.e. God does not need earth or natural laws to create living beings, or others to help Him acquire the knowledge on that matter. But, when we talk about creation as done by humans, then we have to account for some raw material, and an acquired knowledge, which is the common scientific heritage of humanity. Without proper education and mindset, it is an inherent temptation to engage the meanings associated with God’s creation to our actions. So, one has to watch out for this kind of corruption that can eventually harm the faith.

Death and resurrection are two other terms to be clarified in this context. Consider a patient with a chronic heart disease whose heart has been replaced by an artificial one with a surgery; or, think about a patient who entered a shock due to a deadly accident, and recovered upon undergoing several operations and receiving intensive care. If we were to have someone from, say, 10th century witness these examples, it would look like the doctors are resurrecting the dead, or extending the life of an almost dead. Similarly, with the further advancements in medicine, we may reach a point where all illnesses are cured and average life expectancy grows to three-digit years of age. For example, a person whose body is severely crushed in an accident or was severely burned in a fire may be brought back to life with complete health. With the eyes of today, this would look like resurrecting the dead. Nevertheless, it will be the recovery of someone who has not died, yet, according to the understanding of that time. So, the above examples point to the fact that there is a difference between death and severe disruptions in the functioning of the body due to different reasons. These disruptions force the soul and the spirit of the individual change the form of life they are experiencing, and death is an irreversible change of form of life. However, there are other intermediary forms of life between the form that is attained after death and the form we are experiencing now.⁶

A person who may look like dead can actually be alive but experiencing the conditions of a different form until actual death comes when one”s soul leaves the body or a medical recovery occurs. Within this context, the medical technology we practice is a permission of interference with the execution of the life among these different forms. As humanity grows older, we learn the extents of the permission we are given, and use it for the betterment of life. A natural question at this point is that if we will ever be able to achieve eternal life using technology. We do know that no matter what we do in this world, there will be an ultimate end to the life of the universe and everything in it. So, we can strive for the betterment and extension of life in this world, but there is an appointed time of death for everyone and everything, which cannot be brought nearer or farther with human interference. For this reason, it is possible that people who do not have strong faith are going to be inclined towards the assumption that they are achieving immortality with medical achievements. Nevertheless, it is God who enables us to exercise control and power in this universe, and it is Him who is going to bring the ultimate death to everybody and everything as He promised.

Space science

Two miracles from the Qur’an related to this subject are the splitting of the moon by the Prophet Muhammad, and the travels of Dhu al-Qarnayn. The first sign, which was the parting of the moon (Qamar 54:1-2), is further discussed and explained in the Risale-i Nur7 and in the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.⁸ According to these resources, one night, as a miracle shown primarily to the Meccan people, the moon split into two with a gesture of the Prophet”s finger, and then reunited. This event might be an indication of the force that powers future explorations into space; a force that can part the heavenly bodies into pieces. As far as the second miracle, it is told in the Qur’an that in one of his journeys, Dhu al-Qarnayn met some people who lived on a place that did not have a veil to protect them from their sun (Kahf 18:90). In another verse (Anbiya 21:32), the Qur’an describes the atmosphere as a protecting-cover around the earth. Based on these two verses, it is reasonable to imagine that the people mentioned are living on a planet that does not have an atmosphere. The only way to achieve sustained human existence on a planet without an atmosphere is to have advanced technology that will enable the traveling of long distances in space within reasonable time and that will help establish a human-friendly environment with all the vital supplies.

The end of time

Now, imagine the world with the aspects discussed until here: We, humans, can travel worldwide instantly, go to different places in the universe within reasonable time, and establish settlements on the planets that do not have an atmosphere. Besides, due to advances in medicine, all medical problems are cured, and as a result, our average life increases to limits that are beyond imagination. In terms of engineering and cybernetics, we can make machines that serve us like human servants… If all these come true, then people will be tempted to forget that they are just mortal creatures. Likewise, too proud of the scientific achievements they made, some people might doubt of God”s existence, imagining their human selves as the maker of everything. They might start asking if “the stories of the ancient people about the existence of a God and a judgment day” were real. Some people might literally start considering themselves as gods. Very few people will persist to believe in God, and say, “all this is given to us out of God”s grace; our capabilities are His signs for us and He is certainly able to bring the end of time; and He will do so as He promised in His holy books.” This will be the time when humanity will have concluded its developmental journey in terms of science, exercising full power as the representatives of divinity in the universe. These trends are explained in similar ways in some of the hadiths9 of the Prophet Muhammad.

Along with these hadiths, it is a thought-provoking fact that the example of the Pharaoh, who rebelled against God by claiming divinity, is mentioned in different chapters of the Qur’an: The Pharaoh said: “O Haman! Build me a lofty tower so that I may attain the ways; the ways of (peering into) the skies, and that I may have a look at the God of Moses, even though I am sure that he is a liar.” Thus were his evil deeds decked out to be appealing to the Pharaoh, and he was debarred from the (right) way. And the scheme of the Pharaoh ended in nothing but destruction. (Mu”min 40:36-37) In analogy to the example of Pharaoh, with the ability to control everything, people might start defying God in their thoughts, feelings and actions. Due to their corrupt situation, this state is going to look appealing to them, as in the case of Pharaoh. The end of such a period will be “the end of time,” and God will end everything with the catastrophic events that are explained in detail in the Qur’an. Whether all these events come just like explained here or not, this is an imaginative journey to the future based on the interpretation of some of the clues given in religious sources. As you take your breaths at this very moment, realize that we are not there, yet. Although it is in our hands to yield to bad moral values, thereby bringing our own end in this universe, it is also in our hands to achieve the high moral and religious values, which are heavenly technologies, to extend our existence in this world and receive the eternal prosperity.

Notes

1. Nursi, S., The Words, 20th Word, p. 266, The Light, Inc., Istanbul: 2005.
2. Gulen, M.F., The Messenger of God: Muhammad, The Light, Inc., New Jersey: 2005, p. 60.
3. Nursi, S., The Letters 1, 19th Letter, Truestar, Izmir: 1995, pp. 165-172.
4. Bukhari, Kitab al-Tibb, 1.
5. Nursi, 1995, p. 188.
6. Nursi, 1995, p. 1-3.
7. Nursi, 1995, pp. 254-259.
8. Bukhari, Manaqib, 27.
9. Gulen, 2005, p. 49.

Jacques Derrida¹

For over two thousand years despotism has been used by the West as a concept for slandering systems that differ from it. What this means is that the term itself is European. It was used against the French king as a means of opposition. It was also used by Montesquieu and Engels as a strategy of accusation against Oriental regimes. Karl Wittfogel attempted to adopt it for the case of Soviet Russia, but he did not succeed, because the term has been indexed to the East since the time of ancient Greece. The East for the Greeks was Persia, then, it became Seljuk-Ottoman Empire and the Mongols for a while.

“Enlightened despotism” was used in positive terms for Frederic the Great and Catherine II; however, even this positive attempt did not conceal this myth or alleviate the burden of this prejudice. To sum up, the term despotism has cast a silhouette over the Eurasian map since the time of Aristotle’s Politics. What is more, the notions developed in the West still dominate today, even in the mindset of some “intellectuals” in the East.

There have been many books written on this subject. Edward Said struggled greatly at the beginning with his Orientalism, published in 1978, and in subsequent studies. There has been much research conducted on the problems and contradictions of Eurocentrism. In 1748 Montesquieu presents us with a discussion of despotism in his The Spirit of Laws. However, his outmoded theory was found to be ridiculous by Voltaire at the time and by Anquetil-Duperron thirty years later in 1778.

In fact, the aim of the “Eastern Orientalists” is clear: they are trying to find an explanation for the lack of development in the East. Montesquieu-who invented the term despotism while criticizing the French king-would be pleased if he could hear the repercussions of his theory still haunting Eastern history after 250 years. The philosophers of the Enlightenment were very clever men, they used special terms for special aims, and the myth of “Oriental despotism” is one of the terms used for multiple aims.

The French thinker Louis Althusser analyzes and criticizes Montesquieu in his book Politics and History.2 Althusser first of all tries to “understand” the thinker he is examining. He evaluates works by Montesquieu in general terms and he divides the thoughts into themes. Despotism is one of these themes.

Althusser thinks that Montesquieu’s main aim was not to defend a republic or a democracy against despotism, but rather to support monarchy and make it something that the King would opt for. Therefore, he continually tries to frighten the King with the specter of despotism, a degenerated form of monarchy. He wanted to show the King that if you abuse the monarchy you will become a despot, like that of the Turkish and Chinese states. His warning was, “Be careful not to abuse the monarchy!”

Montesquieu was not an innocent philosopher merely giving advice to his ruler. Philosophers are at least as far removed from innocence as politicians are. However, Althusser does not see things so simple. He thinks that Montesquieu uttered these “great ideas” in order to consolidate the importance of the feudal lords, of whom he was one, in the eyes of the King.

According to Althusser, Montesquieu was trying to bring back the interests of his class that would be lost by centralizing the monarchy.3 Montesquieu was in the camp of the feudal rightist party and he was constantly criticizing Louis XIV-a monarch who represents French monarchy at its peak; he was advising him not to be a despot. If the French king became drawn into the sphere of despotism, then the privileges and rights of the upper classes would be abolished, and they would have to hand over not only their power, but also their wealth to the control of the central authority. Montesquieu lists all the problems inherent in despotism; Louis XIV would continue to distribute offices that had formerly belonged to the aristocrats-a practice started by Cardinal Richelieu-to the newly emerging bourgeoisie, and the logical consequence of this is that Louis XIV would come close to establishing a tyranny.4

Here is what Montesquieu said clearly: Despotism is a regime of fear. There is only one ruler. There are no intermediaries between the King and the people. The despot who rules arbitrarily does stand much of a chance if the people, living like a herd of animals, were to rebel against him en masse. Despotism can not oppose rebellions because the King will be the only target of a huge upsurge, and therefore the life of the king and the continuity of the regime can easily be threatened. However, if there are intermediary classes-of which Montesquieu was a member-who stand between the king and the people, they would be the target of the masses. The king would be free from blame and he would not be a direct target. Finally, Montesquieu concludes: “O Kings! Distance yourself from despotism if you want to protect your reign from the violence of the people.”5

Montesquieu denigrates despotism, particularly in his Letters from Persia, by giving examples from the administration of the Ottoman sultan and the Iranian shah (the Ottomans and the Safavids became the devils in this despotism context and were the parties accused of despotism).6 Yet, as Althusser cleverly recognized, Montesquieu’s problem was not with the Ottoman Empire or Iran. They were just distorted mirrors, fake images, or boogeyman chosen to serve the aim of the feudal rightist opposition that was trying to stand against the king. In short, Althusser wanted the Turks and the Ottomans to be left alone and he was calling for European thought to confess their faults.

Concepts should be perceived as an umbrella rather than as a shopping bag into which we can cram everything. If we use them in the latter fashion then, as implied by Braudel, they tell us nothing, while trying to tell everything. Likewise, Karl Popper-a philosopher of science-was right when he said if we do not limit a concept, a theory, or a scheme and if we try to use it to explain everything, then it is difficult to call it scientific. This is also true for the concept of despotism. If this term is used in an unrestricted sense and is universalized, there will be a superficiality that eliminates all minor differences within the concept. This leads to an evaporation of the deep meanings that are hidden in the nuances, an atrophy of complex thinking and an establishment of thinking based on limits and ease. Because of this we need to talk about multiple despotisms rather than unique despotism.

In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, 7 there are four meanings for the term despotism:

1. In political terms, despotism emerged for the first time in the war between the Persians and Greeks in 5th century B.C. However, the term was formulated by Aristotle. According to him, despotism was an administration confined to Asian barbaric people. Therefore, the first conceptual iron door between Asia and Europe was constructed by Aristotle, who is known as “the first teacher” in Islamic philosophy. According to him, Asian peoples are natural born slaves and are accustomed to living under the authority of a single leader. He thought that their power was derived from despotism. However, since Greek (Europeans) people were superior to Asians in terms of rational capability and spirit, they should be the rulers. Thus, despotism was commonly used in a pejorative sense.

2. In the 16th century, the colonial powers that went to discover new lands to plunder frequently remembered Aristotle’s legitimizing despotism concept. The slave trade was inspired by this ancient obsession with despotism. The people who divided the world into two camps, the free and the barbaric, like Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, and Grotius, believed that the soldiers of European republics were more virtuous than those of the barbarians. According to this belief, it was therefore acceptable for the virtuous to convert the slavish barbarians into slaves.

3. In the 17th and 18th centuries two opposing groups in France, the French aristocrats and the Huguenots (French Protestants, some of who took refugee in the Ottoman Empire after the Edict of Nantes) used the term despotism as a tool of criticism for a European state. Therefore, the content of the term despotism expanded to European rulers who were ruling over free people. In conclusion, the term became two-sided; one for “Western despotism” and the other for “Eastern.” The despotism concept of Montesquieu emerged in the context of this century.

4. There is one other thesis which originated from the Swedish-born French liberal Benjamin Constant and was developed by Tocqueville. This thesis argues that the term of despotism had lost its ancient and original meaning after the French Revolution. These discussions allowed despotism to enter European politics and led to many interesting discussions, like “democratic despotism” or “the tyranny of the majority.”

After all these definitions those of Hegel, Marx, Weber, J. Stuart Mill, and Wittfogel follow; these are not very different in the main line of thought, also seeing despotism as something reserved for the East. They use terms “petrification, “resistance to change” and “static” as symbols of despotism and see it as the reason why eastern societies did not create democratic tendencies and a civil society.

Edward Said in his Orientalism has already shown that the concept of “the East” is a fiction. To put it more correctly, it is an image constructed by the European imperial subject in his mind and then imposed on the world. Therefore, there is no fixed “reality” of the East; rather there is only the ideologically distorted image of the “East” constructed over the ages in the Western imagination. Yet, our mission seems more difficult, as Said does not present us with any clue that can differentiate the “factual” and “fictional” faces of the East. He only diagnoses the existence of the fiction and analyzes the roles of the most important actors (Orientalists) in creating such a fiction. This critical tradition of Orientalism developed greatly after the pioneering role of Edward Said. According to his perception, the East has been singly constructed in the West. Arif Dirlik in his The Postcolonial Aura elegantly criticizes Said”s thought and says that Said is obsessed with external Orientalists; however, Dirlik puts it that Said seems to be unable to recognize the internal Orientalists among easterners.

According to Dirlik, Edward Said takes Orientalism as something that has finished; however Dirlik suggests that it is a continuing process. Thus, he advises that we closely examine local compradors. He asks the question that if there were not collaborationists in the “Orient” would it be so easy for a perspective like Orientalism to settle there? Finally, departing from the Chinese example, he tries to display how Asian intellectuals supported and adopted the Orientalist discourse at its birth and throughout its evolution, and how they worked hard in order to make their societies adopt this perspective.8 This striking thought of Arif Dirlik may facilitate our task, as it is very interesting to note how eastern intellectuals adopted a pejorative and humiliating term like eastern despotism for defining their own histories without questioning and criticizing it, how they were able to take on the habit of seeing their societies through the eyes of a Western subject and in the name of liberation and modernization. According to this approach, the commoditization of Chinese culture and its presentation as a static and petrified entity and marketing it like a commodity to Western people are one side of the Orientalization of the Orient itself.

The other side is glorifying the superior Western race, its land and its culture after humiliating the Orient. Furthermore, the East believes that if it possesses superior properties to that of the West it will be also superior and have a free-minded society. To sum up, much as Hegel strived to achieve, Easterners have put themselves onto this scale of frozen, static and unchanging societies because that is what the West thinks of them. So we have to admire the success of the Orientalist project. Lucette Valensi, in his encompassing and striking study, The Birth of the Despot: Venice and the Sublime Porte, draws conclusions from reports of Venetian ambassadors and arrives at how the concept of the “despot” was constructed in Europe. He says that the Ottoman sultan had not been called a despot and the Ottoman order had not been conceptualized as despotism before. On the contrary, the power, brilliance, and progressiveness of the Ottoman administration were often discussed.

However, beginning with the 17th century, the discourses of the Venetian ambassadors started to change. It was strange, according to Valensi, how the “grand Turc” was transformed into a “despot” in the 17th century. He rightfully asks why the Venetian ambassadors had glorified the Ottoman sultan until the 16th century and then humiliated him in the 17th century. It is clear that there was a change in the Venetian perspective of the Ottomans during this century. As Valensi himself elegantly points out: In the end, the ambassadors and then Montesquieu dressed an ancient Greek concept in a Turkish robe. To say it more correctly, that time is not very distant from us. The fantasy of pure power follows us and transforms its vision continuously.9 According to Valensi, Oriental despotism is just an image reflected onto non-western societies by the West in order to satisfy its fantasy of power. Yet, this image reflects the passion of power in the West; a passion that desires to be as powerful as the Ottomans. Voltaire declares the concept of despotism as presented by his contemporary Montesquieu as ridiculous; he defends that a mass of people ruled by a regime led by a single leader cannot survive; even though it might be possible for it to remain standing, it will not be for long. There was no despotic rule according to Voltaire because it could not exist. It is nothing less than a lie to talk about the existence of such a regime.

As I mentioned above, the concept of despotism, which Voltaire found absurd and fictive, has been used with the aim of concealing rather than describing, complicating rather than explaining. However, we should direct our energy and attention to understanding the facts rather than thinking within limits and fantasies. Then, our attempt to find the realities will remind us that our past is not “a foreign country,” it will give us sound clues about our present and past. Likewise, Voltaire, addressing Montesquieu, explained the Ottoman reality to those who thought like Montesquieu. Voltaire underlined that not only were the Turks free, but they also did not discriminate according to class. Their only criterion of privilege was merit. The facts Voltaire provides about the Ottomans are in complete contrast with the fiction. In conclusion, when carefully examined, myths like “Oriental despotism” do not amount to anything more than European fantasies about the East. Seeing despotism as an oriental concept is no more realistic than the Western misconception of the harem, where the sultan is depicted with hundreds of women. As long as we adopt orientalist presumptions without thoroughly questioning them, we will be unable to tell where the fictional ends and where the factual starts.

Notes

1. Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, The John Hopkins University Press, 1976, p.80
2. Louis Althusser, Politika ve Tarih: Montesquieu-Rousseau, (Politics and History: Montesquieu-Rousseau) Ankara: Verso, 1987. Translated by Alaattin Azenel and Ömür Sezgin.
3. For this transitional period, the seigneurs or landlords were delivering their rights to central government, that is, the central state was becoming a universal seigneurate, see W. H. Lewis, The Splendid Century: Life in the France of Louis XIV, Anchor Books, 1957, pp. 73-79.
4. Stephan J. Lee, Aspects of European History, 1494-1789, Routledge, 1986, p. 167.
5. Micheal Curtis, “The Oriental Despotic Universe of Montesquieu&”, Princeton Papers in Near Eastern Studies, n. 3, 1994, pp. 1-33.
6. Montesquieu, Ãran Mektuplari (Letters from Persia), Anka, Istanbul, 2001, p. 88-89. Translated by Muhiddin Gaklu.
7. David Miller (ed), The Blackwell Encylopedia of Political Thought, Blackwell, 1998.
8. Arif Dirlik, Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism, Westview Press, 1998
9. Lucette Valensi, The Birth of the Despot: Venice and the Sublime Porte (Despotun Dogusu: Venedik ve Bab-i Âli), tr. A. Turgut Arnas, Baslam, Istanbul: 1994.

Metaphors also play an important role in science. Cognitive scientists, who continue to research how language evolved and which tools the mind uses during this process, state that metaphors are widely used tools. Scientists use language, as well as graphs and equations, to explain their models. Therefore metaphors are essential in learning and teaching science. In this article, we will present a few examples of metaphorical thinking in science and how it guides science in new directions that could lead to breakthroughs. We will be concerned mainly with the machine metaphor that affected the way we picture the world.

A short history

Metaphor derives from the Greek verb methaphora (to transport or transfer). George Lakoff, professor of linguistics at the University of California”Berkeley, and philosopher Mark Johnson explain the essence of metaphor as understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. We generally use analogies to make less familiar things appear in guises that are more familiar to us. For example, we try to picture time by associating it with a river. Chemists extend their knowledge of a poorly understood compound by finding similarities with familiar compounds. Biologists use biological mechanisms found in organisms to understand similar mechanisms in others. Luigi Galvani associated the transmission of nerve pulses to an electric current.

Metaphor can be defined as the mapping of a source domain onto a target domain. Throughout the history of science, water waves were used prototypically for understanding light waves. People tried to understand light (target domain) in terms of water waves (source domain). This mapping forced scientists to search for a medium”ether”that could propagate light waves, for water waves were propagated in water.

According to the English physicist Norman Campbell, every scientific theory requires the use of models to understand theoretical terms. For example, in order to comprehend the kinetic theory of gas, we must resort to an analogue model gas behaving as if it were composed of point particles randomly moving in a vessel. Metaphorical models help to improve the scientific imagination. But for scientists to take a model seriously, it must be expressible in terms of mathematical equations.

Sometimes, the symbolic representation of a mathematical relation can lead to a metaphor. For example, the space is time metaphor has an interpretation in molecular biology where millions of years (time) are encoded and contained in DNA (space). In addition, metaphors offer insight into mathematical phenomena. The basic example is the number line, which is the result of imagining numbers as points on a line.

The machine metaphor

From the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, the dominant metaphor was the machine metaphor: The world is a machine. This connection was made by Galileo (d. 1642), Descartes (d. 1650), Boyle (d. 1691), and Newton (d. 1727). They imagined the universe as a static, predictable machine. This worldview influenced our beliefs and psyche, as well as the way scientists, philosophers, and other intellectuals thought. Scientists started to think of everything in terms of a machine. Muscles were considered to be force-generating machines, nerves to be electronic machines, and photosynthesis to be a solar-powered machine. Lord Kelvin (d. 1907) characterized the universe as a galactic heat engine.

The machine metaphor led to reductionism in philosophy: If we wish to understand how a machine works, we look into its component parts. Descartes’ analytical method of reasoning is based on the assertion that complex phenomena can be understood by reducing them to simple phenomena. Biologists tried to understand living organisms, as well as bodily motions and functions, by reducing them to their constituents. More research was devoted to understanding the nature of genes. Physicist reduced gases’ properties to the motion of atoms or molecules. Locke (d. 1704) attempted to understand society by observing the behavior of individuals.

With the picture of a perfect world-machine, belief in a Creator became a logical necessity, since the machine implies an engineer. Even children know, as a part of their personal experience of reality, that a house implies a builder and a watch a watchmaker. As they study the more intricately complex nature of the human body or the ecology of a forest, it is highly unnatural to tell them to think of all these systems as chance productions of irrational processes.

Theologian William Paley (d. 1805) expressed this creationist view on page 98 of his Natural Theology as: There cannot be a design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement without a thing capable of arranging … Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. This Cartesian philosophy connoted the idea that The Hand of God had set the machine in motion at the beginning of creation. As everything had been determined by God already, nothing could be the result of chance. This view is known as determinism.

The computer metaphor

The computer, the current dominant machine, has become the modern era’s dominant metaphor. Visionary physicist Edward Fredkin characterizes the universe as a cosmological computer. The universe appears as a network of a dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated. Modern physicists do not consider the atom a basic building block; rather, it is a web of relations that includes human consciousness in an essential way. Modern biologists describe cells as distributive real-time computers. Making good use of the computer metaphor, they focus more on how neurons work together and how each cell interacts with its environment.

Sociologists study individuals and their social relationships. Psychologists and cognitive scientists use the analogy of a computer to understand the mind. Artificial intelligence is just one consequence of such modeling. The universe is no longer seen as a simple mechanical machine, but as a more complex high-tech computer system.

The computer metaphor supports the view of a dynamic universe more than Newton’s static universe. James Maxwell’s (d. 1879) electrodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), and Darwin’s (d. 1882) theory of evolution all involve dynamic concepts. Entropy describes the evolution of inanimate matter and states that inanimate systems tend to go from order to disorder. Entropy is an increase in disorder became a root metaphor at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Biologists describe evolution as a movement toward increasing order and complexity. Darwinian theory attributes biological complexity to the accumulation of mutations by natural selection. One factor that makes Darwinian theory a naturalistic philosophy more than an empirical science is its claims that all of these dynamic processes are a result of random chance. Natural selection is introduced as the mechanism that minimizes the effect of chance. According to Darwinism, probability governs the universe and there is no need for God.

There are probabilities in the quantum world as well. However, probability and uncertainty show the unpredictability of the outcomes of quantum measurements from a human perspective. This probabilistic vision of universe, contrary to Darwinian theory, deepened the consequences of the machine metaphor: God not only set the machine in motion eons ago, but is still governing the process of creation and changing the probability pattern.

Metaphors and paradigm shifts

According to Thomas Kuhn (d. 1996), metaphorical thinking becomes crucial at periods of scientific revolution and gives way to a paradigm shift. Distant analogies are probably the most useful in times of scientific revolution: Newton’s metaphor of an apple is a moon is of this kind. However, this metaphor became literal after it was understood that the same gravitational force that holds the apple to Earth is the same one that holds the moon in its orbit around Earth.

Kuhn’s paradigm shift and use of metaphors can best be seen in the history of exploring the atom. The atom was conceived first by Democritus (d. c. 370 BCE) as an impenetrable sphere. This analogy was used to explain the behavior of matter until the nineteenth century. Spherical analogy was discarded in favor of Ernest Rutherford’s (d. 1937) analogy between the solar system and the hydrogen atom.

The following interpretations followed the planetary model: The nucleus is more massive than the electron (just as the sun is more massive than the planet), the nucleus attracts the electron, this plus the mass relation causes the electron to revolve around the nucleus, and so on. Object descriptions are disregarded, for there is no attempt to match the nucleus with the sun in color, size, or temperature. Then, the atomic nucleus was analogized to a drop of water instead of to a body like the sun.

Now, in quantum mechanics, every particle is considered to be a probability wave, which is an abstract mathematical quantity. Scientists have not yet been able to put these waves into a metaphorical pictorial model, which makes them difficult to comprehend.

Metaphors in revealed texts

The following Qur’anic verses illustrate the use of metaphors in the Qur’an. Speaking of hypocrites who do not believe in God but nevertheless claim to believe, it states: Their parable is like the parable of one who kindled a fire, but when it had illumined all around him, God took away their light and left them in utter darkness”they do not see. Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back. Or like abundant rain from the cloud in which is utter darkness and thunder and lightning. They put their fingers into their ears because of the thunder peal, for fear of death, and God encompasses the unbelievers. The lightning almost takes away their sight. Whenever it shines on them they walk in it, and when it becomes dark to them they stand still. If God had willed, He would have taken away their hearing and their sight. God has power over all things. O people, serve your Lord, Who created you and those before you so that you may guard (against evil) (2:17-21).

Conclusion

Logic and mathematics are not enough to understand science. We need internal mental pictures to grasp new phenomena. When trying to understand unfamiliar phenomena, the mind thinks of them in metaphorical terms. This not only helps to explore new realms for scientific theories, but also can change the view we hold of the world.

References

• Behe, M. Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biomedical Systems. InterVarsity Press, 1999.
• Gentner, D., & Clement, C. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 307-358). New York: Academic Press.
• Hesse, Mary. Models and Analogies in Science. University of Notre Dame Press: 1966.
• Belal A. Baaquie and Lai Choy Heng, Department of Physics, National University of Singapore Method and Anti-Method in the Sciences: Metaphors and Scientific Creativity. http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natureslaw/methodology/anti_method/11.html
• Lakoff, G. and Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, 1995.
• Morris, Henry, ed. Scientific Creationism. 2d ed. Word Publishing: 1974.
• Paley, William. Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Online at: www.hti.umich.edu.

These terrorist attacks show that the perpetrators share none of the aims of Islam, such as spreading Islam peacefully. You cannot spread Islam to other people by bombing them. Is there anything in Islam which legitimizes this terrorist attack? Certainly not! Jihad is a totally different concept, and can be declared only when Islam has to be defended. But Islam does not have to be defended in America, for Islam is already acknowledged here as one of the three monotheist religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. This is not a superficial acknowledgment”6 million Muslims now live in America. Islam is not an imported religion, and this terrorist attack has nothing to do with American Muslims. On the contrary, it was perpetrated by outsiders having political”not religious”motivations.

The goals for which they are striving are not Islamic, but probably are related to the current political goals of certain people who manipulate Islam to legitimize their quest. I do not agree with Samuel Huntingtons well-known œclash of civilizations theory, in which Islam is approached as an enemy to the West and must be destroyed. On the other hand, the media (especially, those who supply the information and constantly oppose Islam) are striving to maintain an artificial adversarial sensitivity against Islam.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict underlies the clash of civilizations and, in a way, is the primary source of all these events. Mutual terror has been experienced throughout the 54 years of this conflict. Palestinians retaliated with counter-terror campaigns to Israel’s terror at the governmental level. This has affected millions of people not only in terms of religion but also in terms of national-political status. Israel attacks Palestinians not because they are Muslims but because they are Arab Palestinians. The fact that 20 percent of all Palestinians are Christians shows that this is not a religiously driven conflict. Nayef Hawatmeh and George Habash are leaders of Palestinian Democratic Public Front and are both Orthodox Christians. They began organizing suicidal attacks before HAMAS was even founded. The foremost significant supporters of Palestinians are Edward

Said and Albert Hourani, who are Protestant Christians and, respectively, prominent figures in literature and history.

The organizational formation of the terrorist group that launched the September 11th attacks deserves serious consideration. It seems that 60 to 70 people were actively involved; 19 of them are dead. But what about those who probably provided logistical support? How did they carry out their role unnoticed? For such an organization, there needs to be a mastermind, and I do not think that Bin Laden is the most likely candidate.

All types of terrorism, regardless of reason, are evil. While protesting terrorism, however, we should not ignore the reasons. America has to delve into the reasons and the roots of these events. It has to cast far-reaching look and search for real reasons, instead of dealing with symptoms. If America uses its power not to exercise sovereignty over others but to create a more peaceful world, this would serve its own interests. In addition, Muslims would benefit the most from it.

According to the author, Islams response to modernity has passed through three stages: revivalism, reform (including nationalism), and fundamentalism. Each has emerged from the former ones failure: the inability to achieve true independence, self-sustaining economic and scientific infrastructures, and a realistic alternative to a now-globalized system that marginalizes and ignores the Muslim world.

Lawrence builds his book around several arguments. First, Islam and being Muslim are not synonymous with being Middle Eastern Arabs, who are a minority within the fold of Islam. Second, the Islamic world is not a unified bloc, as shown by failures at attempts to unify individual countries or even to agree on what constitutes real Islam. Thus there is no basis for the Wests fear of a so-called clash of civilizations. Lawrence maintains that the likelihood of this happening is as remote as Canada, the United States, and Mexico uniting because they profess Christianity.

Third, fundamentalism has surged since the 1970s because of the failure of Arab nationalism, the use of oil money to create dependent rentier states, and the success of the Iranian revolution (1979). Other reasons include an omnipresent nation-state structure that blocks all outlets of legitimate protest, as well as the practices of every party trying to justify itself in terms of Islam because that is the most effective rallying cry.

Fourth, fundamentalists are mainly educated urban or newly urbanized young men who have little hope of finding a job after graduation, instead of the stereotypical types often presented in the media. Frustrated and angry, yes; but far from being uneducated, illiterate, and easily swayed by demagogues. What attracts them to fundamentalism is its black-and-white nature and its promises of a better and more just future. Unfortunately, fundamentalism preaches idealism and utopia, is destructive instead of constructive, and offers no viable alternative (Iran being the sole exception).

Throughout this book, Lawrence maintains that Iran is worth watching, for it is the social laboratory in which Islam is grappling with modernity on a daily basis. Another Muslim country worth watching is Malaysia, which has moved jihad from the battlefield to the economic and development plane by striving to become a fully modern industrialized nation by 2020. It appears to be the first Muslim country actively trying to disprove the assertion that Islam precludes such a transformation.

The author also discusses the role of women, a favorite media topic. Basing himself on several geographically distinct Muslim countries, he concludes that attempts to restrict women to the home, while often justified in Islamic terms by a patriarchal sociopolitical order, reflect the fact that there are not enough jobs to go around even for men. As long as the army remains one of the few ways of social and economic advancement, economies do not develop and expand, modern technical education remains beyond reach for most young people, and skilled foreign workers are hired because there are not enough trained local workers, this problem will persist.

Lawrence has done the reading public a great service by reaching beyond stereotypes and lazy scholarship to give us a much more realistic view of the Muslim world and its inhabitants.