Likewise, Aristotle considered metaphors a sign of language mastery and genius, but he also deemed them ornamental, appropriate for poetry but too enigmatic for philosophical or scientific discourse. On the contrary, Max Black articulated an influential alternative to traditional views of understanding metaphors. Having rejected Aristotle’s comparison as too simplistic, Black argued that metaphor is a communicative phenomenon operating not at the level of mere word meaning, but at the (ostensibly) deeper level of conceptual structure. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) put forward that metaphors establish the modal method through which the mind represents concepts that are not sensorial or perceptual in nature. Their conclusion is:

“Metaphor pervades our normal conceptual system. Because so many of the concepts that are important to us are either abstract or not clearly delineated in our experience (the emotions, ideas, time) we need to get a grasp on them by means of other concepts that we understand in clearer terms (spatial orientation, objects). This need leads to metaphorical definition in our conceptual system” (1980, 115).

Conceptual Metaphor has been the prime concern for translation scholars, academicians, and students. Scholars have tried to map and analyze conceptual metaphorical aspects in poetry and novels for a long time. But somehow, they face a series of confusions regarding the meanings of some conceptual metaphorical phrases. As Newmark (1988) holds, whilst the central problem of translation is the overall choice of a translation method for a text, the most important particular problem is the translation of metaphor. Conceptual Metaphor is often fully employed in literary texts and it is regarded as a challenge to ESL students and academicians.

According to Tone Aksberg Bjerkmo Johansen (2007), the process that constitutes a conceptual metaphor is when the knowledge of one field is epitomized onto another field. Conceptual Metaphors are normally used when expressions that represent our thoughts in a conventional way are being systematically used in everyday language. An example of conceptual metaphor is a metaphoric concept such as “Theories are buildings,” where we can partially conceptualize “Theories” in terms of “Buildings.” According to Lakoff and Johnson, metaphor has the tendency to highlight and hide certain aspects of the target concept. Another example is “A relationship is a journey,” which ascertains that the metaphor is measuring the progress in a relationship, but it does not give any idea of how this progress can be achieved. Metaphor is only a partial mapping as “not all the features of the source have analogs in the target,”

According to Apps (1995), metaphors have proven useful after examining different approaches to learning in adult education. Young (1996) states that, “Metaphors form visual constructs through which we associate, interpret and organize thought. They dominate and delimit our consideration of experience and phenomena. Because one’s metaphor of teaching and learning interacts with fundamental issues such as the nature of knowledge and the nature of persons, it impinges directly on the way pedagogical decisions are made” (p. 79).

Postman and Weingartner (1969) suggested that many adult educators conceptualize teaching and learning through the use of metaphors. Winner and Engel (1980) used a matching task where the classification of one item in terms of recurring similarity to another item was scored as metaphorical. Furthermore, Vosniadou and Ortony (1983) asked their participants to complete similarity statements, including similes. The expressions tested “were often constructed idiosyncratic metaphorical expressions instead of actual natural language expressions.”

Waggoner, Messe, and Palermo (1985) found out that the recollection and the construction of meaning for both literal and metaphorical expressions depends on the supporting contexts, such as extended and appropriately structured stories. Stones (1989) used short stories with familiar concrete nominal metaphors as targets and he found out that participants perform better when they are asked to paraphrase rather than explain the meaning of the metaphor. However, this has one drawback for children, as the meta-cognitive abilities that paraphrasing required usually develop late in childhood. Thus, such reasons could prevent participants from scoring well in the task.

For students who do not have a cultural orientation of the western background, metaphors from English Linguistics or English Literature textbooks might create confusion. According to Brown, “cultural knowledge” is too vast to teach in the context of English Literature, thus, ESL students should be taught “explicit strategies for making inferences from language” (1990, 11-17). Furthermore, Murray (1985, 7) states that without the inculcation of such strategies, students will interpret the texts according to their own background. Murray’s recommendations are based on the “Schema Theory” (Adams Collins 1979), which is the body of research into reading comprehension. According to Adams and Collins (1979), a schema can be characterized as an “abstract knowledge structure” in the memory and it functions by interpreting, storing, and retrieving new information. This theory concludes that texts on their own do not provide meanings, but rather they direct to readers the construct meaning based on what they have acquired previously.

References

• (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Ed.). Retrieved June 23, 2007, from Dictionary.com website.
• Kaal, Anna Albertha. 2012. Metaphor in conversation. VU University Amsterdam.
• Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, George. 1993. Metaphor and Thought. 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press.
• Lakoff, George and Turner, Mark. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, George. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor.” In A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought. (pp. 202-251) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [second edition]
• Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. “Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language.” (Vol. 7). The Journal of Philosophy.
• McGlone, Matthew S. 2006. What is the explanatory value of conceptual metaphor? The University of Texas.
• Erna. 1996. “The limits of literal meaning.” Danish Yearbook of Philosophy.
• Pierson, Cheri. 2008. “Reflections on Educational Metaphors for Teaching English as a Second Language to Adult Learners.” (Vol.17). PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning.
• Short, Mick. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. Longman.
• Van, Engen Robert B. 2008. Metaphor: A Multifaceted Literary Device used by Morgan and Weick to Describe Organizations. (Vol. 1). Regent University.
• Winberg, Christine. 1994. The comprehension of figurative language in English literary texts. Rhodes University.

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

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

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

Thesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Especially after the 1950s, divergent thinking has been studied a lot by psychologists. Innovations, discoveries and novelties have been associated with divergent thinking which intrigued the scholars in the fields of management, military and advertisement, as well as psychology and education. However, we lack studies that link the concept of divergent thinking to religious texts. One basic contribution of employing divergent thinking to religious texts would be to broaden the understanding of the texts and to seek alternative perspectives. Such endeavor seems consistent with the consideration that religion (hence, religious texts) is an everlasting source of wisdom and inspiration, and if so, why is it confined to the early interpretations? Why not become seekers of original interpreters of religious texts and discover the unveiled aspects of it? This article will discuss the perspective from psychology and religious texts to find an answer for these questions in the case of Islam.

Among the several views on divergent thinking, a brief psychological framework that can be applied to religious texts would be helpful. This framework was conceptualized by Donald Campbell (1960). According to this, in order for original ideas to appear, the initial task would be thinking in various ways. This phase is called “blind variation.” Think of the question “List possible uses of a brick.” Possible answers to such prompts would be “build a wall,” “break into pieces,” “step on it to reach something” or “use as a pillow.” Among those responses, the first one (“build a wall”) would be a conventional response while the second, third and fourth responses are non-conventional or original ideas. However, the fourth one “use as a pillow” does not seem to be an appropriate or useful response even though it is original. Therefore, appropriateness and originality may not go hand in hand and such original but non-useful and inappropriate ideas should be filtered out. This phase is called “selective retention” which makes the process of divergent thinking more valid and a functional way of idea generation. When we apply this two-stage method of idea generation to the field of theology, verse(s) of the spiritual texts could be regarded as prompts to ponder systematically.

Two basic approaches to religions should be recalled here. One school of thought, known as orthodoxy, refers to adherence to traditional and established views on the texts. Because of the persistence on the traditional views, orthodoxy was regarded in relation to dogmatism and accused of lacking originality (Shedd, 1893). Heterodoxy implies a departure from the established and traditional views of orthodoxy. Apparently, this article does not favor a strict orthodoxy as it does not add new perspectives to our understanding of the religions. On the other hand, the extent of departure which is not at odds with the general framework of a given religion is of interest. Given the two aspects of divergent thinking (blind variation and selective retention) discussed above, generation of original ideas and novel inspirations from the religious texts can be theoretically achieved without deviating from the given frameworks of the religions.

Divergent thinking for religious texts

If one thinks of religious texts of the monotheistic religions, Biblical Judaism goes back to 4th century BCE; Christianity has a history of more than two millennium. Islam, being the recent religion, has a history of 15 centuries. The texts are obviously old and for an academic field of study, there is an enormous amount of knowledge accumulated throughout the centuries by many scholars. On the other hand, those deeply rooted traditions have created their own ways of understanding which contributed to the convergence and contraction of the interpretations. Even though converging perspectives might yield more accurate interpretations, it is still possible that many subtle or alternative aspects of religious texts have probably been ignored or not yet discovered.

As time goes by, the discrepancy between the interpretation of human beings and the original texts have increased with excessive amounts of the interpretations masking the divine message of the original texts. Interpretations converged and shrank even more since new generations were simply taught what the early generations have understood instead of being encouraged to generate new meanings. The natural transmission of religious knowledge survived for centuries. Yet, it is possible to put forward that convergent thinking has been overwhelmingly weighted in the field of theology as in other fields for the purpose of finding the single best interpretation of religious texts. We owe current level of knowledge to those scholars with a divergent mind who intervened in the process of religious thinking and teaching, and enlarged the horizons of religious thought.

As a matter of fact, older interpretations of religious texts may not always be compatible with the problems and needs of contemporary life. Since the life conditions and the intellectual climate (or zeitgeist) have dramatically changed and today’s intellectuals are educated in a different mindset which separate religious thought and scientific/philosophical issues into two distinct categories, arguments of theologians have become less convincing than they used to be. Critically, this insufficiency has been attributed to the religion itself such as “opiate of the masses” rather than the religious scholars who are unable to reproduce the religious thinking in contemporary ages without removing it from its fundamentals or simply attempting to reform it. For a theologian who believes in the idea that the role and mission of religion never ends and the religion is able to guide human beings eternally, being satisfied with the traditional views and taken-for-granted interpretations should not suffice. Indeed, the attempt to inquire new ways of interpretations of the scriptures does not necessarily negate the previous interpretations because they had validity under certain conditions in the past, and can explain today to a considerable degree. In other words, employment of divergent thinking in understanding the texts should aim to enrich and widen perspectives of the individuals rather than replacing the current views and reforming the religions.

The contribution of divergent thinking to religions can be seen in the works of scholars who came up with divergent interpretations to the texts. Richness in their interpretations without imposing necessarily one unique truth provides the readers with room for elaborating on the texts and interpretations. This attitude helps people to diverge their thinking and even go beyond what they literally see in the texts.

Some examples

There are many examples of divergent interpretation in the works of Said Nursi who is a prominent twentieth century Muslim scholar. One of the foremost features of Nursi is his approach to questions, verses of Qur’an and hadiths (collection of writings that document the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) in multiple ways. For example, Nursi has shown several ways to interpret one hadith about cosmology:

People asked the Prophet what the earth rests upon. He replied that the earth rests upon a fish and another time upon an ox. This hadith has been discredited given the cosmology knowledge of human beings when it is taken literally. However, alternative explanations of the hadith show how some allegoric statements in the religious texts can be understood. His first interpretation was about the angels created by God who are responsible for every creation in the universe called as “commissioned angels.”

Two angels were created for the earth. Their names were “thawr” (meaning ox) and ‘hut’ (meaning fish). With that in mind, this verse means that the earth would not survive if these angels did not take care of it.

Another interpretation was related to the way people make their living. Especially in the past, people were making their living through farming and hunting. Ox represents the farming and fish represents hunting. The third interpretation is based on the different answers given at different times. According to this interpretation, the earth was on particular cosmological position or horoscope. Nursi also argued that this kind of response is legitimate because people at that time would not understand the complexity of the cosmology and the Prophet told them the truth in a way they would understand.

Another such example that Nursi interprets by going beyond its literal meaning is the verse about Moses (peace be upon him):

Again (remember) when Moses (on an occasion when his people were without water in the desert) beseeched water for his people, so We told him: “Strike the rock with your staff!” (As soon as he struck) there gushed forth from it twelve springs. Each tribe knew their drinking place. Eat and drink of that which God has provided, and do not go about acting wickedly on earth, causing disorder and corruption. (Qur’an 2:60)

According to Nursi, this verse prophesized the discovery of sounding underground to get water. This explanation is legitimate given the context that the solution is suggested “miraculously” after the people asked help from Moses for their need for water.

Nursi, as a divergent thinker, viewed the miracles in the Qur’an in a different way than others. In classical view, the extraordinary events that take place in Qur’an were indicative of the strength that God has granted some special people in history. Nursi did not restrict those verses within this view. According to him, those verses conveyed a more critical message for us as well as their message in their own contexts. The extraordinary events that happened in the past also indicate the ultimate level human beings can arrive at by working hard on sciences. This message of the miracles is the possibility that other people who work hard on understanding the rules of the nature designed by God could also achieve what have been wondrously achieved before. Therefore, those miracles that the Qur’an mentioned are not some stories that should solely bewilder, but call human beings to go beyond their limited knowledge and discover the further facts. If every technology that we take for granted was some sort of a miracle in the past, why not chase the new “miracles” by thinking outside of the box? As a result, the miracles in the Qur’an are more than the stories of unexplainable events. Such subtle messages however, are read only by divergent minds that transcend the cursory meanings.

There are many examples which scientific advances uncovered alternative interpretations of texts. The Fountain readers are very lucky to brainstorm novel interpretations. One example of divergent explanations about the verses of Holy Qur’an is the description of creation of iron. In one issue several years back Nuh Gedik (2006) brought an interesting comment on the 25th verse of Sura Hadid: “…And We sent down Iron, in which is great might, as well as many benefits for mankind….” Scholars used to interpret “sending down” the iron as one of the God-sent blessings coming from above, His supreme treasure consisting of everything. “Sending down” is taken as metaphorical, reflecting the relationship (status) between human beings and God, rather than its literal meaning. Even though this interpretation might be correct, Gedik argued that being “physically sent down from the sky miraculously points out to a very important scientific fact that was discovered only very recently” (Gedik, 2006).

According to Gedik, supernova explosions that create very high energy and heat can allow a heavy element like iron to form. According to this scenario, formation of iron can be attributed to supernova explosions that occur in Space and “sent down” on earth rather than the scenario that presumes iron resides under the soil as a consequence of some chemical reactions. While these two scenarios do not necessarily conflict, the former and more recent one gives birth to another interpretation.

The same verse inspired other divergent minds too. Salih S. Duran (2009) explained another mechanism that results in the “sending down” of iron. According to this argument, desert sands in varied magnitude travels on the air and are hanged on the atmosphere where the miraculous chemical reactions that reduce Fe+3 to Fe+2 are fulfilled with the help of water vapor and sun. Eventually, resultant iron materials are descended to earth with the rains. Those two novel explanations are neither the best nor the ultimate perspectives, but are worth considering while reading the Qur’an.

Limitations

More examples can be found, but a critical question still remains to be answered: Can we come up with any interpretation for the verses? Are there limitations to interpret the verses? The answer for these questions lies in the perspective that is provided in the beginning of this article where I discussed the processes of blind variation and selective retention. Religions (specifically Islam in the scope of this article) have basic belief systems and the understanding of the verses and hadiths have to be understood in accordance with this basic structure. For this reason, some original interpretations may not be the valid interpretations. In fact, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, warned “Whoever explains the Qur’an according to his [wrong] personal opinion shall take his place in Hell.” Some experts who focused on the outward meanings of the Qur’an have argued that this hadith prohibits personal interpretations at all, and understanding and interpreting Qur’an should merely rely on early interpretations like those of Ibn Abbas and other exegetes. Quasam (1982) outlined Al-Gazali’s theory regarding the recitation and interpretation of the Qur’an where he objected to the interpretation of this hadith as evidence negating the attempts to make new interpretations. He argued that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also said that “Surely the Qur’an has an outward aspect, inward aspect, a limit and a prelude.” If there is an inward aspect, how can we achieve to learn it? Assuming that early interpretations have covered all possible meanings contradicts with the presence of inward aspect. If the outward meaning is clear and enough, and there is no need to seek anything new in it, why did Ali, the fourth caliph, say “If I so will I can certainly load seventy camels with the exegesis of the Opening Sura (chapter) of the Book” while this chapter is very short? Then the question is, how can we reconcile those hadiths which seem to conflict with each other?

Al-Gazali argued that this hadith actually prohibits the interpretations which aim to adduce arguments that favor interpreters’ own purposes or passions whether it is a valid purpose or not. With such incentive, the interpretation is simply corrupt rather than a personal effort to understand the Qur’an. A second reason is to prohibit those who try to interpret the Qur’an without any fundamental knowledge of the Qur’an and Arabic language which are necessary for the outward aspects. Therefore, this hadith should be seen as a warning for the appropriateness of the interpretations. Now, the nature of divergent thinking as suggested by Campbell (1960) should be recalled. Even though developing several meanings of the religious texts corresponding to blind variation is critical, it should be tested within the overall framework of the religions which is the criterion for the stage of selective retention.

To conclude, divergent thinking is one of the promising abilities of human intellect that many fields like education, psychology, management and military have utilized. However, the need for divergent thinkers is increased in the era which people cannot appreciate the intellectual depth in religious texts. Different and legitimate interpretations of religious texts will reform people’s minds regarding the potential in the old texts for our civilization and intellectual life. Contributions of Islamic scholars like Said Nursi should encourage other divergent minds for new inspirations and state-of-art perspectives.

Zekeriya Ozsoy is doctoral student studying educational psychology. For correspondence with the author: ozsoyzekeriya@gmail.com.

References

• Quasem, A. M. 1982. The recitation and interpretation of the Qurān. Al-Ghazālī’s theory. London: Kegan Paul International
• Duran, S. S. 2009. Iron: A boon that comes with desert sands. [Turkish-Col kumuyla gelen nimet: Demir]. Sizinti, 369, 454-457.
• Guilford, J. P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist. 5, 444-454.
• Gedik, N. 2006. Supernova Explosions and a Miracle of the Qur’an. Fountain, 54,
• Shedd, W.G.T. 1893. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. New York: Scribner’s Sons.
• At-Tirmidhi, Sunan, Tafsir, 1.

That morning, however, was unusual for one of the ants, Sayhon. He was intrigued by the noises coming from all directions. He had recorded and investigated the noise generated by bugs when carrying chips of wood, the sound a fly makes when landing on a dry leaf, the clamor of the creeks as they hit the rocks, and so on. But regardless of the cacophony of the sounds, Sayhon was always able to filter out a background noise that showed up consistently. It was as if something or someone was omnipresent in every occurrence, making itself heard. After realizing this, the poor ant found himself in seclusion to concentrate on this subtle message. After a while, not able to figure out the source of this constant noise, nor able to come up with an explanation about its meaning, Sayhon spiraled down into an endless depression. In hard times like these, he always took refuge in the warm friendship of Nurson.

Nurson also conducted his own research, modeling the dynamic geometry of the forest. By formulating the variations in the locations of the fruits on the ground or those on the branch, he benefited the worker ants in establishing the optimum routes for collection. Even more challenging was Nurson’s interest in predicting the time and place of the birth of a new fruit. It was so demanding, this prediction effort, that it shook his antennas wildly. During his research, Nurson had come to the conclusion that, existing or newborn, all the fruits were moving apart from each other. This effect was more evident in the observation of a fruit at large distances.

One day when it was raining, Sayhon was observing how the raindrops splashed on the water, how they created a blasting sound. At the same spot Nurson was studying the expansion of the waves in the puddles made by raindrops. After some gloomy moments, Sayhon wanted to open a conversation.

“Hey dude! Do you hear any noise generated by those waves?”

“YES!” replied Nurson hysterically.

Sayhon was not expecting this kind of a “YES” to his question. Rather, it sounded like an answer to something else. This, in fact, was the case, because Nurson had had an epiphany with Sayhon’s question: “The noise you are detecting everywhere is due to the expansion of the forest.”

Sayhon was startled by the answer he had received for his teasing. Nevertheless, he was eager to continue this conversation: “Hey! Easy now, easy.”

“Look! The noise you are detecting everywhere points to an entity or occurrence that is omnipresent. To date, we don’t know an entity everywhere, but we do know an occurrence that is everywhere: the moving apart phenomenon. So, the only thing that can create this noise you are so curious about is the expansion of the forest. Every fruit, every branch-tip in this forest is moving apart from each other, while leaving behind a signature in the form of sound. Now everything makes sense.”

Enlightenment suddenly seized them both with a shiver throughout their bodies. When they came back to their senses, they couldn’t help but smile; it didn’t take long before Sayhon and Nurson started squealing in joy.

Soon, the entire ant colony was in a tumult about the discovery of the expansion of the forest, but with some subsequent thoughts. For example, an ant suggested that the omnipresent noise must be propagating through some unseen but all-pervading substance; but the experiments to verify this suggestion failed. Another thought was about the size of the forest. Some claimed that it was not possible to know the size of the forest, while others said it was finite, since otherwise it would result in an infinitely intertwined forest. A third item in this list of hot discussions was the age of the forest. According to the expansion theory, if the forest is expanding now, and if you rewind this process long enough, you end up with a single tree, and eventually a single seed, out of which this endless forest has formed. They called this unimaginable start the “big germination.” Based on the big germination theory, some ants suggested billions of years of age for the forest; but some others claimed an age on the order of thousands based on interpretation of their ancient texts.

In the fresh vibrations of these findings, the discussions of the ants about the start of the forest eventually became a discussion of their own existence. What was the origin of life in the forest? How had the living beings come to their current states, each with an optimum design for the survival of their own species and for the well-being of the entire habitat? Were they merely fallen off a tree as a result of a coincidence?

As the founders of the big germination theory, Sayhon and Nurson were invited to speak in huge assemblies where thousands of curious ants were gathered. They had given several interviews, and participated in many events on the subject of the origin of life. The two friends had differing points of views on this matter, but their discussion was as respectful as it was rational.

Sayhon held the view that the living beings had come to existence through a chain of events that are not yet readily known to the ants, but can be discovered with advancements in science. As his initial hypothesis, he proposed a common ancestor to all kinds of animals in the forest, like the start of the forest from a single seed. He supported his theory of a common ancestor with the observations of common traits among different organisms. But eventually, he admitted that his hypothesis is only tentative, and needed further scrutiny. He was open to change his views with new findings and observations, and never suggested that his hypothesis be used as the criterion to judge the veracity of new perspectives.

Nurson, on the other side, claimed that the origin of life in the forest was by the hand of the Creator, just like He was the one who had created the forest in the scenario of the big germination. In the same context, he thought that the scientific studies must be aimed at learning how the Creator was making different kinds of animals in the forest. Nurson said that his view did not essentially differ from Sayhon’s views in terms of scientific foundations or implications, but he positioned himself against unscientific interpretations of scientific findings. For example, he requested that, as he admitted his belief in the Creator is an unscientific presumption, Sayhon must admit his claims about a common ancestor is unscientific, since there was no absolute proof to it. Nurson also expressed his resentment about the ants who inferred the absence of the Creator in the scientific texts as a rejection of Him, since such inference was clearly irrational as well. Overall, Nurson neither tried to alienate Sayhon nor curse his views, he merely requested that both parties characterize their views properly, which was wholeheartedly approved by Sayhon.

In return to the request of Nurson, Sayhon invited him to admit that they don’t have a complete understanding of how creation occurs, and that interpretation of implicit information in the ancient texts cannot be binding. Nurson humbly agreed.

Despite the friendly opposition between Sayhon and Nurson, the ant colony was severely divided into two groups: some siding with Sayhon and others agreeing with Nurson. Each group projected their own view as the ultimate truth, unlike the two friends’ admittance of the unscientific parts in their views. Although Sayhon and Nurson both admitted the tentative and immature level of science in the matter, the public preferred to embrace them as complete and unchangeable. Thus, these two groups socially expelled each other, and showed intellectual hostility. Rejecting the other’s views in their entirety, they mutually evolved into antagonists.

Strange enough, as the tension between these groups increased, the climate in the forest started to change dramatically. Rain became more abundant, yet the weather also warmed up incredibly. They had yet to discover the significance of these drastic changes, but this threat to the entire colony acted as a uniting agent among the ants, and mitigated the divisions on the origin of life.

In one of those hot days, the ants noticed large cracks forming in their nests, which eventually evolved into large channels, through which a violent stream came and flooded the forest. Many of the ants were saved by embarking on the leaves. Now everything was underwater, and would be until it soaked completely into the soil, which was unlikely to occur in their lifetimes. Facing extinction, the big germination and the subsequent expansion of the forest felt like meaningless topics in their hopeless state. Yet, the origin of life was of the highest attention. Even the most bigoted ants who denied the Creator wanted to believe in a higher Hand that could penetrate the doom they were facing and deliver them to salvation.

The flood did not return the ants back home but carried them to another one. By the time they arrived at this new forest, the flood had faded to a nice stream, and the ants could safely disembark from their leaves. But with nothing in their possession, everything had to be reconstructed: a home, a safe environment, and most importantly, the hope for restoration.

Sayhon and Nurson were among these survivors. Seeing that their home forest actually had an end had shocked them. In light of this fact, they had to reconsider all their thoughts from scratch. This was not to be done publicly, because the colony was struggling for survival. Amidst this new land of uncertainties, everyone was in need of a certainty to cling to, and the suppositions of Sayhon and Nurson were the last thing they looked for.

As the colony’s efforts for reconstruction and the internal quests of these two ants continued, they came across the most unexpected thing: another ant colony just like them. It was as shocking to the native ants as it was to themselves. And as their relationship deepened, it was a subtle, mind-altering experience for all of them to see that they both had religious texts telling the same brief story about the origin of life.