TELEOLOGICAL CAUSALITY
In the above verse, there are important signs related to causality.Persons who study philosophy should know that discussions about causality necessitate a philosophical background.
Have you not seen how your Lord lengthens out the shadow? He could have kept it motionless had He liked. Then We made the sun a proof for it. (25:45)
At the time of the descent of the Quran, there was not a single treatise that dealt with philosophy or causality in the region in question. It is noteworthy that the Quran emphasizes an issue of extreme importance, causality, in a region where ignorance prevailed among the Bedouins. Most philosophical commentaries considered important were improvements on philosophies inherited from the past. Whereas the statements of the Quran, not based on any heritage, are evidence of its authority.
God says that the shadow He created was not the necessary consequence of the sun, but was created because God willed it so. In the verse, the causality between the shadow and the sun is acknowledged, but the said causality is created on purpose. The pattern laid down by the Quran differs from the one offered by skeptics like Hume, who is skeptical about causality, and from the viewpoints that try to explain the universe based on the determinism of causal principles that have come into existence by pure coincidence.
Causality is one of the basic tenets of science. It is the relation between two events or states of affairs in which one brings about the other or produces it. That is, it connects everything existing in the universe. It stops our world from turning into chaos by establishing relationships between cause and effect. Had there been no relation between cause and effect, understanding our world would have become even more complex than a dream. Sciences like physics and chemistry take causality for granted. The manufacture of airplanes, satellites and televisions is the result of reliability of the cause and effect relationship. David Hume was skeptical about causality, but like all men, he could not help basing himself on the principles of causality. For nobody can go on living while denying causality. For instance, had Hume not taken into his head to write, he could not have produced the Treatise of Human Nature because writing was the cause to produce a book! Gazali’s inquiry into causality was not meant to deny it. His opposition resulted from the attempts at replacing it with God’s will. The famous example he gave about the burning of cotton purported to postulate causality as a created system, to which we refer as teleological causality.
These may seem absurd to those who are not familiar with the deliberations that the issue of causality has given rise to in philosophy. The reason why I am trying to give such explanations is the place occupied in the history of philosophy by extremists’ opinions that deny “causality.” Natural sciences have already gone beyond such contentions, while certain philosophers remain irresolute.
The Quran acknowledges causality. Causal relationships, referred to in many a verse by the attribute of “sunnettulah” (God’s system), are valid throughout the universe. As we shall be seeing in the coming chapters, the Quran points to the mathematical order reigning in the universe. This means the functioning of the cause and effect relationship in a mathematical order. The statements of scientists who translate the principles of causality by having recourse to physical and chemical formulas in the universe and those of the Quran are in perfect conformity.
Although the Quran acknowledges causality, it defines its purpose as a teleological argument. Although, in causal relationships, the cause precedes the effect, the latter’s design precedes the cause. The causality chain, as expounded in the Quran, functions within God’s knowledge and means, and cannot be creative. While it acknowledges causality, the Quran is against the idealization of causality. The existence of shadow is not a necessary consequence of the sun. The Creator of the sun has foreseen the shadow’s existence as a consequence of the creation of the sun. What the Quran propounds is the universal model based on “created causality.”
PROTEIN’S PROBABILITY AND TELEOLOGICAL CAUSALITY
Probability calculations provide us with objective data of a mathematical nature that let us see whether the alternative of intelligent design or the one of coincidence is more credible. In particular, the fact that Hume’s criticism of the analogical version of the “argument from design” was generally accepted in philosophy circles has been one of the reasons for the rise to prominence of the probabilistic version of the “argument from design.” The structure of proteins makes the application of probability calculations possible. Every living cell is made up of proteins. Both as far as the enzymes and as far as their other functions are concerned, proteins are the basic units that run the activities of cells. In the comparison between cells and a factory, the proteins correspond to the factory’s machinery. Proteins are made up of a succession of amino acids. In a living organism, a protein is made up of 20 amino acids. The fact that these 20 amino acids should be placed in a certain order, and that the proteins should have a threedimensional shape, are absolute requisites for a protein. There is a very great difference between the proteinoids, which are formed by a coincidental succession of amino acids, and the proteins, which have a special function within a cell. Amino acids come in two kinds, left-handed amino acids and right-handed amino acids. While proteinoids, which are a result of a coincidental union of amino acids, are made up of both kinds of amino acids, proteins include only left-handed amino acids. What is more important, proteins have to be set up in a certain order if they are to be able to carry out specific duties. The probability that amino acids will turn into proteins just because they have been subjected to energy is the same as the probability that a stack of bricks, which have been blown up in the air with dynamite, will fall back down and form a house.
In living organisms, alongside relatively short proteins like ferrodexin (found in clostridium pasteurianum), which is made up of a succession of 55 amino acids, there are also long proteins like twitchin (found in caenorhabditin elegans), which is made up of a succession of 6049 amino acids. As an example for our probability calculations, let us consider the medium sized serum albumin protein, which can be found in the human body and which is made up of 584 amino acids. The probability that the amino acids in this protein would be made up only of the left-handed kind, can be calculated in the following way:
The probability that an amino acid should be of the left-handed kind: 1/2
The probability that two amino acids should be of the left-handed kind: 1/2 x 1/2
The probability that three amino acids should be of the left-handed kind: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2
The probability that 584 amino acids should be of the left-handed kind: (1/2)20584
In addition to this, all amino acids have to form a peptide bond, which is necessary for tying up with the other amino acids in the protein chain. There are also many other kinds of chemical bonds that can be formed in a natural environment, among amino acids; the probability of a peptide bond forming is roughly equal to the probability of other kinds of bonds forming. Within the serum albumin, made up of 584 amino acids, 583 peptide bonds are required. The probability of these forming is as follows:
The probability that two amino acids should bond with a peptide bond: 1/2
The probability that three amino acids should bond with peptide bonds: 1/2 x 1/2
The probability that four amino acids should bond with peptide bonds: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2
The probability that 584 amino acids should bond with peptide bonds:(1/2)583
The probability that the amino acids of a single protein should be all left-handed and that they should be connected with peptide bonds is:
(1/2)584 x (1/2)583 = (1/2)1167 = (1/10)351
We realise that this probability is a practical impossibility from a mathematical point of view, by means of the following reasoning. If we add the 1080 protons and neutrons (total of all protons and neutrons in the universe) to the all photons and electrons in the universe, we obtain a number smaller than 1090. The life span of the universe, 15 billion years x 365 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds = 473.040.000.000.000.000, expresses the time that has elapsed since the creation of the universe. We could say approximately that this number is equal to 1018. If we multiply the two numbers, the number we get is 1090 x 1018 = 10108. This number expresses the number of attempts made, if all the protons, neutrons, electrons and photons in the universe had each made an attempt, every single second of the existence of the universe. If we assume that attempts made in a second by each of these are with the highest chemical speed 1012 (one trillion), it makes 10108 x 1012= 10120; but even the probability of two simple events like the formation of a protein with 584 amino acids with only left-handed amino acids and the formation of its peptide bonds is 1 in 10351. This shows us that even if all the protons, neutrons, electrons and photons in the universe had turned into one of 20 amino acids in living creatures and that even if they had made 1012 attempts in each second since the creation of the universe, it would not have been enough even to ensure that the amino acids of a single protein like the serum albumin should be left-handed and that they should be connected with peptide bonds.
This conclusion is indeed very interesting. Following the discoveries of Copernicus, the earth lost its central position in the universe; however, even mobilising the entire matter in the universe could not ensure the coincidental creation of a single protein, which exist in thousands in living organisms that we can see only by means of a microscope.
It is vitally important that the succession of the amino acids in proteins be in the correct order. We can show the probability calculation for the serum albumin protein in the following way:
The probability that an amino acid should be in the correct position: 1/20
The probability that two amino acids should be in the correct position: 1/20 x 1/20
The probability that three amino acids should be in the correct position: 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20
The probability that 584 amino acids should be in the correct position: (1/20)584 = (1/10)759
If we multiply this number with the 1 in 10351, which we have already calculated, we get the probability that a given protein should be made up only of left-handed amino acids and that it should form peptide bonds and that the succession of amino acids should be in the correct order. This corresponds to a probability of 1 in 10351x10759=101110, which practically means that it is impossible (Generally in mathematics all probabilities less than 1 in 1050 are considered impossible). It could be said that only a certain part of the succession of amino acids in proteins is active and that changes in the amino acids outside this part could be tolerated. This would mean that the actual probability was higher than we calculated; but, on the other hand, if we include the probabilities also of things like the necessity that the protein should happen to be in the correct position within the cell and also that it should exist in the required quantity, then the probabilities decrease.
Those who deny that the causes were created target-oriented have succumbed to mathematics. This calculation of probability was made on the assumption that amino acids are the ones that are used in the living organism, that the three-dimensional folding of the protein has been realized and that after the formation of the protein the functions have been frozen. Supposing that all these stages had been added to the probability- what was impossible would be even more impossible. However, the figure mentioned indicates this impossibility for those who are versed in mathematics. This serum albumin protein whose formation cannot be coincidental is being produced in the millions by our body.
According to the “blind coincidentalist” materialist view, serum albumin is a fortuitous formation. According to the believer, this protein is a target-oriented creation. This example about the formation of the protein can be stretched to cover many things, from the functions in our body to those in other animals and plants, from the phenomena occurring in our world to space. In all these domains the principles of causality function within a teleological framework.
WHAT CAN BE THE CAUSE OF THIS CAUSALITY?
The absence of causality would rule out all mental functions. Whether a universe would be possible without causality is a different matter, but the fact is, we could not understand the world. Our getting hungry is a cause. Our opening the door of the refrigerator with a view to getting the food in it is a cause; so is our reaching for food. The fact that the meal we have before us is subject to gravity and the fact that what we swallow goes down to our stomach are causes and all these causes are simultaneously the effects of prior causes. The principles of causality govern us in understanding all that is created in the world. Our study of the universe, that contributes to our understanding of God’s magnificent artistry and the omniscience of God, is also based on causality. We understand the principles of causality thanks to our mental capacity, God’s gift. We reason based on causality. Our ratiocination is based on causality. Had the causal relationships been simpler, many of us might not have given the creation its due. Had the creation been more complex than it actually is, and had we been unable to solve the mysteries of causality, we could not be in a position to understand the universe. In the existence of the universe, the cause and effect relationship is a consequence of God’s perfect design.
The great blunder of atheists is their attribution of the effect merely to the cause, since they are convinced that the causes in the principles of causality owe their existence to coincidences. The irrelevance of coincidences is shown in the simple instance of a protein. If one concludes that in the cause and effect relationship, the cause is not a fortuitous act, one can derive from this that all effects are but God’s doing. The materialist atheism that considers causality not to be a created process, but the cause’s own making, idolizes matter and the causality principles immanent in it. Once the idea of coincidence is ruled out, all the creatures in the universe automatically become the consequence of an Infinite Knowledge and Infinite Power. Assumptions of coincidental formations in the concept of time in which the stages of creation take place have prevented atheists from conceiving of the Creator. Once the concept of coincidence is dealt with, all knowledge is promoted to the Eternal Existence. Those who assert that an object or knowledge is the product of coincidences establish a connection to a process in time. Once coincidences are ruled out, the existent becomes the outcome of the wisdom of the Eternal Being. This leads to the understanding of the universe as the result of a process, the product (within the principles of causality) of a process, the work of the Eternal Being.
=========================================================================
SIGNS WITHIN OURSELVES
The Quran uses “nafs” (self) to express consciousness, the quintessence of our personality. “Nafs” is integrated with our physical body; the author of all good and bad acts is our “nafs.”
We will show Our signs to them in the horizons, and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient that your Lord witnesses all things? (41:53)
The fact that the atoms of our physical body – of which 99% is vacuum – deprived of all consciousness, perform such conscious acts as seeing, hearing, and thinking, cannot be explained materialistically will form the subject matter of another book I am intending to write, in which this issue will be tackled within a larger framework, stretching from the philosophy of mind to the quantum theory wherein many scientific branches will find room. With this in mind, I refrain from taking up this issue in this present work.
The point I should like to dwell upon now is the verse’s allusion to signs in ourselves. There are a priori categories that the mind is constitutionally endowed with, concepts or ideas that are not derived from experience. The subject I speak of in this chapter is not based on findings obtained by satellites, telescopes, submarines or on the recent developments in physics, chemistry or biology. Here we find ourselves surrounded by the available data of a rich philosophical background. The tribe to which the Prophet belonged dealt in trade and animal husbandry. The Prophet himself was not brought up in a milieu like Plato’s Academy or in an environment where the colorful and lively schools of philosophy like Cartesianism flourished. Therefore, the fact that the Quran made a distinction between the outward signs and the signs immanent in man’s soul is noteworthy.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
The basic message transmitted by all the religions revealed by God is the fact that He is a Perfect Being. This becomes all the more apparent when we witness all the entities created by God. In the ontological argument, attainment of God is achieved not through exterior means, but from the idea of “Perfection” or “Perfect Being” inherent in each of us.
Farabi and Avicenna were among the first philosophers to refer to the initial arguments of ontology. Farabi analyzes the ontological argument together with the cosmological argument. According to them, God must be self-existent (Necessary-Being); assuming that He does not exist would be a contradiction in terms. All other creatures are possible creatures; both their existence and nonexistence can be a topic of discussion. If the possible entities are not resolved in the Necessary-Being, there would be a contradiction in terms. Given the fact that Farabi’s conclusion is a combination of ontological and cosmological arguments, many thinkers believed to have found traces of this for the first time in the works of Avicenna.
Nevertheless, this argument is, more often than not, associated with Descartes. To avoid committing error, he sets out in his philosophical quest by considering all past knowledge as if it were nonexistent. He begins with the statement that many of the preconceived opinions he has accepted since childhood have turned out to be unreliable; so it is necessary once in a lifetime to demolish everything and start again right from the foundations. There follows a systematic critique of previous beliefs. Anything based on the senses is potentially suspect, since I have found by experience that the senses sometimes deceive and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.
Elsewhere Descartes expresses this “cogito argument” in the famous phrase, “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). He derives from this argument that he exists incontestably and that thinking can never be confuted. Later he realizes that knowing is more perfect than doubting and explains how this idea of perfection leads him to the most perfect, to the idea of a supremely Perfect Being.
He reasons that the representational content (or objective reality) of this idea is so great that it cannot have originated from inside his own (imperfect) mind, but must have been planted in him by an actual Perfect Being – God. Things outside him like the sky, the earth, the light and the heat and a thousand other things, all these things contained nothing that would surpass him. If they were unreal he might have concluded that he had acquired them from the void. However, this could not hold true of a Perfect Being. He could not have acquired it from nothingness.
Descartes concluded the existence of God after having examined the evidence inherent in the self. He said that this conclusion was not an invention of his imagination, and that to add or subtract anything to or from it was beyond him. He had to accept the fact that he had come to the world with this a priori sign. Like the initials that an artist imprints on his work, God had implanted this idea as He created him.
While Leibniz contends that Descartes’ views need to be supplemented, he formulates an ontological argument bearing similarities to Avicenna.
KANT’S TIME AND SPACE CATEGORIES
The Quran speaks of signs in the “self.” So far, I have gone over “the idea of the existence of God” innate in us, as propounded by Descartes and other thinkers like him. I believe that the verse that refers to signs in the “self” meant much more. I am of the opinion that the “self” considered an a priori entity and all the characteristics innate in us come within the scope of this verse.
According to Kant’s matchless discovery that made him what he is, time and space are innate in us before all experience and encounters with the outside world. A little child, who has no notion of distance, moves away from things he dislikes and approaches things that seem pleasant to him. Therefore, man knows whether such things are within or outside his reach as an a priori intuition. In other words, the idea of “space” is already there in his mind without having previously experienced it. The same thing holds true for the “time” factor. The child has the sense of “before” and “after,” prior to other perceptions. Had it not been so, all our perceptions would become chaotic, disordered, in disarray. To go into the details of other evidence related to the innateness of the idea of time and space would necessitate longer discussions. Kant referred to those innate characteristics while analyzing our contacts with the outside world. He said nothing about the fact that these were evidence of God’s existence.
We live in a unique place as the “self.” We can liken the space in which we live to an extremely complex gate. The “self,” along with the a priori categories such as time and space we possess from birth, is the only key to this gate. We open this gate, which is of a complex structure, with the key (viz. our “self”). Whoever it was who created this universe, time and space is also the author of the “self.”
Our capacity of learning how to speak is also innate in us, as we saw in the previous chapter. The innateness of this capacity is also an evidence of our perfect creation along with the time and space categories implanted in us. Not only our physical being but also our mental makeup is made to fit the outside world.
It is our belief that anybody taking up arms against a priori knowledge is doomed to perish!
ENCODED
God who makes us thirsty has also created water to quench thirst. God who makes us hungry has also created the food we need. Getting thirsty and hungry are different from the existence of water and food in the outside world.
Therefore you shall devote yourselves to monotheism, the creational instinct placed into the people by God. There is no alternation of God’s creation; this is the right religion, but most people do not know. (30:30)
What have been encoded in us as a priori data when we were created, conforming to the precepts of the religion revealed by God, are evidence of the perfect creation of God. If we consider the contents of the verse (41-The Elucidated, 53) that speaks of signs in the “self” as being in conformity with the Creation, the matter may be understood better. Many people encounter difficulty in understanding Descartes’ expression of “innate ideas.” To have a better insight into Descartes’ arguments, we need to concentrate very attentively on the structure of the mind. It might be better to conceive of this as the conformity of our creation with the precepts of religion, since it can be understood easily. Most of us seek answers to the questions, “From where do I come?,” “What is the purpose of my existence?,” “Where am I heading?” The reason for our asking such questions is that we are created in such a way as to feel the necessity of asking them. There are many people – people who have inhibited their own impulses – who evade asking such questions and avoid meditating upon them. Our Creator’s inducing us to pose such questions, His creating us disposed to have faith in religion, are indications of a religion that He would reveal. For there is nothing that can provide an answer to such questions outside religion. One of the evidences of the existence of religion is our having been made in a way to be in need of believing in it.
God who makes us thirsty has also created water to quench thirst. God who makes us hungry has also created the food we need. Getting thirsty and hungry are different from the existence of water and food in the outside world. We might feel the need for something that did not exist in the world, rather than water, viz. the molecules whose constituents are hydrogen and oxygen. But the fact is that our body is made to want what it is programmed in it. To be immortal is the thing we desire most, more than our need for water and a meal. Survival is more important than all desires and passions. God made us in such a way as to wish for an afterworld. This need we feel is an evidence of the Hereafter.
Our creation includes in its scope all His evidence, of the evidence of religion and of the Hereafter. I would like to draw your attention to the expression in the above verse: “There is no alternation of God’s creation; this is the right religion.” This postulate is coeval with man’s creation. The person who can decipher the meaning of these signs believes in God, His religion and the Hereafter. The last sentence of the verse, in which it is said that the majority of people do not know this, is very meaningful. As a matter of fact, many people fail to appreciate these signs innate in them, thereby denying themselves.
======================================================================
LANGUAGE AND MAN
So far we have dwelt on subject matters related to such natural sciences as physics, chemistry, biology, medicine and geology as miraculously developed in the Quran. In this chapter and in the next three chapters, we will embark on important philosophical considerations coming within the compass of the Quran.
When your Lord said to the angels: “I will place a successor on earth.” They said: “Will you place one there who will commit disorder and shed blood, while we praise You, and extol Your holiness.” He said: “I know what you do not know.” (2:30)
And He taught Adam all the names. Then presented them to the angels, saying: “Tell me the names of these if you are truthful.” (2:31)
They said: “Glory to you, we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. You are Knowing, Wise.” (2:32)
“O Adam, give them their names.” When he told them their names, He said: “Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of the heavens and the earth? I know whatever you reveal and whatever you conceal.” (2:33)
In the verses quoted above the subjects treated are the creation of man by God and His placement of him on earth. Angels who fail to conceive the reason for man’s creation – a potential for committing disorder and shedding blood – bring up the problem of evil and ask God for a justification. God says that He knows things that they do not know and that there is wisdom in everything He creates. Whereupon God emphasizes the superiority of man in that he is taught how to use language.
In this chapter we are going to tackle the importance of man’s use of language. The superiority of man as a being depends on his capacity to use a language. The philosophy of language developed in the 20th century and the vast studies carried on the issue asserts that without language we could not exist as persons as such. Once, Bertrand Russell in the 1920s (he was in his 40s then and had already produced most of the works which had given him prominence) acknowledged that he considered language as a means at the disposal of man, that he could handle without giving it special attention. Bryan Maggee claimed that this held true not only for philosophers, but also for novelists, poets and playwrights. Self-consciousness in the use of language developed, especially in the twentieth century, and became one of the philosophical characteristics of the age.
This development is not limited to a superficial interest in words but also includes in its scope beliefs related to basic issues. The abstract thought made possible by language has proven to be the most important factor in conceptualizing all the aspects of reality in which we had not participated directly, and in handling it as well as in our communication with our environment. The general consensus is that this is the major characteristic that differentiates us from animals. Thus, learning a language enables us to become ourselves. The importance of language had not been conceived as so great, both as regards mankind in general and the individual in particular.
The Quran, 1400 years ago, stressed this importance. Those who take an interest in philosophy should know that most of the new ideas are based on the depository of past acquisitions. Wherever there are hot debates, wherever ideas clash, new concepts arise, be they correct or irrelevant. During the Prophet’s time, there seems not to have been significant philosophical discourse. The Quran’s reference to the relevance of language at such a time – which people would only realize long afterwards – is an interesting statement indeed. At the time and place of the descent of the Quran, there were neither concerns about language nor about its philosophical profundity.
CONTRIBUTION OF WITTGENSTEIN
Using and understanding a language is the distinctive characteristic of man that separates him from other living beings. This forms the essence of our inner existence. The questions raised by Ludwig Wittgenstein played a great role in conceiving the importance of language in the history of philosophy. Wittgenstein asked questions which at first sight would seem platitudes, just like in the case of Newton inquiring into the reason of the planets’ not changing their courses and of the falling of stones thrown in the air back on the ground. Wittgenstein had his precursors, like Locke and Leibniz, as well as Frege and Russell. However, it was Wittgenstein who first brought the issue of “language” into focus in the history of philosophy.
In Tractatus, a work belonging to his first phase, he tried to construct an ideal definition of language that gave a picture of the world. According to him, a sentence that said something (a proposition) had to be “a picture of reality.” Wittgenstein thinks that if we analyze what is said, we can reduce it to words that are but names of things and the connection established between the words of a sentence would represent the connections between things in the world. In this way, the sentence may draw the picture of the world.
Wittgenstein believed he had solved all the philosophical problems. Nevertheless, later on as he advanced in years, he began feeling out of step with Tractatus. In his second period, he began to conceive of language as a kind of tool. In this period he claimed that language was a social phenomenon and activity. The commonality between Wittgenstein’s former view and the latter is that the language skill occupies the center of his concern and that it is transformed into the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein is one of the rare philosophers who managed to gather around him a large number of disciples, despite his two contradictory periods. Wittgenstein saw, during his second period, that language had more meaning than he had originally thought. In our opinion, the merits of a language and the targets that it conveys exceed his belief, even at this period. I shall dwell on this point longer in a book devoted to this subject. These studies are important since they direct our attention to the importance of language, a special gift of God to mankind.
HOW DOES THE BABY BEGIN TO SPEAK?
Frege’s and Russell’s studies of the philosophy of mathematics led to the emergence of the philosophy of language. Noam Chomsky’s statements about language had a considerable impact in the 50s. To be able to handle something as complex and difficult as language cannot be explained just with the hypothesis that the baby learns it only after he is born without any a priori tendency. Formerly, it was believed that a language consisted of a series of habits, skills and aptitudes and was acquired by exercises, repetitions, generalizations and associations. The undeniable fact is that the majority of the public receive no systematic education. In other words, the parents, in general, do not teach their children about pre-established linguistic principles. This becomes all the more apparent if one considers that the great majority of the world’s masses lack a proper education. Yet, this does not rule out the fact that babies do learn how to speak in their tender age.
I agree with Noam Chomsky. The baby must be fully equipped and ready to learn how to speak as soon as it wants to communicate with its environment. As our eyesight is made ready to perceive the world at large, so is our mind prepared to use its innate capacity to acquire what is being spoken around it. As the eye begins to see, wherever there is light enough, so are the ear and the mind exposed to hear the language spoken, in an environment ready to acquire it. As Humboldt says, we acquire as a baby the skill to use finite means in infinite ways. Even intellectually restricted children do the same.
The following example demonstrates the innateness of this aptitude: The mind can be visualized as a function at first, when the empirical data are entered as input; one has the linguistic output, just like the number 5 is obtained when the square root of the number 25 is sought. The mind is even ready to learn how to speak like a calculator. When it meets a language, it acquires it and makes all sorts of operations.
He has created the human beings. (55:3)
He has taught him speech. (55:4)
Language is an innate gift of God to Adam and his offspring. If we go back to the days of our babyhood and inquire into the ways by which we acquired the faculty of speech and built a vocabulary, would we not be in a difficulty to account for the process? How is it then that we learn how to speak without any conscious contribution on our part?
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THERE HAD BEEN NO SUCH THING AS LANGUAGE?
To appreciate the value of language, we must look for an answer to the question “What would happen if there had been no language?” Had there been no such thing as language, there would have been no states, cities, villages or even families. In a milieu deprived of all social institutions, no production would ever take place. Consequently, there would be no textile products, cars, glassware, pencils, notebooks, etc.
Our mere conception of the importance of language is made possible by linguistic expression. An article on the importance of language is the result of our use of it. Language is not an invention of human beings. Language requires as premise a will and an orientation. Given the fact that the importance of language finds its expression in language, would man be in a position to create a language when the very concept of it was absent? Language is a social phenomenon, and where there is no language, there is no society.
The development of language is certainly possible. But this is possible only when one has the rudiments of a language. A language can develop just like a plant that sprouts. The absence of a language would mean the absence of seeds, the consequence of which would be the absence of vegetation. Just consider (for a while) the coinage of a word to mean a particular concept. On the assumption that men were deprived of a “language,” the fancied word would be doomed to sink into oblivion. The invention of writing was a subordinate process. Where there is no concept of a language, accumulation and transmission of information would be impossible. Given the fact that the importance of language cannot be conceived without it, the socialization of occasionally uttered unintelligible words or sounds emitted cannot be made into a coherent common means of communication. Language is a means calling for consensus of a community. In a milieu deprived of social consciousness, the invention of a language based on consensus is unimaginable.
The newborn is the most helpless creature among the creatures of the earth. It is dependent on its parents for survival. In the absence of a common language there would be no communication, and, therefore, no family. The paternity of the child could not be established. Only the mother could be identified. Where knowledge does not exist, it is difficult to establish any connection between the sexual act and the birth, notwithstanding the period of nine months that elapses before the child is born. Even this connection is made possible by the use of language. The establishing of the family unit and the restriction of sexual relations to couples in humans require the use of language. In such a milieu, the child can only recognize its mother. It would not be easy for a mother to feed her child all by herself. Man cannot be compared with other living beings. Most of the living creatures begin to walk, to fly and seek food a very short time after they are born. The majority of the species of animals are programmed to protect themselves. The long lasting maintenance of the human baby – the weakest of all living beings – is secured thanks to the culture and the communication the language provides. The faculty of thinking through the use of words replaces the innate programming of other living beings.
Had men been deprived of speech from the beginning of their days, they could hardly have survived. The Quran’s statement that the first human being was taught to speak is very important in this respect. Man is born equipped with the mental capacity, with an ear ready to receive what he hears, and a mouth and tongue to express his intentions. Coincidences cannot account for the perfect and complex creation of our ear, mouth and tongue. To all these, however, has to be added the endowment by our Creator of the potential a priori faculty of speech. A more detailed study of this issue will be tackled in a further work.
Then Adam received from his Lord words… (2:37)
=======================================================================
ERROR OF THE UNILINEAR PROGRESSIVE CONCEPT OF HISTORY
There are verses in the Quran that speak of certain communities in the past who had reached a level of civilization higher than the community in which the Prophet lived. These communities had been the authors of works far superior to those produced by the latter. Especially at the beginning of the 19th century, the “historical point of view” occupied an important place. Hegel (1770-1831) spoke of reality as a historical process that could be understood by the categories of historical explanation. His giving meaning to history, understanding and evaluating it were remarkable indeed. But Hegel interpreted history as a linear and evolutionary system that involved continuous and unilinear development. His approach was progressionist. His interpretation of history may be acclaimed, but a viewpoint that conceives every historical period superior to the one preceding it is untenable.
Do they not travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before them? They were greater in number than these and superior in strength and in the traces in the land: Yet all that they accomplished was of no profit to them. (40:82)
The Quran, an infallible book, proves once again that it is in the right. It acknowledges that past civilizations sometimes produced superior works and proved to be more powerful, thus refuting the linear concept of history. Linear development may have taken place in a given period of history. As a matter of fact, the advancement of science, whose origins went back to the 16th century, have followed a positive trend up until the 21st century. However, to generalize this progressive advancement to cover all of history and every domain would be a great mistake. While formulating his thesis, Hegel seems to have been bewitched by the advancement of sciences from the 16th century up until his own times.
There are more disastrous effects of this concept of history than the uninitiated may conceive. A glaring example is communism. Marx’ materialistic interpretation of Hegel led to massacres in which millions of people succumbed and gave rise to both cold and hot wars. As a matter of fact, the share of this Hegelian concept of history in Marx’s ideology is great. While Hegel evaluated history through metaphysics, Marx preferred to view history materialistically, calling his school “Historical Materialism.”
HISTORICAL VIEW OF COMMUNISM
Marx had a progressionist-linear-historical view (Marx’s emphases on the means of production and economics had had a great impact). This conception contended that a given community had to pass through stages, namely through feudalism, capitalism and socialism, before reaching communism. According to this conception, each of these stages would mark a higher degree of development than the previous one. Thus, the communist stage would be superior even to the modern one. The communists assumed that communism would be supreme bliss and the ultimate perfection in history. Moreover, this was a “scientifically established” view! Those who were against it were considered unscientific. The eventual collapse of communism discredited the Marxist conception of a scientific interpretation of history.
According to them, history’s progressive course could not be forestalled, so that communism was the ultimate stage. Yet most of the school textbooks of today are under the influence of that concept of history whose fundamental logic is that of linear progress. There are no scientific data to justify the opinions that assert that man’s ancestors were primitive hairy creatures as described in the books on anthropology. Engels himself, founder of modern communism along with Karl Marx, acknowledged this. On the assumption that men are fortuitous, he claims that the historical stages must be accepted. Describing the primitives as deprived of language, not even knowing how to kindle a fire, similar to hairy monkeys, would be an illusory account devoid of all scientific justification. There is no corroborative evidence to justify that men were first hunter-gatherers before they came to be acquainted with farming. The idea, which took for granted the fact that history was of a linear and progressionist makeup, led necessarily to the adoption of the new conviction that man’s initial stage had been hunting and gathering, the simplest means of supplying food. The distinct periods of the past qualified as Stone Age, Bronze Age, etc., are also devoid of all scientific evidence.
Whenever such classifications are made, there come moments when gadgets are unearthed, which, in principle should not be dating from the age to which they are supposed to belong. Yet, writers of textbooks are loath to make any corrections therein.
PYRAMIDS, MARTIANS AND ACUPUNCTURE
According to the progressionist linear history conception, every one of the stages that human history has gone through is superior to the preceding one. This erroneous conception is inculcated into the brains of
the majority of mankind. The supporters of this conception of history were nonplussed in the face of the superior characteristics of pyramids. The question has cropped up, inquiring into the mystery of the designers of pyramids, whether their authors might not have been Martians! The great Cheops pyramid at Giza, whose volume is about 2.515.000m3, is 147m high, the base measuring 230m. This structure required the quarrying of six million stones, their transportation, amassment and laying in a fashion likely to challenge long centuries to come.
The power coupled with skill of the Egyptians leaves us astounded. Mentalities shaped according to the erroneous conception of history fail somehow to conclude that architecture in ancient Egypt was at a very advanced stage. For those familiar with the Quranic verses, there is nothing to wonder at in this, since the Quran mentions of works of superior quality that were accomplished long ago.
Do they not travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before them? They were superior to them in strength, furrowed the earth and dwelt in it more than they… (30:9)
Acupuncture, practiced in China for more than 4,500 years, shows that at a given spot on the earth, people were in possession of anatomic knowledge more precise than we can believe. Acupuncture was the result of a thorough knowledge of the nervous system of the human body and of the distribution of electricity in the body. Someone convinced of history’s linear; evolutionist and developmentalist structure cannot come forth claiming that it appears that the Chinese were more versed in the anatomy of the human body than the following generations. Otherwise this would lead people to attribute the discovery of such facts to the Martians, like certain writers! To try to understand history and give it meaning is certainly commendable. But to dare interpret all the periods of history in every geographical corner of the earth within a unilinear and progressionist concept of history is a great error frequently committed.
This understanding of history has been the source of views that denied the personalities of individuals. These views that idealize the “state” led the right-minded to fascism and leftist persons to communism. The cause of a great many disasters, this viewpoint favored the oppression of the individual by the state, refused to see the state at the service of its nationals as a superstructure created by man, and preferred to consider man as a servant of the state, in which he had an insignificant presence. For those who are not familiar with the philosophy of history, these considerations may seem overstatements. If we look closer at the process initiated by Hegel, we may observe that it played a role, on the one hand, in the emergence of Hitler, and at the same time, of Marx. According to this view, the direction of history cannot be diverted. According to this mentality, whether laudable or execrable, the acts people indulge in have no effect on the retrogressive or progressive courses in history. It is the “state” that plays the historical role, and the course of history cannot change its direction. The human element is absent here as well. The Quran contends that human acts have their consequences in the future development of communities and that many communities have perished because of the evil doings of their members. This view of life is one that saves man from being swept by the storms that have raged in history.
It is true that at certain periods of history mankind has marked significant progress by following a unilinear and progressive course. But
it is simply wrong to generalize this movement to cover the entire past. To view a period of two or three millennia from a similar angle would be incorrect. To call a given century before Christ the “Stone Age,” thus generalizing it to cover the entirety of humanity would be improper. Great divergences between communities at a given age, lack of proper communication, and reasons that thwarted the political and cultural development of societies the world over made a simultaneous development of peoples around the earth impossible. Let us assume that one thousand years hence, archaeological excavations conducted with a view to having an insight into our level of civilization will give different results according to whether these excavations are made in New York or in a remote corner of Africa. While the one that generalizes his findings will conclude that there had been a progression in the history of mankind, the other, having recourse to the same method of ratiocination, will conclude that there had been retrogression.
Another error generally committed is the assumption that products of different domains like communications, arts, medicine, engineering, architecture, morals, farming are put hotchpotch in the same basket. The idea of progression in a given field must not be stretched to include other areas as well. Therefore, while history advances in certain fields, it may recede in others. The correct thing to do would be to adopt an analytical approach and pick up every single product separately and evaluate it accordingly, thus getting rid of the generalizations and facile deductions of the unilinear progressive and evolutionist concepts of history.
POSITIVISM AND RELIGION
Religion has been the field exposed to misconceptions to which the unilinear progressive conception of history led. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was the prominent representative of this movement. Comte divided history into separate phases. He was confident that mankind would go through three phases before ending up in the system of philosophy to which he gave the name of positivism. In his historical study of the progress of the human mind, he discerned three phases: the theological, the metaphysical and the positive. Comte contended that the origins of the theological phase went as far back as fetishism, and that it was followed by polytheism, ending up with monotheism. In the ultimate phase, qualified “positive,” he stated that science had taken the place of religion. He made use of this argument to condemn all religious orders and philosophical systems prior to his own positive system. While the other systems are “a series of primitive historical phases,” his own system was “the most perfect ultimate phase.”
In the whirlwind of his passion, he dared set up a positivistic religion. This pseudo-Christianity would have a large clerical organization with positivistic temples and positivistic clergy. Comte’s efforts to show the monotheistic religions as but an interim phase in the series of historical periods are devoid of all scientific evidence and findings. Quite the reverse had been the case, since the Ebla tablets of ancient history discovered in 1975 bore monotheistic traces. Comte’s views, utterly devoid of all tangible and convincing evidence, are taken for granted in many school textbooks. In every stage of history there has existed the idea of one God. Monotheism was opposed by the idolaters of the moon or the sun, or communists or positivists at different periods of history. All other beliefs have become calendar pages of history to be torn off, while the belief in one God abides forever.Those who fail to make a historical classification of religions having archeological findings have suggested the following train of thought: “Let us find the most primitive community on earth, for the oldest religion should be theirs, since it must have preserved its traditions.”
Some of the supporters of this line of thought, devoid of all scientific foundation, took the tribe that worshipped natural phenomena as the most primitive of the communities on earth, and its religion, the most ancient. Those who considered the pygmies of monotheistic outlook contended that the primeval religion was monotheistic (Such a line of thought led naturally to different conclusions). This theory on religion, whose proponents have been Andrew Lang and P.W. Schmidt, has been very interesting. According to this theory, most of the religions of the world are but corrupted versions of monotheism. According to Schmidt, idolization of powers of nature is irrelevant, since in order that the powers of nature may be made into gods, one should already have the notion of “God.” According to this view, the reason for the corruption of monotheistic religions and the emergence of polytheism is man’s transforming, in time, of metaphors into identifications. The line of thought ran something like this. “God is Creator, He is like my mother.” “God is the source of everything, He is like the earth.” These metaphors have in time replaced the original conceptualization that came to be identified with a concrete image. Schmidt contended that one of the evidences of the fact that polytheistic religions’ origins lay in monotheism was the fact that the idea of a primeval and all powerful divinity still survived.
The common characteristics of the Eble tablets, Egyptian mythology, and monotheistic religions of differing configurations support the idea that they originated from a single source, but underwent corruption for various reasons. The logical reasoning of Schmidt is more convincing. As a matter of fact, there is hardly anything in Comte deducible or defensible on the grounds of consistency to support the theory of a positivistic phase being the ultimate phase of human evolution. Anyway, based merely on written evidence, it is impossible to arrive at an identification of the primeval religion. But as I have pointed out, both the Ebla tablets dating from 3000 B.C. and the evidence provided by the historical times prove that the faith in one God has always existed. These tablets, in which the names Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Michael, David are mentioned as they figure in the Quran, and the Old and
New Testaments, prove that monotheistic religions always existed.
Each community has a messenger … (10:47)
Let your mind to be opened to explore the truth 