HOME PAGE
THE POINT OF DEPARTURE OF OUR ODYSSEY
30- Do not these disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an
integrated mass, which We then split, and from water We made all living things?
Will they not believe even then?
21-The Prophets, 30
We deduce from the contents of this verse that it admonishes the unbelievers for
ignoring the apparent miracles. The atheists? basic contention is that matter
has no beginning and that it is the matter that has generated everything, both
living and inanimate things, by fortuitous act. The Big Bang theory refutes the
basic assertion of atheism in positing that the universe and time had a
beginning. ?Do not these disbelievers see that...?? is significant. And as it is
implied by this verse, the fact that the heavens and the earth were in a state
of unity before they were rent asunder was something indeed conceivable by the
human mind. The 1900s were the years during which scientific discoveries
succeeded each other. Those were the years in which some people tried to point
out the contradiction between science and religion. It was presumptuous of them
as their whims had been indulged by the prosperity generated by the industrial
revolution to idolize matter, daring to substitute it for God. The fact that
matter was created - that it had had beginning - as proven by the Big Bang
theory, was a blow for unbelievers. The concluding sentence of the verse ?Will
they not believe even then?? is significant in that history confirmed the truth
of this and the unbelievers remained adamant despite evidence produced.
Nevertheless, the arguments of this verse refute the unbelievers? thesis of
eternal matter and compel them to believe. This truth that was to be taken for a
fact 1300 years after the revelation of the Quran was another warning for
unbelievers. In history, there has been no one, other than the God through Quran,
who claimed that the universe had been expanding and that the heavens and the
earth had been split asunder. Ancient Greece, the Middle Ages, the Modern Age,
Plato, Thales - all those who had attempted to explain natural phenomena in
natural terms - Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler and Kant, none of humanity?s great
minds, had had an inkling of an expanding universe and of the fact that before
creation the heavens and the earth had been an indivisible whole. Without the
sophisticated equipment of the twentieth century at their disposal, and devoid
of all accumulated scientific data, all of these celebrated philosophers and
physicists had failed to take cognizance of this fact. The Creator of the
universe communicated such important facts about His creation in His book and
shed light on the celestial bodies, also proving thereby that the Quran had been
His revelation. God unfolded to man the evidences of His creation, the creation
that had originated from a single point in which man stood as another point. It
is significant to note that while pointing at the comprehensibility of this
revelation in the verse, ?Do not these disbelievers see...?? He prefigures the
stubbornness of unbelievers: ?Will they not believe even then?? Einstein himself
said that what astounded him was the comprehensibility of his discoveries about
the universe, rather than the discoveries themselves. This shows how significant
it was to stress the fact that these phenomena were in fact within the reach of
man?s mental capacity.
COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION
The original unity of the universe is expressed by the Arabic word ?ratq,?
meaning the integrated state and the word ?fatq,? signifying disintegration by
separation. I have already mentioned that when Lemaître had posited this
separation as described in the Quranic verse, his theory was first refuted. One
of the contenders of this argument was Fred Hoyle. In the 1940s Fred Hoyle
contended that if the Big Bang had effectively taken place there should have
been a residue of the explosion, and asked that this fossil be shown. This
satirical criticism led to the discovery of much evidence in support of the Big
Bang theory. The expression ?fossil? which was mockingly uttered by Hoyle became
the scientific word for real evidence discovered later. While he was trying to
debunk the theory of the Big Bang in a humorous way, he had unwittingly
contributed to the confirmation of the Big Bang theory.
In 1948, George Gamow and his student Ralph Adler concluded that if the Big Bang
theory were true, it must have had a fossil left behind as Hoyle had claimed.
According to their logic, the low-level background radiation must have existed
in every direction since the universe had begun expanding in every direction
following the Big Bang. Radiation other than that caused by the Big Bang must
have had particular points in space from which it departed. But the radiation
generated by such an explosion could not be traced back to a point. With the
universe?s dynamic expansion radiation must have scattered in every direction.
In the 1960s, the form of radiation imagined by Gamow and Adler was made the
subject of research by a group of scientists with precision instruments at their
disposal at Princeton University. However, what they had been looking for was to
be discovered by others in a very interesting way. Arno Penzias and Robert
Wilson were researchers at the Bell Telephone Company. One day, quite
unexpectedly, they detected a uniform microwave radiation that suggested a
residual thermal energy throughout the universe of about 3 Kelvin, which is a
temperature of 3 degree Celsius above absolute 0. At first Penzias and Wilson
could not unravel the mystery and had to call their colleagues Robert Dicke and
his team. When he hung up, Dicke understood that he had lost the cause as he
took cognizance of the fact that the discovery that was to bring the Nobel Prize
award had been the lot of others. Surveys of the cosmic 3-Kelvin radiation
indicated that it was perfectly uniform in all directions. The residue that
Hoyle believed nonexistent had been found. So the Nobel Prize went to Penzias
and Wilson.
SATELLITE IN SUPPORT OF BIG BANG
After Penzias and Wilson shared the Nobel Prize in 1965, the Cosmic Background
Explorer (COBE), was rocketed into the sky in 1989. The data received from COBE
confirmed the discovery of Penzias and Wilson. A great number of scientists
evaluated the data produced by COBE as conclusive proof. Thus the process
initiated by Lemaître in the 1920s was substantiated once again with new
discoveries in the 1990s. 1400 years had elapsed since the revelation of the
Quran and the satellite?s findings validated its statements. Supposing that we
landed on a desert island and stumbled upon ashes: no one would doubt the fact
that there had once been a fire on this island. The residue radiation that
Penzias and Wilson ran across, and the COBE?s data, indicated the existence of
the Big Bang. The contention by dissenters that the radiation scattered all over
space had to be perfectly uniform in all directions is another indicator of the
soundness of this evidence.
One of the proofs substantiating the Big Bang theory is related to the hydrogen-helium
ratio in the universe. In the 1930s, astronomers, basing their studies on the
fact that every celestial object emits a particular light, had recourse to a
spectroscope to analyze the composition of the stars and galaxies. Calculations
made by means of the spectroscope and mathematical formulas demonstrated that
the universe, at its initial stage, comprised an average of 73% hydrogen and 25%
helium and 2% other gases like carbon and oxygen. Stars did not generate
hydrogen and that much helium. Calculations made by scientists made it clear
that 20%-30% of the helium must have been produced before the evolution of stars.
Only the primordial fireball at the outset of the Big Bang could have generated
such a light synthesis; the expectations in the wake of the Big Bang and the
quantity of hydrogen and helium in space are just a few of the proofs validating
the theory.
Although the available scientific evidence is in itself sufficient to prove the
Big Bang theory, we are witnessing a steady increase of this evidence. A Big
Bang medium was created in Switzerland at CERN (Conseil Européen pour la
Recherche Nucléaire), the famous center that has the most powerful and versatile
facilities of their kind in the world. The findings of the research carried out
here lends further support to the theory.
The law of thermodynamics supports the theory according to which the universe
must have had a beginning; the second law of thermodynamics states that some
processes in nature are irreversible and unidirectional, the direction being
dictated by an overall increase in entropy. Thus, the energy grows less and less
utilizable until it becomes of no profit. If the universe and matter had existed
from eternity, the movement would have come to a standstill in eternal time. On
the other hand, eternity does not pass; if it does, then it is no longer an
eternity. In brief, the very fact that we happen to be at this point connotes
the existence of a beginning. If we think that time was not created, the
contradiction is inevitable and ends up with a dilemma. The only solution to the
dilemma would be positing that time was created and that the universe must have
had a beginning; these, as proved by the Big Bang Theory, are mutually
validating evidences.
COULD MUHAMMAD HAVE SENT A SATELLITE
We have witnessed the verification of data received from the satellites sent
into space. How did it happen that the Prophet had an insight into the fact that
the earth and the heavens were an integrated mass before they were split? We
asked whether the Prophet could have had a telescope concealed under the sand
dunes, a telescope as sophisticated as the Hubble telescope? Are the unbelievers
going to claim now that Muhammad discovered the primeval unity of the heavens
and the earth by having recourse to calculations of the cosmic background
radiation, and that he had sent his satellite long before the launch of COBE,
1400 years ago? Penzias and Wilson shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery.
Would the unbelievers nominate Muhammad for the Nobel Prize for physics for
having announced 1400 years ago that the universe had once been a whole before
space began expanding?
It is evident that anyone who contended that the Quran had not been sent by God,
but was the work of the Prophet, would necessarily become an object of ridicule.
However, those resolved to remain unbelievers would insist on their convictions
regardless of all evidence being brought forth. So had it been with Abraham and
Moses and Christ and so was it with Muhammad. The psychology of unbelievers has
never changed throughout history.
Those who opposed Moses declared that they would adhere to their own conviction,
no matter what signs Moses would produce.
132- They said: ?No matter what kind of sign you show us, to bewitch us, we will
not believe in you.?
7-The Purgatory, 132
BIG BANG : SIGN OF GOD?S UNITY
Polytheistic beliefs have exhibited structures that differ according to the
communities and times in which they have evolved. The polytheistic beliefs in
ancient Egypt differ greatly from the polytheism of India. However, these
systems have something in common. Every god has his apportioned domain where he
exerts his sovereignty. The sun is a god, so is the moon, and the divinity whose
sanctuary is the hills is another such being. Some of these control the rains,
others the winds; some have control over the mountains, some over the rivers...In
opposition to belief-systems that parcel out the universe, the monotheistic
religions, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam, saw the universe as a whole.
These religions professed that severance and sundering could not be imagined in
a universe created by one God. According to these religions what seems to be
divided is but in appearance only, while the essence of the universe is one
whole; the universe ruled over by God is one entity, with every one of its
points being interrelated with all the other points.
Famous philosophers of the past, from Kindî, Farabi, Averroes and Avicenna to
Christian scholars, had announced that ?One comes out of one,? positing thus the
unity of God. These thinkers had tried to find a correlation between the
occurrences in the universe whose logical conclusion would be the unity of God.
In the aftermath of the Big Bang, this unity was once again proven. The origin
of the universe was irrefutably one single composition. Considering that
everything evolved out of this single entity, all elements should be in
correlation with each other. No one could henceforth declare that the sun, the
moon, man, the serpent or a plant had its respective creators. Unity lay beneath
everything, and the Creator of this unity was also the Creator of the sun, the
moon, the beasts and the plants that emerged from this unity. Even before the
Big Bang theory, the irrationality of the idea that attributed different
creators to different objects was evident. However, the Big-Bang proved with new
evidence that God is One.
1- Say: He, God, is One.
2- God is He on Whom all depend.
3- He begets not, nor is He begotten;
4- And none equals Him.
112-Absoluteness, 1-4
Copyright © 2001-2008 Quranic Research Group
Kamis, Desember 18, 2008
WE LIVE IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE
WE LIVE IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE
47- With power did We construct heaven. Verily, We are expanding it.
51-The Dispersing, 47
Is the universe infinite? Or is it finite in a steady state? From the very
beginning this has been a subject of debate between great minds. Hot debates and
ratiocination of all kinds failed to clarify this dilemma. This had once been
the subject of philosophical speculations before it yielded its place to the
science of physics. Some of the great minds argued that the universe was not a
confined space, while others contended that its boundaries were drawn. The Quran
describes it as a continuously expanding and dynamic universe. According to this
description, the universe has a new aspect every instant that deviates from the
concept of an infinite space; its perpetual expansion defies the concept of a
confined and steady state universe. Thus, the Quran propounds a third
alternative, leaving the heated controversy of thinkers in abeyance.
This may contribute to the formulation of a judgment for the inquiring minds,
probing whether the Quran is God?s revelation or not. We have, on the one hand,
Muhammad in the desert, neither a philosopher nor a physicist, and, on the other
hand, the assumptions of great thinkers and philosophers such as Aristotle,
Ptolemy,Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, to name but a few. The
greatest minds in history, basing their arguments on observations and formulas
they had ingeniously devised, claimed either that the universe had its confines
or that it was an endless space, but it occurred to none of them to think of a
dynamic expanding universe, until the 20th century when Edwin Hubble, by means
of a telescope, demonstrated that the universe was expanding. The theory of
expansion of the universe was first advanced in the 1920s. Until the descent of
the Quran no other source had made such an assertion!
MUHAMMAD?S TELESCOPE
Unbelievers contended that the Quran was Muhammad?s own fabrication and not the
revelation of God. How then would these dissenters explain the fact that
Muhammad had been the only person who was aware of the expanding universe long
before the 1920s.
Could it be that in the 600s he had invented a telescope similar to the one
contrived in the 1900s? Could it be that he had been familiar with the handling
of such a telescope and acquainted with the motion of stars and that he had
concealed it from his fellow men? If those who accused the Prophet of lunacy and
alleged that in his delusional states he imagined himself the messenger of God
were justified in their claims, how would they account for the fact that he knew
facts not known to his contemporaries, facts that were to be discovered 1300
years after his revelation of them? If those people assert that the Prophet had
devised a religion to serve his own ends, how can they explain that his so-called
delusions materialized after a lapse of 1300 years? His pronouncements at the
time did not promote his interests in any way; quite the reverse was the case,
since he unwittingly gave his enemies a hint they might take advantage of. Can a
person whose own interests prevail over the interests of others declare
something not to his own advantage that was sure to be bitterly censured and
much derided by those whose naked eyes failed to observe the expansion of the
universe? If, despite this, a person came up with the contention that Muhammad
was an intelligent man who might have perceived this truth, what sort of an
intelligence might this have been?
And, instead of boasting of having been the depository of such knowledge, why
would he have preferred to tell an untruth and claim that this was not his own
discovery but the revelation by God? While the inventor or discoverer of a pin
is inclined to brag about his breakthrough, why on earth would Muhammad choose
to be modest and categorically declare that the Quran was not his own production,
but the revelation of God? Was this due to humility? Would these people - who
had denied his prophethood and accused him of having been an impostor - have
dared qualify him with the laudable attribute of ?humility??
DISCOVERY OF THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE
There was a gap in Newton?s physics. Newton believed in an endlessly vast and
static universe. His law of gravity encountered a problem. How was it that the
physical bodies, in the course of eons, defied their mutual attractions and did
not collapse into a unity? The formula that Einstein devised abandoned the
absolute notions of space and time as reference points for all objects in the
universe. Basing his studies on Einstein?s formulas, Alexander Friedmann, a
Russian physicist, discovered that the universe must be expanding. Georges
Lemaître, a Belgian cleric, astronomer and cosmologist, formulated that the
universe had begun in a cataclysmic explosion of a small, primeval superatom,
like the growing of an oak tree from an acorn. This theory explained the
recession of galaxies within the framework of Albert Einstein?s theory of
general relativity. This idea was so incredible that even Einstein had problems
accepting it, despite the fact that this all had originated from his own
formulas. Einstein, rather, countered that physics was not the forte of Lemaître,
and the universe was an infinite expanse and in a steady state.
Lemaître?s theory posited that the universe was expanding. This was a statement
that no philosopher and no scientist had ever before set forth. Kant had said in
his Critique of Pure Reason that this was an enigma unsolvable by human
intelligence. This theory fit everything and explained the reason why the
universe did not collapse in spite of gravity. The key had fit into the lock. It
was the correct explanation of the enigma. However, this statement met with the
usual adverse reaction: ?No, it is not the truth...?
Remaining outside the sphere of theoretical controversy, American astronomer
Hubble was, about the same time, making observations with his sophisticated
telescope in the Mount Wilson observatory. He observed that galaxies were
receding from each other, which proved that the universe was expanding. In
answer to those who said they could not believe in things their eyes had not
witnessed, Hubble?s discovery led to the following declaration: ?Now that you
see it, you have got to believe it.? Hubble showed this by the Doppler Effect.
Thus the wavelengths of receding bodies prolonged in the spectrum of light waves
would shift to red, while, if the bodies approached each other, the wavelengths
would shorten, shifting to blue. The light that came from galaxies that shifted
to red showed that the galaxies were receding. In line with this observation,
Hubble discovered a striking law: the speed of galaxies that receded was
directly proportional to the distance between galaxies. The farther away a
galaxy stood, the more its speed of recession accelerated. The result was tested
again and again. In 1950, a high-magnification telescope was installed on Mount
Palomar in the USA, the largest instrument of its kind. The new tests and
controls justified this observation. The measurements made pointed to the fact
that the creation of the universe occurred about 10-15 billion years ago.
Both Einstein and Lemaître took an interest in Hubble?s work; Einstein, who did
not agree with Lemaître at first, eventually acknowledged during a conference
that Lemaître was right after all. He confessed that his failure to endorse
these findings had been the gravest error in his life. Thus it was that the fact
that the universe was of a dynamic nature and expanding, confirmed by
observations, was also validated by the great physicist Einstein.
In the examples presented by Hubble and Lemaître, we see illustrated how a
physicist arrives at a conclusion both in theory and through observation. While
Lemaître demonstrated how he had made inferences from Einstein?s formulas to
substantiate his theoretical discoveries, Hubble presented the data of his
observations and his conclusions.
As we see, the result obtained by physicists is the consequence of cumulative
and collective bits of knowledge and research. The Creator of physical laws
provides the answer in the Quran to the issues of towering importance throughout
human history. The Quran?s presentation of scientific facts is clear, direct,
and concise; it is different than the presentation of scientists, which tends to
be complicated by scientific methods and procedures. The provider of this answer
does not have to go through all the labyrinths a scientist has to. The Quran?s
method is perfectly straightforward, unswerving and explicit.
If we had the possibility of looking at the universe from above and somebody
asked us to describe what we saw, our answer would be that it was expanding. To
achieve the Quran?s revelation of this fact 1400 years ago, man would have
needed access to the assistance of accumulated scientific data acquired
throughout long years and to sophisticated telescopes. When people claim that
science and religion oppose each other, the Quran furnishes answers to the most
complicated scientific problems. Observations made by sophisticated telescopes
today confirm the statements of the Quran.
The Quran, perfectly aware of the human psyche with its prescience, states that
nonbelievers will insist on their convictions regardless how many miracles are
presented to them. Some ask: ?Why did the people also not believe in Jesus, who
had performed miracles and healed the sick and the blind?? This example
demonstrates why the majority of people did not believe in Christ and the other
prophets, despite their miracles. Miracles change in fact as time goes by, but
the negative attitude of most humans remains unchanged.
REASON FOR THE USE OF THE ROYAL PLURAL
I think it advisable to explain the reason for the use of ?We? in the verse
analyzed in this chapter. God uses both the royal plural ?We? and the first
person singular ?I.? Some languages use the first person plural ?we? to express
grandeur and exalted rank.
In the hundreds of references addressing God in the second person, the pronoun
used is ?Thou? and never the plural ?You? or ?Ye.? The thousands of references
made to Him as a third person always use the pronoun ?He? and never ?They.?
References in the Quran to God always use either the second or the third person,
and none of them as a second or third person plural. Thousands of times in the
Quran, God is referred to as ?Allah,? ?Gracious (Rahman),? Merciful (Raheem),?
and ?Lord (Rab)? and all of these words are in the singular, never the plural.
Copyright © 2001-2008 Quranic Research Group
47- With power did We construct heaven. Verily, We are expanding it.
51-The Dispersing, 47
Is the universe infinite? Or is it finite in a steady state? From the very
beginning this has been a subject of debate between great minds. Hot debates and
ratiocination of all kinds failed to clarify this dilemma. This had once been
the subject of philosophical speculations before it yielded its place to the
science of physics. Some of the great minds argued that the universe was not a
confined space, while others contended that its boundaries were drawn. The Quran
describes it as a continuously expanding and dynamic universe. According to this
description, the universe has a new aspect every instant that deviates from the
concept of an infinite space; its perpetual expansion defies the concept of a
confined and steady state universe. Thus, the Quran propounds a third
alternative, leaving the heated controversy of thinkers in abeyance.
This may contribute to the formulation of a judgment for the inquiring minds,
probing whether the Quran is God?s revelation or not. We have, on the one hand,
Muhammad in the desert, neither a philosopher nor a physicist, and, on the other
hand, the assumptions of great thinkers and philosophers such as Aristotle,
Ptolemy,Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, to name but a few. The
greatest minds in history, basing their arguments on observations and formulas
they had ingeniously devised, claimed either that the universe had its confines
or that it was an endless space, but it occurred to none of them to think of a
dynamic expanding universe, until the 20th century when Edwin Hubble, by means
of a telescope, demonstrated that the universe was expanding. The theory of
expansion of the universe was first advanced in the 1920s. Until the descent of
the Quran no other source had made such an assertion!
MUHAMMAD?S TELESCOPE
Unbelievers contended that the Quran was Muhammad?s own fabrication and not the
revelation of God. How then would these dissenters explain the fact that
Muhammad had been the only person who was aware of the expanding universe long
before the 1920s.
Could it be that in the 600s he had invented a telescope similar to the one
contrived in the 1900s? Could it be that he had been familiar with the handling
of such a telescope and acquainted with the motion of stars and that he had
concealed it from his fellow men? If those who accused the Prophet of lunacy and
alleged that in his delusional states he imagined himself the messenger of God
were justified in their claims, how would they account for the fact that he knew
facts not known to his contemporaries, facts that were to be discovered 1300
years after his revelation of them? If those people assert that the Prophet had
devised a religion to serve his own ends, how can they explain that his so-called
delusions materialized after a lapse of 1300 years? His pronouncements at the
time did not promote his interests in any way; quite the reverse was the case,
since he unwittingly gave his enemies a hint they might take advantage of. Can a
person whose own interests prevail over the interests of others declare
something not to his own advantage that was sure to be bitterly censured and
much derided by those whose naked eyes failed to observe the expansion of the
universe? If, despite this, a person came up with the contention that Muhammad
was an intelligent man who might have perceived this truth, what sort of an
intelligence might this have been?
And, instead of boasting of having been the depository of such knowledge, why
would he have preferred to tell an untruth and claim that this was not his own
discovery but the revelation by God? While the inventor or discoverer of a pin
is inclined to brag about his breakthrough, why on earth would Muhammad choose
to be modest and categorically declare that the Quran was not his own production,
but the revelation of God? Was this due to humility? Would these people - who
had denied his prophethood and accused him of having been an impostor - have
dared qualify him with the laudable attribute of ?humility??
DISCOVERY OF THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE
There was a gap in Newton?s physics. Newton believed in an endlessly vast and
static universe. His law of gravity encountered a problem. How was it that the
physical bodies, in the course of eons, defied their mutual attractions and did
not collapse into a unity? The formula that Einstein devised abandoned the
absolute notions of space and time as reference points for all objects in the
universe. Basing his studies on Einstein?s formulas, Alexander Friedmann, a
Russian physicist, discovered that the universe must be expanding. Georges
Lemaître, a Belgian cleric, astronomer and cosmologist, formulated that the
universe had begun in a cataclysmic explosion of a small, primeval superatom,
like the growing of an oak tree from an acorn. This theory explained the
recession of galaxies within the framework of Albert Einstein?s theory of
general relativity. This idea was so incredible that even Einstein had problems
accepting it, despite the fact that this all had originated from his own
formulas. Einstein, rather, countered that physics was not the forte of Lemaître,
and the universe was an infinite expanse and in a steady state.
Lemaître?s theory posited that the universe was expanding. This was a statement
that no philosopher and no scientist had ever before set forth. Kant had said in
his Critique of Pure Reason that this was an enigma unsolvable by human
intelligence. This theory fit everything and explained the reason why the
universe did not collapse in spite of gravity. The key had fit into the lock. It
was the correct explanation of the enigma. However, this statement met with the
usual adverse reaction: ?No, it is not the truth...?
Remaining outside the sphere of theoretical controversy, American astronomer
Hubble was, about the same time, making observations with his sophisticated
telescope in the Mount Wilson observatory. He observed that galaxies were
receding from each other, which proved that the universe was expanding. In
answer to those who said they could not believe in things their eyes had not
witnessed, Hubble?s discovery led to the following declaration: ?Now that you
see it, you have got to believe it.? Hubble showed this by the Doppler Effect.
Thus the wavelengths of receding bodies prolonged in the spectrum of light waves
would shift to red, while, if the bodies approached each other, the wavelengths
would shorten, shifting to blue. The light that came from galaxies that shifted
to red showed that the galaxies were receding. In line with this observation,
Hubble discovered a striking law: the speed of galaxies that receded was
directly proportional to the distance between galaxies. The farther away a
galaxy stood, the more its speed of recession accelerated. The result was tested
again and again. In 1950, a high-magnification telescope was installed on Mount
Palomar in the USA, the largest instrument of its kind. The new tests and
controls justified this observation. The measurements made pointed to the fact
that the creation of the universe occurred about 10-15 billion years ago.
Both Einstein and Lemaître took an interest in Hubble?s work; Einstein, who did
not agree with Lemaître at first, eventually acknowledged during a conference
that Lemaître was right after all. He confessed that his failure to endorse
these findings had been the gravest error in his life. Thus it was that the fact
that the universe was of a dynamic nature and expanding, confirmed by
observations, was also validated by the great physicist Einstein.
In the examples presented by Hubble and Lemaître, we see illustrated how a
physicist arrives at a conclusion both in theory and through observation. While
Lemaître demonstrated how he had made inferences from Einstein?s formulas to
substantiate his theoretical discoveries, Hubble presented the data of his
observations and his conclusions.
As we see, the result obtained by physicists is the consequence of cumulative
and collective bits of knowledge and research. The Creator of physical laws
provides the answer in the Quran to the issues of towering importance throughout
human history. The Quran?s presentation of scientific facts is clear, direct,
and concise; it is different than the presentation of scientists, which tends to
be complicated by scientific methods and procedures. The provider of this answer
does not have to go through all the labyrinths a scientist has to. The Quran?s
method is perfectly straightforward, unswerving and explicit.
If we had the possibility of looking at the universe from above and somebody
asked us to describe what we saw, our answer would be that it was expanding. To
achieve the Quran?s revelation of this fact 1400 years ago, man would have
needed access to the assistance of accumulated scientific data acquired
throughout long years and to sophisticated telescopes. When people claim that
science and religion oppose each other, the Quran furnishes answers to the most
complicated scientific problems. Observations made by sophisticated telescopes
today confirm the statements of the Quran.
The Quran, perfectly aware of the human psyche with its prescience, states that
nonbelievers will insist on their convictions regardless how many miracles are
presented to them. Some ask: ?Why did the people also not believe in Jesus, who
had performed miracles and healed the sick and the blind?? This example
demonstrates why the majority of people did not believe in Christ and the other
prophets, despite their miracles. Miracles change in fact as time goes by, but
the negative attitude of most humans remains unchanged.
REASON FOR THE USE OF THE ROYAL PLURAL
I think it advisable to explain the reason for the use of ?We? in the verse
analyzed in this chapter. God uses both the royal plural ?We? and the first
person singular ?I.? Some languages use the first person plural ?we? to express
grandeur and exalted rank.
In the hundreds of references addressing God in the second person, the pronoun
used is ?Thou? and never the plural ?You? or ?Ye.? The thousands of references
made to Him as a third person always use the pronoun ?He? and never ?They.?
References in the Quran to God always use either the second or the third person,
and none of them as a second or third person plural. Thousands of times in the
Quran, God is referred to as ?Allah,? ?Gracious (Rahman),? Merciful (Raheem),?
and ?Lord (Rab)? and all of these words are in the singular, never the plural.
Copyright © 2001-2008 Quranic Research Group
BEETWEEN GOD AND RATIONALITY
RELIGION VS SCIENCE\\\\\\\ ...... CAN THE DIVIDE BEETWEEN GOD AND RATIONALITY
The problem was that Reiss, as well as being an evolutionary biologist and
When he said recently that science teachers should answer questions about
creationism if pupils asked them he was deemed to have been advocating the idea
that British schools should teach the idea that the world was magicked up (complete
with fossils and ancient geology) just 6,000 years ago ? and then tell pupils to
make their own minds up between that and the theory of evolution to which the
overwhelming scientific evidence points.
The hapless Reiss made it clear that he insists creationism is scientific
nonsense. But a handful of the Royal Society's most eminent members began a
campaign to have him sacked. Sir Harry Kroto, Sir Richard Roberts and Sir John
Sulston said in a letter to the president of the Royal Society: "We gather
Professor Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself is very worrisome." We must all
now be on the look-out, it now seems for Revs under the beds.
The idea that science and religion are incompatible is a fairly recent import
into contemporary culture. It has been given huge credence by the 9/11 terrorist
attacks on the United States. The pronounced motivation of Islamic
fundamentalists in 2001 hammered home that some people are prepared to inflict
outrageous acts of inhumanity in the name of religion.
Yet the roots of the shift in attitude go back much further. "It came about
because of a perfect storm ? a wide range of factors came together," says the
atheist philosopher Julian Baggini. Among them were a shift from liberal to
evangelical Christianity in Britain, the rise of creationism in America,
advances in scientific techniques in biology and changes in public perception on
issues as disparate as homosexuality and assisted dying.
But we are leaping ahead here. The relationship between science and religion has
had a long and chequered history since the settled days of the medieval
consensus, which saw faith and the natural sciences as part of a cosmic whole.
Galileo put paid to that with his insistence that the earth revolved around the
sun. The Catholic Church, which saw man and his planet at the centre of the
universe ? and which already felt its authority threatened by the rise of
Protestantism ? locked horns with him. The clash became a metaphor for the
irreconcilability of scientific materialism and biblical literalism.
Things changed with Isaac Newton. His laws of physics led to a world view which
relegated God to background status as the designer of a clockwork world which he
wound up and then left to its own devices. Newton's celestial mechanics brought
an advance in our scientific understanding but didn't really work for a faith
that wanted to believe that, through the historical Jesus, God had become, in
the words of the song "a slob like one of us".
Next came Darwin. At first many saw his theory of evolution as a threat to
religion but mainstream Christianity soon accepted evolution as the answer to
the "how" of creation, leaving the "why" questions of meaning and morality to
faith. Science and religion exercised authority over two discrete compartments
of life between which there could be no link.
But through the latter half of the 20th century a synergy developed. In
cosmology the science of the expanding universe and the Big Bang chimed in with
a moment of creation. The inherent uncertainty that quantum physics discovered
at the subatomic level overturned Newton's mechanics and created room for a "God
of the gaps". Process theology embraced evolution and said men and women are
called to play a part in an ever-ongoing creation. Advances in neuro-science
showed that mental and spiritual phenomena depend upon biological processes,
undermining the old dualist notions about body and soul and offering a more
holistic body-mind-spirit axis.
"Attacks on religion, when I was a student in the Sixties, were largely on
political grounds," says Dr Denis Alexander, the Director of the Faraday
Institute for Science and Religion in Cambridge. "It was seen to be on the side
of capitalism and the rich." In Anglo-American philosophy, says Baggini, "religion
was seen as wrong but as something that didn't really matter much. The world was
going secular and eventually it would just die out."
But the rise of Christian fundamentalism in America in the past few decades ?
the word fundamentalist in its religious sense was added to the Oxford English
Dictionary in only 1989 ? was mirrored in a milder way in Britain too. Liberal
Christianity, so long in the ascendant in the Church of England, began to lose
ground to evangelicalism. "Non-literal Christianity failed," says Baggini, "because
it doesn't capture the popular imagination. The certainties of evangelical
Christianity appeal more to those for whom the attractions of religion are on a
more visceral level." This appeal was symbolised through the 1990s by the Alpha
course on the basics of the Christian faith devised in London by a curate at
Holy Trinity, Brompton, which has since been used by more than 10 million people
in 160 countries. The idea that the miracles of the New Testament may have been
metaphors rather than literal truths suddenly went out of fashion in Christian
circles.
Throughout this time scientists such as Richard Dawkins had evidenced a disdain
for such simple certainties. In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene there were a few
side-swipes at religion and in 1986 in The Blind Watchmaker he conducted a
sustained critique of the 18th-century deist argument that the world is too
complicated to have sprung into existence by accident so a rational observer
should conclude that it must have been designed, just as someone finding a watch
would conclude that somewhere there must be a watchmaker who made it. And by
1991, in response to the question of why evolution had allowed religion to
thrive, he had coined the notion that religion was a virus.
But it was the terrorist attacks in 2001 that turned Dawkins into an Alpha
atheist and transformed him from an academic backwater into a populist ideologue.
Before 9/11, he said, religion may have appeared a "harmless nonsense". But the
attacks in New York showed it to be a "lethally dangerous nonsense". Previously,
he said, "we all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion
from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!" The gloves
were off.
But another prominent atheist, medic and secularist, the Liberal Democrat MP, Dr
Evan Harris, is not so sure that 9/11 was the nodal point. "It's not the main
thing to scientists," he insists. "When you talk to them the thing that comes up
most often is the influence religion has had on science in America under George
Bush." Religious pressures there have had direct impacts on a wide range of
policy ? from a ban on public money being put into stem cell research to a
refusal to allow US aid programmes to hand out condoms to fight Aids in Africa.
"Scientists who are publicly funded can't go to conferences and speak without
being obliged to stick to the Bush line," says Harris.
Advances in bio-technology have opened up new areas for disagreement. Test tube
babies, embryo selection, saviour siblings, stem cell research and animal-human
cybrids have all created new battlegrounds between those who think that an
embryo is a person from the moment of conception to those who think it is merely
a cluster of cells before implantation or even birth ? and all variety of
opinions in between.
"There is a definite danger of our desire for research outstripping our capacity
to anticipate the ethical implications of those advances," says the feminist
theologian, Tina Beattie, whose book The New Atheists argues that Dawkins & Co
misuse Darwin and evolutionary biology as much as the Christian fundamentalists
misuse the Bible. "Some scientists experience religion as merely an irritating
brake on their striving to do new things." The public, after a list of
scientific disasters from thalidomide and nuclear weapons to BSE and the
stealing of dead children's organs at Alder Hey, are much more suspicious,
judging that "scientists have problems policing their borders".
From a very different perspective Andrew Copson, the director of education for
the British Humanist Association, agrees. "Scientists are fearful so the issue
has become very emotive," he says. "They fear that, behind what people like
Michael Reiss say, there lies a Trojan horse." It is perhaps significant here
that the two main instigators of the campaign to have Reiss ousted from his
Royal Society job, Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts, are now based in the
United States where creationism is a major phenomenon. Polls suggest that around
45 per cent of Americans are creationists with 40 per cent believing that God
worked through evolution and just 10 per cent saying it was nothing to do with a
God.
The experience of being a secularist in the US is clearly a radicalising one. "I
don't know if it is too late to stop the slide in Britain but I think it is in
the US where [the religious right] have now almost complete control over
politics, the judiciary, education, business, journalism and television," Kroto,
who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1996, has said, adding darkly: "The
Royal Society does not appreciate the true nature of the forces arrayed against
it."
The position in the UK is nothing like that, though the statistics are unclear.
A 2006 BBC poll claimed that 48 per cent of the British public accepted
evolution with 22 per cent preferring creationism but the definitions it used
were so sloppy as to be almost meaningless. A survey of schoolchildren has
suggested that more than 10 per cent now believe in creationism. But the
Evangelical Alliance, whose members now number around 3 per cent of the UK
population, reckons that only a third of its members ? about 1 per cent of the
population ? are creationists. About a third think Genesis is merely symbolic,
and a third believe that God worked through evolution but is still capable of
intervening in specific ways. Its most recent, unpublished, survey shows that
the proportion seeing the Genesis account as symbolic is increasing, the EA's
Head of Theology, Dr Justin Thacker, says.
Evan Harris accepts that the number of British schools teaching creationism is
tiny. But, as an MP, he is worried about the increasing activity of religious
lobby groups in public life. "Groups like the Evangelical Alliance, the
Christian Institute and Christian Action Research and Education are now all much
more organised and active in seeking to change public policy. They are making
the running in parliament, much more than the leadership of the Catholic Church.
The Church of England's bishops are much more evangelical too; their centre of
gravity has changed form the days when liberals ruled the roost. And the C of E
has been much more active in Parliament."
All this is having a real impact, Dr Harris suggests. "In the days of Thatcher
all the mainstream Tories voted in favour of embryo research. Twenty years on
most of the new suave modernising Cameroonian Tories vote against it." Academics
detect a similar shift. Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, who
has been teaching genetics and evolutionary biology for 30 years, has said that
religious students ? even those studying medicine ? are becoming increasingly
vocal in their opposition to evolution, demanding to be exempted from classes
and exam questions on the subject.
Creationism, like Coca-Cola, came here from the United States. The American
lobby group Answers in Genesis, with its $13m annual budget, now has an office
in the UK from where staff go round giving illustrated talks about how humans
and dinosaurs roamed the earth together. Another conservative group, Truth in
Science, has adopted a strategy of lobbying for schools to "Teach the
Controversy" in an attempt to get Intelligent Design, a spin-off of creationism,
taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. In 2006 it sent resource
packs to the heads of science of all British secondary schools; New Scientist
claims that 59 schools have used, or plan to use, them.
The fear generated by such tactics is what did for Michael Reiss. "Even if he
doesn't support all this, what he said might be seen to give succour to it,"
says Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association. "I can understand why
alarm bells go off with people who are familiar with 'Teach the controversy'
tactics of people who want to baby-step creationism into our science classrooms."
All of this mystifies the vast majority of the nation's Christians who have been
taught since the time of St Augustine, who died AD430, that where there appears
to be a conflict between demonstrated knowledge and a literal reading of the
bible then the scriptures should be interpreted metaphorically. They see no
conflict between faith and reason because, as Pope John Paul II put it: "God
created man as rational and free, thereby placing himself under man's judgement."
Just last month the present Pope reiterated the same line, warning of the
dangers of fundamentalist readings of the Bible. Each generation, he said, needs
to find its collective interpretation of the text. For this task of
interpretation ? which can never be never completely finished ? science offers a
major tool.
It all perplexes academics who specialise in the interplay between science and
religion too. Creationism doesn't just involve many scientific errors, it relies
on a major theological one too. "When Robert Burns tell us his love 'is like a
red, red rose', we know that we are not meant to think that his girlfriend has
green leaves and prickles," says the particle physicist and Anglican priest, Sir
John Polkinghorne. Why, he wonders, would any rational person want to read the
Bible in that way?
The world of science he encounters is a much more subtle one. "There's a cosmic
religiosity among physicists," he insists, though "biologists see more ambiguity,
perhaps because they look at the wastefulness of nature, and perhaps because
sequencing the human genome has made them triumphalist." It is more complex even
than that: the head of the Human Genome Project, Dr Francis Collins, last year
published a book about his journey from atheism into faith arguing that science
and religion, far from being irreconcilable, are in fact in deep harmony.
In the past 30 years an area of inter-disciplinary activity has opened up to
explore this. Areas of research include cognitive neuro-sciences and issues like
freewill and consciousness and whether human minds are merely matter or
something more. In evolutionary psychology they have also explored together
questions like the origins of altruism ? asking whether evolutionary biology can
give an adequate account of why people are willing to sacrifice themselves on
behalf of others. In paleobiology they are asking questions like how eyes evolve
in different lineages ? suggesting that evolution isn't a random or chance
process but is channelled by certain chemically-determined pathways. In
cosmology there is a universe versus multiverses debate.
"All that going on, but all the public knows about is Dawkins," says Dr Denis
Alexander of the Faraday Institute in Cambridge. "Academic discussion on the
relationship between science and religion is genuinely exploratory, not
polarised. To most people in it Dawkins just sounds rather odd."
John Hedley Brooke, who recently retired as the first Professor of Science and
Religion at the University of Oxford, is more sanguine. "These eruptions take
place from time to time historically," he shrugs. "Dawkins is just a throwback
to 19th-century rationalism. He has a strong emotional antagonism that is very
indiscriminate and treats all kinds of religion the same. A lot of fine
distinctions that get lost in the polemics. The problem is that it is all a
cumulative process in which the extremes feed off one another."
"Paradoxically, Dawkins is the biggest recruiter for creationism in this country,"
says Denis Alexander. Recently, he says, Bill Demcksi, a leading US creationist,
e-mailed Dawkins to thank him for his assistance. "The danger is that all this
polarisation will make some believers more anti-science which is not a clever
move tactically." He hopes that whoever succeeds Dawkins as Oxford's Professor
of the Public Understanding of Science is more interested in promoting science
than in attacking religion.
On the other side of the argument Evan Harris is unapologetic about contributing
to what Julian Baggini waggishly calls this "assertiveness inflation". "It's
good that there's this tension," the MP says. "These debates need to be had in
public. Science has nothing to fear from them. I don't think we're winning; we've
won a few battles; but there's a war to be fought." He concedes that Michael
Reiss may have been sacked unfairly ? saying that the "overstrong line" taken by
Kroto and Co should not be taken as representative of all on the secular side ?
but points out that employment injustices are perpetrated every time a church
school refuses to appoint a maths teacher because she doesn't "have Jesus in her
heart".
The danger is that between the strident secularists and the fanatical
fundamentalists some important middle ground is being squeezed out. "Dawkins
sees religion as credulous, superstitious and prejudiced but mature religious
traditions teach people to challenge all that," says Tina Beattie. "Science will
never offer an answer to the parents of Madeleine McCann. Nor will it ever be
irrational to go to a Mozart concert, though science can never explain the
genius of his music. The new atheism completely misunderstands the way that
human beings experience the poetry and narrative of life."
Perhaps the conflict is not between science and religion but between good and
bad ways of doing both. In all of us there will always be a struggle between the
craving for certainty, purity and closure and the acceptance of mystery,
brokenness and provisionality. At their best, both scientists and people of
faith are in a permanent state of awe-struck humility before the wonder and
strangeness and messiness of things. At their worst, they are arrogant, dogmatic,
and incurious. There's a bit of both in all of us, of course.
Interesting? Click here to explore further
Print Article Email Article
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Senin, September 15, 2008
biological and religion
SEPUTAR MASALAH PENCANGKOKAN ORGAN TUBUH
Dr. Yusuf Qardhawi
Fatwa ini saya tulis sejak lama sebagai jawaban terhadapbeberapa pertanyaan seputar masalah pencangkokan organtubuh. Masalah ini merupakan masalah ijtihadiyah yang terbukakemungkinan untuk didiskusikan, seperti halnya semua hasilijtihad atau pemikiran manusia, khususnya menyangkutmasalah-masalah kontemporer yang belum pernah dibahas olehpara ulama terdahulu. Dalam kaitan ini, tidak seorang pun ahli fiqih yang dapatmengklaim bahwa pendapatnyalah yang benar secara mutlak.Paling-paling ia hanya boleh mengatakan sebagaimana yangdikatakan Imam Syafi'i, "Pendapatku benar tetapi adakemungkinan salah, dan pendapat orang lain salah tetapi adakemungkinan benar." Karena itu saya menganggap aneh terhadap kesalahpahaman yangmuncul akhir-akhir ini yang menentang seorang juru dakwahyang agung, Syekh Muhammad Mutawalli asy-Sya'rawi, karenabeliau memfatwakan tidak bolehnya pencangkokan organ tubuhdengan didasarkan atas pemikiran beliau. Sebenarnya Syekh Sya'rawi --mudah-mudahan Allah melindungibeliau-- tidak menulis fatwa tersebut secara bebas dandetail. Beliau hanya mengatakannya dalam suatu mata acaratelevisi, ketika menjawab pertanyaan yang diajukan. Dalamacara-acara seperti itu sering muncul pertanyaan secaratiba-tiba, dan jawabannya pun bersifat sepintas lalu, yangtidak dapat dijadikan acuan pokok sebagai pendapat danpandangan ulama dalam persoalan-persoalan besar danmasalah-masalah yang sukar. Yang dapat dijadikan pegangandalam hal ini adalah pendapat yang tertuang dalam bentuktulisan, karena pendapat dalam bentuk tulisan mencerminkanpemikiran yang akurat dari orang yang bersangkutan, dantidak ada kesamaran padanya. Namun demikian, setiap orang boleh diterima dan ditolakperkataannya, kecuali Nabi saw. Sedangkan seorang mujtahid,apabila benar pendapatnya maka dia akan mendapatkan duapahala; dan jika keliru maka diampuni kesalahannya, bahkanmasih mendapatkan satu pahala. Wa billahit taufiq, dan kepada-Nya-lah tujuan perjalananhidup ini. PERTANYAAN Bolehkah seorang muslim mendonorkan sebagian organ tubuhnyasewaktu dia hidup untuk dicangkokkan pada tubuh orang lain?Kalau boleh, apakah kebolehannya itu bersifat mutlak ataukahterikat dengan syarat-syarat tertentu? Dan apasyarat-syaratnya itu? Jika mendonorkan organ tubuh itu diperbolehkan, maka untuksiapa saja donor itu? Apakah hanya untuk kerabat, atau hanyauntuk orang muslim, ataukah boleh untuk sembarang orang? Apabila mendermakan atau mendonorkan organ tubuh itudiperbolehkan, apakah boleh memperjualbelikannya? Bolehkah mendonorkan organ tubuh setelah meninggal dunia?Apakah hal ini tidak bertentangan dengan keharusan menjagakehormatan mayit? Apakah mendonorkan itu merupakan hak orang bersangkutan(yang punya tubuh itu) saja? Bolehkah keluarganyamendonorkan organ tubuh si mati? Bolehkah negara mengambil sebagian organ tubuh orang yangkecelakaan misalnya, untuk menolong orang lain? Bolehkah mencangkokkan organ tubuh orang nonmuslim ke tubuhorang muslim? Bolehkah mencangkokkan organ tubuh binatang --termasukbinatang itu najis, seperti babi misalnya-- ke tubuh seorangmuslim? Itulah sejumlah pertanyaan yang dihadapkan kepada fiqihIslam dan tokoh-tokohnya beserta lembaga-lembaganya padamasa sekarang. Semua itu memerlukan jawaban, apakah diperbolehkan secaramutlak, apakah dilarang secara mutlak, ataukah denganperincian? Baiklah saya akan mencoba menjawabnya, mudah-mudahan Allahmemberi pertolongan dan taufiq-Nya. JAWABAN BOLEHKAH ORANG MUSLIM MENDERMAKAN ORGAN TUBUHNYA KETIKA DIAMASIH HIDUP? Ada yang mengatakan bahwa diperbolehkannya seseorangmendermakan atau mendonorkan sesuatu ialah apabila itumiliknya. Maka, apakah seseorang itu memiliki tubuhnyasendiri sehingga ia dapat mempergunakannya sekehendakhatinya, misalnya dengan mendonorkannya atau lainnya? Atau,apakah tubuh itu merupakan titipan dari Allah yang tidakboleh ia pergunakan kecuali dengan izin-Nya? Sebagaimanaseseorang tidak boleh memperlakukan tubuhnya dengan semausendiri pada waktu dia hidup dengan melenyapkannya danmembunuhnya (bunuh diri), maka dia juga tidak bolehmempergunakan sebagian tubuhnya jika sekiranya menimbulkanmudarat buat dirinya. Namun demikian, perlu diperhatikan disini bahwa meskipuntubuh merupakan titipan dari Allah, tetapi manusia diberiwewenang untuk memanfaatkan dan mempergunakannya,sebagaimana harta. Harta pada hakikatnya milik Allahsebagaimana diisyaratkan oleh Al-Qur'an, misalnya dalamfirman Allah: "... dan berikanlah kepada mereka sebagian dari harta Allah yang dikaruniakan-Nya kepadamu ..." (an-Nur: 33) Akan tetapi, Allah memberi wewenang kepada manusia untukmemilikinya dan membelanjakan harta itu. Sebagaimana manusia boleh mendermakan sebagian hartanyauntuk kepentingan orang lain yang membutuhkannya, makadiperkenankan juga seseorang mendermakan sebagian tubuhnyauntuk orang lain yang memerlukannya. Hanya perbedaannya adalah bahwa manusia adakalanya bolehmendermakan atau membelanjakan seluruh hartanya, tetapi diatidak boleh mendermakan seluruh anggota badannya. Bahkan iatidak boleh mendermakan dirinya (mengorbankan dirinya) untukmenyelamatkan orang sakit dari kematian, dari penderitaanyang sangat, atau dari kehidupan yang sengsara. Apabila seorang muslim dibenarkan menceburkan dirinya kelaut untuk menyelamatkan orang yang tenggelam, atau masuk ketengah-tengah jilatan api untuk memadamkan kebakaran, makamengapakah tidak diperbolehkan seorang muslim mempertaruhkansebagian wujud materiilnya (organ tubuhnya) untukkemaslahatan orang lain yang membutuhkannya? Pada zaman sekarang kita melihat adanya donor darah, yangmerupakan bagian dari tubuh manusia, telah merata dinegara-negara kaum muslim tanpa ada seorang ulama pun yangmengingkarinya, bahkan mereka menganjurkannya atau ikutserta menjadi donor. Maka ijma' sukuti (kesepakatan ulamasecara diam-diam) ini --menurut sebagian fatwa yang munculmengenai masalah ini-- menunjukkan bahwa donor darah dapatditerima syara'. Didalam kaidah syar'iyah ditetapkan bahwa mudarat itu harusdihilangkan sedapat mungkin. Karena itulah kita disyariatkanuntuk menolong orang yang dalam keadaan tertekan/terpaksa,menolong orang yang terluka, memberi makan orang yangkelaparan, melepaskan tawanan, mengobati orang yang sakit,dan menyelamatkan orang yang menghadapi bahaya, baikmengenai jiwanya maupun lainnya. Maka tidak diperkenankan seorang muslim yang melihat suatudharar (bencana, bahaya) yang menimpa seseorang atausekelompok orang, tetapi dia tidak berusaha menghilangkanbahaya itu padahal dia mampu menghilangkannya, atau tidakberusaha menghilangkannya menurut kemampuannya. Karena itu saya katakan bahwa berusaha menghilangkanpenderitaan seorang muslim yang menderita gagal ginjalmisalnya, dengan mendonorkan salah satu ginjalnya yangsehat, maka tindakan demikian diperkenankan syara', bahkanterpuji dan berpahala bagi orang yang melakukannya. Karenadengan demikian berarti dia menyayangi orang yang di bumi,sehingga dia berhak mendapatkan kasih sayang dari yang dilangit. Islam tidak membatasi sedekah pada harta semata-mata, bahkanIslam menganggap semua kebaikan (al-ma'ruf) sebagai sedekah.Maka mendermakan sebagian organ tubuh termasuk kebaikan(sedekah). Bahkan tidak diragukan lagi, hal ini termasukjenis sedekah yang paling tinggi dan paling utama, karenatubuh (anggota tubuh) itu lebih utama daripada harta,sedangkan seseorang mungkin saja menggunakan seluruh hartakekayaannya untuk menyelamatkan (mengobati) sebagian anggotatubuhnya. Karena itu, mendermakan sebagian organ tubuhkarena Allah Ta'ala merupakan qurbah (pendekatan diri kepadaAllah) yang paling utama dan sedekah yang paling mulia. Kalau kita katakan orang hidup boleh mendonorkan sebagianorgan tubuhnya, maka apakah kebolehan itu bersifat mutlakatau ada persyaratan tertentu? Jawabannya, bahwa kebolehannya itu bersifat muqayyad(bersyarat). Maka seseorang tidak boleh mendonorkan sebagianorgan tubuhnya yang justru akan menimbulkan dharar,kemelaratan, dan kesengsaraan bagi dirinya atau bagiseseorang yang punya hak tetap atas dirinya. Oleh sebab itu, tidak diperkenankan seseorang mendonorkanorgan tubuh yang cuma satu-satunya dalam tubuhnya, misalnyahati atau jantung, karena dia tidak mungkin dapat hiduptanpa adanya organ tersebut; dan tidak diperkenankanmenghilangkan dharar dari orang lain dengan menimbulkandharar pada dirinya. Maka kaidah syar'iyah yang berbunyi:"Dharar (bahaya, kemelaratan, kesengsaraan, nestapa) ituharus dihilangkan," dibatasi oleh kaidah lain yang berbunyi:"Dharar itu tidak boleh dihilangkan dengan menimbulkandharar pula." Para ulama ushul menafsirkan kaidah tersebut denganpengertian: tidak boleh menghilangkan dharar denganmenimbulkan dharar yang sama atau yang lebih besardaripadanya. Karena itu tidak boleh mendermakan organ tubuh bagian luar,seperti mata, tangan, dan kaki. Karena yang demikian ituadalah menghilangkan dharar orang lain dengan menimbulkandharar pada diri sendiri yang lebih besar, sebab denganbegitu dia mengabaikan kegunaan organ itu bagi dirinya danmenjadikan buruk rupanya. Begitu pula halnya organ tubuh bagian dalam yang berpasangantetapi salah satu dari pasangan itu tidak berfungsi atausakit, maka organ ini dianggap seperti satu organ. Hal itu merupakan contoh bagi yang dharar-nya menimpa salahseorang yang mempunyai hak tetap terhadap penderma (donor),seperti hak istri, anak, suami, atau orang yang berpiutang(mengutangkan sesuatu kepadanya). Pada suatu hari pernah ada seorang wanita bertanya kepadasaya bahwa dia ingin mendonorkan salah satu ginjalnya kepadasaudara perempuannya, tetapi suaminya tidakmemperbolehkannya, apakah memang ini termasuk hak suaminya? Saya jawab bahwa suami punya hak atas istrinya. Apabila ia(si istri) mendermakan salah satu ginjalnya, sudah barangtentu ia harus dioperasi dan masuk rumah sakit, sertamemerlukan perawatan khusus. Semua itu dapat menghalangisebagian hak suami terhadap istri, belum lagi ditambahdengan beban-beban lainnya. Oleh karena itu, seharusnya halitu dilakukan dengan izin dan kerelaan suami. Disamping itu, mendonorkan organ tubuh hanya boleh dilakukanoleh orang dewasa dan berakal sehat. Dengan demikian, tidakdiperbolehkan anak kecil mendonorkan organ tubuhnya, sebabia tidak tahu persis kepentingan dirinya, demikian pulahalnya orang gila. Begitu juga seorang wali, ia tidak boleh mendonorkan organtubuh anak kecil dan orang gila yang dibawah perwaliannya,disebabkan keduanya tidak mengerti. Terhadap harta merekasaja wali tidak boleh mendermakannya, lebih-lebih jika iamendermakan sesuatu yang lebih tinggi dan lebih muliadaripada harta, semisal organ tubuh.
Dr. Yusuf Qardhawi
Fatwa ini saya tulis sejak lama sebagai jawaban terhadapbeberapa pertanyaan seputar masalah pencangkokan organtubuh. Masalah ini merupakan masalah ijtihadiyah yang terbukakemungkinan untuk didiskusikan, seperti halnya semua hasilijtihad atau pemikiran manusia, khususnya menyangkutmasalah-masalah kontemporer yang belum pernah dibahas olehpara ulama terdahulu. Dalam kaitan ini, tidak seorang pun ahli fiqih yang dapatmengklaim bahwa pendapatnyalah yang benar secara mutlak.Paling-paling ia hanya boleh mengatakan sebagaimana yangdikatakan Imam Syafi'i, "Pendapatku benar tetapi adakemungkinan salah, dan pendapat orang lain salah tetapi adakemungkinan benar." Karena itu saya menganggap aneh terhadap kesalahpahaman yangmuncul akhir-akhir ini yang menentang seorang juru dakwahyang agung, Syekh Muhammad Mutawalli asy-Sya'rawi, karenabeliau memfatwakan tidak bolehnya pencangkokan organ tubuhdengan didasarkan atas pemikiran beliau. Sebenarnya Syekh Sya'rawi --mudah-mudahan Allah melindungibeliau-- tidak menulis fatwa tersebut secara bebas dandetail. Beliau hanya mengatakannya dalam suatu mata acaratelevisi, ketika menjawab pertanyaan yang diajukan. Dalamacara-acara seperti itu sering muncul pertanyaan secaratiba-tiba, dan jawabannya pun bersifat sepintas lalu, yangtidak dapat dijadikan acuan pokok sebagai pendapat danpandangan ulama dalam persoalan-persoalan besar danmasalah-masalah yang sukar. Yang dapat dijadikan pegangandalam hal ini adalah pendapat yang tertuang dalam bentuktulisan, karena pendapat dalam bentuk tulisan mencerminkanpemikiran yang akurat dari orang yang bersangkutan, dantidak ada kesamaran padanya. Namun demikian, setiap orang boleh diterima dan ditolakperkataannya, kecuali Nabi saw. Sedangkan seorang mujtahid,apabila benar pendapatnya maka dia akan mendapatkan duapahala; dan jika keliru maka diampuni kesalahannya, bahkanmasih mendapatkan satu pahala. Wa billahit taufiq, dan kepada-Nya-lah tujuan perjalananhidup ini. PERTANYAAN Bolehkah seorang muslim mendonorkan sebagian organ tubuhnyasewaktu dia hidup untuk dicangkokkan pada tubuh orang lain?Kalau boleh, apakah kebolehannya itu bersifat mutlak ataukahterikat dengan syarat-syarat tertentu? Dan apasyarat-syaratnya itu? Jika mendonorkan organ tubuh itu diperbolehkan, maka untuksiapa saja donor itu? Apakah hanya untuk kerabat, atau hanyauntuk orang muslim, ataukah boleh untuk sembarang orang? Apabila mendermakan atau mendonorkan organ tubuh itudiperbolehkan, apakah boleh memperjualbelikannya? Bolehkah mendonorkan organ tubuh setelah meninggal dunia?Apakah hal ini tidak bertentangan dengan keharusan menjagakehormatan mayit? Apakah mendonorkan itu merupakan hak orang bersangkutan(yang punya tubuh itu) saja? Bolehkah keluarganyamendonorkan organ tubuh si mati? Bolehkah negara mengambil sebagian organ tubuh orang yangkecelakaan misalnya, untuk menolong orang lain? Bolehkah mencangkokkan organ tubuh orang nonmuslim ke tubuhorang muslim? Bolehkah mencangkokkan organ tubuh binatang --termasukbinatang itu najis, seperti babi misalnya-- ke tubuh seorangmuslim? Itulah sejumlah pertanyaan yang dihadapkan kepada fiqihIslam dan tokoh-tokohnya beserta lembaga-lembaganya padamasa sekarang. Semua itu memerlukan jawaban, apakah diperbolehkan secaramutlak, apakah dilarang secara mutlak, ataukah denganperincian? Baiklah saya akan mencoba menjawabnya, mudah-mudahan Allahmemberi pertolongan dan taufiq-Nya. JAWABAN BOLEHKAH ORANG MUSLIM MENDERMAKAN ORGAN TUBUHNYA KETIKA DIAMASIH HIDUP? Ada yang mengatakan bahwa diperbolehkannya seseorangmendermakan atau mendonorkan sesuatu ialah apabila itumiliknya. Maka, apakah seseorang itu memiliki tubuhnyasendiri sehingga ia dapat mempergunakannya sekehendakhatinya, misalnya dengan mendonorkannya atau lainnya? Atau,apakah tubuh itu merupakan titipan dari Allah yang tidakboleh ia pergunakan kecuali dengan izin-Nya? Sebagaimanaseseorang tidak boleh memperlakukan tubuhnya dengan semausendiri pada waktu dia hidup dengan melenyapkannya danmembunuhnya (bunuh diri), maka dia juga tidak bolehmempergunakan sebagian tubuhnya jika sekiranya menimbulkanmudarat buat dirinya. Namun demikian, perlu diperhatikan disini bahwa meskipuntubuh merupakan titipan dari Allah, tetapi manusia diberiwewenang untuk memanfaatkan dan mempergunakannya,sebagaimana harta. Harta pada hakikatnya milik Allahsebagaimana diisyaratkan oleh Al-Qur'an, misalnya dalamfirman Allah: "... dan berikanlah kepada mereka sebagian dari harta Allah yang dikaruniakan-Nya kepadamu ..." (an-Nur: 33) Akan tetapi, Allah memberi wewenang kepada manusia untukmemilikinya dan membelanjakan harta itu. Sebagaimana manusia boleh mendermakan sebagian hartanyauntuk kepentingan orang lain yang membutuhkannya, makadiperkenankan juga seseorang mendermakan sebagian tubuhnyauntuk orang lain yang memerlukannya. Hanya perbedaannya adalah bahwa manusia adakalanya bolehmendermakan atau membelanjakan seluruh hartanya, tetapi diatidak boleh mendermakan seluruh anggota badannya. Bahkan iatidak boleh mendermakan dirinya (mengorbankan dirinya) untukmenyelamatkan orang sakit dari kematian, dari penderitaanyang sangat, atau dari kehidupan yang sengsara. Apabila seorang muslim dibenarkan menceburkan dirinya kelaut untuk menyelamatkan orang yang tenggelam, atau masuk ketengah-tengah jilatan api untuk memadamkan kebakaran, makamengapakah tidak diperbolehkan seorang muslim mempertaruhkansebagian wujud materiilnya (organ tubuhnya) untukkemaslahatan orang lain yang membutuhkannya? Pada zaman sekarang kita melihat adanya donor darah, yangmerupakan bagian dari tubuh manusia, telah merata dinegara-negara kaum muslim tanpa ada seorang ulama pun yangmengingkarinya, bahkan mereka menganjurkannya atau ikutserta menjadi donor. Maka ijma' sukuti (kesepakatan ulamasecara diam-diam) ini --menurut sebagian fatwa yang munculmengenai masalah ini-- menunjukkan bahwa donor darah dapatditerima syara'. Didalam kaidah syar'iyah ditetapkan bahwa mudarat itu harusdihilangkan sedapat mungkin. Karena itulah kita disyariatkanuntuk menolong orang yang dalam keadaan tertekan/terpaksa,menolong orang yang terluka, memberi makan orang yangkelaparan, melepaskan tawanan, mengobati orang yang sakit,dan menyelamatkan orang yang menghadapi bahaya, baikmengenai jiwanya maupun lainnya. Maka tidak diperkenankan seorang muslim yang melihat suatudharar (bencana, bahaya) yang menimpa seseorang atausekelompok orang, tetapi dia tidak berusaha menghilangkanbahaya itu padahal dia mampu menghilangkannya, atau tidakberusaha menghilangkannya menurut kemampuannya. Karena itu saya katakan bahwa berusaha menghilangkanpenderitaan seorang muslim yang menderita gagal ginjalmisalnya, dengan mendonorkan salah satu ginjalnya yangsehat, maka tindakan demikian diperkenankan syara', bahkanterpuji dan berpahala bagi orang yang melakukannya. Karenadengan demikian berarti dia menyayangi orang yang di bumi,sehingga dia berhak mendapatkan kasih sayang dari yang dilangit. Islam tidak membatasi sedekah pada harta semata-mata, bahkanIslam menganggap semua kebaikan (al-ma'ruf) sebagai sedekah.Maka mendermakan sebagian organ tubuh termasuk kebaikan(sedekah). Bahkan tidak diragukan lagi, hal ini termasukjenis sedekah yang paling tinggi dan paling utama, karenatubuh (anggota tubuh) itu lebih utama daripada harta,sedangkan seseorang mungkin saja menggunakan seluruh hartakekayaannya untuk menyelamatkan (mengobati) sebagian anggotatubuhnya. Karena itu, mendermakan sebagian organ tubuhkarena Allah Ta'ala merupakan qurbah (pendekatan diri kepadaAllah) yang paling utama dan sedekah yang paling mulia. Kalau kita katakan orang hidup boleh mendonorkan sebagianorgan tubuhnya, maka apakah kebolehan itu bersifat mutlakatau ada persyaratan tertentu? Jawabannya, bahwa kebolehannya itu bersifat muqayyad(bersyarat). Maka seseorang tidak boleh mendonorkan sebagianorgan tubuhnya yang justru akan menimbulkan dharar,kemelaratan, dan kesengsaraan bagi dirinya atau bagiseseorang yang punya hak tetap atas dirinya. Oleh sebab itu, tidak diperkenankan seseorang mendonorkanorgan tubuh yang cuma satu-satunya dalam tubuhnya, misalnyahati atau jantung, karena dia tidak mungkin dapat hiduptanpa adanya organ tersebut; dan tidak diperkenankanmenghilangkan dharar dari orang lain dengan menimbulkandharar pada dirinya. Maka kaidah syar'iyah yang berbunyi:"Dharar (bahaya, kemelaratan, kesengsaraan, nestapa) ituharus dihilangkan," dibatasi oleh kaidah lain yang berbunyi:"Dharar itu tidak boleh dihilangkan dengan menimbulkandharar pula." Para ulama ushul menafsirkan kaidah tersebut denganpengertian: tidak boleh menghilangkan dharar denganmenimbulkan dharar yang sama atau yang lebih besardaripadanya. Karena itu tidak boleh mendermakan organ tubuh bagian luar,seperti mata, tangan, dan kaki. Karena yang demikian ituadalah menghilangkan dharar orang lain dengan menimbulkandharar pada diri sendiri yang lebih besar, sebab denganbegitu dia mengabaikan kegunaan organ itu bagi dirinya danmenjadikan buruk rupanya. Begitu pula halnya organ tubuh bagian dalam yang berpasangantetapi salah satu dari pasangan itu tidak berfungsi atausakit, maka organ ini dianggap seperti satu organ. Hal itu merupakan contoh bagi yang dharar-nya menimpa salahseorang yang mempunyai hak tetap terhadap penderma (donor),seperti hak istri, anak, suami, atau orang yang berpiutang(mengutangkan sesuatu kepadanya). Pada suatu hari pernah ada seorang wanita bertanya kepadasaya bahwa dia ingin mendonorkan salah satu ginjalnya kepadasaudara perempuannya, tetapi suaminya tidakmemperbolehkannya, apakah memang ini termasuk hak suaminya? Saya jawab bahwa suami punya hak atas istrinya. Apabila ia(si istri) mendermakan salah satu ginjalnya, sudah barangtentu ia harus dioperasi dan masuk rumah sakit, sertamemerlukan perawatan khusus. Semua itu dapat menghalangisebagian hak suami terhadap istri, belum lagi ditambahdengan beban-beban lainnya. Oleh karena itu, seharusnya halitu dilakukan dengan izin dan kerelaan suami. Disamping itu, mendonorkan organ tubuh hanya boleh dilakukanoleh orang dewasa dan berakal sehat. Dengan demikian, tidakdiperbolehkan anak kecil mendonorkan organ tubuhnya, sebabia tidak tahu persis kepentingan dirinya, demikian pulahalnya orang gila. Begitu juga seorang wali, ia tidak boleh mendonorkan organtubuh anak kecil dan orang gila yang dibawah perwaliannya,disebabkan keduanya tidak mengerti. Terhadap harta merekasaja wali tidak boleh mendermakannya, lebih-lebih jika iamendermakan sesuatu yang lebih tinggi dan lebih muliadaripada harta, semisal organ tubuh.
Minggu, September 14, 2008
DOA DAN ILMU
DOA DARI IMAM GOZALI
Ya Allah Ya Tuhanku ! Bahwasannya aku memohonkan kepadaMu ni’mat itu sempurnanya.
Dan tentang perlindungan itu lanjutnya.
Dan tentang rahmat itu sifatnya yang meliputi.
Dan tentang kesehatan hasil bekasnya.
Dan tentang kehidupan yang senangnya.
Dan tentang umur yang sebahagia-bahagianya.
Dan tentang kebajikan yang secukup-cukupnya.
Dan tentang pemberian yang paling luas kebajikannya.
Dan tentang limpah karunia yg sedap-sedapnya.
Dan tentang taufiq yang sekarib-karibnya.
Ya Alloh ! Kiranya Engkau di Pihak kami, Jangan di pihak lawan kami.
Ya Alloh ! Tutuplah ajal kami dengan kebahagiaan.
Dan buktikanlah pengharapan kami dengan tambah – bertambah.
Dan sertakanlah pagi dan petang kami dengan kesehatan.
Dan jadikanlah pulang dan kembali kami kepada rahmatMu.
Dan tumpahkanlah dulang ma’afMu kepada dosa-dosa kami.
Dan berilah kami kemurahan dengan memperbaiki aib-aib kami.
Dan jadikanlah taqwa menjadi bekal kami.
Dan letakanlah kegiatan kami dalam urusan agamaMu.
Dan tawakkal serta pergantungan kami kepadaMu.
Ya Alloh ! Teguhkanlah pendirian kami di jalan Istiqomah.
Dan Lindungilah kami di dunia ini dari pada kejadian-kejadian yang menimbulkan penyesalan di hari Kiamat.
Dan kurangkanlah dari kami keberatan tanggungan.
Dan berilah kami kehidupan seperti kehidupan orang baik-baik.
Dan peliharalah kami, dan jauhkanlah dari kejahatan orang-orang yang jahat.
Dan lepaskan diri kami dan diri orang tua kami, dan sodara-sodara kami dari neraka.
Dengan rahmatMu. Ya Alloh yang berkuasa yang pemberi ampun.
Ya Alloh yang pemurah yang suka menutupi aib.
Ya Alloh yang maha mengetahui yang perkasa.
Ya Alloh, Ya Alloh, Ya Alloh.
Dengan rahmatMu, hai yang sepengasih-pengasihnya diantara segala yang pengasih.
Ya Alloh yang adaNya dahulu dari segala yang dahulu.
Ya Alloh yang bersifat kemudian sekali dari segala yang kemudian.
Ya Alloh yang mempunyai kekuatan yang sangat teguh.
Ya Alloh pengasih segala orang miskin.
Ya Alloh yang sepengasih-pengasihnya diantara yang pengasih.
Tak ada Tuhan melainkan Engkau Ya Alloh.
Maha suci Engkau bahwasanya aku terhitung orang yang bersalah.
Moga-moga Alloh memberi salawat atas penghulu kita, Muhamad, dan atas keluarga dan sahabat-sahabatnya.
Dan segala puji bagi Alloh,Tuhan Sekalian Alam
Ya Allah Ya Tuhanku ! Bahwasannya aku memohonkan kepadaMu ni’mat itu sempurnanya.
Dan tentang perlindungan itu lanjutnya.
Dan tentang rahmat itu sifatnya yang meliputi.
Dan tentang kesehatan hasil bekasnya.
Dan tentang kehidupan yang senangnya.
Dan tentang umur yang sebahagia-bahagianya.
Dan tentang kebajikan yang secukup-cukupnya.
Dan tentang pemberian yang paling luas kebajikannya.
Dan tentang limpah karunia yg sedap-sedapnya.
Dan tentang taufiq yang sekarib-karibnya.
Ya Alloh ! Kiranya Engkau di Pihak kami, Jangan di pihak lawan kami.
Ya Alloh ! Tutuplah ajal kami dengan kebahagiaan.
Dan buktikanlah pengharapan kami dengan tambah – bertambah.
Dan sertakanlah pagi dan petang kami dengan kesehatan.
Dan jadikanlah pulang dan kembali kami kepada rahmatMu.
Dan tumpahkanlah dulang ma’afMu kepada dosa-dosa kami.
Dan berilah kami kemurahan dengan memperbaiki aib-aib kami.
Dan jadikanlah taqwa menjadi bekal kami.
Dan letakanlah kegiatan kami dalam urusan agamaMu.
Dan tawakkal serta pergantungan kami kepadaMu.
Ya Alloh ! Teguhkanlah pendirian kami di jalan Istiqomah.
Dan Lindungilah kami di dunia ini dari pada kejadian-kejadian yang menimbulkan penyesalan di hari Kiamat.
Dan kurangkanlah dari kami keberatan tanggungan.
Dan berilah kami kehidupan seperti kehidupan orang baik-baik.
Dan peliharalah kami, dan jauhkanlah dari kejahatan orang-orang yang jahat.
Dan lepaskan diri kami dan diri orang tua kami, dan sodara-sodara kami dari neraka.
Dengan rahmatMu. Ya Alloh yang berkuasa yang pemberi ampun.
Ya Alloh yang pemurah yang suka menutupi aib.
Ya Alloh yang maha mengetahui yang perkasa.
Ya Alloh, Ya Alloh, Ya Alloh.
Dengan rahmatMu, hai yang sepengasih-pengasihnya diantara segala yang pengasih.
Ya Alloh yang adaNya dahulu dari segala yang dahulu.
Ya Alloh yang bersifat kemudian sekali dari segala yang kemudian.
Ya Alloh yang mempunyai kekuatan yang sangat teguh.
Ya Alloh pengasih segala orang miskin.
Ya Alloh yang sepengasih-pengasihnya diantara yang pengasih.
Tak ada Tuhan melainkan Engkau Ya Alloh.
Maha suci Engkau bahwasanya aku terhitung orang yang bersalah.
Moga-moga Alloh memberi salawat atas penghulu kita, Muhamad, dan atas keluarga dan sahabat-sahabatnya.
Dan segala puji bagi Alloh,Tuhan Sekalian Alam
Kamis, September 04, 2008
BIOME
Biome, also known as life zones, all plants, animals, and other organisms, as well as the physical environment in a particular area. A biome is characterized by its plant life, the types of which are determined by a location’s climatic conditions, latitude, and altitude. For example, northern coniferous forests exist in subarctic portions of North America and Asia, but further north, the conditions are simply too harsh and the season too brief for trees to grow. Instead of trees, the short vegetation of the tundra thrives in these areas. The same phenomenon occurs with altitude, as trees give way to short alpine vegetation in high mountainous regions.
A biome is composed of many ecosystems—smaller communities of plants and animals and their habitats (the physical parts of their environment that affect them). Whereas the boundaries of a biome are determined by climate, the boundaries of ecosystems are physical features, such as ridges or riverbanks, that separate one community from another. The ecosystems of a particular biome tend to have plants with similar growth forms and animals with similar feeding habits.
Major terrestrial biomes include tropical rain forest, northern coniferous forest, tundra, desert, grassland, savanna, and chaparral. Although not necessarily associated with marine environments, the term biome is sometimes used by ecologists to describe marine life zones such as the littoral zone, found in shallow water; the pelagic zone in the open ocean; and the benthic zone on the ocean floor.
The tropical rain forest is the most complex biome in the world. This biome is found at low elevations in the tropics where it is perpetually warm and wet. Rain forests are characterized by a dense tree canopy—tree top branches and leaves that overlap with each other, creating a shaded forest interior. These canopies may reach up to 50 m (160 ft) high. The thick canopy allows little sunlight to penetrate, so rain forest floors have sparse ground cover. The soils are nutrient-poor, and most plants are able to store what few nutrients they can absorb.
The northern coniferous forest, also known as the taiga in Russia, is found in a broad subarctic band across Alaska, Canada, Scandinavia, Russia, and China, where the winters are long and cold. Conifers, such as spruce, larch, and fir, are the dominant plants, but lichens and mosses are abundant too. Muskegs, or bogs, occur throughout the region.
The tundra is the treeless plain that lies north of the northern coniferous forests and on the Antarctic Peninsula in the southern hemisphere. Trees cannot survive in this biome because of the cold temperatures, high winds, and heavy snowfall, as well as the permafrost, a layer of permanently frozen subsoil. Plant life tends to grow low to the ground. In the summer, large numbers of birds migrate to the tundra to feed on insects. Other animals found in this area include reindeer, wolves, fox, voles, and lemmings. A similar biome, called the alpine biome, is found in high mountain areas around the world. Similar harsh conditions cause vegetation to grow low to the ground in alpine meadows.
Desert biomes are characterized by less than 254 mm (10 in) of annual precipitation and high temperatures. To combat this lack of moisture, desert plants have developed water-conserving features, such as leaves that are light-colored, small, thick, or waxy. Animals that live in the desert are often light-colored, blend in well with their surroundings, and are usually more active at night to avoid the blazing heat during the day.
Grassland biomes are found on every continent except Antarctica, accounting for about one quarter of the Earth's land surface. Typically found on flat or rolling terrain, grasslands tend to occur in the interior of continents where precipitation is lower. Periodic droughts occur in most grasslands, accompanied by searing heat that scorches most vegetation in the area. Grasslands are covered with grasses, sedges, and other low-growing, perennial plants. Drought, fire, and grazing by herbivores, such as bison and deer, restrict tree growth. Most grasslands have been extensively cultivated and are now regions where major crops of wheat, corn, and other grains are grown.
Tropical savannas are expansive grasslands dotted with trees. The world's largest and best-known savanna is the African savanna, which covers much of the continent south of the Sahara desert. In the African savanna, herds of animals graze on the tall grass, and giraffes browse on the trees. Other tropical savannas are found in South America, India, and Australia.
The chaparral biome is dominated by dense thickets of mostly small-leafed evergreen shrubs. It is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. This biome can be found in the foothills of California and Mediterranean climate regions. Chaparral plants have adapted to the frequent fires that result from lightning and dry conditions.
A biome is composed of many ecosystems—smaller communities of plants and animals and their habitats (the physical parts of their environment that affect them). Whereas the boundaries of a biome are determined by climate, the boundaries of ecosystems are physical features, such as ridges or riverbanks, that separate one community from another. The ecosystems of a particular biome tend to have plants with similar growth forms and animals with similar feeding habits.
Major terrestrial biomes include tropical rain forest, northern coniferous forest, tundra, desert, grassland, savanna, and chaparral. Although not necessarily associated with marine environments, the term biome is sometimes used by ecologists to describe marine life zones such as the littoral zone, found in shallow water; the pelagic zone in the open ocean; and the benthic zone on the ocean floor.
The tropical rain forest is the most complex biome in the world. This biome is found at low elevations in the tropics where it is perpetually warm and wet. Rain forests are characterized by a dense tree canopy—tree top branches and leaves that overlap with each other, creating a shaded forest interior. These canopies may reach up to 50 m (160 ft) high. The thick canopy allows little sunlight to penetrate, so rain forest floors have sparse ground cover. The soils are nutrient-poor, and most plants are able to store what few nutrients they can absorb.
The northern coniferous forest, also known as the taiga in Russia, is found in a broad subarctic band across Alaska, Canada, Scandinavia, Russia, and China, where the winters are long and cold. Conifers, such as spruce, larch, and fir, are the dominant plants, but lichens and mosses are abundant too. Muskegs, or bogs, occur throughout the region.
The tundra is the treeless plain that lies north of the northern coniferous forests and on the Antarctic Peninsula in the southern hemisphere. Trees cannot survive in this biome because of the cold temperatures, high winds, and heavy snowfall, as well as the permafrost, a layer of permanently frozen subsoil. Plant life tends to grow low to the ground. In the summer, large numbers of birds migrate to the tundra to feed on insects. Other animals found in this area include reindeer, wolves, fox, voles, and lemmings. A similar biome, called the alpine biome, is found in high mountain areas around the world. Similar harsh conditions cause vegetation to grow low to the ground in alpine meadows.
Desert biomes are characterized by less than 254 mm (10 in) of annual precipitation and high temperatures. To combat this lack of moisture, desert plants have developed water-conserving features, such as leaves that are light-colored, small, thick, or waxy. Animals that live in the desert are often light-colored, blend in well with their surroundings, and are usually more active at night to avoid the blazing heat during the day.
Grassland biomes are found on every continent except Antarctica, accounting for about one quarter of the Earth's land surface. Typically found on flat or rolling terrain, grasslands tend to occur in the interior of continents where precipitation is lower. Periodic droughts occur in most grasslands, accompanied by searing heat that scorches most vegetation in the area. Grasslands are covered with grasses, sedges, and other low-growing, perennial plants. Drought, fire, and grazing by herbivores, such as bison and deer, restrict tree growth. Most grasslands have been extensively cultivated and are now regions where major crops of wheat, corn, and other grains are grown.
Tropical savannas are expansive grasslands dotted with trees. The world's largest and best-known savanna is the African savanna, which covers much of the continent south of the Sahara desert. In the African savanna, herds of animals graze on the tall grass, and giraffes browse on the trees. Other tropical savannas are found in South America, India, and Australia.
The chaparral biome is dominated by dense thickets of mostly small-leafed evergreen shrubs. It is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. This biome can be found in the foothills of California and Mediterranean climate regions. Chaparral plants have adapted to the frequent fires that result from lightning and dry conditions.
Contributed By:
Joel P. Clement
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
