In our beginning, God created this universe ...
One of the inescapable realities of our existence is that in our corporeal form -- in our mode as physical beings -- we appear to be confined to the physical space that surrounds us. This physical space is part of a physical universe and it is this physical universe which, for the most part, has been the focus of the work of scientists, in general, and of modern astrophysicists, in particular.
However, even with all the advances that have been made in the realm of astrophysics, a world of questions about our universe continues to abound. And one of the key questions is: Is this the only universe that is?
In recent years, the discussion of multiple universes (and even multiple dimensions) has become almost a religious exercise with many of its advocates forwarding the notion that the central driving force of our own universe is nothing. Such concepts defy our human ability of conceptualization and go far beyond the realm of concise discussion. For most of us, and for the purposes of this work, simplicity is what is most desired and anything beyond a factor of three becomes troublesome.
With this self-imposed limitation in mind, it is notable that one of the earliest theories concerning the creation of multiple universes was advanced by J. Richard Gott III. Gott's model proposed that not one but three universes sprang from the Creation. The Gott model attempts to account for two odd facts about our universe that trouble many cosmologists. One of these is that while the basic equations of physics are time-symmetrical -- that is, they can be run forward or backward in time with equal efficacy -- in the real universe, time, it seems, moves in one direction only. The second oddity confronted by Gott is the scarcity of anti-matter in our universe. For every sort of sub-atomic particle of matter, it is possible to conceive of a particle with the same mass but with opposite charge -- an anti-particle. Yet only mere traces of anti-matter have been found in nature. Why should nature be so asymmetrical, favoring matter over anti-matter, running time in one direction but not the other?
Building on a theory offered by certain physicists that anti-matter can be thought of as ordinary matter moving in reverse time, Gott constructed a three-universe cosmology. In Gott's three universe cosmology, the Creation generated not only our universe, but also a second universe composed of anti-matter and evolving in reverse time, as well as a third universe made up exclusively of particles that travel faster than light. The fleet particles of this ghostly third universe, called tachyons, are permissible under Einstein's relativity theory, which requires only that nothing in our universe can be accelerated to the velocity of light. Tachyons need not worry about this provision, for they have always been going faster than the speed of light. The tachyon particles occupy a mirror universe where everything travels faster than light and nothing can be reined in to a velocity as slow as that of light. The Gott cosmology is a masterpiece of symmetry without being dictatorial about it. The theory predicts, for instance, that there should be traces of contamination of our universe by anti-matter (as has been verified by observation) and by tachyons (as has not).
Ultimately, the cosmological theories of today, including Gott's theory, may be looked upon by our descendants with respect, bemusement, scorn, or even hilarity. After all, even though cosmological inquiries need no longer be purely speculative in nature, and even though, mankind has learned how to test such inquiries against the real universe, the universe continues to surprise and to tease, and to escape human comprehension. For inexplicable reasons which cause all to wonder, just when our universe appears to be a lucid, intelligible, observable, and evolving entity, along comes some disconcerting fact or theory which causes us to to pause, to re-evaluate, to be confused and, usually, to be humbled by the primitiveness of our former understanding. To be sure, our universe will continue to invite inquiry -- and man does appear to be destined to respond to the invitation. Nevertheless, as the physical world has shown over and over again, just when man becomes arrogantly certain concerning the knowledge that has been achieved, along comes a surprise which shakes the confidence that was based on all that had been. It is this continuing uncertainty which makes the study of both science and religion so compelling. Ideally, both should be a search for truth but, ultimately, both seem to wind up being tests of our faith.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Notes for the Reader/Miscellaneous Articles
In reading this work, you the reader may discover the use of some terminology with which you may be unfamiliar. The first noticeable difference from other historical treatises is that in this work a new designation is used to indicate time according to the Christian calendar. Instead of using "A.D." or "C.E.", I have used "C.C." "C.C." stands for "Christian calendar." "C.C." is used here because "A.D." stands for the Latin phrase "anno Domini" which means "in the year of our Lord." For a Muslim, there is no God but God and the use of "A.D." may be deemed to be an heretical affront to one of the basic tenets of the Islamic faith.
As for not using "C.E.", "C.E." can stand for "Common Era" but is frequently designated as "Christian Era." The term "Christian Era" seems to imply a religious supremacy which is objectionable not only from a Muslim perspective but also from an historical perspective. A review of history reveals that Christianity, while a powerful global force, has never predominated throughout the world and, arguably, does not predominate now. To assert that time, as determined by the perceived birth of Christ should govern the history of the world (as well as the fate of mankind) is an assertion which, from the perspective of many non-Christians, is simply erroneous.
With regards to time before the birth of Christ, I have used the abbreviation "B.C.T." "B.C.T." stands for "before Christian time" and corresponds to the phrase referred to as "B.C.E. ("before Common [Christian] Era") or "B.C." ("before Christ") in most Western time schemes.
Additionally, in contrast to most anthropological treatises, the beliefs and folktales of various peoples are referred to in this work as "beliefs" and "folktales." The use of the words "myth" or "myths" has been avoided because of the pejorative connotation associated with such words. As the author of this work, I am well aware that anthropologists are quite correct in pointing out that the primary definition of the word "myth," according to Webster's Dictionary, is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomena." However, in my experience, the term myth has become all to identified with its alternative, subordinate definition, namely "an ill-founded belief held uncritically especially by an interested group." As such, in the interest of developing avenues of dialogue instead of erecting emotionally charged linguistic barriers, this work uses words which, hopefully, will prove to be more conducive to understanding and discourse.
While reading this work, you will notice that occasionally there is a bracketed phrase instructing the reader to see another entry, year or section of this work. These bracketed references are provided to assist the reader in finding another reference in this work which may be more explanatory than the reference currently being read.
With regard to the sources of the information contained with this work, the information has been primarily compiled using secondary sources such as other commentaries and chronologies. Without meaning any disrespect to the sources I have relied upon, I must admit that there have been a number of errors and instances of outdated information which I have encountered in compiling the information contained in this work. To the best of my ability, I have attempted to correct the errors and to update the information. However, despite my best efforts, it is inevitable that errors and outdated information continue to exist within this work.
For any errors or outdated information which may appear in this work, I, as the author, take full responsibility. However, as the author, I do make a special request of you, the reader. If you find errors, I would greatly appreciate your informing me of them by writing a comment. As I envision the life of this work, it will be subject to revisions and corrections. Therefore, your assistance as a critical reader would be most appreciated in correcting any deficiencies that may exist in this current work so that the same deficiencies will not exist in any future work.
Furthermore, in the course of reading this work you will find certain interpretations of scientific, historical and biblical events which I have provided. From the outset, it must be noted that these interpretations are based upon my own particular perspective which may not necessarily comport with the perspective which has historically been placed on the same event. After all, given the complexity of science and history, the uncertainty of numbers, and the contestability of facts, it is quite understandable that differing viewpoints may arise concerning the same scientific, historical, or biblical event. The comments I make herein simply set forth my particular opinion with regards to the significance of the event. You, as an independent reader, are encouraged to read and develop opinions of your own.
Nevertheless, while saying this, there is one area of concern which I do wish to address. While I fully expect disagreement with my interpretations or opinions, the one criticism I am particularly sensitive to is a criticism that my interpretations are unfair or are not based on facts. Having lived in a country where the history of African American people has largely been ignored, where even today, erroneous facts and historical interpretations, are presented as the truth, I am loathe to perpetuate an evil that I am ostensibly endeavoring to cure.
If, during the course of reading this work, you find that a certain unfair or unwarranted bias has interfered with the presentation of the truth, I implore you to convey that criticism to me. As the author of this work, I want it to be as accurate as it can be. Only by hearing from you, the reader, will I be able to correct what may be wrong.
Finally, as a student of history, the most important lesson I have learned is that history is not written in stone. After all, even some of the more basic facts are often contested, numbers are frequently merely estimates, and the historical records almost invariably reflect the interests and biases of the historian.
Given all this, the study of history, and the corollary study of our origins, must be an evolving process which, if done appropriately, is approached from different perspectives as well as from different times. The study of our origins must be a never ending search which examines the ramifications of historical and religious events not only for the conquerors but also for the conquered, not only for the believers but also for those who do not so believe.
As the author of this work, I shall endeavor to present a study of the Creation as I believe it should be done. However, I know all too well, that this work is not finished, that my work is incomplete. After all is said and done, what I have ultimately discovered in compiling and writing this work is that the impassioned quest of this writer for truth must inevitably become synonymous with a never ending search for the meaning of God.
***********************************************************************************
Putting together the pieces of a 1.8 million-year-old skull from the former Soviet republic of Georgia has led researchers to a surprising conclusion: Specimens that supposedly represent several early human species might be merely different-sized individuals from the same species.
If the conclusion holds up, the skull discovery would require a major rewrite for the story of early human evolution. Such species as Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, long a part of humanity's "bushy" family tree, could be folded into a wide-ranging species known as Homo erectus.
"It is really an extraordinary find in many respects," Christoph Zollikofer of Zurich's Anthropological Institute and Museum, one of the researchers behind the study published in this week's issue of the journal Science, told reporters during a teleconference.
The key to the claim is the assembly of a fossil called Skull 5. The specimen was discovered in separate pieces at a sprawling excavation in Dmanisi, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from Tbilisi, Georgia's capital. Over the past eight years, Skull 5's jaw and the cranium were painstakingly matched up and compared with four other hominid skulls unearthed at the site.
The researchers were struck by the fact that Skull 5's braincase was relatively small, while the face was relatively large. What's more, other skeletal fossils associated with Skull 5 suggested that the individual's body proportions were much like a modern human's.
"Had the braincase and the face of Skull 5 been found as separate fossils at different sites in Africa, they might have been attributed to different species," Zollikofer said in a news release. He and his colleagues also noticed size variations among all five of the Dmanisi skulls — which led them to wonder whether different species in the genus Homo were being defined too narrowly.
An analysis of the various early Homo skulls from Africa, dating from 2.4 million and 1.2 million years ago, found that the size variations were no wider than the variations found in modern humans. The size differences were also in the range for chimpanzees and bonobos, the modern species that are considered closest to humans on the evolutionary tree.
"Since we see a similar pattern and variation in the African fossil record ... it is sensible to assume that there was a single Homo species at that time in Africa," Zollikofer said. "And since the Dmanisi hominids are so similar to the African ones, we further assume that they both represent the same species."
That claim will have to be debated over the months and years ahead. Science quoted other experts as saying Skull 5 and the other fossils from Dmanisi may represent yet another new species in the genus Homo, or perhaps Homo habilis. One paleontologist, Fred Spoor of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, told Science's Ann Gibbons that Skull 5 may well represent Homo erectus. But he balked at the idea that all the early Homo fossils from Africa should be classified as Homo erectus as well.
The study's lead author, David Lordkipanidze of the Georgian National Museum, told reporters that the Dmanisi site could provide further insights into the migration of early humans and how they interacted with their environment. "It's a real snapshot in time, and maybe a time capsule which preserves the whole ecosystem which existed 1.8 million years ago," he said.
Although the researchers' hypothesis would trim back the earlier branches of the human family tree, it doesn't address what happened during later eras of human evolution. The conventional wisdom is that the descendants of early Homo species differentiated into Neanderthals, Denisovans, so-called "hobbits" and modern Homo sapiens.
"There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know."
Update for 3:25 p.m. ET Oct. 17: Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson, who discovered the famous 3.2 million-year-old Lucy fossil skeleton almost four decades ago, said Lordkipanidze and his colleagues have produced "a beautiful little paper" — but he doesn't buy the claim that all of the earliest human species should be lumped together.
"I think it's probably premature to dump everything into Homo erectus," Johanson told NBC News. "This is what you're going to find the most opposition to."
Johanson said the entire collection of specimens of early Homo species from East Africa shows "considerably more variation than you see in this sample [from Dmanisi], which is not surprising, because you're looking at fossils from very different regions."
He said the Dmanisi skulls reminded him of Homo ergaster, an African species that's similar to Homo erectus specimens found farther east. "It strengthens the view that many of us have held, that [Homo] ergaster was the species that got out of Africa to give rise to this Dmanisi population, and that ultimately evolved into Homo erectus in Java," Johanson said.
Skull 5's small braincase also raised interesting questions, because humans living in Africa during the same time period had larger brains. "That may suggest that these populations in Africa and in Georgia were under different selective pressures," Johanson said.
He expected that "there'll be the normal bickering" over how to classify the Dmanisi skulls. Do they represent an existing fossil species, a new species, a subspecies or a sub-subspecies? In any case, Johanson said the newly reported findings will make a significant contribution to the study of early human evolution.
"It's just marvelous to have a real sample from a single locality of the same geological age, and such a comprehensive sample," Johanson told NBC News. "It's unsurpassed for the genus Homo of this antiquity."
More about human evolution:
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the NBC News Science Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding +Alan Boyle to your Google+ circles. To keep up with NBCNews.com's stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
As for not using "C.E.", "C.E." can stand for "Common Era" but is frequently designated as "Christian Era." The term "Christian Era" seems to imply a religious supremacy which is objectionable not only from a Muslim perspective but also from an historical perspective. A review of history reveals that Christianity, while a powerful global force, has never predominated throughout the world and, arguably, does not predominate now. To assert that time, as determined by the perceived birth of Christ should govern the history of the world (as well as the fate of mankind) is an assertion which, from the perspective of many non-Christians, is simply erroneous.
With regards to time before the birth of Christ, I have used the abbreviation "B.C.T." "B.C.T." stands for "before Christian time" and corresponds to the phrase referred to as "B.C.E. ("before Common [Christian] Era") or "B.C." ("before Christ") in most Western time schemes.
Additionally, in contrast to most anthropological treatises, the beliefs and folktales of various peoples are referred to in this work as "beliefs" and "folktales." The use of the words "myth" or "myths" has been avoided because of the pejorative connotation associated with such words. As the author of this work, I am well aware that anthropologists are quite correct in pointing out that the primary definition of the word "myth," according to Webster's Dictionary, is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomena." However, in my experience, the term myth has become all to identified with its alternative, subordinate definition, namely "an ill-founded belief held uncritically especially by an interested group." As such, in the interest of developing avenues of dialogue instead of erecting emotionally charged linguistic barriers, this work uses words which, hopefully, will prove to be more conducive to understanding and discourse.
While reading this work, you will notice that occasionally there is a bracketed phrase instructing the reader to see another entry, year or section of this work. These bracketed references are provided to assist the reader in finding another reference in this work which may be more explanatory than the reference currently being read.
With regard to the sources of the information contained with this work, the information has been primarily compiled using secondary sources such as other commentaries and chronologies. Without meaning any disrespect to the sources I have relied upon, I must admit that there have been a number of errors and instances of outdated information which I have encountered in compiling the information contained in this work. To the best of my ability, I have attempted to correct the errors and to update the information. However, despite my best efforts, it is inevitable that errors and outdated information continue to exist within this work.
For any errors or outdated information which may appear in this work, I, as the author, take full responsibility. However, as the author, I do make a special request of you, the reader. If you find errors, I would greatly appreciate your informing me of them by writing a comment. As I envision the life of this work, it will be subject to revisions and corrections. Therefore, your assistance as a critical reader would be most appreciated in correcting any deficiencies that may exist in this current work so that the same deficiencies will not exist in any future work.
Furthermore, in the course of reading this work you will find certain interpretations of scientific, historical and biblical events which I have provided. From the outset, it must be noted that these interpretations are based upon my own particular perspective which may not necessarily comport with the perspective which has historically been placed on the same event. After all, given the complexity of science and history, the uncertainty of numbers, and the contestability of facts, it is quite understandable that differing viewpoints may arise concerning the same scientific, historical, or biblical event. The comments I make herein simply set forth my particular opinion with regards to the significance of the event. You, as an independent reader, are encouraged to read and develop opinions of your own.
Nevertheless, while saying this, there is one area of concern which I do wish to address. While I fully expect disagreement with my interpretations or opinions, the one criticism I am particularly sensitive to is a criticism that my interpretations are unfair or are not based on facts. Having lived in a country where the history of African American people has largely been ignored, where even today, erroneous facts and historical interpretations, are presented as the truth, I am loathe to perpetuate an evil that I am ostensibly endeavoring to cure.
If, during the course of reading this work, you find that a certain unfair or unwarranted bias has interfered with the presentation of the truth, I implore you to convey that criticism to me. As the author of this work, I want it to be as accurate as it can be. Only by hearing from you, the reader, will I be able to correct what may be wrong.
Finally, as a student of history, the most important lesson I have learned is that history is not written in stone. After all, even some of the more basic facts are often contested, numbers are frequently merely estimates, and the historical records almost invariably reflect the interests and biases of the historian.
Given all this, the study of history, and the corollary study of our origins, must be an evolving process which, if done appropriately, is approached from different perspectives as well as from different times. The study of our origins must be a never ending search which examines the ramifications of historical and religious events not only for the conquerors but also for the conquered, not only for the believers but also for those who do not so believe.
As the author of this work, I shall endeavor to present a study of the Creation as I believe it should be done. However, I know all too well, that this work is not finished, that my work is incomplete. After all is said and done, what I have ultimately discovered in compiling and writing this work is that the impassioned quest of this writer for truth must inevitably become synonymous with a never ending search for the meaning of God.
***********************************************************************************
Did the human family tree just get simpler? Skull stirs up debate
Oct. 17, 2013 at 2:33 PM ET
Georgian National Museum
An oddball skull from a site in the former Soviet republic of Georgia has sparked a debate over early human evolution.
If the conclusion holds up, the skull discovery would require a major rewrite for the story of early human evolution. Such species as Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, long a part of humanity's "bushy" family tree, could be folded into a wide-ranging species known as Homo erectus.
"It is really an extraordinary find in many respects," Christoph Zollikofer of Zurich's Anthropological Institute and Museum, one of the researchers behind the study published in this week's issue of the journal Science, told reporters during a teleconference.
The key to the claim is the assembly of a fossil called Skull 5. The specimen was discovered in separate pieces at a sprawling excavation in Dmanisi, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) from Tbilisi, Georgia's capital. Over the past eight years, Skull 5's jaw and the cranium were painstakingly matched up and compared with four other hominid skulls unearthed at the site.
The researchers were struck by the fact that Skull 5's braincase was relatively small, while the face was relatively large. What's more, other skeletal fossils associated with Skull 5 suggested that the individual's body proportions were much like a modern human's.
C. Zollikofer and M. S. Ponce de Leon / Univ. of Zurich
This graphic shows the five skulls found at the Dmanisi dig, numbered 1 through 5.
An analysis of the various early Homo skulls from Africa, dating from 2.4 million and 1.2 million years ago, found that the size variations were no wider than the variations found in modern humans. The size differences were also in the range for chimpanzees and bonobos, the modern species that are considered closest to humans on the evolutionary tree.
"Since we see a similar pattern and variation in the African fossil record ... it is sensible to assume that there was a single Homo species at that time in Africa," Zollikofer said. "And since the Dmanisi hominids are so similar to the African ones, we further assume that they both represent the same species."
That claim will have to be debated over the months and years ahead. Science quoted other experts as saying Skull 5 and the other fossils from Dmanisi may represent yet another new species in the genus Homo, or perhaps Homo habilis. One paleontologist, Fred Spoor of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, told Science's Ann Gibbons that Skull 5 may well represent Homo erectus. But he balked at the idea that all the early Homo fossils from Africa should be classified as Homo erectus as well.
J.H. Matternes
Researchers say the individual represented by Skull 5 had a relatively small braincase but a long face and body proportions similar to a modern human's, as shown in this artist's conception.
Although the researchers' hypothesis would trim back the earlier branches of the human family tree, it doesn't address what happened during later eras of human evolution. The conventional wisdom is that the descendants of early Homo species differentiated into Neanderthals, Denisovans, so-called "hobbits" and modern Homo sapiens.
"There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know."
Update for 3:25 p.m. ET Oct. 17: Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson, who discovered the famous 3.2 million-year-old Lucy fossil skeleton almost four decades ago, said Lordkipanidze and his colleagues have produced "a beautiful little paper" — but he doesn't buy the claim that all of the earliest human species should be lumped together.
"I think it's probably premature to dump everything into Homo erectus," Johanson told NBC News. "This is what you're going to find the most opposition to."
Johanson said the entire collection of specimens of early Homo species from East Africa shows "considerably more variation than you see in this sample [from Dmanisi], which is not surprising, because you're looking at fossils from very different regions."
He said the Dmanisi skulls reminded him of Homo ergaster, an African species that's similar to Homo erectus specimens found farther east. "It strengthens the view that many of us have held, that [Homo] ergaster was the species that got out of Africa to give rise to this Dmanisi population, and that ultimately evolved into Homo erectus in Java," Johanson said.
Skull 5's small braincase also raised interesting questions, because humans living in Africa during the same time period had larger brains. "That may suggest that these populations in Africa and in Georgia were under different selective pressures," Johanson said.
He expected that "there'll be the normal bickering" over how to classify the Dmanisi skulls. Do they represent an existing fossil species, a new species, a subspecies or a sub-subspecies? In any case, Johanson said the newly reported findings will make a significant contribution to the study of early human evolution.
"It's just marvelous to have a real sample from a single locality of the same geological age, and such a comprehensive sample," Johanson told NBC News. "It's unsurpassed for the genus Homo of this antiquity."
More about human evolution:
- How climate shifts sparked human evolution
- Flash interactive: Before and after humans
- NBC News archive on evolution
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the NBC News Science Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding +Alan Boyle to your Google+ circles. To keep up with NBCNews.com's stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Introduction
A few years ago, I began a series of books which were collectively entitled The Muslim Diaspora. In the Introduction to The Muslim Diaspora, I wrote a few passages which bear repeating now. I wrote:
I am not a Muslim. I am simply a man in search of truth -- the truth about myself, my people, my country, my world and God. In my search for truth, I have discovered that there is much that I once believed to be true that is certainly not the total truth and, indeed, may not be true at all.
I once believed that I am only an "African American." However, in my search for truth, I discovered that such a label is not entirely true. I discovered that, like myself, most persons of African descent who live in the United States also have European and Indigenous American blood. By labeling such individuals as being only "African American," society may be denying essential elements of their being.
As a so-called "African American," I once believe that American slavery defined my past and impacted my present. But once I escaped the confines of the label, I learned that my triple heritage -- my African, European and Indigenous American heritage -- is far richer than I could ever have imagined. With a triple heritage, African slavery is not an overriding historical theme. With a triple heritage, the self-evident fact is that for people like me the overriding historical theme concerns the creation of a new people and the beginning of a new experiment with fascinating possibilities for the future history of man.
Another consequence of discovering the nature of a triple heritage is the realization that one of the defining labels that is currently en vogue in American society simply does not fit. On almost any day of the week, in schools, churches, and the halls of power throughout the land, one can hear pronouncements being made concerning the "Judeo-Christian" heritage of America. However, as a person with a triple heritage, there are other religious traditions which have obviously had some bearing on the individual that I am today. In addition to my "Judeo-Christian" heritage, there is also a lingering influence of the tribal religions of the African and Indigenous American peoples and, perhaps more significantly, there is the ongoing influence of Islam.
In discovering the truth about my African heritage, I was frequently confronted by the role that Islam played in developing African society and in initiating the African diaspora. After all, it was the Muslim Arab merchants who took African slaves and companions with them as they traversed the then known world. China, Malaysia, India, and Spain all came to be the home of Africans because of the peripatetic Arabs. It was the Muslims who spread their religion to both the West and East coasts of Africa and through persuasion and intermarriage converted the African people to the Islamic faith. And it was African Muslims from the West coast of Africa who frequently were the slave cargo of the European ships that came to the Americas, speaking such Muslim languages as Hausa, Mandingo, and Fulfulde. It was these forefathers who played such an integral part in the bold experiment which eventually made me what I am.
Yes, Islam has, undoubtedly, had an historical role in defining what it means to be an African American. But, for me, there is even more.
For me, there are moments and times in my life which are indelibly etched in my psyche. There was the time while living in Glasgow, Montana, that I became aware of the sport of boxing when a brash young boxer by the name of Cassius Clay defeated the "invincible bear" known as Sonny Liston. Cassius Clay would soon become the legendary Muhammad Ali -- a Muslim who became the dominant sports figure of my generation.
There was the time in high school when I first began to explore my African heritage by reading a story about a small time hoodlum who underwent two Islamic conversions -- first as the Nation of Islam leader known as Malcolm X and later as the more orthodox Muslim, El Hajj Malik Shabazz.
Then there was the crucial period of my life when during my first two years of college I served as the "Minister of Information" of the Amherst Afro-American Society under the leadership of the Umar Zaid Muhammad.
No, I am not a Muslim. But my personal heritage, and my personal experiences, compel me to say that here too I have a triple heritage. I have not just a Judeo-Christian heritage, but rather a heritage that is a combination of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The work that you are now reading is a product of my continuing exploration of my heritage -- my continuing exploration of my roots. In this exploration, I have been drawn back in time to the beginning -- the genesis -- of all that is. In doing so, I believe that I have been allowed to taste a bit of the fruit from the tree of knowledge but, unlike the biblical Adam, I have not come away filled with shame, but rather I have come away filled with awe and humility.
My words cannot adequately express the feelings that I have had during the course of this exploration. It seems that with each new day my eyes have encountered another new aspect of God. In exploring our creation from not only a multi-religious but also from a multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural approach, I believe that I have discovered facets of the divine which may not be readily apparent to everyone, not unless they are willing to venture out on a similar exploration of their own. Indeed, for me, in studying the various religions, disciplines, and cultures, of our world, it often seems that people are so focused on one particular facet of God that they fail to see the extraordinary beauty associated with the many facets of God. Although no words can hope to fully convey the extent of the facets of God and no words can do full justice to the beauty, as one who has seen some the other facets, and who has been overwhelmed by their beauty, I do feel a sense of obligation to attempt to convey to others the beauty that I have seen.
And that, my friends, is what I shall attempt to do beginning now...
I am not a Muslim. I am simply a man in search of truth -- the truth about myself, my people, my country, my world and God. In my search for truth, I have discovered that there is much that I once believed to be true that is certainly not the total truth and, indeed, may not be true at all.
I once believed that I am only an "African American." However, in my search for truth, I discovered that such a label is not entirely true. I discovered that, like myself, most persons of African descent who live in the United States also have European and Indigenous American blood. By labeling such individuals as being only "African American," society may be denying essential elements of their being.
As a so-called "African American," I once believe that American slavery defined my past and impacted my present. But once I escaped the confines of the label, I learned that my triple heritage -- my African, European and Indigenous American heritage -- is far richer than I could ever have imagined. With a triple heritage, African slavery is not an overriding historical theme. With a triple heritage, the self-evident fact is that for people like me the overriding historical theme concerns the creation of a new people and the beginning of a new experiment with fascinating possibilities for the future history of man.
Another consequence of discovering the nature of a triple heritage is the realization that one of the defining labels that is currently en vogue in American society simply does not fit. On almost any day of the week, in schools, churches, and the halls of power throughout the land, one can hear pronouncements being made concerning the "Judeo-Christian" heritage of America. However, as a person with a triple heritage, there are other religious traditions which have obviously had some bearing on the individual that I am today. In addition to my "Judeo-Christian" heritage, there is also a lingering influence of the tribal religions of the African and Indigenous American peoples and, perhaps more significantly, there is the ongoing influence of Islam.
In discovering the truth about my African heritage, I was frequently confronted by the role that Islam played in developing African society and in initiating the African diaspora. After all, it was the Muslim Arab merchants who took African slaves and companions with them as they traversed the then known world. China, Malaysia, India, and Spain all came to be the home of Africans because of the peripatetic Arabs. It was the Muslims who spread their religion to both the West and East coasts of Africa and through persuasion and intermarriage converted the African people to the Islamic faith. And it was African Muslims from the West coast of Africa who frequently were the slave cargo of the European ships that came to the Americas, speaking such Muslim languages as Hausa, Mandingo, and Fulfulde. It was these forefathers who played such an integral part in the bold experiment which eventually made me what I am.
Yes, Islam has, undoubtedly, had an historical role in defining what it means to be an African American. But, for me, there is even more.
For me, there are moments and times in my life which are indelibly etched in my psyche. There was the time while living in Glasgow, Montana, that I became aware of the sport of boxing when a brash young boxer by the name of Cassius Clay defeated the "invincible bear" known as Sonny Liston. Cassius Clay would soon become the legendary Muhammad Ali -- a Muslim who became the dominant sports figure of my generation.
There was the time in high school when I first began to explore my African heritage by reading a story about a small time hoodlum who underwent two Islamic conversions -- first as the Nation of Islam leader known as Malcolm X and later as the more orthodox Muslim, El Hajj Malik Shabazz.
Then there was the crucial period of my life when during my first two years of college I served as the "Minister of Information" of the Amherst Afro-American Society under the leadership of the Umar Zaid Muhammad.
No, I am not a Muslim. But my personal heritage, and my personal experiences, compel me to say that here too I have a triple heritage. I have not just a Judeo-Christian heritage, but rather a heritage that is a combination of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
*******
The work that you are now reading is a product of my continuing exploration of my heritage -- my continuing exploration of my roots. In this exploration, I have been drawn back in time to the beginning -- the genesis -- of all that is. In doing so, I believe that I have been allowed to taste a bit of the fruit from the tree of knowledge but, unlike the biblical Adam, I have not come away filled with shame, but rather I have come away filled with awe and humility.
My words cannot adequately express the feelings that I have had during the course of this exploration. It seems that with each new day my eyes have encountered another new aspect of God. In exploring our creation from not only a multi-religious but also from a multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural approach, I believe that I have discovered facets of the divine which may not be readily apparent to everyone, not unless they are willing to venture out on a similar exploration of their own. Indeed, for me, in studying the various religions, disciplines, and cultures, of our world, it often seems that people are so focused on one particular facet of God that they fail to see the extraordinary beauty associated with the many facets of God. Although no words can hope to fully convey the extent of the facets of God and no words can do full justice to the beauty, as one who has seen some the other facets, and who has been overwhelmed by their beauty, I do feel a sense of obligation to attempt to convey to others the beauty that I have seen.
And that, my friends, is what I shall attempt to do beginning now...
Preface
Before our beginning, there was God ...
One of the great unifying ideas that permeates all of the Abrahamic religions -- the religions derived from the biblical patriarch Abraham -- is the notion that there is an eternal God who created the universe. For some three billion people -- for almost half of the world's population in the year 2012 -- one key idea is that before there was a universe, before there was even time itself, there was God.
This great unifying idea of the Abrahamic religions is humbling because it suggests that mankind can never understand God. God is, after all, beyond the physical universe, beyond time, and beyond the laws of nature. God is simply beyond understanding, not only for now but for all time to come.
Nevertheless, during most of our existence, we humans have struggled to know God. Indeed, for many theologians, philosophers, historians, and even scientists, it is this struggle to know God which is the great story -- the great quest -- of humankind. What follows is a retelling of the beginnings of this great quest.
One of the great unifying ideas that permeates all of the Abrahamic religions -- the religions derived from the biblical patriarch Abraham -- is the notion that there is an eternal God who created the universe. For some three billion people -- for almost half of the world's population in the year 2012 -- one key idea is that before there was a universe, before there was even time itself, there was God.
This great unifying idea of the Abrahamic religions is humbling because it suggests that mankind can never understand God. God is, after all, beyond the physical universe, beyond time, and beyond the laws of nature. God is simply beyond understanding, not only for now but for all time to come.
Nevertheless, during most of our existence, we humans have struggled to know God. Indeed, for many theologians, philosophers, historians, and even scientists, it is this struggle to know God which is the great story -- the great quest -- of humankind. What follows is a retelling of the beginnings of this great quest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
**************************************************************************************
By CARL ZIMMER
Published: December 18, 2013
More 'Matter' Columns
Matter: Learning From the History of Vitamins(December 17, 2013)
Matter: Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins(December 5, 2013)
Matter: Linking Genes to Diseases by Sifting Through Electronic Medical Records(November 28, 2013)
Connect With Us on Social Media
Earl Wilson/The New York Times
Bence Viola