I thought that, since the concept of ‘The Pen’ had been
discussed, that I might take this opportunity to mention a couple of
things. Firstly, the concept of ‘The Pen’ and how it relates to ‘The
Word of God’ might be obvious to some but not others. It was a
concept that was revealed in the very first Revelation to the Prophet
Mohammed (pbuh).
The first 5 lines of Surah 96 (Al Alaq [the Clot]) were the very
first lines revealed and here they are:
96:1 Read! In the name of your Lord and Cherisher, who created
Iqra! Bismi rabbika-lladhi khalaq
96:2 Created man from a clot of congealed blood.
Khalaq-al-insana min alaq
96:3 Read! And your Lord is Most Bountiful
Iqra! Wa Rabbuka-al-Akram
96:4 He who taught by the Pen
Alladhi allama bil-qalam
96:5 Taught man that which he knew not.
Allam al insana ma lam ya lam.
If you read the transliterated Arabic above, you can get a feel
for the rhythm and the rhyme that simply doesn’t come across in the
translation. The entire Qur’an of 6,616 verses is like that. That’s
why it was easy to learn for native Arabic speakers, who were used to
oral traditions and story-telling. Also, the word Qur’an means
‘recital’, as it was intended to be spoken, as it was, originally,
revealed to a man, The Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who was illiterate.
And no one has been able since, to create any poetry like it—not in
rhythm, rhyme and depth of meaning.
It dawned on me, over the weekend, that there is another analogy
between ‘The Pen’, ‘The Word of God’, language and matter itself. It
has been a part of Jewish, Christian and Islamic doctrine that God
created the universe via His ‘Word’. But what, exactly, IS His Word?
Let’s look at language and see how it relates to matter. I think
sentences act like molecules. Each one has a particular purpose,
structure and quality. Yet they are made of words. That makes words
akin to atoms. But atoms are further divided into the sub-atomic
particles of hadrons and leptons like words are comprised of letters
which are either consonants or vowels. Yet even letters can be viewed
as being made of lines, either straight or curved. Here is an
allusion to String Theory and the concept of closed and open strings.
Also, atoms (words) fall into 8 periods in the Periodic Table of
Elements. These are, in a way, akin to the 8 parts of speech: nouns,
verbs, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions and
interjections. Yet some elements fall into transitional groups.
Theses would be akin to the concepts of participles and gerunds. A
participle is a verb-like word that acts like an adjective, e.g., the
word ‘sinking’ in the sentence: “Every time I see the film ‘Titanic’,
I get a certain sinking feeling. The word ‘sinking’, although it is a
verb, acts as an adjective to describe the word ‘feeling’ and is,
technically, a participle. The word ‘feeling’ in that sentence,
although it is a verb, acts like a noun and is, technically, a
gerund. These are transitional parts of speech where one type of word
acts as a different part of speech than it may appear.
So, let’s map out the parts of speech to the Periodic Table based
on Semitic language. Firstly, it’s easy to see that interjections
stand alone and do not combine with other parts of speech; therefore,
the interjection is Period 8 (The Inert or Noble gases). All Semitic
languages have their root words as verbs. Verbs are conjugated, have
tenses, number and person. They are the most configurable and seem
the most likely to sit at Period 1, as the Period 1 atoms combine with
other atoms the most. Period 2, then, would seem to be nouns. In
Semitic languages, nouns are formed from their root verb stems because
every action implies an actor. Also, after Period 2 are the
Transitional Elements. These are the verb forms that act as either
nouns (gerunds) or adjectives (participles). Following that logic, at
the other end of the Transitional Elements is Period 3, which must be
the adjectives. Now, we have to go back to the other end of the
table. Pronouns stand for specific nouns, that is, they each have a
single antecedent, a noun upon which they depend. This seems akin to
the Period 7 Halogen group as they can only combine with one other
atom. Period 6 has two open places for connection with ‘others’ and
so seems to fit in well with the concept of a conjunction, which links
two ‘other’ things together. The Period 5 group has three open places
for connection and seems a best fit for the concept of the preposition
which can relate one object to another either directly or indirectly
or both. That leaves Period 4 as the adverbs. And each period is
covered and directly corresponds to a part of speech. If you think
I’ve left out the ‘article’, then think again. The Lanthanide group
is most akin to the ‘definite article’, as they are all (well, with
the single exception of Promethium) non-radioactive and are stable
elements. This leaves the Actinide group to be representative of the
‘indefinite article’ as they are all radio-active and unstable and, in
that respect, indefinite, because they are unstable. And now, all
parts of speech are covered by their corresponding aspect of the
Periodic Table of Elements.
It is my hypothesis that God creates through these words or
elements and it is on that basis that the concept of ‘The Pen’ relates
to how God creates. This completes the examples of how God’s creative
Word can be analogous to fermions, that is, the hadrons and leptons
that comprise atoms/elements.
Yet there are subtle inferences that are implied. For example,
the pen and the voice are the forces behind written and spoken
language. And, of course, in each case, there must be an author and a
speaker. These are other forces that act behind the pen and the
voice. So, there are four forces behind this creative ability that
are analogous to the four bosonic forces of electro-magnetism,
gravity, and the weak and strong atomic forces. Of all of these, the
analogy of ‘The Pen’ to the electro-magnetic force is the most obvious
because a pen is useless without ink. So, as the ink goes with the
pen, the electric and magnetic forces are always found together. The
voice, then, must be most analogous to gravity, as it is unseen but
moves us in ways unimaginable. This leaves the weak and strong forces
being analogous to the author (weak) and the speaker (strong). I
believe that the spoken word is more powerful than the written word
simply because one must learn to read in order for the written word to
be understood, whereas hearing is all that is required for the spoken
word to be comprehended. Put another way, an illiterate individual
can be moved by the spoken word but not by the written. Also, like
the strong atomic force, the spoken word is only heard by those who
can hear it (ignoring, of course, recordings OF spoken words, which
have made, only in recent years, the spoken word reach farther);
whereas the written word, like the weak atomic force, can stretch over
longer distances across both space and time.
There! That’s just a few thoughts I had before going to bed last
night. Let me know what you think.
