Question: Oppression is everywhere and exists in almost every form. How should believers respond to oppression when they have to face it?

Oppression, at its most basic form, is a transgression of boundaries and a violation of others’ rights. Killing an ant is oppressive, for nobody is authorized to take an animal’s right to life unjustly. If it is human who is being unjustly treated then it is definitely a form of oppression of a much higher magnitude. As for the oppression committed against a collective group of people, that is an incomparably greater and more horrible misdeed.

Irrespective of its exact nature, believers are seriously warned not to oppress others. Otherwise, it will appear on the Day of Judgment as a manifold darkness that will suffocate and distress the one who oppresses (Bukhari, Mazalim 9; Muslim, Birr 56). Each act of oppression and injustice – be it against animals, people, or even God – will appear before that person as a separate trouble in the Afterlife.

Oppression, according to some insightful scholars, is among one of the obstacles that can prevent a person from embracing faith. While it is an obstruction to having belief in God, it is similarly a significant reason that causes believers to drift out of the realm of faith.

Preventing oppression

Given that oppression is evil to this degree in regard to how other people are treated, it definitely needs to be prevented. According to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, everyone should try to prevent oppression depending upon their capability, power, and position be it by direct intervention or via verbal objection. In the event that a person cannot resist oppression physically or verbally, it is at least necessary to protest the oppressor in one’s heart (Sahih al-Muslim, Iman 78; Tirmidhi, fitan 11; Abu Dawud, salat 239). Likewise, it is a famous old adage that “(the) one who remains silent before oppression is a mute devil.”

Preventing oppression on a smaller scale is within the capability of individuals, but there are some forms of oppression that can only be prevented by the state. In this contemporary world when justice and democracy have wide – though not perfect – prevalence such oppressions are committed at degrees big enough that even states are not able to tackle them. Preventing those oppressions and successions of atrocities, by which people are swept away in floods of blood, families are shattered, children are orphaned, and spouses are widowed, can only be possible through the hands of certain international establishments and organizations. In this respect, those who remain silent before oppression while they have the power to stop it—be they individuals, a state, or an international establishment—in a way have a share in that oppression by turning a blind eye to it and not taking the preventive action that they could have, and they will be treated accordingly on the Day of Judgment.

As it is very important to take a stance against oppression and to prevent it, determining the correct strategy to follow while not making any mistakes with the method is no less important. People must reckon well from the beginning how they can prevent unfairness, be aware of their capabilities, and also must not exacerbate problems while attempting to prevent oppression. They must not commit evil by thinking that they are doing something good.

Nothing good can come from oppression

It is a gross delusion to think that one can reach any positive goal via oppression and injustice. While it is not possible to obtain any favorable outcome with oppression, it is not possible to reclaim one’s violated rights via oppression either. If people try to move themselves or their societies in a new direction, or try to reclaim the rights that they lost by means of oppression, then this will give way to new acts of oppression, violations of rights, and a shattered system of justice. If these demands are for rights to be upheld and for justice to prevail, then strict adherence to a righteous course is needed from beginning to end. Just as the end should be lawful, so should be the means and ways to that end.

We do not know exactly to what degree we can prevent any oppression and injustice in our time. What matters most is being on the path to setting things right and correcting previous misdeeds. The duties that befall the wayfarers of the righteous path are that they must always be representatives of what is right and truthful, open one’s heart to everyone, and also not respond to oppression and injustice committed in the same wrong way. To put this in the words of the Poet Nabi:

“Do not trouble anyone with oppression
Even if they did oppress you, you do not be unjust to them
Do not arrive at God’s door with complaints
As for those who oppressed you, leave them to the Divine.”

Be like Rumi

In many instances, we quote, with a little bit of boastful considerations, the names of masters such as Jalaluddin Rumi, Yunus Emre, Ahmad Yasawi, or Haji Baktash Wali and bring their tolerance to attention. It is easy to make mention of Rumi, but it is difficult to be like him. At a time when you make mention of Rumi, are you really able to open your arms for all people, even for those who insulted you? When they come upon you, do you seek ways to settle issues in a peaceful manner? Are you able to make those who bear hostility against you share the same peaceful considerations after a while? This is how you become a Rumi in the real sense.

Historians mention the following anecdote about the tolerance of Rumi: One day, a rude bigot accosted him and criticized his statements such as, “one of my feet is in the center of Islam, while the other is among all nations of the world.” He accused Rumi of apostasy, misguiding Muslims, and proceeded to let out an invective against him. Without ever interrupting the man, the venerable master listened to him peacefully with God-granted self-restraint. On seeing that the man stopped talking and had no other words to say, he asked if he was done. When the man replied in the affirmative, Rumi spoke with a soft voice and said, “You are most welcome; my heart is open for you too.”

This is the very point at which words cease. In such a situation, all of the negative feelings within the latter melted away. The grudge and hatred suddenly started pouring down in the form of fireworks of love. While it is possible to treat people with showers of light, why should we shower them with meteors instead?

If you are focused on representing the spirit of Rumi, even if those who show hostility towards you commit oppression and injustice against you for one, two, three, or four times, they will give up such acts after some time on account of not having the same kind of response from you. Now, while there is a way to settle issues with mildness and agreement, why should we engage in other behavior that will only spur ill-feelings and hatred?

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that we can give up on our personal rights and forgive others for their unfair treatment of us. However, we do not have the authority to forgive on behalf of others when there is an offense against values like faith or country. When such an offense happens, we should make plausible explanations to offenders to show them what they are doing is wrong. If they still insist, we deny their claims with denouncements. If they still persist, then we sue them and claim compensation.

We must always act carefully to remain within the confines of laws and ethics, and we must never make concessions on our fairness when responding in these ways. It is paramount that we must always act humanely but assertively. Even while making certain clarifications, corrections, and denouncements, we always try to give positive messages to the other side and never make concessions from our own character. We voice what we are to say not with whisperings of Satan, but with the voice and breath of the Archangel Gabriel. Oppression and assaults only indicate the character of the offender. This situation should not avert people attached to faith and universal human values to act as becomes their own character.

Is it worth it?

This passing worldly life is neither worth committing oppression against others nor responding to their oppression in the same way. After all, each of us is a traveler in this world. After staying in this guesthouse that we call life, we will pass to the Afterlife in order to be brought to account for what we did here. Is it worth it to promote fighting? Is it worth it at all to cause disunity and dissension? Is it worth it at all to commit oppression and injustice?

In an anonymous saying, the simple and transient nature of the world is expressed as follows:

Behold with the eyes of wisdom, this world is but a guesthouse;
Not a single person remains settled, what a strange abode it is.
The share of a king and subject alike, is nothing but a plain shroud.
As for those who fall for it, what else can they be called but mad?

Humankind has oftentimes made use of oppression and hatred in order to solve the problems that we collectively faced. If only we could make use of love and tolerance from now on! If only we were able to open our hearts to everyone so that those who enter therein would never have worries of remaining without a seat. If only we would treat everyone with a deep feeling of respect and reverence, and if only we could read into other’s feelings, their cultural backgrounds, and treat everyone with a serious feeling of empathy! For whatever style of treatment we expect to receive from others, they similarly expect the same from us. If we expect respect, we must show respect. If we expect observance of our rights, we must observe everybody’s rights.

It is necessary to know that the problems in our time have taken a complicated form to such an extent that they cannot be tackled by those with narrow minds and dull thoughts. There is not much that those with radical thoughts, who act out of bigotry in order to pursue arrogant purposes, can do for the sake of conquering people’s hearts and bringing peace to humanity. Particularly with this harsh attitude of theirs, they can never evoke in hearts any love towards their own values. They cannot let others love the Pride of Humanity, peace and blessings be upon him, because they are too captivated by their own worldly, illicit desires.

Therefore, for the sake of solving the problems of humanity, there is a need for people with immense conscience, rich hearts, and profound thought. Just as Rumi brought people together anew with the plausible cures he came up with some 7-8 centuries ago, in the contemporary world when people are so detached from one another, when people cannot agree on anything, and relations are built upon conflict and hostility, the duty that falls to those with faithful hearts is to revive the spirit of Rumi once again. As far as this cannot be done, it will not be possible to put a stop to oppression and hostilities in different parts of the world. This is particularly the case if we consider to what degree world peace is under threat by ambitious tyrants and horrible weapons prepared with vengeful intentions. It will then be best understood how great the responsibility is of the altruistic souls who have dedicated their lives to love and tolerance.

Washing our hands has become one major way to protect ourselves from Covid-19. However, ablutions have always had a central place in the practices and beliefs of many religious traditions. Christians perform baptism with water, in amounts varying from small sprinkles to larger vessels, to bring about purification, cleanliness, revival, and rebirth. Jesus’ washing the feet of his disciples as narrated in the Gospel makes the washing of feet an important practice in Christianity to promote cleanliness and is still carried out to this day. The Jewish tradition also has many instances of ablution where water is specifically used to promote cleanliness, including washing hands to reclaim or preserve purity and mikveh in which the feet or whole body is immersed in water.

The Islamic ablution, also known as “wudhu,” contains 24 washing movements to be carried out several times a day for the five daily prayers. If performed for all five prayers, it would consist of about 120 repeated actions as Muslims washed parts of their body.

A lover must undertake the required preparation to cleanse and beautify oneself before meeting with their Beloved. Likewise, a believer is required to wash specified parts of their body to stand before God in supplication, as instructed in Chapter Maidah of the Qur’an, verse 6: “O believers, when you stand for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads, and wash your feet up to the ankles. If you are unclean, bathe and purify your bodies fully. But if you are ill or in the middle of travelling or … you cannot find water, then take wholesome dust and wipe your faces and hands with that. For God does not wish to burden you, rather He desires to purify you and to complete His blessing and favor upon you so that, perhaps, you may be grateful” [5:6].

The spiritual cleansing that the act of wudhu provides is highlighted by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in numerous hadiths, or prophetic sayings, which has been collected under The Book of Purification. While water literally cleans the face and limbs, with every pure intention to do wudhu, the water droplets that meet the body also wash away the minor sins that were committed by the hands, mouth, face, ears, and feet. The famous hadith that “cleanliness is half of faith” [Sahih Muslim, 223] can be interpreted as applying primarily to doing wudhu in one translation [Wudhu: Fiqh, Rules, Purification and Blessings, Qadri]. Therefore, to perfect the faith, to be cleansed of our mistakes continuously, God has given us a simple mechanism through which to be purified and recalibrated countless times in a day.

Many of us perform this pattern of washing with little thought. It has become a routine that we seldom consider a medical protection that we apply to our body. Besides its effects on the soul, washing also has wonderful effects on the body. Over fourteen hundred years ago, the Prophet (pbuh) advised ablution before going to bed. Interestingly, yoga experts in recent years have also started to encourage the washing of the legs, hands, arms, eyes, and the mouth before sleep with cool water for a deeper undisturbed sleep. This is not surprising considering the relief that comes with the touch of water on a busy day.

Three of our principal systems benefit from wudhu; the circulatory system, the immune system, and the electrostatic balance of the body. In this way, the health benefits from the ritual of washing are threefold…

Circulatory system

The circulatory system is a magnificent circuit of blood vessels between the heart and the tissues that make up every other system of the body. The systemic circulatory system circulates oxygenated blood from the heart to the tissues around the body and back to the heart, whilst the pulmonary circulatory system transports deoxygenated blood to the lungs for detoxification and returns clean blood to the heart. The correct functioning of the blood vessels, which act as wires that connect our major organs, are essential to the efficiency of this circuit. These vessels divide into thinner branches called arterioles which in turn split into smaller capillaries which surround the cells of the body. The vascular resistance generated by blood vessels is overcome by the blood pressure generated by the heart to enable blood flow. Over time (due to ageing, or a diet high in fat), our blood vessels often harden and become constricted meaning that the heart has to work harder to overcome increased vascular resistance to maintain steady blood flow. The vessels in the limbs are the most peripheral to the heart and thus the most vulnerable to the process of hardening and narrowing over a long period.

The application of water in our daily routine “exercises” these blood vessels by alternately contracting and dilating them. Water can act as an agent of temperature gradients, thereby affecting the thermoregulatory response of the cutaneous circulation. When hot, water ensures that vessels in the limbs dilate, and when cold, that they contract. In this way, water ensures the flexibility of vessels distant from the heart, forcing nutrients deposited in tissues as a result of poor circulation back into the bloodstream through a temperature gradient.

Lymphatic system

The lymphatic system, on the other hand, is probably not the first to come to mind when we think of the body’s organ systems. Yet without this quietly working system our cardiovascular system would collapse and our immune system would be impaired. Our lymphatic vessels transport “leaked” blood fluids into our capillaries to prevent the accumulation of fluid in the interstitial spaces and eventual tissue damage. The vessels of the lymphatic system are much thinner than those of the cardiovascular system, ensuring the circulation of white blood cells which have an essential role in protecting the body against invaders and resisting disease. It is this fluid that we see oozing out when we have a cut or wound.

The optimal functioning of this system and its thin vessels, like those of the circulatory system, can be said to be closely linked with the effect of washing. The phagocytes and lymphocytes, which make up the immune system are housed by our lymphoid tissues and organs, are supported by the act of wudhu. The nasopharyngeal region behind the nose leads to the tonsils, which are small masses of lymphoid tissue that trap and remove pathogens that are entering the throat. Washing the mouth and nose three times with every wudhu therefore helps to remove the bacteria that builds up in the region of the body most exposed to the external environment. Moreover, the act of washing both sides of the neck during wudhu stimulates our cervical lymph nodes – a specialized mass of tissue which houses lymphocytes and particularly helps to protect the body by removing bacteria and tumor cells from lymphatic circulation. Our lymphocytes are arguably the most important component of our immune system, patrolling every point of the body many times a day and destroying cancer cells and pathogens along the way. Considering that the act of wudhu enhances the filtration effect of our lymphoid circulation, one can see the blessings that come with the divine command to “wash…and purify your bodies fully….”

Electrostatic balance

Our physiology is also closely related to the electrostatic balance of the body. While many psychosomatic diseases result from electrostatic imbalance, the most pronounced effect of static electricity is exerted on the subcutaneous muscles located under the skin, mitigating their function and inducing the onset of wrinkles which often start in the face. Maintaining the regular habit of washing the skin – particularly the face which is most frequently exposed to ultraviolet radiation – protects the surface and internal layer of our skin cells by constantly dampening the skin surface with clean water. It is a much simpler alternative to spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on expensive skin care and makeup products to maintain a healthy complexion.

In regards to how wudhu can benefit our electrostatic balance, the part of the verse which sheds light to tayammum, “if you cannot find water, then take wholesome dust and wipe your faces and hands with that” highlights that the water substitute for wudhu significantly reduces static electricity, like water. This is why when wudhu is performed calmly with care, it often leaves one feeling refreshed and discharged.

The Quran is a grand source containing many prescriptions for good health. While every civilized person may wash their face and hands throughout the day, wudhu ensures that cleanliness and a sense of well-being is sustained by virtue of its association with worship. The worth and significance of wudhu is not limited to the medical benefits discussed here. However, for anyone else wondering why taking a pause on a busy day with wudhu feels so rejuvenating, I hope this humble article sheds some light to a grand prescription from among the many medicines revealed in the Qur’an.

Quite obviously, divine humor is not by me, as the title and byline may imply. I also sense a few wrinkled brows among our readers. Can humor be divine? The question is not unreasonable: the prophets of our Lord certainly had little to laugh about. Moreover, religion has hardly been the stuff to engender a smile or a giggle.

Enter the Dalai Lama, who is seen to giggle a great deal. One wonders why. A plausible answer could be that His Royal Highness is exceedingly nervous in the face of an impossible world. Hence the giggle. I also have a delightful book on my shelves by one Christmas Humphries. It is all about Zen Buddhism. Mr. Humphries offers a dedication to his wife who, I quote, “laughed in all the right places.” Mr. Humphries informs us of the concept of the sound of one hand clapping and we are reminded of our own Queen Elizabeth who exercises the notion at all times as she waves regally to her subjects when out driving in her state carriage. She may be giving half measure, but her subjects respond with two hands in full.

But divine humor…? Why not? We are informed that God is the sponsor of all life and all endeavor; thus, why not, indeed, divine humor?

It has occurred to this writer that we may wish to consider divine charisma. Naturally, one cannot actually purchase divine charisma, and nor can one use magic to conjure it up! However, and please bear with me, I would suggest, nay insist, that one can be instrument in manifesting it.

My explanation may hopefully point to something we adults are happy to make – or at least bring on a smile.

I speak, here, of babies, and would contend that they could easily lead us to a point of enlightenment.

Being a parent is in reality about as high as you can consciously go. I say in reality because we are talking about involvement with another human being. This not about me; this is about we. This means you, the aspirant, and your baby, your spiritual teacher.

I’ve been thinking about Zen. Don’t worry, that was the cosmic giggle you just heard, too. Zen is about doing what you do. Am I right? George Bernard Shaw’s, “He who can does, he who cannot, teaches,” just about sums it up (not that you are supposed to sum things up, but even so…). Forget teachers and teaching. Shaw obviously didn’t mean them, or that. GBS was into Zen, but he didn’t know it. The Japanese Zen master, Dr. Suzuki, may have been enlightened but could not have put it better. On the other hand, Dr. Suzuki would probably not have bothered.

Please consider the advantage of transcending this world. Your baby could help.

Obedience is the keyword, but it will go against the grain. Nobody wants to be obedient. We figure that to have a life, we need an opinion; we need to call the shots. But if having babies is what you do, you need to rethink, maybe unthink, the rules.

Did you ever consider obeying your baby?

“What can he mean?” you will be forgiven for asking. But that’s the point. Your baby is already working on you and is getting you nicely softened and shaped. Already your brain is dissolving in a mental meltdown. Suddenly you are feeling about things. Thinking is sort of a long way away, like your thoughts are down a deep well. You are no longer really thinking at all. It’s suddenly all a ghost-like echo of things learned, and all pretty irrelevant at that. Congratulations! You have a head that is full, however, of awful awareness. The trick is to turn the awfulness into positive action.

You are suddenly Mr. and Mrs. Awareness. You watch your baby because, let’s be honest, you can’t drag your eyes away, anyway. And that goes for visitors, too. Everybody is suddenly on their best behavior when a baby is nigh. Ladies utter goo-goo stuff, waggling fingers. Men stand around in the background, awkwardly, looking worried, thinking about doing a second job. The baby is socking out waves of something or other that is indefinable but real. This is charisma of the highest order. The baby has caught your attention, has got you focused and it isn’t even trying. One lopsided toothless grin, and you are going to fall apart. Your baby has got God on his or her side.

Somebody once said, “The real children of God know not what they do.”

Here is the message. Imagine your baby carrying that kind of charisma right on into adulthood. Well, we have all probably countenanced the notion of never growing up. But could you accept the idea that babies are already grown up, and that we adults have sometimes (sorry about this) simply hung around, done maturity in reverse, and accumulated a lot of juvenile junk?

It goes like this. You are gazing at your baby and you hate the idea of your baby growing up and having all of those “experiences” that the experts tell you are necessary for someone to become old and adjusted. An old Hindi proverb puts it thus: “Living life through experience is the most bitter of ways.” It means you are constantly reaching back into the past to find answers for today. Come on, can you imagine your baby smoking a cigarette? Do you want your baby to experience hardship, divorce, anger, being overweight? Do you want your baby to use bad language, or become a neighborhood flirt, or a kid who steals cars?

As an aside, this is not just social criticism I’m putting out because I must quickly state that this writer is as guilty as the rest in respect of just about all of the areas of human misdemeanor mentioned above. I feel better already.

OK, you don’t want your baby to have or experience all of the crud that makes life difficult. You don’t want your baby to smoke a cigarette because the idea is appalling. This is your baby’s way of telling you to stop smoking. Moreover, the baby hasn’t uttered a word. Hey, if that isn’t Zen, what then? It is all because your baby is not communicating in the usual way. Your baby has touched your feelings, nay, even your conscience. Babies are holy, that’s all. But they don’t know that they are holy and that makes them even holier.

Babies make us aware of what is bad for us. One exchange with a mystic I read went like this: “Do you love humankind?” asked the mystic. “Indeed I do,” replied the aspirant. “Then why,” said the mystic, “do you treat yourself so badly?”

What is happening, if you go along with the idea, is that the baby is helping you to clean up your act. This, by any reckoning has to be good. But there is an ongoing issue at stake and it is extremely appealing. If you can clean up your act you won’t have to give your baby any crud, or unmanageable appetites, later.

Right! Obey your baby and get transcended. Your in-laws may hate you, but you will not be adding a jot of personal chaos to our world. Your baby will grow up loving you, even if you don’t deserve it.

One thing I would counsel: never, ever, try to let your baby know what you know. Your baby won’t get it because a baby’s outflow of charisma is not of his or her own volition. Pressed to converse (assuming your baby has acquired a language before leaving the cot), the retort would be, “Oh, this is simply what I do.”

It all means that charisma from the right source, and exercised in a natural—may I suggest baby-like—way, could be the stuff of salvation.

We are all aware of the danger of walking the thin line between satire and sarcasm. Much of what we call humor is of the mind. It is calculated and often alludes to, and takes advantage of, the failings of others. One senses the sly wink and nudge when allusion is used. The certainty that the recipient of humor is part of the act, is in collusion. In such a case we become allies in negativity.

To be honest, a baby may not definitely make us laugh, although they often do, but they can easily bring about the rosy warmth that we love, which is, of course, the result of love. We are no longer talking about a jokey existence, but we must agree that a baby can lighten our day. A baby can, even, make humor possible. Babies have that special something that soon, unfortunately, gets lost to adults. Moreover, and as already mentioned, they don’t know that they are doing it. It means that their charisma must be the benefit of grace.

Discussions over personal liberty and government intervention are as old as modern governments, as J.S. Mill’s writings show.

John Stuart Mill was among the many philosophers, both before and after, who attempted to determine when government intervention in the private lives of individuals was legitimate. The authoritarian regimes of 19^th century Europe triggered thinkers to study citizen’s rights and state powers. Mill attempted to regulate the actions of these authoritarian regimes by distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate government intervention in his book On Liberty. Mill’s ideas were one influence among many on the structure and laws of the modern nation state. Using his ideas on freedom and government as a starting point, we can discuss psychological harm, human fallibility, and social responsibilities.

Mill, in On Liberty, identifies two mechanisms for determining legitimate government intervention: the harm principle and utilitarianism. The harm principle states that government can only legitimately interfere with the actions of individuals if the actions of the individuals harm others against their will. Thus, if an action does not harm another against their will, the government cannot interfere. Notice that an individual can harm themselves or even other people with the appropriate consent. Effectively, the harm principle constitutes an absolute bar to government intervention on unharmful private action.

The second mechanism, utilitarianism, comes into play after government intervention is considered to be legitimate due to harmful consequences of private actions. At this point, the government must do a utility calculation, or a cost-benefit analysis, in which it must determine whether government intervention will result in more harm than the private action it will attempt to stop. If the analysis indicates that government intervention will result in more harm, government intervention would be considered illegitimate, and vice versa. Thus, while the harm principle constituted an absolute categorical bar, the utilitarianism mechanic requires a case-by-case determination of the legitimacy of government intervention.

In order to apply the harm principle it is important not only to know what the principle is, but also what constitutes harm. The broader the definition of harm becomes, the larger the pool of actions that the government can interfere with becomes. In general, the classification of physical damage to body and property as harm is generally accepted by society as well as by Mill. However, the definition of harm can include things other than just physical damage. In order to properly apply the harm principle, it must be determined whether psychological harm and failure to act can be classified as harm, warranting government intervention.

Psychological Harm

Can feeling distress, being upset, or experiencing psychological harm due to another individual’s actions be categorized as harm? If one were to accept distress as harm, then the definition of harm has effectively been broadened to include every instance in which one feels discomfort or is upset by another’s action, expanding the sphere of legitimate government intervention.

Mill does not determine distress or psychological harm to be harm. The distress or psychological harm Mill refers to is one originating from a disagreement of values between two individuals. For example, one individual may like the color blue while another dislikes it. The distress, anger, resentment, or any other negative feelings the other may feel when the first wears a blue shirt is the psychological harm that Mill refers to. A more consequential example would be the distress that a Democrat may feel about the ideas expressed at a Republican rally. The views expressed at the rally are clearly contrary to the individual’s beliefs, yet the distress originating from this ideological difference cannot be categorized as harm. If it was categorized as harm, then the government could intervene whenever actions or speech was contrary to the ideology and beliefs of the most powerful or the most vocal.

Mill, in On Liberty, states that “unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right and they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves” (1). Here he attempts to stop the use of the harm principle in attempts to impose beliefs or one’s own moral values on others. He argues that imposing views on another is wrong, because one would not want others to impose their views on them. Additionally, Mill emphasizes the fallibility of human reasoning and preferences, stating that despite one’s conviction in one’s own position in an argument, there is always the possibility of error.

Admittance of the fallibility is not only a sign of humility and recognition of possibilities, but also a very real demonstration of understanding one’s own limitations inherent in being human. This principle has been recognized and applied by many scholars and thinkers in addition to Mill, like Socrates and Said Nursi. For example, in The Republic, Plato quotes Socrates as exclaiming “[a]s for me, all I know is that I know nothing” (2).

Similarly, Said Nursi demonstrates the same recognition of the fallibility of human beings in his Risale-i Nur and attributes true knowledge only to God. This is clearly displayed in his use of text from the Quran at the beginning and ending of all the chapters in The Words. Thus, Nursi begins his work by drawing from what he considers the true source of knowledge and ends with that same infallible source.

Lastly, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes seems to support Mill’s position against persecution by arguing in Leviathan that “do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself” (3). Hobbes’ view is in effect a version of the golden rule, limiting social interaction to only actions one would deem acceptable if done to him/her. In congruence with Hobbes’s golden rule, Mill argues that imposing one’s views on others is wrong, and that feeling upset due to the failure of others to conform to those views is not harm. Thus, even if the actions of an individual upset or cause psychological harm to others, the government cannot legitimately interfere.

Failure to Act

Though Mill prevents distress or psychological harm from being used to legitimize government intervention over an individual’s actions, he permits failure to act to be classified as harm. In situations where a failure to act causes a negative or harmful outcome, government intervention would be legitimate. For example, the government may prosecute a firefighter if his negligence allowed a building to burn down. However, classifying failure to act or inaction as harm is dangerous, because people are not capable of infinite actions in a moment. The jurisdiction of government intervention is expanded tremendously by this classification. Why would Mill, who constructed a mechanism for limiting government intervention, expand government power in this way? And what restraints can be applied to the failure-to-act classification?

Socrates’ ideas, as expressed in The Republic by Plato, provide some insight into answering the previous questions. After examining Plato’s views in The Republic, it is possible to claim that Socrates would agree with Mill in including the failure-to-act as harm. His definition of a just society is a society in which everyone is doing their job or role in society (4). From this, one can assume that a just action within a society would be whatever action is in accordance with the job of the individual as determined by his soul and position in society. Thus, failure to perform one’s job would then be classified as an unjust action by Plato, open to government intervention for the restoration of social justice.

Socrates’ view seems to emphasize the nature of the action that the individual is failing to do. If the failure to act involved the failure to do one’s job in society, then the failure to act would be considered unjust. On the other hand, if the failure to act involved inaction about an issue that was not the individual’s responsibility, then it is possible to conclude that the failure to act in this instance is not an unjust action. Thus, this approach distinguishes between a firefighter who chooses not to stop a fire from a regular citizen who chooses not to stop a fire. The firefighter neglects his responsibility, opening him to criminal prosecution, while the regular citizen’s inaction is not open to prosecution. By allowing the failure to act to be considered as harm, Mill avoided conflicting with the conditional nature of determining whether the failure to act is just or unjust as extrapolated from Plato’s views.

Socrates’ and Mill’s analysis regarding the failure to act is based solely on the legal and formal responsibilities of the individual. The police have a responsibility to stop crime, and parents have a responsibility to take care of their children, etc. Each nation’s unique constitution and laws make legal responsibilities country-specific and unique. For example, many European states, like Germany and France, require citizens to provide assistance to persons in danger (5). However, the duty to rescue those in peril does not exist in other countries, like the United States (6). Of course, most people call the authorities for help and attempt to provide first-aid, but the fact remains that in most of the United States, there is no legal obligation to rescue. Each country determines the legal responsibilities of its citizens, some choosing to expand and some choosing to restrict the extent of responsibilities.

For many people, informal responsibilities extend beyond formal responsibilities; these are often based on the individual’s religion, culture, and ethics. While government intervention may not be legitimate for failures of informal responsibilities according to Mill, informal responsibilities constitute an important piece of the society. For example, children have an informal responsibility to care for their parents, especially during their old age. If children ignore this responsibility, the government cannot and should not intervene. After all, the government is not the ultimate solution for every social problem, and each member of the country may not believe in the same informal responsibilities due to different culture, religion, and ethics. Instead, the true solutions to failures in informal responsibilities are education in social values and decency, social structures, communities, and institutions.

Mill’s principles on government intervention in the lives of free people provided a platform to discuss psychological harm and social responsibilities. Government can provide solutions for certain social issues, but not for all. In recognition of this, Mill wrote of an alternative limited government to the authoritarian regimes of his time. In this alternative, conflicting and controversial ideologies could co-exist, and government would only regulate formal responsibilities. The burden rests on the society to care for the informal responsibilities.

Notes

1. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, 155
2. Plato, The Republic, (Plato 354c, book 1)
3. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Pt. 1, Ch. 15, para. 35
4. Kara, Mahmut. “Rethinking Plato: Philosophical Idealism and Political Totalitarianism.” Fountain Magazine, April-June 2001.
5. Weinrib, Ernest J. “The Case for a Duty to Rescue.” The Yale Law Journal , Vol. 90, No. 2 (Dec., 1980), pp. 247-293 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. URL:<http://www.jstor.org/stable/795987>.
6. Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959)

Cost-benefit analysis of piracy

To begin, I want to analyze piracy free from any ethical or normative judgments. Piracy is an act, and like any other act, it has costs and benefits. A utility calculation or a cost-benefit analysis shows that the material benefits far outweigh the minimal material costs of piracy. Entertainment media usually has a monetary price that must be paid in order to consume it, like buying tickets to watch a movie at the theater. On the other hand, given that the individual possesses the technical knowledge, the individual can receive the same entertainment for free if he chooses to pirate the media instead of buying it. While some individuals who pirate are caught and do pay fees, the probability of these negative consequences are very small. Given no other external factors, this cost-benefit analysis indicates that the materialistic benefits outweigh the materialistic costs.

Additionally, from a behavioral perspective, piracy makes sense. When a person commits piracy, they are immediately presented with the benefit of entertainment or utility. The behavior is immediately rewarded and reinforced. The costs are not immediately evident, and can be easily overlooked, because the probability of being caught and punished for pirating is very small. In contrast to the act of physically stealing the DVD of a movie, the act of illegally downloading the movie is much less risky and only entails the seemingly innocent pressing of buttons. When contemplating whether to physically steal another DVD of a movie, the person would weigh whether the entertainment benefit is really worth suffering the stress and energy as well as the high risk of being caught and punished by the law. When contemplating whether to illegally download a movie, the person would only need to weigh whether the entertainment benefit is greater than pressing some buttons. With such low risks and such immediate gratification, the behavior of piracy is easily engrained.

This cost-benefit analysis in a vacuum free from any external forces like ethics, morality, and religion sufficiently shows why piracy is so prevalent. It is easy and rewarding. However, people do not live in a vacuum.

The ethical factor

If piracy is theft, then it is unethical, immoral, and wrong. And it is indeed theft. All digital media whether film, music, ebooks, or games are products of another’s hard work. Just like a farmer’s crops or an author’s book, digital media would not exist but for the producer. Thus, similarly, the producer has taken ownership of digital media by production. Modern copyright and digital rights laws are evidence of this societal norm. So, if it is wrong, why do some people pirate digital media anyway?

When a person is given the choice between paying for the entertainment and consuming it for free, ethical principles clash with desire. In order to resolve cognitive dissonance, the discomfort caused by the clash of conflicting inner-beliefs, individuals will attempt to justify their actions and alter their beliefs (1). In the case of piracy, an individual might conclude that the producers of the entertainment media are already wealthy and do not need more money. Alternatively, the individual may decide that his financial circumstances do not allow him to pay for the products, forcing him to illegally obtain them. Ultimately, these justifications allow the individual to live more comfortably with their decision to pirate the product.

Justifying piracy

In addition to common justifications for any other ethical violations, piracy has a unique justification due to the unique nature of digital media. This unique justification is that the illegal downloading of digital media does not harm the producer, because it does not represent a loss of revenue for the producer of the game, movie, or song. Given the digital nature of entertainment media, a pirated copy of a game does not directly mean a loss of revenue equal to the price of the game. For example, when an item in the physical world, such as a watch, is stolen from a store, the store loses money that is equal to the sum of the cost of the watch and the profit from the sale of the watch. If the thief had not stolen the watch, the store could have sold it to someone else. In contrast, when an individual obtains a pirated copy of a digital media, the ability of the producer to sell a copy of the digital media to someone else is not inhibited in anyway. In other words, the benefits or entertainment experienced by the individual who chooses to pirate does not result in a loss for the producer. Those who have this justification would then conclude that piracy only has positive consequences.

This justification, unique to digital products, has two main deficiencies. First, piracy can lead to loss of revenue to the producer if a person who would have otherwise purchased the product chooses to pirate it. Aggregating all the individual acts of piracy can lead to a cumulative loss of revenue of many millions of dollars. Second, loss of revenue is not the only reason piracy is immoral. The primary reason why piracy is unethical is because it constitutes a taking of another property, violating another’s fundamental property rights. If a producer chooses to share its property with only those who pay for it, then the taking of that property without paying for it is a violation of fundamental property rights. An independent showing of damage or loss of revenue is not necessary to prove its wrongness.

Habit

Another possible explanation for the prevalence of piracy is habit. Once an individual has committed piracy, despite ethical prescriptive to the contrary, the individual experiences the benefits and joys of that piece of entertainment. As previously mentioned, this immediate reward can lead to a cycle that constantly reinforces the behavior until it has become habitual. The case study of the video game, Proun, can provide some insight.

Proun, a low budget game, was released under the pay-what-you-want pricing method which allows consumers to legally obtain the product at whatever price they decide to pay including for zero dollars. In other words, people could legally get the game for free from the developer’s official website. Essentially, the developer removed monetary concerns from the utility calculation. According to the released statistics, approximately 40% of used copies were pirated (2). Individuals chose to pirate the game, despite being able to obtain the game legally for free.

The implication of the Proun case study is that price may not be the sole determinant for pirating behavior. A possible explanation for the observed pirating behavior could be that obtaining entertainment media through illegal means has become habitual to a significant portion of the population. Due to the low risks associated with piracy, individuals who have chosen to pirate media experience no consequences that would deter their actions, making piracy their normal means of acquiring any form of software, irrelevant of whether or not the software is free. In other words, habitual piracy has become legitimate in their eyes. After the initial act, the individual no longer considers the ethicality of their actions. Every subsequent act merely reinforces the habit.

References

1. See also Yerli, Selnur Hatice. “Cognitive Dissonance and the Psychology of Sin.” The Fountain 80, March-April 2011.
2. van Dongen, Joost. “Proun sales data revealed: Proun is a big success! Pay What You Want is not!.” <http://joostdevblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/proun-is-big-success-pay-what-you-want.html>

They will not be free riders who just fiddle and suffice with what is given. No, when need be, each and every one of them will be sure to strike water from the hardest stones as Moses did and split rampant waters to lead the way.

They will know to wait when they need to wait, and they will know to act when they need to act. At times, they will come down on the earth like lightning. Yet, at other times, they will know to avoid violent storms and wait for the season of clear breezes. They are quick and bold, but their actions do not lack thought. Their minds are enlightened, their decisions exact, and their conduct measured.

They see no harm in relating to any idea or school of thought. But the direction of their hearts is immutably fixed on their own foundation of faith. For them, even the most lustrous movements of thought are not worthy of concern if they ultimately fail to relate to their faith. That is, they will not struggle to reclaim rivers that will not water their lands or feed their lakes.

Their power is derived from the truth and it is the truth for which they endeavor. However, they know that power is not without aim or place, and they know to be prudent when they cannot match the power of their adversaries. Shallow in appearance, they are smart and wise.

They are candid and sincere with friends. Their insight warmly accommodates their foes. In their world, heart and reason go hand in hand; friends are not ignored and foes are not cast away by vitriol.

Their anger never extends to cruelty. Yet, their leniency does not tolerate injustice. Their blessed atmosphere is free of the wantonness of the cruel and the wailings of the downtrodden.

They have resolve and determination. Neither worldly concerns, nor the desire for Paradise can entrap them until the day of true festivity. They incessantly exude the unparalleled incense of the transcendence.

They serve as a spiral cord between their communities and the truths of the realms beyond the heavens. This cord will never break, even though malevolent hands try to tear it apart, time and again. They are neither scared of the flames nor intimidated by the cannons of tyranny, because they have often countered infernos and crushing blows.

For them, true liberty lies in connection to the Divine Truth. Therefore, every exertion of the carnal self on the path of the Divine engenders an exhilaration of worship and infuses the faithful with interminable joy. This is particularly true when the soul is way beyond the primal human wants and pleasures, nestled in the safe haven of the heart …

Those who will shape tomorrow are always in confrontation with the carnal self. They are so composed that they will not be deceived into the positions granted by the good will of other people. They are never spoilt by their own achievements, grand as those achievements may be, or by the respectful ranks others ascribe to them. When the time comes that their names are heard everywhere and their reputation knows no limit, they will remain the same modest and unpretentious individuals they were when they first assumed the sacred duty. This modesty and this unpretentiousness will be embroidered with nobility and dignity.

They will never become beggars who seek reciprocation in return for the deeds they perform for the sake of their people. For them, beggary is to be abhorred, even if they are in utter need. For begging would mean doing what they despise most – receiving double of what they gave to their people.

Once again, we beseech the help of an elevated generation whose approach is imminent on the horizon. We pray, knowing that the Merciful God will not disappoint us.

According to theological fatalists, all events, including human deeds, are absolutely determined by God’s foreknowledge and will. We human beings think we can act or carry out our actions voluntarily, but if God foreknows how we will act in the future, in other words, that we will act in a specific way, then we must necessarily act as He knows because divine knowledge is infallible and unchangeable. If we act out of necessity, then there is no voluntary choice in our acts and thus God’s foreknowledge of what we will do in the future determines our will. In order to establish their ideas they argue that even though humankind wishes to be happy in the future, we cannot be happy because we do not have the power to be happy; only God makes one happy. In short, for fatalists, God’s foreknowledge and will is a necessity.

Augustine, like other monotheists, defines God as omnipotent, omniscient and good. For his definition, God unerringly foreknows everything, including our future acts, so the problem here is whether divine knowledge determines our acts in the future. By making use of the dialectical method, that is, the Socratic Method, and some philosophical arguments, Augustine seeks to prove the existence of free will and then analyzes the problem of the compatibility of free will and God’s foreknowledge. As an answer to the question posed by theological fatalists: “Why can we not achieve our future will if we have free will?” his reply is that we may wish to be happy in the future, but may not be able to achieve this because to do so would be dependent on factors that are wholly beyond our control. In other words, there may always be external constraints which hinder us in fulfilling our desires.

Thus, for Augustine, we can not speak about freedom of action, but only freedom of will. When we use the concept of “something being in our power,” we mean simply “being able to do what we will.” Therefore, there are very few things that are in our own power, but our will is one of them; for in the moment we wish to do something the “will” is there and we discover it within ourselves. This is a kind of psychological argument that proves Augustine’s claim for the existence of will; in addition, Augustine uses a linguistic analysis to support this. The propositions “It is not voluntarily that we will” and “It is necessarily that we will” are meaningless and far from true. For if we necessarily will, why do we need to speak of “willing” at all? When we say “we wish to do anything” we directly claim that we have a faculty called “the will.” Lastly, he called attention to a logical mistake; his logical analysis of “what we will” as “a physical action” and “an effect of our will” is completely different from “our will” as a spiritual action. Even if we do not achieve what we will, we cannot say that we do not have the power to will. We may only think “we will” but in fact we do not achieve whatever we wish, for our success in attaining what we wish depends not only on our will, but also on other factors that are wholly beyond our control. However our will itself would be our own as long as it remains in our power, therefore, “it is not necessary to deny that God has foreknowledge of all things while at the same time our will is our own”; in other words, God’s foreknowledge of the entire future does not determine our will. Despite all of these arguments, Augustine concludes: “we shall exercise our wills in the future because He has foreknowledge that we shall do so.” Rather, it would be more consistent with his arguments if he had said: “He has foreknowledge that we shall exercise our wills in the future, because we are allowed to do so” for we will exercise our future wills with our own will by His permission. In this case, God’s foreknowledge is consistent with our will, but His foreknowledge is not the cause of our choices. But Augustine’s concluding sentences claims the opposite, that is, our will is determined by God’s foreknowledge.

In conclusion, human beings can choose one particular action from among various alternatives. As Augustine concludes, the power to will is not taken from us by or is not opposed to God’s foreknowledge. In fact, Abrahamic religions necessarily support the idea of the compatibility between divine knowledge and human free will. For if we did not have free will, in other words, if we must act in a certain way, then why would God judge us? This would be meaningless. Furthermore, His divine foreknowledge certifies our will because His timeless foreknowledge is consistent with our will in a future time, therefore there is no incompatibility between God’s foreknowledge and our free will.

* This article is a product of my reflections over a section in the book Readings in the History of Christian Theology Volume I by William C. Placher, pp. 106-111.

Izzet Coban is a theologian living in Chicago. He has an MA from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago.

Notes

1. Augustine of Hippo or Saint Augustine (354-430) is one of the most important theologians in the development of Christian theology. In Roman Catholicism, he is a saint. His famous works are “The Confessions,” considered to be the first Western autobiography, and has been translated from Latin into many languages, and “On Free Will,” “The City of God,” and “On Christian Doctrine.”
2. Evodius (d. ca 69) appears as a speaker in two of the dialogues that Augustine conducted in the Thagaste community. In his On the Free Choice of the Will, written in 389, Augustine introduced Evodius as the interlocutor. (www.augnet.org)

“Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called ‘The Pledge.’ The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course… it probably isn’t. The second act is called ‘The Turn.’ The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn’t clap yet. Because making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back. That’s why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call ‘The Prestige.’”

The above quote is taken from the script of the movie “The Prestige.” This article is not about that movie; nor is it a critique of any film. It is an attempt to use the theme of the movie “The Prestige” to provide a different perspective on the brutal power struggle that has taken place in the international political arena over the last century. For those readers who have not seen the movie, the story is about two famous rival magicians who sabotage one another’s performances. When one performs a successful trick, the other becomes obsessed with disclosing the secret of his competitor. The rivalry is so intense that in the end they become murderers.

Drawing an analogy, I see that the battle for “The Prestige” among today’s power centers is not that different from the deadly rivalry of nineteenth century magicians-only today’s magicians have more advanced methods and more engineering power. Moreover, the tricks they use in competition for supremacy are costing more lives than ever. Throughout human history there has always been a battle of supremacy among nations. Mostly, this has been carried out with political or diplomatic sanctions, but when necessary, this volatile rivalry has been transformed into disastrous wars with intelligent tricks.

Now, read the remainder of the article and decide for yourself whether the above analogy facilitates an understanding of the bigger picture of some global conflicts. In the end, we will focus on an alternative way that could attain much better results with more humane means.

The Pledge

The basic nature of the power struggle is that the involved parties always try to dominate one another in any domain of power-economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, or cultural. They strive to establish systems and sanctions over others in order to divide up, or rather not to divide up, global resources.

In this ordinary struggle there will come a day when one or several of the parties involved in the struggle begin to feel that other means are necessary to establish a new world order, and they start to perform their magic. They start with the death of a preeminent person, or an unfortunate event; this may be a local disaster or a much unexpected incident. But whatever happens, they make a great noise about it, manufacturing a crisis, and thus attaining global attention. Sometimes the crisis is so disruptive that people are able to think of nothing else.

One recent example of this type of crisis is the tragic events of September 11, 2001. On a busy and beautiful New York morning everything stopped and events occurred that would shock the world. Some twenty crazy people-and whoever was behind them-killed more than three thousand people, bringing down the WTC towers and shaking not only New York City, but the entire world, in a matter of hours.

On another September morning, sixty years earlier, a similar disaster occurred when a madman decided to march with the German army to seize the entire continent of Europe. That march ended six years later, after millions of lives had been lost, including the lives of those who had started it.

Around twenty-five years before that, yet another disaster started with the assassination of an archduke in June 1914. Again, a sudden death and a shock wave of deaths followed the onset of World War I.

The number of examples can be increased, but the important thing here is that on a normal morning, people are shocked by unexpected news and their daily routines are disrupted. For most people, their world views change and the important paradigms shift, initiating a great change in their lives.

The Turn

Experiencing the shock that has been caused by the unfortunate events of “the pledge,” even before people have a chance to mourn, hundreds of questions start to fly… But how? Who? Why? While trying to extricate themselves from this trauma people cannot help but keep asking themselves: Who could do this? Why would they do this? And consequently, they start searching for answers.

Any victim of a disaster, indeed, anybody who experiences such an incident, is naturally filled with intense emotions. Even long after the trauma most people are still upset, anxious, sad, or angry, while others even become depressed. Therefore, they can neither think straight nor find any meaningful explanations for events. Even if they were to ask questions, it would not be possible to find any immediate answers. As a reaction, they try to find someone to blame for the situation, so that there is a target for their emotions.

It is at this point that the technical or social engineers of “the modern magicians” come on stage and make the real picture disappear by transforming it into another image. People who were looking at the screaming children or listening to the cries for help a day ago no longer see or hear such things. People who were searching for the responsible parties and who were trying to discover the truth behind all the noise, stop and search no more. The social engineers smoothly direct the attention and emotions of the general public to something else, convincing them that the source of the problem has been located; there are no more investigations. Whether that which has been selected is really responsible for whatever has happened is not really important. Rather, now what is to be done is to take appropriate action.

This is what happened to our grandfathers at the beginning of the twentieth century, or during “the turn” of World War I. By no means was the assassination of Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand the sole trigger for the conflict; for some reason (!), the war plans (German Schlieffen Plan, French Plan XVII, Austria-Hungary’s Plan B and Russia’s Plan 19) had already been engineered long before 1914.

Similarly, in “the turn” of World War II, the invasion of Poland and the Sino-Japanese war led to a global conflict that split a majority of the world’s nations into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. Whatever the war plans that had been engineered on the two sides before the 1940s were, it was not long before more than twenty countries started fighting one another; after six years, World War II, which had spanned much of the globe, resulted in the deaths of over fifty million people, making it the deadliest conflict in human history. God knows whether justice was delivered in the end or not.

The “magicians” of that time, maneuvering the war as they wished, used every trick including, but not limited to, thousands of armored vehicles, hundreds of bombers, submarines, and finally the atom bomb, to change the direction of the war. Like in the movie “The Prestige,” some say they used the methods of Nikola Tesla, and tried to make huge objects literally disappear (the alleged Philadelphia Experiment ), and sometimes they managed to do so, but in rather more costly and deadly ways (the Manhattan Project ).

In “the turn” of 9/11 attacks, Iraq was invaded due to the allegation of weapons of mass destruction being hidden by Saddam Hussein and his connections to Al Qaeda leaders. Since this invasion, there have been some claims that the terrorist attacks and allegations were a “turn” to pave the way for a new era in human history. Let us first take a look at the third act of the aforementioned wars.

And The Prestige

The prestige, the third act, of World War I could be characterized as “New Imperialism” or “ethnic nationalism.” New imperialism was distinguished by an unprecedented pursuit of what has been termed “empire for empire’s sake.” This consisted of aggressive competition for overseas territorial acquisitions and the emergence of jingoistic doctrines in colonizing countries that denigrated the ability of the subjugated people to carry out self-government. In reaction to this, ethnic nationalism became popular in such colonies, sometimes in the form of nation-states, sometimes in extreme forms like ethnic cleansing. In the end, it would not be unfair to say that “the prestige” of World War I was very different from what had been intended.

The prestige of World War II can be depicted as post-colonialism or liberal institutionalism, both found in the discourse of Cold War. The former dealt with matters of the cultural identity of the colonized societies, whereas the latter suggested that with the right factors, the international system could provide opportunities for cooperation and interaction. Many nations in the Middle East or the Far East experienced identity problems, and in some cases these issues evolved into new crises or even civil wars. Opposing camps were maintained throughout the Cold War, with some different allies or enemies, and more deadly weapons were built. The idealism of liberal international institutions did not help much, because alternative blocks were formed in the opposing camps and this only accelerated the race to dominate one another in different power domains. Again, “the prestige” of World War II was very different than the intentions that had formed in people’s minds.

What is more interesting is that, within the causality of international relations, “the prestige” of one war became “the pledge” of the following. The nation-states or ethnic cleansing that appeared in the aftermath of WWI evolved into WWII, and the liberal institutionalism of post-WWII era has now evolved into a global war on terror. As part of the ramifications of liberal institutionalism, if states are unable to cooperate then they are curbed, with either economic or military actions. The future remains uncertain in many aspects with regards to the power struggle in the world.

In The End

All in all, the main question still remains: Are the magicians of our time achieving “the prestige” they have been creating for so long? Have we yet observed a third act which deserves our applause? I seriously doubt it. All the magic tricks they have used neither justify the means nor have they brought any prestige. For the most part they have even lost what is left of the global prestige they had. But the social engineers still keep fueling the fire with their self-fulfilling prophecies of a “clash of civilizations” and an inevitable Armageddon.

Obviously, this never-ending rivalry among modern magicians cannot bring any good to any state or nation, including those who are in control of it. The intelligence and the engineers of these magicians could very well use more productive ways to promote liberal democracy and build alliances among different nations.

There have indeed been ongoing efforts for the “alliance” or “dialogue of civilizations,” which has actually been discussed many times in this magazine, The Fountain. In two such articles, the necessity for dialogue is emphasized with evidence from religious texts given, as well as quotes from modern philosophers, and the conclusion drawn is that dialogue among people from different walks of life is inevitable. Sooner rather than later we have to learn to live together on this unique planet and share its resources with respect and compassion for all. “Even though compassion and hatred are both present as realities in this world, it is indeed compassion that is the essence of all existence. Were it not for compassion as the essence of creation, human beings or any other thing would not have come into existence nor would they remain in existence.”

In order to achieve this compassion, everyone, not only modern magicians, has to make a paradigm shift in our minds and hearts, because, as Einstein eloquently put it, “The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.” He is probably right that such a task is harder than splitting an atom, but surely, it is worth pursuing.

Veli Keskin is a freelance writer living in Maryland, USA.

Notes

1. This quote is taken from the script of the film The Prestige, written and directed by Christopher Nolan, adapted from Christopher Priest’s novel. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/quotes
2. Plot Summary for “The Prestige”, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/plotsummary
3. The Planning of the War, http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/plans.htm
4. The Philadelphia Experiment, http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm
5. The Manhattan Project, http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/index.htm
6. Salih Yucel. “The Necessity of Dialogue,” The Fountain, 2007, No. 57.
7. M. Fethullah Gulen. “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue,” The Fountain, 2000, No. 31.
8. M. Fethullah Gulen. “Compassion,” The Fountain, 2008, No. 63.

This attitude usually adds to the tyrant’s courage, makes the slanderer even more impudent and the assailant more outrageous. Still, I say to myself, “They are human too, and one day they will realize it and they will give up such impertinence.” This is perhaps wishful thinking or a misapprehension, but I prefer waiting for a blissful hour when everyone will come to reason and mercy. Filled with some bizarre supernatural expectations, I endeavor to soothe my exasperation and stand firm against the storms that challenge my lenience. I sometimes dive into a deep, silent introspection to escape my own realm of feelings. There are times when I feel sorry for myself in the face of some agonizing events, and I am troubled with a passing sensation that I am perhaps disrespecting myself while trying to be respectful to everyone else. But still, in spite of so many lies, fabrications, and devilish schemes, I turn to myself and say, “You have assumed trouble as your healing from the beginning; then what is this protest for? The one with teeth will certainly bite, and the one with claws will rip through; no one can change this as long as those who consider the truth to be with the powerful continue to exist. Be tolerant to everyone.” I bury my cries inside and pronounce my feelings with silent woes.

Indeed, it is impossible for people in my circumstances who share this way of thinking with me to act otherwise. First of all, we do not submit to the wicked ones, but “to the decree of fate we wholeheartedly submit our souls” (Bâkî). Secondly, we live in a time in which people in great numbers are locked onto hostility; today’s revenge-thirsty figures overshadow in ruthlessness the abominable tyrants of the past-so, tempering the atrocities in my heart does not change the reality. Many billow with the rage of pharaohs when they speak; their hatred and violence never abate and their hunger for blaze, destruction, slaughter, and extrajudicial execution is never satisfied. They raise their swords to the heavens like He-Man and scream, “I have the power!” The world all over echoes with the chorus of “Justice, freedom, democracy, civil rights,” but justice is desperate in the hands of crude power, freedom is leashed with the straps of slavery one over another, democracy is a freak in the hands of enforcers who interpret it capriciously. There is no one left who does not understand this, but those who have conducted decades-long abuses continue singing the same tune, as if they are unaware, with no sense of self-respect, and debasing their own social status. With no other occupation, sitting in sloth, they speak on behalf of rights, freedom, and democracy, while others who violate these values in broad day light utter the same words. These are words of magic invoked to earn status and esteem, and then circumvented to legitimize corruption and fraud. Oppressors rely on them when they oppress some people while favoring whoever they favor. These are the words offered as legitimate governments around the world are interfered with and countries are invaded. “Bringing prosperity” is a pretext for shedding blood and dishonoring others. With the same excuse, murders are committed, killings are left unsolved, people are tyrannized, free speech is censored, privacy is violated, religious persuasions are harassed, unthinkable profanity and what is forbidden are replete and promoted; civil rights and justice are frequently pointed to, but are trodden down at the same time.

Nowadays, I am observing all these horrors and calamities through my narrow vision, and I mumble, “O Lord, how forbearing you are! You continue to grant respite to the perpetrators who are responsible for all this violence, oppression, and degradation of rights, freedom, and democracy. Absolute might and power belong to God.” And then I bury myself in a silence of astonishment and amazement (dahsha and hayra) , which I feel has become part of my nature. Absolute silence in the face of injustice, tyranny, and violation of rights is no different than glorifying Satan and is condemned in a Prophetic tradition. Indeed, believers never remain in absolute silence; if their hands are tied, they speak out; if they are gagged, they reveal their fervor with overflowing gestures; if they are ostracized completely from society, they expand with palpitations as if they had a volcano heaving inside. If their internal explosions could be unveiled, we would witness bolts of lightning issuing from their hearts and chill from their claps of thunder.

Their quiet stance arises from their subtle refinement and vast compassion which would not disdain even an ant, from their philosophy of security and trust, respect for human values, mercy toward everyone, and from relying on God in all matters. First and foremost, they are people of fine balance. Even when the most horrific waves of unrest beat the shores of their hearts, they behave with the utmost moderation and prudence. They never act unwisely like a child whose imagination outweighs his reason and comprehension, who blabs everything that crosses his mind without a moment’s thought, who is concerned with accountability only after destroying everything with his words and actions and seeks excuses for the destruction he has caused. They are always aware of their position, of what they do and say, and act with discretion in the balance between their hearts and minds. When they are granted the opportunity, they pronounce universal human values; when they have to remain silent, they act out these values with fervor, keep up their prayers and invocations, observe with compassion, and smile on everyone. They are never upset by their fate, nor do they complain to others as if dissatisfied with God Almighty. On the contrary, they question their own selves and seek their own faults. They bury their sorrows in their chests and do not mention them to those who are unable to comprehend; not a word of discomfort can be released from their mouths even though they may burn like an oven on the inside. They die and come back to life, but never do they disclose this to anyone.

No one can know completely what a burning mass of white-hot embers they actually are; others consider these special people no different than themselves. Yet, if their belief, demeanor, and selfless spirits that are devoted to making others live were to allow them to roar out their internal fervor, all the crows would immediately hush and look for a hidden corner to take refuge in, while all the bats would retreat back into their dark caves and descend into silent introspection. True believers are men and women of trust and security who show the utmost care in performing what their true character necessitates. They never hurt others, even though they may be hurt; nor do they cause pain, even if they are tortured.

In fact, their spiritual realm is replete with portraits of sorrow, each more horrifying than the last, that exist side by side with their feverish passion to relieve society of its ailments. Their palpitations and pains last forever with constant brainstorming and attempts at revival. The eternal verses of their hearts or, more truly, their silent cries, are a call to the light with a commitment to illumination as opposed to darkness. One line of the poem drops from their lips in grief, while the next inspires revivification. Their indignation and enthusiasm reveal signs of all this incessant internal turmoil.

Indeed, this has been the kind of life we have always sought, or perhaps we have been forced to live in this way. Fervor and sorrow have been our fate and in fact what we have also demanded. We have considered living for our own sake as selfishness, an attitude we have always abhorred. The motto “So others may live” and wishing eternal happiness for all have been our passion. This passion is so intense that if it were at all possible to come back to this life after death and we were given the right to choose, we would still prefer others’ lives to our own. The true horizons of humanity we would fix our direction towards; thoughts of revival we would breathe with; degradations we would close our eyes to; fuss about fundamentalism we would not be deceived by; those who come forward with slanders, calumnies, and accusations we would not be upset by or despair at; unrelenting violations and attacks of the severest kind we would bury in our chests; when it hurts inside, we would still manage to smile; when the magma inside erupts, we would suppress our exasperation so that no one is hurt or disturbed; and we would always display the privilege of being human.

I feel that those who think we remain in total passive silence and those who think we are involved in some kind of “activism” are all wrong. We are never absolutely still-anguish and hope, enduring everything, and striving for survival, all coexist in the depths of our souls. We may sometimes lose spirit, but never to a level of termination for good. Even if only with half of a voice or a breath, a quarter of a pain or palpitation, our hearts are like a brazier with embers always burning inside. Our faith constantly whispers new sentiments to us, and our conscience plays tunes of all kinds. Nevertheless, those who are of not the same persuasion or ideals as us cannot hear any of these melodies nor can they comprehend any of these sentiments.

Personally, every time I think of this agitation and fervor, I tremble as I visualize innocent people who have been victims of deadly imprisonment, maddening persecution, and merciless hounding, and whose words were stuck in their throats, words they wanted to utter but could not, so they were choked almost to the point of death. Who knows what beautiful things they would have said. The ignorant who did not know, even worse, those who did not know that they did not know, and the worst of all, who thought they knew even though they did not, used all available means to prevent those innocent people from expressing themselves; they would never allow them to do so, for if they did, people would understand how bereft of ideas and knowledge are those persecutors. In the words of Akif, the miserable oppressors “do not look to the East, nor are aware of the West, nor have any share of good conduct / All they have as capital is a face that cannot blush and eyes that cannot water!” If they did allow the innocent to speak up, those who can reason would comprehend all these matters and discover the true identities of some of these ignorant ones who tie justice to power and resort to despotism, whose assets are no more than yelling, and who try to catch fish in muddy water. Then, all the wretched souls who fight against common sense with dialectic and demagogy would topple one by one, their false candles would blow out, and those who have been deceived would not be tricked any more. All this would end in the collapse of those who want to rule the world with crude power, and I do not think they would ever acquiesce to that. In any case, we end up with the fact that today some people are gagged, while many others remain indifferent.

Those who cannot express themselves today in one way or another, will certainly voice their internal vibrations and pain, be it merely in their comportment; in return for their gulping down their words with palpitations today, they will recite the best poems of silence when the day comes. Who knows, perhaps then many rude and cruel characters who have forgotten true humane values like compassion, mercy, and justice for several centuries now, will unexpectedly melt down and turn into whatever being truly human demands.

So, let tyranny enjoy itself for a bit longer; let civil rights and justice be trodden on; let the innocent moan with pain; let the wronged strive to voice their grievance; and let hearts breathe with grief and fervor, hoping for a blissful hour in which the All-Powerful will speak. For us, if it is a matter of time serving our time of trial and lamentation, then, as in the words of Faik Ali, “There are songs yet unfinished / Anticipation moans in their silence,” there is still need for more quiet lament, after which perhaps the spring will rise.

Historically, people with disabilities have been prey to society’s misconceptions, stereotypes, labeling, and prejudices in many different ways. Such attitudes have led to exclusion, mistreatment, and deprivation of their rights to equal opportunities for education, jobs, and essential services. It is also a fact that the low participation rate of people with disabilities in society and the workforce is linked to their exclusion from the educational system. Many positive measures have been taken and research carried out in various countries recently to develop methods and strategies for welcoming and including people with disabilities into schools and communities. These concepts accord with Islamic principles of inclusion. To illustrate Islamic attitudes towards people with disabilities, we will refer to the Qur’an, and the life example of Prophet Muhammad and his sayings, which are called hadith.

In the dictionary, the term “inclusion” is defined as “the act of including or the state of being included.” (1) Miller and Katz (2002) presents a common definition: “Inclusion is a sense of belonging: feeling respected, valued for who you are; feeling a level of supportive energy and commitment from others so that you can do your best work.” In special education, inclusion is the practice of placing children with disabilities (be these physical, emotional or other) into the general classrooms either all or most of the time and educating them with their non-disabled peers by using special teaching approaches, equipment, and care. In a broader sense, inclusion means being included in life and participating using one’s abilities in day to day activities as a member of the community. It is being a part of what everyone else is, and being welcomed and embraced as a member who belongs. Inclusion can occur in schools, communities, religious activities, playgrounds, work, and recreation.

Islam opposes prejudice against and exclusion of any group of people. The Qur’an addresses all of humanity in this way: “O mankind, We created you from a single [pair] of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other [not that you may despise each other]. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is [he who is] the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted [with all things]” (49:13). In this revelation God is telling us that He created us from one man and one woman meaning then that we are all equal and that all human beings are created through the same process, not in a manner in which some are created better than others.

The scholar Fethullah Gulen says, “Islam promotes equality as the will of God Almighty and requires mutual respect of fellow human beings. Islam embraces every individual and every group with the same equality and warmth. It responds to the expectations and the needs of everyone in the same way. As if shouting at the top of its lungs that no one is superior to another human being, it frequently emphasizes equality and equal opportunities.”(2) Islam teaches us that everyone deserves love, care, and respect, and this fact does not change when a person is impaired. What really matters is his or her heart and conduct. We are enjoined to be accepting of all people regardless of their disability and include them amongst us and support them by addressing their needs. In one of the hadith, our Prophet said, “God the Merciful shows mercy to merciful people. Show mercy to those on earth so that God shows mercy on you” (Abu Dawud). It is the duty and responsibility of everyone to serve the needs of others, and Divine mercy and blessings will be showered on us.

Islamic history has a shining record of many examples of people who, while having some kind of disability, were included and had prominent status in society. Abdullah ibn umm Maktum, who was blind, was among the first to accept Islam. He was devoted to the Prophet and extremely eager to memorize the Qur’an. When the Prophet arrived in Medina, he appointed Abdullah to be one of the muezzins (calling the Muslims to prayer five times a day). On several occasions, the Prophet placed Abdullah in charge of Medina in his absence. This is a remarkable example of inclusion that shows how people with disabilities are looked upon and treated in Islam. What we learn from this outstanding act of our prophet is that we should not belittle disabled people or make superficial judgments because although people have certain disabilities they might be capable of doing great deeds, and it is also important to delegate leadership responsibilities to disabled people when they are capable of such duties.

The story of Julaybib, one of the contemporaries of the Prophet, is another vivid example of inclusion. In addition to being poor, Julaybib had an unpleasant physical appearance and nobody wished to let their daughter marry him. Upon the Prophet’s request, a noble family gave him their daughter in marriage. Later on, when Julaybib was martyred in a battle, the Prophet put his hand on his knee and said: “This one is of me and I am of him.” This humane gesture of the Prophet was a powerful demonstration of the principle of inclusion. It was a dramatic act of advocacy, in word and action, on the part of a community leader to educate his people about the importance of accepting others for what they are. (3)

On another occasion, God’s Messenger met a woman who complained that she suffered from epileptic fits. She expressed concern that her body would become exposed during such episodes. Prophet Muhammad offered the woman two choices. He could either pray to God that she could have access to paradise if she patiently resigned herself to her condition, or he could ask God to heal her. She opted to continue to bear her condition with patience but also asked the Prophet to pray that her body might no longer become exposed to the view of strangers. This story brings out three important points. First, it illustrates the value of forbearance on the part of the person with the disability. More importantly, it affirms the right of individuals to draw attention to their special needs and to speak out for their rights as a matter of social justice. Finally, the story points to the important role of advocacy and the support which the wider community is expected to provide to the individual. (4)

Also, during the high centuries of Islamic civilization a significant number of blind, deaf or physically disabled people played notable roles as philologists, transmitters of the law, teachers, poets, and social commentators, outstanding among whom were Abu’l Ala al-Ma’arri, Abu Uthman Amr bin Bahr (Al-Jahiz), Bashshar ibn Burd, Ibn-Sirin, Qatada ibn Di’ama al-Sadusi, Muwaffaq al-Din Muzaffar, and Thalab. Atta Ibn Abi Rabah, who was black, lame and partially paralyzed, was known as the greatest Mufti in Mecca.

Later, at the Ottoman court in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, deaf servants taught their sign language to courtiers and sultans when it became a recognized means of communication; this was during a period when Western Europeans were still debating whether deaf people were capable of learning anything or thinking as rational beings. (5)

Contemporary attitudes to people with disabilities

It is very pleasing to see global efforts and mobilization to protect the rights of people with disabilities nowadays. In many developed nations, where the concept of inclusion is almost new, many efforts are being made to ensure that disabled people have full access in education and other life activities. A lot of research and practices which accord with Islamic teachings have been carried out in recent years to provide an inclusive education and environment for children with different special needs. In response to the ongoing disability rights and parents’ movements through which disabled people have claimed their human rights, many economically strong governments have taken great steps to promote social and educational inclusion with legislation to protect the rights of the disabled, development agencies, health organizations, and service providers. In Western Europe, North America, Canada, and Australia extensive educational systems are in place for most individuals with disabilities. Some nations integrate these students in general classrooms and others provide specialized classrooms or schools. In the USA, for instance, due to the continuous demand of people with disabilities and their advocates for equal access to education, federal legislators enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) in 1975. This law was to make sure that all children with disabilities had the opportunity to receive a free appropriate public education in the “least restrictive environment.” (6) The law has since been revised many times over the years and the most recent amendments were passed by Congress in December 2004, with final regulations published in August 2006.

The following is one of the findings of the American Congress held in 2004: “Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.”(7) To sum up the other findings of this Congress, education of children with disabilities can be done more effectively by providing special education and other necessary services for such children in the regular classroom by using assistive technology, training parents and teachers about disabilities, implementing adaptations and modifications to support them in the regular classrooms, and writing individual education plans to meet their needs in the “least restrictive environment,” (8) defined by the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004) as “to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children are educated with children who are not handicapped, and, that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of handicapped children from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services can not be achieved satisfactorily.” (9)

Conclusion

Islam gives guidance and knowledge to mankind in all aspects of life, and research-based findings in different fields of life are proving this day by day. According to the Islamic teachings which have their source in the Qur’an and life examples of Prophet Muhammad, we are to respect and support all human life, however it presents itself and to value the potential of every individual. Centuries ago God’s Messenger showed us how to deal with this important social issue. People with disabilities are part of our society and have their rights to participate fully and equally in all kinds of activities. Education is the best place we can start because children who have been separated at school tend to be kept separate as adults through work and all fields of life. Through an inclusive education children with disabilities remain on a route that leads to an adult life as an active member of society. Meeting all their needs together increases their ability to achieve academic and physical growth to their potential, and it improves their overall quality of life and social status.

Hurisa Guvecin is a Special Education and ESL teacher in Dallas, Texas.

References

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/

2. http://www.fethullahgulen.org/content/view/1983/14/ (Fethullah Gulen, Theme: Islam and dialogue, a message addressed to International conference of Islam April,29–30, 2005)

3. http://www.icv.org.au/news.shtml (Disability and Islamic Insight by Sheikh Isse A. Musse)

4. Ibid.

5. http://www.independentliving.org/docs7/miles200701.html#c25

6. Anne M. Beninghof, Ideas for Inclusion, pg 3 (“What’s happening?”) 1993.

7. http://www.nichcy.org/reauth/PL108-446.pdf

8. Ibid.

9. Anne M. Beninghof, Ideas for Inclusion, pg 8. 1993