O you who believe! Turn to God in true, sincere repentance. (66:8)

Philosophers and scientists have long mulled over the faculties that govern our actions and thoughts. They have identified these in different ways, and there is still endless debate over these tangible and intangible faculties. There seem to be conflicting forces within us – an “evil-commanding” carnal self and a “regulatory” conscience. These have been caricatured as the devil and angel on our shoulders. Freud called this phenomenon the id and the super-ego within us: i.e. the instinctual drive and the moralizing conscience. Unrestricted drives can lead to destruction, so moral laws and society impose certain rules and consequences for such actions.

An important tool that aids this self-regulation is the feeling of guilt. However, the conscience can easily be manipulated and with some effort a rationale that justifies most actions can be found. A troubled conscience cannot be escaped forever. Non-conformity to established moral norms can be the greatest source of anxiety and guilt, and the cause of drastic internal conflicts.

In any case, everyone has something that they hold to be right and wrong, whether induced by society, revelation, or both.

For immigrants, such moral questions have an amplified effect. Living in a society that can have different moral norms to that of their cultural upbringing, which itself has variations from the religious moral values that they hold dear, can cause a turbulence of internal conflicts. “Who I am today,” and, “what made me this way?” are answered by a cohort of forces which are in perpetual conflict with one another. An immigrant realizes that their so-called innate urges, and even personality traits, are simply a set of influences that they need to learn to grow conscious of in order to truly find inner peace. During this process, however, they may develop a deep sense of guilt which they are not able to escape. The only way out could be to appeal to a higher being.

Projecting this situation onto myself, an idea came to me while I was contemplating why I am not able to get rid of my feeling of guilt. After I perceive myself to have sinned, I repent and feel sorrow for my sins, but then I repeat that sin. Why is it that I cannot stop this cycle? Is it possible, I thought, that deep in my subliminal mind, I feel at ease when I realize my weakness and inferiority before God because it is only then that I am able to truly connect with Him? If I stopped sinning, would the relief and comfort corrupt me and distance me from God?

My first reaction, of course, was that this idea must be a waswasa (a satanic whispering). Surely one’s connection to God is not merely one of embarrassment or fear, but involves qualities such as awe, gratitude, love, and rida (a satisfied resignation and submission). Also, how could I assume that I could attain a state of sinlessness when even the purest of the pure Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, felt the need to repent seventy or a hundred times a day?

What I repent for and what the Prophet repented for could not have been the same. So, I must have a misconception of what constitutes a sin. Sinning cannot simply be a case of misbehaviour or non-compliance with an order. One can make the following deduction: since sinning is unpleasant because it is accompanied by guilt (a troubled conscience), and since heartfelt guilt is as a result of immorality, then feelings of guilt can be treated as an inner motivation for repenting. Our troubled conscience is a result of a more expanded meaning of sinning, which included not just merely acting immorally but also entails things such as: lack of right action, vanity, being heedless, or even having unpleasant thoughts.

The example of Prophet David’s (peace be upon him) startling state of anguish seems to prove this point: “One day he asks God Almighty: ‘O Lord. How can I be thankful to You, since thanking You is another favour that requires thankfulness?’ The Almighty responded: ‘Just now you have done it.’”

It seems then that an extraordinary level of self-regulation and a true understanding of the meaning of repentance brings the conscious ones to bend down in modesty. They are greater sinners in their own eyes than I perceive myself to be. Alas, the only way to free myself from my deviations is to be sincere and resolute in growing conscious of my sins and to focus my attention on re-assessing my position in the face of God. At the end of the day, being conscious that God is seeing me, even at times when nobody else is, may be the only way of abstaining from sin. It is only then that I will realize there is so much more to my relationship with God than my fear and shame.

For a balanced and healthy state of mind, I have since realized that I must enrich and diversify my relationship with God. I can develop different areas of connection, for instance, through contemplating the manifestation of His names in His creation by studying the sciences; and then my astonishment of His might will be aroused and this will lead me to further gratefulness; and by turning to His word, I can establish a direct conversation with him and lend an ear to what He has to say to me. The benefits of having a concerned conscience need to be further discussed, but something is clear: if the feeling of heartfelt concern dies out and is replaced by vanity, then that is cause for serious concern.

About seven years before that, in May 2009, I received an award at the International Turkish Olympiad. The festival was essentially a cultural event consisting of Turkish songs, dances, and poetry recitals performed by students from Turkish schools around the world. It took place in a modern convention hall in Ankara with thousands of spectators in attendance. The event was sponsored and organized by members of the Hizmet movement, a Muslim community inspired by the preaching and writings of Turkish scholar Fethullah Gülen. When I, together with a handful of other recipients, mounted the stage to accept our awards, there to shake our hands was the smiling Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

The incident underlines how less than a decade earlier relations between Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (known by its acronym, the AKP) and the Hizmet movement guided by Gülen’s teaching were characterized by cooperation and respect. Foreign observers in Ankara even referred to Hizmet as “the religious wing of the AKP.” Although inaccurate even in those days, such a characterization reflected a commonly held view among Turks and others that there was some kind of ideological link between the AKP and the followers of Gülen.

There is no doubt that the Gülen supporters had great influence in Turkey. They ran the best high schools and college prep institutions, and students from those schools, year after year, obtained the top scores in the standardized college entrance exams. Hizmet members published Zaman, the most widely circulated and highly regarded newspaper in Turkey, referred to by Erdoğan himself as “the guardian of democracy in Turkey.” Hizmet members published scores of professional journals and popular magazines. They established associations of medical professionals, teachers, and business leaders. They set up hospitals and clinics, and in Turkey’s highly polarized society they conducted national “dialogues” that brought together Turkish thinkers and leaders: Right and Left, Sunni and Alevi, Turk and Kurd, and Muslim, Jewish, and Christian.

However, storm clouds were gathering. Perceptive observers could see trouble ahead. In a prophetic column in the left-center Hurriyet newspaper on October 5, 2010, the late political commentator Mehmet Ali Birand noted:

“I don’t know whether they are aware of it, but a danger that needs to be taken very seriously awaits the Gülen movement. In the eyes of Turkish society, which believes conspiracy theories, the Gülen movement is mythicized beyond its real dimensions. The power and influence of the Gülen movement is being so exaggerated that if no precautions are taken, this imagined power will one day destroy it… If the current trend does not change, future politicians will go after this movement with a view to annihilating it.”

Birand, who claimed to be neither a member of Hizmet nor opposed to it, believed that, “The power attributed to the Gülen movement is enormously exaggerated. It does not reflect the truth but the winds of exaggeration…”

The first overt sign of tension between Gülen, who lives in retirement in the United States, and Erdoğan can be dated to the pro-democracy Gezi Park protests of June, 2013, when Gülen criticized the Turkish government’s heavy-handed suppression of the protests. The real break came later that year when investigators reportedly associated with Hizmet pursued charges of corruption leveled against the sons of various ministers of the Turkish government, implicating Erdoğan’s own son. Since then, Erdoğan (President of the Republic since 2014) has sought to destroy Hizmet and break its influence on Turkish society. After last summer’s failed coup, Erdoğan has accused Gülen of masterminding the coup and his followers of carrying it out. The government has undertaken a “McCarthyite” witch-hunt, resulting in the dismissal and arrest of university presidents, police chiefs, military officers, and newspaper editors, and the imprisonment of an estimated 60,000 Turkish citizens.

Erdoğan’s anti-Hizmet campaign has even affected U.S.-Turkish relations. The Turkish government has demanded Gülen’s extradition to Turkey, while Secretary of State under President Obama, John Kerry, noted that the United States does not extradite residents on the basis of unsubstantiated requests, even those made by Heads of State. He noted that the process of extradition must begin with the presentation of hard evidence of wrongdoing and that no evidence of the involvement of Gülen or Hizmet associates in the failed coup attempt has been forthcoming.

Unsatisfied with the Obama administration’s refusal to bow under pressure, the Turkish government looked to the future: they discussed, with retired US Army General Michael Flynn, ways that judicial processes might be bypassed in order that Mr. Gülen might be “removed” from the United States and sent to Turkey. The fact that such actions could violate U.S. laws does not seem to have been a deterrent either to Flynn or to the Turkish authorities concerned. Flynn was at the time an advisor to presidential candidate Donald Trump, and he later briefly served as National Security Advisor to President Trump before being fired for lying about his relations with Russian officials. It is evident that the Turkish government was willing to engage in underhanded and apparently illegal activities to get Gülen extradited from the United States.

Guilty or not guilty?

For those who know Mr. Gülen personally or have had contact with the open-hearted and idealistic members of the Hizmet movement, claims of subversive “terrorism,” (in Erdoğan’s words) seem incongruous. I have known Mr. Gülen for over 20 years and find the retired, soft-spoken Qur’an-teacher to be preaching and living a particularly attractive interpretation of Islamic faith. His bedrock concept is that of ikhlas, which means doing everything, no matter how modest or unassuming, wholly for God’s pleasure. This spiritual principle, which is hardly original or unique to Islam, has motivated Gülen’s followers to commit themselves to administering and teaching in schools in places as diverse as Phnom Penh, Brussels, Accra, and inner-city Milwaukee and Cleveland. They are digging wells in Somalia and Mali, running clinics in Kenya, and establishing interreligious dialogue programs in more than 200 locations in the United States.

Many Americans have come to know the Hizmet movement personally through the well-organized cultural trips to Turkey sponsored by these local dialogue associations. For many non-Muslims, the trips are their first direct encounter with an Islamic community devoted to peacebuilding and being a living expression of God’s compassion and mercy.

I greatly admire these Hizmet members, of whom I know hundreds, and many of whom I count among my personal friends. I have been to their annual retreats, where they encourage one another to live up to their lofty Islamic ideals. I have heard the testimony of Catholic leaders in Turkey and Turkish Jews that the Gülen followers are their partners and allies in striving to build a truly inclusive Turkish society. I have talked to Christian students from Mozambique and the Philippines, graduates of Hizmet schools, who are grateful for the excellent educational foundation they received. Could all this good work simply be public posturing, a façade to hide a conspiracy aimed at achieving domination and power? I suppose that it’s possible, but it seems pretty far-fetched and unlikely.

One might say that an outside observer’s positive opinion of the Hizmet movement begs the question of whether members of the movement, with Fethullah Gülen as mastermind, were in fact behind the July 2016 coup. Despite all his bluster, threats, and posturing, Erdoğan has not been able to produce any credible evidence linking the coup attempt to a Hizmet plot. The most he has been able to offer are a few statements by implicated generals, obtained under duress, which could be interpreted as suggesting a tenuous link with Gülen. For his part, Mr. Gülen has categorically denied any involvement in the coup, which he condemned, and called for an international impartial investigation into the coup and its background, a suggestion which Mr. Erdoğan has summarily rejected.   One must ask which of the two would like to see the truth come out, and which is trying to keep the facts from coming to light.        

I originally published a version of this article in Commonweal magazine in November 2016. Since then, Mr. Erdoğan has continued to make unsubstantiated claims about Hizmet involvement in the coup. He is not talking about the possible sympathy of one or another military officer toward Fethullah Gülen, but a centralized, organized effort conceived and directed by Gülen and carried out through the institutions and networking of Hizmet members. This scenario has been investigated with the professional expertise of the intelligence services of the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and NATO, who have clearly expressed their views of who they believe to have been behind the coup. None of them has been convinced by Erdoğan’s noisy but empty accusations.

I am not alone in asking Mr. Erdoğan, “Please produce evidence, if you have any, for your claims. Otherwise, why should anyone take your word for what appears to be a slander of this conscientious religious leader and a community that is doing much good in the world? Could your anti-Hizmet campaign be an act of revenge for the whistle-blowing against your family members, or a distraction aimed at preventing a continuing investigation of the corruption charges?”

Part of me was screaming “No!!” However, the other part was a little hesitant. I was struggling with many questions. Finally, I realized th at I was experiencing all of this because I actually did not know the “God” I thought I loved. I had some knowledge of God, but that was not enough for me. I was a Muslim just because I was born into a Muslim family. Therefore, I decided to get to know “God.” And I started to read, read, and read, as the first revelation to the beloved Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, states: “Read, in the name of God” (Quran, 96:1).

While reading, the doors opened wide in front of me. As I began to get to know Who I believe in, I started to love more. As I loved more, I started to practice more. I wanted to say “thank you,” to my atheist friend who contributed to this result. This is a wonderful memory which taught me that love comes after knowing.

I believe the following is a rule that holds true in all cases.

Would you like to love God? Get to know God better!

Would you like to love people around you? Get to know them better!

I think this is the key to maintaining a peaceful world: getting to know others, and loving and respecting others. As is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, Chapter 49:13:

“O mankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (not that you may despise each other).”

Believing this with my whole heart, I was at the Turkish American Society of Ohio enjoying the friendship of the wonderful people I had previously met, who assisted me whenever I needed help. I was standing next to one of these wonderful friends, looking into her eyes in amazement while she was telling me the story of an admirable group of women that called themselves the “Women of Religious Diversity” – or “WORD.” My friend suggested that I join them.

Frankly, I hesitated at the beginning, even though I was theoretically fine with it. Yes, I had had friends from different faith traditions before, but I had never joined a discussion group of people from different religious backgrounds. I wasn’t sure how it would feel in practice. Although I heard some other Muslim friends had joined the group before, and that they had had a great time, it still required some courage for me to attend. And so there I was, parking my car in the parking lot of the Dublin Community Church, praying to God that it would be a good day both for me and for them. Excited, curious, and a little nervous, I opened the doors of the church. My nervousness was gone soon after I was with the wonderful ladies of WORD. It was such a welcoming and comforting environment that I just enjoyed every second of my time spent with them.

After a few meetings, the study came to a point of discussing the lives of the Prophets Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael in a book and video called “The Patriarchs”. I had enjoyed and learned much in the previous chapters. However, prior to discussing more details about the Prophets, I received a very thoughtful e-mail from the facilitator of our group. She indicated that she had some concerns about the content of the upcoming video and she asked me if I’d be willing to share my perspective on the topic as a Muslim. I agreed.

I was not fully aware of how disrespectful the video was towards Islam. The video started, and I was shocked by what I was hearing. I started to shiver, my heart was beating faster, and I was sad, so sad, to hear someone talking about Islam so unreasonably but enthusiastically. Our group facilitator was extremely thoughtful in stopping the video to allow me to respond to what was being said. It was so hurtful to hear the speaker trying to convince her audience that Islam is hostile toward Christianity and that the root of this hostility was from the Prophet Ishmael being jealous of his brother Prophet Isaac. I tried to explain with my whole heart that Islam does not prescribe hatred – especially of Christians. Moreover, it is one of the six pillars of the Islamic faith to believe in all the books and the prophets that were sent by God, and to hold all of them in high regard. Therefore, a person cannot be called a Muslim if he does not accept and keep holy all the books and the prophets. I am sure I was trembling as I tried to explain how much we love all the prophets, including Isaac, and that I had never heard such things in my whole life as a Muslim.

The facilitator continued to stop the video periodically to allow me to respond. At one point, the speaker in the video claimed that the one whom Muslims call “Allah” is not the same as the one whom Christians call “God” and that Muslims have no relationship with God. I was about to cry. Those words were so hurtful to hear, as we believe all the books and the prophets were sent by the same exact God, whose name is “Allah” in Arabic and “God” in English. And so, because of that, Christian Arabs call their God “Allah” in the Arabic language. It was also hurtful to be accused that I, as a Muslim, have no relationship with God, even though I pray five times a day at specified time frames to remember God and maintain my relationship with God.

Before I said anything, the awesome ladies of WORD intervened and stopped the video, saying, “We no longer want to continue watching this hateful video.” They apologized to me for having to watch it, and repeated many times that they do not agree with the speaker’s views. They decided to discontinue the book and video and not to study any of the books by the same person again. They couldn’t have been more comforting. I was touched by how they reacted and consoled me in a time of disappointment.

I feel so lucky to be in a group where we all respectfully share ideas and can grow spiritually. Even though I was sad to see that there are books and opinions like that, I also felt fortunate to be among the very polite women of WORD who believe in interfaith dialogue as much as I do. This particular event showed me, and I believe the other women of WORD as well, that getting to know each other, and having dialogue with each other, is necessary to love each other. And “love” is the essence of the universe.

When you are trying to please God with your actions, then you can work together for the benefit of others, just as our groups have done – Muslims and Christians, hand in hand to make a more peaceful world.

In an Ohio town, a group of extraordinary women started a Christian study group. One day, they were surprised by some unexpected guests. They weren’t prepared for how much they were about to learn.

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)

Ethics in Ibn Bajja’s philosophy

In Ibn Bajja’s philosophy, beings are created in order to achieve a goal. This goal, if achieved, will lead them to happiness. One who realizes this goal is, thus, happy.⁴ This goal is to know God and to worship God properly. Continuous pleasure can only be attained by the intellectual knowledge of the Eternal One.5 In Ibn Bajja’s own words:

“The one, who knows God (the only one God, with no partners) truly, knows that the greatest suffering is in God’s displeasure and being away from Him, and that the greatest happiness is in God’s pleasure and being close to Him. To be close to God can only be achieved through knowing ones own self.” ⁴

According to him, one should be considered a human to the extent that he or she differs from other beings (animals, plants, etc.). Among different kinds of animate beings, only humans can perform actions through free will.⁶ This is possible only through using their intellect, and controlling corporeal pleasures, instead of being controlled by them or banishing them totally.⁴ Actions are human in nature insomuch as they lead to this goal. For example, eating is an animal action if it is done to fulfill desire. On the other hand, it is a human action if it is done to preserve strength to achieve spiritual blessings.² When someone breaks a stone only because they were hurt by it, this is an animal action. If they do the same action in order to prevent somebody else from being hurt, this is a human action.⁶

Ibn Bajja believes that reaching happiness is not obtained by sudden leaps but through gradual steps.4 One should give priority to spiritual forms over corporeal forms, and if possible, should not socialize with pure materialists or those who mix their spiritual form with the corporeal one, except in some indispensable situations. Otherwise, as in the case of today’s materialistic world, one can easily be distracted from thinking about critical questions that would normally come to each and every individual’s mind, such as who we are, where we come from, where we are going , why we exist, and how to know about God. Secondly, one should go beyond the spiritual forms to reach the intellectual level, and socialize with those who also seek intellectual forms.³

Rule of the “solitary individual”

The “solitary individual” (tadbeer al-mutawahhed) holds an important place in Ibn Bajja’s thought. The term “tadbeer” or governance in Ibn Bajja’s philosophy means the actions done towards an end. On the other hand, al-Mutawahhed means a solitary individual who lives in a society, but who is different, intellectually, from his or her peers.1 They are, thus, alone in their thoughts within the society.⁴ Al-Mutawahhed is free and active when exposed to various influences, and they achieve the highest moral virtues: a balance between spiritual and material aspects of life.⁴ Unvirtuous people, on the other hand, are passive under various influences, and make decisions under the influence of their corporeal pleasures or animal desires, but not through using their intellect, which is what makes them human beings.

Ibn Bajja classifies cities before he gives a recipe to the solitary individual on how to achieve happiness. The cities are classified as stressing the moral values of the society. The perfect or ideal city is based on love. The citizens of this city do not quarrel at all. All views are true and all actions are right. They eat properly. Hence there is no need for doctors or judges. Ibn Bajja supports his claim with the question, “Cannot the healthy body rouse itself to resist diseases whose obscure causes come from outside?”6 On the other hand, if there is any contention in a city, it results in the need for a judge who can establish justice. Similarly, if people get harmful foods, they will need a doctor who has knowledge of treatments. So in an imperfect city, there is need for a doctor and a judge. As Ibn Bajja puts it: “The more a city needs them, the more honorable is the rank of both these classes.” ⁶

The imperfect city, being based on temporary corporeal pleasures, is not suitable for the metaphysical essence of humanity. Still, the imperfect city inherits a way to a virtuous society through solitary individuals.4 If one is in an imperfect city which does not supply any method to obtain knowledge, and is morally corrupted, and if there exists a perfect city, one should migrate to it; thus, they can gain knowledge.¹ If there is no such option, he or she should protect themself from the corruptions of their present society, and simultaneously build a social project which will provide happiness to individuals, and begin converting the society into a virtuous one.¹ The solitary individual is in a state of transition. During this state, they continue their personal education, and at the same time help convert an imperfect city into a perfect one.⁴

Contemplative seclusions

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, provides a great example of a “solitary individual.” Before he started receiving revelations, he would retreat to the mountain cave of Hira. He continued these retreats later on, especially during Ramadan, the month of fasting, when he went into seclusion for ten days, and spent time in prayer. This tradition, or itiqaf, is still being observed throughout the Muslim world. We can argue that these seclusions and contemplative retreats paved the way for him to transform a an “imperfect city” (Mecca), that was mired in ignorance, paganism, violence, and immorality, to a community of believers who exceled in ethics, learning, and peace; this was the perfect city of Medina. Yet, the Prophet was not just a solitary individual. He engaged with society in all possible ways during and before his prophethood, as a tradesman in caravans, as a social activist in a league dedicated to protect and support the distressed (Hilf al-Fudul), as a peacemaker among tribes, and as a husband and father.

Conclusion

Ibn Bajja’s philosophy on the governance of a solitary individual finds perfect embodiment in Prophetic practice. Personal education and social life are two processes that co-exist, whether in a perfect or an imperfect city, and the Prophetic practice of seclusion is a perfect way of linking the two. The construction of a perfect city joins these two processes after a period of personal education which leads to personal perfection. The solitary individual is always on the way: he or she is reading, contemplating, observing and acting constantly, and he or she does this independently of the status of the society within which they live.

References

1. Köroğlu, Burhan. 1996. “Ibn-i Bacce’nin Ahlâk ve Siyaset Düşüncesi,” (The Ethical and Political Thought of Avempace), Divan, 1, 45-46.
2. Sharif, M. M. 2004. “A History of Muslim Philosophy,” Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 3, 508-526,. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/index.html
3. Al-Allaf, M. 2003. “The Solitary Being (al-Mutawahhed): Definitions and Dimensions of Ibn Bajja (Avempace) Philosophy,” The Essence of Islamic Philosophy, ILC-Classic.
4. Aydınlı, Y. 1997. Ibn Bacce’nin Insan Görüşü, (The Human in the Thought of Ibn Bajja), Marmara Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları.
5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ibn Bajja, http://plato.stanford.edu/
6. Dunlop, D. M. 1999. Ibn Bajjah’s Tadbiru’l-Mutawahhid (Rule of Solitary), Ibn Bajja Texts and Studies II, Islamic Philosophy (77), Strauss Offsetdruck.
7. Sahih Bukhari, 3, 33(260).
8. http://www.lastprophet.info/en/chronology/index.php

Let us imagine two people of similar economic status, one of whom donates a considerable amount of money to a charity organization willingly, while the other hesitates but eventually donates the same amount of money with relative difficulty. Which action deserves the real moral praise? Intuitively, the willing donor seems to get our praise and sympathy more than the other; yet, it might require more virtue to choose the right action in the face of adverse inclinations. Acknowledging that this question is more difficult than it first appears lets us go back several millennia to hear what Aristotle, the great philosopher and ethicist, has to say on this issue.

Aristotle use the terms virtue, continence, incontinence, and vice in order to account for diverse attitudes present in individuals when confronted with ethical dilemmas. “Virtue” is an excellence of the soul that helps one to achieve complete harmony between one’s reasoning and desires. Whenever the virtuous person chooses an action as the rationally best option, he performs this action pleasurably. Yet this is a pleasure of a higher status, a noble joy, one that stems from appreciating the intrinsic value of the virtuous action and thus coming to love it. In other words, the virtuous person’s emotions and reason point at the same direction and there is no inner conflict that haunts his soul. This results in a noble and complete joy; a cultivated ability to see the intrinsic value embedded in the virtuous act through gaining a second nature. This second nature begins with having joy in doing the right thing rather than primarily being after the satisfaction of the bodily desires.

Unlike the state of virtue, the cases of continence, incontinence, and vice all include conflict to some degree between one’s reason and desires. Within this spectrum, some people better resist these counter-rational desires than others, and they are able to act in the same manner as a virtuous person, as in our example above. Aristotle calls such individuals “continent” (enkrates) and he distinguishes them from the fully virtuous. Their distinctive characteristic is that they struggle inside, but they end up doing the morally right thing. Yet, unlike the continent, some people are less successful in resisting their inner desires, and they end up doing the wrong action even though they are rationally aware of its wrongness. These individuals are called “incontinent” (akratês). Their reason and appetites drift them in opposite directions, and they find themselves in a miserable position. In the very last category, vice, are the individuals who refuse to do what an ethically virtuous person would do because they have become convinced that justice, temperance, generosity, and the like are of little or no value; Aristotle calls such people evil (kakos). This last category is demarcated from other categories sharply by the lack of any struggle against the dark side of the soul. These people both begin and end up on the negative side. Despite the fact that vicious people might seem to possess an inner harmony since both their wills and acts are in accord, Aristotle portrays them as deeply divided, because they cannot help but become dissatisfied as a result of the over-dominance of the irrational part of their souls. Aristotle assumes that if someone is in the habit of making bad decisions about how to live his life, his failures are caused by psychological forces that are less than fully rational. It is probable that his desires for pleasure, power, or some other external goal have become so strong that they make him care too little or not at all about acting ethically. It can be claimed that the vicious person lacks internal harmony because he cannot implement his rational side properly in making decisions. This reminds us of the famous chariot allegory of Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, in which he paints the picture of a charioteer driving a chariot pulled by two winged horses: one of them representing the rational and moral impulses and the other irrational appetites. The charioteer is like the human soul that needs to balance and keep the chariot going in the path towards enlightenment. While it is not easy to keep the two fighting horses in check, a human soul is better off whenever it is guided through reason, the charioteer. Yet, the evil person suffers from an imbalance and is perpetually drifted away by the whims of the bad-behaved horse. This, in the long run, results in unhappiness and sickness of the soul.

Cultivation of dispositions

Now that a brief sketch of Aristotle’s four types of ethical subjects is drawn, there is an inevitable question that awaits us. We have seen that all three of these positions involve some lack of integrity; it is only the life of a virtuous person that possesses internal harmony, and all other lives deviate to some degree from this ideal. Yet, one cannot help but wonder how we could attain this ideal state? According to Aristotle, in order to achieve the state of virtue, we need to develop proper habits and emotional responses starting from early childhood. Although full virtue is a rare achievement for human beings, it is only attainable through employment of continence persistently in life. Aristotle divides the virtues into two categories, the natural and the true virtues, and whereas the former comes by nature, the latter is cultivated through habituation. Aristotle’s truly virtuous man has cultivated (habituated) emotions rather than possessing immediate impulses to do good. Aristotle famously tells us that “action” leads to the corresponding character states; just as to be a good painter, you have to paint, and to be a good shoemaker you need to make shoes, you need to do virtuous actions to become virtuous. In Aristotle’s words, we become “just by doing just actions, and temperate by acting temperately.” (NE II.4.)

Virtue is “made perfect by habit and by practical wisdom,” and this makes the virtuous person’s position superior to that of the merely continent person. This conception of virtue as an ongoing, developmental process implies that individuals cannot typically will to feel certain emotions at a moment’s notice, but they can choose to cultivate certain emotions over time as a significant part of developing moral character.

Although Aristotle advises that virtue be our ultimate aim, he still esteems the continent person to some extent. A lack of complete harmony between reason and desires is often inescapable for human beings. We can only want or choose to do the virtuous thing, but we cannot make ourselves take pleasure from doing it. In fact, continence is often the only state we are capable of achieving, even though we might want to do the right thing cheerfully. To make an analogy, Aristotle encourages the cultivation of virtues just like the flourishing of a flower. Growing flowers require time and great care; likewise, virtuousness does not always come by nature but it is gained through cultivation and care.

Reason as the guide

The Aristotelian virtuous person is the one whose rational part overrides and guides the appetitive part. Accordingly, as long as the person is guided by his rational part, his actions are virtuous; whenever the rational side of the person is weaker than his appetitive side, it leads to moral weakness (incontinence). The idea of acting from the rational part of the soul is pivotal in Aristotle’s ethics; he ties human arête (virtue) to reasoning. For Aristotle, virtuous action must definitely originate from reasoning since it is the human arête (virtue) to be guided by the rational part of the soul. “Like every other creature in the world, man has a particular nature and the best way to live is to live up to his nature, which is to be directed by a rational soul.” Therefore, by “desiring to do the virtuous thing” Aristotle does not claim that this person should have a natural inclination to do the right thing; instead, it requires adoption of rational desires that are in line with virtuous actions.

One-way road to happiness: From continence to virtue

How can we make ourselves enjoy doing the virtuous things according to Aristotle? For instance, how can we “enjoy” giving to charity? As Aristotle proposes, we become just by doing just actions, we become temperate by acting temperately; so, the only way to arrive at true virtue goes from acting in conformity with duty even if we do it with continence. Aristotle assumes every individual begins the journey by continence and tries to arrive at virtuousness, which is a complete harmony of will and reason. In a way, Aristotle’s virtuous person is someone who walked up the ladder from continence to virtue. No one ascends to the state of virtue without first being continent. It is important to note that, for Aristotle, doing the better thing willingly is a better position to which we should aspire, but climbing up the ladder of virtue is already sufficient to make someone a good person. Full virtue and complete harmony could only be the destination we reach after a long journey of cultivation of emotions.

Yet, the question still remains: how can we make our souls come to love and enjoy being virtuous? Aristotle’s answer is that when your will and reason are in complete harmony, you do the desirable thing with pleasure. Otherwise, it is continence, which is a state with a lesser degree of moral worth. Let us assume we have cultivated our emotions and habituated ourselves to do the virtuous thing. Now, I always “want” to do the right thing. Still, one cannot help but wonder how we can make ourselves “enjoy” being virtuous. Aristotle’s reply would be simple: the virtuous person, upon moral deliberation, rationally chooses the virtuous thing to do, and because he is acting in conformity with his rational part and because his rational part has supremacy over the emotional part, he is expected to perform the action pleasurably. However, this is not totally convincing; no matter how many times we “choose” or “want” to do the right thing, we might still not be able to “take pleasure” from doing the right thing. I might be able to acquire the habit of sleeping less after considerable effort, but I cannot get myself to “enjoy” this. If we define a virtuous person as the one who both “wants” and “does” the virtuous thing, then this is understandable. Yet, when it comes to “enjoying” or “taking pleasure from” the virtuous action, we are usually short of actualizing this at will.

Then, is it ever possible to be truly virtuous? Evidently, Aristotle is optimistic on this issue. He believes true virtue is possible as long as proper cultivation is provided. Nonetheless, virtue does not come without effort; it requires time and tender care — being virtuous is not possible without persistently doing the right thing and trying to strengthen our rational part so that it will have supremacy over the appetitive part. Only then can people ascend to true virtue rather than staying at the level of continence. And this journey is not something we could afford to overlook, since it harbors true happiness.

Despite Aristotle’s invaluable contribution to ethics, he falls short of providing satisfactory answers to many intuitive questions regarding how and why the human soul enjoys being virtuous. His ultimate answer revolves around the happiness of the soul and there is no greater gain other than having the best possible life that is characterized as the eudaimon life. This is not a bad ideal, but its significance is quite negligible compared to the greater ideal of gaining an immortal life of happiness and beauty. Yet, since Aristotle does not believe in an immortal soul, his arguments do not include references to eternal happiness. Given this, no matter how convincing the ethicists’ arguments are, there will always remain a question: Why would I care so much about a life that is doomed to end? Why should I take the trouble to fight with my desires and make myself a so-called virtuous person? Moreover, complete happiness is almost impossible to attain in a life that we know to be short. Even though we could lead a happy life through virtue, knowing that it will last merely for this life makes it bittersweet at best. Without immortality, we are like birds that are kept in cages in this finite world, trying to find the best way to lead a good and happy life–a small and finite goal. Instead, finding the real eternal Divine source of why our souls find happiness and peace in virtuous actions and knowing that this joy is to last forever, can grant us true happiness. Whenever we act virtuously, say, giving to the poor without expecting anything in return, we are actually imitating and aspiring to the character of the Divine who is the most Generous. Similarly, whenever a person forgives another, he would be acting in accordance with the Divine mercy that is exemplified in the name of the All-Merciful. Hence, engaging in such virtuous acts gives the person unprecedented joy of the soul because such participation in the Divine goodness is greater than other sorts of pleasure. Furthermore, with immortality such acts do not merely stay in this life; on the contrary, performing these virtuous acts become the key to eternal happiness. Acting virtuously is good because these acts derive from God’s character Who is the source of all goodness, truth, and beauty. As long as a human soul can reflect this beauty as a mirror, his actions gain intrinsic value, and she can reach true happiness, not only in this life but also in the eternal afterlife.

All the errors, offences and sins committed by humans vary greatly in nature, form, and severity. A majority of these mistakes and sins have been portrayed and clearly defined within the disciplinary guidelines revealed in both the Divine revelation and in the Prophetic traditions, therefore referring to them is usually sufficient for a person to recognize prohibitions, mistakes, offences and sins. One may think, for instance, that not everyone has an equal capability of understanding matters entailing detailed knowledge in accordance with the original sources of religion, however a person of faith, a sincere believer should make every effort to strive, and learn the essential matters of faith to the best of their individual ability. Besides there is sufficient literature available for those who make an effort to read and learn. The main goal here is to purify oneself of these mistakes and sins at the first possible opportunity.

Repentance

If a person has been lured into, or trapped in one of the various dungeons of evil, he should strive in every way possible to repent, to ask his Lord for forgiveness and escape from sin at the first possible opportunity. He should reform himself and throughout life continuously bare the shame of this sin in his conscience, for a true believer is a person who never forgets sins of the past. Of course a person may have repented to God for his sins, and these sins may have been long forgiven, and may have repented with deep sincerity sufficient to eliminate his sins many times over. But even if years pass, a believer of perfection should constantly sense an emotion of regret and distress in his soul every time he remembers, as if he committed the sin yesterday, with the constant thought: “O Lord! How did I commit these sins when I know You exist, when I believe in You, when Your commands were clearer to me than the shinning sun” and continually interrogate his own self.

Such a belief and such an approach can lead to the elimination of sin, and it can even earn a person reward. This reward may be described as the virtue for suffering, the reward for finding the truth, a reward for repenting today for a sin of the past, or the reward for abandoning a recent sin and turning towards the Creator in repentance. Therefore it is appropriate to say that every time a believer regrets, or suffers for a sin he committed in the past, he is rewarded with a good deed which purifies the blemished pages in his book of actions and deeds.

The second point regarding the matter is that constantly remembering past sins with anguish and grief in fact prevents new mistakes and sins, for instance when an individual has the sincere understanding that: “Sinning was a huge mistake, an error which could spoil my relationship with God. For someone like me to act in such a way was sheer disrespect towards my Creator. I cannot ignore, or ever forget my disrespect and heedlessness, and I will continue to sense this grief and remorse until the day I die” He will continuously remember and sense the regret of committing sin, and when faced with the same situation again will seriously consider: “Only yesterday I hated myself for committing such a sin, so how can I possibly have the audacity of making the mistake and repeating this evil action again? Which spiritual understanding can possibly accept, or explain the tendency to repeat sin.” Therefore the probability of a person who sincerely repented for committing sin repeating the same mistake again is quite rare.

Such a person’s approach to the bestowal of rewards will be that even if he performs the greatest of deeds, or induces a deed more significant than we can possibly imagine, he will still think “I have not been successful in achieving a desirable result, under the same conditions somebody else could have achieved much more than I did.” He will continuously attempt to fulfill or substitute personal deficiencies with kindness and good deeds.

In terms of religious discipline, these observations are both a clear account and a guide of the limitations of mistakes, sins and deficiencies for humans.

Identifying intention and guiding the soul

In addition to the specified mistakes and sins, there are also prescribed judgments in accordance with certain conditions, or an individual’s actual intention of actions and behavior, for example if a person has the intention of committing evil. There are certain aspects that can prevent or deter from evil actions: this may be a person’s environment, friends or various other factors. The main problem here is that this person has the determination and tendency in his soul to commit evil as soon as the opportunity arises. Only the individual knows his true abilities and characteristics relating to this matter, therefore we are compelled to make an accurate decision between the “prohibited and lawful” as prescribed in the Divine commands, and the human conscience is the evaluator and judge between the two. If we go back to the previous example of questioning the self-conscience, we see that this is the only true means of an individual reaching a conclusion if he actually avoided an evil action due to an obstacle ordained by God, or by his own accord and willpower.

In one of the traditions, the Prophet referred to this subject: “God the Almighty ordered His angels: ‘Whenever My servant intends to do a bad deed, do not record it against him until he actually commits evil. If he commits a bad deed, write it down as one sin. But if he refrains from it for My sake, write down this as a good deed in his favor'” (Bukhari).

The subjects here are both the servant’s intention, and self-determination of avoiding evil for the sake of his Creator, thus the individual is rewarded by God for his willpower and self exertion. As we see in this tradition of the Prophet, even the human’s willpower of abstaining from evil can lead to virtue, but is this the case if the servant’s willpower or determination is not in question? Although this may not be recorded as a major sin, if a person is deterred from evil due to an obstacle beyond self-control, he may be called to account for it as a minor sin on the Day of Judgment. Therefore in every aspect of life, a human must constantly take both his good deeds and sins into consideration, and act accordingly.

There are of course many examples to be mentioned on this subject. For instance imagine a preacher who conveys to his audience some famous quotes from a scholar like Bediuzzaman Said Nursi: “Work for God’s sake, meet with others for God’s sake, labor for God’s sake; act within the sphere of ‘For God, in God’s name, on account of God’s pleasure.'” And if this preacher has the sincere intention to evoke emotions and excitement of acting for the sake of God deep in his soul, he most certainly will be rewarded accordingly. But if these words are conveyed solely to impress others with his knowledge or self-esteem, this is nothing but ostentation, and of course a sin. Again the only one able to judge this is the individual himself, his own conscience.

Considering this case as it appears from outside, this preacher is conveying the good message of God to others and speaking of Truth. But a true judgment of his speech depends on how much self-pretense and self-expression are involved. Keeping oneself out of the way is the basis of a true conversation of the Beloved. In fact it is a person’s duty to consider “If it was not me who said those words, they may have made more profound impact; it is because I said those words that some among the audience reacted negatively.” So if a person has the slightest emotion of self-expression or self-recognition in his soul while conveying the words of God, and the Prophet, or explaining belief to others, he is in fact committing a sin.

“If my good deeds are this impure…”

Similar considerations may be relevant even in the context of prayer, which is in fact a twin sister to faith. A person who is exalting God almighty should utter the words “God is the greatest” in a low voice, only audible to the individual himself. So if a person stands for communal prayer with the intention of portraying an image of submission and concentration, but lacks sincerity and consciousness, and repeats these words “God is the greatest” in a loud voice, instead of obtaining reward for performing worship, his vain behavior is recorded as a sin.

Another example is of a person who leads the prayer and recites the verse “True believers are only those who, when God is mentioned, their hearts tremble with awe, and when His Revelations are recited to them, it strengthens them in faith, and they put their trust in their Lord” (8:2) and during this recitation, this individual becomes so excited, as if his soul is overcome with submission and awe. He is displaying the conduct of a person desperate to obtain the pleasures of the Lord, just as the Companions stood in worship during the time of the Prophet. If this individual’s behavior is solely to imitate or resemble others, he is in fact corrupting his prayer, for even though these actions are not objected to if they occur as the result of indigenous motivation, deliberately portraying this type of conduct for show or self esteem does affect the merit of worship, and can also lead to sullied thoughts and opinions. It is the duty of every individual to behave according to his self-conscience and honor, thus when a person prostrates, and recites:

“Glory be to my Lord, the most high” he can become so overwhelmed with emotion that without even realizing, he recites this in a loud voice. The passion portrayed here is not a sin, but if there is the slightest emotion or desire of expressing self esteem in these actions, the individual blemishes the prayer with evil, thus adding to the list of bad deeds.

So following all these examples, if we return to the main topic we realize that although on many occasions there is no specific definition of the sins or mistakes recognized solely by a person’s instinct, it is the duty of every believer to question his actions, and his good and bad deeds in every aspect of life in order to determine and amend mistakes and sins. A sincere believer should constantly seek refuge and plead for forgiveness from the Creator in conduct which may seem favorable, but in fact could possibly entail evil or sordid intent. He should continuously bear the question and doubt in his soul: “What will become of a person like me whose good deeds can bear such impurity?” A true believer must acknowledge his faults, and repent to the Lord asking forgiveness for sins: “O Lord of Mercy and kindness! This servant of weakness, heedlessness, disobedience and ignorance who strayed from the path of truth acknowledges, and repents for the sins he committed, and seeks refuge in Your compassion, for only You are the forgiver of sins.”

Primarily a person must purify his egoistic desires, and recognize the ego as the essence of disobedience and sin in order to purify the soul of evil. A believer who lives with the constant fear in his heart will always recognize mistakes and deficiencies in every aspect of life, and with God’s will and mercy, as a result of his awareness, he will never be exposed to serious downfalls in life. As for repentance from minor sins, such a person turns to the tidings of forgiveness in the Divine declaration “If you avoid the major sins which you have been forbidden, We will blot out from you your minor evil deeds and make you enter by a noble entrance (to an abode of glory)”(4:31), seeking forgiveness from God the most Merciful, the most Gracious with the sincere aspiration that He will forgive our minor sins.

While discussions on the education of creation in schools continue, generations grow up with lack of knowledge about the Creator and understanding of His Actions. The current education system in high schools and colleges are giving knowledge about the universe, nature, earth, and life but courses are not directed to understand the Actions of the Creator. How and where can people learn about their Creator? Although there are various means such as the internet, religious groups, and journals, it is not always feasible and enough to understand directly the Creator’s Actions without a good understanding of sciences. Fortunately, every science continuously mentions God with their unique language and speaks of the Creator, but we will need a point of view, windows to see beyond our sight and knowledge, just like we need a microscope to see microorganisms or a telescope to discover depths of the universe. With some attention, everyone can understand what sciences reflect from God’s Actions. That’s why we should listen to what sciences tell us in their own language.

Imagine there is a simulation program to analyze a car crash. In this program, let us say you enter different parameters such as velocity, weight, angle of hit, general structure of the car, hardness of the body, and weather information like wind velocity and its direction and so on. After you click on the OK button in this imaginary simulation program, you almost get the same results with real physical crash tests. This obviously shows us a skillful software programmer and his great knowledge in mathematics and physical events. Noticeably, nature is composed of millions and millions of parameters determining final result just like this simulation program. For instance, when you throw a stone to a lake or into water, first of all it falls down with a velocity and then you see a wave of water expanding to its surrounding from the center affected by that velocity. The velocity of this stone at a certain time and place and wave formation on the surface of water can be explained with some physical laws described with mathematical equations. Whoever put these rules for the physical events also created the universe in a perfect mathematical order. From these and the knowledge we get from computer sciences, physics, and mathematics, we can open windows to understand the ruler of the universe as Glorious Creator.

We are at the time of great advancements in gene technology and huge increase in knowledge about molecular biology; even individual structures of biological molecules are known and many more discovered about cellular mechanisms. The more we learn, the more we face complexity and organization in the tiniest compartments of cell. Cell is no longer a small room filled with a gel-like structure in our minds, it is a massive factory that contains all required machinery and it is automatic, well balanced, and continuously renewed. Things are in constant motion; uptake follows release of substances and signal from outside results in a response produced inside. With increase in understanding of how living things are working and necessity to answer how these things originated caused discussions in scientific research. Some scientists like to talk only at scientific platforms or on so-called testable scientific subjects, but this does not change the reality. We wonder about the beginning and we wish to live forever. We are finite but dream of infinity. How can we think of eternal life if we were a product of something that is not eternal?

Imagine there is a high-tech, but small self-working factory producing highways and trucks to carry items, fuel engines for the energy that can be used in many different processes and containing solar energy collectors. There are great photocopy machines for the production of a new factory, feedback systems to control and repair any problems as well. Without any concern, control of all these events and thousands of machines, engines, highways in such a small sized factory without any problem involves a perfect engineer, scientist, architect, and chemist. Similarly, believe it or not, the cell is an excellent composition of around one million molecules, thousands of machines, and energy producing engines. There are highways, trucks, feedback systems and more in an arranged and fine control in such a small size. Mitochondria, for instance, is one of the most essential cellular organelle and produces ATP molecules as carrier of energy obtained from organic molecules for energy requiring cellular processes. In addition, cellular requirements vary by time and vesicles carry required molecules as cargo on molecular motors using microtubule pathways to different places. Those and many other examples we learn from biological sciences point to the Glorious Creator of the Earth.

When you consider a cell coming into existence by causes other than the hands of a Creator with numerous levels of regulation, coordination of subcellular compartments like organelles, information storage in DNA, and use of this information required for their specific function, it means molecules come together under the effect of natural causes and form an artistic cellular structure in a wise-manner. Actually, this reminds us of a very famous experiment by Stanley Miller to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, to demonstrate that life on earth has originated by natural causes and chance. Miller, in his experiment, took molecules which were supposed to represent the major components of the early Earth’s atmosphere and put them into a closed system. He used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O) in his experiment and ran a continuous electric current to stimulate lightning storms and to drive these unfavorable reactions. He found that three amino acids have been synthesized in these conditions. Later, it was found that this composition was different from the early Earth’s atmosphere and arguments raised to his experiment due to continuous energy input not possible in nature. However, this was exciting at that time and some used headlines like “Miller created life.” On the other hand, what Miller had managed to synthesize was only a few inanimate lifeless molecules.

People who do not believe in God also do not believe in creation. That’s why they tend to conclude that “nothing is created out of nothing, and nothing goes to nothing; there is only composition and decomposition.” But, the All-Powerful One has two ways of creating. The first way is through origination and invention and the second way is through composition and through art. He creates from out of nothing together with everything necessary for, again, nothing. In the second way of creating, He forms beings from materials of universe in order to show his delicate wisdom, perfection, and the manifestations of His Names. “O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women…” (Quran 4:1)

When we think about the lessons learnt from these examples and natural sciences with their special focus areas, we realize that every science somehow declare the Glorious Creator of this universe. However, there may not be an opportunity in school to discuss and go deep into the understanding of the Actions of the Creator. With the window of what sciences open to us about God, we can uncover the hidden truths.

Ali Fethi Toprak is a PhD candidate at Southwestern Medical Center, Texas University, Dallas.

Even though believers must adopt resignation of their free will at the beginning of the spiritual journey, in reality it is a direct gift of God to those whom He loves. For this reason, unlike patience, neither God Almighty nor the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, commanded it; they only recommended it. Although there is a narration attributed to the Prophet—Let him who does not endure misfortunes and show resignation to Divine decrees find another Lord for himself—the scholars of Traditions did not accept it as an authentic Prophetic Tradition.

Some saints have considered resignation a higher station than reliance and surrender, while others have regarded it, like other states, as a divine gift or radiance that sometimes appears and then disappears. Still others, like Imam Qushayri, have seen it as connected with or dependent upon the servant’s free will in the beginning, and as a state or condition of the heart in the end.

Resignation is a divine gift that can be acquired only by an individual’s conscious decision to exercise free will at the beginning of the journey. One can attain the rank of resignation through depth of belief, solemnity in religious actions, and profound consciousness of worshipping God as if seeing Him. To be favored with the rank of resignation, one also must transcend the ranks of reliance, surrender, and commitment. Since it is extremely difficult to attain the rank of resignation by free will, God Almighty did not order it; He only advised it and highly praised those who attained it.

If one sets out on the journey to attain the rank of resignation at the end, he or she must be solemn in his or her relations with the Lord; gratefully accept all bestowed (and unsought) Divine gifts as His blessings; remain silent about any deprivation; fulfill all religious obligations even in times of distress, loneliness, and hardship; and pray in the presence of God Almighty as if entering a bridal chamber. The most essential foundation of resignation is a continuous feeling of His company in one’s consciousness and experience, discovering Him afresh at every moment in one’s heart.

Fear and hope relate to one’s worldly life, for they render impossible all feelings of despair and security against God’s punishment while in this world. They have no relevance to the Hereafter, except for the reward they cause to be bestowed in the Hereafter. By contrast, being pleased with God and loving Him continue eternally, and resignation to His judgment and being pleased with Him is a source of spiritual peace and happiness in both worlds.

This does not mean that those who have obtained resignation and God’s pleasure or approval are free of anxiety, hardship, and suffering, for there remain many annoying and displeasing things along their way. However, champions of resignation regard them as pure mercies, for resignation or God’s pleasure changes the “poison” they drink into “elixir,” and the troubles they encounter cause them to fall even deeper in love with the Beloved.

The way of resignation, although difficult to follow, is safe and direct. It sometimes leads the wayfarer to the summit of human perfection after a single attempt. Just as a believer can reach that summit by strenuous effort in the way of God or by studying the universe (as if it were a book) in order to feel and find God everywhere (although He is contained in neither time nor place), the summit can also be reached through one’s inner suffering and sorrow arising from personal shortcomings and helplessness upon encountering difficulties while searching for a way to progress on the path.

Resignation results in a thrilling joy or a heavenly breeze from God’s being pleased with the believer that is proportional to the depth of one’s fear and hope. It does not come from feeling God’s nearness, worship and devotion, the struggle against sin and the temptations of one’s carnal self and Satan. Rather, it is a spiritual delight merged with hope and expectation, regulated by self-possession, a direct gift from Him, and a breath of mercy associated only with this station of being pleased with God. This station requires the self-regulation of one’s thoughts, considerations, plans, hopes, expectations, feelings, and actions according to God’s Will. Thus, seeing it as a way to experience pleasure and delight in the expectation of acquiring that pleasure and delight shows one’s disrespect of this station, which is based on the purity of one’s intention and sincerity. In reality, this applies to all other states and stations attained through actions of the heart, or which are themselves actions of the heart. One must love and pursue His approval or pleasure for His sake only.

Heroes of the spiritual life have expressed their views about resignation and being pleased with God since the early days of Sufism. According to Dhu al-Nun al-Misri, resignation means preferring God’s wishes over one’s own in advance, accepting His decree without complaint based on the realization that whatever God wills and does is good, and overflowing with love of Him even while in the grip of misfortune. ‘Ali Zayn al-’Abidin describes resignation as an initiate’s determination not to pursue anything opposed to God’s Will and pleasure. According to Abu ‘Uthman, resignation denotes welcoming with the same mood all divine decrees and disposals, regardless of whether they issue from His Grace or His Majesty or Wrath, and having no conscious preference for one or the other. God’s Messenger referred to this when he said: I ask You for resignation after You have decreed something. Being pleased in advance with God’s decree means being determined to show resignation, while resignation signifies enduring calamity when it occurs.

In short, resignation means that an initiate feels no resentment against or displeasure with whatever issues from God’s Divinity or Lordship. Rather, the initiate welcomes it gladly and is ready to accept or endure his or her fate without complaint. The initiate does not upset the balance of his or her heart. Rather, he or she preserves personal integrity and straightforwardness even when confronted with the most distressing and shocking events, considers God’s predestination recorded in the Supreme Preserved Tablet, and thus feels no regret or sorrow for what happens.

Truthfulness is the firmest road leading to God, and the truthful are fortunate travelers upon it. Truthfulness is the spirit and essence of action and the true standard of straightforwardness in thought; it distinguishes believers from hypocrites, and the people of Paradise from the people of Fire. Truthfulness is a Prophetic virtue in those who are not Prophets, by which “servants” share the same blessings as “kings.” In the Qur’an, God Almighty described as being true both the one who communicated it and the one who confirmed it: He who came with the truth and he who declared that it is true (39:33).

Truthfulness can be defined as struggling to preserve one’s integrity and to avoid hypocrisy and lying, even in strained circumstances when a lie will cause release. Junayd al-Baghdadi says: “A loyal, truthful one changes states at least forty times a day (in order to preserve personal integrity), while a hypocrite remains the same for forty years without feeling any trouble or unease (over his or her deviation).”

The initial and lowest degree of truthfulness is sincerity and behaving the same whether in public or in private. This is followed by being true in all thoughts, feelings, actions, and intentions. The truthful are those valiant people whose feelings, thoughts, and actions do not contradict one another; the most truthful are those heroes who are absolutely true in all of their imaginations, intentions, feelings, thoughts, actions, and gestures.

Using all of one’s faculties and capacities to achieve truthfulness in all actions, adherence to a lofty ideal or cause, and loyalty to or steadfastness in it is an attribute of Prophethood. In the verse: Make mention of Abraham in the Book: he was a most truthful one, a Prophet (19:41), the Qur’an refers to this highest degree of truthfulness. Truthfulness is the primary attribute of all Prophets, and the strongest moral force or means-producing activity for serving Islam and the Qur’an. It is also a believer’s greatest credit and most valid document in the Hereafter. God draws our attention to this significant fact: This is a day in which their truthfulness profits the truthful (5:119).

Truthfulness serves the Prophets, the purified and perfected scholars and the saints brought near to God, as a heavenly mount that, as quick as lightning, can carry them to the highest heights; lying, however, pulls Satan and his followers down to the lowest depths. Thoughts “fly upward” on the wings of truthfulness and increase in value, actions grow and flourish on the ground of truthfulness, and truthful supplications and prayers reach the Throne of Mercy and are welcomed.

Truthfulness is as effective as the “elixir” of God’s Greatest Name. When asked about the Greatest Name, Bayazid al-Bistami answered:

Show me the Least Name among God’s Names so that I may show you the Greatest One. If there is something as effective (for the acceptability by God of prayers and actions) as the Greatest Name, it is truthfulness. Whichever Name is recited truthfully, It becomes the Greatest.

Truthfulness caused the light of repentance to shine on the forehead of Prophet Adam, upon him be peace. Truthfulness served as a vessel of salvation for Prophet Noah, upon him be peace, when the world was flooded. Truthfulness carried Prophet Abraham, upon him be peace, to safety and coolness from the fire into which he had been thrown. Truthfulness elevates ordinary people to extraordinary heights, and is a key that opens the door to realms and realities beyond visible existence. One borne aloft by truthfulness cannot be detained from journeying upward, and doors are not closed in the face of one who uses this key. How apt are the words of Rumi in this respect:

The truthfulness of a lover affects even the lifeless;
Why then should it be found strange that it affects man’s heart?
The truthfulness of Moses affected his staff and the mountain;
Nay, it also affected that great, splendid sea.
As for the truthfulness of Muhammad, it affected
The beautiful face of the Moon and also the shining Sun.

In many verses, the Qur’an relates that being a true believer depends upon one’s integrity and truthfulness in words, actions, feelings, and innermost senses. It also regards such a degree of integrity and truthfulness as the basis of happiness in both this world and the next. The following are a few examples:

– Say: My Lord, cause me to enter with truth, and cause me to go out with truth, and grant me a power from Your Presence to help me. (17:80)

– Grant me a good reputation, being remembered for truthfulness, in later generations. (26:84)

– Give to those who believe good tidings that they have a true, sure footing in the sight of their Lord. (10:2)

– The righteous are in the Gardens and rivers, on the seats of truthfulness in the Presence of a Mighty King. (54:54-5)

Entering with truth, going out with truth, being remembered for truthfulness, true and sure footing, and a seat of truthfulness are all stations of and provisions for a long road extending from this world to the Hereafter. Since what takes place in this world yields fruit in the Hereafter, the truthful always pursue what is true, observe truthfulness when starting a task or moving to another place in the way of God, act and live in accord with the requirements of truthfulness, and bequeath truthfulness to succeeding generations. Their objective is to deserve eternal happiness in the Hereafter.

To become truthful in intentions and aims, believers must consciously decide to become truthful in their thoughts, decisions, and acts. This is the first step. Those so resolved must persist in truthfulness, regardless of the consequences, and refrain from whatever might shake their resolution. The second step is to maintain this worldly life only to support the truth and gain God’s approval and pleasure. Such people are always aware of the defects and faults of their selfhood, and do not surrender to the world’s attractions and change their conditions for worldly reasons. The third step is to establish truthfulness so firmly in one’s conscience that it governs every facet of life. This is identical with the station of being pleased, which is explained in the Tradition: One who is pleased with God as the Lord and Islam as the religion and Muhammad as the Prophet has tasted the delight of belief.

The greatest truthfulness and loyalty is for people to be pleased with the Lordship of God regardless of the treatment He dispenses, to accept Islam as the Divine system governing their lives, and to submit willingly to the guidance or leadership of the best of creation, upon him be peace and blessings. The way to true humanity lies in undertaking this grave responsibility, which is very difficult to fulfill perfectly.

Let us conclude with a fine couplet:

What befits man is truthfulness even if under threat;
God Almighty is the helper of the truthful.