It is evident that those who do not share the values we have inherited from the past, or who do not draw upon the same sources as we do, are unlikely to understand our afflictions. What is more, they probably find the way we generally behave puzzling. For there exists a discrepancy between perspectives: those who view the present and the future solely through a materialistic lens and who engage with life only in terms of its physical aspects cannot experience anything beyond the fleeting and superficial pleasures of the body. According to this same distorted perspective, anything not connected to the material or physical realm is deemed insignificant. Neither the past nor the future holds any meaning. The past and the future are merely refuges in which those who have lost the present can take shelter. What such people consider essential is the present; they see the rest as being a waste of time. Truly, these people, imprisoned within such a narrow perspective, are not likely to understand such statements as, “Were you to know what I know, you would seldom laugh, and often weep” [1]. Nonetheless, the Sultan of the Words, the Prophet who uttered this hadith, knew well what he was crying over, just as those mature spirits, satisfied only with faith, divine knowledge and love, and equipped with their armament for eternity, also understand why they weep and what they seek. There are many reasons for such people to cry.

Alongside questions of faith and finding peace—a concern shared by all—and the danger of being engulfed in disbelief, there exists a multitude of issues that demand resolution: social, economic, political, and cultural. There are injustices that lie at the root of society’s unrest. There are rights that must be reconsidered and reestablished in light of human values and the principles of fairness and conscience. There are our hopes and ideals oriented in eternity, and opposing these stand obstacles to democratic rights, along with the propaganda of power. In many matters, emotions still dominate reason, and orders are given in accordance with the recklessness of power. In many parts of the world, human mistakes and shortcomings are still swept away with blood and tears. Masses are forced to Paradise, or roughly pushed toward Hell, their willpower and opinions disregarded. New camps are being formed every day, each team fighting for their worldview or what they believe to be true; every ideology is depicting a lifestyle befitting their principles. Furthermore, people are forced to fit into this narrow portrait and to live accordingly. Throughout the world, in hundreds of places, the consciousness of individuals are still being crushed, the will of the community is still being ignored, and the eyes of the conscience are being blinded.

By contrast, the shortest way to relieve people’s pains and to rid them of personal and social repression is to cease interfering with their consciences and to show them how to exist with their own awareness and will. Indeed, it is only when the mechanism of the conscience remains alive, and when willpower and awareness are respected within society, that people can remain truly human and be directed toward human values. Individuals can only be regarded as true citizens when they exist with their own conscience and willpower, thus growing mature enough to help others spiritually. Otherwise, society is inescapably inflicted with various social, political, administrative, and economic problems. A community that is made up of inadequate, inconsistent or patched together pieces cannot be called a nation. Likewise, a mass that appears to be a nation, yet which has deteriorated beyond recovery cannot promise a bright future. If we want salvation as a whole society, it is essential that each and every individual be alert and motivated. The star of our society’s good fortune  will rise in a surprisingly comforting manner if we join together, shoulder to shoulder, with our palms raised to the sky, pleading for the salvation of others.

The essence of the fundamentals that lead us to this desired level lies in being fully aware of the faith with all its peculiar depths, in enduring pain and effort in our worship, in upholding morality in all our actions, in achieving spiritual, conscious, and emotional renewal, and in measuring everything by the righteousness of the heart. Enlightened with these, we will transcend the limits of individuality, make demands in accordance with these principles, and be aware of the things that we demand as well. By taking one step further, we will be able to connect everything to eternity and measure all things by the highest standards. Thus, sharing in all the advantages of humanity, we will be able to voice once again our eligibility to be “in the most perfect form and nature” [2] as the humans we are. I believe that those blessed ones who understand this pivotal point will not only attempt to lead others to the straight path but will also guarantee their own future.

I feel obliged to restate that individual efforts toward enlightenment, if not directed toward serving the community, are destined to yield no lasting fruit. Moreover, without such a shared orientation, the values once destroyed in hearts, in society, and in the collective conscience cannot be revived. Just as plans and projects for individual salvation that are independent of the salvation of others are nothing more than an illusion, so, too, the thought of achieving success as a whole by paralyzing the individual awakening is a fantasy.

In this light, we believe that while each person has their own will and responsibility, it is only by joining hands, uniting our consciences and willpower, that we can solve all problems through collective effort. With this kind of attitude, we hope to retain, and even to increase, the fruitfulness of our individual lives while presenting to others the elixir of life, and, therefore steadily augmenting our material and spiritual value. To us, the more altruistic a plan or an attempt is, and the more often it is directed toward the good of others, the more consistent and promising it is. This is true because what keeps a person alive is the goal of lifting others up. The converse of this is that it is self-centered ambition that kills or paralyzes human beings. Those who waste their lives in pursuit of such ambitions are sooner or later corrupted, although they are not necessarily involved in dirty politics. Those who sustain their own lives by inspiring the awakening of others walk securely, offering the elixir of life in places where others are blown about like leaves. Such are the people destined for true contentment in this marathon that spans both this world and the next.

The camaraderie of the politician who seems to have accepted the existence and right to life of others just because they serve his or her personal interests can never be trusted, nor can anyone be safe when such politicians are antagonized. What such people think of all the time is their own personal interests. This is why they flatter and even submit themselves to the whims of other people. Such people crush, if need be, those they can afford to, and those whom they need are ceaselessly plotted against. When in power, these tyrants are ruthless; yet, when weak, they begin to cringe and fawn. Because they are consistently insincere, they are mostly beaten by their own tricks, preparing their own evil and wicked end. They make themselves believe that they are tricking and deceiving everybody, and that they are doing the right thing. These poor politicians, however, have placed themselves in a strange position, destroying their reputations for the sake of their careers. Such a deceptive intelligence, witnessed in some people, is a very serious disorder and is an incurable psychological illness. People of this kind are good for nothing and do not provide any service to others, but they might obtain some advantage with cunning behavior and relations with others. Nevertheless, this neither earns them a good reputation nor advances their career, and they ultimately resort to servility and sycophancy.

On the other hand, what lies at the root of the behavior of people of service is a long period of preparation and spiritual struggle, followed by an appeal to mercy grounded in the conscience and directed toward the pursuit of truth. This appeal almost always lies beyond individual responsibility, transcending the limits of the awareness of social responsibility with a depth of sincerity, and is a task fitting to a person of heart. People of heart are the leaders in each and every charitable act, reflecting their own style in their works, and they are open and honest in all their deeds. No matter how relentless and merciless the circumstances may be, such people are determined not to be diverted from their routes and, relying on their own foundations, they do not become disturbed. With their inner and outer feelings, they are programmed to “see” and “hear” the Truth, to know and to be with the Truth. They are people of this world and the next, and each of their contact with others becomes a worldliness allowing a point of observation of the zeniths of the Hereafter. Moreover, the life that such people lead, with all its variants, is clear and boundless enough for them to enjoy a glimpse of the quiet of an otherworldly harbor. Indeed, these purest of pure hearts have already achieved the blissful result that others can only dream of reaching after millions and millions of years of toil. They are considered to have reached the company of God and to have sat down with the dwellers of the highest rank, knee to knee, shoulder to shoulder, proving that such people are the eternal winners. Always sincere and profound, these people of heart constantly seek grand projects and summits. They think of mercy, speak of mercy, and seek ways to express themselves through mercy. They endeavor so heartily in the name of conducting everyone, without discrimination, to the infinite bliss that they sacrifice the pleasures of the future world and spiritual power, not to mention materialistic interests and desire for position. They display in their spiritual position and in their relationships with others a spiritual attitude that reflects the fact that they are in the presence of the Supreme Power. And where others die, they realize successive revitalizations.

Over and above the maxim “Desire not for others what you do not desire for yourself,” such people ceaselessly work harder for others so that others will benefit from what these people of heart have already found useful. With the boundlessness of the horizon of such people, they are able to revive the feeling of mercy even in the hearts of tyrants. At the same time, they believe that being with the oppressed is the same as being with God, and thus support them.

Living for others is the most important factor that determines the behavior of such heroes. Their greatest worry is their quest for eligibility for such missions, whereas their most prevalent characteristic is that their utmost ambition is their search for God’s pleasure. Delighted as they strive to enlighten others, they feel no pain, nor do they undergo any shock. They consider their achievements that as a manifestation of God’s support, and bow in modesty, nullifying themselves again and again, every day. In addition to all this, they tremble at the idea that their emotions are bound to interfere with the works that they have caused to come into existence, and groan; “You are all I need.”

For ages we have waited impatiently for such blessed hands to transform what can be depicted as “the devastated lands, ruined homes, and remote deserts” into a new realm. And we are determined to wait for many more years with faith, desire, and resoluteness. May the expectation of these pure, compassionate hearts for this Infinite Mercy, not go unanswered.

Notes

• Bukhari, Kusuf, 2; Muslim, Kusuf, 1; Tirmidhi, Zuhd, 9; Ibn Maja, Zuhd, 19.
• We have indeed created man in the most perfect form and nature. (at-Tin 95:4)

Speaking about altruism, Ronald M. Green, a professor of religion, said, “Humility and selflessness, we know, are the very center of the moral life.” [1] According to James Ozinga, a professor of Political Science at Oakland University, altruism is, “Simply doing for others at some cost to oneself, and selfishness is doing for oneself at some cost to others.”[2]

In this article we will not embark upon complex debates whether altruism itself is a self-consistent concept, or if the very readiness to give away is an indicator of impossibly pure altruism (for “altruism,” by definition, ought to be totally about “other people,” and extend not an iota’s weight of importance to the “I-ness” of a person). It is clear from the viewpoint of pure logics, though, that we have to identify ourselves as independent agents in order to grasp the meaning of anything, as it is precisely this that distinguishes us from animals who are unaware of themselves and, thus, unable to think. Nor will we consider the problem of the performer of the altruistic act deriving out of it some intrinsic pleasure, thus flouting his initial “other-regarding” impetus, the idea that the famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was ever eager to accentuate. For Hobbes, if you relieve a beggar, you do it to relieve yourself of the distress at seeing the beggar’s distress.[3] It is enough to adhere to the aforementioned definition of “altruism” in order to check these kinds of debates. Thus, the aim of this article will be to shed light on the religious understanding of altruism in conformity with the definition of altruism as “doing for others at some cost to oneself,” as well as to find out whether secular and religious approaches to the issue are mutually exclusive or not.

The founding father of the term “altruism” was Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the initiator of modern positivism and, thus, one of the leading figures of modern science. In fact, he was the first to coin the term “altruism” itself. As he wrote, “the being, whether man or animal, who loves nothing outside himself, and really lives for himself alone, is by that very fact condemned to spend his life in a miserable alternation of ignoble torpor and uncontrolled excitement.” [4]

“Altruism” was part of his grand project of a completely new-fangled worldview. He envisioned this as “the Religion of the Great Being, Humanity,” whereby the principle of human rationality was asserted to be sufficient enough to invest humanity with all possible material progress and physical strength, but with no recourse whatsoever to the centuries-revered religious institutions. According to him, the Church’s institutions were irrelevant as far as meeting humanity’s real needs were concerned. Moreover, religion in any of its manifestations, and as the most authentic philosophy of life, had grown out-of-date, and would eventually be supplanted by positivistic science, with the rationalistic ethics being the culmination. Society, he believed, cannot be without ethics, and ethics cannot be without holding selfish instincts in check, thus tempering one’s egoistic personality with a desire to live for others. Regretfully enough, by tolerating no sense of individualism, Comte was extreme, the dictum of social duties in his philosophy being always prioritized over any particular and quite natural considerations pertaining to each and every person.

Another prominent philosopher of that age, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), came up with his own notion of altruistic relationships, which was close to the Comtean one. Although he did not use the term “altruism” in his treatment of the issue, for him the most important fact about the moral nature of man was the so-called “Moral Law,” which, similar to the Comtean philosophy, was determined solely by human minds and was autonomous from God or any religious tradition. The Law was, or is, universal in its nature and perfectly reasonable, though somewhat strained as far as its practicability was concerned. Kant wrote that, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.”[5]

He thought that humans can govern themselves merely by the power of intelligence, and thus be held fully responsible for all actions, including any indulgences in animalistic or all-to-human inclinations – things the ultimate source of which are not, Kant believed, our intelligence. To make it clearer, the formulation of the same Law can be described as, to “act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”[6]

According to this, before undertaking any course of action regarding another person, we have to deliberate what would happen if the action were implemented unto the whole of humanity. If our conscience assures us of the action being equally beneficent in both cases, then it conforms with the Moral Law and is morally acceptable; if it does not, it is denuded of any virtue. Say, for example, that we have to produce evidence against our own brother in a court. The radical rottenness of human nature could easily induce us to tell a lie in order to release our brother. But if we are decent enough to remember Kant’s Law at such a critical moment, we will understand that telling a lie can inflict definite harm on our brother’s plaintiffs, and that acting here as a false witness will be a means to achieve some further goal; namely, the welfare of the brother, but not the end-in-itself, which is – as far as this case is concerned – the confirmation of truth.

According to Kant, people are too clever to engage themselves in self-contradictory enterprises, which can do harm to nobody but themselves. Thus, the Moral Law – when deployed before any action as a heuristic devise – divests us of fallacious predilections that affect us due to our base humanity; it also reveals to us the ideally impartial and fair state of human interactions. Our intelligence and ability to reach these conclusions enables us to transcend our base humanity.

General and abstract as the nature of the law is (it is to be filled with concrete schemata of actions in each and every case of its real-life implementation), it is of great avail in the sense that it helps us distance ourselves from evil commands of our self-indulgence, which may go unnoticed, and allows us to assume both a proactive and beneficent course of action towards others.[7] In other words, it should be the well-being of others, as shown to us by the impartial judgments of the Law, that drives our actions, not our self-interest.

However, the surrounding people’s whims and fashions, ages-old traditions and the shortage of certitude in our philosophy of life may well distract us from that rationalistic predisposition of ours to be compassionate and altruistic. Moreover, not all human beings can be motivated to be altruistic by reason alone; it is obvious that a great majority of people may need to pass through a long process of moral self-cultivation, constantly performing good deeds and listening to good advice, in order to become attuned to Kant’s mode of action. Also, many people would not adhere to the results of their sound reasoning to be altruistic; after all, practically, we know that humanity’s crooked nature is not conductive to an impartial attitude towards everyone; even if we can be altruistic to people dear to our heart, it does not mean that we will be equally good to everyone. Also, would self-sacrifıcing for others have any limits, whereby one could duly stop and give free reins to his egoistic pursuits? Do we not need some degree of self-prosperity, and, thus, a healthy deal of self-regard?[8] The American political philosopher, Jean Hampton, said, “If we are so ‘altruistic’ that we become unable to develop and express ourselves properly, we become unable to give to others what they may want more than anything else.”[9] These ideas of the philosophers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment mirrored the then-popular and almost unimpeded belief in human abilities to succeed in all possible enterprises solely by the means of their intelligence and personal initiative, as opposed to the total submission of the Medieval European human’s mind and heart to the dictates of Church organizations and traditional ways of living.    

Needless to say, as a founder of the “positivistic” scientific worldview, Comte has played and is playing a great role in the way we perceive things today. The same goes for Kant, who – in his various interpretations – was and still is the main proponent of the agnostic attitude of many Western people as far as belief in God is concerned. But was humanity truly oblivious to the acute necessity of altruism, all the way from antiquity through Comte’s epoch? Surely it wasn’t. And the reason why people didn’t think of altruism until the Renaissance was simple: the absence of the notion of egoism! The religious frame of mind so characteristic to the pre-modern epochs was the main reason behind the proliferation of selfless individuals and communities – at least within common cultural boundaries. Thus, it was the notion of “egoism,” as elaborated by Thomas Hobbes, which triggered a powerful reaction in other rationalistic and not-too-religious thinkers. This “reaction” led to the widespread adoption of the secular notion of “selflessness” or “anti-egoism,” eventually leading to the term “altruism.”

Yes, this drastic division between the good (altruistic) and bad (egoistic) dispositions of human nature was drawn in a full-fledged manner for the first time by Hobbes, who tried to show that egoism and altruism are conflicting parts of one and the same human being. In his Leviathan, he maintained that altruism is impossible at all because, by nature, humans are possessors of a strong bend towards assertiveness. Hobbes believed that human nature is “essentially individual, non-social, competitive, and aggressive.”[10] As opposed to an altruistic society, Hobbes saw a daunting chasm, across which nothing could be handed, gaping between human nature and human benevolence. It is this chasm that has led to power struggles that then engulf the whole of society. It is only out of this inauspicious state of things that the necessity for social pacts and conventions arise; they are finally agreed upon by nothing better than formidable state machinery. Hobbes believed that this was the only way the intrinsically self-regarding nature of man could be persuaded to live in a mutually beneficial state of coexistence with others. Through the suppression of individual desires, man can attain a degree of security and welfare, thus fulfilling some of his egoistic desires. As Hobbes put it, “We gain by it the largest scope for action our crowded world permits.” [11]

After Hobbes, it took a whole series of English philosophers (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Butler, and others) nearly a century to get around to the idea that the nature of man is not that egotistic. Still, they failed to explain the dualistic (altruism vs. egotism) nature of man. Hartley (1705-1757) and Mill (1806-1873) said that the two inclinations of our souls could be fused by the way of association – we may be self-regarding when harrying for the aid of others (as Hobbes said), but, in due course, our thoughts grow to be so submersed in other people’s welfare that we start to regard them and not ourselves as a primary object of our attention and assistance.[12] Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) upheld a so-called “quantitative view.” Due to the mirroring capability of our conscience, we can see others as a huge bulk of our own emotional world; thus, the happiness of the maximum possible number of people is highly conducive to the accruing of our own happiness, the latter playing a role in Bentham’s philosophy; he believed it to be the key motive behind human behavior. Adam Smith (1723-1790) was another thinker who contributed ideas to the discussion. For him, sympathy played an enormous part in our lives; we just cannot stay uninvolved in other’s sufferings or happiness. For him, man’s ability to share feelings with others, and even to identify with others, is something agreeable, invigorating, and contributes to man’s overall well-being.[13]

The Islamic solution to altruism encourages people to see everything as reflective of a sacred, divine oneness of being. There is no reason to be egoistic, for the Divine Presence is overbearing, insofar that any claim one could lay to existing apart of that Divine Reality is moot. On the other hand, a relative degree of existence is still warrantable for man, as far as his duties before the Super-Being are concerned. The primary duty is intellectual and spritual love of the Real Source of all existence and ever-readiness to sacrifice the very idea of one’s own autonomous existence in order to comprehend His Existence unhindered by one’s ego. Man must follow, most unfailingly, His will in every passing moment. These acts are supereregatory and are considered to be among the most important spiritual stations of the Sufic tradition of Islam – “isar,” or the “preference of others, first and foremost, God’s desires and orders, to one’s own desires.” This was eloquently described by the Islamic mystic, Rabi’ah al-‘Adawiyah (d. 801):

O Lord, if I worship You out of fear of hell, burn me in hell. If I worship You for hope of paradise, forbid it to me. And if I worship You for Your Own sake, do not deprive me of Your eternal beauty.[14]

In the Islamic world-vision, Kant’s impartial stance to others is enforced by the Sacred Law itself in such verses of the Quran, including:

“Say, each works according to his manner, but your Lord is most knowing of who is best guided in way” (17:84); “And we have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with definite preference” (17:70); “O, mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you different peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Aquainted” (49:19).

According to these and others, every man is a bearer of God’s spirit:

“And when I have proportioned man and breathed into him of My spirit, then (o, My angels!) fall down to him in prostration” (15:29). To accept and, eventially, love every human being as he is means exactly what the German thinker meant by his imperative “not to take any human being as a means to accomplish some further goal.” The meaning of humanism, then, finds its expression in the Islamic revelation, although it is “theocentric” – deriving its meaning from the Holy Scripture, not the human intellect.[15] Still, to follow the idea is a supererogative act, for not everyone can relinqish his egocentric desires. Our altruistic feelings will anyway stem from our initial understanding of ourselves as independent, and, therefore, egoistic or pragmatic agents.[16] We ourselves are the first baseline of our self-perception, so without self-love, we cannot understand what it means to love others. The benevolence of others unto us may well enslave us, but this is because our ego is enamored with those who do good to it. However, as the famous Islamic theologian Imam al-Ghazzali (1058–1111) put it, those whose aethetic and moral predelections are of a higher level, cease to love themselves and, as it were, become dissolved in their love for abstract kinds of beauty and benevolence.[17]

A critical verse reads, “Those who fulfill their vows in full and fear a day whose ill effects will spread afar, who feed, for His sake, the destitute, orphan, and captive, they declare: We feed you only for God’s sake; we do not desire recompense of thanks from you” (76:7-9). In this, we can see that Muslims were entreated to embody the ideal of altruism within the Islamic World through the institutions of “Waqf” – charitable trusts. This Arabic word means, “to cause a thing to withhold, to stop and or to prevent”; the word also means, “to endow the property rights of a good to the public service perpetually, and to prevent others from obtaining its property rights.”[18]

Such foundations were usually open to everyone in need. Notably, 75% of such trusts in the Ottoman Empire of the 18^th century devoted substantial funds to serving outside constituencies, and 18% were precisely charitable ones. “Waqf” is also defined as “the detention of an object from possession for good, by considering it God’s property, and devoting all of its conceivable favors of revenue to different kinds of charitable purposes for the benefit of the public.”[19]

Muslims founding these institutions believed that this worldly existence is a temporary one, and one needed to devote one’s income for the betterment of other people’s lives, so as to make safe the blessedness of the next, eternal life.[20] All over the huge Islamic lands, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, countless amenities vital to social life have been funded and upheld through “waqfs,” some of which have even survived more than a millennium,[21] providing the penurious with basic needs such as food, shelter, education, and improvements like cemeteries, lighthouses, public baths, aqueducts, fountains, bridges, mosques, roads, and so on, augmenting amity and concord.[22]

Religion is clearly not antagonistic to altruism, even in the Comtean sense of the latter. Surveys conducted by the European Value Systems Study Group and the British Household Panel Survey reveal that churchgoers are some three times more likely to be involved in voluntary service for others than are non-churchgoers.[23] Love for humanity can be induced not only by the secularist or humanistic tendencies of modern Western civilization to exalt human beings to the highest ontological level, but also, and even primarily, by the religious injunction to love humanity as the best pattern of God’s creation. In fact, any monotheistic religion and humanism agree on this point, the difference being that the first is believed to arrive at it by virtue of a transcendent, supernatural source, and the second, by man’s independent reasoning. However, contrary to philosophical humanism, which is always open to unceasing doubts and critiques as to its intrinsic logical consistency, the religions of monotheism, resting upon articles of immutable and certain faith, have centuries-old social institutions and meditational practices which provide humanity with the priceless spiritual rationale for altruism. As the authors of the book, “The Altruistic Species,” Andrew Michael Flescher and Daniel L. Worthen concluded:

Altruism is neither a given nor an impossibility for human beings, but rather an ongoing opportunity in which to participate. Being more a matter of skill than talent, and therefore largely the result of hard work, it is something we should regard as contingent on our moral development.[24]

[1] Green. Ronald M. 1979. Religious Reason: The Rational and Moral Basis of Religious Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 188.

[2] Ozinga. James R. 1999. Altruism. London: Praeger, p. xvi.

[3] Neusner, Jacob, Bruce Chilton. 2005. Altruism in World Religions, Georgetown University Press p. 50.

[4] Comte, Auguste. System of Positive Polity, Volume 1: Containing the General View of Positivism & Introductory Principles. Translated by John Henry Bridges. New York: BurtFranklin. (Original work published 1851), p. 565–56.

[5] Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. H.J. Paton (New York: Harper and Row, p. 67.

[6] Ibid, p. 91.

[7] Hill, Thomas, Jr. 1993. “Beneficence and Self-Love: A Kantian Perspective,” in Altruism, ed. by Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr., and Jeffrey Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 13ff.

[8] Flescher, Andrew Michael, Daniel L. Worthen. 2007. The Altruistic Species: Scientific, Philosophical, and Religious Perspectives of Human Benevolence. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, p. 186-193.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Singer, Peter. 1981. The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Socio-biology. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 50.

[11] Palmer, George Herbert. 1970. Altruism: its Nature and Varieties. Westport: Greenwood Press, p.4.

[12] Ibid, p. 6.

[13] Ibid, p. 7.

[14] Sells, Michael (ed.). 1996. Early Islamic Mysticism. Translated by Paul Losensky. New York: Paulist Press, p. 169.

[15] Kim, Heon Choul. 2009. Gülen’s Dialogic Sufism: A Constructional and Constructive Factor of Dialogue. Conference proceedings. Washington D.C. pp. 520-547.

[16] Robert M. Berchman, p. 23.

[17] Çağrıcı, Mus­tafa. 1982. Gazzali’ye Göre İslâm Ahlâkı, Is­tanbul, pp. 139-143.

[18] Akgündüz, Ahmet. 1996. İslam Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi. 2nd Ed. Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, p. 77.

[19] Bilmen, Ömer N. 1969. Istılahat-ı Fıkhıyye Kamusu. Vol. 4., p. 294.

[20] Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin. 1996. Place of the Waqf in Turkish Cultural System. Translated by R Acun and M Oz. Istanbul: Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II). http://www.history.hacettepe.edu.tr/archive/waqfkultur.html.

[21] Çizakça, Murat. 2000. A History of Philanthropic Foundations: The Islamic World from the Seventh Century to the Present. Istanbul: Bogazici University Press.

[22] Yalawae, Asming, and Izah M. Tahir. “The Role of Islamic Institution in Achieving Equality and Human Development: Waqf or Endowment.” Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia (UDM). http://www.capabilityapproach.com.

[23] Gill, Robin. 1999. Churchgoing and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 174-5.

[24] Flescher, Andrew Michael, Daniel L. Worthen. 2007. The Altruistic Species: Scientific, Philosophical, and Religious Perspectives of Human Benevolence. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, p. 239.

The opposite of altruism is the stinginess and selfishness that arise from avarice and attachment to this world. Both stinginess and selfishness are regarded as reasons for becoming distanced from the Creator, the created, and Paradise.^[1] While stinginess arises from avarice and attachment to the world, generosity, benevolence, and perfect goodness arise from altruism.

Generosity means that believers give some of their belongings to others without feeling any unease in the heart. Benevolence means considering one’s own happiness as dependent on the happiness of others and, more than that, putting the welfare of others ahead of one’s own happiness. As for perfect goodness or excellence (ihsan), it means preferring others, even when one is in need oneself. The Qur’an points to such excellence or the highest degree of altruism in this verse (59:9): They feel in their hearts no displeasure because of whatever the others are given, but rather give them preference over themselves, even though poverty be their own lot.

Altruism is valuable when one attains and follows it freely; it has no value if one is forced or if one performs such an act not out of one’s own free will.

The generosity and benevolence that arise from and are dimensions of altruism have degrees, as follows:

• Sacrificing one’s soul in God’s way (for God’s cause), therefore for the sake of belief and for the good of the believers, is considered the highest degree of nobility.
• Being able, when it is necessary, to renounce a (rightful) claim to leadership or similar high position for the well-being and unity of society, is seen as altruism one step below the first degree.
• Preferring the (economic) welfare of others over one’s own, is a third degree of nobility.
• Allowing others to benefit from one’s knowledge and ideas without expecting anything in return, is a virtue not quite as noble as the previous ones.
• Giving to others out of one’s income – this includes responsibilities for the giving of the prescribed and voluntary alms (zakah and sadaqa).
• Showing warmth, speaking soft and kind words, being of use to others, and being the means of various instances of good – these are examples of altruism that almost anyone can strive for in any situation.

The first of these degrees of generosity and benevolence is a profound and fundamental dimension of altruism that not everyone can achieve. Mawlana Jami’,^[2] the author of Baharistan (The Land of Spring), expresses it most memorably:

It is easy to show generosity with gold and silver
Worthy of respect is he who shows generosity with his soul.

Among the characteristics and degrees of those who practice altruism are:

• Offering food and feeding others at the cost of one’s own hunger and thirst, and neglecting oneself in the provision of others. Provided that no one’s rights are violated, this is a virtue characteristic of truly pious, saintly people.
• Despite all adversities, spending whatever one has as a favor from God in God’s way and purely for His good pleasure, and in such a disinterested manner that one forgets what good one has done. This virtue is particular to those with considerable nearness to God, who take far greater pleasure in giving than receiving.
• Attributing to God exclusively all the accomplishments with which one is favored without seeing oneself as the agent of any good and, without expecting any return, even in the form of spiritual pleasures, for all that one does for God’s sake, always being aware of Him and experiencing oneself as the shadow of the light of His existence.

This last one is the attitude and practice of those nearest to God, including primarily the noblest of humankind and the greatest of all times and places, upon him be peace and God’s blessings. His Ascension is a demonstration of his being accorded the highest honor and being sought after (by all the angels and many among human beings and jinn) as a reward for his incessant efforts for perfect knowledge of God. His return from the realms beyond the heavens to be among people in this world is such a great degree of altruism that nobody else has ever been able to achieve it. His emerging from Paradise and letting his profuse tears fall into the pits of Hell for the salvation of humankind expresses the greatest possible altruism.

O God! For the sake of your chosen Prophet, Muhammad, make us of those who do not begrudge what has been given to their brothers-in-religion, but prefer them to themselves, even though poverty be their lot, and may Your blessings and peace be on our master Muhammad and on His family and Companions.

^[1] Sunan al-Tirmidhi, “Birr,” 40.

^[2] Mawlana Nur al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ahmad al-Jami’ (1414-1492), commonly called the last great classical poet of Persia, and saint, composed numerous lyrics and idylls, as well as many works in prose. His Salaman and Absal is an allegory of profane and sacred love. Some of his other works include Haft Awrang, Tuhfat al-Ahrar, Layla wu Majnun, Fatihat al-Shabab, Lawa’ih, al-Durrah. (Trans.)

Altruism and love go hand in hand. A person cannot be said to love unconditionally without being altruistic, nor can a person be altruistic without loving unconditionally. Unconditional love is a concept comparable to true love, and is frequently used to describe love between family members, comrades in arms and between others in highly committed relationships. Love is the most powerful emotion in the world, even more powerful than its opposite, hate or indifference. It is the most powerful and most elusive phenomenon in our world, but when really pursued and sought after, it is simple and accessible to all. Dr. Stephen Post of Stony Brook University says, “When the happiness and security of another person means as much to me, or more than my own happiness and security, I love that person.” Put very simply, this is love-loving someone, so much so that his/her happiness means more than one’s own.

According to Dr. Adnan Aslan, Researcher at ISAM Foundation, Istanbul, true love is the love of all-all human beings and all of nature; everything that exists. By his definition, it is evident that simply loving one’s fellow beings is insufficient. Rather, true love encompasses love of animals and birds, trees and plants; “all of nature.” The most compassionate man is he who is able to love all living things. Harold W. Becker, author and founder of The Love Foundation Inc. said, “unconditional love is an unlimited way of being.” True love requires the making of sacrifices, giving things up for those one loves.

Altruism is an exalted human feeling, and its source is love (Gulen 2004). Altruistic people continue to live on in the hearts of people even after they are dead. Their exemplary lives of selflessness shine like beacons of hope for those who despair at the state of the world; they are the proverbial “straws” that “drowning men” clutch at. Such examples can be seen in the lives of our Holy Prophets (peace be upon them) and those of compassionate people such as Mother Theresa, Florence Nightingale, Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi. Their lives show us that people of love do not always have to be nice-such people of love are the first to speak when there is injustice.

Having love and compassion is something that needs to be nurtured and cultivated through spiritual education and practice. All religions preach love of humanity, and they aim to teach the faithful how one can attain the state of true love and compassion. The most direct way to the hearts of people is the way of love, the way of the prophets and all other great religious leaders such as Lord Buddha, who advised his son, “Rahula, practice loving kindness to overcome anger. Loving kindness has the capacity to bring happiness to others without demanding anything in return” and Jesus Christ, who said, “If someone hits you, turn the other cheek.” It is also quoted in the New Testament, “Be kindly affectionate one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another” (Romans 12:10). All the prophets practiced unconditional love during their times. Their love for all life was in direct relation to their ultimate goal in life; the pleasure of God. It is true that many speak words of love, beautiful and pleasant words, but what is important is putting such words into action. If words are not put into practice, they are doomed to fail, no matter how beautiful they may be. The Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, practiced what he preached. He also loved his people so much that his constant prayer was for the forgiveness and salvation of his followers. One of his constant cautions to his companions was “He is not of us who sleeps while his neighbor goes hungry.”

Love and affection are among the most important principles of being true human. All the prophets we learn from religions had among their dominant traits, love and compassion. These blessed people were able to root out feelings of hatred and rancour in themselves against others, even when faced by great opposition, such as the Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, when he was laughed and mocked, and stoned by the people of Ta’if, and when the Qurayshis dumped faeces and entrails of animals on his head as he prayed. Noah, who bore the ridicule of his own people as he built the great ark at the command of his Lord, and Jesus, who was made to suffer by his own people whom he loved, are two other such examples. Only hearts that are filled with love for God and for people are able to tolerate such unjust and merciless treatments.

In more recent times, the lives of Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi can be referenced. All of them stood up for their people and even for people of other cultures, and helped them with such compassion and love, even at the risk of their own lives.

In today’s world, love is a word we constantly stumble over. But how exactly is this love portrayed? The writing of flowery verses, romance novels, the making of romantic movies and so on, does not count, if, as said before, love is not put into practice. The world is devastated by endless killings, eternal war, corruption, racism and various different kinds of evil. The globalization of knowledge, power and technology has been followed by conflicts among cultures and civilizations. Daily news items contain horrifying stories of destruction of churches, temples and mosques. People – including little children – are being maimed like flies during war; the horror stories never end. Yet there are individuals and organizations trying to do something to preserve peace and the love of humanity in the world.

It is interesting to see what Science has to say about love. According to Dr. Gregory Fricchione of the Harvard Medical School, the ability to love requires a healthy functioning brain. Therefore, children of drug addicts are oftentimes neglected. Mothers who are drug addicts may not respond to the needs of their children as the drugs they use make them lose their ability to love in a normal and healthy way. According to Dr. Fricchione, a person with a healthy brain is predisposed to think about a future in which there are connections to others. The part of the human brain called the pre-frontal cortex enables us to think into the future, and when we think of a future we gain security when we see a future of connectedness and attachment. Scientific research concludes that humans are indeed born with the need and ability to love, which remains with us, unless tampered with.

However, this is not always visible in our environment because, as explained previously, the world today is filled with negative feelings-anger, greed, envy, hurt. An individual’s behavior with and towards other humans is at least partially dependent upon how he is brought up, his family’s background, the support received during childhood and adulthood, social acceptance and so on. The two opposing feelings of love and hate can be likened unto two wolves inside a person; one sleek, beautiful, graceful, soft eyed, and the other fierce and ugly, with blood shot eyes. Whichever feeling is fed will be the one that is victorious.

There are several kinds of love, such as maternal love, familial love, romantic love, marital love, platonic love and so on. It is a mother’s love for her child that turns her blood into milk when her baby cries, it is out of love for their children that parents correct and punish them when they do something wrong. Lovers love each other, friends love each other, husband and wife love each other. It is our love for one another that makes us overlook each other’s faults and shortcomings.

People of love busy themselves with fighting their own mistakes and misdemeanors rather than complaining about the misdeeds of others. Instead, they set a good example for people to follow. Such people do so because of their closeness to God, devotion to a spiritual life and determination to stay away from all material dirt and evil.

In conclusion it can be said that true altruism and unconditional love in human beings is definitely possible, since we have been given the innate capacity to love. It is also further proved by the fact that altruism and unconditional love were the daily practice in the lives of our great and noble prophets and religious leaders, and such qualities were also witnessed in the lives of great people of more recent times. Though love does not always show itself in the world as it is hidden by other violent forces, it is ever present and ready to be cultivated if only people take enough time and interest to do so.

Zainab Cassim Akdemirci has a degree in English and language teaching from Open University of Sri Lanka.

References

• Gulen, M. Fethullah. 2004. Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance, NJ: Tughra Books.
• “Matter and Beyond,” Ebru TV. Interview with Dr. Stephen Post.
• Thich Nhat Hahn. 1991. Old Path White Clouds: Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha, CA: Parallax Press.

But if you look at nature more carefully, you will find that it does not always seem that way. You may see animals that are strikingly unselfish, most of the time for their own species, such as giving a warning of approaching predators, sharing food, licking others to remove parasites, adopting orphans. And occasionally they are unselfish to other species as well. They fight without killing or even injuring their enemies. Such behavior poses a problem for the Darwinian view of nature; this behavior is known as altruism. But is there really a problem?

Yes, there is!

One of Darwin’s greatest challenges was explaining how altruism could have evolved. For example, consider how a single bird within a flock might act as an emergency alarm, giving a warning call when a predator approaches. By receiving advance warning, the other birds in the flock have a better chance of escaping from the predator. But this comes at a price to the bird that guards the flock. A warning call attracts a lot of attention, making the guard an easier target for the predator.

How could a character for such altruism be passed on from generation to generation if it is the altruists who are more easily eliminated, and should there not be some kind of reward or motivation for this self-sacrifice? At first glance, it seems that if altruistic birds are more likely to be preyed upon, then fewer altruists would survive to reproduce. Eventually, altruism should die out. In fact, it should have died out before we discovered it.

Altruistic behavior

How can we explain this behavior? It is not possible to do so from an organism-centered view. So, let’s imagine a gene that causes the organism containing that gene to behave in such a way that copies of it are made in other organisms. In other words, a bird is only helping the other birds if they have the same type of gene. A gene that makes its owner behave in this particular way, all other things being equal, is likely to survive. But then the natural question is that altruism is only directed to those with the altruistic gene. If the birds without the altruistic gene benefit from the help as much as those with it then how does the survival of the fittest theory favor this gene? It is not easy for a gene to recognize other such genes in other individuals. There must be another solution.

Sharing the same gene

One way of increasing the likelihood for altruism to reach its true target is to keep it within the “family.” If there is a gene for behaving altruistically, then the members of the family are more likely to inherit the same gene than a random member of the population. The closer the family member, the greater the possibility of sharing the gene.

If, for example, an individual had the choice of saving his own life or the lives of two sisters or eight cousins then the survival of the fittest theory should be indifferent about the choice as they will save the same number of genes. But on the other hand if I could save three sisters instead or nine of my cousins then the theory would favor the self-sacrificial act, “saving my kin rather than saving my skin!” Hmm, what do we know, maybe indeed there is a way to be both Darwinist and altruist.

The idea of the “fittest” in Darwin’s theory is the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce and therefore to pass on some of their genes. If a mother gives up her life for her offspring, the mother ceases to exist. But, from another point of view, the mother continues to live on in her child genetically. Although the mother as an individual has not benefited from her altruism, half of her genetic code survives.

This new definition of fitness shifts the focus from individual fitness to family fitness, which takes into account the survival of an individual’s relatives. Evolution is no longer seen simply to be a process of individual selection, but also one of family selection.

Although this selection based on family seems to be a good explanation for our puzzle, at least in theory, there are many immediate questions that spring to mind. Assisting one’s kin often goes in one direction, although one would expect it to be a two-way process as there is symmetry between the genes. And how practical is the process of selecting one’s relatives? How would you differentiate the members of the same flock as to whether they are family or not, the ones that are getting the help secretly “connected”!?

Mathematics and game theory

At this point at least we have arrived at the conclusion that it is quite difficult to explain altruistic behavior in all circumstances. Maybe there is a solution to be found in mathematics, which has solved so many abstract problems.

It would be useful to take a different point of view for the entire matter. Maybe what looks like altruism is indeed to the advantage of the altruist. Two parties could be exchanging altruistic favors and in the end they both are better off. Another question that comes to mind is “Even when everybody knows that cooperation is good for all, why shouldn’t one cheat as this is more beneficial from a selfish point of view?” If everyone were to cooperate, everyone would be better off; but the best for an individual is to pursue their own self-interest, in which case therefore everybody ends up worse off.

A similar change of understanding also happened in economic theory in the 1950’s when the game theory was first introduced into economics. Initially, this theory was intended to deal with the problem of providing a theory for economic and strategic behavior where people interact directly, rather than through the market. Here, games are only used as a metaphor for more serious interactions in a general ecosystem. But the game theory addresses the serious interactions using the metaphor of a game: in these serious interactions, as in games, the individual’s choice is essentially a choice of a strategy, and the outcome of the interaction depends on the strategies chosen by each of the participants. On this interpretation, a study of games may indeed tell us something about serious interactions.

In neoclassical economic theory, to choose rationally is to maximize the rewards for the individual. From one point of view, this is a problem in mathematics: choose the activity that maximizes rewards in any given circumstances. Thus, we may think of rational economic choices as the solution to a mathematical problem. But in the game theory, the case is more complex, since the outcome depends not only on one’s own strategies but also directly on the strategies that have been chosen by other individuals; we can still think of the rational choice of strategies as a mathematical problem – and maximize the rewards of a group of interacting decision makers (Nash equilibrium).

Now that we have realized that we have to move in a somewhat similar direction to the economists, maybe we should consult the experts of the game theory at this point. In the 1980’s Axelrod and Hamilton worked on a famous problem in the game theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, exactly because it deals with this problem. The rational pursuit of individual self-interest drives everybody into an outcome that is not favored by anybody. Imagine two partners in a crime being interrogated at the same time. Each one has two options, cooperate with the other and keep quiet or betray the other and confess. Case C, we can say, is if both cooperate then the police cannot get much out of them and they will both get a light sentence (2 years); if one defects and the other keeps quiet then the traitor will get an even lighter sentence (1 year) – this is case B. If the one who cooperates gets the longest sentence (10 years), this is the worst end of the deal and we can call this case S. In a case when both betray one another they will both get a sentence (6 years) longer than if they had cooperated but lighter than if one had kept quiet and the other spoke, and this is case D.

Out of the four outcomes, B is the best and S is the worst from an individualistic point of view, while the order of preference is B, C, S, D. We should realize that this is a non-zero sum game. In a zero-sum game, my loss is your gain; for example, if we are trying to divide a certain amount of money in the bank into two, anything over fifty percent for me is a loss for you. On the other hand, in a non-zero sum game I can actually win without you losing. Each suspect has to make their decision without knowing what the other has done. What would a rational suspect do?

The answer is simple; he would betray his partner in crime! Regardless of what the other suspect does, betrayal always pays better than cooperating. Here is the simple reasoning one would follow. Suppose my partner in crime cooperates. I could do quite well by also cooperating, I would get 2 years, (C). But it is even better to betray him, since I would then get 1 year instead of 2, (B). What if he betrays me? If I keep quiet then the worst is going to happen and I will get 10 years, (S), therefore I should defect and get 6 years, (D). In summary, all we are saying is that the second row in the chart is always more favorable than the first row, hence no matter what, a rational prisoner would always betray his partner!

“And here comes the dilemma: it pays each of them to defect, whatever the other one does, yet if both defect, each does less well than if both had cooperated. What is best for each individual leads to a mutual defection, while everybody would be better off with mutual cooperation.”

Fortunately, the dilemma has a solution in our case. So far, we have only played the game once. What happens if the parties play the game repeatedly and for an indefinite number of times? After every single time they play they know that they are likely to meet again later. Under such conditions there is actually a cooperative strategy for the players that could be successful; this is a somewhat twisted version of the cooperation defined earlier in the prisoner’s dilemma case. First of all, we immediately realize that always defecting is clearly not the smartest strategy, knowing that you will meet the other individual again in the future. Instead, consider this natural strategy, called Tit for Tat, which is never to be the first to defect, always imitate the other from his previous move and retaliate only when you have been betrayed. It turns out that this highly cooperative strategy can survive, even though initially it withstands the challenges of readily defecting strategies. And it can be stable against diminishing altogether.

In order for this Tit for Tat strategy to have a chance to work, a critical proportion of the individuals have to cooperate. Otherwise the readily defective strategies would simply destroy the cooperative ones and dominate the whole system. But once the number of individuals who adopt a Tit for Tat strategy exceeds a critical ratio in the population then it survives and reaches a stable ratio able to withstand any other strategy.

Axelrod’s theory is nice and easy to understand, but once again it prompts all sorts of other issues. How frequently the population is able to reach that critical level in the first place? On the other hand, what kind of a memory do individuals need in order to be able to execute a Tit for Tat strategy?

What do we make of it?

We could keep working on expanding these explanations and models, or at least the biologists should. But in any case, in order for any of these models to apply in what we see in nature we have to be demanding of the individuals who form the population. Every single time we come up with a new approach or an extended model it is difficult to explain many of the characteristics of altruistic behavior, even in idealized cases. Either there must be altruistic genes that can recognize the other altruistic genes carried in other individuals, or we all individuals have a well-developed memory that actually remembers all the moves that have been made by other individuals in the population, or one starts from an idealistic state in order to maintain the stability of the system without knowing how we are able to get there in the first place.

It seems that the smarter we get, the better our theories are developed, and the more flawless our models become, the more we realize that all the individuals in the great ecosystem of nature that show some kind of altruistic behavior must have a great deal of knowledge and power over the rest, they must have eyes that see many things about the whole picture and they must have an authority that has a great impact on others, on and on and on.