This is not the first time that the world is witnessing a pandemic; previous incidents were regional in scope and did not affect the affluent segment of society. However, COVID-19 is first of its kind in modern times whose impact was felt wide across many nations precisely because of the fact that its carrier happens to be the modern upwardly mobile segment of the globalized world. Apart from this class dimension, COVID-19 has also ignited the old debate of religion vs science as its faster spread has been traced to congregation of religious faith groups across many communities amidst a worldwide call for social distancing in order to contain the spread of the virus.

Thus, the congregation of South Korea’s Shincheonji Church of Jesus in Wuhan has been widely held responsible for half of South Korea’s COVID-19 contractions and in other parts of other South East countries. A major source of COVID-19 in India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and further in parts of West Asia was traced to the congregation of an Indian transnational Islamist movement known as Tablighi Jamaat. The Shia religious congregation in Qom, the major center of Shia Islamic knowledge production, was identified as the major source for the spread of COVID-19 in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Bahrain. A good number of Hindu devotees defied Indian lockdown and gathered in various temples on the occasion of the Hindu festival RamNavemi. A few Sikh devotees were arrested for illegal gathering at Gurudawara, a place of worship for the Sikh community. There are several reports from the USA that many denominational Churches and orthodox Jewish religious groups continue to hold congregation for religious practices and have been found to be instrumental in the spread of COVID-19 within the country. Worst of all, in view of the conservative nature of American society, many states in USA have officially exempted places of worship from ban on gathering and stay-at-home order [1].

Given the global demonization of Islam, Islamic movements, and the widespread prevalence of Islamophobia, Islamic congregations received wide attention from the public for its blind faith and conservative, messianic, and eschatological approach towards life and religion. However, a careful observation reveals that similar approach to religion, life, and normal congregational practices during the COVID-19 pandemic has been found among segments of many religions and their communities including Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, and many others as mentioned above. While religious gatherings have been blamed for the spread of this virus, “secular gatherings” have also been potential carriers. For instance, one can trace the roots of this virus’ spread across Europe to an Austrian Ski resort, a famous tourist destination in the village of Ischgl in Tyrol, despite warnings beforehand from public health officials as early as March 5.

It is in the above context, particularly the raging issue of religion vs science or religious vs secular, that I am trying to figure out a “Hizmet” approach towards dealing with this global pandemic. How does Hizmet, a civic-social Islamic movement with a good presence in many parts of the world, approach the problem of COVID-19, a highly contagious virus that has brought the world to standstill and is threatening millions of lives? One way of approaching this subject matter is to find out the official statement of Fethullah Gülen, whose pacific exposition of Islam’s universal values (based upon the examples of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his Companions) through speeches, writings, and concerted actions has inspired this movement and continue to provide spiritual, moral, and ethical leadership to the movement while it is facing the existential dilemma in the backdrop of the brutal crackdown of the Erdogan regime in Turkey, its birthplace. However, listening to the sermon of Gülen is one thing; developing a Hizmet approach to COVID-19 is another. The latter needs to be excavated from the life trajectory of Gülen, and everyday Hizmet praxis as they have been unfolding while dealing with different contingencies of life situations from time to time.

It seems to me that Hizmet’s approaches towards the phenomenon of COVID-19 is shaped through two broad principles: (A) relationship between religion and science in general and (B) revival of ethical dimension of Islam as exemplified by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Hizmet sees the relationship between the religion and science as one of complementarity or one of organic whole, as opposed to modern discourse which presumes a perennial inherent conflict between the two, mostly shaped through Church-State struggle and development of positivism in the European Continent which eventually led to the secular’s high distrust towards religion and regulation, control, marginalization and finally banishment of religion to the other world. The more religion, science, and secular became modern, ideological, and identity discourse, the more they became bereft of their inner ethical dimension, lost their internal connectivity to each other, and finally found themselves in an antagonistic relationship, often resulting into violent responses. For Hizmet, religion and science are two mega methods and approaches to address the various aspects of the ever-changing complexities of life processes with a view to create a harmony between their physical-material, metaphysical, and spiritual aspects.

It is this ethic driven human discourse upon which Gülen constructed a philosophy of life based upon the unity of religion and science, heart and mind, universal and particular, and reason and faith which on the one hand prevents the “process of othering” – whether emanating from an exclusive understanding of religion or secular – and on the other helps in dispelling the fear of relatively conservative religio-socio segments of humanity towards scientific-technological solution to human problem such as COVID-19. We learn from history how religious bigotry and fear of treatment of medical science resulted in many deaths during the period of epidemics in the past. The resistance of Ulama (clergy) to state’s prescribed medical measures including quarantine during plague epidemic (1835) and Cholera epidemic (1848) in the Ottoman Empire, particularly in Egypt, has been well documented [2]. Today, a similar situation has come to exist in India wherein a vast segment of the Indian Muslim population is currently exhibiting a strong resistance and non-cooperative attitude towards undergoing any kind of medical testing. It must be recalled here that the quarantine system, or what is referred as “social distancing,” was first invented by the sixth Umayyad caliph Al-Walid in early eighth-century AD, in Damascus, to combat the spread of the virus.

A second aspect of Hizmet’s approach towards COVID-19 comes from its ethical understanding of Islam and its universal principles and values which arise from a human-centered Islamic theology and take form in Gülen’s vast sermons and published works as well as everyday praxis of Hizmet movement. Thus, like any Islamic movement, or for that matter like any believer, absolute belief in hereafter (life after death) is the cardinal principle of the Hizmet movement. However, unlike many other religious groups the Hizmet movement does not disassociate the “earthly life” from the Hereafter. In other words, whereas many religious movements, whether with a political or social focus, tended to pay a very less premium on building human resources with an idea that real life begins in Hereafter, the Hizmet movement, under the spiritual leadership of Gülen, invested heavily in human resources and in developing human capabilities through the combination of Islamic universal ethics, morality, and scientific knowledge. This system has an understanding that the most important call of Islam, as exemplified in the model of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the preservation and balanced growth of lives on Earth which demands ceaseless positive actions that will be accounted for in the Hereafter. All other principles and rituals of Islamic practices must be subjected to this fundamental principle of Islamic universalism.

It is this cardinal principle which led the Hizmet movement to develop a “praxis of service, trust, and cooperation” with an eventual goal of shaping human potential towards becoming an insan-i kamil (the perfected human). Guided by the Islamic principle of preservation of life in view of challenges posed by COVID-19, Gülen promptly issued a formal statement on March 13, 2020 offering his profound condolences to all those who lost their loved ones, asked people (and he was surely not alone in doing so) to trust public health officials and to take precautions based upon medical and scientific data, to show empathy with victims, and offer help to the needy in dealing with COVID-19. When I inquired from one senior volunteer of Hizmet in India about Hizmet’s position on COVID-19 he immediately responded without any pause that “protection of life is the most important duty of Muslims in accordance with Islamic faith” and then further stated, “whom to preach to if there will be no human beings?” Unfortunately, many Islamic movement leaders and government officials in Muslim communities fumbled and did not prevent Muslim gatherings either on Friday or on other social occasions partly due to ideological understanding of iman (faith) and Hereafter with a consequence that they became the major source of COVID-19 in their respective countries.

In view of mandatory daily prayers in Islam including Friday congregation a question has emerged whether a mosque, as well as Islamic congregation on Friday, is an essential part of Islamic faith, and whether or not it is permissible to abandon or forbid these prayers. I do not have training in Islamic theology and hence I lack requisite competence to reflect on such questions. However, what is minimally clear to me in light of my understanding of Islamic history in general, and discourse of the Hizmet movement in particular, is that Islam enjoins the preservation of creation and a healthy life on this Earth which is evident from the expression of mankind as “inheritors of the Earth” in the words of Gülen. All other principles, rituals, practices and value systems connected with interpretive field of Islam must be subjected to the central maxim of Islamic faith: the duty to preserve life on Earth as God’s vicegerent/trustee.

The life trajectory of Gülen and Hizmet movement, which spans over more than 50 years, demonstrates this divine mandate: building all round human capital to manage the affairs and challenges of earthly life through rigorous ethical, moral, and spiritual training, creation of quality educational institutions and construction of cultural-dialogue centers all over the world with a view to develop a mutual understanding of each other to address the common challenges of humanity. For this reason, the Gülen (Hizmet) movement avoided giving an Islamic nomenclature to their education and dialogue institutions so as to meet the principle of Islamic universalism. Education and dialogue initiatives are for all and bring them together in the common goal of serving humanity. One is therefore not surprised when one does not find a mosque-like structure where Gülen lives in Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, the government in Muslim countries and various Islamic movements have prided in constructing mosques and Islamic madrassas in modern times and have transformed them as the most important institutions of Islamic identity at the cost of moral, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of Islamic faith. The Erdoğan regime in Turkey is spearheading the construction of mosques and madrassas within and outside Turkey with a view to wear the mantle of Caliph in coming years. As Islam has been transformed into a matter of “market identity,” one is not shocked to see how many Muslims in many countries in violation of appeal of their governments, World Health Organization guidelines, and in violation of Islamic ethics of life preservation gathered together to perform the Friday prayer! The Pakistani government had to obtain a fatwa from Al Azhar, the famous Sunni Islamic seminary, to enforce its ban on Friday congregations!

COVID-19 is a grim reminder to the globalized humanity of the spiritual call of Gülen and principles of Hizmet movement: (a) that the world is truly inter-connected and inter-dependent; (b) that the transparency in dealings, dialogue, mutual trust and cooperation and collaborative research is needed to overcome the common challenges of humanity such as COVID-19; (C) that humanity is in dire need of philosophy that restores the dialogue between mankind and nature (ecology and environment) and develops a harmonious relationship between the two and connects different cultures, traditions and economies based on the universal value of dialogue, tolerance, trust and respect; (d) that modernity must realize its limitations of establishing supremacy over nature; and (E) that mankind must undergo ethical, moral and spiritual training to overcome his/her greed and ego, to develop self-restraint and build the moral capacity to live together and cooperate.

Last, if not least, Hizmet has developed a “culture of self-disciplining” and “solution providing perspective,” which has proved to be its biggest asset in successfully confronting many challenges thrown before it from time to time, of which the most recent one is brutal crackdown of the Erdoğan regime since 2013. These two aspects of Hizmet movement is badly needed to fight the challenges of COVID-19 till the time a medical breakthrough in terms of vaccination/medicine develops.

Notes

1. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2020/03/27/482359/religious-exemptions-coronavirus-pandemic-will-worsen-crisis/
2. Birsen Bulmus, Plague, Quarantines and Geopolitics in the Ottoman Empire, Edinburgh University Press, 2012, especially Chapter 2, pp 15-38. See also Khaled Fahmy, ‘Law, medicine and society in nineteenth-century Egypt’, Égypte/Monde arabe, vol. 34, 1998, PP, 14-15 available at: https://journals.openedition.org/ema/1488, accessed on April 18, 2029.

We begin with a piece about spiritual revival and what it means for a person to devote their life “so others may live.” Compassion serves as the foundation for this cause from which a love of humanity can spring forth from. The heart becomes hard in the absence of compassion and is often much less concerned with the sufferings of others.

Tushar Gandhi, Mohandas Gandhi’s great-grandson, honors his great-grandfather on his 150th birth anniversary in a thoughtful piece about his leadership style and continued emphasis on nonviolence. Mohandas Gandhi always encouraged compassion, tolerance, and love among his followers and their approach towards the oppressive British Raj. It could be argued that Gandhi’s approach could have been significantly different had he centered his movement around violence, anger, and ignorance instead of the Satyagraha movement of nonviolence and compassion.

Research by the late Japanese scientist Dr. Masaru Emoto has shown that positive or negative speech, emotions, thoughts, and energy can change the very molecular structure of Earth’s most important liquid: water. It was shown that compassionate speech caused water to form beautiful crystal, whereas hateful speech formed black, broken, and chaotic messes. The implications of this research are phenomenal considering water is the very essence of all life on our planet.

A call to action from Maisie Bennett draws attention to the fires that are still raging in the Amazon Rainforest, destroying the very lungs of our Earth that are integral for sustaining our shared ecosystem. Apathy and greed have taken hold and have seduced people into destroying our planet’s pristine natural beauty in order to claim more land for our own. We, as an international community, must bring forth our compassion and address this critical environmental crisis once and for all.

April Estes, a heroic mother and cancer survivor, shares her story in her piece “Praise the Lord, I’m Bald.” What she has been through is a reminder that challenges that come with cancer are not only about fighting it; “the real battle” is “learning to live again.” Raising awareness in this respect is important, for healing from cancer is not only a biological cure, but one that also needs psychological, social, and economic support in its aftermath.

New developments in scientific thought and hypotheses testing are changing the ways we think about truth and certainty.

Not only do scientific decisions rely heavily on tools and procedures of quantitative analysis, but also on social life and daily decisions. I want to start with a story from the judiciary system about the misuse of an important quantitative tool of the scientific community, Hypothesis Testing. It’s about the overturned Amanda Knox case in Italy. In 2007, she was accused of killing her roommate and sent to jail. The odds of DNA matching in the case of accidental death were reported as incredibly rare by a forensic data analyst, who examined data with regard to incidents of crime, concluding that the accident is not statistically an accident. The judges then made their decision based on this rareness, a single value, named p-value. Later, this was overturned (New York Times, March 27, 2013), because of a misinterpretation by the judges and lawyers, of the rare probability. What factors forced the judiciary system to make this decision based on a single value alone? Honestly, this is the story of the century and a story of Hypothesis Testing. This article introduces the logic behind their decision, draws attention to the misuse of data, and mentions alternative logics to this traditional approach on the matter (in March 2013, Italy’s Supreme Court ordered a retrial and found the two suspects guilty on January 30, 2014).

What is Hypothesis Testing?

We live in a data-driven world. Statistical inference is the process of drawing conclusions or decisions from data. The Hypothesis Testing procedure in the Neyman-Pearson paradigm is one of the procedures of this process, widely used in the scientific community for over a century. In this mindset, two complementary hypotheses are first defined: one is the conventional thesis (the null hypothesis) accepted to be true by default; the other is the alternative thesis (the alternative hypothesis) that needs evidence from data to falsify the null hypothesis. It results in a single value, called p-value, which is calculated from the data using theoretical model assumptions. A p-value is a measure – in probability sense, ranging from 0% to 100% – of how much evidence you have against the null hypothesis. The smaller the p-value, the more evidence you have against the null hypothesis. One may combine the p-value with the significance level to make decisions on a given hypothesis. This is also called significance testing. It has an accept-reject mindset (dichotomous decision or binary logic); in such a case, if the p-value is less than some threshold (usually .05) then the null hypothesis is rejected. Basically, it is a black or white decision, without considering the contrasts between them. This interpretation has been widely accepted in the twentieth century of scientific research, and many scientific journals routinely publish papers using this interpretation for the results of hypothesis tests, even though there are current tendencies not to use this. Let’s take a look at the history of this black-white logic.

History

The history of the process of hypothesis testing starts with Fisher (1890-1962), around the early twentieth century. Later, the contributions of Pearson (1857-1936) and Neyman (1894-1981), who were early fathers of statistics, about the interpretation of the hypothesis tests were integrated into present-day applications. Fisher’s approach focuses on inductive inference about a single hypothesis, whereas the Neyman-Pearson approach informs future behavior based on a test using two complementary hypotheses (Newman 2007).

These approaches are strongly influenced by Popper’s logic of falsification. Falsification can be defined as the act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory. This logic asserts that sufficiently improbable events can be considered impossible. A p-value suggests whether a null hypothesis is sufficiently improbable to be considered practically falsified in the sense of a logical refutation (Newman 2007). When we come back to the Amanda Knox case, the decision the judges made and justified is followed from this falsification logic in hypothesis testing. Another criticism with this mindset is: how fair it is to rely on a single value that yields a rare result? Are we going to generalize one lucky drawing of raffle tickets to believe all tickets are winners?

Logics and proofs

We use logical flaws and biases in our daily life. Finding the logical flaw in scientific papers is something most readers aren’t interested in. Instead, the results are believed as a fact. One of the widely used flaws/biases is in seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs or a hypothesis in hand (Mercie and Sperber, 2011). We tend to prove or show the accessibility or superiority of arguments by bringing evidence. Failure to prove that a treatment – say, a low fat diet – is effective is not the same as proving it is ineffective.

Let me give another example to clarify this: The New York Times editorial news reported on February 9, 2006, “Millions of Americans have tried to reduce the fat in their diets, and the food industry has obligingly served up low-fat products. Yet now comes strong evidence that the war against all fats was mostly in vain.” Actually, in the hypothesis testing mindset, the evidence collected from research should either reject the null hypothesis which is “diet is ineffective,” or fail to reject it. The mindset in testing is not about finding evidence to support the null statement. It is also not about proving the alternative hypothesis, “diet is effective.” Rather, it is basically looking for evidences to falsify the null statement. In the report, the “evidence” the reporter meant should be against the null hypothesis, not against the alternative hypothesis. Data is collected to falsify the null hypothesis, not to prove its truthiness, because the null is already accepted to be true unless convincing evidence is collected against it.

Let me give another example of this paradigm. As Newfoundland (2013) described, a person is innocent until proven guilty by bringing convincing evidence. The jury can’t say “he is innocent,” instead, the jury uses evidence that produces reasonable doubt to reject his innocence.

Developments in inferential paradigms

The accept-reject paradigm in inference represents a conventional wisdom. There are other, or currently developing, paradigms in inference, too. One of the dominating paradigms is the Bayesian-likelihood approach. After enjoying much wider acceptance in social and natural sciences, the Bayesian method suggests different views of hypothesis testing. The Bayesian approach is a method of data analysis in which subjectivity, conditionality, or past information is used to update the hypothesis as additional evidence is acquired. This approach in hypothesis testing offers a dynamic structure in probability calculation so hypotheses, and decisions, are not seen as a static truth; instead, they are updated with current data and the decision is stated in the sense of likelihood.

In our court room example, the Bayesian inference is applied to all evidence presented, with the past information being combined with the current evidence. The benefit of a Bayesian approach is that it gives all historical information so the decision is unbiased all along as the past data (prior knowledge) is used correctly. This paradigm changes the way statistics are calculated and how the result and inference are interpreted. Currently it is widely appreciated in quantitative data analysis, especially after convenient software exists for its implementation. However, the criticism to this approach, made by many, is found in its subjectivity. Objectivity and handling prior knowledge is a concern here so that different people, having different opinions, may arrive at different results.

Another developing paradigm: Fuzzy Logic

Fuzzy logic is another method in quantitative decision making. In contrast to binary logic (yes-no, or accept-reject), fuzzy logic can be thought of as gray logic, which allows a way to express in-between data values. It emerged in the development of the theory of fuzzy sets, by Lotfi Zadeh (1965). Fuzzy logic is mostly seen as a branch of artificial intelligence that deals with reasoning algorithms used to emulate human thinking and decision making. It handles the concept of partial truth using linguistic variables, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. The concept of partial truth would be subjective and would depend on the observer. For example, for the temperature of the weather, we want to determine when to say cold, warm, and hot. The meaning of each of these concepts can be represented by a certain membership (called a fuzzy set). The concept of each would be subjective. One might consider cold for all values up to 40 0F. In Figure 1, the meanings of the expressions cold, warm, and hot are represented by functions mapping a temperature scale to “truth values” ranging from 0 to 1. A point on that scale has three truth degrees, one for each of the three functions (expressions). The vertical line in the figure represents a particular temperature that the truth values (see three arrows) are measured. Since the red arrow points to zero, this temperature may be interpreted as “not hot.” The orange arrow (pointing at 0.2) may describe it as “slightly warm,” and the blue arrow (pointing at 0.8) “fairly cold” (Fuzzy Logic, 2013, para. 6). A rule could then be adopted, like for example, if “slightly warm” then stop the fan.

Picture was obtained from

Fuzzy logic uses truth degrees as a mathematical model of the vagueness phenomenon, and it summarizes data analysis in facts with truth degrees, and leaves the decision to the observer. Its advantage is its ability to deal with vague situations with respect to linguistic variables. While the significance testing for a hypothesis declares one accept or reject, fuzzy logic allows for degrees of acceptance or rejection. However, in fuzzy logic, the notion of truth doesn’t fall by the wayside, but it is expressed in degrees and offers possibilities for different situations. Regarding inference, fuzzy logic uses the mindset ‘everything is a matter of degree and open to interpretation,’ and this mindset is also adopted to machine learning, which is considered a more suitable mindset with human reasoning instead of binary logic. The constraints in fuzzy logic are found in its tools and interpretations when complex inputs are considered.

The developments of paradigms in statistical inference have similar fates as in the developments of mathematics, geometry, and physics. According to the Euclidean parallel postulate, in space, there exist no two parallel lines that intersect each other. However, after Non-Euclidean geometry was developed in the nineteenth century, a wider geometrical and mathematical reasoning stemmed from it; accordingly, the geometry of the physical universe and particles came to be understood better. The development of Riemannian geometry, offering that distance properties might vary, resulted in the synthesis of diverse results concerning the geometry of higher dimensional surfaces and the behavior of geodesics on them. It also made Einstein’s theory of general relativity justifiable. Likewise, as time passes, we witness wider paradigms or logics that abandon or correct former approaches in scientific decision making tools. This is a good reason why teachers and professors should update their current teachings as to be consistent with convincing trends, as well as to train students to be ready for wider paradigms in the future.

Conclusion

In today’s scientific community, the way decisions are made and fallacies proved, are changing as new paradigms emerge. In order to make better decisions or to validate claims, many aspects and methodologies should be considered. One way to avoid mistakes as much as we can would be to expect fallacy points to exist in human mental processing during decision making, and improving and seeking better alternatives with well-established wisdoms.

(Thanks Ugur Sahin for reviewing the preliminary copy of this article.)

References

• Fuzzy Logic. In Wikipedia. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
• Kass, Robert E. 2011. Statistical Inference: The Big Picture 1. Statistical Science, 2011, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1-9, DOI: 10.1214/10-STS337, Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
• Mercier, Hugo, Dan Sperber. 2011. “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 34, 57-111.
• Newfoundland, Jason. 2013. “The Cell Phone-Brain Cancer Controversy.” The Fountain Magazine, Jan-Feb, Issue 91.
• Newman, Michael C. 2008. “‘What exactly are you inferring?’ A closer look at hypothesis testing.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 1013-1019, 2008.

Cultural differences have a potential to trigger conflicts at all levels, and the response each society gives to these conflicts depend on what they hold most dear as a foundational norm: independent existence of individuals or social interdependence. This calls for awareness in differences and discussion to benefit from cultural diversity.

Michael was having a problem with his neighbor next door. He decided to seek advice from his coworkers on the issue. Paul suggested that he express the problem openly right away, and, if that wouldn’t help, to take the neighbor to the court. Akihiro, on the other hand, warned him not to get too serious, and recommended him to write a letter which talks about their good memories in the past and how pleasant their neighborhood was. The backup plan in this case would be to invite a mutually respected neighbor of theirs to mediate the situation.

Of course, Michael has many other options to address the given problem. Yet, it is interesting to note the differences between the suggestions of the two coworkers. One party is focused on the issue per se and pursues a direct approach; whereas the other is concerned about the relationship and follows indirect/accommodating means to handle the situation. This article is intended to provide a better understanding of these two main approaches in conflicting situations. Since the responses to unease are generally situational, we may not judge whether any of the resolution efforts are good or bad, but rather, look closely on their rationale respectively.

Cultures differ on various aspects of life. Naturally, the approach of their members to conflict will also vary depending on the value they place on issues of interest and dominant cultural characteristics. A close examination of these features in a given society will give an idea on how its members would respond to conflicting situations in general. Given the growing interconnectedness of societies today, such knowledge of cultural tendencies might help in the development of strategies for conflict resolution and prevention.

Societies that promote independent existence of individuals are referred to as individualistic, and those which assume a great deal of social interdependence are grouped as collectivistic cultures.¹ Prior to discussing responses to conflict in these two types of cultures, it may be better to highlight some examples of their interpretations which will provide hints about their foundational norms.

He who hesitates is lost. (American expression)

Strike while the iron is hot. (American expression)

More haste, less speed. (Chinese expression)

A deliberate inaction is better than a blind action. (Chinese expression)

Different cultures may have different viewpoints about the same issue. This affects the responses of their members and the methods they favor in various situations. Existing theories in social sciences, which generally reflect social values of individualism and autonomy, may be inadequate in societies that do not share the same values and foundational norms, and vice versa. Such a cross-cultural analysis requires an understanding of the prevalent cultural values and norms in a given society.¹ These shared values, through which cultures develop and continue, are communicated in a variety of ways. One technique that commonly appears is the use of proverbs or sayings, and such quotes throughout the commentary will provide a general idea about some differing characteristics of these two cultural approaches.

Rather than criticizing or promoting any specific cultural aspect, this piece aims to discuss another dimension of multicultural approach to serve to break the stereotyped images (if any) about different cultures, and to help accept everybody as they are in a world of cultural diversity. Once we have a broad picture, we will further look into how interpersonal conflict is handled, and conclude with some overarching suggestions to foster mutual understanding in cases of unease.

Two’s company, but three’s a crowd. (American expression)

If you congregate, you live. If you scatter, you die. (Korean proverb)

One who leaves the herd, gets snatched by the wolf. (Turkish proverb)

One palm makes no applause. (Chinese proverb)

Two widely held worldviews have become evident in the cross-cultural literature as variables on which most cultures vary: individualism which objectifies the self, and collectivism which submerges the self to emphasize the group. A middle course in the de bate between those who claim the primacy of society and those who emphasize the primal significance of the individual would state that there is no society without an individual; and also that no individual can survive without society.² These concepts do not necessarily form opposite poles and may coexist due to the enormous intercultural mix, yet one approach may still have dominance to the other in a given culture.³

“The freedom to be an individual is the essence of America.” (Marilyn vos Savant)

“It is hard to be an individual in Japan.” (Haruki Murakami)

In individualistic societies, a person is an autonomous entity defined by a somewhat distinctive set of attributes, qualities, or processes; and these internal attributes determine the behavior. Yet, in collectivistic societies, a person is an interdependent entity who is part of the encompassing social relationships. This is not to say that a person in such a society lacks unique attributes, but rather that these are not primary forces that guide the behavior. In such societies, behavior is a consequence of being responsive to others and origins of behaviors are relationships and social harmony.³

He who converses not knows nothing. (English proverb)

He, who knows, does not speak. He, who speaks, does not know. (Lao Tzu)

In Western cultures, a highly verbal individual is perceived more positively, whereas in Eastern cultures perceptions for highly verbal individuals may not be that positive. Traditionally, communication apprehension has been attributed to a weak sense of identity and is viewed as a deficiency; but on the contrary, this reticence may be due to politeness or a tendency to preserve harmony in collectivistic cultures, depending on the social context.

Stand up for your own rights. (American expression)

Unless you blow your own horn, who will? (American expression)

Once you preach, the point is gone. (Zen phrase)

Mature rice plants bow down lower. (Korean expression)

According to individualistic point of view, communicators can get things done by being assertive. On the other hand, from the collectivistic standpoint, people are expected to preserve group identity and may be discouraged from asserting themselves as individuals. Therefore, it will not be a true assumption to attribute this lack of assertiveness to some negative traits such as low self-esteem, shyness, disinterest, or ignorance.³

Cultural dimensions of conflict resolution

“The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions.” (Nhat Hanh)

Keeping all the above examples in mind, now let’s briefly compare and contrast responses to conflict in individualistic and collectivistic societies:

Since individuals’ self-articulated interests are of utmost importance, individualistic perspective frames conflict as the divergence of interests or issues, which limits the focus of solution efforts solely to reconciling the differences in interests between parties. Yet in collectivistic cultures, social harmony is a critical aspiration and community involvement is likely even in interpersonal matters. Then, a deeper and wider analysis that will address the concerns of both types of approaches should better view conflict as a situation and place the situation to the heart of any resolution endeavor.¹

“He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense.” (Joseph Conrad)

The one who raises his/her voice has already lost. (Japanese proverb)

Members of individualistic cultures tend to prefer direct/dominating/prompt communication styles, since they deem open discussion as the best way to deal with their interpersonal problems. On the other hand, individuals in interdependent societies are less likely to “express negative emotions (such as anger) to confront each other, and to use verbal aggressiveness and open discussion in conflict situations. They may avoid reactions to their relational problems that can potentially cause further conflict”. Among them, the stress is not so much upon the individual and his/her interests, but on the maintenance of the collectivity and the continuation of harmonious relationships; conflict is viewed as damaging to social fabric and relational harmony, so it should be avoided as much as possible. This naturally leads to the adoption of high compromising and avoiding behaviors and a relatively low preference for competing and assertive postures which emphasize the value they place on maintaining social harmony rather than personal interests in conflict interactions.³

“Peace is not absence of conflict; it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.” (Ronald Reagan)

There is a natural tendency to avoid conflicts as much as possible. While it is a major strategy to preserve harmonious relationships in Eastern cultures, Western societies may view accommodation efforts as giving up critical values and personal rights. Furthermore, according to the Western approach, people will prefer to avoid conflict only if their stake in an issue is not high enough to get involved, whereas collectivist cultures actually utilize it as a social remedy.³

In collectivistic societies, “understanding is seen not as the result of putting meaning into words, but rather as the greater understanding of shared perspective, expectations, and intimacy”, and avoidance is utilized as a strategy to handle the conflict. Besides expressing the discomfort indirectly/nonverbally in a polite and educating way, non-confrontational communication modes in problematic situations include, but are not limited to: “(a) the use of management to prevent a conflict before it happens, (b) expression of conflict emotions like anger or frustration by non-communication, such as ignorance or silence, (c) pretense of being harmonious in peoples’ presence, even though parties are actually avoiding each other, (d) management of conflict using a third party, (e) tendency of directing accusations against oneself.”³

Cultural differences in third party intervention

“The Believers are but brothers; so make peace and reconciliation between your brothers… ”⁴

How, when, and why a third party interferes has been the central focus of conflict resolution studies. Models on interpersonal conflict that assume a great deal of individual autonomy and privacy in interpersonal matters hardly speak about engaging one’s social network into a conflict, however interpersonal conflict intervention in a collectivistic setting will not take place only between contending individuals and the intervener, but is likely to engage other entities (e.g. extended family members) almost in any given conflict. This involvement of others, with the purpose of securing, improving or sustaining a resolution, can be added strength for conflict intervention and resolution.¹

“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” (Paulo Freire)

Western literature on interpersonal conflict intervention generally undermines the adjustment of the involvement style depending on the stage of the disagreement. However in collectivistic societies, “third parties are expected to function in a reconciliatory mode, unless clear injustice or deviance takes place. In this case, third parties should get actively involved in restoring justice and eliminating deviance before returning to the reconciliatory role.” Consultation may be utilized “when relationship issues (perception and attitudes) are not suitable for mediation, and to help parties clarify their underlying needs (security, or identity for example) and interests tied to such needs. Mediation, on the other hand, aims at negotiating certain substantive issues, based on a clear understanding of relationship issues and parties’ own needs and interests.”¹

Adhering to the common good while not favoring any of the parties has good intentions, yet the mediator may face difficulties in modern diverse societies, where notions of common good may be too diverse and vague; focus being on the individual. Material resources are often the codes used, thus legal procedures are vital parts of the resolution in these societies, and mediators are expected to be professionals who are knowledgeable of legal procedures. Thus, actions in a resolution process are task-oriented. Conversely in collectivistic societies, where the main focus is on social harmony and social norms/values form the basis of a solution, mediators are generally seniors (in terms of age or hierarchy) who are knowledgeable of cultural norms. Some codes mainly used by interveners in these cultures include honor, dignity, unity, future of the next generations, religious values, and tradition of forgiveness.^1,5

Speaking of religion and its role in conflict, one’s voluntary sacrifice from his/her rights in some conflicting situations, repelling evil with what is better,⁶ and forgiveness has been encouraged for thousands of years by major world religions.⁷ “Adherents of these religions have claimed that forgiveness yields numerous emotional and spiritual benefits, and can dramatically transform one’s life.”⁸ Hence, it may be useful to explore their resources, which are rich with conflict intervention principles, values and models, in a way that would prepare them for contemporary practice. For instance, it is stated that reconciling a dispute between two parties is a charity,9 and that “kind words and forgiving of faults are better than charity followed by injury.”¹⁰

The most beneficial approach for the involved parties in a conflict situation would be an attempt to address fully the concerns of both parties and to find mutually satisfactory solutions to the cause of the conflict. This collaborative approach is of utmost importance and most viable, particularly when the issues are critical and maintaining an ongoing relationship is important. For an effective assistance, third parties involved in mediation processes should carefully study the needs and values of contending parties and have cultural awareness in order to provide mutually satisfactory resolution options regardless of the society they operate.

Considering that disagreements could be resolved much easily when parties are aware of corresponding needs/values and interests/concerns, getting to know one another would be an important basis for any resolution endeavor. Therefore, the more we exchange ideas without prejudice, the more we’ll understand each other. Although some disagreements yield positive outcomes and new ideas, intense conflicts generally drain energy and resources. Hence, it is heartening to observe that peace studies such as conflict resolution are blossoming, despite some scholars expecting a “clash of civilizations” and some claiming that we are at the “end of history.” Contrary to the arguments that define life as a series of struggles for limited resources, this relatively new field of social sciences will help humanity make the best out of its potential and reach a better state of living. Comprehensive resolutions which are globally applicable to disagreements in-between individuals, organizations, or nations overall, call for good deeds, positive motives, and pure intentions without self-interest. Tolerance, forgiveness, altruism, compassion, submission to ethical/moral codes, fairness, openness of hearts and minds, and welcoming people as they encompass some of the universal means to cure conflicts at various levels.

References

1. Abdalla, Amr. 2000. “Principles of Islamic Interpersonal Conflict Intervention: A Search within Islam and Western Literature.” Journal of Law & Religion 15, no. 1. 151-184.

2. Nasr, Seyyed H. 2002. The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

3. Kim, Min-Sun. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.

4. Qur’an, 49:10.

5. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. 1996. “Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context: Some Conceptual Questions.” Peace and Change 21, no. 1. 22-40.

6. Qur’an, 41:34.

7. For some of the Qur’anic verses on interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation not mentioned in the text, the reader may refer to 2:280; 3:134, 4:128, 135, 149; 24:22; 25:63; and 42:37, 40, 43.

8. McCullough, Michael E., Kenneth I. Pargament, and Carl E. Thoresen. 2000. Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

9. Bukhari, Sulh, 11; Muslim, Zakat, 52.

10. Qur’an, 2:263.

Two perspectives emerge in this context to address change in society. The first perspective is an instrumental one and relies on a rationalist, goals-oriented viewpoint. The second, cultural perspective relies more on stability and depth. The two values in this perspective, stability and depth, ensure constancy in the face of changing times but could also spell society’s death knell if it turns too far inward (Christensen et al, 2007).

 “From the vantage point of instrumental logic, the institution is intrinsically inefficient because it cannot quickly adapt to changing conditions for action or new problems. Yet from a cultural perspective one could argue that it is perfectly possible for an institution to live with such historical inefficiency over time” (Christensen et al, 2007, p. 46).

Historically speaking, these two vantage points have been in conflict: Conservatives who wish to maintain the institution, on one side, and liberals who wish to change those institutions, on the other. An extremely conservative approach creates “institutional lockdown” where the organization is deprived of any opportunity to change. On the far end of the spectrum would be an excessively liberal approach endorsing revolution. These diametrically opposed concepts create a significant dichotomy.

Edmund Burke, English statesman and philosopher, was extremely critical of the revolution in France. He defended the ancien regime as he felt that the institutions of France and Europe were the result of an evolutionary process that had reached its next highest point under the noblemen/monarchs of Europe. For him, European civilization was founded upon the institutional principles of chivalry and clerical learning embodied in the spirit of the gentleman and the spirit of religion. Those who wanted to overturn the French system were to him savages who opposed all of the etiquette that had built Europe (Kontler, 1997).

Before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a group of revolutionaries calling themselves the “Young Turks” attempted to change the institutional characteristics of the country. One of the Young Turks named Ahmed Hilmi was more conservatively institutional in his approach to reform. The Young Turks became more anti-religious, and Hilmi wanted Islam to remain the cornerstone of the country. He was starkly against those instrumental values embodied in positivism and materialism. He felt, much like Burke, that the country evolved to that point and that it had as its foundation a spiritual orientation which should not change despite whatever transformations might be needed (Bein, 2007).

Burke and Hilmi embodied the cultural perspective and were averse to revolutionary thinking. Nevertheless, both thinkers recognized that change was needed, but their approach was more incremental and less absolute. It was for this reason that Burke vehemently opposed the French revolution and Hilmi the Turkish revolution.

Positivism/materialism that was prevalent amongst the Young Turks has been criticized by scholars such as Dwight Waldo, who noted how it took on the same characteristics of absolute thought that is often associated with religion (Waldo, 1984). Hugh Miller makes this claim as well in his discussion on Postmodernism and Neo-liberalism, where he notes how the rational quickly becomes irrational particularly with performance measurement (Miller, 2007).

Dwight Waldo states, “In both disciplines (scientific management, i.e., positivism and public administration), these anomalies (inconsistencies between environment and paradigm) and difficulties have been revealed, frequently and characteristically in discussion of the problem whether management is a ‘science’ or an ‘art’ and the relationship of the science and the art” (Waldo, 1984, p. 55).

Jonathan Swift, in his classic novel Gulliver’s Travels, includes in his story the Island of Laputa. On this island, there are scientists whose science has no benefit for human civilization and in which all previous knowledge is rejected. The result is a detached group of people who do not benefit society and are themselves actually detrimental to it. The king of this island shows little interest in culture and only cares about mathematics and music. This island in Swift’s story represents Swift’s account of those who are positivistic in thought and how their endeavors are actually not benefiting society, but rather dismantling it (Swift, 1998).

Given this perspective, the instrumental perspective is called into question and its true ability to react to change correctly. The cultural perspective is more incremental in this respect, but as Christensen, et al (2007) point out, there is a risk of historical inefficiency. Would it be safer to say that society can live with this risk? If the goal is to operate efficiently/effectively in continual adjustment with the environment, then how can any semblance of community develop given that communities often need stability to grow? If the goal is community development that depends on integration and facilitation, then how can any semblance of necessary change develop? This represents the crux of an unsolvable problem in society.

Burke and Hilmi lived in revolutionary times and applied cultural thinking to solve societal problems. The questions raised in their times apply just as fervently today in terms of needed change. Many of those who had beaten the drums to the revolutions that gave rise to modern day societies have in turn given way to conservative descendants of those movements that resist all change. Much of what was lost in those revolutions has not been forgotten by the populace, and the only way forward is to adopt a “middle way” between the instrumental and cultural perspective. Maintaining this balance is often easier said than done.

Daniel Hummel is a Research/Teaching Assistant with a focus on Public Budgeting at Florida Atlantic University.

References

• Christensen, T. et al. 2007. Organization Theory and the Public Sector: Instrument, Culture and Myth. New York: Routledge.
• Bein, A. 2007. “A ‘Young Turk’ Islamic intellectual: Filibeli Ahmed Hilmi and the diverse intellectual legacies of the late Ottoman Empire.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 39, pp. 607–625.
• Institution. 2010. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from www.m-w.com/dictionary/institution.
• Kontler, L. 1997. “The ancien regime in memory and theory. Edmund Burke and his German followers.” European Review of History, 4 (1), pp. 1–15.
• Miller, H.T. 2007. Postmodern Public Administration (rev. ed.). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
• Swift, J. 1998. Gulliver’s Travels. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Waldo, D. 1984. The Administrative State (2^nd ed.). New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers.

Original Article: Morewedge C.K. et al., Science 330, 1530 (2010).

If you’ve had a chance to visit the Fatih district in Istanbul, then you have probably seen the famous mosque called “As If I Ate” (Sanki Yedim Camii). The history of the mosque is at least as interesting as its name: Kececi Hayrettin Efendi, who lived in Istanbul in the eighteenth century, led a frugal life and used to save the money he could have used for pleasures like good food. Each time he went into a restaurant, he self-suggested “as if I ate” and assumed himself full. Years go by, and one day Kececi Hayrettin Efendi decides to count the money he saved this way. Surprisingly, he realized that he had saved enough money to build a mosque. Research conducted by Carnegie Mellon University behavioral scientists has shown that Kececi Hayrettin Efendi’s “as if I ate” approach might also be a useful way to curb one’s appetite. During the study, a group of volunteers was asked to imagine eating lots of sweets repetitively before eating as many M&Ms as they like, while a second group was asked to imagine inserting coins into a laundry machine. It turned out that the group that imagined eating sweets ended up eating significantly fewer M&Ms compared to the second group. The researchers performed the same experiment with variety of foods and showed that individuals who continually imagined eating a food many times actually ate less of the imagined food than did individuals who imagined eating that food fewer times, imagined eating a different food, or did not imagine eating any food, showing the effectiveness of the “as if I ate” approach.

2- The Brain Confirms: Learning to read knows no age limit

Original article: Dehaene S. et al., Science 330, 1359 (2010).

In this age of science and technology, education affects everyone drastically. Besides getting a better job or a higher social status, knowing how to read has important beneficial impacts on brain functions. In a new study, cognitive neuroscientists identified active regions of the brain in the event of reading. Three groups (illiterate, literate who learned reading at adulthood and literate who learned at childhood) were compared for their brain activities using functional magnetic resonance imaging. The study has not only helped to illustrate the complex neural circuitry of the brain, but has also demonstrated superior brain functions in literate groups, such as responses to visual and spoken stimuli. The real surprise of the study was that people who learned reading in their adulthood had similar brain activities compared to those who learned reading in their childhood. This suggests that literacy can impact the brain at any age. It has always been assumed that the brain becomes less flexible in aging people. Pointing out these new findings, Brian Wandell, a neuroscientist at Stanford University, emphasizes the ability of the brain to adapt and change upon acquiring the ability to read. He says, “Showing that this area is responsive to learning throughout life is a real contribution.”

3- Culturomics: Measuring culture through books

Original article: Michel J.B. et al., Science 331, 176 (2011).

A team of researchers from Harvard University and Google Books Team opened a new quantitative venue for social sciences which they named “Culturomics.” They used a gigantic data set, which was generated by digitizing over 15 million books (published between 1800 and 2008, ~12% of books ever published) in English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, and Hebrew. The dataset includes over 500 billion words, and by using a new online tool (http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/) one can easily find out how many times a word was used throughout the last two centuries. The study elegantly demonstrates how human kind has changed in the twentieth century. For example, technological advances in the twentieth century became part of the culture almost three times faster than it used to be in the nineteenth century. On average, people became famous and lost their fame two times faster than in the nineteenth century, and the authors claim that the trend for becoming famous and losing fame will be even faster in the future, at which time “everyone will be famous for 7.5 minutes” on average. The researchers also spotted censorship in Nazi Germany by comparing books published in German and English by comparing the popularity of famous Jewish scientists and authors. It is yet too early to assume that this new approach will entirely change the way social scientists approach their problems, but it will certainly provide an unprecedented perspective into the humanities.

4- The search for extra dimensions is not pseudo-science after all

Original article: Bin-Nun A.Y. et al., Physical Review D 82, 064009 (2010).

The plausibility of co-existing dimensions beyond our 4 dimensional space (3 spatial + 1 time dimension) is nothing new. The attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity led to the development of string theory in the late ’60s. M-Theory is a special extension of the superstring theory which predicts that there are 11 dimensions. It is posited that all elementary sub-atomic particles such as electrons and quarks are not 0-dimensional objects, but rather 1-dimensional vibrating “lines” or “strings.” These strings curl in specific patterns to form the subatomic particles, which then combine via nuclear forces to make up atoms and matter as we know it. Although the mathematical basis has long been established for string theory, it has hitherto not been tested due to the lack of observational signatures. A recent study suggests that it may be possible to observe the effects of extra dimensions after all by using supermassive black holes. Black holes, due to their immensely concentrated gravity, curve the space around them. This curvature affects even the light that passes through them. A star directly behind such a black hole may be observed as a warped or brightened astronomical source. It may even be possible to create so called “Einstein rings,” where the background star appears as a ring of light instead. The recent study argues that, if extra dimensions are not as tightly packed, the light that passes through curved space-time may exhibit anomalies which, in principle, can be detectable with very sensitive telescopes.

God burdens no soul except within its capacity… (Al-Baqarah, 2:286)

This verse is not strange to any Muslim. God has promised that He will never burden a person with difficulties beyond his or her capacity. This is supported by other verses in Surah Al-Inshirah (94:5–6), where it is said that with every hardship, comes relief and this divine statement is repeated twice in the same chapter. This clearly shows how God knows the limits of the human being’s capacity to endure challenges in life.

However, despite these beautiful statements God has made in the Qur’an, we still hear many people complaining about how tough life is, about how they cannot bear their problems anymore and asking why God gives them certain challenges other people do not have to bear. The worst thing is when suicide is contemplated as a reaction to what God has given to His servant.

These complaints, at first glance, appear to contradict these verses, since surely the people so afflicted should know their own capacity to endure tough problems. At second glance, however, it becomes clear that this is not so. Does God really test someone beyond his capacity?

In talking about the endurance of an individual, we cannot avoid the subject of coping skills. Generally, coping skills are divided into two categories, namely avoidance coping skills and approach coping skills (Soderstorm, et.al., 2000).

Avoidance coping skills are basically unhealthy ways of dealing with problems. These coping skills delay the process of recovery and emotional stability. An example of a coping skill of this type is substance abuse, where many people turn to coffee, drugs, cigarettes and other substances when they are in distress.

Another avoidance coping skill is denial, where the person refuses to believe what has happened. In some really bad cases, people go on with their lives, refusing to believe the problem they face and allowing the situation to deteriorate. Some other examples are self-harming, minimization and cognitive avoidance. These mechanisms of coping do not just delay the process of recovery, but also exacerbate the situation.

On the other hand, approach coping mechanisms promote the mental and physical well being of an individual. These mechanisms foster positive thinking and motivate problem-solving behaviors. One of the skills in this category is action taking. Rather than sitting and waiting for something to happen, a person who adopts approach coping mechanisms will plan the strategies and actions required to solve or ease the problem.

Another approach coping skill is acceptance. However, acceptance here means to admit that there is a problem and not resent to the occurrence of the problem. Acceptance which means giving up is not the same as acceptance as an approach coping skills. Positive acceptance is the opposite of denial. Therefore, acceptance is an important beginning of acting to solve or ease a problem.

Humor can also be an approach coping mechanism. By making appropriate fun of the problem, distress can be reduced, and thus more mental stability can be achieved. For example, a mother who has just experienced the loss of her child might say to herself, “At least he is enjoying as much candy as he wants in paradise.” By using appropriate humor like this, the mother can broaden her perspective, allowing her to see the brighter side of the loss she has experienced.

Religious coping is another strategy among approach coping skills. In psychological research, more and more studies suggest ways that spirituality and religiosity help in dealing with life’s problems. One of these studies (Meisenhelder and Chandler 2002) stressed that faith as the concept of spirituality was more applicable than religiosity. One of the variables investigated by these researchers, which was religious coping, correlated positively with mental health. This study is only one out of many to show a strong relation between spirituality and mental and physical well being.

Soderstorm et.al. (2000) also suggested some gender differences in coping strategies. They asserted that men tend to adopt task-oriented coping strategies or approach type and women tend to use the contrary, avoidance coping strategies. However, some other studies have suggested that women are more likely to use task-oriented coping strategies or that there are no gender differences (Holahan & Moos, 1985 as cited in Soderstorm et.al. 2000). Nevertheless, more and more researchers have found a tendency for men to focus on a problem and start taking action to overcome it.

The relation between the verse in Surah al-Baqarah at the beginning of this discussion and coping skills is clear. The question then arises: if it is true that God would never burden a soul beyond its capacity, why do some people complain of being unable to deal with a certain problem they face? If they think that God is unfair, or that they are now unable to cope, or are thinking of committing suicide, it is simply that they have adopted the wrong kind of coping strategy for their individual circumstances, or they may have adopted unhealthy avoidance coping strategies in dealing with problems.

Abi-Hashem (2007) describes how unhealthy coping skills can have negative impacts on people who live in a country with ongoing war, as in the Middle East. Such circumstances, where violence, cruelty, and harshness are an unavoidable part of life make things seem hopeless, and nothing can be done to break away from the situation. The author suggests that at this point, the best coping strategy to be employed is action taking, because worsening mental paralysis can happen to an individual in a country with war who takes no positive action. So, if a person feels as if the challenge God has given them is beyond what they can bear, they should ponder any action they have taken to adjust to the problem. They may have missed some points where, if action is taken, a great deal of worry and stress can be reduced or allayed.

Another way of looking at this is that religious coping skill correlates with mental well being. But sadly not many people realize the importance of religious coping skills in managing life’s problems. In many verses in the Qur’an (e.g. Al-An’am 6:102; Hud 11:123), God reminds us to depend on Him in all affairs, to put our trust in Him and make Him the basis of our decision making. This reflects all research findings, which tell us repeatedly of the advantages and positive outcomes of religious coping. Perhaps this is because we know that there is something we can rely on in hard times, which makes it easier for us to deal with life’s problems. Some practical ways to cope religiously are the performance of greater numbers of recommended prayers, more frequent remembrance of God, and contemplating the creation of the universe.

Sometimes we believe too much in the power of our own selves, feeling too confident that it is we who make the changes, who solve the problems. But we all know the power of togetherness. Support from other people can significantly increase the effectiveness of our coping style. We can reduce our stress by sharing what is bothering us and perhaps getting wiser advice from another person on handling the problems we are facing.

It is important to reflect on ourselves in times of stress. Do we just listen to ourselves? Do we turn to substances when we are distressed by something? Are we brave enough to accept the problem which is afflicting us? Most importantly, do we trust God enough to help us with our problems? These questions can only be answered by each individual for himself or herself.

Taufik Mohammad, PhD, is a senior lecturer in Universiti Sains Malaysia.

References

• Abi-Hashem, N. (2007). The agony, silent grief, and deep frustration of many communities in the Middle East: Challenges for coping and survival. In P. T. P. Wong and C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping, US: Springer US, pp. 457–486.
• Meisenhelder, J. B. & Chandler, E. N. (2002). Spirituality and health outcomes in the elderly. Journal of Religion and Health, 41, 243–252.
• Soderstrom, M., Dolbier, C., Leiferman, J. & Seinhardt, M. (2000). The relationship of hardiness, coping strategies, and perceived stress to symptoms of illness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23, 321–328.

“Ever since the beginnings of modern science, four or five hundred years ago, scientific thoughts seem to have moved humankind and consciousness further from the centre of things. More and more of the universe has become explicable in mechanical, objective terms and even human beings are becoming understood by biologists and behavioral scientists. Now we find that physics, previously considered the most objective of the sciences, is reinventing the need for the human soul and putting it right at the centre of our understanding of the universe!” (Rae 2004)

The last century has witnessed a new scientific approach with the development of the quantum theory. The theory has been tested to such a degree that it has become the scientific theory on which the most experiments have been carried out of all time. Probably this is partly due to the fact that it is the most mind-provoking theory to date. Nevertheless, the new theory has passed all these tests and has been confirmed as being more complete in explaining the cosmos than any previous theory. The quantum theory has shown that the old approach of a mechanical universe was an oversimplification employed to explain the physics of the universe. One of the most important consequences of this is that the quantum theory refutes the main foundations of positivist philosophy. This philosophy sees the universe consisting of what we can observe or measure, with everything beyond not being real. This denial also applied to knowledge that came from religions, and this resulted in the present conflict between religion and science. However, today even modern science says that the universe cannot be limited to what we observe. The very basic principles of quantum physics show the possibility that the vast majority of life or the states of life are beyond the scope of our observations and that we have no way of knowing about them via physical means.

Although positivist philosophy dates back to the 16th century, it was August Comte who defined it in a systematic way in the mid-19th century. The Harper-Collins dictionary defines Positivism as “the view that all true knowledge is scientific.” Positivism includes the view of reductionism which claims that everything in the universe, including astrophysical systems, complex biological systems, social movements, cultural values, and belief systems can all be reduced to simple physical and chemical events. Probably one of the most unfortunate outcomes of this approach was the questioning of belief systems with the tools of the scientific method. In one of his articles Fethullah Gulen says:

“The massive influence of positivism and materialism on science and on all people of recent centuries makes it necessary to discuss such arguments. As this now-prevalent “scientific” worldview reduces existence to what can be perceived directly, it blinds itself to the far vaster invisible dimensions of existence.”(Gulen 2006)

Such arguments against religion that spring from materialism have gone worldwide, and all religious faiths have been questioned. Even the faithful has been confused by these arguments, consciously or unconsciously. Although scientific knowledge should be only one source of knowledge, it was considered to be the only source. In Huston Smith’s words, this was a “blank check” to science to make decisions (Smith 2001).

It should be clarified that the early founders of both classical and modern physics did not perceive science in a positivist way. Copernicus and Newton at the birth of classical physics and Einstein, Dirac, and Planck at the birth of modern physics, all had religious convictions and envisioned science as a part of knowledge. Einstein was even accused of being a theologian in disguise by some scientific historians. It was the positivist philosophy which took advantage of the scientific developments and used it against religion, resulting in the apparent conflict today. However, new developments in science have proven that the basic assumptions of positivism are no longer valid from a modern perspective. Thus positivism should be nothing but an outdated ideology.

From quantum physics to metaphysics

Quantum mechanical behavior emerges when one observes phenomena at microscopic scales. One of its novelties can be seen in that it offers a more comprehensive atomic model. The new atomic model has very important applications to our life, ranging from making lasers to producing computer chips. The early understanding of an atom was that there was a nucleus at the center and electrons circulating around it, like in the planetary systems (the Bohr model). Although this was a great achievement at the time it was proposed, later scientists realized that classical physics cannot explain the circulation of the electron around the nucleus. In such a model the electron should lose energy and eventually collapse into the nucleus.

In the quantum mechanical definition the electron is more like a wave around the nucleus than a particle. So the electron is not really a particle orbiting around the nucleus, but rather more like a cloud that is spread evenly around. Sometimes the electron is called a particle because it acts like a particle in some experiments. As seen in this example, in a quantum mechanical measurement we cannot find an answer to “what the electron really is,” but rather we find an answer to “how it responds to a particular setup.” The actual stuff is a neither a particle nor a wave. We are rather measuring one form of its behavior which is compatible with our experimental system. Then according to the quantum theory, there is no a way to completely understand this actual stuff with measurements.

Above we gave the famous measurement problem, which forms the heart of the quantum theory. Although what we are dealing with looks like a physical problem, “the measurement problem” has far reaching philosophical consequences. The basic problem is that we need to know what this actual stuff looks like so that we can have an answer to the question of “what it really is.” However, any explanation should be able to explain the transition from a quantum physical system into the macroscopic system in which we live so that we can have a meaningful model. Otherwise, paradoxes are inevitable (you can read about the famous Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment if you are interested.)

The most complete and satisfying answer comes from the Copenhagen interpretation (Frayn 2000). It was proposed by Neil Bohr, one of the prominent figures in the development of the theory. Debates lasting for months or longer, especially between N. Bohr and A. Einstein, ended up with the victory of Bohr’s ideas. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the actual stuff is neither a wave nor a particle but is something not physical; rather it exists only in knowledge. This knowledge collapses into a physical state when somebody measures it. So the new theory suggests a very abstract approach to the universe as opposed to the old mechanical model. The famous astrophysicist Sir James Jeans wrote,

“The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Human mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter.” (Jeans 2002)

Scientists think that the true picture of the actual stuff can never be completely understood in this physical universe because we are limited by our physical tools. There may be other states, but we have no tools to understand them or get to know about them since we are limited by the tools of this universe. This is the point where the new physics talks about other dimensions which are beyond the observable and measurable universe. But this is exactly what philosophy calls “metaphysics.” So we see that the new physics not only accepts the existence of other metaphysical realms, but it even says that they must exist for completeness!

The necessity of human consciousness

A concern comes to mind about what is unique in this measurement process that results in the ultimate transition from a knowledge system into a physical system. How can the detector in an experiment result in this transition? The answer from the Copenhagen interpretation is very surprising. The detector cannot be the cause for this transition, because it does not make any changes in the system before or after the measurements are carried out. That is, these tools we use to make the measurements do not change anything in the nature of the system. Not even the eyes of the observers or the brain that is making this measurement can do this, as they are no different than the experimental apparatus, except that they are more complex. They are just part of the experimental system in this chain, like mechanical detectors. The chain continues until it ends up in the human consciousness, which is something non-material as any physical identification would put it in the same category as the previous members of the chain. Then the unique role of the human action enters the system; measurement is part of the knowledge in the mind. With this measurement, the human consciousness becomes aware of it. This is the unique property that the human being has which cannot be attributed to any other objects and it plays a central role in the interpretation of the quantum theory.

We infer that human consciousness is something immaterial and behaves quite differently than any other entity in the universe. Interestingly, the distinction of the physical and spiritual side of human beings is found in the teaching of religions, which we now see in the context of modern physics. This is a very important reconciliation between science and religion and it is also reassuring that we are not like any other objects in the universe!

Is materialism coming to the end?

With the new developments in physics, a materialistic worldview seems to be a simple look at life and existence. We remember the classic statement of materialistic philosophy “I only believe what I can see or measure in the laboratory.” Quantum physics would respond to this by saying: “it is not that simple!” We see that there are no contradictions between the new physics and the teachings of religions. We do not know how God creates life in hereafter, hell, and heaven. But one thing we do know is that their existence does not contradict the modern scientific worldview. Also the realms of invisible creatures (like angels and the devil) and their interactions with our physical world cannot be understood with science. Modern physics says we should not seek knowledge of these through science. They can only be known by what is told to us in our holy books and by the prophets.

The extreme approach of materialism to the human being is that the human is the most complexly evolved biological mechanism in the universe and in theory its consciousness and other feelings can be reduced into chemical reactions. This approach is in complete contradiction with modern physics. Modern physics says the human being is totally distinguished from other beings with their non-material consciousness. So we see that modern science removes the human being from the ignorance of materialism and puts it into the center of the universe. This is the same thing that religions have been saying since the creation of Adam and Eve!

As people of the 21st century, we can see that the discoveries of modern science does not contradict faith. We see that modern science is widening its horizons by identifying metaphysics as being part of the reality. In the words of the 20th century scholar Said Nursi, “…the light of conscience is religious sciences. The light of the mind is modern sciences. Reconciliation of both manifests the truth. The student’s skills develop further with these two (sciences). When they are separated, from the former superstition and from the latter corruption and skepticism is born.” A similar statement by Einstein is “…I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

References

• Rae, Alastair. Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality, Cambridge: 2004.
• Gulen, M. Fethullah, Questions and Answers about Islam, The Light, Inc., NJ: 2006.
• Smith, Huston. Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief, HarperSanFrancisco: 2001.
• Frayn, Michael. Copenhagen, Anchor:2000.
• Jeans, Sir James. The Mysterious Universe, The Macmillan Company, 1932.
• Henry, Richard Conn. “The Mental Universe,” Nature, 436, 7 July 2005.

The universe is just such a painting for us to observe, but it is not less complicated than the Mona Lisa. Innumerable galaxies ornamented by millions of stars and planets, the entire cosmos displays a panorama that can be perceived in two ways: 1) a colossal space filled with darkness of which only a minute portion can be illuminated by the human mind, 2) a work of art by an artist who wants Himself to be known and appreciated through studying His art. The first approach is from the standpoint of our self-ego who wants absolute freedom and who thinks his mind is the one and only guide for encrypting the “codes” of human existence. This approach provides its traveler with a dim torch of light and leads to an end where one sinks into even more darkness than before; each new discovery is doomed to be followed by things that are more complicated.

The second approach relies more on an “authorized guide.” The traveler of this second approach does not deny the human mind but enjoys it as a divine blessing given for his service in order to discover the cosmos. It is not an ultimate reliance on the mind but rather as a means to appreciate life and to choose right from wrong.

God Almighty did not leave us in this complicated universe alone. He simply did not push us into a mysterious cruel life which eventually comes to an end under the soil or in the crematorium. He sent messengers to every people and books to follow. After the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels, the Qur’an was sent to the Prophet Muhammad as the final word of God, a guide to follow and to learn the purpose of life. The Lead Article, an abbreviated version of Gulen’s introduction to a new translation of the Qur’an, provides an extensive analysis of this Holy Book of Islam. Buti explores further on the poverty of human mind which cannot perceive the whole picture, but only single portions of it. “Partial knowledge can never convince the mind and appease the soul, except if it comes after having achieved an overall comprehensive knowledge that encompasses the structure of all existence: humanity, universe, life, and the relationship between them.”

Another decoding comes from Omer Ikramoglu. He discusses the accelerated expansion of the universe with a reference to a Qur’anic verse Dhariyat 51:47.

A person draws meanings from, or gives meanings to, events and experiences. That is, experiencing starts to make sense as the person performs his or her psychological functioning of translating it into how he or she thinks and feels. It is the individuals’ subjectivity, or phenomenological world, that forms the very core for meaning origination and evolvement. People have the freedom to choose meaning (McArthur, 1958) through their interactive experiencing with various internal and external contexts (Chen, 2001). As such, meaning is the underlying motivation behind thoughts, actions and even the interpretation and application of knowledge. Meaning is also arrived at through the learning process.

As a convert to Islam, how I construct meaning represents perhaps the greatest difference between my worldview prior to Islam and my post-conversion Islamic worldview. My Islamic worldview facilitates meaning through the tawhidic (God’s Unity) paradigm by connecting everything in life – every word, act, thought, and event – to the highest source of all, the ultimate reality, God. This means that everything that happens in life is to be responded to according to that which is pleasing to God and in line with His revealed laws. We do not make decisions based solely on our feelings, desires and appetites. Rather, we employ the intellect, which is grounded in knowledge of religion and God, to decide that which is pleasing and acceptable to the Creator, and, as such, optimal for us on all levels. The goal, the ultimate success, the ultimate happiness, and contentment, is transformed into a spiritual one and is manifested in a life of closeness and intimacy with the Divine, detailed by God-consciousness in every act and thought.

How this differs from my pre-Islamic worldview is that it, ideally, removes the lower self as a guide, so decisions are not made according to appetites and selfish desires, but according to that which we believe is best for us, for our lives both here and in the hereafter. We cease following the direction of the lower self and instead open our hearts to the guidance of our higher self, the one in tune to the divine will. For what is best for us cannot be left to the lower self to decide; that self can only lead us to spiritual destruction. Thus, all of our trust and hope is placed in God and our conviction that He is the best one to guide us as the Creator of all things, the Loving, the Merciful, and the one who wants the best outcome for us, an outcome which is closeness to Him in this world and a direct vision of Him in the life after death.

The making of meaning, therefore, takes on a whole new form from this worldview. The lens – our cognitive schema – of how we see the world changes. We begin to see with the eyes of the spirit, the eyes of the heart. We judge not according to what we find pleasing or desirable, but according to the knowledge of what God finds pleasing and desirable. As such, we begin the striving, the journey toward the acquisition of the divine attributes. We live a life of effort to reform our own personalities to reflect the attributes. As a real-life example, the one who most perfectly manifested these attributes, we follow the way and life of Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, and his successors. In so doing life becomes one of ongoing self-purification, self-perfection and self-improvement. The making of meaning, therefore, is spiritualized. We become highly tuned to everything happening around us. When I came to Islam, however,I learned that even eating could be a spiritual activity when undertaken with the right intention. According to the Islamic world view, every morsel of food is a blessing, a gift, sustenance that comes from God.

We find meaning and make meaning of every experience through self-examination. We start by looking inwardly at ourselves and examining how we react to situations around us. We take stock of our feelings, our frustrations, our likes and our dislikes. We examine our minds and look at what we spend time thinking about. We constantly look for ways to improve ourselves. In sum, everything means something because according to our worldview, God sees everything, knows everything, and everything we do is counted either for us or against us. Every moment thus contributes to our success or failure. This means that as Muslims, we must acquire the attribute of awareness, of always knowing what is happening around us and within us at all times.

Islam helps us to construct meaning on the premise that everything is purposeful because it directly determines our fate both in this world and in the eternal world after death. We approach life as an opportunity having been given the knowledge that every moment can either help us or hurt us, depending on what we choose to do with it. In this way, the Islamic worldview puts the making of meaning in our own hands through the gift of free will, and links the process with the development and refinement of the self.

The spiritualized Islamic worldview brings energy to life and a balance that I did not previously have. The key to it is consciousness and remembrance of God. When we are conscious of God, of His omnipotence, greatness and mercy, we are always aware of ourselves. We are constantly in a state of humility because of the knowledge that He created us out of nothing for no other reason than that His love be known, He be worshipped and trusted by us. We are also aware that God’s mercy will always help us along on our path when we make a sincere effort to dedicate ourselves to Islamic self-improvement. This awareness includes the belief that heaven is not only the goal for the hereafter, but for this life as well, achieved by closeness to God. As such, by remaining conscious of God, we invite and invoke goodness from both the earthly and spiritual realms, and light a way for ourselves to engage in continuous self-refinement.

An example of how Islam contributes to the making of meaning is my initial understanding of how a Muslim is to approach something as seemingly mundane as eating. According to my pre-Islamic worldview, eating was an activity undertaken to satisfy hunger. It was never much more than that. Although I understood food as a blessing, I did not approach eating as a spiritual act. How could I? The only knowledge I had of it was that it was an activity undertaken to satisfy a physical need. When I came to Islam, however, I learned that even eating could be a spiritual activity when undertaken with the right intention, in accordance with Islamic law, by way of the Prophet’s example and with a deeper understanding of the act itself.

According to the Islamic worldview, every morsel of food is a blessing, a gift, sustenance that comes from God. The food we eat is usually also a blessing for those who grow it, manufacture it, process it and sell it – those who derive their livelihood from it. Food, when consumed with consciousness of God can be a source of barakah, blessings and divine grace. Therefore, we are more inclined to be less wasteful in our eating, to take less and think of others who also want to eat. Through the spiritual practice of fasting, the Islamic worldview also teaches us what it is like to be unable to find food. This alone is enough to make most people appreciate food and increase their gratitude to God when they eat. In addition, there are so many forms of etiquette (adab) of the Prophet on how to approach and eat food that help us to understand its spiritual role in our lives, such as the proper way of sitting, chewing, handling food, passing it to others, the prayers to recite before eating it, while eating it, after eating it, the way to conduct oneself while eating, the way to wash ourselves after eating, etc. As we can see, something as fundamental to our lives as food, or eating, when approached from the Islamic worldview becomes a highly meaningful activity that is intimately linked to our personal sense of mission as Muslims.

So what about something as spiritually rich as formal worship? If eating as an activity can be approached with spiritual intelligence, an act of God consciousness and worship, then what about something like our prayer (salat), which to the Prophet was not only a comfort, but an ascension to heaven every time he engaged in it? What does prayer mean to us? Do we approach it as a heavenly ascension, so powerful as to move us to a higher state, or is it just something we have to get through to achieve a place at the heavenly table when it is all over?

Meaning of Islam is cultivated in us through the knowledge and wisdom found in our tradition, and through teachers that have been blessed with it and continue to pass it on. We must seek them and their works to help us develop meaning in our lives as Muslims. It is an important time for us to make meaning from this way of life. All around us meaninglessness and its culture are fueling the spiritual suicide that is engulfing the world and victimizing people from every race and religion.

Ultimately, meaning of Islam must be individualized and owned by each of us uniquely, based on our individual relationship with God. We must find intimacy with Him, strive to love Him, rely on Him, to seek Him, and depend on Him, trusting Him completely. Lasting and real meaning of Islam cannot come from a movement or someone’s agenda it can and must come from the knowledge of Truth, and submission to it through the way of life based on it. It must be spiritual, not political. Our uniqueness as an ummah is that our purpose, our basis for deriving meaning in all of life is spiritually grounded in heavenly laws and aspirations. When we read the beautiful supplications of our Prophet to his Lord, we can feel the intimacy that he had with the All-Merciful. This is the spring of meaning for those who have surrendered themselves, and an important element of our way of life that helps us persevere through difficult times.

References

• Chen, C.P. 2001. On Exploring Meanings: Combining Humanistic and Career Psychology Theories in Counselling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 14:4.
• Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. New York, NY: Heath Books.
• Frankl, V. 1963. Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. 1996. Analyzing Social Settings. Third Edition. Wadsworth
• McArthur, H. 1958. The Necessity of Choice, Journal of Individual Psychology, 14, 153-157.