What many Jews and Muslims do not realize is that they share many similar religious beliefs. I believe that if more people were taught about the many connections between Judaism and Islam, they would see them as a bridge toward greater interfaith understanding.

Shared belief in one God

One of the most fundamental ways in which Judaism and Islam are similar is their firm monotheistic belief in one God. Jews recite the following verse from Deuteronomy 6:4 as part of their daily prayers:

“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”[1]

This is probably the best-known declaration of faith in all of Judaism, because it establishes absolute monotheismand belief in the absolute unity of God. The medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides affirmed that “God is one. He is not two or more, but one, unified in a manner that surpasses any unity that is found in the world.”[2]

This is certainly similar to Shahada, the first pillar of Islam, in which Muslims state that “there is no god but Allah,” as well as the declaration in the Qur’an, 112:1, which states, “Say: ‘He – (He is) God, (Who is) the Unique One of Absolute Oneness.”[3]

Both Judaism and Islam teach that it is God who created the universe. The Hebrew Bible opens with this statement in the book of Genesis:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

So too does the Qur’an 7:54 state:

“Indeed your Lord is God, Who has created the heavens and the earth in six days.”

Both religions affirm that it is God who creates and forms human beings. The Hebrew Bible states in Genesis 2:7, that “The Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth.” A parallel verse is found in the Qur’an 40:67: “He it is Who created you from earth.”

Shared reverence for the Hebrew Bible and Biblical prophecy

Traditional Judaism is based on the belief that the Hebrew Bible is the sacred word of God. Within the Bible, the Torah is considered the most sacred, because according to Rabbinic tradition, Moses received not only the Ten Commandments from God at Mount Sinai, but also the entire Torah. The Torah’s commandments, teachings, and theological beliefs form the core of what Jews believe and how they are to behave.

The Qur’an sees the transmission of the divine word as a process that encompasses both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. 3:3-4 confirms that “He sends down on you the Book in parts with the truth, confirming (the Divine origin of, and the truths still contained by) the Revelations prior to it. And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel in time past, as guidance for the people.”

While Islam views the Qur’an as the culmination of divine revelation, it accepts the divine origin of both the Torah and the Gospels.

The tradition of prophets, who received messages from God and transmitted them to the community, is very ancient in Judaism. Moses stands out as a prophet, because he was able to receive prophetic messages “face to face” with God (Deuteronomy 34:10). Islam also reveres prophets. The Biblical prophets of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are accepted by Islam as authentic, with Muhammad as the pinnacle of prophetic activity:

“We have believed in God (without associating any partners with Him), and that which has been sent down to us, and that which has been sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Prophets who were raised in the tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and that (knowledge, wisdom, and Prophethood) which was given to all other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them” (Qur’an 2:136).

Shared belief in the Afterlife, Final Judgment, and Resurrection

Both Judaism and Islam share a belief in an afterlife – that as human beings we are created with both a body and a soul, and that after death our soul continues. The ancient Rabbis stated in Talmud Shabbat 152b, “After death, the souls of the righteous are kept beside the Throne of Glory in heaven.” Concerning the soul, the Qur’an 89:27-30 states, “O you soul at rest (content with the truths of faith and God’s commands, and with His treatment of His creatures!) Return to your Lord, well-pleased (with Him and His treatment of you, and well-pleasing to Him.”

Both Judaism and Islam also believe that human souls will experience a Final Judgment at the end of time, when all the righteous will receive their ultimate reward and the wicked their ultimate punishment. For both Judaism and Islam, the righteous will be resurrected after death, with their bodies and souls reunited forever, and will enjoy eternity in a heavenly realm. The prophet Ezekiel in the Hebrew Bible describes resurrection in dramatic, poetic terms:

“Thus the Lord God said to the dry bones: ‘I will cause breath to enter you and you shall live again. I will lay sinews upon you, and cover you with flesh, and form skin over you. And I will put breath into you, and you shall live again.’”

So too does the Qur’an 39:67, 73-74 describe resurrection in uplifting terms:

“The whole earth will be in His Grasp on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand… Those who keep from disobedience to their Lord in reverence for Him and piety will be led to Paradise in companies. When they finally arrive there, its doors will be opened (as sheer grace from God), and its keepers will welcome them saying: ‘Peace be upon you! Well you have faired and are purified (from the foul residues of sin, and delivered from all suffering), so enter it (Paradise) to abide!’ And they say: ‘All praise and gratitude are for God, Who has fulfilled His promise to us, and has made us inheritors of this land (of bliss).’ ”

The centrality of prayer and ritual

Both Jews and Muslims are required to pray daily, and daily prayer is the second pillar of Islam. For Jews, there are three daily prayer services, and for Muslims, five. These consistent times of prayer are meant to remind us of God’s continuous presence in the world and to give us opportunities to give praise and thanks to God.

Both traditions also have times of fasting, during which neither food nor water is permitted. Jews fast on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), when we confess and atone for our sins, resolve to turn from evil, and ask for God’s forgiveness. Muslims fast during the month of Ramadan, which is the fourth pillar of Islam. Like Judaism, the Qur’an 2:183 states that fasting during Ramadan is “so that you may deserve God’s protection (against the temptations of your carnal soul) and attain piety.”

Both Judaism and Islam affirm the spiritual value of religious pilgrimage. For Jews, there are three pilgrimage festivals each year (Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot) that are ideally observed in Israel, and many Jews make the effort to be in Israel for these sacred times. Similarly, the pilgrimage to Mecca, the fifth pillar of Islam, is a supremely important religious observance.

Jews and Muslims are also required to observe dietary laws. They share the prohibition against eating pork. These restrictions cause us to think about God every time we eat, provide us with a daily discipline of paying attention to what we put in our mouths, and cause us to see eating as a sanctified ritual, rather than mindlessly consuming whatever food is readily available.

Shared values

One of the most cherished values in Judaism is that of tzedakah, which involves acts of charity to those in need. Leviticus 19:9-10 teaches us, “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger.”

Similarly, the third pillar of Islam is Zakat, the duty of Muslims to give charity to the poor and needy. The Qur’an 2:177 praises the person who “gives away of his property with pleasure, although he loves it, to relatives, orphans, the destitute, the wayfarer, and those who have to beg (or who need a loan).”

Both religions have a very high regard for the value of humility. The Hebrew Bible notes that humility is the outstanding trait of Moses:

“Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3).

The same is found in the Qur’an 25:63:

“The (true) servants of the All-Merciful are they who move on the earth gently and humbly.”

Lastly, both traditions emphasize the power of forgiveness. In the Hebrew Bible, Exodus 34:6-7 lists God’s qualities of forgiveness:

“A God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in kindness and faithfulness, extending kindness to the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin.”

Islam also emphasizes the qualities of Allah as “the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful” in the Basmala. We are all imperfect human beings who rely on God’s boundless mercy to forgive us when we sin and help us to repent for our wrongs.

Judaism and Islam also expect believers to be forgiving of each other, just as God is forgiving of us. The medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides emphasized that we are required to forgive those who have harmed us:

“It is forbidden for a person to be cruel and refuse to be appeased. Rather, he should be easily pacified, but hard to anger. When a person who wronged him asks for forgiveness, he should forgive him with a complete heart and a willing spirit. Even if he aggravated and wronged him severely, he should not seek revenge or bear a grudge.”[4]

The ideal of the forgiving person is described in the Qur’an 3:134 as the kind of person who is “ever-restraining their rage (even when provoked and able to retaliate), and pardoning people (their offenses). God loves (such) people who are devoted to doing good.”

A bridge to interfaith understanding

These are just a few examples of the many ways in which Judaism and Islam share common beliefs and values. In today’s fractured world, it is vital that Jews and Muslims understand what they have in common and reach out to each other in friendship and support. We need to repair the gaping hole where ignorance currently resides. Knowledge of each other is the only way to prevent future religious bigotry and violence, and to replace hatred with love.

Generally accepted as a Christian country, Australia became exposed to Christianity along with Judaism and Islam little more than 200 years ago, due to the arrival of the British settlers and scattered landings of Muslim Indonesian sailors on the northern shores (Stephenson, 2007). Evidence has shown that it is inaccurate to claim that Indonesian Muslims were the first to discover Australia. The earliest reliable evidence dates their presence in Australia to the mid-1700s, whereas it is known the Dutch had discovered it by 1606 (Ganter, 2008). Since the arrival of the first fleet in 1788, Australia has been subject to a regular influx of refugees and immigrants. As a direct result, integration of cultures has become an integral part of Australian society. Over the last 60 years, the population of Australia has become one of the most ethnically diverse in the world (Kurti, 2013). It is clear that today’s Australia is a multicultural and religiously diverse society. According to the 2011 Australian Census, over a quarter (26% or 5.3 million) of Australia’s population was born overseas and a further one-fifth (20% or 4.1 million) had at least one parent born overseas (Ozdowski, 2012). Since the 1970s, federal and local governments, NGOs, and various intercultural and interfaith organizations have worked incessantly to make Australia everyone’s home. The primary aim of this was to overcome misconceptions and to promote community cohesion through principles of respect, acceptance, tolerance, and collaboration.

Many cultures, including Australian (and by implication Western European cultures), view anything or anyone who comes across as different in regard to customs, appearance, dress or language, in a mistrustful way which can invoke a variety of emotions, ranging from mild loathing to extreme fear. Such views are further affected by constant media exposure of adverse events, including minor misdemeanors carried out by minority groups from particular ethnic and religious backgrounds. Controversial news travels faster and attracts more attention than noncontroversial news, so it is unsurprising that print and electronic media release unfavorable news almost exclusively on a daily basis. Furthermore, the overwhelming influence of visual and print media has on people’s perceptions and views, intentionally or otherwise, results in a one dimensional view of events. This type of news, informed by biased information, tends to shape responses to events in our lives in a way that creates serious prejudices.

Australia can be proud of its record when it comes to amicable and respectful inter-cultural community relations. This, along with its inclusive view of the religious beliefs of others, is founded on mutual respect and the forbearance of alternative points of view. In recent times, however, small but concerning components of insularity and corresponding multi-racial indifference has emerged, threatening the otherwise harmonious levels of co-existence. Much of the early success of colonial expansionism was due to the respect and tolerance of cultural differences by the British colonialists, especially in the Indian-sub continent. A notable exception, however, was the early treatment of the native Aboriginal people in Australia by European settlers (Reynolds, 1987). The initially negative treatment of native people by the white settlers evolved over time and led to a general shift in attitudes towards accepting each other’s views, cultures, and traditions.

In today’s world, one would have to be either intellectually myopic or simply deeply misinformed to have formed the view that ‘all is well’ in the world of human relations, with naked violence, in its worst possible forms, paraded in front of us daily in the international and local media. Those who profess naivety would appear to accept no responsibility for what is all too often a one-sided view of events. At a personal level, our relationships are strengthened by an open minded approach to the beliefs of others without feeling the need to force others with differing views to believe what we believe and perceive. However, they can also be affected by a sense of profound disquiet that comes in the wake of the often quite virulent proselytizing of those who cannot, or will not, acknowledge the rights of others to believe in their own version of the “truth.”

Few will argue that prejudice ‘feeds’ on ignorance, possibly the worst form of ignorance being one that is “fed” by innuendo, half truths, and downright slander. Australia, as a country with a historically Christian tradition, can be quite proud of its generally open-minded and fair approach towards fellow Australians who choose to follow other religious or cultural beliefs and traditions. According to (Koleth, 2010-11; 3-41) in Australia: “Multiculturalism has served a variety of goals over the years, including, the pursuit of social justice, the recognition of identities and appreciation of diversity, the integration of migrants, nation building, and attempts to achieve and maintain social cohesion.” This has become one of many reasons why our immigration policies, which have led to an enhanced acceptance of “multiculturalism,” now enjoy high levels of success and positive acclaim within the international community (Ozdowski, 2012).

One of the achievements of our immigration policy has been the acceptance of those who are refugees on humanitarian grounds, providing the bounty of many skills and practical abilities that migrants bring to our country. This has become vital to engender notions of acceptance and understanding in all people. In Australia, communities come from diverse political, cultural, and religious persuasions. Thus, the focus should be on a deeper level of unconditional acceptance, understanding, and affection between people who may not necessarily be well acquainted at a personal level. A good example of this is contained in a biblical utterance from Paul of Tarsus in his letter to the Corinthians: “And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (Corinthians 13:2). As this quote highlights, love forms the foundation of social acceptance and cohesion. It is, therefore, not too fanciful or naive to suggest that this type of love offers the best possibility for peaceful and harmonious co-existence between peoples of widely differing cultural and religious backgrounds.

Similar to the Christian teachings, Islam and its proponents promote tolerance at all levels: between family members, husband and wife, parent and child, as well as between groups and nations. The Qur’an says, ”O Mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes so that you might [affectionately] come to know one another. Surely, the most honored among you, in the sight of God, is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted” (49:13). To this end, the Qur’an commonly advocates tolerance, respect, and goodwill towards the People of the Book (Christians and Jews). For example, the Qur’an declares: “God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, nor drive you away from your home, to be kindly to them, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable” (60:8).

Thus, in a spirit of tolerance, acceptance and understanding, Australia seems to fit well within this ideal paradigm. In Australia, immigrants of all nationalities and religious beliefs are well integrated by international standards. However, there still exists a pressing need for interfaith and intercultural dialogue between all members and from all strata of society. Currently, there are government organizations and NGOs promoting dialogue through various events and programs. Affinity Intercultural Foundation, the Australian Intercultural Society, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Victoria Multicultural Commission, and the Community Relations Commission for a multicultural NSW are some of the organizations who are genuinely exerting creditable efforts toward the goal of dialogue. The high degree of diversity in Australia could quite naturally lead to social segregation. Fortunately, the commonsense and basically fair-minded attitudes that prevail in Australia have prevented this from happening to the same extent as in Europe (Ozdowski, 2012). At the beginning of white settlement in Australia, by a combination of free and convict settlers, there existed a degree of European based xenophobia towards anyone who either looked or dressed differently; but familiarity, liberal values, and a broadly democratic view of life have tempered misconceptions.

Australia is proud of its strong and unshakable friendships with people of varying religious beliefs, including those encompassed by the large monotheistic religions Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. It needs to be acknowledged after all, that if we can believe in one single external power in our lives, it is possible to accept that we are all children from the same source. Many philosophers have suggested that ultimately ‘all is perception’; however, if that perception of our fellow human beings is one of ‘difference’ in terms of language, culture, dress, and beliefs, then we are presented with the challenge to ensure that these differences do not create the sort of divisions that lead to a ‘ghetto’ response that is sadly all too often one of the consequences of such differences.

There is beauty in diversity and diversity in beauty. This beauty is further enhanced in the human experience if all people in the world agree to differ amicably with a sense of respect for different views, or more simply put, “agree to disagree.” What a beautiful world that would be to live in. Finally, it may be said that the achievement of cultural and interfaith harmony begins with the necessary education that enables us to recognize that whatever differences there are, these must not cause divisions and unfounded suspicions. Differences are something to be embraced rather than feared; they give life a special richness that would be absent if everyone was the same. Above all, along with viewing love as a bond between people, we are bound to recognize love as an ingredient for human tolerance and harmony.

References

• Ganter, R. 2008. Muslim Australians: The Deep Histories of Contact. Journal of Australian Studies, 32(4), 482–483.
• Koleth, E. 2010-11. Multiculturalism: a review of Australian policy statements and recent debates in Australia and overseas, Parliament of Australia, Research Paper No.6, pp. 3-41.
• Kurti, P. 2013. Multiculturalism and the Fetish of Diversity. CIS policy monographs 138: Centre for Independent Studies (Australia)
• Ozdowski, S. 2012. “Australian Multiculturalism: the roots of its success.” Third International Conference on Human Rights Education: Promoting Change in Times of Transition and Crisis, The Jagiellonian University: Krakow, Poland.
• Reynolds, H. 1987. Frontier: Aborigines, settlers and land. Sydney: Allen – Unwin.
• Stephenson, P. 2007. The outsiders within: Telling Australia’s indigenous-Asian story. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press Ltd

Jefferson, a deist himself, appears in the book uniquely positioned among the Founding Fathers, with his unyielding advocacy of equal rights for all beliefs, including Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and pagans, all of which were despised by the Protestant groups that dominated the young American society at the time. Spellberg traces the origins of his fervor for religious pluralism and his demand for tolerating Muslims and other beliefs to the liberal European thinkers like Locke. A detailed history of European debates on religious freedom and tolerance helps the reader to understand that the current tension in Europe about the rights and place of Muslims in the continent also has ties going back several centuries. We see that hostility against Islam, often based on an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the religion of Islam and Islamic history, was very visible in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was an exception in those times to paint a relatively objective picture of Muslims and their beliefs. Interestingly, those figures who did that or advocated some form of tolerance for Muslims ended up being labeled as Muslims, which at that time in the Christian world meant being labeled an infidel. Jefferson got his share of this, too: he was called a Muslim or infidel when he advocated for the equality of all religions, including Islam.

Jefferson’s defense of religious freedom and equality is better understood when it is seen in the light of his own view of Islam and Islamic history. He was not different from his contemporaries in this aspect. His purchase of a translation of the Qur’an for his library shows his interest to learn more about the religion, partly caused by his involvement as the US Ambassador to Paris during negotiations with the North African tribes for American hostages. His brief study of Islam didn’t help eliminate his negative perception of Islam. It was an image continuously perpetuated by the surrounding climate of hostility against Islam which was, by and large, an imitation of European attitudes. Nevertheless, his opposition to any type of religious coercion in the hands of the government and his attachment to the ideal of national and religious equality was strong enough to include Muslims as acceptable and legitimate members of American society.

Spellberg finds no historical record showing that Jefferson or his contemporaries officially acknowledged the presence of Muslims in America at the time, even though there were many, at least among the slaves brought from Africa, and perhaps some among Jefferson’s own slaves. In a sense, the talk about religious pluralism in the early years of American government often referred to Muslims (often called Turks, due to the Ottomans) as imaginary members of the society, focusing on what would happen if they were there. For most Americans of Jefferson’s time, there was little or no difference between Muslims and pagans.

It is clear that the notion of religious freedom as championed by Jefferson and others in these conditions required a certain level of unwavering commitment to equality. These years produced a strong foundation upon which today’s Muslims in America, with other religious groups, came to enjoy their equal rights. Under constitutional protection, rights were granted without a demand from real Muslims – and people of all faiths, or no faith at all.

Overall, Spellberg’s book is an important read on the history of European and American perceptions of Islam and religious freedom. Its well crafted story of the process by which religious equality came to be a foundational element of the American ideal is of immense value to any student of American history.

In 1989, in his classic book The World’s Religions, the late Scots writer and teacher Ninian Smart gave us a landmark framework to help us compare and contrast the world’s great religious beliefs. Smart identified what he called the ‘seven dimensions’ of religion:

1. The practical and ritual dimension
2. The experiential and emotional dimension
3. The narrative or mythic dimension
4. The ethical and legal dimension
5. The social and institutional dimension
6. The material dimension

This framework has helped two generations of scholars and believers to identify what their beliefs have in common with other belief traditions and what the significant differences are.

In countries like Australia, where religious groups and institutions enjoy tax exemptions in relation to property and works of charity, courts have been asked to rule on what is or is not a ‘religion’. So, in Australia, the High Court determined in 1983 that to be considered as a ‘religion’ rather than a ‘philosophy’ a group must pass a twofold test:

– belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and

– acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.(154 CLR 120 at 132, 137)

(A strict application of the first principle would rule out Buddhism as a religion, yet results from successive Australian censuses show Buddhism to be the fastest-growing religion in Australia. It is hard to be consistent! )

Some scholars looking for another, and perhaps simpler, way of comparing and contrasting religious movements, institutions and traditions may find help in the pioneer work of the English sociologist Grace Davie.

In 1994, Davie launched the study of religion into a new dimension with her challenging book, Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing without Belonging. The study was based on interviews with several thousand people outside shopping centres in various parts of Britain. She posed her conclusions in a series of questions. The first is:

Believing without Belonging

Why is it, for example, that the majority of British people – in common with many other Europeans – persist in believing (if only in an ordinary God), but see no need to participate with even minimal regularity in their religious institutions? Indeed most people in this country – whatever their denominational allegiance – express their religious sentiments by staying away from, rather than going to, their places of worship. On the other hand, relatively few British people have opted out of religion altogether: out-and-out atheists are rare. ( Davie, p2)

Five years after Davie’s significant book was published, another English sociologist, Robin Gill, added a third B, Behaving, although he did tend to equate ‘behaving’ with churchgoing, arguing that it is churchgoing which fosters and sustains a distinctive culture of beliefs and values (p. 64).

In the same year, Grace Davie published another of her many books; this one based on a study of religion in Europe. This led her to conclude that Europe is what she calls ‘the exceptional case’ – many Europeans, particularly in the Scandinavian countries of northern Europe, belong to the majority national church without any belief in their teachings, or even in the existence of a god. She is now preparing revised editions of both her books.

The three Bs have become almost a cliché – so, just two of many examples, the Anglican bishop Tom Frame uses the three Bs to frame part of his critique of the Anglican church in Australia and Richard Rice uses them to combat ‘the ideology of individualism’ and construct a theology of the church for Seventh Day Adventists in the United States.

Grace Davie herself has recently moved on from examining the state of Christianity in Britain and Europe to consider issues arising from Muslim migration to the West, and what she calls the shift from religious obligation to religious consumption.

Now some scholars are talking about a fourth Becoming. Most religious traditions teach that believing religious truth, and belonging to a religious community, should not only modify your behaviour, for the better, of course, but should change your nature, so that you become a new and better person. King’s College London has become a centre of transformation theology, Transformation is a well-established international journal of holistic mission studies and the United Methodist Church of the United States includes ‘becoming’ in the title of a new manual to help congregations incorporate new members.

In the great eastern religions, ‘becoming’ is a key part of their anthropology, with rebirth or reincarnation being the reward or the punishment in the next life for the quality of behaving in this life.

So we now have the ‘four Bs’ of religion, Believing, Belonging, Behaving and Becoming. At a time when the patterns of religious adherence in Australia are changing, due both to immigration and conversion, it is more important than ever for us to understand what other Australians believe. The Four Bs give us a new formal structure for discussing religious belief and practice intelligently, just as there are formal structures which help us make sense of physics or chemistry or biology or economics or sociology, or any of the natural or social sciences.

It may even result in a new and simpler way of comparing and contrasting established religions, on the basis of what the adherents of a particular religion believe and do, alongside Ninian Smart’s ‘seven dimensions’ of religion. So we can consider such issues as:

1. Which of the four Bs is most important to a particular religion?
2. What are the key beliefs of the major world religions represented in Australia?
3. How are the four Bs linked, in the Scriptures and the teachings of each faith?
4. Do all people of faith believe in the same God? If not, is there more than one God?
5. Is belonging about belonging to God or to the community of faith, or both?
6. How do these faith traditions expect their believers to behave – what is commanded, what is allowed and what is forbidden? and
7. How do believers become changed people, spiritually and even bodily? What is at the heart of the anthropology of each faith? What do they teach about the body and the soul, about resurrection and reincarnation?

In a sense it is all about the one big B, believing; what does a particular faith community believe about believing, about belonging, about behaving and about becoming? Over the past few months, I have recorded interviews with leaders and scholars of the five major religions represented in Australia and studied the books and pamphlets which they recommended. All of them claimed that their basic beliefs were based on their Scriptures, but the statements of faith which emerged suggested that some of them had put their Scriptures through a blender, as it were, to come up with statements which summarise the beliefs and practices and understandings which are common to most of the denominations or sects within each faith community.

JUDAISM

So the first article of the Jewish faith is the shema, the message given by Moses, or in the name of Moses:

The shema

Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one. – Deuteronomy 6.4

Yet the Jewish Scriptures record the growth of an understanding of God from the anthropomorphism of the book of Genesis through transcendentalism and panentheism, henotheism and particularism to true monotheism, belief in the one God who is the one true God of all peoples, even of those who do not accept him.

The second article of faith relates to humankind, which is said to have been created in the image of God, and is bound to God in a covenant relationship. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of a number of signs of the covenant, including the gift of the Sabbath at the time of creation, the rainbow after the great flood, and, most important, the circumcision of all males on the eighth day after birth, as part of the Abrahamic covenant.

This covenant is stated in chapter 12 of the book of Genesis, restated in Chapter 15 and sealed in Chapter 17, when Abraham agrees that the sign of the covenant will appear on the bodies of all his male descendants through circumcision.

The covenant with Abraham

Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing …and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’

– Genesis 12.1-3

God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. – – Genesis 17.9-11

Many Jews call the ceremony of circumcision berit, which means ‘covenant’. The covenant was reaffirmed in the so-called Mosaic covenant at Mt Sinai, which the whole people of Israel are said to have confirmed, answering Moses as one, Everything that the Lord has spoken we will do. (Exodus 19.8)

The third article of faith is that the Torah is divinely-inspired. ‘Torah’ can mean the totality of the law of Moses, or all the law on a particular subject, or the first five books of the Scriptures, the Pentateuch, as distinct from the Prophets and the Writings.

Two other significant beliefs, which are seen differently by different Jewish communities, relate to the Messiah and to the land of Israel.

Belief in the Messiah developed after the Second Temple period, giving new meaning to the Messianic oracles in the writings of the prophets. The rabbis taught that the Messiah would be a descendent of David, and thus his coming would bring about the climax of human history and the direct rule of God on earth.

The land of Israel, Eretz Israel, was part of the Abrahamic covenant, but not all Jewish believers accept the modern state of Israel, because it was a secular foundation, not established by YHWH. Some Orthodox Jews say that the true Israel will be established only with the coming of the Messiah.

ISLAM

Most Australian Muslims will tell you that belief comes first, without the core beliefs there is no Islam. But the word Islam means submission, so some Muslims believe that behaving comes first, to be a Muslim one must submit absolutely and completely to the will of God. Many men and women were Muslims before the time of the Prophet. Two verses in the Qur’an are almost identical in proclaiming this:

Submission to God
Surely, those who believe,
whether they are Jews or Christians, or those of some other faith;
anyone who believes in GOD, and
believes in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life,
will receive their recompense from their Lord;
they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve. – Qur’an 2:62, 5:69

The core Islamic belief is belief in the one, unique, incomparable God, the God who has no son or partner; none has the right to be worshipped but Him alone. Al’lah is the true God, and every other deity is false. He has the most magnificent names and sublime perfect attributes. No one shares His divinity, nor His attributes. The shahada, the confession of faith, the so-called first pillar of Islam La ilaha illa’Llah, ‘there is no god but God’ begins with a negative, to deny the false notions of God in the polytheism of Muhammad’s time and in the beliefs of the Jews and Christians whom Muhammad had encountered.

All other key beliefs in Islam relate to this core belief

– the angels are heavenly beings who worship God alone, obey Him, and act only by His command

– the Revealed Books have been revealed by God to his messengers as proof of His existence and as a guide to their belief and behaviour . The latest and greatest of these books is the Quran, which God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad , and guaranteed to protect it from any corruption or distortion.

– the Prophets and Messengers of God, from Adam to Muhammad, and including Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus were all sent to reveal the same message, but God’s final message to humankind, the supreme reconfirmation of the eternal message, was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. God has made prophecy the central reality of history, the Qur’an says that God has sent a messenger to every people in every age (Q. 10.48) – one of the ahadith says a total of 124 000 prophets in all.

– the Day of Judgment, the Day of Reckoning, the Day of Resurrection, is the day when God will resurrect, reward and punish every one for their beliefs and deeds. Some scholars have counted more than 115 references in the Qur’an to the Day of Judgment, more than on any other topic in the Qur’an, except Al’lah, and that number does not include verses with graphic details of the after-life, of heaven and hell. Surah No 81, which is said to date from the early years of Islam, before Muhammad left Mecca for Medina,

The Day of Judgment
When the sun is folded up,
when the stars fall, losing their lustre;
when the mountains vanish (like a mirage);
When the she-camels, ten months with young, are left unattended;
when the wild beasts are herded together;
When the oceans boil over with a swell;
When the souls are sorted out (joined like with like);
When the female (infant) buried alive is questioned for what crime she was killed;
When the Scrolls are laid open;
when the world on high is unveiled;
when the Blazing Fire(of hell) is kindled to fierce heat,
and when the Garden (of Bliss) is brought near –
Then shall each soul know its Destiny. – Qur’an 81. 1.14

CHRISTIANITY

In the early centuries of Christianity, when its beliefs were being defined, the central issue in the debates was the nature of the person and work of Jesus which later grew into distinct areas of theology, Christology and soteriology: What is the relation between Jesus and God?

Christians maintain that God was clearly acting and speaking in and through Jesus; the writer of the Gospel according to John could quote Jesus as saying, the Father and I are One (John 10.30) yet Jesus is recorded, in the same gospel and elsewhere, as praying to God and speaking of God as a separate person. As well, God is shown as being present at key points in the life of Jesus, at his birth, and his baptism, and key moments during his mission, in ways traditionally associated with the spirit, or the breath, of God.

The outcome was a Christian redefinition of the inner nature of the Godhead, as a mystical union of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit – distinct, yet co-equal and co-eternal. Today, some Christians see these terms as anthropological and prefer to speak of the persons of the Trinity in terms of their roles or activities, as Creator, Redeemer and Spirit.

So the historic creeds have more to say about Jesus than of the other persons of the Trinity. The so-called Nicene Creed speaks of Jesus as the one who lived and died and rose again ‘for our salvation’, but does not say how and from what, So a spectrum of different accounts or theories has emerged – from the legalistic substitutionary theory, that Christ took the place of each and every person on the cross, to the moral or exemplary theory, that the death of Christ revealed the extent of the love of God which Christians are called to emulate. Generally, the theories coalesce around the idea that Jesus’ death dealt with the reality of sin in a way which humanity could not have done for itself.

For many Christians the death of Christ was the seal of a new covenant between believers and God, replacing the old covenant with the Jewish people. The unknown writer of the Letter to the Hebrews elaborates the doctrine at length in typological fashion, stressing that the new covenant secures the perfect forgiveness of sins for all believers.

The new covenant

For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God! – Hebrews 9.13-14

The creeds also include belief in the church, the return of Christ in glory, and the promise of the resurrection of the dead, or of the body. The Nicene Creed also speaks of the sacrament of baptism, but not of the eucharist, or of any other sacrament of the church. The debates on these came later.

From the first generation, many Christians have believed that the Holy Spirit would empower them with special gifts, as described in a letter of Paul to the church in Corinth:

The gifts of the Spirit

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. – 1 Corinthians 12.7-10

These gifts were seen as theirs as disciples of Christ and sharers in his gifts. But few mainstream Christians would claim these gifts today. Many Christian traditions maintain a healing ministry but no longer claim, as Augustine did, that all diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to demons and that these can be driven out with prayer and fasting.

HINDUISM

The traditions of Indian religion which most people collectively call ‘Hinduism’ have evolved over many centuries, without a single founder or a single collection of scripture. They include many and varied beliefs, so that believing is not as significant as belonging or behaving or becoming.

Many Hinduisms have largely merged into one. Ninian Smart says, like the trunk of a single tree which rises from a tangle of the most divergent roots. Most of these traditions have become monotheistic, but in a variety of ways – for some believers the 330 million or so deities in the pantheon are manifestations or expressions of the one divinity, as in some passages of the Rig Veda. For others, one god, Shiva or Vishnu, is the supreme god, and other gods are lesser gods or demigods.

Other groups recognise a trinity: Brahma, the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer. Together they represent the forces which are evident in the natural world and in human beings at all times. To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods may be combined in the one form of Lord Dattatreya, who has the faces of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

In the pre-classical period, dominant beliefs were expressed in or developed from the four Vedas. The Rig Veda, the oldest of the Vedas, was composed about 1500 BCE and redacted about 600 B.C. The Sama Veda, the Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda came later. All contain hymns, incantations, and rituals by which man can relate to the gods. The chief gods of the Veda are Indra, the great warrior; Varuna, the lord of the heaven, and Agni, the god of fire.

Sometime around 500 BCE, new traditions developed, including belief in samsara, the cycle of rebirth, and karma, the impact of past actions on the present and the future. The earlier traditions were focused on the priestly class, the Brahmans; now they came to include all classes, so Brahman came to mean the holy power which informs and animates the whole of reality. Sometimes Brahman is identified with Atman, the inner essence of the human being

The new traditions are expressed in the 200 or so Upanishads, the texts which are said to complete the message of the Vedas. In the Upanishads, ritual action and self-control converge in the search for personal liberation from samsara through unity with the Holy One or at least close communion with the holy.

The Upanishads express the unity of all things in many ways, as in these verses from the Isha Upanishad:

The Divine unity
When a man sees all beings
within his very self,
and his self within all beings.
it will not seek to hide from him.
– Isha Upanishad 4.6

In classical Hinduism, which emerged in the second and third centuries BCE, the community of the local temple became more significant, with its fervent sharing in the life of the chosen manifestation of the divine, known as bhakti . Bhakti is the essence of the epic poem the Bhagavad-gita , which was composed around 300BCE to 200 BCE and became the major work of Hindu Scripture, largely supplanting the Vedas and the Upanishads.

In the Bhagavad-Gita the Lord KRSNA presents the mature Hindu understanding of the one God:

The nature of God
My nature is divided eight-fold …
my higher nature know:
It is the Life (soul), great-armed one,
by which this world is maintained. …
Of the whole world I am
the origin and the dissolution too.
– Bhagavad-gita, chapter

The diversity of Hindu beliefs is also seen in the growth of devotion to the Goddess, under various names, such as Durga, Kali and Parvati, each of whom represent different aspects of the goddess – Durga is the unapproachable; Kali the ferocious devourer of time; Parvati the beautiful, the benign, the wife of Siva, whose devoted service to her husband is the model of how man should serve his god.

BUDDHISM

Belief is not as important in Buddhism as in other faiths; Buddhist teachers say that Buddhism is not a religion but a a way of life; Buddhism is pragmatic … as it moves from its heartland it assimilates beliefs and practices from local cultures. So right believing is not as important as right becoming, securing a good rebirth, or escaping from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth by reaching Nirvana, or even as belonging, living as a member of the Buddhist community.

However, to be a Buddhist means believing that Buddha actually lived, and that his teachings are true wisdom; and that all things are impermanent and interdependent. The Buddha’s teachings are known collectively as dharma. They speak of

1. AThe Four Noble Truths
2. The Triple Jewels
3. The Four Reliances and
4. The Four States of Mind for Studying the Dharma

Buddhist teaching aims to enlighten us about ourselves, to respect ourselves and to affirm ourselves. It is humanistic, not theistic – Buddhist teaching speaks of devas or gods, as well as maras or evil spirits, which are evil influences which stand in the way of Buddhist practice and ultimate liberation. The devas inhabit the heavens above the human realm, but are still unenlightened, bound to samsara, the endless cycle of birth and death. Mainstream Buddhism has no concept of the creation of the world, or of a divine Creator. Like all things, the world is subject to the cycle of birth and death.

Religious teachings on belonging, behaving and becoming all stem from the basic beliefs and the Scriptures of each faith.

BELONGING

Judaism sees belonging in at least three ways – firstly, the people belong to God in a covenant relationship; but they also belong to each other on the grounds of race, the sense of a common ancestry, of belonging to a people with a common history, including centuries of communal suffering, and, thirdly, they belong in a local community in one of the varied streams of Judaism -Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Progressive, Reconstructionist, Hasidim or Liberal.

Islam, submission, is a community obligation as well as an individual one. Believers form the one community, although they may be from many nations and tribes. Just as God sent prophets and messengers as witnesses to the Jews and the Christians and then to the Muslims, so the Muslim nation must witness to other nations.

The Greek kuriakios, from which Christians derive the word ‘church’, means ‘belonging to the Lord’, so ‘belonging’ means belonging in the church – the local congregation, and/or a particular denomination or tradition, and/or the ‘one holy, catholic and apostolic church’, as the Nicene Creed puts it. For the early Christians, the church was a spiritual society, the ‘new Israel’, which replaced the Jews as the people of God; all Christians were one in Christ, regardless of race, background or gender; the church was the repository of Christian truth; and nourished its members to enable them to grow in faith and holiness.

In the Hindu traditions ‘belonging’ relates primarily to one’s place in Indian society – the words Hindu, India and the Indus are cognate words – essentially, Hindus are the people of the Indus valley. They belong to the community because they are born into it. Belonging is expressed through the family’s association with a particular temple, or with a particular religious teacher; by their dress, their participation in religious ceremonies and festivals, and by their moral codes and behavioural expectations.

One of the three jewels of Buddhism is the sangha, the Buddhist community. In Chinese Buddhism the sangha is a community of monks and/or nuns, who are the exemplars of the faith. In other traditions the sangha may include lay men and/or women. Whether the sangha is monastic or lay, or a combination of both, belonging means accepting the principles of harmony in truth and harmony of action. The six principles of the sangha: doctrinal harmony, moral harmony, economic harmony, spiritual harmony, verbal harmony and physical harmony.

BEHAVING

A large part of the Jewish Torah is taken up with instructions on how the people should behave towards one another, particularly towards the poorer members of the community, as in the holiness code in Leviticus chapter 19. Behaving is linked with belonging – You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. (Lev. 19.1). The Torah records the commandments of the Covenant, including the 10 commandments, which are recorded twice, in slightly different forms, and the 613 mitzvot, the lesser commandments and ritual duties and good deeds which are scattered through the text.

For Muslims, ‘behaving’ means following the rules prescribed for the community. Belonging controls behaving. In turn, believing controls belonging. Right behaviour is modelled on the life of Muhammad and his Companions, in the sunnah, the early Muslim community, as recorded in the ahadith, the authentic traditions of Islam. The Qur’an regularly links believing and behaving, as in this passage about the outcome of the Day of Judgment: Surely for those who believe and do righteous deeds, their welcome is Gardens of the highest level of Paradise. Therein will they abide, without desiring any change therefrom. (Qur’an 18: 107-108)

Christians are expected to behave in accordance with their belief that Christ is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ (John 14.6). Christians need to study and model their own lives on what Georgia Harkness calls the way of life exemplified and taught by Jesus, applied to the manifold problems and decisions of human existence. (Christian Ethics, 1957 – from web). But Christians are also required to behave in accordance with their belonging, to behave in accordance with the teachings of their church. The issue of conscience versus command has been controversial throughout Christian history.

Many Hindus call their faith sanatana dharma, everlasting dharma. They see Hinduism as a personal map of appropriate behaviour -behaviour which will eliminate mental impurities like greed and egoism and achieve good karma , behaviour which corresponds to the cosmic order in which natural law is grounded. The basic Vedic virtues include truthfulness, nonviolence, austerity, self-control, tranquillity, study and teaching, sincere worship, universal brotherhood and wisdom. These apply to all human beings, but particular behaviours may be required of the five castes and at each of the four stages of life.

The precepts or rules of Buddhism are largely negative, urging restraint from the desires which lead to suffering. So Buddhist teaching on behaving focuses on training to avoid and overcome these desires. A mind that is trained avoids actions that are likely to cause suffering or remorse. The Buddhist text, the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines lists ‘the six perfections of a Bodhisattva’ – the perfection of giving, the perfection of morality, the perfection of patience, the perfection of persistence, the perfection of concentration and the perfection of wisdom.

BECOMING

In traditional Judaism, ‘becoming’ is about becoming a better person in this life, not about the next life. The next life is best left in God’s hands. The reward of good behaving is a longer and better life, rather than the promise of an after-life But, by the Rabbinic period, the resurrection of the dead had become central tenet of Judaism, even if, for many traditional Jews, personal transformation in this life through repentance and commitment to the will of God remained the foundation of the Jewish faith.

In Islam, believing, belonging and behaving become a transformational experience. The self is made fit for paradise, the ultimate reward for those who believe. Three key passages in the Qur’an outline the successive stages. The nafs, the self, which is naturally prone to evil (Q. 12.53), becomes self-accusing (Q. 75.2); in this second stage the self becomes conscious of evil and resists it, asks Al’lah for pardon and reaches for salvation. In the third stage, the soul asks no more than to be at rest in Al’lah (Q. 89.27).

Christians believe that, in some way, their belief in Christ and in his mission as the bearer of salvation transform them into a new person, in mind and spirit, if not in body. The key Scripture is in the Gospel according to John, which quotes Jesus as telling a Jewish teacher that the people of God are not identified by their race, but by their commitment to God – ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being reborn of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3.5-6)

In the traditions of Indian religion, rebirth after death is a fundamental teaching, and the desire to achieve a good rebirth, based on good karma in this life, is the reason for following the prescribed rituals and patterns of behaviour. So behaving determines becoming. Rebirth may be in many forms, including those of animals, and in many heavens and hells. Rebirth as a human is rare, and marks release from samsara, the eternal cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

Two core teachings of Buddhism come together in its doctrine of rebirth – the reality of impermanence and the law of cause and effect. All human beings are caught up in samsara, transmigration, the continuous process of birth, death and rebirth. If they fail to practice the dharma in this life, on or after death they will be reborn in one of the six realms of existence – the realm of hell beings or the realm of hungry ghosts, or the realm of animals (the three unfortunate realms), or perhaps in the realm of human beings, the realm of the demigods or the realm of the gods.

CONCLUSION

The Four Bs does appear to provide a new framework for comparing and contrasting the main traditions of institutional religion, perhaps of all religious traditions. They appear to have major differences in two Bs, believing and becoming, but a good deal in common in belonging and behaving. The more I read and speak with teachers of the major faiths, the more the differences become significant. Yet the beliefs and behaviours of religious people generally are so different from dominant secular beliefs and values that people of faith might be seen as forming a sub-culture within globalising world culture. The Melbourne scholar Ken Gelder argues that

‘subcultures are social, with their own shared conventions, values and rituals, but they can also seem “immersed” or self-absorbed; a feature that distinguishes them from countercultures’.

– Ken Gelder Subcultures: cultural histories and social practice 2007 p2.

Simply by believing in the numinous in any form, and belonging to a religious group, and behaving in accordance with religious teaching and becoming a better person as a result may make what believers have in common much more significant than anything that separates them. Already there are signs that religious believers, whatever their faith allegiance, are willing to stand together, both against the excesses of a dominantly secular society and the excesses of religious fundamentalism.

Dr Douglas Golding is a post-doctoral research scholar of the sociology of religion living in Sydney, Australia. He has taken part in many inter-faith discussions and given papers at a number of international conferences – in Oxford, Tokyo, Stockholm, Manila, Auckland and Tehran as well as in Sydney. He is currently teaching adult education classes in religion and history at two universities and working on his book on the ‘Four Bs’.

Definition of concepts

Religion: It seems proper to begin this section with a brief overview of what religion is and what it stands for. There are many definitions of religion classified broadly into two main domains, i.e. (1) Subjective and (2) Functional perspectives. The subjective definitions of religion relate to beliefs and belief systems in supra-natural beings, whereas the functional definitions of religion relate to the binding and unifying forces of religions. Nevertheless, just a few of such definitions would be highlighted here. To begin with a dictionary definition on the subjective perspective, the Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (1983) defines religion as “The personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion.”

Edward Taylor (1903) made an early attempt to define religion—a definition he considered as a “minimum definition.” This minimum definition has been given as the “belief in spiritual beings.” In this definition, Taylor stressed that “all things, organic and inorganic, contain a soul or spirit which gives them their particular nature and characteristics.” According to Furseth and Repstad (2006), the definition of religion offered by Taylor seems to underscore the belief that all human beings have souls; a stand-point which transforms to the belief in spirits, gods, devils and other spiritual beings. Though an early attempt, the definition of religion given by Taylor has attracted a number of criticisms. One critic has seen Taylor’s definition of religion as being “naively evolutionary and ethnocentric.”

Another sociologist of religion, Roland Robertson (1982:1912) considers religion as being above the empirical. Religion to Robertson is “supra-empirical.” Robertson (1982) argues that there is a difference between “an empirical and a supra-empirical, transcendental reality,” and religious culture and activities came out of this distinction. Giving a full definition of religion, partly given by Robertson, Michael Hill (1973:42-3) has defined religion in his “Introduction to Religion” as:

The set of beliefs which postulate and seek to regulate the distinction between an empirical reality and a related and significant supra-empirical segment of reality; the language and symbols which are used in relation to this distinction; and the activities and institutions which are concerned with its regulation.

Finally on the subjective perspective, Emile Durkheim (1982/1921:47) has referred to religion as systems of beliefs, practices, and sacred things set aside and are forbidden, and a church.

On the functional perspective, a definition of religion has been given by Durkheim (1982/1921:47) in which he notes that religion is a powerful force that produces integration in a moral community. And according to Thomas Luckman-a German sociologist-religious process is the formation of self, where “human beings develop their understanding of self by placing themselves in a meaningful totality where they are creating a frame of reference for interpreting reality.”

Social capital: Social capital refers to networks, contacts, connections, socialisation, opportunities, etc. The social capital theoretical perspective-the proponents being the French sociologist Pierre Bourdier and the American Sociologist Robert Putnam-has gained wider acceptance in the literature. This is perhaps due to the ability of this perspective to undertake and predict the norms and social relationships that enable people to coordinate action to achieve desired goals (Putnam, 1993; Narayan and Cassidy, 2001, p. 59).

The proponents of social capital perspective have argued that while economic capital is in people’s bank accounts and human capital in their heads (or brains), social capital inheres in social interaction. In other words, social capital is relational. It is obvious here why efforts to identify and overcome the likely factors that inhibit interaction, most especially inter-group interaction, are worth mustering. And religious values are formidable in that direction.

Social capital and development

Social capital, as earlier noted, is built upon social contacts and networks. Therefore, social interactions and relations are paramount to building social capital; as interactions and relations could serve as a pool of development opportunities and chances. A number of studies (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001; Woolley, 1998) support the hypothesis that frequent social contacts through interactions are more likely to yield high resultant outcomes-be it solidarity, integration, cohesion or goal-attainment. The mobilisation of resources for development of the society can be made more feasible through establishing frequent social contacts and networks in a number of ways. The ways which are crucial to building social capital essential for societal development have been outlined, though not exhaustive, below:

Group characteristics: This concerns the active and frequent participation of people in activities that concern their collective, developmental interests and goals. Group characteristics constitute a crucial element of building social capital for societal development both at the micro and macro levels. Religion appears so relevant in this direction, as religious activities and practices entail frequent group participation.

Generalised norms: Trustworthiness and fairness of the people in their dealings, interactions with others are essential elements not only in building social capital, but also in charting the path for societal development. Again, religious values, virtues and belief systems embody these generalised norms.

Everyday sociability: This refers to friendly connections, relationships and the approachability of the people one lives with. Everyday sociability creates the friendly atmosphere in which people are keepers of one another-an ingredient that can serve the cause of societal development. Religious values and virtues encompass everyday sociability.

Togetherness: This dimension requires that people are happy in their interactions and relationships with others. The feeling of togetherness easily binds people towards collective goal-attainments. Similarly, religious belief systems do not coerce allegiance from their adherents. This suggests that religious followers are happy with their religious belief systems, as they could easily abandon their faiths if unhappy. Constantly attached to the religious belief system may constitute a potential source of manpower for societal development.

Rewards and costs: This refers to the consequences as perceived by the interacting people. Thibaut and Kelly describe the consequences of interaction as “rewards and costs.” In every interaction or relationship, while some aspects may appear enjoyable, pleasing and gratifying, other aspects may be unpleasant, less enjoyable and unrewarding. Rewards and costs, therefore, refer to the former and latter respectively. This seems to suggest that any meaningful societal development process should engender more rewards (benefits) than costs (disappointment). However, religion teaches people to see disappointments as a wake-up call, and must live up to the challenges posed to them-a value which is essential in overcoming development obstacles.

Social capital and religion: theoretical and empirical perspectives

Theoretical perspective: The assumptions underlying social capital theoretical perspective are that social contacts, connections and networks both at the micro and macro levels can lead to social solidarity, integration essential for goal-attainment. The prowess of religion in binding people together through promoting interactions and relationships at local, national and international levels makes it indispensable in building social capital. Religious belief systems have been identified largely as the prime source of social cohesion, integration and solidarity. According to Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), human society has long been viewed as an integrated unity, which in some cases is compared to living organisms in the functional perspective. For this reason, all efforts must be made to keep society in its integrated unity. Of course, there may be many forces that work to destabilize the social unity, cohesion and integration. Equally, there are other forces that work to keep societies integrated and unified, and religious beliefs and values have been identified by Durkheim as a powerful force that binds people and societies into a unified, moral community.

Furthermore, the collective consciousness that connects the individual to the total society and also gives the society a strong moral strength, according to Durkheim, is reinforced by religious beliefs. However, the unifying force of religions may vary from one religion to another. This has been proved by Durkheim in his study on Suicide. He found in this study that suicide rates were higher among the Protestants than among the Catholics, the reason of which has been traced to the level of religious integration. Durkheim argued in this study that the Protestants were largely left alone before God by their belief system, while the Catholics had been integrated into a set of social practices such as confession, mass, communion, etc. which integrated them more than the Protestants.

For this reason, according to Durkheim “religion is in every essence social.” Religious rites, collective behavior, relating the individual to the larger social group, and all religious beliefs are collective representations (Durkheim, 1915/1956, p. 22; McGuire, 2002, p. 197). Although Durkheim has been criticized for his analysis on suicide and religious integration, the fact remains that religion really helps the course of social cohesion, unity and integration through the common belief systems and values holding the people, societies, and civilizations together, as these categories interact over time.

From the functionalist perspective, religion integrates members of the society to ensure social progress or maintenance (Chalfant, Beckley and Palmer, 1994, p. 40). Even the conflict theorists-its proponent being Karl Marx-acknowledge the soothing impact of religion on the majority of the people. Marx attributed the inability of the Proletariat to revolt against the bourgeoisie to religious belief system, which he believed, had hypnotized the poor working class to seek their rewards in the Hereafter. Marx then labeled religion as the “opium of the people” (Johnstone, 1992).

Empirical perspective: The socio-economic and political significance of religion is tremendous. Historically, it has been acknowledged that religious belief systems have played a significant role in the development of national life in North America. According to Chalfant, Beckley and Palmer (1994), the first immigrants to the New World did so for religious reasons. With particular reference to the Calvinist Faith, more than one-third of the states that constitute the present-day USA were formed around particular interpretations of religion-the Christian faith.

Socially, religious belief systems “provide us with both self-identification and self- placement in a heterogeneous society” (Herbert, 1955; Chalfant, Beckley and Palmer, 1994). Religion is a way of belonging. It serves as a point of reference for man to acquire a religious self or the “generalized other.” Also, as religions set aside things forbidden and emphasize the sacred, religion serves as the watchdog. And any forces that seem to threaten the status quo are strongly challenged by religious groups or bodies.

Many examples have been given about the unity that religion brings to human societies. Particularly in the West, many solidarity and human rights movements have all been influenced by religious beliefs that seek to correct some anomalies in order to strengthen social solidarity, integration and unity. Because religious groups transcend national boundaries to bring people, societies and civilizations into close proximity, the tendency of religion to enforce is very high.

Economically, the religious belief system, although arguably, has been associated with the formation of capitalism-an economic paradigm. In the The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber advanced how the kind of religious belief system can instill in people the zeal to strive for economic success.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, these are some of the various ways in which religious values and virtues (the belief system) can promote unity, integration, and solidarity that are essential in building social capital for the development of the human societies. However, religion can also be abused as a source of discord and conflict in society. Such conflicts can be avoided if people avoid “religio-centrism”-a construct out of “ethno-centrism.” Religio-centrism refers to the “feelings of rightness and superiority resulting from religious affiliation.” Such religious tendencies “inhibit the ability of a society to achieve adaptation, integration and goal-attainment” (Chalfant, Beckley and Palmer, 1994, p.51).

Abdul-Mumin Abdulai is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM).

She has conducted research on the psychology of meditation for over 25 years, including investigations on the effects of meditation on heart rate control, general well-being, spirituality, psoriasis and anxiety disorders. Her other (but related) line of research is investigating the role of spirituality in adjustment to serious medical illness. A recently published randomized intervention study documented benefits of a very brief physician-delivered spirituality intervention offered to cancer patients on quality of life, emotional well-being, and satisfaction with care. Current work is investigating how religious and spiritual resources, from the patient’s perspective, may help in adjusting to cancer. Matter&Beyond spoke with her on her research.

Matter&Beyond: Dr. Kristeller, you are doing research on the spirituality of cancer patients. You also developed an intervention technique called OASIS that could benefit the patients who are going through spiritual struggles. What was your starting point for this project?

The OASIS Project stands for Oncology Assisted Spirituality and Intervention Study. In this project, we were exploring how individuals draw on their spiritual and religious resources to deal with having a cancer diagnosis. The other question was how physicians perceived that aspect of their patients’ resources and whether they felt it was appropriate to bring it up in the medical environment. First we went out and actually asked physicians what they thought about the role of patients’ spirituality in dealing with cancer. We actually got back a very positive response. Substantial proportion of the physicians actually felt that it was helpful to their patients; it was something that was valuable to engage within the medical environment.

M&B: Were they able to address the spiritual dimensions of the patients?

What we found out was that they didn’t know how to do that. They were afraid if they brought it up, their patients might get upset with them and they’d be triggering off a reaction perhaps that would require so much time and effort on their part to explore with their patients that it just wasn’t practical. So when we found that out from the physicians we decided that we would systematically look at that from that patient’s side.

What we heard from patients was that they also wished to bring it up in the medical environment but they felt that the physicians wouldn’t want to and that they would bring it up if the physicians asked about it first, and the physicians were saying they’d talk about it if the patients brought it up first. So nobody was bringing it up.

So we moved this onto the next step. What if we taught the physicians a particular approach to bringing up this issue with their patients because we couldn’t sit down and teach the patients how to do it. We decided to take a risk and teach physicians how to bring this up to their patients in a very simple way. And we found a few very brave oncologists who were willing to work with us around this and we designed literally a 5-minute patient centered way of introducing this concept.

M&B: How did you design this approach and what were its characteristics?

In a way, we’re guided by previous research on how physicians can talk to their patients about difficult topics. This is actually research that I had done previously in relation to other difficult topics like smoking and alcohol use. And what we did in those cases was we taught the physician a very neutral, gentle supportive way to introduce those issues with their patients and then we took a look at how we could use that with introducing the questions about spiritual resources. So a physician may say something like “Many patients draw on their spiritual or religious resources to deal with something like finding out they have cancer. As your physician I would like to hear more about whether that is true for you, it may or may not be, how do you feel about that?” And that very gentle open way of introducing it feels very comfortable to the physicians and it feels very comfortable to patients. And what we find again is most of the patients respond very positively to that.

M&B: What if the answer is no and they are not interested in talking about spirituality?

We also taught physicians that if the response they get back from a patient is something like “oh no, I’m not religious or I don’t want to talk about that,” how they should respond to that. They should say something like “really what I’m concerned about is how you’re dealing with this and I’d like to hear more about that. Is that ok?” And that shifts it just a little bit. But for about 90% of the patients, they really open up and they are responsive and they start to talk about it and if they are a little hesitant we then teach the physicians how to draw them out a little bit more. Very simply saying, “Tell me more about that. I’d like to hear more about that. Are there any problems you’re having around that? Who else can you talk to about this?” It’s very important. So being encouraging and thanking them for having the courage to share their feelings with the physician. Asking them a little bit more about how they draw on a sense of inner meaning and peace, because we’ve identified that in research as one of the key elements for moving to a different level of coping with cancer.

To our surprise this actually worked very, very well. What we found was that patients have appreciated it. Over 50% of them actually told us after the fact that they had found that conversation helpful to them in dealing better. And about a month after this very brief exploration, they actually said that they were feeling less depressed and they were coping better in comparison to patients from the very same physicians who didn’t get this, who just go their usual appointment. So we’ve been continuing to work on this line of research to deepen it and to expand it at this point.

M&B: You also discuss that a small number of patients are coping in a negative way with spirituality. How does it happen?

Our research and research from some other groups, for example Harold Koenig’s work at Duke, is systematically coming up with a pattern that shows that individuals who feel angry at God, who feel that they’re being punished by having cancer are not doing very well.

Most people feel that at some point. But what I’m talking about is a sort of enduring ongoing struggle around this. And what we find is individuals who are really caught in that struggle in fact are doing very poorly. They are more depressed, and their relationships are not going as well. We don’t have any evidence at this point to show that it actually affects the course of their disease. That would be a challenging kind of study to take on and we haven’t been able to do that. But certainly it’s affecting their inner struggle and their inner well-being. What we encourage physicians to do if they realize that one of their patients is struggling at that level is to encourage the individual to find somebody else to talk to, maybe a Chaplain for example from the medical environment. We really encourage them to look to that and to try to provide those resources and not take that on themselves.

M&B: Maybe it is difficult to estimate how the constant spiritual struggles affect recovery time, but maybe it is easier to estimate how it affects the quality of life.

The individuals caught up in that struggle have a poorer quality of life in general and the research again is pretty consistent in that. And of course it would be naïve to say that you just turn that off. If somebody is struggling in these deep personal issues, they deserve to be recognized and I think we have to assist the individual to find some way to talk to people in their own personal circle of friends, family, religious community about how to deal with them.

M&B: Regarding spiritual intervention, what is the general opinion of the medical community? Is there a growing interest?

I think we are just shedding some light on this. Given how positively the patients respond to even just 5 minutes, I think that there is a growing awareness that there can be a role for this. Within the care of the whole patient, when you shift into the perspective that the spiritual and religious resources people bring to a medical crisis are actually tremendously valuable, and the more they can bring those to the crisis the better they’re going to be doing then. I feel that that defines within the medical environment in a different way.

One of the issues that often physicians would bring up with us is “I don’t know if I have the same beliefs as my patient does” and “if I don’t have the same beliefs maybe it’s not appropriate to bring this up.” And one of the things we do in our training is to work with them around that. Saying you know it isn’t about the beliefs that you have and whether they match your patients. It’s about listening to your patient; it’s about hearing the underlying feelings and meaning that the patient has.

M&B: In terms of spiritual response to cancer, do you see people going through a spiritual transformation?

Let me give you a little bit of frame on that. We’re funded on the Spiritual Transformation Project. When you think of spiritual transformation you’re actually thinking about a real shift in people’s beliefs and people’s sense of themselves as a religious or spiritual person, their relationship to God, or their sense of relationship to God. We’ve compared our data to data that’s been collected on AIDS patients in Miami. Something like half of the AIDS patients communicated that spiritual transformation happened to them. We had 2 out of 100 cancer patients relate that level of change occurred.

M&B: Fifty percent compared to two percent. That is a huge difference. What is your explanation for that?

A couple of reasons I think, one is that even though cancer is a very frightening disease, it’s nowhere near as frightening as AIDS. The prognosis is much better in truth. The other is that the AIDS patients were really people who were struggling with their lives in general. Most of our cancer patients have really quite well-functioning lives. They’re already members of religious community. They don’t need a transformation. They just need to deepen or engage that religious support more fully or the spiritual side of themselves. So, one of the issues is that transformation isn’t necessary, it isn’t needed for this. Engagement though is what we’re talking about.

M&B: What are the fundamental difficulties in doing research on spirituality?

One of the things that is so challenging about this area is trying to measure, trying to capture very elusive concepts and do it in a way where we can systematically identify them, where we can frankly put some numbers to them. So we can compare individuals, so we can look at the effect, for example, of a stressful life event on something like spirituality. So, one of the other lines of work we’ve been doing here is to develop the framework for measuring what we call religious and spiritual engagement, and it’s very challenging to do that. Within Psychology, there’s a long tradition of trying to capture these psychological processes, something like depression or fear. And we have lots of different measuring tools.

M&B: Is there a widely accepted measure of spirituality and religious participation among the healthcare and medical research community?

When we started working in this area, what we discovered were a couple of hundred different scales to measure what people called religious and spiritual involvement. But most of them had been developed in very small groups of individuals, they hadn’t been put into a larger theoretical model and we knew there were probably not hundreds of different dimensions but we didn’t know whether there were 2 or 4 or 5 or 10 and one of the projects we’ve done here is to identify using a group of these measures that seem to capture different aspects of spiritual and religious involvement like belief, compassion, like sense of growing within oneself. As in mystical experiences, we’ve had several of these projects where we’ve given this set of measures actually over almost a couple of thousand people at this point.

Another dimension is interestingly their willingness to tolerate questions about their beliefs and their spiritual well being. Tolerating those questions seems to be a separate and important element that is linked into doing better, to growing more. Mystical experience is a separate dimension so someone who has a mystical experience may or may not be strong in their belief system. Having that may shift that strength but it’s somewhat separate.

We focused on several dimensions. One of the 5 or 6 dimensions is what we call spiritual struggle and that is a separate dimension and again people might be high or low on their strength of their beliefs. If that dimension is strong or high, you do see a lot of distress not only in that part of the person’s life but often in other areas of their life.

M&B: People often think that hope, love, and compassion are the indicators of spirituality. But you are giving other dimensions as toleration to questions or having a mystical experience etc. Do you choose them because they are easier to analyze?

That’s a very good question. It’s very important to include as a part of someone’s total spiritual well being their ability to feel compassion towards others; their ability to feel hope. One of the challenges now in this area is to understand those dimensions in and of themselves and I see them more as overlapping with spirituality rather than defining it. And I say that partly because there are many people who feel that they are not religious or spiritual perhaps, but they certainly have the ability to feel hope and they have the ability to be compassionate toward other people in their lives. From the perspective of Psychology, we don’t have the answers to this yet but we’re applying tools out of Psychology that we’ve used in other areas of understanding human emotions, personality, and patterns to try to apply them within this arena of understanding something as complex as religion and spirituality.

M&B: You are using tools from both religion and psychology. Are psychologists generally interested in spiritual experiences?

Well. William James who is considered one of the founders of Contemporary Psychology in the 1800s wrote the Varieties of Religious Experience. And he wrote that from a very sophisticated perspective where he said we really do need to look at some of the universal aspects of religious or spiritual experience. At the time he didn’t really have the tools to do that but he introduced the discourse around the value of doing that, the value of understanding those very human experiences from a psychological perspective. And it began with a respect for those experiences rather than discounting them. And I think that that is a very important distinction.

In contrast, when some of the thinking that came out of the Psychoanalytic Schools and particularly Freudian theory tended to pathologize those experiences considering them as an anomaly or like a sickness. In fact one of the differences between Freudian thinking and Jungian thinking was the discounting of those experiences as regressive and pathological. It is an aspect of human experience that could tremendously contribute to the best in human nature. And if understood and cultivated in appropriate ways, this could tremendously increase people’s ability to engage with their fellow human beings to act ethically.

The example given above-not stealing customers’ money versus not being a rich person-is just one possible case among others which human beings feel tension because of conflicting cognitions. Most people have personal beliefs, principles, and values shaping their lives fundamentally. Psychologists use the concept of cognition to imply all of these factors that guide our choices. Cognitions regulate our lives at any moment regardless of our consciousness of them. For instance, some people could venture everything to have more money because they have a cognition whispering “money, money, money,” or others can sacrifice everything for the sake of beliefs because of their cognition, “I believe therefore I am.” Even though human beings feel good when these cognitions drive us to success, good decisions, and a satisfying life, they turn out to be a source of frustration when a certain cognition conflicts with another one. In such cases, what we usually do is to find a way to resolve the conflict because we do not like to live with this tension. How then can we cope with this conflict?

The most common attitude under such circumstances is “self-justification.” If we turn to our example, Peter chose one of the two alternatives: continue to steal his customers’ money in order to become a rich person. Now he must find a good reason to justify himself and reduce his inner conflict:

“Not stealing is not the only way of being an honest person. You cannot be a bad guy just because of one unique behavior in your life, given that other people are also committing such sins, even worse sometimes.”

“My customers are the richest people in the State; it is not greed if I want them to share some of their money. Actually, they do not deserve it at all.”

“I did that to ensure the future happiness of my family; I know that making your family happy is more important than being honest.”

There can be many other reasons or justifications for such a behavior. The truth is that, Peter is trying to convince himself about his behavior. Although people’s attempts to convince themselves are not necessarily rational, they try to rationalize their behaviors by changing their cognitions or adding new ones.

All of the above are in the simple processes of Leon Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance. He contends that when an individual has two or more cognitions (beliefs, opinions, ideas etc.) which are inconsistent with each other, then tension emerges and people attempt to reduce this tension. How can the tension be reduced? The answer is through changing one or both cognitions or by adding new cognitions to alleviate discrepancies between cognitions. Our behaviors in such situations will determine the way we behave the next time we encounter a similar situation. Our ultimate behavior will depend on the strength of one’s cognitions (Aronson, 2004). If being a rich person is more important than not being greedy, a person is more likely to choose to steal money.

It is critical that the choice does not have to be right or rational. Let’s remember Peter’s excuses for stealing. He tended to believe that stealing was not as bad as he thought before because he found some justifications. Now he seems to feel better, but what about the next step? Most probably, he will continue to steal. As one can easily see, dissonance reduction is mostly an irrational behavior. Apparently, these irrational behaviors help people to defend their “self” or “ego.” Through the help of these irrational beliefs, people continue to define themselves as if they are good, smart, decent, or generous people. The underlying motive is the need for self-justification.

Cognitive dissonance from the perspective of religion

There are many musts and must-nots in a believer’s mind. One common practice of dissonance reduction appears at a point where one must choose between committing a sin or making a righteous decision. While preaching or reading holy books nurtures spiritual “cognitions” in a religious mind, obeying concupiscence and chasing essentially worldly goals will weaken this. After every sin that a believer committed, the battle of the cognitions starts between “I am a religious guy” and “I committed a sin, therefore I am not a decent person.” Since these cognitions cannot live peacefully together in a religious mind, one of the conflicting cognitions will grow out of this battle.

This process meshes with a religious idea that “Within each sin is a path leading to unbelief” (Nursi, The Second Gleam). If a person insists on performing a sinful act, he starts to disdain his sin. After a while, as he keeps behaving in the same manner, he becomes addicted to the sin and tends to see it as a normal act. Instead of acknowledging that the sins are witnessed by the angels and seen by God, an unrighteous man may like the idea that they may not exist at all, which is again comforting. With that idea, the cognition of “I am a religious person” is surpassed by a new cognition, “Maybe the religion that I accepted has some flaws” or “is questionable” which were added to relieve the pain arising from the cognition “I am not a good person.” From this point of view, people’s preferences about their beliefs are not independent of their behaviors which foster or challenge their religious cognitions.

One’s tendency to justify himself is usual but may not be what ought-to-be from the moral point of view. As people justify themselves, they will ignore whatever is wrong with their behaviors or cognitions, which will make them insensitive. Going beyond psychology’s objective description of human beings as rationalizing or justifying beings, religious sources suggest rejecting self-justification in most of cases. The Qur’an quotes the Prophet Joseph: “Yet I do not claim my self free of error, for assuredly the human carnal soul always commands evil, except that my Lord has mercy. Surely my Lord is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate” (Yusuf 12:53). This means, self-awareness about the conflicting cognitions is critical for human beings. When the person has inconsistent cognitions, choosing the option that does not solely serve to justify himself will prevent the person from going toward unbelief. Christianity also pointed to the importance of facing up to our sins: “I acknowledged my sin to You, and in my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin” (Psalms 32:5).

Between the good and bad

Human cognitions determine their choices and actions, which in turn nurture, shape or weaken our cognitions. Repeating a sin a second time is easier than the first time, and we feel less dissonance because cognitions creating dissonance are replaced by those that bring inner comfort. People who exhibit extremely deviant and sociopathic behaviors should be reconsidered from this point of view. Extremely deviant behaviors should be considered a series of earlier choices which gradually led to the ultimate misconduct rather than the consequence of a unique decision made at a specific time.

Another possible implication of the theory of cognitive dissonance is the difficulty with judging absolute good or bad. Given the fact that cognitions may become weaker or stronger, personal views on the appropriateness of behaviors are subject to change. Human cognitions are potential mechanisms that lead one to behave in a certain way. Therefore, deviant behaviors might have a long history fed by the cognitions which turn out to be one’s rationale for inappropriate behaviors. As a result, cognitive dissonance uncovers the gray area between the continuum of good and bad through which human beings swing all the time.

Conclusion

Cognitive dissonance theory provides convincing explanations about how human beings make their decisions and behave in a moral or immoral manner. Also, it brings a resourceful perspective to illuminate spiritual experiences. It successfully explains how people swing on the path from good to bad and vice versa instead of considering them as dwelling on two discrete entities. Awareness of the above-mentioned processes is critical to increase self-awareness.

One last comment should be made about the role of conscience in cognitive dissonance. Although cognitive dissonance theory successfully explains many cognitive processes, a mental faculty that is responsible for recognizing the discrepancy in our cognitions and regulating the balance between them is conscience. However, psychology’s account of conscience is rather limited and inconclusive. Psychology offers evidence of the way human beings behave in dissonant situations. Religious resources, however, provide prescriptive guidelines to remain on the right track. As in the case of this unique theory, understanding the theories of psychology as well as making sense of them in the light of religious texts provides individuals with a heightened self-awareness.

References

• Aronson, E. 2004. The Social Animal, 9th edition, Worth Publishers: New York, NY
• Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

As educators have such an important position in society, it is vital to reflect upon the questions of how a teacher should conduct their teaching and what kind of a personality a teacher should develop in order to fulfill their mission as an educator. Although it is hard to provide satisfactory answers to such deep questions within the scope of a short essay, a couple of points might be worth mentioning.

First of all, an educator should have the dignity of bearing knowledge. They should be aware of the fact that if knowledge is the spirit, a set of actions is the body that carries that spirit. If a teacher is not setting an example for their students with their actions, then the knowledge will lose its meaning in the eyes of the students. As most would agree, the greatest teachers in the humanity appeared among the prophets. Prophets, with all their wisdom and deep knowledge about both the physical and the meta-physical world, first established their reputation in society with their outstanding moral values, and by demonstrating the best examples of human character and behavior. Presenting the values in conduct (tamsil) always comes before teaching the values (tabligh). Changing this order would result in ineffective teaching and inner hypocrisy for one who tries to teach.

A teacher should look at the universe from multiple angles. They should not confine themselves within the walls of the school or within the limits of the syllabus. They should teach their correspondents how to see a view in its multidimensionality and how to turn any input of data into information and thus into knowledge. An educator should not be a transmitter of information before checking whether the “receivers” are ready to detect and absorb the information. One who teaches should never forget that “the purpose of learning is to make knowledge a guide for your life, to illuminate the road to human perfection. Any knowledge that does not fulfill these functions is a burden for the learner and any science that does not direct one toward sublime goals is only deception.”

As Bertrand Russell stated, “The good individual is he who ministers to the good of the whole, and the good of the whole is a pattern made up of the goods of the individuals.” A teacher should build bridges between each person and society by using the school environment as a construction site, and mobilize the unique potential embedded in human personalities for the use of society, and more generally, humanity. Nobody should be treated as insignificant and as a result no capabilities of the students will be wasted. The greatest and most dangerous waste is the waste of human capital. A teacher knows that every human being is actually a miniature universe and that each one of their apprentices is as valuable as the heavens. The emotional, spiritual, and physical aspects of human nature offer such a wide spectrum of colors that the ideal teacher will enable their students to discover their own colors within this spectrum.

Teachers are the architectures of character. A teacher is expected to see every student as a possible masterpiece and to construct that masterpiece according to a carefully designed, individual and specific plan. This is not an easy task. No one person can fit into all the dresses in this shop. The teacher has to make their students think that they are special, that they are cared for, and that the teacher is tearing down the walls of limitations with bare hands to make room for them. Even though the teacher may not be able to make the difference that they intend to, their actions and then their intentions, which carry on after their actions are exhausted, will send the message to the students. This is what it means to make a difference in the lives of one’s students. The human body develops from one fertilized egg; the human spirit and character is far more advanced than the body, turning small seeds into giant fruit bearing trees.

Educators are advocates on behalf of their students, defending their weaknesses in learning, and looking for different approaches to overcome the obstacles between the knowledge and the student. Teachers can only prosecute themselves. They see their students’ failures as their own failures and never indulge in the luxury of self-forgiveness. Like poets who treat their verses like their children, yet always try to replace them with better ones, teachers ask themselves if their students could be any better than they are in terms of what they have learnt from them.

Teaching is also learning. A teacher learns from their students how to become a better educator. A good teacher should be able to listen to the silent words that pour from their students’ tongues of disposition. Students may not talk to the teacher directly, but their looks, facial expressions, their interactions with their teacher, their voice levels and tones, all reflect a teacher’s ability to instruct. Educators who do not carefully observe these signs are like those who close their eyes during the bright daylight and wonder why they cannot see.

If a teacher considers teaching to be a simple matter and is never aware of the burden of making an impact on others, then one must wonder about the dedication of this teacher. A teacher must be willing to take this road while also being aware of the long distances, deep valleys and oceans of hardships ahead. As Rumi stated, in the end, a teacher should be ready to say “I was raw; I was cooked; now I am burned.”

Yasin Ceran is a math teacher in Dallas, Texas.

]]> https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/2004/issue-45-january-march-2004/pearls-of-wisdom/ Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0000 http://107.21.79.195/all-issues/2004/issue-45-january-march-2004/pearls-of-wisdom/ This book is a compilation of some of the wise sayings of M. Fethullah Gulen, each of which is a criterion or pearl of wisdom

This work by M. Fethullah Gulen is a continuation of a long tradition of books and articles promoting the cause of serving society through the advancement of universal education. Fethullah Gulen is a widely known and respected Turkish scholar, religious leader, educator, and social reformer, whose values stem from his Islamic faith, and whose overriding interest is in the well-being of Muslims as well as all of mankind. Fethullah Gulen’s many life experiences including a teaching post in Edirne Turkey, and those acquired throughout his life within his faith, have contributed to his understanding of the role of education in shaping the world we live in. His corresponding beliefs that tyranny can be eliminated and justice achieved through education for all mankind are copiously illustrated in this and all of his former works.

Readers in the United States and other western countries will discover many comments, shaped by Fethullah Gulen’s wealth of knowledge and experience that are colored by the filter of his own education, culture, religious beliefs, and national origin. These readers can best benefit from his breathtaking perspective, and depth of understanding, by exercising tolerance and acceptance of his background and life experiences. Indeed, Fethullah Gulen has much wisdom to offer those who are truly willing to contemplate his message.

Obvious to any reader familiar with the works of Fethullah Gulen, the overall intent of this book is to both inform and guide readers in their daily lives Some chapters of this book are titled; The Spiritual Life; The Personal Life; Family; Society; Social Interaction. Fethullah Gulen divides each chapter into several subject areas, and in each subject area he provides several short and to-the-point comments (pearls) designed to provoke thought and shape the understanding, and resultant actions, of his readers.

For an example related to politics; in chapter seven, “Government”, in the subject area of “Republic”, Fethullah Gulen writes: “The Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, did not claim kingship, and his four immediate political successors followed his example. Kingship appeared when people grew remote from the Islamic spirit, and eventually this digression became a vehicle for oppression and despotism.” This is indeed an interesting pearl, for it contains wise commentary regarding the his- torical development of politics in the Islamic world, and helps us understand the root cause of many of the problems faced by modern day Muslims. It may also help guide some modern day Islamic countries in developing policies and practices that will lead them out of the political, economic, and cultural quagmires they may be experiencing at this time.

Another example, this time related to the science of metaphysics, can be found in chapter nine, “Ideal People”, in the subject area of “Pearls of Wisdom”: “Matter has no comprehension, consciousness, feeling, or will. It is comprised only of some laws and particles (used to form things). What an embarrassing mistake it is to count it as the essence of existence.” Fascinating insight that encourages us to critically examine the values we and our cultures have adopted regarding the worth and value of property and objects.

In Pearls of Wisdom Fethullah Gulen has assembled an awesome collection of wise thoughts and arranged them in logical subject areas in order that we can use them to examine our lives and benefit from his wisdom. There are literally hundreds of pearls in this book, and every one of them requires our immediate attention.

This time, with your permission, I won’t be talking about the last two weeks that I have spent in this alien city, as I usually do. Instead, I feel obliged to reflect on your anger at the fact that your father did not use the opportunity he had during his youth to become a medical doctor. What I’m going to tell you has been said by many great thinkers in the past, but I want to bring their words up-to-date and relate them to my studies here. I hope to give you an alternative understanding of tolerance by using the idea of networks.

As commonly defined, networks are web-like maps of nodes that represent entities and links that connect the nodes and represent their interactions. Networks have become very popular these days, and are used to analyze everything from ecology and biochemistry to social infrastructures.

Try to visualize your father 30 years ago in a large network that consisted of his two brothers and three sisters, his fiance of 2 years standing, maybe a very close friend who had recently died, maybe another friend who already had had a child, along with the fear of leaving his hometown for the first time, and so on. All of us, including your father, are surrounded by such factors all the time. Perhaps your father could have overcome some of them, like his fear of loneliness or impatience, but he certainly could not have overcome all of them, because his family, surrounding events, and many other factors existed on their own and didn’t develop according to your father’s will.

Upon further reflection, however, maybe none of these factors, even the trivial ones, were ever in his grasp and thus were never under his control. Let’s think back even further. When your father was in the womb, he had only one obvious link with the world: his mother. But wait a minute, you might ask, didn’t he have other links, such as his genes, family, and birthplace? Of course, you would agree that your father had no choice in any of these crucial factors. Moreover, I don’t think that it’s hard to accept that, for example, his impatience was probably the result of his cultural make-up, genes, interactions with his family members, and other things. As you know, all of these were independent of your father’s will. Thus, your father, and indeed every person, was born into a predetermined world, one in which most choices had already been made for him. Moreover, these initial determinations had an undeniable impact upon the rest of his life and decisions.

Imagine a circle in the center of a big picture. The circle is you, and the picture represents your life, or else all of the interactions that you make during your life. As mentioned above, even in the very beginning, that circle is not unique. Now imagine a few more circles which represent your family members and hometown, and draw a line from each circle to yourself. This is you in the beginning. Without a doubt, soon some circles will fade away and other circles will appear in a continuously regenerating network. Let this little human being live in this world (morph his network, as we say) for some years and, in the end, you’ll obtain a dreadfully complex picture that is almost impossible to understand.

Nevertheless, let’s consider for a moment the evolution of this self-network. At each decision point, we make a choice that is influenced by our personal self-network, defined as a collection of those choices over which we had no control and those which we made due to our personal network at that time. This recursive definition of self, which is entirely reasonable, makes it impossible for us to judge other people’s behavior, for we can never know if such behavior is the result of free will or of the previous self-network. We find it easy to criticize students who drop out of school, or behave anti-socially, or sleep all day. But maybe they had no other option in the context of their self-network. If this is the case, criticizing them is almost like criticizing a fish because it cannot fly. It is quite possible that no alternative choices were within their reach.

The key observation lies in this: When we see a person do something that we don’t like, we don’t know and can never know how much his or her self-network has influenced that specific act. Therefore, my friend, who are we to judge other people’s acts unless we have this kind of knowledge? Given this, if we want to be true to ourselves, what other alternative do we have but to exercise complete tolerance toward others?

Before going on, however, I should stress that I am talking about tolerance for acts that don’t violate other people’s rights and freedoms. In addition, I’m talking about personal tolerance only, for obviously everyone must follow the law for the sake of society. For example, a thief should be punished according to the law. Therefore, given that there are many underlying reasons for a person’s act, we should hesitate before passing judgment, for it benefits both of us if we are tolerant. As shown above, this is not only a more pragmatic, but also a more rational approach.

The world’s great religions and great minds have said such things many times. For example, we read in the Bible: Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1) and Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whoseoever thou art that judgest… (Romans 2:1). The great Hellenistic philosopher Epictetus says: If a man drinks much wine, do not say that he drinks badly, but that he drinks much. For till you have decided what judgment prompts him, how do you know that he acts badly? 1 Even more, another Biblical verse states: Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. (I Corinthians 4:5). This verse supports tolerance, for it tells us that we should have comprehensive knowledge of a person before judging their acts. Such knowledge, as we all know, is possessed only by God.

An interesting result of considering individuals as nodes located in the center of a complex network occurs when we try to influence a person’s views, acts, and beliefs. In order to appreciate how difficult (if not impossible) this is, imagine the self-network of the person you want to influence, with all of his or her beliefs, memories, friends, as well as all of the nodes acquired while morphing his or her self-network.

Now imagine the fraction of nodes in that self-network that are directly related to you. I don’t think that you’ll claim to be a big part of that person’s life, unless both of you have been on intimate terms for quite a while. The proportion of the nodes that you represent in his or her self-network can be quite an accurate measure of how much influence you will have. For example, you can alter a lonely or a simple person’s beliefs in a shorter time, since in a short time you can become a large proportion of his or her self-network.

By the way, you might be amazed to hear that the English mathematician Thomas Bayes (1702-61) tried to formulate quantitatively how a person’s beliefs would change upon receiving new information that contradicts his or her previous beliefs. In a Bayesian analysis, a set of experiences (in our case, links) are seen as something that influences opinion and decision. I won’t discuss this further, however, since it’s beyond both my and this letter’s scope.

In my opinion, the reason why we almost always criticize and blame others, and constantly see faults in everybody else is because we refuse to make an honest self-criticism; that is to consider our own responsibilities, not those of other people.

Forgive me for saying this, but you want to achieve a better quality of life now; this is something for which you have to work really hard. Yet, if your father had become a doctor, you probably would already be living this better life, and so you wouldn’t have to push yourself. Hence, we can find a convenient scapegoat in your father, who, for whatever reason, didn’t set you up with such a life!

Another example, one in the future, might be that a person explains his/her beliefs in the hope of influencing someone else. Unable to convince this person, he/she blames that person for not opening their heart and really listening. Easy, isn’t it? However, remember that you can’t really influence a person if you are not a large part of his or her life.

Do you see what’s missing in this picture? Reality and, more than that, a solution. It lacks reality, for we can never hold someone absolutely responsible for anything. And why not? Because we have no way of knowing which actions were based upon free-will and which ones were the result of his or her prior self-network. By blaming others, regardless of whether we are correct in doing so or not, we not only contradict reality, we also ignore our own mistakes, closing the roads to a solution that could come from ourselves, and taking a passive position of stagnancy that, I think, won’t make a better world for ourselves or anybody else.

Before ending, I’d like to apologize if some of my words sound harsh. However, I consider you a true friend who will appreciate my openness. Even if some of my words have upset you, perhaps you’ll be patient with me. For this to be, before blaming me, stop for a moment and try to look at this situation from another perspective. Try to find some truth in my words, and try to be hard on yourself. Below are some extraordinarily beautiful lines from Nietzsche, which I think are appropriate to our discussion. He writes:

Why so hard? the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. After all, are we not close kin?

Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers?

Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?

And if you do not want to be the destined inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?

And if your hardness does not wish to flash and cut through, how can you one day create with me?

For all creators are hard. And it must seem bliss to you to impress your hand on millennia as on wax, bliss to write on the will of millennia as on bronze harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard.

This new tablet, O my brothers, I place over you: become hard!2

Yes my friend, become hard, very hard on yourself; and soft, very soft towards others.

Footnotes

1 Epictetus, The Discourses of Epictetus, tr. P. E. Matheson (New York: Heritage Press, [1968]).

2 Friedrich W. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, tr. Walter Kaufmann (USA: Viking Penguin, 1966), 214.