Insaf is half of religion

The term insaf, which sometimes denotes righteousness, fairness, justice or never deviating from truth, is the term for not violating others’ rights while claiming your own, even wishing what you wish for yourself for others as well and giving priority to them if need be, and being balanced at doing the right thing by refraining from extreme behavior.

God’s Messenger counted insaf among the three basic components of good character. He stated that three things are originated by one’s faith: “Not giving up insaf despite the urges of the carnal self, promoting greeting, and spending in God’s way even during financial straits.” Another beautiful phrase-even though it is not a hadith-reflecting his views about right and justice is “insaf is half of religion.”

When we evaluate a matter in a certain fashion according to our own logic and reasoning, we might take our personal considerations as a basis and view the issue from the perspective of our carnal selves and corporeality. When doing that, we may be mostly mistaken, make wrong judgments and think ourselves to be definitely right. In such a case-even though our personal feelings, thoughts, inclinations and wishes are different-siding with the right as soon as we recognize the truth and taking a stance in spite of our ego is an expression of insaf. Being respectful toward the requirements of faith all the time, blending our morality with righteousness, always being in pursuit of truth, and, in spite of the pressure of carnal inclinations, listening to the voice of the conscience and championing the right is a requirement of having insaf.

A human being without insaf is cruel and ruthless; such people use every opportunity to have an ill opinion of others, ignore their tens of good deeds for a single evil one and always fail to cherish a good opinion. Even though the Islamic moral code counsels having insaf and holding a good opinion, a person without insaf takes unfairness and ill opinion as a basis. Therefore, they become trapped by one bad apple and conclude that the entire orchard is barren and putrid. As a matter of fact a damaged banknote in the state treasury does not lessen the reserves, but in the sight of one who lacks insaf-a bad trait which we can compare to the damaged note-the riches of being human can turn into an object of no value.

A single mistake should not nullify many good deeds

Actually, given that a good deed is counted tenfold and a misdeed only once in the sight of God, one mistake should not be allowed to evoke ill feelings toward a person in spite of his or her many good deeds. Believers who have insaf should always try to think positively and recognize someone’s good side; they should not totally condemn a person because of one mistake. They should even consider one of a person’s good deeds to compensate for all of his or her misdeeds. For instance, when a person devoted to a righteous cause considers one of his fellow friends, he should say, “Such and such person committed this misdeed, but I cannot overlook his loyalty to serving in the way of God,” and thereby be very faithful toward his companion and always do the decent thing and hold the truth dear. Nevertheless, an event narrated in the books of hadith underlines a very important point about this issue: A Companion of the Prophet who was not very conscious about drinks and could not break his addiction would sometimes get intoxicated and be rebuked by God’s Messenger each time. The same Companion was one day brought to the presence of God’s Messenger for the same offense. One of those present said, “O God, curse this man! He is being punished for the same offense for so many times but still does not behave himself.” On hearing this, God’s Messenger said, “Do not curse him. I swear by God that he loves God and His Messenger from the heart!” Then he told them to pray for him saying, “O God, grant mercy to him and forgive his faults.”

Given that this Companion’s sincerity is appreciated so much, we can better picture what it brings to a person to serve in the way of God and to strive for His name to be engraved in hearts. Thus, we can make a well-placed evaluation of the attitude we are to take in the face of that person’s faults and mistakes.

Commitment to the right and wishing to hold the truth dear

The worst example of lack of insaf in our time is seen in criticism which is based upon grudge, guile, and pride. In fact, true criticism, which means analyzing the good or bad sides of somebody or something, making a comparison between what is and what should be, is a means of walking toward the ideal.

Making constructive criticisms and being open to criticism is a scholarly principle. However, this should be done within a certain manner and form. After all, the person who criticizes should have insaf, he or she should speak not out of personal considerations but in the name of God’s good pleasure and have no intention other than goodness. The drive for criticism should arise from striving toward the right and a wish to clarify the truth. A critic with insaf should only hold the aim of unearthing the truth. Otherwise, criticism without insaf-which serves pride and beguilement-destroys the truth and leads to unfairness and wrong.

As you know, we can define a debate as the act of having an exchange of views in order to clarify a truth, brainstorming within certain rules and principles, cooperative thinking, mutual discussion, and presenting decently expressed personal considerations to collective reasoning. Unfortunately, in almost all the gatherings held under the name of debate in our time, we witness lack of insaf in the form of criticism. Today, almost everyone who joins the quarrels at the platforms of dispute, sophistry, and demagogy-what we can call verbal duels-has certain presumptions and the debaters usually strive to make the opposite side accept their own views rather than clarifying a truth. To the degree that they spend utmost effort in this matter-sometimes they engage in a play on words or play of logic, or resort to unbecoming acts like provoking their opponents or silencing and embarrassing them-they always remain closed to the truth. Rather than revealing truths, they turn their words into dialectics by opposing the expressions of thought and philosophy of the other side, and the debaters act with the intentions of defeating, humiliating, and silencing one another. In fact, such an argument can never be called a true debate; it seems to me like a quarrel between mentally disabled ones. Unfortunately, nowadays assemblies of debate have become grounds of dialectics.

The only remedy for this disease is not to give up insaf, always to do the decent thing, to hold the truth dear and never sacrifice it for the sake of anything else. Every party to a discussion should reproach their own ego and not favor themselves but the person or people they address. Let alone humiliating the other party, when a person who proves right makes the other self-conscious, he or she should be regarded as being disrespectful to human values.

As Said Nursi suggests, the attitudes at a decent scholarly debate based on the principle of insaf are to be evaluated as follows: if a person asserts a certain opinion, proves right, and becomes happy about it, that person lacks insaf because what matters is not proving right but discovering the right. A person who is happy about both proving right and the opposite site being wrong loses. That is, the person who proves right does not learn anything new or benefit from the debate. Moreover he or she may be taken by pride and suffer further loss. However, if the opposite side proves to be right-without any possibility of loss-the person benefits by learning something new and is freed from pride as well. So a righteous person with insaf rejects his or her own ego for the sake of the truth; even if he or she sees the truth in the hands of the opponent, he or she accepts it anyway with good consent and supports the other.

Do we really have insaf?

On the other hand, concerning the followers of other faiths or philosophies one sometimes cannot help but say, “I wish these people had some insaf, and they would look at the Qur’an and the Prophet’s message accordingly! Insaf might open their eyes as well and be a means for them to draw different conclusions. I wish they could be freed from their biases for a moment and could consider Islam with insaf.” With such reflections in mind, we invite people to hold insaf. But are we taking into account what falls to our part while expecting insaf from them? I wonder to what degree we have been able to present the right and truth to them. Have we been able to be credible and inspire trust? Have we been able to represent the truth properly so as to invoke insaf in them?

Muslims have moved to many different countries of the world and their population has reached a considerable level in certain places but their influence has not been proportionate to their number, because they have worked for others mostly with worldly concerns. As masters do not care for their slaves, they did not listen to Muslims’ words; they usually used Muslims like slaves and sought ways of disposing of them when they had profited from them. In this respect, even though Muslims have gone to many different lands, we cannot consider the message of Islam to have reached the people of those lands. Particularly at a time when materialism and naturalism prevail, people who are accustomed to looking at things and events with a materialist perspective cannot be said to have met the logic of Islam and the Qur’an. Therefore-with the exception of the body of tyrants who dye the world in blood and oppress the weak-the people from whom we expect insaf can in many respects be regarded as equivalent to the people of the Interregnum Period.² Then isn’t it we who should have insaf in the first place? For not having been able to go to all corners of the world and present a credible type of behavior, stance, and example, for not being able to represent the truths of the Qur’an-which are truly beautiful by objective criteria-shouldn’t we first question ourselves? If people are saying, ”What we are being told is so good, but we haven’t seen any community with these truths ingrained in their life. We haven’t witnessed any people who have been adorned with those laudable virtues. We have found no paragons of virtue who live with meticulous sensitivity. Where are the people who are completely closed to sins and are determined to remain so? Where are the living examples of true believers? We cannot believe without seeing them!”, if they are saying this and they voice this on Judgment Day, how can we give an answer before God? In this respect, when we talk about insaf and call others to be fair, we should not forget that we need a vision to trigger the feeling of insaf within ourselves.

An example from the Prophet to evoke the feeling of insaf

Did not those who saw the Pride of Humanity say, “We haven’t witnessed any lies from you so far”? Did they not admit the truth in saying, “We never doubted your being a truthful and trustworthy person”?… Truly, the noble and virtuous stance of God’s Messenger in a way became a reference for his addressees to pay attention to the Qur’an, listen to the message of Islam, and listen to the truthful Prophet. The unique example of the perfect guide evoked the feeling of insaf in consciences.

Today as well, what has an influence on hearts and brings people to insaf is “representation.” Few people say, “I found the truth after I heard such and such words.” But there are many people who say, “I embraced faith after seeing this sincere example of such and such true believer.” Likewise, the words which become a means for others’ faith are always fruits of what the heart voices and what our actions reflect. For conveying the message finds its true value through genuine representation.

The case of an American professor is one of hundreds of examples proving the power of proper representation: This person, who was an expert on the history of religion, visited Urfa, southeastern Turkey. He was attending a charity meeting of a group of chivalrous souls. As they were all seated around a table, he briefly spoke with the person beside him. In the conversation, the professor mentioned that he had just returned from Southeast Asia. On hearing this, his poor neighbor whispered humbly, “I support a school in Cambodia.” The professor described that devoted man with the following words: “He looked poor. He was modest; however-surprisingly-he was giving nearly all his surplus income for a school he will probably never see in this life. Cambodian children were being educated thanks to the sacrifices including his own and he was happy beyond expression.” The professor said that he did not need any further proof about the sincerity of those devoted ones.

That professor and others like him are not unaware of the Qur’an; however, what makes an impact on them is representation. Again, there is someone I know who read books on Islam for almost ten years with no significant change in his life. One day, he visited one of our friends and heard that sincere person saying God’s name with his every act; he was such a devout believer that even though he spoke very little, his acts, his looks, and the way he prostrates himself in prayer reflect the Almighty. The condition of that devoted person affected his guest very much, who then saw that the principles he had read about in books were built on a sound basis and that things fit in their place; he was then able to say, “These acts derive from such and such essential disciplines.”

In this respect as we invite representatives of different understandings to insaf, the necessity of a degree of exemplary representation to evoke insaf in them should not be ignored. Showing the truth through exemplary representation to the people whom we expect to be righteous is a requirement of holding insaf. We can even say that the sole duty of the volunteers who have dispersed to every corner of the world today is an exemplary representation to evoke the feeling of insaf by the language of love.

Notes

1. In Islam, people have a responsibility to their Creator, and to all people including themselves, and the entire creation.
2. After Jesus, people failed to keep up his original message from God and deified him instead. From then on until the Prophet Muhammad came-the Interregnum Period-there was no undistorted religion for people to follow. Therefore, God will not hold them responsible in the day of Judgment.

Globalization or Westernization?

As the mere terminology surrounding the debate has led to a considerable amount of confusion and misunderstanding, we need to define our terms. Globalization is the spread and exchange of people, goods, and ideas across the globe. Characteristically, it is directly associated with change, or transformation, modernity, and an increasingly interdependent relationship between different regions of the world. “Globalization is an aspect of human life that has always been there since the beginning of humanity. It corresponds with the natural human instinct and man’s tendency towards being a ‘social animal.’ It is the tendency with which God has created man to live on exchanging his sources and experiences with others around him, in order to achieve and realize the best chances of life.” (1)

However, globalization is frequently associated with the liberal classical economic theory, and since the mid-1970s with neo-liberalism, which has its roots in the classical economic theory. More specifically, globalization is considered a reflection of the classical economic theory’s principle of comparative advantage, which promotes an open economic system and free trade in order to achieve and realize the best chances of life.

Although the process of globalization has been linked with concepts of comparative advantage, free trade, and open economy, its origins can be traced to a time long before such ideas appeared. In order to develop a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the so called “Islam-globalization” debate, it is critical to distinguish between the process of globalization in its original sense and such relatively more contemporary processes, like Westernization, that are masked as globalization and yet are fundamentally different.

“Globalization targets the narrowing of the gaps separating different communities. This is done by exchanging benefits in all aspects of life — economic, social, scientific, and political governance. That is, they exchange information, understand each other’s values and codes of ethics and build a common ground.” (2) In contrast, Westernization does not consider such an understanding or building of such common ground to be worthwhile enterprises. Globalization is a process in which “the whole world becomes like a small village, where the less advanced communities can develop their capacities” and that “tends to be a two-way street process, which makes it possible for each community to take as well as to give.” (3) Westernization, on the other hand, tends to be a one-way street, meaning that one region attempts to dominate and control other regions in the name of globalization. Moreover, while globalization occurs through the free will of different communities, Westernization is characteristically imposed upon other regions.

Islam’s role

Having clarified the difference between globalization and Westernization, the Islam-globalization debate can be assessed more accurately. Islam is not anti-globalization (or modernity, which is considered to be a by-product of globalization) in its original sense, but Muslims do have a problem with Westernization. “Although Westernization of society is condemned, modernization as such is not. Science and technology are accepted, but they are to be subordinated to Islamic belief and values in order to guard against the Westernization and secularization of Muslim society.” (4) Based upon historical precedence and contemporary evidence, Islam clearly embraces globalization in its original form, which is based upon free-will and not upon the aggressive imposition of the West upon the East.

First of all, it is important to note that Islam orders people to cooperate, to be helpful to one another according to goodness and piety, and not to be helpful in evil and malice (Qur’an 5:2). This principle is fully endorsed by Prophet Muhammad on the local level, regardless if your neighbor is a Muslim or not. Surely this principle can be extended into the international level, where a neighboring country can be defined as any country that has normal economic and political relations with the Islamic world.(5)

Other factors illustrate Islam’s acceptance and predominant role in the process of globalization. “For several centuries, Arabic was the world’s leading language in sciences. Muslims made important advances in mathematics, astronomy and medicine — a legacy from which European scholars derived great benefit,” and which led to the Renaissance. (6) Globalization is not only a Western phenomenon, for “the agents of globalization are neither European nor exclusively Western, nor are they necessarily linked to Western dominance. Indeed, Europe would have been a lot poorer — economically, culturally, and scientifically — had it resisted the globalization of mathematics, science, and technology [from the East]…”(7)

We have to differentiate between the gifts of globalization and the products of Westernization. More specifically, the Islam-globalization debate in itself is built upon a number of mistaken diagnoses that misconstrue Islam’s place in the globalized world — one that has been quite productive in the past and has the potential to be productive in the future. The misguided assumption that Islam opposes globalization and modernization is dangerous, because it could potentially result in the loss of Islam’s significant contributions to the rest of the world.

Muslim attitudes toward Westernization

The Muslim world’s reaction to Westernization, and the West’s emergence as the dominant force transforming the world, must be assessed. “It is similar to the emergence of the Arab Muslims as a major world power in the seventh and eighth centuries…”(8) It is important to note that “the Muslim weakness at the end of the eighteenth century coincided with the rise of an entirely different type of civilization in the West, and this time the Muslim world would find it far more difficult to meet the challenge.”(9) In the past, Muslim communities were able to revitalize Islam’s role and power in the world. However, the impact of Westernization was an unprecedented experience that significantly challenged Islam and created a bi-polar dichotomy that separated the West from the rest — and specifically from Islam.

From a historical perspective, Westernization minimized Islam’s role and made it dependent upon the Western way of doing things. “The Islamic world has been convulsed by the modernization process. Instead of being one of the leaders of world civilization, Islamdom was quickly and permanently reduced to a dependent bloc by European powers.”(10) As a result, resentment toward the West emerged. Muslims questioned whether they would have to accept Western-style modernization or be deemed as being anti-globalization. “From this point, a growing number of Muslims would wrestle with these questions, and their attempts to put Muslim history back on the straight path would sometimes appear desperate and even despairing. The suicide bomber — an almost unparalleled phenomenon in Islamic history — shows that some Muslims are convinced that they are pitted against hopeless odds.”(11)

The emergence and rise of extremism can be directly attributed to the resulting resentment toward the Western style of globalization — a one-way process that does not strive to create a common ground between the West and other regions, and hence the desire and perceived need to pursue religious revivalism. However, we should realize that violence and extremism are not exclusively Islamic phenomena. “The Western media often gives the impression that the embattled and occasionally violent form of religiosity known as fundamentalism is a purely Islamic phenomenon. This is not the case. Fundamentalism is a global fact and has surfaced in every major faith in response to the problems of our modernity.”(12)

“For Islamic society, the underlying concerns regarding globalization are: how to protect a unique heritage in the face of global pressure; to uphold religious traditions; to preserve linguistic purity; to defend social institutions; and ultimately, to maintain a viable identity in the midst of a rapidly changing global environment.”(13) According to Islam, complete submission to God is the first and foremost priority for all Muslims. Anything that undermines Islamic principles is considered a threat to Islam’s longevity and power in the world. More importantly, we should be aware of the fact that despite the Islam-West bi-polarization, Islam is rapidly becoming a global phenomenon that transcends the boundaries that once separated the West from the rest.

Global Islam: The growing phenomenon and implications for the future

Islam is the second largest religion and the fastest growing religion in the world. Islam began to spread in Arabia around the year 610 A.D. when Prophet Muhammad began receiving revelations from God through Archangel Gabriel, sharing with others what he had been told. Today, Islam is a global phenomenon represented by Muslims across the world. “Fifteen million Muslims reside in Europe, and seven to eight million in the United States. There are now about a thousand mosques each in Germany and France, and five hundred in the United Kingdom.”(14) One factor that may explain the rapid spread of Islam is the process of globalization itself.

Islam’s future depends upon its ability to wed Western-style modernism with Islamic principles, or, in other words, whether it can develop an Islamic-style modernism. The challenge is to engage in modernity without sacrificing Muslim values or undermining Islamic principles. “As we are only slowly realizing, Islam is truly a world religion, increasingly visible in Europe and the United States as well as Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.”(15) It is significant for the future of Islam that “the capitals and major cities of Islam are not only Cairo, Istanbul, Mecca, but equally Paris, London, New York.”(16)

Given that Islam has become a global phenomenon, it is increasingly important that its principles are respected and not made irrelevant in the modern world. “All religious people in any age have to make their traditions address the challenge of their particular modernity…”(17) Rather than provoking the bi-polarization of the world, separating Islamic values from Western values, the goal of globalization is to develop an understanding of each other’s values and codes of ethics and to establish a common ground. Establishing a common ground is vital for ensuring the progress of globalization and allowing the world to reach its full potential. Modernization and globalization need to respect the identities of all regions and respect religion as a natural necessity for humanity.

Conclusion

The struggle for religion to remain relevant in the world is common to all religions at some point in history. Much of the literature surrounding the current Islam-globalization debate provides an inadequate and fragmented view of religion’s role in the process of globalization. Secularization, which is promoted in the current forms of globalization, is a new concept. In fact, based upon historical precedence, religion has played a key role in contributing to globalization and, more specifically, Islam has had a predominant role. The challenge for the future of a globalized world, and not just for Islam, is to be helpful to one another according to goodness and piety, and not to be helpful in evil and malice (Qur’an 5:2).

This article is available in Romanian in the following link: http://webhostinggeeks.com/science/article-fountainmagazine-rm

Footnotes

1. www.IslamOnline.com.
2. www.IslamOnline.com.
3. www.IslamOnline.com.
4. John Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 3d ed. (Oxford University Press, 1998), 165.
5. Choudhury, www.Islamic-finance.net.
6. Hardy, http://news.bbc.co.uk.
7. Sen, www.prospect.org.
8. Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, (Modern Library: 2002), 141.
9. Ibid., 138.
10. Ibid.,
11. 146.
12. Ibid., 153.
13. Ibid., 164.
14. Dr. Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, The Middle East Times,
15. Armstrong, Islam, 176.
16. Esposito, Islam, xvi.
17. Ibid, 203.
18. Armstrong, Islam, 164.