We perceive several problems related to the functions in many situations in life and develop solutions accordingly. The function shows the effect of one (or more) variable(s) on another variable. In simple terms, one factor can be called the transformation of another factor. When you send a piece of mail by cargo, you pay according to the weight of your cargo. Or imagine using an hourly Internet service in a library or airplane; the more hours you use the Internet, the more you pay.

A group of people want to rent a bus. The number of people does not affect the cost of rent for a bus. However, the cost per person could change depending on of the number of people. The more passengers, the less fee they pay for each passenger. Conversely, if the number of passengers is less, the cost of the bus fee could be more.

The examples are given above help to understand the mathematical function more easily. We perceive several problems related to the functions in many situations in life and develop solutions accordingly. The function shows the effect of one (or more) variable(s) on another variable. In simple terms, one factor can be called the transformation of another factor.

Consider shipping by mail. There are actually two situations here; the weight of the cargo sent and the amount of money paid based upon the cargo’s weight. This gives us a hint for the payable amount. For example, we may know how many pounds of cargo can be sent for $10. We also may calculate how much money is needed to ship 5 pounds of cargo. We can formulate this shipping problem:  Let x be the weight of the cargo and let y be the amount to be paid. In addition, for each parcel sent, including taxes, let us assume that it costs $3. In this case, we get an equation such as y = 2x + 3. Here, the number 2 given in front of the variable x is the money paid per pound. We calculate how many dollars we will pay for a 4-pound cargo: (2×4) + 3 = $11. If 2 dollars per pound is received, a 4-pound package shipping fee is 11 dollars.

Another example would be the use of the Internet. If 40 cents is requested per hour, $1.2 will be given for 3 hours of internet usage. Thus, the equation can be written as y=40x, where x is internet usage time per hour, y is amount to be paid.

The bus rental example is slightly different from the above two examples. Although this example specifies the function, this time there is a reverse situation. In the first two examples, like (x or) input increases, (y or) output will increase. In the case of bus rental, the bus rental fee is fixed and as the number of passengers increases, the payment per person will decrease. Let’s say $400 is required for the daily rental of a bus. 40 people pay $10 per person while 8 people pay $50 per each person.  This equation would be; y=400/x, where x is the number of people, y is the amount of money paid per person. Functions are important in understanding the relationship between two variables.

Life is a function. In mathematics first, what is the function in its simplest form? Let us give the known definition in schools.

Function: Let A and B be two sets different from the empty set and there is a relation f from set A to set B. If the relation f associates each element of the set A to one and only one element of the set B, this relation is called the function from set A to set B. It is shown as f: A→B or A→B. A is called the definition set of the function and B is called the set of values. A set of elements that match the elements of set A in set B is called the set of images of the function and is denoted by f (A).

In this case, if we clarify the definition a little, a relationship from A to B to be defined in order to function f; the following conditions must be met:

1. There should be no elements in the definition set that do not have an image. However, the element can remain exposed in the value set.
2. Each element in the definition set must not have more than one image.

Let us try to find the reflections of the definition in our lives. We assume that A is the world in which we live. If we say “World” for Set A (Definition Set), we would call Group B “the Afterlife” (Value Set). Because there is a connection from this world to the other world. We will see our values in the afterlife against what we do in this world. As someone who fits the definition of a “good” person will be of high value, the definition of a “bad” person will consequently result in a lower value. So, set A considers the world and its elements as ‘living people’. We can think of all the people in the world and include them in this group since life is finite for all of us. The mathematical meaning of this reality is the following:  all elements will be moved from set A to set B (Let A and B be two sets different from an empty set and a relation f from set A to set B.). There is such a connection (or relation) that one who leaves the world cannot go to two places at the same time. Destinations are clear: abode of reward or abode of punishment. We will all be eventually placed into one of these two groups. In some cases, the last stop of the people will be paradise, even if there are those who go to hell first and purify their sins. Consequently, in the last case, no one will be in two places at the same time (If the relation f associates each element of the set A to one and only one of the set B, this relation is called the function from the set A to the set B).

Just because everyone has one final destination does not mean that that destination can only hold one person. If the levels of Heaven and Hell are considered correctly, it is possible that there is more than one person for each level or that no one has come to that level. It is possible that there are those who have sinners at the same level. We can speculate that there may even be such a level that is inaccessible to all people. The Creator creates such places in order to show His grace, mercy, and power. (In the definition set, there should not be any elements without an image. But in the value set, there may be exposed elements.)

Life itself is a function. God created life according to certain rules. We should do our best to explore, find, and use these rules. Seeing the beauties of life and being amazed by the astonishment and capturing happiness in both worlds is achieved by seeing the manifestations of God everywhere.

Abu Hanifa (d. 767 CE) is considered a leading scholar of Islamic law and his thoughts led to the formation of the Hanafi school of Islam, which has the greatest following among schools. Abu Hanifa’s time was an era of intense political and social mobility. While new conquests brought in new cultural and religious components, the political authority aspired to disseminate an official form of Islam; at the same time, new groups and formations emerged to respond to changing conditions. Unfortunately, these conditions led to some groups being radicalized. Abu Hanifa’s stance against radicalism was exemplary and his arguments are still worthwhile today.

His political attitude

Abu Hanifa represents the prototype of an independent scholar. He was wary of state power, believing that it corrupted intellectual honesty in the interest of preserving power; thus, he did not hold an official political position. This was a brave stance, as he was seriously persecuted for it. Yet his independence allowed him to see radicalism – on both sides of the political spectrum – for the danger that it was.

Understanding of Islamic jurisprudence

Abu Hanifa is considered the pioneer of the school of sound opinion (ray), which advocates seeking solutions to social-judicial problems by using reason together with religious essentials and scholarly comparison (qiyas). Deductive reasoning (ijtihad), juristic preference for the better (istihsan), and acceptable custom (urf) have an important place in his understanding of Islamic jurisprudence. We can infer that he also believed in the necessity of taking social and psychological realities into account when making religious judgments; this was what he did in practice.

Abu Hanifa did not choose a reductionist approach by restricting himself to the frame of religious essentials, but produced solutions to the questions he faced—or could possibly face—by benefiting from the sources mentioned along with the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is possible to define his approach to jurisprudence as an understanding that places humanity in the center; his views expanded the domain of legitimacy and accepted components of historical and cultural heritage that do not contradict the spirit of religion and belief of Divine oneness, such as local customs and practices. This broad perspective ran contrary to radical beliefs. Because the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence does not disregard real problems in life, it is more capable of solving them.

Abu Hanifa viewed education and debate as essential to his jurisprudence. He would bring a certain problem – some of them contemporary, and some hypothetical – to the attention of his students, each of whom was an expert on an Islamic discipline such as tafsir, hadith, and fiqh; he would let them discuss that matter in detail, follow the discussions with patience, and come to a conclusive judgment according to the strength of the arguments. But he would still tolerate the opposing thoughts of his disciples, such as Imam Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, and let those thoughts come to life. All of their opposing thoughts were recorded, and people acted upon most of them.

We can accept Abu Hanifa’s educational method as a pluralist and democratic one, which also teaches how to forbear different opinions with patience. It shows the value of viewing an issue from different points of view. Despite its value, there were some groups that did not support Abu Hanifa’s methods.

His understanding of belief

Some groups had formed prior to Abu Hanifa as extensions of the extremist Kharijites. They not only directly declared believing Muslims who sinned were apostates, but they also attacked them and tried to exterminate them in the name of religion. The Kharijites even declared Caliph Ali – and many other devout believers – apostates. Though the Kharijites were the most violent, other groups – including the Mutazilites – also persecuted certain religious groups when they came to political power. Unfortunately, this act of dividing society into groups inevitably led to more violence.

According to one definition, it is possible for religion to be a dividing or uniting factor within a society. It can be a great force for good when it is kept separate from the political machinations of power. In his work Fiqh al-Akbar, Abu Hanifa defined the concept of religion (din) in terms of its contents by saying, “Religion is the title given to the entirety of religion, faith, submission, and religious judgments.” Abu’l Muntaha, the scholar who annotated this definition, states that the word religion has different uses, sometimes meaning belief, sometimes submission, and sometimes as the Divine judgments conveyed by a certain Prophet. However, at his answer to the question directed to him about the difference between religion and religious law, Abu Hanifa he expressed that he saw a difference between them. He did not only acknowledge this difference, but also gave a religious and rational explanation for it.

According to Abu Hanifa, religion (din) and religious law (shariah) are separate concepts. He accepted religion as the principles to be believed in – namely, the belief of Divine unity, and faith in the existence and unity of God. Religious law, however, is a body of judgments related to different aspects of human life such as worship, interpersonal relations, and the like. Abu Hanifa interpreted the Qur’anic verse meaning, “I have not created the jinn and humankind but to worship Me (exclusively)” (Dhariyat 56), in the sense of, “So that they know Me and acknowledge my Oneness.”

He believed the origin of religion is the belief in the unity of God. Obviously, this definition is based on the distinction between the essence of religion and what it necessitates. Here, belief is the absolute condition of religion, because a person belonging to a certain religion is a matter of accepting the essential teachings of that religion, rather than observing the acts of worship commanded by that religion.

Abu Hanifa came to this conclusion about religion by considering the fact that the essentials of belief brought by the Prophets are the same, but there are certain differences on other issues, such as worship. The Prophets of God did not belong to different religions. None of them commanded their people to forsake the religion of the previous Prophets, since their faith is the same. On the other hand, every Prophet invited their people to follow the law they conveyed, as decreed by God Almighty for that specific people, not necessarily following the exact law conveyed by the previous Prophets. There were many different codes for different peoples. It is for this reason that God Almighty states, “(For each community) …We have appointed a clear way of life and a comprehensive system (containing the principles of that way and how to follow it). And if God had so willed, He would surely have made you a single community (following the same way of life and system surrounded by the same conditions throughout all history)” (Maedah 48).

The faith of Divine oneness is always the same and religion does not change from one Prophet to another in this sense; it is the systems and their rules that change. If “religion” were fulfilling everything God commands and avoiding everything He forbids, then a person who fails to observe only one command or commits one forbidden act would be an apostate. As such, the legal judgments between fellow believers such as marriage, receiving an inheritance, attending a funeral, and the like would be invalid. However, it is having belief that makes them lawful between fellow believers. Other commands come after having accepted religion. If the commanded acts were faith itself, then God would not call His servants believers until they fulfilled the acts He commanded.

In order to support the point stated above, Abu Hanifa asserted the fact that when believers are excused from certain acts at certain times, they are still considered to have faith: a menstruating woman who abandons the daily prayers, a man who has a valid excuse abandons the Ramadan fasting, or a poor man who cannot give the alms of zakat are still considered believers. If such observances were identical to having faith, failing to observe them for some excuse would have the same meaning. However, it is impossible to make such a claim. According to Abu Hanifa, there is no complete relation between faith and deeds, since they are separate things.

Abu Hanifa stated that the following verses and others of similar meaning also point to the same fact:

“Tell those of My servants who believe that they must establish the Prayer in conformity with its conditions…” (Ibrahim 31); “O you who believe! Prescribed for you is retaliation in cases of (deliberate, unjust) killing…” (Baqarah 178); “O you who believe! Remember and mention God much” (Ahzab 41).

If the commanded acts were identical with belief or faith (iman), then God would not address people as believers until they fulfilled those acts. In addition, God Almighty separates having faith and good deeds in other verses as well:

“Except those who believe and do good righteous deeds…” (Asr 3); “No! Rather, whoever submits his whole being to God (and does so) as one devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing him, his reward is with his Lord, and all such will have no fear, (for they will always find My help and support with them), nor will they grieve” (Baqarah 112); “But whoever wishes for the Hereafter and strives for it as it should be striven for, being a believer…” (Isra 19).

This distinction proves that faith is not the same as deeds. Believers observe the prayers, fasting, zakat, Hajj, and they make remembrance of God owing to their faith – but they are not considered to have faith for having observed these. This proves that they do good deeds after having faith (iman) already.

In his letter to Uthman al-Batti, a scholar from Basra, Abu Hanifa stated this view with reference to different proofs. He used the following example: an indebted man firstly acknowledges his debt and pays it afterwards, but not vice versa. His acknowledgement of the debt is not for having paid the debt, but his paying is for having acknowledged the debt.

Abu Hanifa did not believe that a person who sins is out of the sphere of faith; nor are they an apostate. He expressed this point, saying, “Those who have acknowledged the direction to turn for worship are believers. I cannot count them as having forsaken faith owing to some command they do not observe. As for one who abandons some obligatory acts in spite of having faith, that person is a believer, but a sinful one (he is not a disbeliever).”

Abu Hanifa argued that what would make one an unbeliever is not committing a forbidden act, but considering it lawful; not abandoning an obligatory command, but considering it unnecessary.

Abu Hanifa also pointed out that real believers commit sins not by considering them lawful, but by giving in to their carnal soul. When asked, “If God is dearer for a believer than everything, why does a believer rebel Him? Is it possible for a person to rebel while having sincere love for God?” the great imam replied, “Yes, a child loves his father, but sometimes disobeys him. The situation of a believer is the same…He commits sins not owing to a lack of love for God, but for giving in to the feeling of lust or something similar.”

Some claimed that this stance aligned Abu Hanifa with the school of Murjia, whose adherents believed that sins would not nullify one’s faith, but Abu Hanifa soundly argued that it is not possible to guarantee anything in matters of faith:

“We cannot say that sins do not harm a believer at all. Similarly, we cannot say that a person who commits sins will not enter Hell. Neither can we say our good deeds are accepted and our evil deeds are forgiven… However, who commits good deeds in conformity with all of the conditions of validity…and dies as a believer without nullifying those deeds, then God does not let those deeds be in vain, but rewards them.” We need to clarify at this point that by this definition Abu Hanifa did not refer to an argument as if religion was a matter of conscience only; religion for him is a comprehensive system of life that concerns all aspects of believers’ existence.

While founding the most developed school of Islamic jurisprudence, Abu Hanifa defined religion with reference to its essence, pinpointing the difference between religion and other factors related to religion. His definition of religion as the faith of Divine oneness is very important in terms of maintaining social unity. Such a definition does not lessen the importance of religion’s other requirements. Moreover, the political and social conditions of his time called for such a definition. For this reason, Abu Hanifa made a definition that referred to the essence of religion and aimed to maintain unity in society by counteracting the tendency to easily condemn those with different opinions.

This is valuable even today, as taking belief in Divine unity as the basis of religion allows followers of different monotheistic religions to meet on common grounds. In the Qur’an, God Almighty addresses Muslims in the person of the Prophet and demands them to call People of the Book to a common word between them: “O People of the Book, come to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but God, and associate none as partner with Him, and that none of us take others for Lords, apart from God” (Al Imran 3: 64).

Conclusion

When Abu Hanifa’s world of thought and understanding of life are studied, it’s clear that his viewpoint valued differences and did not permit persecution. This perspective still bears significance in terms of peaceful coexistence in today’s societies. Such a magnanimous attitude can help to combat radical attitudes and inclinations for violence.

From a children’s tale to Socrates and the Qur’an, the need for logic and sound reasoning is universal.

Nasraddin Hodja is a well-known folktale character in the Middle East. He is famous for his wit, which is apparent in the wisdom-filled stories that have been ascribed to him for eight centuries. Although Hodja was not a philosopher, many of his tales contain elements that demonstrate philosophical concepts and principles. As an example, the story of Hodja’s pot neatly exercises a fundamental philosophical method, i.e. the Socratic method or reductio ad absurdum. This story, though apparently simple and funny, has a deep philosophical dimension and teaches us the Socratic method in a very accessible way. The story goes as follows:

One day, Nasraddin Hodja borrowed a pot from his neighbor. After he had finished using it, he took it back to the neighbor with a smaller pot put inside it.
When the neighbor saw the smaller pot, he was surprised.


“What is that?” he asked.


“Well, said  Hodja, when I borrowed your pot it was pregnant and it gave birth.”


The man smiled and accepted both pots.

A few days later, Hodja borrowed the pot again but this time he did not return it.
The neighbor was rather cross. He went to Hodja and asked, “What about my pot?”


“I am very sorry,” said Hodja, “but it died.”


“Don’t make jokes with me,” replied the neighbor. “How can a pot die?”


“If you believe that it brought a child into the world,” said Hodja, “why can’t you believe that it died?”
 

In this story, Nasraddin Hodja suggests that his neighbor’s behavior of accepting the smaller pot is improper, by indicating an absurd consequence of his behavior, namely that a pot can die if it can give birth. This method is commonly used in philosophical argumentation since the Ancient Greeks. We can see similar examples in Plato’s dialogues. For example, in the Republic, Cephalus defines justice as speaking the truth and paying the debt. However, Socrates shows that this definition logically leads to some absurd consequences. Let us assume that somebody lends us arms when his mind is right, but wants them back later when he lost his mind. According to Cephalus’ definition of justice, we should give the arms to that insane and crazy person since they are not ours but his. Yet, no one would approve such an act. Once Cephalus encounters this counterexample, he understands that his initial definition has some problems; he approves Socrates’ point and tries to modify his idea of justice. Thus, the dialogue continues. Different definitions are introduced and checked by this method.

We can display the logical structure of the Socratic method in the following way. In a conversation, somebody holds an assumption, and makes a definition or claims something. The other person shows that this assumption, definition, or claim leads to an absurdity. For this reason, this method is also called reductio ad absurdum, i.e. reducing to absurdity. Since the initial assumption leads to something unacceptable, it is unacceptable as well by logical inference. Then the person who held that assumption is forced to abandon or modify it. See Table 1 for a comparison of these examples.

Table 1

The Socratic method is one of the basic methods that we use in reasoning. We use it in daily life, in sciences, and in any area where we engage in rational thinking. The strictest kind of absurdity is a contradiction, i.e. accepting and denying the exactly same thing under the same conditions. Because of this, logicians and mathematicians call the Socratic method, “the indirect proof,” or “proof by contradiction.” See the appendix for an example of the proof by contradiction in mathematics.

Interestingly enough, we also see this method in the holy books. For example, the Qur’an frequently suggests people use their rationality and carefully think about the universe. It is remarkable that, in the Qur’an, we find arguments that rely on the reductio ad absurdum method. For example, let us consider the following verse: “But the fact is that had there been in the heavens and the earth any deities other than God, both (of those realms) would certainly have fallen into ruin. All-Glorified God is, the Lord of the Supreme Throne, in that He is absolutely above all that they attribute to Him” (21:22). This verse proposes that one must have observed disorder in the universe if that person associated partners with God’s activity in the universe. Since this is not what we observe, the initial assumption is incorrect. This example shows that the Qur’an addresses the rationality of human beings, and suggests actively using that faculty.

As we have seen, deriving absurd consequences from an assumption and denying it on the basis of those absurdities is a common and fundamental way of reasoning that is exercised in many different areas and aspects of human life. It is called by different names over history, namely “the Socratic method,” “reductio ad absurdum,” or “proof by contradiction.” Yet, the basic idea behind these technical terms is the same. Most of us probably exercise this method without thinking about it.

Appendix

Theorem: The number that is equal to itself, when added to itself, is zero.

Prove that for any x, x is a number; if x +x = x, then x=0.

1. x+x=x (assumption for conditional/direct proof)
2. x is not equal to 0. (Assumption for indirect proof/reductio ad absurdum)
3. x+x=2x (by addition)
4. x=2x (since “x+x” is common for both the 1^st and 3^rd steps, by the principle of transitivity)
5. 1=2 (cancel x’s) –Contradiction
6. x=0. (The assumption that leads to the contradiction in the 5^th step must be false. Therefore, it is false that x is not equal to 0. Thus, x=0 is true.) Indirect proof is complete.
7. If x+x=x, then x=0. (Conditional proof is complete)

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).

In our previous issue we attempted to sneak a look through the door that opens to the essence of “time.” From Aristotle to Einstein, from Ibn Arabi to Imam Rabbani, many philosophers and scientists commented on the nature of this phenomenon. One definition of time is that it is a progressive linear occurrence; its beginning was when God created the universe. Another definition suggests “time” as something without an absolute nature; it consists of only what we perceive. Still others contend that while time moves forward, it does so through series of historical recurrences. In this sense, a helical flow of time does not suggest a “returning back;” it argues that certain phenomena in history re-occur in a way that is relatively compatible with a certain period of time. Events do not come into existence exactly as they happened in the past; they take on a contemporary form.

In this issue, we will study how this cyclical/helical flow of time serves as a reason for many to be hopeful for the future. In the lead article to this edition, Fethullah Gulen contends, “We all know well that worry and despair can no longer stand firm. And when the horizons are bright to help us distinguish good from evil, all the hardships endured on the road will be immediately mitigated.” This is not a fate-blind approach. Gulen appreciates the significance of human willpower and hard work in the shaping of our future: “Distances will readily submit to endeavors and efforts.” We all-heartedly share his lengthy wish for a happy future.

We kindly request your participation in our online readership survey. Available at www.fountainmagazine.com this survey aims to analyze reader satisfaction and expectations. Your participation is of utmost importance in order to improve our services and quality publication.

For your information, starting with this issue The Fountain is going to press simultaneously in three different regions of the world, the USA, Turkey, and Indonesia, in order to ensure on-time delivery to our subscribers worldwide.

The Fountain