Imagine two children fighting over an orange. Not knowing what the other one is interested in, one of them aspires to eat the orange, and the other desires to make a cake with the orange peel (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1981). There are several different scenarios that they may end up with when they finally stop quarrelling over who found the orange first, and decide to end the dispute. In the first scenario, they simply split the orange into two equal halves. The first child peels the orange and eats the fruit and throws away the peel, while the second one throws away the fruit and uses the peel to make the cake. Both parties compromise; however, effectively half of the orange gets wasted, and both parties actually lose something. In the second scenario, one of the children forcefully takes the whole orange with threats and physical force, while the other capitulates. The dispute ends with one party winning, and the other losing. The forceful one may seem to be victorious at first sight, but loses his friend’s trust, damaging a valuable relationship in the long term. In the third scenario, the children decide to calm down and listen to each other, and understand why each one wants the orange, and resolve the dispute in a way that fulfills both their needs. One of them gets the whole orange peel, which is enough to make the cake, and the other gets the whole fruit to eat. Nothing is wasted, and everyone gets the best they could. Both parties win.

Looking at the orange sharing example, are there lessons here that we can learn and apply to the broader world? For starters, I think it’s clear that dialogue naturally leads to collaboration, and collaboration helps to attain the optimal resolution, whereas other approaches to dispute resolution are likely to produce sub-optimal results for both parties. Parties who collaborate gain power with others. Just as in the case of the last orange sharing scenario, parties work together to attain maximum gains for all. In contrast, when one party declares victory by exerting power over the other, similar to the episode where the child grasps the orange by force, this leaves behind a legacy of injustice and mistrust, for one party has deprived the other of his share. In the long term, future dealings will be very difficult. When the parties in a dispute use tactics of coercion, threat, or deception in a way that exacerbates their power differences, not only is the trust between the parties damaged, but they also become suspicious and hostile of one another (Deutsch, et al., 2006). Even if the disputing parties can reach a settlement in the end, often the underlying interests of neither party can be truly addressed, or one party is at a serious disadvantage. Overall, since the root causes remain unaddressed, the dispute can manifest itself again sooner or later, in some other shape or form. Moreover, the competitive nature of the process brings material losses and dissatisfaction, worsening relationships, and exacerbating negative psychological effects (Deutsch, 2006), as there are losers in this process. The true winners are the ones who choose the way of dialogue and collaboration.

The story of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and his creative idea for settling a dispute that occurred during the rebuilding of the Ka‘ba in Mecca (before his prophethood) brilliantly exemplifies a collaborative agreement: when the sacred Black Stone was to be put in place, the leaders of several tribes quarreled about who should have the honor to place it. They could not resolve the dispute by themselves and decided to pick the first person who entered Ka‘ba as an arbitrator. Acting as the neutral third party to the dispute, the Prophet’s idea was to place the stone on a cloak and the heads of each tribe would take a side of the cloak and together carry it in; hence each could have the honor of putting the stone in place (Satha-Anand, 1998; Saritoprak, 2010; Abu-Nimer, 2000; Coleman & Deutsch, 2006). This innovative resolution, where all the parties got what they wanted, produced no losers. Everybody won as the resolution was compatible with their underlying interests. The historical episode not only highlights the importance of creativity, and the important role of a wise and neutral third party in dispute resolution, but also demonstrates that even difficult disputes can be overcome through collaborative problem solving. When parties in a dispute can identify and frame the issue at hand as a mutual problem to be solved, they can work together to achieve a common goal. They separate emotions from the problem. They are attentive to each others’ needs, listen to each other to understand each others’ underlying interests, and they creatively brainstorm on alternative solutions to address those interests (Bolton, 1986; Deutsch, Coleman & Marcus, 2006).

As the Prophet’s peace building skills were well-known, the leaders of the city of Medina invited him and his followers to their city to build peace among rival tribes after his prophet hood (Saritoprak, 2010; Abu-Nimer, 2000). The tribes of Medina had been fighting for centuries. As a visionary, he was able to implement a collaborative treaty (the Charter of Medina is the first constitution created by the Prophet) that ensured the rights of all inhabitants of Medina, which consisted of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and pagans. The Charter of Medina can also be highlighted as an example of interfaith dialogue in action. The Prophet often reminded his followers about the significance of solidarity and unity between Muslims and non-Muslims (Abu-Nimer, 2000). A peaceful society was successfully established in Medina and existed as a single inclusive community. The same peaceful model was later extended to Mecca.

The civilization that flourished in Medina was built on two main principles. These are namely “the mutual cooperation” and “the loving interrelatedness of the creation” that puts forward “collaborative action” and “solidarity” (Saritoprak, 2010). The mutual cooperation of creatures on earth can be observed in all the physical events around us. For example, the elements cooperate with each other to form the matter. The red and white corpuscles in the blood work together in protecting and feeding the body. The cells in the body function in cooperation. Rain helps plants to grow, plants help animals to grow, and they both help human beings to grow. The loving interrelatedness of the creation emphasizes that all members of creation are brothers and sisters, and rejects all forms of bias, such as racism and nationalism, and prioritizes communal solidarity that includes both Muslims and non-Muslims.

As the Charter of Medina illustrates, for a collaborative resolution, the parties in a dispute must team up and empower each other in order to find the most creative solution that best satisfies all parties. They work on implementing a plan that identifies the roles of each party and commits to positive outcomes for all. Due to the cooperative nature of the process, the parties have more resources, more diversity in ideas, and more social support for the problem solving work involved (Coleman & Deutsch, 2006). Furthermore, cooperation brings greater group productivity, more favorable interpersonal relations, better psychological health, and higher self-esteem (Deutsch, 2006). There are no losers in this process, and everybody wins.

You may question the applicability of collaborative dispute resolution and win-win results. They may sound too idealistic, and because we live in an increasingly materialistic, self-centered, and egoistic culture, not realistic for our current world. People tend to be under the control of their carnal selves, ignore the needs of the others, or even take it to the point of dehumanizing the other, especially during stressful situations. Emotions such as anger and humiliation may take over common sense, and may make it very difficult to be constructive. Therefore, contention may seem inevitable.

However, as human beings, we have the gift of conscience that can help us defeat our carnal selves and attain win-win results, regardless of the extent of the conflict. The voice of our conscience would encourage us to listen with empathy, and to respect the basic human needs of the other party, regardless of who we are dealing with. It would encourage us to be patient, tolerant, and loving. Our conscience, in a sense, can act as the “inner” neutral third party that can remind us of the basic tenets of humanity (Ury, 1999, cited in Moix, 2006). All major faiths share the virtues of compassion, love, tolerance, respect for human dignity, and value the sacredness of human life; all these things also relate to the development of our conscience. These common values have contributed to the international human rights standards, ethical norms, and humanitarian laws, as well as the philosophy and practice of peacemaking (Moix, 2006). Emphasizing such spiritual teachings for the good of mankind in general, regardless of religion or ethnicity, is crucial when aspirations consume people, and drive them to commit atrocities. In this respect, interfaith dialogue can help strengthen the possibility of constructive resolutions. If disputes grow and turn into conflicts involving atrocities, faith leaders can act as the “outer” neutral third parties to mediate and remind people to draw on their faiths rather than their emotions. Especially, if the leaders engage in a strong interfaith dialogue network that they can mobilize; many disputes involving people of multiple faiths can be eliminated before they can grow, whether these disputes are at the interpersonal or intergroup level. Examples of successful peace building through interfaith dialogue exist around the conflict regions of the world. Consider the collective action and advocacy in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Israel – Palestine (Abu-Nimer, 2008), as well as in Turkey, through the efforts of Journalists and Writers Foundation.

Essentially, if the parties in a dispute can use the power of collaborative problem solving to produce beneficial alternatives for all, they can attain the creative atmosphere to expand the range of alternatives for positive change and growth (Coleman & Deutsch, 2006).With authenticity, respect, and love, the parties can easily attain constructive resolution, and there is chance to reach the optimal solution where positive outcomes – such as strengthening relationships, and improving psychological health and productivity – are prevalent, as opposed to feelings of distress, resentment, and alienation resulting from other alternatives (Bolton, 1986).

In sum, if the parties in a dispute can approach the resolution process with positive intentions, they are more likely to achieve collaborative problem solving which will produce beneficial alternatives for all. In parallel with the philosophy of Yunus Emre (the 13th century Sufi master) who once said, “We love the Created because of the Creator,” the key is to start with love and tolerance by prioritizing human well-being. If we can use the power of our “inner” neutral third parties, difficult problems and disputes are likely to resolve naturally.

Alptekin Kavi is an electrical engineer and designs computer chips at a high-technology company. He lives in Superior, Colorado.

References

• Abu-Nimer, M. (2000-2001). A framework for nonviolence and peacebuilding in Islam. Journal of Law and Religion, 15(1/2), 217-265.
• Abu-Nimer, M. (2008). The role of religious peacebuilding in traumatized societies. In Hart, B. (Ed.), Peacebuilding in traumatized societies (pp. 239-257). The United States of America: University Press of America.
• Bolton, R. (1986). People skills (pp. 232-257), New York: Simon & Schuster Inc. (Original work published 1979).
• Coleman, P. T. (2006). Power and conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus. (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 120-143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint
• Coleman, P. T., & Deutsch, M. (2006). Some guidelines for developing a creative approach to conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 402-413). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
• Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 23-42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (Ed.). (1991). Getting to yes. New York: Penguin Books. (Original work published in 1981).
• Moix, B. (2006). Matters of faith: Religion, conflict, and conflict resolution. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 582-601). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
• Nursi, S. The Rays from Risale-i Nur collection, (pp. 19). Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/13667249/The-Rays-From-Risalei-Nur-Collection
• Saritoprak, Z. (2010). Fethullah Gulen’s theology of peacebuilding. In Esposito, J. L., & Yilmaz, I. (Eds.), Islam and peacebuilding (pp. 169-187). New York: Blue Dome Press.
• Satha-Anand, C. “Three Prophets’ Nonviolent Actions: Case Stories from the Lives of the Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad.” In Chaiwat Satha-Anand and Michael True (eds.), The Frontiers of Nonviolence. Honolulu: International Peace Research Association, 1998.
• Ury, W. Getting to Peace: Transforming Conflict at Home, at Work, and in the World. New York: Penguin, 1999.

Answer: Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, prayed that his community not be completely eradicated from the face of the earth, that they not suffer from pervasive famine, and not be attacked by an enemy which could destroy the great majority of believers; he said that his wishes had been granted. Working from this hadith, we can say that his community will not be subjected to general destruction, nor will they remain under the sovereignty of others permanently. However, the Prophet also reported in the same hadith that a similar prayer that he made for God’s prevention of bloodshed and mischief among his community was not granted (Muslim, Fitan, 19/20).

As to why this last prayer was not accepted, it can perhaps be argued that what was asked for lies within the capacity of human willpower. Humans are blessed with reason and mental capacity. It is not congruent with human dignity to be herded to and fro or to be gathered here and there, against their will. Human beings can exercise their volition and seek the possibility to live together with others peacefully.

“We try (test) people through one another”

By mentioning repeatedly in a number of verses (An’am 6:53) that people will be tested through one another, God warns the Muslim community of this grave threat that might loom over them. God Almighty puts us in trial in a variety of ways; sometimes with illness, sometimes with misfortune, sometimes through our worship, and at other times with our vulnerability to sins. Trying some of us through other people is another means of testing. Every individual person is unique; God created each of us like a separate species in and of itself. We all have different personalities; no one is like another person. By creating every one so different God reveals the manifestations of His beautiful names and glorified attributes and thus puts us through a trial with a promise of a reward for those who are successful. This test requires acknowledgement of these differences in the nature of each person; it is with this awareness that everyone should seek ways to coexist, despite all our differences.

It is reported that Bediuzzaman Said Nursi once praised one of his students and his good skills in his writing to another of his students. He said: “His writing is better than yours.” Upon this, which was also a kind of trial, his student remarked that he was pleased to hear this; he showed no sign of discontent. Bediuzzaman realized that this student was truly sincere in his words. It may not be possible that everyone has the same level of ease at heart in the face of such a situation; we should not expect such a purity of conscience from all. Yet, it is still in our hands to control our behavior.

We should also never forget that a person who displays bad behavior is not necessarily a bad person in all their aspects. Labeling someone thus, especially if that person is an observant believer, is a distorted perspective and reflects one’s own contempt. Moreover, discrediting another believer in such a way means that the discreditor is actually the one who is on the wrong path; he or she might suffer a blow from that person, or a severe dispute might occur. So, instead of making an immediate judgment about another person, it is always best to think of a way to resolve the dispute and to come to terms. The person who takes the first step and apologizes for what has happened can be considered to be a hero. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also points out that when two people are angry with one another, the virtuous one is the one who makes the first greeting (Bukhari, Adab, 62). The following verse in the Qur’an enjoins believers as follows:

Goodness and evil can never be equal. Repel evil with what is better (or best). Then see: the one between whom and you there was enmity has become a bosom friend. (Fussilat 41:34)

In contradiction of divine commands

I deeply regret and sometimes feel great sorrow when such weaknesses and lack of integrity surface, despite the above-mentioned divine instructions and warnings. It is not uncommon to come across two people, who normally meet each other at spiritual gatherings and discuss issues related with belief, becoming involved in a dispute. This means that such people are unable to perceive the resentment and hatred that is directed towards believers, and the plots that have been devised by antagonist circles obsessed with enmity; these can obstruct many good services. If these plots against and resentment towards believers are trivial matter, then what is significant for them, that their honor and pride were not regarded? So for us, is it truly the case that the denial of God and His Messenger is not a major issue, but a word uttered unfavorably on our behalf is more important?!

What do we value most? We should be aware of the attention that we give to frivolous matters which we unnecessarily overvalue at the expense of many issues of greater magnitude. God has blessed us with reason, and even beyond that, with belief and the ability to comprehend. So, it is imperative that we analyze how people fall out, albeit they share countless common denominators in belief and values. They believe in the same Creator, the same Sovereign, the same Lord, perhaps even follow the same Messenger and religion, and turn in the same direction for prayer; they may even live in the same country and are committed to the same lofty goals, treading on the same path… Hundreds of shared values should unite people, but we may still fall in dispute over matters that are as insignificant as the wings of a fly. If someone curses me, this does not give me the right to respond likewise. For Bediuzzaman, retaliation is a cruel principle.

“If for God the world was worth the wing of a fly, unbelievers would not be allowed to drink even a drop of water” (Tirmidhi, Zuhd, 13). The world is so insignificant that the unbelievers are allowed to drink. If this is the real value of the world, then what significance can some repugnant worldly issues have for friends who fall apart? Can this ever be reconciled with reason?

It is also reported from Hafiz-i Shiradhi that “the world is not a commodity worth disputing.” I believe that no one would consider this to be an exaggeration. Yet, how much are we reflecting this truth into our lives? Thinking over all these, I cannot help but ask myself “for what purpose are we reading, keeping ourselves busy with the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet, or with the analysis of marginal matters?” Why are we wasting our time quibbling over such matters if they do not help us reach human perfection?

I am sorrowed by those who do not forgive

All of us need rehabilitation; we need to reflect on our integrity and revise our humanity. This is necessary for all of us. It is easy to overemphasize trivial matters and start the gossip that lies at the tip of our tongues; minds and pure hearts are tarnished with the tar of gossip.

Let me give you an example of how important this issue is: if a friend gets up from their seat and leaves the room, and if I infer in my mind or comment openly on this, saying, “I think he is overwhelmed by sleep too much, so he leaves the gathering to sleep somewhere else” he might be hurt if he were to hear this. What would befall me is to ask for his forgiveness the very first moment I came across him. Gossip is a grave sin. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, says that gossip is worse than adultery on the grounds that God can forgive the adulterer if he repents and is determined not to commit the sin again. Nevertheless, a gossiper has to ask forgiveness from the person he or she has gossiped about as well as from God (Bayhaqi, Shuabu’l-iman, 14/255). Gossiping about a person who has a large following might result in a grave sin, for it violates the rights of all those people who admire that person. This is a very delicate matter. Unless we deem what God Almighty enjoins as significant as being significant, then many trivial matters will replace them.

We have serious faults in our belief; it is certainly imperfect. We have huge gaps in our commitments to the basic tenets of belief, both at a personal and social level. We seem not to possess perfect belief in the existence of God and His all-encompassing presence, nor in the fact that His will is superior over all other things, nor in the Hereafter where we will account for all we have done in this world.

I am disappointed with and deeply sorrowed by behavior that does not suit a true believer; indeed, for any weakness in this regard. I am heart-broken by my friends who are unable to forgive one another, by those who seek the errors of others, and by those who keep record of others’ sins like the Angle Scribes, and by those who ignore the good deeds performed by others.

Let us not allow any feelings or thoughts that might damage fellowship to enter even our dreams. If we believe, then let us be prepared to honor even the evil-doers and embrace those who have turned their backs on us. Let us make it our life principle to be without hands against those who strike us and without speech against those who curse us.