For human society, the last few centuries have been one turmoil after another. In response, we are still searching—sometimes in a disciplined manner, sometimes not so much—for the ways and methods to rise, once again, as ourselves: as human. We continue our search on diverse fronts—in educational activities, charitable works, media organizations, and places of worship. If we had only been able to commit ourselves, centuries ago, to the knowledge from the Divine and the morality of love spread by the Infinite Light; if we could have committed to humanity’s destiny to eternity and turned to God, then we would stand today, without doubt, as the “inheritors of the world” and could have a say in maintaining its direction.

During a period when the world was immersed in darkness, the civilization introduced and the renaissance kindled by the believers enlightened the world. This was an outcome of their Divinely inspired knowledge and the morality of love they embodied in their time. If we are to expect a similar civilization or renaissance in the future, we need to know they are dependent on these very dynamics. Embracing knowledge from the Divine and “morality of love” was a gift of faith; however, the true worth of this gift was not grasped well enough, thus, at certain times, it failed to shine forth as bright as it could have. Instead, the materialistic worldview and crude power were mistaken for truth. To a great extent, this is still the case today.

The world, however, keeps spinning, and it is our hope that it will eventually reorient itself to the orbit that the Almighty has set forth. We can see that there are people among us who are more determined than ever to find their own essence and return to their true values. This is an attempt to revive our true human spirit.

During a rather unfortunate period, we have followed the rest of humanity down the rabbit hole of materialism only to demolish in our minds the essential values that make the humankind unique. As a result, we have not only dethroned humans from their status as the “most perfect creation” but also pushed them down to the level of any animal. Supposedly in the name of questioning old ideas, we disgraced humans and humanistic values. Alas, we were not even aware of what we were doing while committing this grievous mistake. We are still broken under the influence of that shock; standing at the crossroads, we cannot decide which way to go.

Yet, the human—this noble being—has inviolable rights. Our liberties are untouchable, and we are adorned with qualities that are more precious than every glorification and praise. In the words of the late poet Akif:

“Humankind; their nature is loftier than the angels
Therein hidden are the worlds, folded are the realms.”

Debasing humanity is mocking the ultimate purpose of being; holding humanity in contempt is tantamount to believing that the spirit of creation is worthless. The human is an exceptional being that is too sublime to be devalued and mocked; a human bears certain characteristics and qualities that cannot be compromised. The freedom of people cannot be taken away, and we cannot be subject to oppression. Humans cannot be tyrannized nor abused. All of these are insults to the meaning of humanity, injustice to the human spirit, and the greatest immorality.

Given the circumstances today, we need to once more revisit what we consider “human values.”

First and foremost, the sources of knowledge and our fundamental thoughts that make us who we are command us to respect humanity. These sources value humans above everything else as the best of creation and honor our free will, inviolable rights, and freedoms as the dynamics upon which we are supposed to weave our lacework of happiness, both in this world and in the next.  

Indeed, from the perspective of faith, divine knowledge, love, and spiritual delights planted in our potential, humanity is above the angels. Loving humanity is a manifestation of one’s connection to the Creator, and, of course, disrespecting humanity is a grave disrespect towards our Owner. The first thing, therefore, that we must do is give back to humanity the values that have been taken from us and work hard to raise new generations that will cherish and protect these values for eternity.

Secondly, the notion of community is also very important. We must foster communities around noble ideals to which feelings, thoughts, and spirits of individuals are rationally and spiritually committed. Morality, in its truest sense, will manifest itself when individuals become a part of such a prosperous and flourishing community. The morality or immorality of individuals who have secluded themselves from society is irrelevant (for the way they live is binding on themselves only). Islam, for instance, encourages living as a community and considers it a holy struggle to endure problems that may arise from it. After all, a truly moral society is one that promises bliss both in this world and the next and is comprised of individuals who, with their free will, dedicate their lives to lofty ideals. In such a society, the unifying power of faith, the softening effect of love, and the sublimity of purpose do not give way to wrongdoings caused by one’s ego; thus, immorality, which originates from egoism, cannot thrive.

The transcendent power of faith and living with a sincere purpose melts the individual’s specific characteristics into society. Though they are still true to themselves, they virtually become one with the community with which they attain such immensity and prosperity that come, as it were, by way of transforming from a mere drop into an ocean, from a single particle into the sun, and from nothing into everything. The road to existence passes through nothingness; wealth is fed by poverty; power opens up and sprouts in the arms of weakness; tribulation becomes a blessing; and gratitude transforms into a delightful zeal. Serving on this path is the noblest of duties and is for those whose sole purpose is to seek the good pleasure of the Creator; the end result is eternal bliss in the hereafter. Indeed, if this purest of pure thoughts is contaminated by even the smallest conflict of interest at a personal or group level, then the connections that bind both the individual and the community to the Divine will break. These disruptions will cause the individual—and eventually the community—to stray from the true path.

Yes, in a group which ties its every action to God, there should not be any mention of individual desires or personal ambitions and worries; nor should one have any ultimate goals and ideals that are not bound to eternity. A true community is a blessed gathering of individuals who have submitted themselves to the eternal. In the words of Bediuzzaman, they do for God’s sake, start for God’s sake, speak for God’s sake, and meet for God’s sake. They act within the domain of God’s good pleasure, by way of which every second of their lives expand as immense as the years, branding, as it were, mortal things with the seal of immortality. Indeed, all their endeavors are exceptionally genuine, pure, and directed towards that which is Eternal.

Not all crowds can be considered a community. In fact, in certain masses when individuals are opposed to one another, their multitude is a means of decrease, not increase, for they diminish the whole, just as fractions do to whole numbers when they are multiplied. Since the friends of God’s messengers were blessed with the spirit of a true community, they were able to fulfill what is expected of a powerful community, although they were small in number. Many individuals among them, like Abu Bakr and Umar—the two prominent companions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)—can be considered each as great as a community or a nation by their own credit; this would not be an exaggeration at all. Apostles of Jesus, the Messiah (peace be upon him), who were only a handful, can be considered more powerful than the most powerful of armies. Throughout all of history, groups that were small in quantity but excellent in quality have proved to be much more superior and fruitful than masses that were plenty in numbers.

Just as the love of morality is the most important way of disciplining one’s spiritual world, it is also the most significant component of stability and the most vital principle of harmony within a society. Truthfulness, ensuring security, being fair to all, honoring one’s word, engaging with others with confidence and respect, and commitment to spirituality—these are the essences of morality and the fundamental dynamics of the soul.

The understanding of morality we inherited—excluding perhaps the shiny rubbish of the last few centuries—is essentially a very rich and strong one. It can carry us forward from where we are now if we can lead our lives according to this understanding. Then we will automatically overcome many of our societal problems; then, we will be able to think more clearly, work more efficiently, and walk at a faster and more harmonious pace, making up for the time we have wasted. If we can accomplish this task, the future of our society will be brighter, more vibrant, and more colorful than ever.

Addressing Tensions Between Ethical and Legal Perspectives in Islam

The way we understand the state, religion, individual, and how they are related to one another is much different now than how we conceptualized them in premodern times. Today, political alliances are characterized much less in religious terms than they were before. While secular states allow members of all faiths, including Islam, to freely practice their religion, renunciation of one’s faith is no longer considered as renunciation of political authority [1].

These new circumstances magnify the tension between the principle of freedom of religion, which is essential in Islam, and the historical punishment for apostasy. Tensions and crises such as these urge us to re-examine some former views on certain rulings to be able to be better aligned with the spirit of faith.

Jurist opinions for the punishment of apostasy were issued in contexts where religious and political affiliations often overlapped. Battles were fought along political lines, which were often religious fault lines, too. Hence, apostasy often amounted to treason, at least in the eyes of the jurists of the time. In other words, these verdicts were political in nature, despite being issued by religious scholars. Religious scholars issued these verdicts because of a lack of separation of political and religious concerns. We propose that these considerations require a categorization of the concept of apostasy into passive or religious apostasy versus active or political apostasy.

Examination of the primary sources and the formative period of Islam reveal that the Qur’an does not specify any worldly punishment for religious apostasy. Religious choice is treated as a matter between the person and God, and that any reward or punishment in this matter is reserved for the Hereafter. Secondly, none of the three sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), or hadith, that pertain to apostasy specify a punishment for passive apostasy. We must note here that one among these hadiths is an isolated report (khabar al-wahid), not a mass-reported one (mutawatir), and it does not specify the nature of apostasy and the context in which this hadith was said indicates active or political apostasy. In the Prophet’s (pbuh) practice, we see that individuals who simply renounced their faith but did not join the enemies of Muslims were not punished.

Finally, the first caliph Abu Bakr’s waged war on those Muslims who refused political alliance or to pay taxes, despite remaining Muslims, demonstrates that the worldly punishment for apostasy during earlier times was a political punishment for political crimes and that from a religious standpoint everyone is free to embrace, practice and leave any faith.

Irtidad, the Arabic term for apostasy, means to retreat, to return, or to leave. Apostasy in English may refer to renouncing a religious or political belief. Similarly, in Islamic history we observe that the term murtad is used for both religious and political apostates. The tension that we observe today arises precisely because the two implications of the term have not been separated historically. But we propose two new terms to clarify the question: “Passive,” or purely religious apostasy and “active,” or political apostasy.

Freedom of religion is essential in Islam

From an Islamic point of view, to consider religious apostasy a capital crime is against the fundamentals of the religion; it goes against the letter and spirit of several verses of the Qur’an, such as ‘There is no compulsion in religion,’ (al-Baqara 2:256) and ‘Let those who wish to believe in it [the truth] do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so,’ (al-Kahf, 18:29). Furthermore, no worldly punishment for apostasy is mentioned anywhere in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an

In the Qur’an, the word radda, with its derivatives, is mentioned 59 times [2]. In many of these verses, the Qur’an talks about the efforts the idol worshippers and the People of the Book made in order to turn Muslims from their religion [3]. The primary verses about believers turning away from faith are as follows:

“Whoever of you turns away from his Religion and dies an unbeliever those are they whose works have been wasted in both the world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein.” (2:217)

“On the Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) when some faces turn bright and some faces turn dark. And as to those whose faces have turned dark (they will be told): “What, did you disbelieve after having believed? Taste, then, the punishment because you used to follow the way of unbelief!” (3:106)

Similar verses are 4:137, 5:54, 16:106, and 47:25.

In none of these verses, which refer to religious apostasy, not to active political apostasy, is there any mention of worldly or punitive sanctions. The sole responsibility of the murtad or apostate is toward God.

In verses where a worldly punishment is mentioned, for instance in Maidah 5:33, it is clear that the crime is not religious apostasy, either through the wording or through contextual analysis.

The Prophet’s sayings and actions

The traditional position that irtidad is punishable by death in Islam is an ijtihad (scholarly opinion or interpretation) that is based largely on a few isolated hadiths:

• The first is, “Whoever changed his religion, kill him” (al-Bukhari, Sahih al- Bukhari, vol. 9, bk 84, hadith no. 56), and this hadith is the primary source for the traditional position on apostasy in Islam.
• The second is, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that there is no god but Allah and that I am the messenger of Allah, cannot be shed except in three cases: a life for a life; a married person who commits adultery; and the one who turns renegade from Islam (apostate) and leaves the community of Muslims.” [4]
• The third is an incident in which some people from the ‘Uraynah tribe came to the Prophet (pbuh) and became Muslim. As they found the Medinan climate uncongenial and became unwell, the Prophet (pbuh) advised them to spend some time in a place where the camels belonging to the public purse were kept, outside Medina. As soon as they felt better, they murdered the shepherds appointed to them by the Prophet (pbuh) and stole the camels belonging to the public purse. When the Prophet (pbuh) heard this, he had them captured and killed in accordance with al-Ma’ida, 5:33, which was revealed upon this occasion. [5]

The first hadith is ahad [6]; i.e. it is narrated by only one person, namely Ibn Abbas. For the hadith to necessitate the death penalty for apostasy when the Qur’an provides no form of temporal punishment whatsoever, the hadith should at least be mashhur [7], or reported by multiple sources [8]. What is more, this hadith is being reported in reference to a few individuals who were actively involved in political apostasy, and provoked and allied with enemies to fight against the Muslim community. It has to be noted here that some of these individuals, like Abdallah b. Abu Sarh and Abdallah b. Hatal, said they repented, after which they were forgiven.

There are a number of versions of the second hadith. The one narrated by A’ishah sheds light on the probable intention of the Prophet (pbuh) in his original saying. While the version given above prescribes temporal punishment for “the one who turns renegade from Islam (apostate) and leaves the community of Muslims,” A’ishah is more specific. Her version states: “And a man who leaves Islam and engages in fighting against Allah and His Prophet shall be executed, crucified or exiled [our italics]” [9].

Reading the first version in light of the second it is apparent that it is the treacherous “fighting against” Allah, his Prophet (pbuh) and the Muslim community that is punished, not the mere renunciation of faith [10].

As for the incident concerning some people from the ‘Uraynah tribe, and the associated verse 5:33, they received capital punishment for murdering the innocent shepherds and stealing public property. This incident is one of murder, robbery, and mutiny rather than a mere renunciation of faith.

When we consider early Islamic history we see that individuals and groups who left the fold of Islam were not only leaving their beliefs but were almost always also joining groups that were actively waging war against the Muslims. As a result, the form of irtidad, which was punished in the time of the Prophet (pbuh), was one that involved high treason, not the form of irtidad which was a mere renunciation of faith. There is no record of any person being punished with death for simply renouncing his Islamic faith during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). To the contrary, there are two incidents of individuals, who merely renounced their faith, and did not join active enemies of Muslims, and they were not punished at all.

The following is an account of the first incident in Sahih al-Bukhari:

A Bedouin (named as Uthman bin Abdullah elsewhere) gave the Pledge of Allegiance to Allah’s Apostle for Islam. Then the Bedouin got fever in Medina, came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Cancel my Pledge!” But Allah’s Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Cancel my Pledge!” But the Prophet refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Cancel my Pledge.” But the Prophet refused. The Bedouin finally went out (of Medina), whereupon Allah’s Apostle said, “Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good.” (Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, hadith no. 318).

There is no indication that this individual was punished in any way.

As this incident shows, the Prophet (pbuh) considered the Bedouin’s renunciation of Islam as a matter of free will and personal choice; the Bedouin was permitted to leave Medina without any repercussions whatsoever.

The second incident involves an individual named Mikyas b. Hubabah. He became apostate after accepting Islam and returned back to the Quraysh. There is no record of any punishment for Mikyas either [11].

Uprisings during Abu Bakr’s rule

After the Prophet’s (pbuh) time, apostasy continued to be almost inseparable from treason. During the rule of Abu Bakr, some groups abandoned Islam and rose against the central government; while some were renouncing their faith they were also engaging in political acts of rebellion against the state. Punishments inflicted on such people at that time, and in other eras when comparable political conditions prevailed, were effectively punishments for high treason, not for the renouncement of religious beliefs.

The incidents involving groups or tribes who did not renounce Islam but nevertheless engaged in political crimes are particularly illuminating. These groups, who, for instance, refused to pay taxes, as was the case with Malik b. Nuwayr, or claimed caliphate of their own, as in the case of a Bahraini group led by Munzir, or actively fought against the governor sent from Medina, as was the case with Ash’as b. Kays of Yemen, were treated as traitors and Abu Bakr waged war on them despite the fact that they still believed in God, accepted Muhammad (pbuh) as Messenger, and even continued to pray the five daily ritual prayers. In the second and third cases, the group leaders apologized and were pardoned. In the first case, the group leader did not repent or apologize and was executed.

Additional evidence from schools of jurisprudence

According to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, a woman apostate is not punishable by death because she cannot take up arms against Muslims. In addition, in many books of jurisprudence, we find that the matter of irtidad and associated punishments has been considered by scholars as a political issue and classed under international relations and the measures to be taken during times of war.

Conclusion

We have drawn evidence from three domains in support of our position on apostasy: the Qur’an, Prophetic sayings and practices, and the practice of caliph Abu Bakr.

We propose that there is a need to categorize the concept into notions of passive or religious apostasy versus active or political apostasy.

The Qur’an does not specify a worldly punishment for religious apostasy. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never punished any individual for renouncing their faith nor did he call for such a punishment. Caliph Abu Bakr ordered the same punishment for crimes that amounted to political treason regardless whether they renounced Islam or not.

Taken together, these pieces of evidence make it clear that the death penalty was for active or political apostasy, or political high treason, and not for religious apostasy, which one’s renunciation of his or her faith.

This case study is also relevant for a methodological framework to address the tensions that emerge between legal verdicts issued in the past and ethical stances. Unprecedented circumstances urge us to revisit and reexamine the positions on legal issues in the light of the spirit of our faith. The combination of a holistic and honest look at our religious sources, an inquiry into the spirit of the faith and the intent of “the Author” is likely to guide us in resolving these tensions.

Notes

1. A shorter version of this article was published as a section of a book entitled “Dialogue in Islam” in 2011 by Dialogue Society of U.K, London.
2. See, Abdulbaki, Article Radde.
3. See, 3/149, 2/108-109, 3/100, 3/106.
4. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Diyat, hadith no. 6. Muslim, Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Qasama, hadith no. 4152.
5. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Muharibun, hadith no. 2; Al-Maida 5:33-34 reads as follows: “The recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth causing disorder and corruption: they shall (according to the nature of their crime) either be executed, or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off alternately, or be banished from the land. Such is their disgrace in the world, and for them is a mighty punishment in the Hereafter. Except for those who repent (and desist from their crimes against order) before you have overpowered them, (although the judgment as to specific crimes against individuals is left to those individuals or to their heirs). Know that God surely is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate (especially toward His servants who turn to Him in repentance).”
6. A hadith which is ahad (literally, ‘single’) is one reported by only one, two, or three different narrators of the same generation.
7. A hadith which is mashhur (literally, ‘well-known) is one reported by several narrators and transmitted through several chains of narration, though through fewer chains than a hadith which is mutawatir. The term mutawatir (literally, ‘reported by many from many’) refers to a hadith which was reported by many narrators in the same generation and passed down through many chains of narration.
8. This hadith is discussed further in Ahmet Kurucan, İslam’da Düşünce Özgürlüğü, (Zaman Kitap, 2007), 145-6.
9. Abu Duwad, Sunan Abu Dawud, bk 33, hadith 4339.
10. See also Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, (Ashgate, 2004), 58 ff.
11. Ibn Hisham, IV, 52-53; Es’ad, Mahmud, Islam Tarihi. Abbreviated by A. L. Kazancı-O. Kazancı, Istanbul 1983, p. 793.

Question: “There is no greater title and position than servanthood to God. Even if there is, it must be freedom, which is actually another dimension of this servanthood.” In our age when everybody talks about freedom, what is freedom, from a believers’ perspective?

Answer: A person who becomes a true servant to God is freed from all types of servanthood which might sometimes even make them knock every door like a beggar and resort to mean ways. That person will similarly not be a slave to passing fancies and desires.

Obstacles to freedom

As for people who fail to be servants to God in the true sense, they may sometimes become slaves to their desires and lust and thus lead a bohemian life. Sometimes they give in to their greed and engage in different speculations for the sake of amassing wealth, without caring whether it is lawful or not. Sometimes, they give in to a desire for worldly status and titles and thus seek to allocate the people’s wealth for themselves by abusing their position.

People who do not lead their life with a profound consciousness of servanthood sometimes become slaves to their envy and cannot even tolerate people dedicated to good acts who try to conquer hearts. Because of this intolerance, they burn with a desire to sabotage their work. However, they actually do the greatest harm to themselves. As they eat their hearts out before the accomplishments of the people they envy, they also ruin their own deeds with respect to the Hereafter. Note that the noble Prophet stated that malicious envy consumes one’s good deeds, like fire consumes wood (Abu Dawud, Adab 44; Ibn Majah, Zuhd 22).

Fame is another pitfall for those who are not true servants to God. Seekers of fame try every means for the sake of being the center of attention and for receiving applause and appreciation. If such poor ones make the slightest achievement or make the slightest degree of sacrifice, they immediately expect some others to say, “the entire country is proud of you.” They do not talk without applause, and do not give anything without receiving compliments. They go through fits of delight and are enraptured in the face of applause. Such people with egotistic souls actually become servants and slaves to fame.

Other than that, there are also people who become slaves to ease and comfort, to money and wealth, to benefits and opportunism… Such unfortunate ones who fail to savor and appreciate the worth of the servanthood to God keep running after their own ambitions, greed, desires, passions, and addictions. They knock all doors and try every possible reference. However, they cannot feel satisfied nor find true happiness in any way. Actually, what lies in the root of idolatry is weakening of the feeling of servanthood to God. Since idolaters cannot properly be servants to God and cannot savor the delight of servanthood, they resort to different means in order to satisfy this hunger of theirs. With the added influence of some devilish considerations, they, for example, posted a stick on the ground hoping to make rain fall; they resorted to beseeching those in the grave for realizing some other wish; they wanted to realize their goals by means of pieces of cloth or candles they left in tombs; but they gradually fell into the pitfall of associating partners with God.

Some others objected to servanthood to God, claiming that this—God forbid—goes against human dignity. They claim that a person who observes servanthood to God becomes accustomed to servanthood and might be a servant before the created also. Namely, they mistook servanthood to God as contradictory to freedom. Actually, attaining true human freedom depends on this very point. A person can be freed from other servanthood only by becoming a servant to God. It firstly needs to be acknowledged that a person chooses faith with free will and believes in the essentials of faith with free will. The person similarly observes worship with free will. In short, a person observes servanthood to God out of free will.

In this respect, there is a very close relation between freedom, worship, and profound devotions. While those unable to throw off the shackles around the neck imposed by fame, hedonism, and the like cannot ever be free, they can neither be servants to God in the true sense. Namely, as freedom is crucial for the sake of thorough servanthood to God, attaining real freedom depends on being a servant to God in the true sense.

Given that God Almighty endowed humanity with a very significant dynamic like free will, it matters where and how we use it. One must aim for great wishes and demands with free will. Seeking simple worldly delights and pleasures would hurt human honor and dignity; running after trivial things would be a bad investment for the capital of a lifetime. What suits a proper human being is not to be captivated by physicality and carnal desires; instead, they should fear only God and no one else, never bow to this or that person like beggars, but bow only when necessary – namely, in the presence of God.

While this is the meaning of giving free will its due, it is the only way for real freedom. Only people who get rid of negative feelings like greed and envy, worldly expectations and fears are the ones who attain inner peace and relief. Since they are ready to leave this world as they came, they do not bend to any worldly power.

Is freedom in an absolute sense possible?

Some understand freedom as absolute liberty without any restrictions or conditions whatsoever. However, such liberty has never existed anywhere in the world to date. Neither in capitalist systems nor in liberal or communist ones, have people lived as they wished with unrestrained liberty. All systems sanctioned some rules to restrain freedom. For example, although communist systems broadened the limits of what is permissible and came up with an understanding alluring to passing fancies and desires, when it came to fidelity to the system, they acted strictly and tyrannically. They deprived people of their property rights, they killed the freedom for personal enterprise, and banned many actions that contradicted human nature and reason.

Likewise, although some states in our time have given much freedom to their citizens, they never allow any ideas that contradict the official ideology. They bring certain limitations regarding what they term as freedom of thought and conscience: they impose heavy sanctions when certain ideas that disagree with their worldview are voiced. No matter how much they refer to freedom, they cannot forbear the slightest degree of opposition to their own system.

A society’s general welfare and harmonious continuity necessitate adopting certain disciplines. If freedom is perceived and practiced as unlimited satisfaction of all desires and fancies, then this will cause corruption of lineages, breaking up of families, and degeneration of society. Likewise, although “freedom” might seem to allow it, we cannot approve of acts like profanity against the sacred, verbal abuse against religion, and making fun of the nation’s values, for allowing these will cause all moral values to be ruined. It is similarly not possible to accept as lawful, acting against the country or nation under the name of freedom, for in such a case the concepts of nation and country will lose importance, and it will become difficult for society members to co-exist.

On account of all these reasons, almost all legal systems have passed laws to provide shelter for the essential rights of religion, life, lineage, property, and reason; they imposed heavy sanctions against any crimes posing a threat to these. Namely, all states felt the need to draw a frame for freedom through certain laws and regulations. In fact, even while describing freedom, it is pointed out that your freedom ends where the limits of others’ freedom begins. In other words, although all citizens own certain rights and freedoms, they extend to the limits where others’ rights and freedoms begin. If we take the issue from a believer’s perspective, we can express this fact that God and faith too have some rights upon the individual, and they set certain limits for them.

In this respect, the notion of unrestrained freedom does not exist even among animals. They have certain limitations and boundaries, and there are consequences when they are violated.

Animals lead their life with astonishing solidarity and mutual assistance. Take penguins in the Antarctic: we feel dizzy before their system. Had people been able to establish such a system among themselves, all of us would live in peace.

God instilled certain rules in the brains of animals to let them live in an orderly fashion. However, humans possess reason and free will. We can even say that these are the most essential and indispensable human qualities. A human is neither a pile of wood, nor a sunflower stem. In this respect, for the sake of being able to live with others in an orderly and harmonious fashion, a person is supposed to comply with certain rules by means of reason and willpower. This is very important in terms of giving free will its due.

By giving willpower its due, humans will not only live harmoniously together but will even surpass angels. The noble Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who used his free will to the best of his capacity, left the archangel Gabriel behind during his journey on the night of Ascension. Therefore, things like bidding for Paradise and being blessed with the honor of seeing God all depend on using one’s free will properly. On this path it might be necessary to sacrifice some aspects of freedom and to accept certain disciplines by means of free will.

Freedom is a great blessing God bestowed on people. If some people have lost such a divine blessing on account of their neglect and laziness, namely if they failed to retain their freedom, they will be held responsible before God. Furthermore, if they are not aware of being dominated by other ideologies, and not even endeavoring to be saved from this by refusing to regain certain opportunities they have lost, then they are not only betraying their freedom, but also their faith.

In this respect, appreciating the value of the freedom God granted us, upholding it and using it in the right way, are very important. In this respect, every nation needs to know well their era, have plans and projects for the future, and take promising steps as much as their cognition and circumstances allow.

Free thinking and science

Scientific thought has been shaped in the last few centuries by ideas based on positivism, materialism, and naturalism.

Scientific terminology has developed so extensively with these ideas that we are not able to think differently. And with these ideas we cannot reach the truth about our lives. For this reason, it is necessary for believing scientists to re-adopt free thinking as a principle and revise all their scientific conclusions. While doing this, they must be freed from attachment to the status quo and question everything, for it is not possible to establish something new without questioning. To this end, we need to consider that there is a possibility of being mistaken—be it a slight one—about the data we find before us. For example, a doctor specializing in medicine should be able to re-evaluate everything he or she has learned and re-test whether these are correct or not.

This surely is not an easy endeavor; it demands a very serious love for knowledge, research, and truth. Furthermore, it requires being able to dedicate a lifetime to this cause, to undertake very serious troubles and make serious sacrifices. If an industrial revolution happened in the West and serious distances were covered in science and technology, it happened thanks to the people who dedicated their lives to this issue. Some dedicated their lives to studying animal life, some to discovering the secret of historical relics, and some to decoding the tongue of natural phenomena. However, these studies of theirs ended up with materialism and naturalism. It is necessary to overcome this present situation and relate every truth about sciences to the One beyond existence and things. Like unweaving a sweater and re-weaving it with a new pattern, everything must be de-constructed and then re-constructed. While doing this we might sometimes be correct and sometimes err; we might take certain issues further than their present state and walk along with others at certain issues, and we even refer to their help.

However, these are not things to be realized by ordinary people. They require very serious resoluteness. But without such a struggle, it is not possible to be freed from dualism and to eliminate the contradiction between science and religion. Actually, while the origin of the Qur’an is Divine Speech, the Universe is similarly another divine book to be studied, as originated by His power and will. Given that these two books come from the same origin, it is not possible for there to be any contradiction between them.

Pursuing science under domination is no less painful than living under the rule of others’ domination. Merely quoting others but not being able to coming up with any new and original ideas should only be the growls of lowly souls surrendered to domination. Here I am saying like the poet Mehmed Akif did, “I have lived free and do live free for eternity/Who is to dare bring me under chains, I surprise, so crazy!” Actually every believer must possess this honor. They must look at their glorious past, turn to their spiritual roots, and then consider the present wretched condition and ask themselves whether or not it is shameful. Afterwards, they must absolutely set about being saved from these shames by building up their own world.

As souls under domination will not be able to realize such a revival, there is the absolute need for free thoughts. Actually, freedom begins in thinking. It is not possible to talk about freedom concerning people whose thoughts are dominated others.

Sight is one of the most miraculous things for which we can never be thankful enough. Our eyes serve as windows connecting our inner life with the outer world. In “Retina the Mind-Boggler,” Dr. Serranur explains the intricacies of the eye’s physiology. Despite many theories and scientific advances, we still don’t completely know how sight works. Scientists do know that the retina plays a crucial role in this very complex structure – so important, in fact, not every eye surgeon dares touch it.

Stem cell research has expanded our understanding of biology and medicine to once-unimaginable levels. Among the treatments for which the initial findings are promising are paralysis, Parkinson’s, diabetes, and even blindness. Despite these groundbreaking discoveries, many are not sure about how far we should go in genetic programming. Dr. Yorulmaz elaborates on this dilemma in “Embryonic Stem Cells.”

The question of how to handle refugees has been a critical issue throughout human history. Despite many regulations, international legal conventions, and technological progress, refugees still pose intractable questions to governments around the world. Last summer, when Dr. Sophia Pandya was visiting Greece to observe the situation of refugees there, the country suffered one of the deadliest wildfires of the twenty-first century, in which a hundred people died and more than a thousand buildings were destroyed. Greece has been the crossroads for many refugees, including, yes, many Turkish citizens, especially in the last few years. The Erdoğan regime’s clampdown on the Hizmet Movement and many others who oppose his autocracy has forced tens of thousands of Turkish citizens to flee their homes and seek asylum in Europe, the US, and elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of people have been detained in these purges; thousands more are waiting their turn, as their freedom to travel has been illegally curtailed by the Turkish government. What is their crime? Association with a group that opposes autocracy and supports democracy. For many fleeing injustice, Greece has become the last chance for freedom. What Dr. Pandya saw there was representative of what the Hizmet Movement has been doing for decades: Turkish refugees reached out to victims of the wildfires and distributed food and other aid. This was their way of responding to the hospitality of Greek people, who opened their homes to refugees when, as described in this issue’s lead article, they were forced to flee “dark-spirited night demons who were overwhelmed by hatred, rancor, and enmity, and dejected souls growling with wrath.”

Discussions over personal liberty and government intervention are as old as modern governments, as J.S. Mill’s writings show.

John Stuart Mill was among the many philosophers, both before and after, who attempted to determine when government intervention in the private lives of individuals was legitimate. The authoritarian regimes of 19^th century Europe triggered thinkers to study citizen’s rights and state powers. Mill attempted to regulate the actions of these authoritarian regimes by distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate government intervention in his book On Liberty. Mill’s ideas were one influence among many on the structure and laws of the modern nation state. Using his ideas on freedom and government as a starting point, we can discuss psychological harm, human fallibility, and social responsibilities.

Mill, in On Liberty, identifies two mechanisms for determining legitimate government intervention: the harm principle and utilitarianism. The harm principle states that government can only legitimately interfere with the actions of individuals if the actions of the individuals harm others against their will. Thus, if an action does not harm another against their will, the government cannot interfere. Notice that an individual can harm themselves or even other people with the appropriate consent. Effectively, the harm principle constitutes an absolute bar to government intervention on unharmful private action.

The second mechanism, utilitarianism, comes into play after government intervention is considered to be legitimate due to harmful consequences of private actions. At this point, the government must do a utility calculation, or a cost-benefit analysis, in which it must determine whether government intervention will result in more harm than the private action it will attempt to stop. If the analysis indicates that government intervention will result in more harm, government intervention would be considered illegitimate, and vice versa. Thus, while the harm principle constituted an absolute categorical bar, the utilitarianism mechanic requires a case-by-case determination of the legitimacy of government intervention.

In order to apply the harm principle it is important not only to know what the principle is, but also what constitutes harm. The broader the definition of harm becomes, the larger the pool of actions that the government can interfere with becomes. In general, the classification of physical damage to body and property as harm is generally accepted by society as well as by Mill. However, the definition of harm can include things other than just physical damage. In order to properly apply the harm principle, it must be determined whether psychological harm and failure to act can be classified as harm, warranting government intervention.

Psychological Harm

Can feeling distress, being upset, or experiencing psychological harm due to another individual’s actions be categorized as harm? If one were to accept distress as harm, then the definition of harm has effectively been broadened to include every instance in which one feels discomfort or is upset by another’s action, expanding the sphere of legitimate government intervention.

Mill does not determine distress or psychological harm to be harm. The distress or psychological harm Mill refers to is one originating from a disagreement of values between two individuals. For example, one individual may like the color blue while another dislikes it. The distress, anger, resentment, or any other negative feelings the other may feel when the first wears a blue shirt is the psychological harm that Mill refers to. A more consequential example would be the distress that a Democrat may feel about the ideas expressed at a Republican rally. The views expressed at the rally are clearly contrary to the individual’s beliefs, yet the distress originating from this ideological difference cannot be categorized as harm. If it was categorized as harm, then the government could intervene whenever actions or speech was contrary to the ideology and beliefs of the most powerful or the most vocal.

Mill, in On Liberty, states that “unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right and they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves” (1). Here he attempts to stop the use of the harm principle in attempts to impose beliefs or one’s own moral values on others. He argues that imposing views on another is wrong, because one would not want others to impose their views on them. Additionally, Mill emphasizes the fallibility of human reasoning and preferences, stating that despite one’s conviction in one’s own position in an argument, there is always the possibility of error.

Admittance of the fallibility is not only a sign of humility and recognition of possibilities, but also a very real demonstration of understanding one’s own limitations inherent in being human. This principle has been recognized and applied by many scholars and thinkers in addition to Mill, like Socrates and Said Nursi. For example, in The Republic, Plato quotes Socrates as exclaiming “[a]s for me, all I know is that I know nothing” (2).

Similarly, Said Nursi demonstrates the same recognition of the fallibility of human beings in his Risale-i Nur and attributes true knowledge only to God. This is clearly displayed in his use of text from the Quran at the beginning and ending of all the chapters in The Words. Thus, Nursi begins his work by drawing from what he considers the true source of knowledge and ends with that same infallible source.

Lastly, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes seems to support Mill’s position against persecution by arguing in Leviathan that “do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself” (3). Hobbes’ view is in effect a version of the golden rule, limiting social interaction to only actions one would deem acceptable if done to him/her. In congruence with Hobbes’s golden rule, Mill argues that imposing one’s views on others is wrong, and that feeling upset due to the failure of others to conform to those views is not harm. Thus, even if the actions of an individual upset or cause psychological harm to others, the government cannot legitimately interfere.

Failure to Act

Though Mill prevents distress or psychological harm from being used to legitimize government intervention over an individual’s actions, he permits failure to act to be classified as harm. In situations where a failure to act causes a negative or harmful outcome, government intervention would be legitimate. For example, the government may prosecute a firefighter if his negligence allowed a building to burn down. However, classifying failure to act or inaction as harm is dangerous, because people are not capable of infinite actions in a moment. The jurisdiction of government intervention is expanded tremendously by this classification. Why would Mill, who constructed a mechanism for limiting government intervention, expand government power in this way? And what restraints can be applied to the failure-to-act classification?

Socrates’ ideas, as expressed in The Republic by Plato, provide some insight into answering the previous questions. After examining Plato’s views in The Republic, it is possible to claim that Socrates would agree with Mill in including the failure-to-act as harm. His definition of a just society is a society in which everyone is doing their job or role in society (4). From this, one can assume that a just action within a society would be whatever action is in accordance with the job of the individual as determined by his soul and position in society. Thus, failure to perform one’s job would then be classified as an unjust action by Plato, open to government intervention for the restoration of social justice.

Socrates’ view seems to emphasize the nature of the action that the individual is failing to do. If the failure to act involved the failure to do one’s job in society, then the failure to act would be considered unjust. On the other hand, if the failure to act involved inaction about an issue that was not the individual’s responsibility, then it is possible to conclude that the failure to act in this instance is not an unjust action. Thus, this approach distinguishes between a firefighter who chooses not to stop a fire from a regular citizen who chooses not to stop a fire. The firefighter neglects his responsibility, opening him to criminal prosecution, while the regular citizen’s inaction is not open to prosecution. By allowing the failure to act to be considered as harm, Mill avoided conflicting with the conditional nature of determining whether the failure to act is just or unjust as extrapolated from Plato’s views.

Socrates’ and Mill’s analysis regarding the failure to act is based solely on the legal and formal responsibilities of the individual. The police have a responsibility to stop crime, and parents have a responsibility to take care of their children, etc. Each nation’s unique constitution and laws make legal responsibilities country-specific and unique. For example, many European states, like Germany and France, require citizens to provide assistance to persons in danger (5). However, the duty to rescue those in peril does not exist in other countries, like the United States (6). Of course, most people call the authorities for help and attempt to provide first-aid, but the fact remains that in most of the United States, there is no legal obligation to rescue. Each country determines the legal responsibilities of its citizens, some choosing to expand and some choosing to restrict the extent of responsibilities.

For many people, informal responsibilities extend beyond formal responsibilities; these are often based on the individual’s religion, culture, and ethics. While government intervention may not be legitimate for failures of informal responsibilities according to Mill, informal responsibilities constitute an important piece of the society. For example, children have an informal responsibility to care for their parents, especially during their old age. If children ignore this responsibility, the government cannot and should not intervene. After all, the government is not the ultimate solution for every social problem, and each member of the country may not believe in the same informal responsibilities due to different culture, religion, and ethics. Instead, the true solutions to failures in informal responsibilities are education in social values and decency, social structures, communities, and institutions.

Mill’s principles on government intervention in the lives of free people provided a platform to discuss psychological harm and social responsibilities. Government can provide solutions for certain social issues, but not for all. In recognition of this, Mill wrote of an alternative limited government to the authoritarian regimes of his time. In this alternative, conflicting and controversial ideologies could co-exist, and government would only regulate formal responsibilities. The burden rests on the society to care for the informal responsibilities.

Notes

1. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, 155
2. Plato, The Republic, (Plato 354c, book 1)
3. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Pt. 1, Ch. 15, para. 35
4. Kara, Mahmut. “Rethinking Plato: Philosophical Idealism and Political Totalitarianism.” Fountain Magazine, April-June 2001.
5. Weinrib, Ernest J. “The Case for a Duty to Rescue.” The Yale Law Journal , Vol. 90, No. 2 (Dec., 1980), pp. 247-293 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. URL:<http://www.jstor.org/stable/795987>.
6. Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959)

The basic freedoms of humanity that range from personal rights to political and general ones – such as the freedom of belief, worship, thought, the freedom to have a family, to work, to own personal property, the right of freedom of expression and association, of electing, and being elected, etc. – are not among the subjects to be discussed in “Emerald Hills of the Heart.” However, they have always been regarded as among the most important matters in human history.

Being the most fundamental and vital dimension and the most important human faculty, namely free-will, which is considered an important pillar of conscience, freedom (hurriya) is one of the most valuable gifts of God to humanity. This great gift has been defined in Islamic literature as an individual’s assertion and enjoyment of his/her basic rights. However, in order to fully perceive freedom one must be able, to some extent, to perceive its opposite. This opposite is the individual’s dependence on others for the enjoyment of those rights, which is a form of servanthood. It is God Almighty Who grants these rights to humanity, so a person has no right to change or sell them or transfer them to others. Those who commit such a sin, that is, change or sell their fundamental rights or transfer them to another, have lost their humanity to a certain extent and will be held accountable before God for that loss. Such an action shows, first of all, disrespect for human values, and those who commit such disrespect cannot be conscious of their existence, and those who are not conscious of one’s existence have no relationship with the truth and no share in the love of and servanthood to God.

In short, it cannot be asserted that those who do not recognize God, Who is the Truth and the source of human rights, are free in the sense that they are conscious of human rights, nor can those who have not been able to free themselves from slavery to others than God be free in the real sense of the term.

What we have so far said about freedom is only by way of introduction to the freedom that is one of the emerald hills of the heart.

The freedom inherent in Islamic Sufism, being one of the most significant fruits of austerity, is that a person does not submit or bow to any power other than God, indicating thereby that the heart of that person has become a clear mirror receiving and reflecting the manifestations of God. The person who has reached this point on the way to God through austerity and by God’s special help, severs inward relation with all things and beings other than God, and with emotions pulsing with freedom, heart beating joyfully with a yearning for freedom, and having broken all the restrictions around the selfhood, that person sets for him or herself this single goal and, in the philosophy of the respected saint Harith al-Muhasibi, weaves the tissue of his or her thought with the threads of the hereafter.

True freedom is attainable only by freeing one’s heart from worldly worries and anxieties about the things of this world, and so being able to turn to God with one’s whole being. In order to express this reality, the leaders of the Sufi way say: “Child, undo the bonds of servanthood and be free; how much longer will you remain enslaved to gold and silver?” The answer of Junayd al-Baghdadi to those who asked him what freedom was, “You can taste freedom when you are free from all bonds other than slavery to God” also expresses the essence of freedom.

If freedom is directly proportional to sincere devotion and servanthood to God Almighty, and it is, then it is not possible to assert that those who live their lives under the direction of others are really free. In this respect, the following anonymous couplet speaks significantly:

If you would like to beat the drum of honor,
Go beyond the wheel of the stars;
As this circle filled with rings is a drum of humiliation.

True freedom is necessary in order to be a perfect servant of God. The measure of a person’s true freedom is servanthood to God. Those who cannot realize servanthood to God can neither be free nor attain human values in their full reach and meaning. Such people can never be saved from corporeality and sensuality so as to reach the achievable horizon of spiritual life with a “sound heart,” nor can they feel the essence of human existence in the depths particular and special to it.

People who spend their life in the captivity of worldly considerations grow in arrogance in the face of the blessings granted to them. Instead of becoming more thankful to God, they attribute to themselves whatever achievement God has enabled them to realize, and are disappointed time after time when they fail, and shiver with the fear of losing whatever advantages they have accrued-such unfortunate people have no share in freedom, even if they are as kings in the world.

As long as the heart sets itself upon various goals, loved ones, and ambitions, it can never taste freedom. How can those be free who are constantly worrying about how to hold onto or pay back the goods they expect from others, who have mortgaged most of their life’s energy to others in return for worldly interests and bodily pleasures?

It is a great trial, one that leads to perdition if one wanders in the whirl of physical considerations and is confined to worldly aims with a heart attuned to worthless, fleeting objects. By contrast, it is a great favor from God upon those whose inner world He has sealed off from the many attributes of the ephemeral world that attract the carnal self; it is a great favor from God that He cuts away the relation of the heart with the world. For that relation is a form of bondage, and that cutting away is a bridge by which humanity is able to reach true freedom.

In a world where right is equated with might, we must learn that what is truly right is pursuing basic human rights and dignity for all.

The highest ideal of human life is an individual elevating to unite with their soul, reaching radiant metaphysical realms, having divine secrets divulged to them, and attaining spiritual pleasures. A soul that takes wing toward this lofty ideal is always happy, and every endeavor made in this direction is internally enlightening and laudable; a person who targets such a life is virtuous, and the land of such people is a land of virtue.

The belief that humanity is nothing more than an animal species has done enormous harm to humanity. This thought first destroyed an individual’s desire for elevating their soul and then closed up the roads that take them to true virtue. And by reducing humanity into swarms of bugs, it deprived them of the comprehension and will to look into and supervise themselves.

According to this understanding, it is perfectly normal and necessary for the strong to destroy the weak, and for those who cannot fight back to be exterminated. When this understanding, which was derived from the idea of natural selection, was applied to human communities, it demolished the feeling of respect for general rights; it made “might” more oppressive; and by accepting unlimited animal freedom as a foundation, it reduced humanity to the level of other creatures. According to this wrong understanding, what was right-with all its aspects-depended on might. This meant that whoever had a strong body or fist, whoever had the better command of written or spoken expression, or whoever had good relations with the upper level of society, were viewed as being right and were even praised. And whoever was weak, whoever lacked power, financial means, and sycophancy – they were always mistreated and scorned.

In the meantime, notions such as the might of the soul, might of the right, and might of belief were erased from memory, in an effort to make younger generations oblivious to them. This situation put the truth and the followers of truth in a weak position before the oppressive powers and humiliated. Lowly considerations of gratifying carnal desires and the sole pursuit of personal pleasures and benefits seized souls completely, and this turned people of faith into a plaything for oppressors. The hungry wolf was respected by society, and he, in return, expected those walking corpses to pay tribute to him.

In the past centuries, the mansions of oppressors were surrounded by circles of people who, for the sake of seeking benefits, accepted being disgraced and despised, and at the same time, flattered their oppressors. Hence, there emerged queues of those who worshipped worldly power. And today as well, might still holds the upper hand, and the right and the rightful are within the grasp of that hand. The only difference is that an oppressive minority has come down and oppression has been widely distributed.

In the past, oppression and cruelty came from a few individuals; the masses are now the oppressors. Instead of the cruel individuals of the past, there are networks of cruelty all around. Nowadays, they cheerfully show up in society, revealing their ill-fated and debauched faces. During this festivity, neither the cry of the oppressed is heard, nor does anybody speak up.

Almost all of these things appeared for the first time when the notion of “right” and the understanding of freedom began to be abused. Then these views spread all over the world under the guardianship of the “industrial revolution” and the resulting technology. Thanks to the non-developed countries’ excessive love and interest for science and technology, these views were welcomed almost everywhere. Thus, the yearning for science and technology degenerated into a terrible open-door policy. Now, everything was taken in; everything was affirmed without asking for a password, without considering whether it suited the nature of that nation-particularly things that harm the social body. After this, people went astray, driven by loose morals, and they competed to deceive and oppress. Might is the only ruler; freedom is an oft-repeated pretext for every kind of corruption…

According to this new philosophy, traders can sell their goods at any price they wish. People have the freedom to hoard goods and sell them when the time comes, and to travel to lands where their ancestors marched in honor, pursuing any ignominious purpose. The media knows no limit in deprivation of character and conveys illicit content to the most remote corners – and they claim to do it to disseminate knowledge. Their publications that are audio-visually charming assail sound thinking, faith, and language; the youth are free to give way to chaos by disregarding every kind of lofty feeling and value; those who abuse religious feelings and thoughts are free to expect some benefit in return for their mumblings… how free, rightful, and wise they are, aren’t they? O freedom, how cruel do you become when abused to allow every kind of corruption!

According to the thought which has taken most of humanity within its grasp today, a good doctor is one who discovers the way to attract many patients to his personal office; a good lawyer is one who speaks for the interests of anyone-rightful or not; a good engineer or architect is one who draws projects to fill his pockets, deprived of scientific morality and a feeling of responsibility; a good singer is one who uses his or her voice to abuse the pure feelings of the people, and so on…

On the other hand, the lofty souls who observe others’ rights as well as their own, and who live for virtue, are viewed as stupid and unwise! In such a world, everything is related to a material purpose, and it is natural and inevitable that human communities and notions of humanity are replaced by a group of animals, by an understanding of humanity based on materialism and sensuality, and the belief that human values and the true notion of right will be forgotten. However, a happy future for humanity seems possible by giving due value to truth, saving it from the transgression of falsehood, taking animal freedom under control, backing the freedom of those who think, strive, live for others, and present the fruits of their lives to society before they depart from this world, making them live “forever.”

We do not wish to see humans act as slaves to carnal desires, getting more miserable every passing day with lowly feelings. We wish to see the faces who have reached inner tranquility by being servants to the Truth, those who kept away from the dark and dirty affairs of oppressors, the pure faces which reflect heavenly beauties on their foreheads. We consider these faces crystallized in colorful lines-by faith and hope, by service and joy, by love and humanity-as the guardian angels of this blissful world, and we applaud them.

How laudable are these people in service of Truth, who have been purified while flowing toward eternity, who smile at their fortune with gratitude, and who seek the Creator-the source of all beauties-through the tongue of the fish in the ocean and the gazelle on the plain, and who are enraptured with the pledge of eternity!

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.

Historical events mentioned in the Holy Qur’an reveal critical clues about the social arrangements of the tribes onto which God has sent His messengers. By scrutinizing on these parables one can easily notice that whenever a prophet is sent to a group of people, his message was denied at first by the ruling clique of that social order. In various places of the Holy Qur’an, these people, who are at the climax of the society and who oppose the prophets and their followers, are addressed as al-mala’ (the chieftains). Mala’ is a distinctive group in tribal culture because, even though they are small in number, they are rich, influential and well respected. Among the society in which they live, mala’ appears to be the ultimate preservers of the status quo where they have the final say. According to the Qur’an, arrogance is the central characteristic of mala’ which gets in their way of accepting the religion:

“The leading ones among his people, who were arrogant and oppressed the others, said to those that they scorned, to those among them who were believers: “Do you really know and consider Sālih as one sent by His Lord with a message?” They replied: “We do indeed believe in what he has been sent with.” Those who were arrogant said: “What you have come to believe in we indeed disbelieve.” Then (without enduring any longer to see her as evidence of the truth of Sālih’s message), they cruelly slaughtered the she-camel, and disdainfully disobeyed the command of their Lord, and said: ‘O Sālih! Bring upon us that (punishment) with which you have threatened us, if you are of those sent (by God with the truth)!’” (Al-A’raf, 7:74−77)

Even though mala’ portrays itself as a completely sovereign and self-sustaining group, it necessitates the full obedience of jumhoor (majority of the society) in order to continue its existence. This is the main reason why mala’ has been the foremost opposing group towards the messengers of God. The message sent to people via prophets, and the notions attached to it (e.g. tawheed: accepting that there is no god but God, tasleem: surrendering to the God, tawakkul: reliance on God by accepting that He alone is sufficient for all the needs) in every way undermines the very existence of mala’. The particular teachings of the prophets that turned mala’ against them include:

• Wealth or genealogy does not reflect peoples’ positions before God
• No group of people is inherently superior or inferior
• Worshipping God does not require any mediators

Based on the verses of Qur’an and traditions of the prophets, the methods used by mala’ in order to alienate the prophets and their followers can be categorized and exemplified as follows [1]:

1. Fabricating misconceptions about the prophets, their messages and followers: Claiming that the prophets are wizards, liars and/or mad people. (7: 65-66, 109-110)
2. Ridiculing and mocking. (11:38)
3. Encouraging materialism and denying the afterlife. Using material tendencies to divert the attention of people from the teachings of religion towards worldly pleasures. (23:24, 25, 33)
4. Violence: Torturing and killing prophets and followers publicly or secretly, casting them out of their homelands. (7:121-124; 127)
5. Creating fear among the laypeople either through violence against the believers or through misconceptions (7:90; 7:88)

Mala’ in the present day

The intervention between individuals and high moral values, for the sake of personal interests, is still continuing to this very day, only changing its form. So Mala’ still executes a very subtle yet effective plan to protect the socio-economic status of the “privileged,” at the expense of depriving society of morals. In the modern times, thanks to the blooming ideas of freedom and democracy, it has been well accepted that social orders, in fact, sustain themselves much proficiently in the absence of an aristocrat group which is meant to rule the rest of the society. That is the main reason why, in today’s societies, it is not as easy to refer to a specific group as mala’ as it was in the past. However, according to some theories, mala’ has never ceased its existence. According to these claims, even though today’s democracies are designed in the best way to reflect the majority’s opinion on governments, mala’ has generated novel ways to control society without being exposed as a distinctive group. Mala’ of modern times prefer to perform its methods behind the scenes by simply making laypeople believe that it does not exist. It is not involved in matters openly as it used to be but rather reaches its objectives via manipulating majority thinking [2].

These theories might be quite stirring but they are still in need of conclusive evidence. On the other hand, if we re-examine Qur’anic verses explaining the tactics employed by mala’, we can easily notice that similar practices are still being used for various propaganda purposes, especially in the mass media. According to Noam Chomsky, institute professor* of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the mass media is the ultimate milieu of spreading propaganda in the contemporary world. In his book Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Chomsky claims that in modern societies propaganda is the ultimate strategy employed by the elite clique to be able to pacify the masses and control them: “In what’s nowadays called a totalitarian state, or a military state, it’s easy you just hold a bludgeon over their (society’s) heads and if they get out of line you just smash them over the head. But as societies become more free and democratic, you lose that capacity. Therefore you have to turn to the techniques of propaganda. The logic is clear. Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.” Chomsky summarizes the methodology of propaganda as follows: “The people in the public relations industry aren’t there for the fun of it. They are doing work. They are trying to instill the right (!) values. In fact they have a conception of what a democracy ought to be. It ought to be a system in which the specialized class are trained to do their work for the service of the masters, the people who own the society, and the rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization because organization just causes trouble. They ought to be just sitting alone in front of the television set and having drilled into their heads daily the message which says the only value in life is to have more commodities, or to live like that rich middle class family you’re watching…” [3].

Propaganda

The methodology of modern day propaganda was introduced at the first quarter of the twentieth century by Edward Bernays (1891-1995), so-called father of public relations, whose marketing skills made him one of the most popular advertisers of the time. According to Bernays, an advertisement could make consumers want things they do not need if it is prepared with the right tools; the tools that are capable of manipulating human thinking [4]. Nevertheless, these techniques necessitated a profound understanding of consumer psychology. Even though Bernays was not a psychologist by training, he had a very robust source from which he could obtain intriguing ideas about the ways the human mind work: his uncle, Sigmund Freud.

Freud was not a big supporter of the United States and he would not hesitate to criticize America openly. However, by means of his nephew Bernays, his ideas have influenced US lifestyle profoundly. Freud believed that human beings were in fact irrational creatures controlled by their primal fears and unconscious, selfish and bodily desires. Based on this assumption, Bernays concluded that instead of being logically persuasive, advertisements had to link the mass produced goods to people’s subconscious in order to be appealing. One of Bernays’ first advertisement campaigns is a great example of how this new approach worked: George W. Hill, president of American Tobacco Company, hired Bernays in 1929 with the intention of convincing American women to smoke. This was not an easy task in the 1920s because in that era smoking was perceived as a masculine habit, one which was unthinkable for women. After discussing with various psychoanalysts, Bernays decided to start an advertisement campaign called “The torches of freedom” which portrayed smoking as a symbolism of free women [4]. To this end Bernays used mass media to distribute images of top models wearing the most fashionable outfits of the time to create a “free woman” image whose indispensable constituent was smoking cigarettes. The campaign turned out to be a triumph for the American Tobacco Company. Soon smoking became a central habit for modern American women. Ironically, American women became addicted to tobacco on their quest for freedom. Even today majority of advertisements targeting women are based on similar slogans.

Manufacture of consent

After his successful advertisement campaign with the American Tobacco Company, Bernays worked for other big US corporations such as CBS, Procter and Gamble, General Motors and General Electrics. His achievements in the marketing sector started to influence political thinkers as well, such as renowned journalist and political commentator Walter Lippmann (1889-1974). Lippmann believed that mobs could not be entrusted with decision-making, thus, in the interests of power, ordinary people (or in his own words “the bewildered herd”) needed to be managed by enlightened experts. In the art of democracy public management was supposed to be obtained not by force but by what he called the “manufacture of consent.” In his articles he defined this concept as follows: “… the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough…The creation of consent is not a new art. It is a very old one which was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy. But it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technique, because it is now based on analysis rather than on rule of thumb. And so, as a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power.”

The revolution indeed took place. As Lippmann has foreseen the techniques introduced by Bernays, it has been vastly used by world powers in order to manipulate communities’ thinking. One of the most infamous examples is for sure the Nazi Party’s anti-Jewish propaganda before and during World War II. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, who worked as the Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, was a passionate admirer of Bernays even though Bernays had Jewish origins. He tried to meet Bernays several times in his lifetime. He even claimed that he had one of his books autographed by Bernays. Goebbels used propaganda techniques to psychologically prepare German society for the annihilation of Jewish people. Unfortunately, it was neither the first nor the last case where propaganda techniques were employed to alienate a group of people because of their race, nation or religious beliefs.

True freedom

In 1990, Edward Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life Magazine. In his book Propaganda, Bernays describes the extent of manipulation quite frankly: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind” [4].

Such means of social manipulation is indeed discomforting to consider, but remains a reality. In the contemporary world, the means through which propaganda spreads is stronger than ever. A single touch on our smart phones, let alone watching television or surfing the internet, can be sufficient to expose ourselves to a bombardment of manipulative advertisements, news and ideas. Consequently, the inevitable question that is raised is: “How is it possible to live and think freely without being controlled and manipulated by sources of propaganda?” Unfortunately, solution to this problem is not a trivial one. Rather than using logical arguments to modify society’s mindset, modern day propagandists try to change people’s lifestyles in order to influence their way of thinking. A quote credited to Prophet Muhammad’s companion, Umar ibn al-Khattab, underlines this threat quite successfully “He who does not live in the way of his beliefs starts to believe in the way he lives.” Perhaps, under such circumstances, the least we should do is to filter out materials that are intended to change our moral values bit by bit. In particular, elements of mass media tirelessly impose that an individual cannot be completely free unless he performs whatever he desires. Any external factor that prevents people from obtaining what they like is represented as a restriction to freedom. By doing so it is made sure that religious and moral disciplines do not interfere with people’s decisions and they are left alone with their yearnings. As a result, instead of becoming free men, society is being transformed into slaves of egoism and consumerism. In my opinion, being able to defy such threats depends on following the footsteps of the people who managed to reduce mala’s influence in the most effective yet peaceful ways, namely the messengers of God. Frugal but dignified lifestyles of prophets Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) and alike should be our points of references instead of the characters displayed on billboards, movies and television series. We should constantly remind ourselves the moral teachings which state that true freedom can only be achieved by freeing ourselves from selfish desires.

*Institute Professor is the highest title that can be awarded to a faculty member at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

References

[1] Muhammad Alshareef. Perished Nations, online lecture series.

[2] Bernays, Edward. 2004. Propaganda, Ig Publishers.

[3] Chomsky, Noam. 2002. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Seven Stories Press.

[4] Curtis, Adam. 2002. Century of the Self, BBC.

What I would like to say in this paper is from a glocal perspective even though the case study I will offer at the end is local. That does not mean that I believe that Ireland is the centre of the universe, though for three decades at the end of the twentieth century we had that tragic privilege. An introverted narrative is negative, be it Irish, British, American, Canadian or wherever. My Irish case study is informed and underpinned by global perspective and is therefore, I hope, a glocal story. I would also like to explore two key components of peacebuilding which education can address, indeed I believe, must address, if humanity is to live at peace on the planet as well as with the planet.

PEACEBUILDING THROUGH EDUCATION

In June of this year Aung San Sui Kyi visited Europe. She is a woman who has suffered greatly, remains committed to non-violence, and is a champion for democracy in her own Burma. She reminds us that peacebuilding is about building democracy, which is essential to sustainable peace.

Just over two decades ago many of us sat glued to the television screen. The image is indelible, that of Nelson Mandela finally emerging from his Robben Island prison compound. He walked to freedom to lead, with others, the transformation of apartheid South Africa into a Rainbow Nation. It’s still a work in progress. Mandela has reminded us that peace building is the creation of a pluralist, participative democracy. Peace building is pro-democracy and it is about actively creating rainbow nations and societies, pluralist, participative democracies – at least! Education has a crucial role to play in all of this.

Education for pluralist democracy

Democracy is developing. There is no finished product and there is no one model to be imposed universally irrespective of contexts and cultures. It is not a flawless system either. Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst of political systems, except for all the others.” Democracy is about freedom. What the promise of freedom and potential for democracy does induce is an almost universal abhorrence of tyranny. Dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and fascist states do not last and do not satisfy the deepest longings and needs for freedom and participative belonging. Whatever past history, newly liberated nations usually move towards democracy. In 1918 when Czechoslovakia was born, its President said, “Our whole history inclines us towards the democratic Powers.” That was repeated in 1989-91 by leaders of all the countries of the ex-Soviet bloc (Norman 1997, 131).

Education for pluralist democracy as part of peace building needs to engage history. Democracy has a lineage, a family tree and young people and adults should be aware of it.

The Greeks invented politics and it began with our city states. The polis needed governance and there was a recognition of a public good, a shared public interest and common concerns, and over these issues there could be argument, debate, discussion, decision and policy making. The assembly of citizens was known as the ecclesia, though it was far from being fully participative. It was only for wealthy males, people of power, excluded women and certainly had no place for slaves and lower classes. Athenian democracy lasted for 185 years. It had limited participation and Plato even thought that democracy meant the rule of the incompetent. Democracy was forgotten for a millennium.

European democracy owes more perhaps to the democratic practices of the Viking world. Popular assemblies enter European history in the 9th century in Sweden and Denmark. Iceland’s national assembly came into being in 930 CE. Long before England had such a democratic assembly, it existed in the Manx assembly, the Isle of Man, a small island between Britain and Ireland with a Viking history. The Manx Tynwald or assembly is also 9th century. Wherever the Vikings went, Nordic democracy went with them.

In the modern era the two great shapers of democracy were the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Any education in pluralist democracy needs to be aware of these seismic events. The history of the 18th-19th century Europe was a history of wars and conflict, and absolutist monarchies and imperial powers. The first political revolution of a new time in European history happened outside of Europe and it led to the dissolution of the first British Empire. It began in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party and a decade later at the Paris Peace Conference American Independence was recognised. Now the people of North America “could work out their problems virtually untroubled by foreign intervention, a blessing to much that was to follow” (Roberts 1997, 347). Popular sovereignty was embodied in the opening words of the Constitution, “We the People.” All governments derive their just powers from the assent of the governed. The American Revolution was a landmark in world history.

Then followed the French Revolution and by 1789, notwithstanding the Terror, great reforms were achieved.

The formal abolition of feudalism, legal privilege and theocratic absolutism, and the organisation of society on individualist and secular foundations were the heart of the principles of ’89 distilled in a Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen… legal equality and legal protection of individual rights, the separation of Church and State and religious toleration were their institutional expression. The derivation of authority from popular sovereignty acting through a unified National Assembly, before whose legislation no privilege of locality or group could stand… (Roberts 1997, 353-354).

Modern democracy is born and by 1900 the principle of democracy was an idea, albeit still resented in some parts of Europe, whose time had come. An education process needs to engage with the historical development of democracy. We may have little consensus about its essence and it remains flawed in practice. “We the People” may even be impossible, strictly speaking, in practice. But democracy as a theory of governance and the ordering of the public good has promoted “all the virtues, from freedom, justice and equality to the rule of law, the respect for human rights, and the promotion of political pluralism and of civil society” (Davies 1997, 131).

Democracy is not amoral. It implies a need to be underpinned by a value system. Values and ethics are the foundation of democracy at work. Peace building is an ethical task, it needs democracy and the values and ethics that underpin democracy. Democracy involves pluralism and freedom, it also requires tolerance or respect. The education process needs to draw the distinction between passive tolerance and active tolerance. The former is the tolerance of indifference. The latter is “The attitude of one who positively co-lives with the other because one respects the other and accepts the multi-faceted richness of reality” (Boff 2011, 8-9). At the heart of any education for democracy is justice, especially justice as distributive and restorative. Democracy is for human, social flourishing. And distributive and restorative justice are core to peace building.

Education for global citizenship

Yale historian, Jay Winter, believes that a new kind of vision emerged at the end of the dark 20th century after the momentous events of the late 1980s and early ’90s. It is a vision set in the framework of globalisation which aims to create a new kind of politics called the “politics of global citizenship.” It has also been described as “globalisation – from – below.”

Global citizens are emerging out of an array of transnational social forces animated by environmental concerns, human rights, hostility to patriarchy, and the vision of humane community based on the unity of diverse cultures seeking an end to poverty, oppression, humiliation, and collective violence. (Winter 2006, 169-170)

A new kind of political consciousness is developing which is transnational and is flowing across national borders. It is a glocal movement holding together the local and global. “Global citizenship is a political project helping people to imagine a different kind of world.” Citizenship is not tied to the state, it is “participation in a transnational set of struggles for dignity and justice” (Winter 2006, 170). The nation state is no longer primary. We are no longer just Irish, American, Turkish or Indian citizens but global citizens, in a different and larger solidarity on environmental rights, women’s rights and human rights. Transnational citizenship is about all of these glocal justice issues none of which is limited by national boundaries. Community now is in the local and the global.

Perhaps this began for many of us as children when we put our name and address on the inside page of a school text book. Name, street, town/city, Ireland, Europe, The World, The Universe! It is now the reality in a globalised world. Transnationalism and global citizenship may still have an unmapped future, but like modern democracy at the beginning of the 20th century this new local – global reality is and will shape who we are in the 21st century. It will be a peace building project stretching us well beyond any introverted narrative. Citizenship education now needs to be global for all ages, and it is not only an alternative to introverted narratives, but also to economic globalisation as the sole determinative factor for human and environmental life on the planet.

A GLOCAL CASE STUDY

I currently work on an initiative called Ethical and Shared Remembering. It is an initiative which will respond to the centenaries of events that occurred in Ireland between 1912-1922 and shaped the rest of the 20th century for the people in Ireland. It was a decade of enormous political change ending with the partition of Ireland, and it was also a decade of brutal violence.

How the centenaries will be handled between 1912-1922 will shape the decades ahead for better or worse. Ethical remembering is an approach that is critical in relation to the militarisation of politics and the violence that was so deeply embedded in culture and practice. Shared remembering is an approach that encourages the protagonists in all their complexity to engage with each other as human beings and to understand better each other’s perspectives on this crucial Irish decade and its legacy. The legacy has left many issues unresolved which have been re-played in the more recen phase of violence and conflict in Ireland. Some of these issues are; nationalism, nation-state, faith and politics, faith and violence, class and labour relations, feminism and equality issues, trauma and peace building. These constitute for any educational programme a generational peace building agenda which needs to be set in a global or glocal context.

There are multiple Irish narratives from this decade. Not only will this initiative try to recover them, especially the alternative, repressed or forgotten narratives, but the events of 100 years ago will be carefully set in the larger global, at least European context of that time. The memory of the Irish narrative(s) has often been introverted, but this community education initiative will seek to provide a larger and more critical perspective on a century ago by placing the events in a more global context. Early 20th century imperialism and the catastrophe of the Great War, provide a larger and rather different perspective.

The framework for an educational exploration will not only include global contextualisation but also narrative hospitality. This is about generosity of spirit and openness to engage with multiple narratives, especially those of one’s sectarian tradition or narrative perspective. Narrative hospitality will also include narrative pluralism and narrative flexibility. These latter two approaches will encourage an openness to recognise that there are multiple histories and diversities of interpretation of historical events and never a fixed or final norm. It is openness to realise that history is a plethora of interpretations, little of which may be about what actually happened even if ever that can be fully known.

Another educational framework will be integrative complexity. This is also getting beyond mono-narrative or mono-truth, simplism or fundamentalist politics or religion. Integrative complexity (IC) is a way of seeing history, culture, politics, faith, the world in all their diversity and complexity and integrating or weaving together the complexities of personal, communal and historical existence, and to see this complexity in the other.

Key to this project will be the development of critical thinking skills in a community where there has been, through the dynamics of violence and conflict, a culture which is unquestioning. The latter has often been understood as being disloyal or unpatriotic. Few people have thought for themselves and this educational methodology will engage with critical reflection on matters of history, politics, religion and cultural identity without reducing their complexity.

Essential to the educational exploration of the past will be future visioning. This is not just about a 2030 vision for Ireland. It is about transcending local nationalist politics of whatever shade and visioning a common good. It will also be about global citizenship, a transnational vision that will require the imaginative creation of a larger identity myth, beyond introversion, and glocal in perspective and complexity. Not only will the initiative encourage the development of an ethical vision for future society but will also unpack the need for ethical leadership in a society where the moral authority of the major institutions has collapsed. The initiative is being delivered through community education programmes, dialogue events, training resources and materials and a series of in-depth publications, and also the use of the arts. The community of ethical and shared remembering will include people from the community development and community relations sector, education, youth, the faith sector, politicians, ex-prisoners, commemorative groups and institutions. This is an initiative which we hope will make a positive contribution through education to peace building as a glocal task.

References

1. Davies, Norman. 1997. Europe: A History, London: Pimlico.
2. Roberts, J.M. 1997. The Penguin History of Europe, London: Penguin Books.
3. Boff, Leonardo. 2011. Virtues: For Another Possible World, Oregon: Cascade Books.
4. Winter, Jay 2006. Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the 20th Century, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. The extended quotation is from Richard Falk.