“The most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” (Isaac Newton)

The Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, and the theory of relativity took the modern community to the boundary of the two realms of physical and metaphysical existence. Nevertheless, the nature of the fundamental physical dimensions still remains an open question resting on the related areas of science

The fundamental concepts of Newtonian physics are Time, Length, Mass, and Electric Charge by means of which all the other classical physical quantities such as velocity, force, momentum, energy, current, electric field, magnetic flux, etc. can be derived and expressed as their combinations. Classical physics stands on the assumption that material, having two basic intrinsic properties of mass and charge, and immaterial phenomena are all contained in an absolute space and an ever-flowing absolute time. These four physical dimensions, without asking the nature of them, provide a practical framework for a description of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces and thus a description of the physical world and an interpretation of the events occurring in it up to a certain degree. However, the Newtonian picture of the universe is neither adequate for a deeper understanding of the corporeal reality nor appropriate for linking that reality to the ones possessing higher degrees of the Universal Existence.

Starting from late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Newtonian picture of the world has been changed due to two revolutionary theories, which have been proved both experimentally and theoretically that they are superior to and not compatible with the classical descriptions and assumptions. They are the relativity theory and the quantum mechanics. In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated with each point of Space-Time. For example, the Newtonian gravitational field is a vector field specifying its value at a point in Space-Time, which requires three numbers, the components of the gravitational field vector at that point. Quantum field theory constructing quantum mechanical models of systems classically parameterized by an indefinitely big number of degrees of freedom, namely fields, is the natural and quantitative language of particle physics. The current set of fundamental fields and their dynamics are summarized in a theory called the Standard Model. All particles and their interactions observed to date can be described almost entirely by the Standard Model although most particle physicists believe that it is an incomplete description of nature, and that a more fundamental theory, the Theory of Everything, awaits discovery. Figure 1 represents an overview of the various families of elementary and composite particles, and the theories describing their interactions.

The relativistic quantum field theory of the subatomic world does not only include the strong and weak nuclear forces in addition to the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions of the classical picture, but also provokes some ideas about the nature of the fundamental concepts of the classical physics. Symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system that is preserved under some change. The Standard Model says, for instance, that the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. U(1), the unitary group of rank 1, is the simplest internal symmetry group of the Standard Model. It can be visualized as the rotational symmetry of a circle about a perpendicular axis passing through the center of the circle. It represents a continuous symmetry because a circle can be rotated by an angle and remains unchanged. It is an internal symmetry since this circle does not lie in the physical space but in the complex plane of mathematics. More abstractly and more generally, a charge is any generator of a continuous symmetry of the physical system under study. When a physical system has a symmetry of some sort, Noether’s theorem implies the existence of a conserved current. The thing that flows in the current is the charge; the charge is the generator of the symmetry group. This converts our classical concrete idea of electric charge into a mathematical abstraction. Conservation of energy and conservations of linear and angular momenta are nothing but the applications of Noether’s theorem to the translational symmetry in time and translational and rotational symmetries in space, respectively.

Classically, which is equivalent to macroscopically, mass is associated with matter and can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object’s resistance to the change of its speed. But in the Standard Model of the subatomic scale, the mass of the elementary particles are explained by the Higgs mechanism which refers specifically to the generation of masses for the W and Z bosons through electroweak symmetry breaking. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is currently searching for Higgs bosons, and attempting to understand the electroweak Higgs mechanism. The Higgs mechanism is the process that gives mass to elementary particles. In 1905, Einstein proposed mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2) in his paper entitled “Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?” In relativity, all of the energy that moves with an object (that is, all the energy which is present in the object’s rest frame) contributes to the total mass of the body, which measures how much it resists acceleration.

When we come to the remaining two fundamental concepts of Newtonian physics, we see that Time and Length, which we know instinctively, are no exceptions. The modern physics challenges our classical understandings of them too. Relativity theory argues that Time and Space are of equal ontological status; the reality is the 4-dimensional unity of Space-Time. Physics could no longer be understood as Space by itself, and Time by itself. It also states that simultaneity is relative, so there is no objective way to define a “Now” that would be the same for all states of motion which substantially affects the idea of causality. In addition, this Space-Time is not flat but rather curved due to the material and energy contained in it and not static but dynamic. Time and Space are neither uniform nor absolute.

The missing part of the so-called Theory of Everything is the quantum gravity, which attempts to develop scientific models that unify quantum mechanics describing three of the four known fundamental interactions with general relativity describing the fourth, gravity. The following quotation is from one of the leading quantum gravity researcher, Carlo Rovelli, stated in 1997:

“I believe that we are going through a period of profound confusion, in which we lack a general coherent picture of the physical world capable of embracing what or at least most of what, we have learned about it. The fundamental scientific view of the world of the present time is characterized by an astonishing amount of perplexity, and disagreement, about what time, space, matter, and causality are. But if a new synthesis is to be reached, I believe that philosophical thinking will be once more one of its ingredients. Due to the vastness of the problem involved, the generality and accuracy of philosophical thinking and its capacity to clarify conceptual premises are probably necessary to help physics out of a situation in which we have learned so much about the world, but no longer know what matter, time, space, and causality are.“

Lee Smolin, another theoretical physicist named as #21 on Foreign Policy Magazine’s 2008 list of Top 100 Public Intellectuals, stated the following in 2001:

“Atoms do fall, so the relationship between gravity and the quantum is not a problem for nature. If it is a problem for us, it must be because somewhere in our thinking there is at least one, and possibly several, wrong assumptions. At the very least, these assumptions involve our concept of space and time and the connection between the observer and the observed.”

It is true that quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity were born and are growing in the nontraditional atmosphere of the scientific enterprise. Thus, they can be considered as sharing the reductionist character of the Newtonian physics by having no direct reference to the hierarchy of physical and metaphysical existence. Nevertheless, we consider them as an improvement since they took the modern scientific community to the boundary of the two realms, by asking the old question of ancients about the nature of the fundamental physical dimensions. The mystery of them is still an open question resting, we believe, on the related areas of science and metaphysics.

It is indeed a tremendous challenge to come to terms with the perplexity of religion and politics in our time. As acts of terrorism are wreaking havoc in many parts of the world, people turn to religion both to find the cause and the healing. Questions abound. Can religion be a source for tolerance and reconciliation in the 21st century, or is it a breeding ground for hatred and violence? Is religion being hijacked from inside by misguided believers and by cynic political extremists? Grand theories of conspiracy against specific religions or political systems instill anxiety among ordinary people.

As the 9/11 tragedy in the USA is indelibly inscribed as a watershed in world history, so will 22.7.2011 for ever be remembered as a massacre that changed Norway. The first was a heinous act of people who misrepresented Islam to punish and humiliate a world power seen to be responsible for the suffering of millions of Muslims around the world. The other was directed against the State itself and the political leadership of Norway, by a person who used Christian imagery to express his hatred of Muslims. The perpetrator sees Norway’s multiculturalism and open society as submission to a dangerous and foreign religion. He saw himself as true crusader for a Christian Europe. I believe it is fair to say that none of the perpetrators of these tragic events genuinely represent the religion they profess. Their unspeakable acts of violence against fellow human beings constitute a crime not only against humanity, but against God under whatever name.

These watershed events are reminders that to unravel the perverse mindset of extremists one has to go beyond personal faith and beliefs and look to other constitutive factors of psychological, social, cultural and political nature. Such factors do not provide an excuse for the horrendous acts of terror, but they indicate the complexity that needs to be addressed in curing this cancer in the body of humanity. But also collective and individual perceptions of oppression, marginalization and disrespect, feed a legitimate sense of loss and betrayal that offers a breeding ground for fanaticism and revenge. No single historic religion is without a history of inbred violence, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or others.

While the reaction in the USA and some European countries after 9/11 was crusader language and large-scale cancellation of fundamental civil and political rights, the reaction in Norway, eloquently and consistently expressed by the Prime Minister and other political leaders, and hailed by the vast majority of the population, has been to call for an even more inclusive democracy, and more respect of human dignity and human rights for all. The message was clear; the way forward is not revenge, nor curtailing of fundamental freedoms, but increased openness to a more multicultural and multi-religious society. Religious leaders and communities have reacted in unison against the exploitation of their faith and spirituality using hatred and fear. They join the call for tolerance and mutual respect. In all honesty, it has to be added that some pockets of conservative Christians have expressed sympathy for the opinions of the terrorist, although not for his criminal acts. The same goes for some politicians on the far right of the political spectrum.

It is my humble opinion that the reaction of official Norway sets a standard for others to follow in countries where far-right ideologies and fundamentalist religious movements and individuals threaten to destabilize society. A model of reconciled diversity is the only way to the future in our globalized world. This is the message of our youth, those who lost their lives and those who barely escaped. They are the victors. Terrorists will always be the losers. This is the spirit of Norway. The political battle to sustain this legacy will show the strength of our nation.

Dr. Gunnar Stalsett, Bishop emeritus of Oslo
Former Vice Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee
Moderator of the European Council of Religious Leaders, Religions for Peace

While the shahadah, the testimony of faith, detaches one from finite and false masters, the salat, the ritual prayers, detaches one from worldly affairs, zakat, charitable alms, detaches the worshipper from the pangs of material wealth, and hajj, the pilgrimage, is a means of detachment from the burden of sins and racism or nationalism, and sawm, fasting, detaches the worshipper from physical desires and emotional impulses.

What appears to be a self-inflicted ordeal to some is really a profound human experience. Fasting addresses a fundamental weakness in the human self-the tendency to act on impulse. The constant exercise of willpower to refrain from eating, drinking or having sexual relations, even though the body is constantly sending impulses to the human self, means that the will is in control. Fasting is not just about staying hungry or thirsty; it is also a struggle to refrain from any destructive impulses of the human self. Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, remarked, “If one does not abandon lies and acting on lies while fasting, then God has no need for him to give up food and drink.” So the main outcome of fasting is the curbing of all physical impulses that do not originate consciously from the person. In this way, one’s absolute dependence on these desires and impulses is detached and transformed into a relative dependence and one is guided only by God, which leads the worshipper closer to God.

Therefore, the fundamental spiritual benefit of fasting is to exercise the willpower and to attain the self-control that we need for success in every part of our lives. Fasting consecutively for 30 days truly sharpens the willpower and makes self-control a habit; this is true to such an extent that at the end of Ramadan most people feel as if they are still fasting. The benefit of attaining such a razor-sharp willpower extends its positive impact to every part of human life. It is important to maintain this newly gained ability throughout the year until the next Ramadan. The Holy Prophet used to fast on Mondays and Thursdays every week outside of Ramadan. He recommended Muslims to do the same or come up with other formulae for regular fasting, although this was not made compulsory.

An interesting experiment was done in the 1960s at a preschool on the Stanford University campus when the ability of four-year olds to resist temptation was tested. A marshmallow was placed in a room and the children were told that they could have the marshmallow immediately, or if they waited until the tester had run an errand and returned, then they could have two marshmallows. Some children waited for two marshmallows, while others ate one immediately. These same children were followed over 14 years to see how they managed in life.

Those who had resisted temptation at four were now, as adolescents, more socially competent, personally effective, self-assertive, and better able to cope with the frustrations of life. The third or so who grabbed the marshmallow, however, tended to have fewer of these qualities and shared instead a relatively more troubled psychological portrait. Even more surprising, those who had waited patiently at four were far superior as students to those who acted on whim. Most astonishingly, they had dramatically higher scores on their SAT tests. There is perhaps no physiological skill more fundamental than resisting impulse. It is the root of all emotional self-control, since all emotions, by their very nature, lead to one or another impulse to act.1

Naturally how one is raised in childhood has a great bearing on the skill of self-control. If our parents do everything we want and bring us everything we ask for our self-control will be low. Fortunately, Islam’s practice of fasting can break this negative childhood conditioning.

Mehmet Ozalp is the Executive Officer of the Affinity Intercultural Foundation, Auburn, Australia. He is the author of 101 Questions About Islam.

Note

1. Coleman, Daniel, Emotional Intelligence, London: Bloomsbury, 1996, pp. 81-82.

Today, the Western world is seen by many as the representative of freedom and democracy. How has freedom been understood and treated in the history of the West? To answer this question, we will go on a journey through history, in which we will restrict ourselves to continental Europe, focusing on different periods in terms of how freedom has been approached and used. Here, we basically define freedom as being free from suppression or obstacles which have deliberately been placed before an individual by others to impede said freedom.

In the Middle Ages, freedom was not relevant to the masses in Europe. Most people did not even dream of it, since inequalities in society were the norm. A person could not attain freedom, but some were born free. Freedom was a privilege inherited from the class that your family belonged to. Being born into the lower classes was a fate one had to accept. This limited concept of freedom based on social status was further acknowledged or legitimized by the dominant religious authorities, that is, the Christian clergymen. “Keep silent and obey the orders of the feudal lord; hope you will be rewarded in the next life” became the common prescription for the masses that kept them subjugated to and suppressed by the political authority. . In other words, if one was not of the upper-class, one could “freely” make a choice between the despotic order of the feudal lord and the in justice of the clergy, who were abusing the social role assigned to them as the unquestionable judges.

A breaking point in the stable intellectual line of the Middle Ages was certainly the Renaissance and the Reformation. Those who had the opportunity to study and read the works of the ancients directly, without the filtering of the Church, became aware of new directions for human thought. This current, propelled by these newly educated people, nurtured the idea of freedom of “thought” and “belief.”

The development of gunpowder and the cannon brought an end not only to the feudal-lords but also to the age. These changes reduced the importance of the skilled cavalry in warfare, which were supplied by the feudal lords to the kings, and in turn reduced the importance in the lords. Even well-fortified cities fell when faced by this immensely destructive force. Therefore, small feudalities had to unite, or else be erased. The strength of the state/king increased, while the lords’ sovereignty was reduced. Centralized authority became the dogma. Everything belonged to the monarch, including the authority to decide who had the freedom to do what.

Ironically, the concept of sovereign states was fortified through strong and able monarchies, which later produced the nation state. As the France of Louis XIV grew stronger, for instance, it started to dominate the surrounding territories. In its effort to support military campaigns, the powerful French state pushed forward the idea of a “French nation.” This new concept of nation superseded all local bases of identity, particularly, at the expense of religion.

Freedom under the shadow of capitalism

In the age of monarchy, everything was controlled and directed by a supreme state, the symbol of sovereignty. The idea of individuals with basic freedoms, such as freedom of thought or freedom of speech, was inconceivable as the state demanded complete obedience of its subjects. In other words, individual freedom would have been a threat to authority. Therefore, despite all the changes in the overall picture, the main component of society, the individual, was still overlooked.

While the feudal order became history with an alliance between the king and the rising bourgeoisie in towns and cities, in turn the bourgeoisie played a key role in introducing the concept of a state with limited powers. In the end, such limitations on the state meant greater freedom for the citizens.

With the new discoveries and inventions that led to industrialization, the bourgeoisie demanded more freedom. Its power was its wealth, which directed politics, its weapon was “reason,” which was used to challenge and abolish the monopoly of the Church on ideas, and its flag was “freedom for all.” For all? Could there really have been a chance of freedom for a person who could hardly make living? However, for the bourgeoisie, the answer was in the affirmative. To them, freedom was two-fold: freedom of thought and economic freedom, the core idea of a freely operating market. Both of these were held sacred and were considered to be closely intertwined. In this sense, the bourgeoisie, the primary agent of capitalism, was the first social agent to celebrate and pursue human liberty.

Demanding a market free of all kinds of controls was the fundamental idea of economic liberalism. In response to the concerns of justice, economic liberalism claimed that the invisible hand of the economy would balance out the inequalities in due time, provided that it was able to operate free of control. Although not everyone supported these notions of freedom, the poorer classes did ally with the bourgeoisie against one common enemy: the royalty. As the bourgeoisie’s power reached a critical stage they united with the lower class, overthrowing the king and holding a revolution. However, this was not a revolution for all of society. In fact, for some thinkers, all that the bourgeoisie had done was to present the old ideas in a new suit. The bourgeoisie set the bottom line of freedom at the possession of property. This was quite apparent in the constitution of France for example, where those who could pay a certain amount of tax were allowed to vote. In other words, freedom for all meant freedom for those who could afford it. One’s right was proportional to the tax one paid. If you did not have enough money, you had no right to be represented.

Freedom vs. justice

Certainly, the liberal understanding of freedom was far from pleasing to everyone. The lower class had no teacher at that time. They started slowly to become aware of Marx’s teachings, who claimed that the “evil capitalist system” was due to collapse. The new teacher of the lower class also preached to them that “history is the history of struggle between classes, and we are in the final round. We must win this battle, and begin a new life in a new world.” Thus, the socialist/communist notion of “social justice” grew stronger. The Marxist thinkers revealed the hidden realities of the society and gathered the working class around one goal, i.e., getting rid of the “evil capitalist system.”

This kind of interpretation of the new order was very attractive for some. It appealed to the angry masses and asked that they raise their voices in response. The Marxist theory dealt primarily with economic justice and the distribution of wealth. It spoke not of the “freedom of human beings,” but of the economic independence of the lower classes, for in Marxist thought human beings were “working animals.” As a solution, people’s future was closely tied to the dominance of the proletariat, who were seen to be the true owners of the wealth produced in a society. In this scheme of thought, individual freedoms were of secondary importance to the well-being of society.

Thus, one can say that the Marxist view of freedom was an abuse of freedom. In brief, what it said was this: Freedom is good as long as it gives us reasons to complain about the existing system and permits us to rebel against the bourgeoisie. After all, we are exercising our freedom to speak! But it is fundamentally problematic in that it erases the individuality of the person in favor of the group (the proletariat, the working class), whose existence is based only on abstract notions of materialism and historical determinism.

Multi-dimensional freedom for multi-dimensional individuals

After the age of ideologies, freedom today is understood more properly as a personal dimension of being human, a quality that is directly related to individuality. Despite many violations of justice, at least fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of travel, are protected by most democratic governments. The demands placed by political authority on people’s personal lives seem to be less controlling in democratic countries as compared to authoritarian ones. Can we then say that issues concerning freedom have been settled? Unfortunately not.

To resolve this matter, one has to think of humans as multi-dimensional beings. As we know, everything we experience in social life has a reflection in our internal life and vice versa. Laws and regulations address the social, political or economic aspects of life. What about our internal capacities that affect our decisions? Do we not have a strong attachment to our desires and impulses, which sometimes makes us act according to emotions instead of reason? If the aim of any theory is to guide us to true freedom, it must account for the inner dimensions of freedom. Since this guidance cannot be provided by any political or social means, each individual must strive to attain inner freedom by using the means available to him or her. We may start searching for this guidance by contemplating the meaning of our existence and what freedom really means in relation with our status in the universe. Perhaps, complete freedom is never attainable as all of us are connected somehow with each other and with the rest of the creation.

However defined, freedom is the fundamental requirement for the flourishing of the individual. Through much of the historical developments in the concept of freedom, there are two certain conclusions we can draw. First, freedom as a human condition has been ignored and has become subject to violations. Our history is full of examples that support this contention in which everything is expressed in terms of abstract-plural concepts. Remember our history books: Nations migrate, armies fight, states make peace, or civilizations clash. The individual human being, if not an exaggerated hero, is individually absent in history.

Secondly, freedom has prevailed as an intrinsically valuable notion for our existence. Several unpleasant examples in history witness that negligence or resistance to the use of this fundamental right only results in drastic changes that make it more valuable.

Ozgur tagla is a teaching assistant at the School of Arts&Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh.

Hungry for ceaseless beauty

In love with eternity

Refugee in a tower of agony

In an early, rainy morning

When the birds started singing

He woke into a vision crying

In an early, rainy morning

Stepping down the hill slowly

Pondering over his troubles calmly

He was seeking for a canopy

Stepping down the hill slowly

As the uncertain end nears

Rocks, trees, leaves, rivers…

None but One hears his fears

As the uncertain end nears

In need of a fundamental change

Past life and fears scream with rage

Ivory tower is no different than a cage

In need of a fundamental change

Not knowing the final destination

In the turbulent life-story ocean

Re-discovering a one-to-one relation

Descent from ivory tower becomes Ascension

The Jewish residents have always felt at home in Istanbul, never ceasing to express their thanks to Turkey for their salvation by the Ottoman fleet from massacre in Spain in 1492, and their subsequent welcome in Istanbul. Christians, likewise, never felt as if they were in a foreign land; they had their own churches, schools, and enjoyed civil rights, things that were not granted in other cities of the world. Istanbul has always been an exceptional place, a model city of peace, portraying exemplary behavior throughout the past for the generations which would help to build the world in the future.

So much evil in the past year has forced us to concentrate more on the fundamentals in this issue…. to examine the fundamental reasons for evil thoughts and actions, for theories and movements which lead people off the track. We cast a quick overall look at Islam, which the mass media, now more than at any other time, has wrongfully and intentionally juxtaposed with ‘terror’. This is going on, despite the fundamental truth that ‘a Muslim is a person from whom other people are secure and by whom they will not be disturbed or harmed by his or her actions and words.’ In the same vein, we can in no way blame God for creating evil. He gave us free will to discern right from wrong. If there is no evil, then there are no morally right choices; in order for humans to have free will, there must be a ‘wrong choice’, there must be evil for there to be good.

This brings us round to the discussion of Satanism…

June 22, 1998 was an ordinary day … but not for all. Asli and Alp, two high school friends met up in a prosperous district of the city where they lived. The note they left behind before jumping off the 14th floor and hitting the ground said ‘this world makes no sense for us.’

Asli and Alp were members of a Satanist group. Satanism is the name for the so-called worship of Satan and it presents a grim example of movements that have emerged as a result of the weakened moral codes of society. No conscientious person can remain indifferent to the fact that young people are being misled by such movements. Unfortunately, Satanism is a warning that compels us to think about the mistakes we have made in bringing up the younger generation. If we fail to take early precautions, it may be too late for many young people. The article, ‘Satanism and Our Youth’s Quest for Identity’ seeks to thoroughly analyze the matter, offering definitions and a background, and concludes by offering some useful solutions.

Unfortunately, 2003 has been a year that has seen much sadness, but also a little hope for the future. Our wishes for the coming year is that our hearts will replenish faith for the world, leading to a world of balance, one that is filled with empathy, and one where remembrance of God is the guide.

In describing how an effective person should concentrate his or her efforts in the right jungle, Covey uses the concept of mission, a term from the study of management of long-term business strategy meaning a statement of a company’s vision of what it intends to do and become. In the context of this book, Covey urges people to come up with personal mission statements. The objective-setting criteria used in making such statements should be based on long-term, changeless, and established rules. By way of example, the author points out the United States Constitution which has remained unchanged in its fundamentals for over two hundred years. Human nature requires a changeless inner core for people to be effective – it is much easier to hit a stable target than a moving one. (This might be one among many reasons why the Divine revelations (of which the Qur’an is the last) were sent down to guide mankind for centuries.)

The book is divided into four parts. The first part deals with personal mission or in the author’s words principle-centred paradigm. He uses the term paradigm to mean a model, perception, assumption, or frame of reference. Paradigms are powerful because they constitute the lens through which we see the world. The principle-centred paradigm is based on the idea that there are principles or natural laws that govern human effectiveness which he calls GANLs or Generally Accepted Natural Laws. These laws are just as real and stable as the law of gravity in the physical world. They are guidelines for human conduct that are proven to have enduring, even permanent and fundamental value, such as fairness, integrity, honesty, human dignity, service, quality, etc. He says that the more closely the principle-centred paradigms are aligned with the GANLs, the more accurate and functional they will become. What he does not explicitly conclude in this part is the origin of the GANLs. Although the manifestation or definition of the GANLs is said to be left to the reader, one who ponders on the author’s approach and style will easily understand that he implies Divine revelation as the origin. In several instances throughout his book, Covey implicitly justifies the teachings of the Divine revelations which are fundamentally from the same Source in the different monotheistic religions. One who has a sound background in Islam, for example, would easily recognize the similarities. Covey explains himself somewhat at the end of the book under the rubric of A Personal Note. It is interesting to learn that the GANLs or fundamental, universal and intangible rules of social interactions can be justified by reasoning (as realized by Covey in his book) and these are welcomed by people who are hungry for ethics and a restoration of character in their lives.

The other parts of the book explain the 7 habits referred to in the title. They are, in the order the author prefers:

1. Be proactive,
2. Begin with end [i.e. your objective] in mind,
3. Put first things first,
4. Think win/win,
5. Seek first to understand, then to be understood,
6. Synergize,
7. Sharpen the saw, or self-renewal.

Covey concentrates on the first three habits in Part 11. Successful accomplishment of Habits I, II and III is called by the author ‘a Private Victory’. Habit I (being proactive) is recommended as the basic principle of the nature of effective man. Proactive people are driven by values – carefully thought about, selected and internalized principles – rather than by external circumstances and conditions, which characterizes reactive people. Proactive people take the initiative to act in accordance with their paradigms in their circle of concerns through the means that they can be influential with. He states that the very essence of developing proactivity is to make and keep commitments to ourselves and to set a goal and work to achieve it. Another interesting observation in this section is that proactive people focus their time and energy on things that they can do something about (Circle of Influence) whereas reactive people concentrate their efforts on things over which they have no control. The degree of proactivity is then determined by how much effort we expend on our Circle of Influence.

Covey has in fact – not surprisingly, seeing that he is an adjunct-professor at the School of Management – applied organizational success theories found in management literature to the ‘management’ of individual lives. In conformity with an academic text-book style, he lists application suggestions at the end of each chapter inviting the reader to put the preceding material into real life by doing the ‘exercises’.

The introduction to Habit II (begin with end in mind) is dramatic: it invites the reader to visualize his/her death. Explaining that it is possible to be very busy without being very effective (active in the wrong jungle), the author goes on:

‘The most fundamental application of “begin with end in mind” is to begin today with the image, picture, or paradigm at the end of your life as your frame of reference or the criterion by which everything else is examined…

To begin with the end in mind means to start with a clear understanding of your destination. It means to know-where you are going so that you better understand where you are now and so that the steps you take are always in the right direction.’

Covey then lists some motivational factors or ‘centres of life’ that a person might have, such as spouse, family, money, work, possession, pleasure, friend/enemy, etc. For instance, one extremely common centre to most people’s lives is making money. This kind of people are always vulnerable to anything that threatens their economic security. After logically showing inner dimensions of each possible centre, he encourages centring our lives on timeless, unchanging principles so as to reach a fundamental paradigm of effective living. The method he suggests to make this shift is the visualization of one’s own funeral which expands one’s perspective. The analogy with the practice in most major religious traditions, not least in Islam, of meditating on the end of one’s life hardly needs to be pointed out.

Habit III of Private Victory (put first things first), concerned with organizing and executing priorities, is developed from the most recent time management techniques.

People with proactive attitudes can easily focus on important but not urgent activities which is the heart of effective personal management. Reactive people, on the other hand, exhaust their energies on crises, pressing problems and deadline-driven projects, which are the main obstacles to managing one’s time and energy properly.

Part III introduces the habits of Public Victory. People armed with Private Victory habits move from a state of dependence to a state of independence. It is the Habits IV, V and VI which convert one’s state from independence to interdependence and which leads to optimum co-operative-ness, teamwork and communication among members of groups or organizations. The author’s diligent explanation of Emotional Bank Account, described as the amount of trust that has been built up in a relationship, brings up a new perspective to intra-community GANLs for a healthy organization or group. Understanding the individual, attending to the little things, keeping commitments, clarifying expectations, avoiding gossip, defending those who are absent, etc., are just some of the ‘deposits’ to this account needed to achieve sincere and profound relations within an organization.

Habit IV lays the foundation of human interactions that should be carried out through mutually beneficial and satisfying agreements or solutions. Win/Win in this sense recognizes life as a co-operative not a competitive arena. Win/Lose manner of thinking, the most common among people, is fundamentally flawed. Covey argues that people with abundance mentality (the approach that there is plenty out there for everybody) think Win/Win, whereas those with scarcity mentality (the approach that there is only one pie out there) think Win/Lose. The author touches upon a very fundamental law for success in this life, both materially and spiritually: good faith or intention. Good faith is praised by religions over actions and all present man-made laws recognize the concept of bona fide (in good faith) arrangements. People with good faith always think and act Win/Win and they will always be the winners in the end.

Habit V (seek first to understand, then to be understood) is, according to the author, the single most important principle in the field of interpersonal communication and relations. As he does throughout his book, he cites real world examples from his own experiences to show that when one presents one’s own ideas clearly, specifically, visually, and most important, contextually – in the context of a deep understanding of the other party’s paradigms and concerns – one significantly increases the credibility of those ideas and the effectiveness of the interaction.

Habit VI (synergize) is simply defined by the author to mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. He makes an analogy between ecology in physical nature and synergism in the nature of human interaction – everything is related to everything else. The essence of synergy in a group or organization is to value the differences, to respect them,to build on strengths, and to compensate for weaknesses. Covey points out that the more genuine the involvement, the more sincere and sustained the participation of individuals in analyzing and solving their shared problems. He also claims that it is this synergy that has led to the Japanese success in business.

Habit VII (sharpen the saw or self renewal) is the renewing of the following four dimensions of human nature: physical (exercise, nutrition, stress management), spiritual (value clarification and commitment, study and meditation), mental (reading, visualizing, planning, writing) and social/emotional (service, empathy, synergy).

This book reveals the recent global trend to inspire and motivate people for ethics and restoration of character in personal and professional lives. Rather than trying to provide a short-term, quick solution for the problem, Covey tries to concentrate on the fundamental questions of who we are, where we are coming from and where we are headed to. From a different perspective, the author proves, justifies and elaborates the necessity of complying with the natural laws, of which the source, as he implies at the end of his book is the Creator.

This review has touched only lightly on the similarities between the author’s conclusions and the paradigm prescribed by the last Divine religion revealed fourteen centuries ago. Alert readers of the book with moderate and informed Islamic background will easily identify many more similarities and indeed specific correspondences in the texts of Qur’an and Hadith. The general point worth making is that a contemporary explanation of the universal and fundamental principles revealed centuries ago can still make a big impact on people’s lives even in the countries where religion has long been neglected:

Covey’s book has been a bestseller. This indicates that proper presentation of Divine principles in the modern world by word and example is welcomed and can encourage and motivate people, through a different path and approach, to revive their lifestyles in the light of true, sound, changeless and inspiring Divine principles.