If you could step into the year 622 and walk through the streets of Yathrib, today’s Medina, you would find a city poised between hope and collapse. The sun beating down on palm groves surrounding mud-brick homes, while inside the city, the air feeling thick with decades of unresolved tension. Two major Arab tribes, Aws and Khazraj, carried the scars of long-running feuds. Several powerful Jewish tribes, Banu Qaynuqa, Banu al-Nadir, and Banu Qurayza, held their own alliances and grievances. Add to that a small Christian presence and a handful of new Muslim migrants fleeing persecution in Mecca, and you would find a city whose diversity was both its strength and its vulnerability.

Against this backdrop, an extraordinary meeting took place. Representatives of Yathrib’s communities gathered as a scribe recorded an agreement that would provide a new framework for life in the city: the formation of a one nation – an Ummah.  

“They form one nation”

This was the opening sentiment of what is now known as the Medina Charter (Sahifat al-Madinah) document that many scholars regard as one of the earliest written constitutional agreements governing a religiously and tribally diverse society. Rather than erasing differences, it sought to establish a framework through which the city’s various communities could coexist while sharing certain rights and responsibilities.

The Charter was not simply an attempt to end cycles of conflict. It outlined a political order based on mutual obligations, justice, consultation, and collective security. More than fourteen centuries later, it continues to attract the attention of historians, legal scholars, and students of interfaith relations as an early example of negotiated pluralism.

Many of the questions the Charter addressed remain familiar today. To understand why, we must first understand the city in which it emerged.

A city ready for change

Yathrib was shaped by strong tribal loyalties, and longstanding disputes permeated everyday life. Aws and Khazraj, the main Arab tribes, worshipped Manat and lived through long stretches of intermittent warfare. Jewish tribes had been in the city for centuries, with their own customs, legal practices, and alliances. Trade connected Yathrib to the wider region, yet local politics often reinforced division rather than cooperation.

By the early 600s, people wanted an arbitrator who could actually be accepted across factions. Their own leaders could no longer contain the conflicts, and every settlement risked reopening the next week. One name kept returning in these discussions: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He was known in Arabia for integrity, and for his refusal to bend to wealth or status.

His migration (Hijrah) to Yathrib in 622 CE, an event that marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, represented a turning point in the city’s history. Soon afterward, the Charter of Medina was drafted, providing a framework for regulating relations among its diverse communities and addressing many of the challenges that had long divided the city.  

A constitution ahead of its time

Many early political agreements spoke to only one group. A ruling elite. A single tribe. One religion, or one people. The Medina Charter moved in a different direction; it treated Muslims, Jews, and other groups living in Yathrib as part of a shared political community, without asking them to surrender their own religious or cultural lives. Rather than erasing differences, the Charter acknowledged them and established a set of shared rights and responsibilities.

The document’s significance lay not in abstract political theory but in its practical concerns. It addressed issues that shaped everyday life: dispute resolution, collective security, financial obligations, religious freedom, and the responsibilities communities owed to one another. Its provisions were intended to guide the daily life of a diverse city rather than merely express political ideals.  

Its structure rested on four guiding principles. Together, these principles shaped how peace and cooperation were maintained in Yathrib, and they continue to resonate in discussions of governance, pluralism, and social cohesion today.  

1. Unity without erasing identity

One of the Charter’s central features was its conception of the ummah: a community defined not simply by blood or tribe, but by shared responsibility. Yet the Charter did not demand uniformity. Article 2 affirmed that tribes could preserve many of their customary practices, including established methods of dispute resolution.  

The Charter did not require people to abandon tribal loyalties in order to participate in a broader political community. Instead, it recognized those loyalties while placing them within a shared framework of rights and obligations. Differences were not treated as problems to be erased. They were acknowledged, respected, and placed inside a shared set of duties. The Medina Charter represents an early attempt to address that balance—one that continues to invite comparison with similar challenges faced by modern constitutional systems.

2. Engineering cooperation through daily habits

One noble feature of the Charter was its use of everyday routines to build trust between groups. It wasn’t enough to declare peace; people needed to live it.

Article 22 required soldiers from different tribes to share their ride, literally sitting side by side in situations of danger. These small acts of interdependence slowly weakened tribal boundaries.

Article 21 required shared contributions toward common defense expenses. The same principle can be seen in modern security alliances, including, for example, shared defense spending negotiations in NATO. The Charter reflected a principle that continues to appear in modern systems of collective governance: cooperation is sustained when responsibilities are shared. These provisions were intended to shape everyday interactions, encouraging trust, familiarity, and a sense of shared responsibility across tribal boundaries.

3. Collective security and mutual protection

Another important feature of the Charter was its commitment to collective security. Article 38 stated that if any community bound by the Charter came under attack, the other signatories were expected to come to its defense. Communities that had once been divided by rivalry now assumed a shared responsibility for one another’s security.

At the same time, the Charter balanced that shared commitment with practical responsibility. Article 37 required each tribe to bear its own wartime expenses while contributing to the common defense. In doing so, it established a framework that combined mutual protection with clearly defined obligations, helping to reduce disputes over unequal burdens.

4. A trusted platform for justice

A central concern of the Medina Charter was the administration of justice. It recognized that peace could not endure unless disputes were resolved through an accepted legal authority. When disagreements arose that the Charter itself did not address, Article 42 required the parties to refer the matter to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather than allowing conflicts to escalate into cycles of retaliation, the Charter established a recognized forum for resolving disputes across tribal and religious boundaries.

The Charter also articulated an important ethical principle:

“Whoever is wronged must be helped, regardless of identity.”

This was a far cry from the tribal norms of the time and remains a model for contemporary peacebuilding.

What made the Medina Charter so modern?

Viewed through the lens of political science and constitutional history, the Medina Charter addresses questions that remain central to modern governance. It outlines principles of collective security, cooperation among religious communities, shared responsibility for public welfare, legal accountability, freedom of religion, financial obligations, and mechanisms for resolving disputes.

Its significance lies not only in its religious context but also in its civic vision. It functioned as a contract between diverse communities, rooted in the belief that justice is a shared human obligation.

Scholars such as Muhammad Hamidullah and Karen Armstrong have described it as the world’s first written constitution, while historians such as Said Amir Arjomand, Michael Lecker, R. B. Serjeant, Uri Rubin, and F. M. Denny have examined its legal, social, and communal dimensions in detail. Whether one emphasizes that constitutional claim or its broader sociolegal significance, the Charter stands well before the Magna Carta and later European social contract traditions as an early model of pluralistic governance.

The charter as a model of ethical leadership

The Charter also reflected the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) approach as a political leader. The way he led mattered for how the agreement functioned. Consultation informed decision-making, and moral commitment placed limits on the exercise of power. He demonstrated that authority could be firm without sliding into coercion, and that justice could be treated as an obligation rather than a slogan. His description of believers as “a single body” speaks to moral solidarity within the Muslim community; the Charter extended the search for order into a wider civic framework shared by Muslims, Jews, and other groups in Yathrib.

Differences did not disappear under the agreement; they were managed through shared responsibilities. Religious freedom did not appear as a temporary compromise, since it sat inside the structure of the community itself. Many societies still struggle with the same tensions, especially when identity politics deepen and legal order feels thin. The Charter continues to offer a historical example of how unity can be pursued without requiring uniformity.

Why the Charter still matters today

Contemporary peacebuilding literature often points to a few conditions that help diverse societies coexist. One is inclusion, understood today as attention not only to formal representatives but also to groups that may otherwise be absent from the process. Another is legitimate justice, since fair procedures and trusted forums reduce the pull of retaliation and private violence. A third is shared responsibility, since agreements fail when burdens fall on one side for too long.

The Medina Charter fits that pattern. It brought groups into one political community, and it did so without turning identity into a precondition for membership. It also directed disputes toward recognized procedures, reducing the likelihood that conflicts would return to cycles of private retaliation. Rights were accompanied by responsibilities, and authority was vested in a forum accepted by the Charter’s signatories.

Similar principles continue to appear in many contemporary peace agreements and constitutional frameworks, including those developed through the United Nations, the African Union, and other international institutions.

Conclusion

Return now to that small room where the Charter was signed. Picture the leaders of tribes that had long been caught in cycles of retaliation now placing their hopes in a shared agreement. Their differences remained, yet they chose cooperation over division, responsibility over revenge, and law over retaliation.

The Charter did not transform Medina overnight. Its significance lay in the way it guided everyday conduct, established shared expectations, and helped a divided city gradually reshape its habits. It asked little of shared identity, but much of character. Little of ritual, but much of restraint. Little of ideology, but much of responsibility.

The Medina Charter is often regarded as a landmark because it offered a framework for governing a divided city without requiring its communities to become the same. It sought to foster unity through shared obligations while recognizing the distinct identities of the groups it brought together. Rather than treating difference as an obstacle, it established common responsibilities that allowed diversity and cooperation to coexist.

More than fourteen centuries later, many societies face familiar pressures. Polarization deepens divisions, and public trust often erodes faster than institutions can respond. The Charter continues to invite reflection because it illustrates a sequence that remains relevant: define the community, establish shared responsibilities, provide trusted mechanisms for resolving disputes, and reduce the space for private retaliation. It is not a solution to every conflict, but it offers an enduring historical example of how peace can be sustained through shared commitments that people are willing to embrace.

References

1. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. (2001). “Conflict Resolution, Culture, and Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding.” Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 685-704. doi:10.1177/0022343301038006003

2. Arjomand, Said Amir. (2009). “The Constitution of Medina: A Sociolegal Interpretation of Muhammad’s Acts of Foundation of the Umma.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 41(4), 555-575. doi:10.1017/S002074380999033X

3. Armstrong, Karen. (2006). Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time. New York: Atlas Books/HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-115577-2.

4. Denny, F. M. (1977). “Ummah in the Constitution of Medina.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 36(1), 39-47. doi:10.1086/372530

5. Druckman, Daniel, and Lynn Wagner. (2019). “Justice Matters: Peace Negotiations, Stable Agreements, and Durable Peace.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(2), 287-316. doi:10.1177/0022002717739088

6. Hamidullah, M. 1975. The First Written Constitution in the World: An Important Document of the Time of the Holy Prophet. Lahore, Pakistan: Ashraf Printing Press.

7. Hamidullah, M. 1993. The Emergence of Islam: Lectures on the Development of Islamic World-view, Intellectual Tradition, and Polity. Islamabad, Pakistan: Islamic Research Institute.

8. Lecker, Michael. (2004). The “Constitution of Medina”: Muhammad’s First Legal Document. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press.

9. Nilsson, Desiree. (2012). “Anchoring the Peace: Civil Society Actors in Peace Accords and Durable Peace.” International Interactions, 38(2), 243-266. doi:10.1080/03050629.2012.659139

10. Rubin, Uri. (1985). “The ‘Constitution of Medina’: Some Notes.” Studia Islamica, 62, 5-23.

11. Serjeant, R. B. (1978). “The Sunnah Jami’ah, Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the Tahrim of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-called ‘Constitution of Medina’.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 41(1), 1-42.

12. Yildirim, Y., Peace and Conflict Resolution Concepts in the Medina Charter, Peace Review Journal, Taylor & Francis, January-March 2006, Volume 18, Number 1, P 109-119

13. Yildirim, Y., Peace and Conflict Resolution Concepts in the Madina Charter, Peace Review The Fountain, 2006 Issue 53 (January – March 2006) Peace and Conflict Resolution Concepts in the Madina Charter – The Fountain Magazine  

14. Yildirim, Y. (2009). The Medina Charter: A Historical Case of Conflict Resolution. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 20(4), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09596410903194894

The trajectory of his remarkable life, writings and work is easy to follow. Yet, most of what is written about him online is couched in simplistic, sloppy terms, revealing both the shallowness of social media and its power in creating and controlling narratives.

Erdogan’s rapid morphing into a 21st century absolutist sultan with plans for a 1000-roomed palace—which Gülen denounced as prohibited by Islam and which Erdogan completed—and his removal of prosecutors investigating allegations of his family’s financial corruption were but some of the things that provoked Gülen’s ire. Erdogan had to deal with an ancient challenge faced by numerous dictatorial sultans before: “Who will save me from this pesky cleric who had grown too big for his boots?”

The perfect opportunity came in 2016 with an attempted “coup”. (Among academic scholars, the jury is still out on whether this was a genuine coup or a planned sideshow by Erdogan to rally support.) Gülen and the movement he led were held responsible.

Gülen’s well-documented written works and speeches testify to a person deeply moved by his faith, simplicity, moral values, calls to justice and the spiritual underpinnings he desired as lodestars for Turkish society. He led an austere life, leaving no property or wealth behind.

Not once did Gülen suggest that he was interested in political power. He rejected what he regarded as the politicisation of religion. All the education institutions founded by the Hizmet Movement aimed to produce quality, well-rounded scholars in all fields, including education, science, Islamic and contemporary law.

I have closely observed the Hizmet movement in the US, Europe and South Africa for more than two decades. As a scholar of religion, I can smell a cult a mile away.

Wherever the Hizmet Movement has planted its seeds, its work has been characterised by serious attempts to engage — not proselytise — people of various communities. Notions of winning over “other Muslims” or non-Muslims are absent from its programmes. Its frequent inter-faith dialogue events are just that — to promote understanding between faiths and to advance the values that drive them.

As in 160 countries, Gülen’s vision inspired the global Hizmet Movement in South Africa. This movement has established schools producing the finest matric results in the country, charitable organisations and platforms for interfaith dialogue mainly focusing on promoting science, literacy and community service. The movement has a significant and deeply impressive footprint and is run by full-time volunteers and staff on a small budget.

Most moving is watching these volunteers set aside their pain as they go about the daily basis of their calling: living and acting in service of humanity in general and, more specifically, South African society.

Light persistently pursues darkness; they coexist in close companionship. The rhythm of days succeeding nights embodies this eternal balance. The intertwining of beauty and ugliness has remained an enduring truth since the very dawn of our world. Satan has been harassing humankind since the first day, just as our spirit has been confronting our carnality. The conflict between oppression and justice shows no sign of subsiding, while tumult has perpetually stood in contrast to order. Misguidance and guidance have alternately expanded and contracted; their relationship interwoven. The paths leading to Hellfire and the expansive highways to Paradise have stretched alongside each other, akin to parallel lanes, mirroring the perpetual emergence of mornings from the depths of nights.

Today is no different: sometimes we feel ensnared in darkness, and we yearn to cry out at the top of our lungs, “Everywhere is dark… / O Lord, is this evening or the grave!” (A. Hamit). At other times, we witness radiance permeating every corner and lights streaming in from all directions. Within the depths of the night lie countless glimmers and sunrises, one upon another, as darkness finds itself entangled in the web of light. It is a state of existence where everything you perceive and encounter feels akin to traversing the corridors of Heaven. Each individual holds in their grasp a bouquet of roses plucked from the highest Garden, meandering under the shelter of Divine Trust.

Then arrives a moment when you are overwhelmed by the unsightliness engulfing your horizon, often contingent on external events. Yet, following these unpleasant occurrences, unexpected beauties arise, sparking exhilaration and kindling a fervent spirit of gratitude. You incessantly proclaim, “Now is the time, the time is now,” seizing as many days, hours, minutes, and seconds as possible, thereby incensing Satan. Nonetheless, nearly as numerous are the unfavorable moments wherein your spirit succumbs to your physical self, and your rationality yields to your ego.

Abundant are the racket of tyranny, the terrifying growls of tyrants, the impudent shrieks of brute force, with spirits continually eroded by sin and transgression, falsehoods normalized, treachery seen as commonplace, and deceit applauded as cleverness… Yet, amidst these various forms of unbelief and vice tantamount to the rebellions of destroyed ancient nations, one witnesses numerous individuals reorienting themselves once again towards human values. Thus, whispers arise in the shadows and a commotion stirs among bats, even as nightingales begin to sing, unfazed, even in magpie nests. Indeed, while the number of those dragged into the abyss of Hellfire is countless, no fewer are those who stride purposefully towards the gates of Paradise.

Undoubtedly, certain forces persist in plunging the entire world into the throes of unprecedented chaos, even amidst this new era. Brazenly, they assume “everyone is blind and the whole world is senseless” (Z. Paşa). The absence of anyone to halt this onslaught constitutes an unparalleled agony for the oppressed and the suffering masses as a whole. It becomes evident that the bitter grievances of numerous nations, particularly certain marginalized communities, go unheard. How lamentable it is for all of us that there is not even a solitary voice that cries out, “Enough!”

It is now common knowledge that fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to life and freedom of speech, have morphed into privileges exclusively bestowed upon the powerful. Laws are crafted to safeguard the interests of the influential, while punitive measures are employed to suppress the vulnerable. Tyrants abound, each more ruthless than the next. Should one dare to dissent, the inevitable consequence is oppression. Conversely, should one dare to advocate for “truth” or “democracy,” they are swiftly subdued in the name of “civilization” and “modernity,” an occurrence not unfamiliar in the least.

For countless years, in nearly every corner of the world, feeble, defenseless, and underprivileged nations have been largely governed through sheer force, devoid of any semblance of accountability. Spanning the vast expanse of the Muslim world, from one end to the other, an unprecedented wave of oppression and injustice has taken hold. Miserable populations, miserable nations, lacking both regard for truth and empathy for fellow human beings; a landscape characterized by bloodshed, pus, and a bone-chilling brutality.

These events have persisted relentlessly and continue to do so, yet there exists the other side of the coin: Foremost, in our contemporary era, oppression stands on the brink of invoking God’s “protective care and intervention” (ghayrah). “Despotism, oppression, tyranny, disgrace / Hypocrisy, various vile scourges, various afflictions” (M. Akif [Ersoy]) have begun to awaken societies that have long remained dormant over the past few centuries. A myriad of radiant torchbearers now emerge, alongside a multitude of individuals capable of perceiving and comprehending the truth under this illuminating light.

In stark contrast to our incessant preoccupation with past nightmares, we now harbor gleaming, distinct thoughts woven with the dreams of a radiant future. Even if delayed, we can finally lay claim to “our tomorrow.” We conceive in our distinct manner and tread our own unique paths. The multitude seeking God’s approval and good pleasure will suffice for all, while those steadfastly dedicated to the truth are innumerable. Amidst the ever-expanding light that blankets the earth each day, darkness diminishes consistently. The world spins unceasingly, and numerous transformations occur at a rapid pace. As long as events continue unfolding in this manner, it remains undeniable that a celestial life will knock on our door, if not today, then in the very near future.

Who knows, when that particular moment arrives, like “a single drop of Ramadan” descending upon us from the throne of mercy, perhaps a universal grace and compassion will cascade and overflow upon us. The lands of the oppressed, which have transformed into an arid desert over the course of centuries, will then metamorphose into lands of dreams, drawing everyone towards them, much like moths drawn to a flame.

Throughout, there exists a palpable shift in our fortunes; we draw nearer to our intrinsic values, endeavor to understand them more deeply, and love them with a newfound sincerity as our familiarity deepens. Admiration fills us for faith and its manifold blessings; furthermore, we perceive it as an expression of compassion and faithfulness of the realms beyond. With pride, we reminisce about the illustrious days when we safeguarded it, laud those who harbor a sense of allegiance and devotion to it, and extend well-wishes of a safe journey to those steadfastly marching towards a radiant future, brimming with hope.

Perpetually journeying, reflections of the path permeate our inner worlds, each manifesting as a ray of light. The objective is God’s approval and good pleasure; the toil and weariness of the expedition do not daunt us. Observing those who, upon hearing the Divine’s Grand Name, are revitalized, it feels as if we too are revived once more alongside them. Waves of expansion and solace ripple through our hearts, one after another, our beings expanding as if to encompass the moon, the sun, and the entirety of the universe. Everything we encounter along the way whispers that we are destined for eternity.

In the present moment, it feels as though believing hearts have turned their gaze once more towards the celestial realms. Heavenliness appears in every direction, and the scent of the realms beyond seeps into our very souls. We perceive all of creation pulsating as one, in connection with Him, and occasionally, the warmth of the worlds beyond envelops our entire being. Each object and entity speak to us in a distinct verse, a unique melody of life, reflective of its individual plane of existence and special standing. We discern a distinct allure in everything and everyone. The horizons appear brighter, our vision sharper, and interpretation of creation more coherent. It is as if the lights of the spiritual realm twinkle in every corner, and a joyous tomorrow already weaves its own rhythm, its own design, into the fabric of existence. The world, which until yesterday resembled a graveyard, now stirs and emerges with life, as if a festival of “resurrection” unfolds all around. A heightened sense of the celestial graces the countenance of humanity. No longer do we view anything as an insurmountable enigma; instead, we behold all creation as a vibrant and meaningful tapestry, extolling it as a ballad, and experiencing every object and phenomenon in a novel light.

Under the luminance of faith, everything we perceive and behold appears as resplendent as a scene from Paradise, imbued with the hues of eternity. Time, space, creation, and events seem more pliant and precious when compared to yesteryears. Our hearts seem to recount the promise of brighter days ahead. In diverse ways, many individuals seem to envision a radiant future with a premonition, inwardly elated as if handed the key to transmute their misfortunes into prosperity. The jubilation of gaining something new with each step, coupled with the confidence of eventually attaining their place and purpose in the world’s equilibrium through this path, is evident in their demeanor and countenance.

Moreover, through this belief and expectation, their hope in crossing over the grave, the Day of Judgment, and the Bridge of Sirat in order to reach Paradise, is complete. They have believed from the depths of their heart that God will not forsake them, and with His grace and favor, they will overcome earthly and spiritual barriers. They bear witness to the world’s perpetual rotation, the alternation of light and darkness, night following day, the blossoming of spring within the embrace of winter, the emergence of ease after hardship, and the assurance that those who wept the day before will inevitably smile the next. Tomorrow is a new day; who can foresee what it may bring!

When crime happens, it usually involves two kinds of stakeholders: primary and secondary (McCold 2000). The categorization is based on who is affected the most, ranging from the victims and offenders as the most affected, to the community and the state as the least affected. Currently, conventional criminal justice systems around the world are still heavily punitive, resulting in the state, instead, becoming the primary stakeholders. This is because in most parts of criminal processes, the state acts as the main decisionmaker, often making the victims and offenders feel unheard.

To address this, various scholars argue for an alternative justice process that re-centers victims and offenders as primary stakeholders. Restorative justice, as one kind of alternative justice process, redirects the assumption that crime is a transgression against the state—which is the secondary stakeholder as it is indirectly affected by crime—to the view that crime is a transgression against the primary stakeholders, or the ones directly affected by the crime: the victims, the offenders, and their respective families (Fritz 2005, Wolhuter, Olley and Denham 2009). Programs of restorative justice include mediations between the victims and offenders, family group conferences, and community service.

Restorative justice is beneficial to both parties as it allows the criminal processes to be less punitive and more rehabilitative and nurturing. The benefits of restorative justice are extensive. For the victims, their satisfaction increases thanks to the platform allowing them to express their feelings related to their victimization (Latimer, Dowden and Muise 2005), and their fear of crime decreases (Umbreit, Coates and Kalanj 1994). For offenders, it has been documented that restorative justice reduces the likelihood of reoffending (Bradshaw, Roseborough and Umbreit 2006) and increases compliance with the outcome of criminal processes (Latimer, Dowden and Muise 2005).

These benefits are said to result from the nurturing components of restorative justice (Azman and Mohammad 2012). These components emphasize human interactions such as face-to-face meetups between the victims and the offenders, having an open dialogue, focusing on restoration rather than punishment, and underscoring community-based processes. Furthermore, rather than sidelining the victims, restorative justice encourages their participation, which also directly benefits the offenders due to increased empathy from the interactions.

Restorative justice and spirituality

Restorative justice is a form of social justice. Social justice has been the cause of many renowned spiritual individuals, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Bazemore and Schiff 2001). Although not usually mentioned by many restorative justice advocates and scholars, restorative justice has inherently spiritual elements.

It would be helpful to understand what I mean by spirituality. Spirituality is defined as a person’s relationship to the unknown (Senreich 2013). A bit differently, Zehr (1990)—considered a father of restorative justice—saw spirituality as universal principles and natural laws which cannot be ignored, such as the human need of connectedness. Another scholar defines spirituality with an emphasis on the process of a person’s development of a sense of meaning and purpose (Zastrow 2013).

Regardless of the many definitions, spirituality is agreed upon by various scholars to be different from religiosity (Koenig 2008). This is due to the existence of individuals who do not hold any relationship with God. These people can still be spiritual in ways, such as seeking the meaning and purpose of life with connectedness through other transcendental elements such as nature and the universe. Commonly, regardless of the existence of a belief system, seeking a high level of spirituality is often associated with fostering positive relationships with oneself, others, and the environment (Senreich 2013).

Human relationships are highly valued in restorative justice. In a typical restorative justice encounter, participants—often comprising victims, offenders, and, optionally, their family members—are encouraged to talk and listen to each other (Bender and Armour 2007). This process seeks to encourage empathy. Victims can understand why offenders committed the crime, and offenders understand what victims truly experience after being a victim of their crime. Criminal processes that lack this element of dialogue lack empathy—and often produce frustrated victims, and offenders who are ignorant about the true nature of their crime. This has negative impacts on the well-being of both the victims and the offenders.

Therefore, one of the ultimate goals of restorative justice is healing relationships. Literature points to the common characteristics of offenders who recidivate: their relationships with other people, such as their family members, community members, and others, are often broken (Cochran 2012, Wright and Wright 1993). Although their victim may not be an individual connected to the offender’s life before crime, a healed relationship between an offender with their victims may also be therapeutic for both. As a result, rather than having the mentality of “us vs. them,” restorative justice unites these separate individuals into one healing network.

Another concept associated with spirituality that has a parallel with restorative justice is the search for meaning. After their victimization, victims often require answers to many questions (Wemmers 2002) that are often unanswerable through conventional criminal justice systems. In a way, this can be viewed as victims searching for the “meaning” of their victimization. Furthermore, Umbreit (1989) argued that victims do not want revenge and want fairness that may be achieved in the form of direct accountability. One of the definitions of spirituality presented above sees spirituality as one’s search for meaning and purpose in life (Senreich 2013). This definition is in line with a philosophy of restorative justice that practices transparency and accountability among its participants through dialogues and exchanges of insights.

The concept of direct accountability in restorative justice is achieved in many ways. After a crime, victims often seek answers to many questions very personal to the victimization, such as “Why me?” and “How did you do it?” These questions seem simple, but they represent the victim’s deeper need for resolution and well-being. Not getting the answers to these questions brings the victims to dark places, including often demonizing the offenders. Conventional criminal processes are not able to provide the answers to these questions due to their impersonal and punitive approach to justice and their assumption that when a crime is committed, it is a transgression against the state, not the victims.

Forgiveness is another element of spirituality that is integrated into restorative justice (Bender and Armour 2007). Forgiveness is essentially finding values in others due to several reasons such as humanity and altruism, and this has been succinctly captured by Elkins et al. (1988), who stated that spiritual individuals usually have a mission in life that may include the idea of saving humanity. Furthermore, Elkins et al. denoted that a spiritual person is “tragically aware” in that they realize the flaws of human life. This includes other realities such as death, suffering, or even crime.

Victims who forgive in restorative justice encounters are reported to want to maintain their view that offenders are still human (Ezeihuoma 2018). Victims who forgive also experience a higher level of satisfaction, better mental health, and a lower fear of crime. However, to garner all these benefits, victims have to forgive voluntarily (although the platform to give forgiveness has to be provided). This is where restorative justice comes into the picture. Forgiveness is often an outcome of restorative justice encounters, and most victims and offenders want it to happen.

Achieving spiritual wellness through restorative justice

While restorative justice is a philosophy often discussed in the context of crime and criminal justice, restorative justice undoubtedly offers valuable insights for achieving spiritual wellness in everyday life, too. Social workers, as professionals whose ultimate goal is to achieve an optimal quality of life for their clients, often see spirituality as a gateway to tranquility and well-being. According to Elkins et al. (1988), spirituality has to be humanistic not just for its universality, but for its association with subjective human experience.

On an individual level, spiritual wellness may be achieved through a deep reflection towards connectedness with the self, others, and the environment. To achieve this, restorative justice proponents advocate for human interactions that can provide an individual with a multitude of perspectives which can increase understanding and empathy. Psychologists and social workers often integrate human interactions in various parts of their interventions such as family therapy and community service. Only through these human interactions can individuals be provided with resources for meaning and purpose via the perspectives of others. Therefore, an individual who finds meaning and purpose is an individual who is spiritually well.

Furthermore, restorative justice emphasizes the unconditional view that humanity is flawed. In this regard, the simplest phrase that can be used is “everyone makes mistakes.” This transcendental view of humanity accepts that flaws and mistakes do not demonize a person but humanize them. Appreciating this perspective is a difficult task as it is easy for humans to be struck by the realities of tragedies and is why forgiveness is valuable and can help individuals seeking spiritual enlightenment turn over a new leaf.

Conclusion

Spirituality is increasingly acknowledged as one of the basic human needs. Ignoring spirituality in human development can threaten comprehensive wellbeing. This article explains restorative justice as an alternative approach to justice and shows how the success of restorative justice may be explained partly through its spiritual elements such as forgiveness and human connectedness. However, there is much to learn from the philosophy and practice of restorative justice which can be useful for everyday life. Integrating restorative justice into everyday life, even in the smallest ways, can help foster wellbeing, especially in the spiritual sense.

References

Azman, Azlinda, and Mohd Taufik Mohammad. 2012. “Crime victims support system and restorative justice: Possible implementation in Malaysia.” Journal of Arts and Humanities 1: 18-26.

Bazemore, Gordon , and Mara Schiff. 2001. Restorative community justice: Repairing harm and transforming communities. London: Routledge.

Bender, K, and M Armour. 2007. “The spiritual components of restorative justice.” Victims & Offenders 2: 251-267.

Bradshaw, William, David Roseborough, and Mark S Umbreit. 2006. “The effect of victim offender mediation on juvenile offender recidivism: A meta-analysis.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24: 87-98.

Cochran, J C. 2012. “The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship between visitation and prisoner misconduct.” Journal of Criminal Justice 40: 433–440.

Elkins, D N, L J Hedstrom, L L Hughes, J A Leaf, and C Saunders. 1988. “Toward a humanistic-phenomenological spirituality: Definition, description, and measurement.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 28: 5-18.

Ezeihuoma, O P. 2018. “The therapeutic role of forgiveness in restorative justice.” Journal of Law and Criminal Justice 6: 47-54.

Fritz, David. 2005. “A vital Christian presence in social work.” North American Association of Christians in Social Work Convention. Connecticut: North American Association of Christians in Social Work (NACSW).

Koenig, H G. 2008. “Concerns about measuring “spirituality” in research.” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 196: 349-355.

Latimer, Jeff , Craig Dowden, and Danielle Muise. 2005. “The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis.” The Prison Journal 85: 127-144.

McCold, Paul. 2000. “Toward a mid-range theory of restorative criminal justice: A reply to the Maximalist model.” Contemporary Justice Review 3: 357-414.

Senreich, E. 2013. “An inclusive definition of spirituality for social work education and practice.” Journal of Social Work Education 49: 548-563.

Umbreit, M S, R B Coates, and B Kalanj. 1994. Victim meets offender: The impact of restorative justice and mediation. Victoria: Australia: Criminal Justice Press.

Umbreit, Mark S. 1989. “Crime victims seeking fairness, not revenge: Toward restorative justice.” Fed. Probation 53: 52.

Wemmers, JoAnne. 2002. “Restorative justice for victims of crime: A victim-oriented approach to restorative justice.” International Review of Victimology 9: 43-59.

Wolhuter, Lorraine, Neil Olley, and David Denham. 2009. Victimology: Victimisation and victims’ rights. Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish.

Wright, K N, and K E Wright. 1993. “Family life and delinquency and crime.” National Criminal Justice Reference Service. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/140517NCJRS.pdf.

Zastrow, C H. 2013. The practice of social work: A comprehensive worktext. Brooks/Cole-Cengage Learning.

Zehr, H. 1990. Changing lenses: Restorative justice for our times. Herald Press.

Many of us must have watched a video in which a mother antelope is sacrificing herself when she saw a crocodile was approaching from behind her fawns.

Such incidences in the animal kingdom draw our attention to the innate feeling of compassion in humans and its effects on other emotions. A human whose feeling of compassion has dried up cannot show the sacrifice that the antelope has shown to her little fawns—not toward others, not even to their offspring. Studies in the field of psychology have established important facts about compassion and its effect on other emotions, especially forgiveness. When internalized, the feeling of affection plays a central role and positively influences other feelings. When this feeling dries up, a person becomes more susceptible to evil or cruel acts. American psychologist Kristin Neff gives the example of a battery when describing compassion toward our beloved ones and friends. She asserts that acquiring this emotion is a way of emotionally recharging our batteries and says that compassion strengthens our tendencies to forgive the wrongdoings of our friends.

It is striking that Ms. Neff considers forgiveness and compassion from the point of one’s close circle of friends. According to her, an internalized compassion makes forgiving easier and, to an extent, gives us the opportunity to heal the emotional wounds caused by others. However, by stressing that forgiving doesn’t mean giving up defending our rights, Neff also points out the need to keep balance between compassion, forgiveness, and justice [1]. When a criminal act is committed, a personal or public right is violated. People tried and found guilty by an independent, just, and impartial court must be penalized.

Source of bad intentions

Psychotherapist Beverly Engel, who has written books on emotions, draws attention to the complications that a lack of compassion can cause in human psychology. According to her, the source of every evil desire in individuals is a deficiency of compassion. Beverly Engel states that reinvigorating the feeling of compassion can help healing other emotions that have been damaged [2]. For Tara Brach, to be compassionate means to be courageous—to love ourselves, each other, and the whole world [3].

Norwegian Theologians Einar Berg and Oddbjørn Leirvik, who conduct research about Islam, investigate the religious grounds that compassion can blossom upon and link this feeling with the Holy Qur’an and its unequalled representative Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Leirvik compares Prophet Muhammad’s forgiveness to Prophet Joseph (peace be upon him); just like Joseph forgave his brothers who had treated him cruelly, Leirvik reminds us that Prophet Muhammad forgave his enemies when he conquered Mecca [4]. According to Berg, compassion and forgiveness are what the Holy Qur’an often emphasizes [5]. Berg sheds light on the feeling of compassion by highlighting the following verse: “Inform My servants that I am the Forgiver, the Merciful” (Surah Hijr – The Rock- verse 49).

As also mentioned by Berg, in Islam a great emphasis is placed on compassion and forgiveness – for forgiveness is a manifestation of compassion. God introduces Himself to us with His divine names al-Rahman (the Gracious) and al-Raheem (the Merciful). Many verses of the Qur’an mention God’s blessed name, al-Rauf (the most Benevolent, most Compassionate) [6]. Manifestations of these divine names can be seen to the utmost level in Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), who is described as “the Sun of Compassion” and “the Prophet of Mercy.”

Al-Ragheb al-Isfahani and Al-Jawhari (two prominent Muslim scholars) state that compassion and mercy are the most significant attributes of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). They explain that the word “Rahma” in the verse, “We did not send you except as mercy to mankind” (Surah Anbiya -The Prophets- verse 107), means deep affection and kindness which require being tender-hearted, forgiving, and beneficent [7]. For this reason, Muslim scholars often refer to the following Hadith of Prophet Muhammad: “God the Gracious treats with mercy and kindness those who treat each other with feelings of mercy. (So) you act with mercy and kindness toward those on earth so that those in heavens shall show you mercy” [8].

Real chivalry

Fudayl bin Iyadh, too, addresses forgiveness relating to close friends and says that real chivalry is to forgive the faults of one’s companions. Wahb bin Munabbih mentions compassion together with benignity and states that, “Compassion is the twin sister of benignity” [9]. According to Imam Ghazali, one believer forgiving another believer’s mistakes is one of the rights of brotherhood [10].

In the teachings of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, compassion has an important place. For him, compassion is one of the “fastest and safest” ways leading us to truth, and it is also one of the principles among the laws established in nature. He states that compassion has an all-comprehensive truth and acts as a mirror for the divine name al-Rahim (The Merciful). A person whose senses and emotions have gained integrity and wholeness, begins showing affection, not only to his or her own offspring but to all innocent beings. Bediuzzaman draws attention to the point that compassion is a sincere, pure, and gratuitous feeling that does not expect any return, and shows animals’ adorable and self-denying affection toward their little babies as evidence for this fact [11].

When we consider the mercy and compassion of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, we see that correctly and properly fulfilling the duty of conveying and instructing the divine message is strongly linked with earnest compassion and tender mercy. No matter when they live, it is absolutely fundamental for the conveyors of this divine message to never deviate from this path [12]. Scholar Fethullah Gülen reminds that Islam advises forgiving by any means possible, not to surrender to the urges of grudge or hatred, and to never be possessed by the feeling of revenge [13].

References

1. 1. Kristin Neff, Self-Compassion: The Proven Power of Being Kind to Yourself, 2011.
2. Beverly Engel, It Wasn’t Your Fault, New Harbinger Publications. 2015.
3. Tara Brach, Radical Compassion, New York: Viking, 2019.
4. Oddbjørn Leirvik, Islams Etikk, Universitetsforlaget, 2002, p. 45.
5. Einar Berg, Islam: Fra konfilikt til dialog, Universitetsforlaget, 1982.
6. Nur 24:20; Nahl 16:47; Tawbah 9:128.
7. ar-Ragib al-Isfahani, al-Mufradat, p. 191; al-Jawhari, as-Sihah, V, 1929; al-Munjid, “rhm,” p. 253. Bukhari, Janaiz 32, Ayman 9, Tawhid 25; Muslim, Janaiz 9, 11; Abu Dawud, Janaiz 24.
8. Tirmidhi, Birr 16; Abu Dawud, Adab 58.
9. Imam Ghazali, Ihya-i Ulumi’d-Din, Edited by: Dr. Mehmet Yavuz Şeker, Işık Yayınları. 2015.
10. Ibid.
11. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Mektubat, Istanbul: Şahdamar Yayınları, 2014, p. 29.
12. www.herkul.org/kirik-testi/sefkatle-acilan-kapilar/
13. M. Fethullah Gülen, “İnanmış İnsanın Nitelikleri”, Çağlayan, Ağustos 2020.

In a March 11, 2021, interview with Philosophy Magazine, Karl Lauterbach, now Germany’s health minister, concluded, “Corona policy is covered by Rawls.” Lauterbach, who advocates for limiting freedoms in favor of health protection during the current pandemic, had studied with Rawls in the 1990s. John Rawls, who would have turned 100 in 2021, is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. His Theory of Justice was published 51 years ago.

Personal experiences may have contributed to the fact that Rawls devoted himself almost exclusively to the topic of justice (his second main work deals with international law). He came from a well-to-do family and enjoyed a private school education. He fell seriously ill twice in his childhood but survived while two siblings died. Rawls felt this was an undeserved privilege. In addition, he had personal experiences as a soldier in the war against Japan. He considered the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be unjust, as he believed the war would have been won even without them.

The ancient understanding of justice

Rawls’ conception of justice has little in common with ancient virtue ethics, such as that of Aristotle. Virtue here means something like fitness to achieve an end (télos) inherent in a thing. Who should get a flute? For Aristotle, it is just to give it to the person who plays it best, because the purpose of the flute is to be played well. The fact that people enjoy its sound and thus benefit from it is secondary. Rather, the idea of merit plays a role.

With Plato, justice (dikaiosýne) means that all soul forces (reason, courage, desire) fulfill the activity assigned to them in the correct measure given by reason and thus fulfill the virtues of wisdom, bravery, and moderation. But justice implies also having the “right” inner order of the soul forces, as there is a “right” outer order, the cosmos ruled by the logos. The goal of justice, taken for granted, is the attainment of happiness (eudaimonia).

Kant’s categorical imperative

Rawls’ thinking, on the other hand, bears certain similarities to that of Immanuel Kant. With the categorical imperative, Kant had formulated a general rule on the basis of which personal or collective (traditional) principles of action are to be examined: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” This imperative demands the generalizing of the personal: my norm must apply to everyone. For example: you shall not kill or lie. The similarity with the golden rule, which is based on the reversibility of actions, is obvious: “Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated.”

Kant is not a utilitarian or consequentialist—i.e., someone who focuses on benefits or consequences. He is not concerned with advantages for society nor with the consequences of an action, but solely with the internal consistency of a will that declares itself to be good.

The original position in Rawls

Whereas Kant’s imperative represents an (ethical) norm of the verification of real (moral) rules of conduct originating in the living world, Rawls assumes an “original position,” a primal situation in which a rational subject oriented to self-interest must decide on a social constitution. In this way, he joins the contractarian thinking of the modern era, whose best-known representatives are Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. This had led to very different results, ranging from the authoritarian state (Hobbes) to the liberal state with separation of powers (Locke) to a state oriented to the common good (volonté générale) in Rousseau.

While the classical contract theories wanted to justify the emergence and thus the legitimacy of states, Rawls is only concerned with their institutional configuration and, in particular, with how economic life (markets, wealth, and income) can be fairly regulated in them. For him, justice means fairness of the initial conditions. The point of his primal choice is that it takes place behind a “veil of ignorance.” This image is reminiscent of the allegorical representation of Justitia, who makes her legal judgment blindfolded—that is, “without regard to the person.” The blindfold thus ensures impartiality.

With Rawls, man in the primal situation does not know his future social position (class, standing), gender, ethnicity, religion, etc., but also personal characteristics and talents are unknown to him [1]. Furthermore, he also does not know how often certain positions in society will be occupied—for example how many rich, how many poor, and how many middle-class people there will be. His choice is therefore not made under risk but under uncertainty. In a sense, it is a lottery, not a chess game, in which one must consider the behavior of other participants and calculate the best possible outcome. This represents a major preliminary decision against utilitarianism, which was dominant in the Anglo-Saxon world in his time. One variety of this doctrine holds that a society is just if it maximizes total and, consequently, average, utility. Determining this maximum utility, however, is impossible under Rawls’s specifications, since it presupposes that one can form the product of social position and “wealth” (benefits of all kinds). At most, one could assume that each of the possible social positions is equally probable (here, 1/3). However, this implies the completely unrealistic assumption that the number of kings (billionaires) and the number of slaves (unemployed, low-wage workers) would be equal.

Behind the rejection of utilitarianism lies a genuine ethical principle. According to Kant, man possesses dignity insofar as he is never only a means (e.g., an employee working for a company), but always also an end (a moral subject whom I must not deceive, etc.). Utilitarianism in the sense of the greatest happiness of the greatest number would mean, however, to instrumentalize a human being for the common good if necessary—for example, to withhold rights from him, if the loss of freedom is (over-)compensated for by the good of others.

Two principles

Rawls holds that, given ignorance of themselves, people would choose the following two social principles on rational grounds (i.e., without being driven by envy):

First principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

Second principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity [2].

In this context, the goods falling under the first principle, namely freedoms, are superior to those falling under the second—(a) income and wealth and (b) opportunities—and must not be impaired.

A rational person, Rawls argues, would decide according to the maximin rule in the face of complete uncertainty. He will not choose the state that promises him the most money, the most power (billionaire, king), but will take his orientation at the lower end and choose the state that grants the most rights, the best opportunities, and the highest income to the worst off. Not knowing what his future situation will be, he will seek to maximize the minimum because he shuns risk. As a loser in the lottery, he would eventually find himself homeless on the street.

With the first principle, Rawls specifies the freedoms of Western democracies (free elections, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.). It states that one must compare the situation of the respective worse off in a “system of rights.” For example, with regard to religious freedom, Rawls would argue that a fundamentalist who wants to establish a state religion is less disadvantaged in a secular state, where religion and state are separate, than a person who does not belong to the state church is in a “fundamentalist” state.

The second principle also involves organizing the state “to the greatest advantage” of the worst-off. Thus, it is not enough that the worst-off also have some benefit from the distribution of goods (for example, according to the trickle-down principle, which states that the money of the rich “leaks out” to the poor), but it must be the greatest in comparison with other distributions. Intergenerational equity (“consistent with the just savings principle,” no state may incur excessive debt at the expense of the next generation) must also be considered, with which Rawls already anticipated a debt brake. (However, he did not yet have the destruction of the environment in mind).

But there is a second side to the coin: differences, i.e., inequalities, are permissible if they improve the situation of the deprived. Rawls called this principle the “difference principle.” As another example, a market economy would be justified, despite all social and financial differences, if it provided the weakest in society with a higher income than an egalitarian state economy in which everyone pro forma owned the means of production (without ever being able to sell them). Whether this is actually so, however, is a matter for economists to decide.

Rawls is thus not fundamentally in favor of an equal distribution of goods. The situation is different for rights and freedoms, but also for opportunities, such as access to education and public office. Here, the state must intervene—for example, by increasing the supply of good schools or introducing universal health care (which still does not exist in the United States). However, for the most part it is not at all clear who the worst-off in a society are. During the Covid-19 pandemic, is it the elderly who get sick, or the children who can’t go to school or visit friends? Does data protection (e.g., tracking cases of illness via apps) beat health protection? Or health protection the right to physical integrity (vaccination), freedom of assembly and movement (lockdown, breaking up demonstrations)? Incidentally, Lauterbach argues for the latter, citing Rawls, by pointing out that securing life is a prerequisite for being able to make use of freedoms at all. Whoever dies from Covid no longer has liberties to use.

Criticism

Philosophical theories suffer from a lack of ultimate justification. As a rule, they contain assumptions—e.g., about the “nature” of man—which are empirically disputed by others, such as with reference to presumed scientific evidence, personal observation, or introspection. Rawls, for example, considers humans to be risk-averse, which a philosophical optimist would probably doubt.

Above all, however, the conception of a primordial situation has been criticized. From a liberalist point of view, it lacks the historical dimension. According to this view, property goes back to free actions of individuals and thus to rights of entitlement (taking of nature, exchange, inheritance, donation, etc.) and has nothing to do with distribution patterns of any kind. Thus, even in an egalitarian society, new distributions (injustices) will emerge very quickly (which can be well observed in the game of Monopoly), necessitating constant new interventions.

Communitarians, on the other hand, emphasize the importance of community. With the fiction of a primordial choice and a veil of ignorance, behind which is chosen according to the rules of a calculus, a tabula rasa is arbitrarily established, from which neither solidarity nor substantial justice can be derived. Rather, the individual is involved in socially established cooperative practices that have internal rules, virtues, and purposes. In the background of these considerations is Hegel’s concept of “Sittlichkeit” (ethical life). Sittlichkeit implies more than an abstract system of (moral) norms, as conceived by Rawls. It is the form of life passed on by a community, which also includes religions with their canons of values.

Finally, especially in Germany, there is the position of discourse ethics, whose most prominent representative is Habermas. It differs from Rawls’ original situation in that it is not an abstract calculation that decides on justice but a discourse free of domination—a deliberation in which everyone can participate as a speaker equally but in which, turned against communitarianism, traditional practices, discourses, and virtues can also be questioned. Even if such a discourse does not take place in reality, so the assumption goes, it is implicitly presupposed in every utterance insofar as it lays claim to validity. Where Rawls considers the maximin principle to be generally agreeable, Habermas believes in the “unconstrained compulsion of the better argument” and the self-commitment of speakers to truth and reason. However, in view of the testy public debates, especially those around fake news that we are currently experiencing, this position also seems doubtful. One might suspect that they are rather “monologues” for the assertion of interpretive power, which, moreover, do not end in agreement but in the audience’s exhaustion.

Notes

1. From a moral philosophical point of view, this assumption can be justified by the fact that neither genetic endowment (nature) nor environmental conditions such as education and social milieu (nurture) can be attributed to merit. From this it should follow that also “strength of will” and “weakness of will” and consequently the use I make of my abilities are morally arbitrary. Diligence, decisiveness, resilience, etc., which are crucial for developing talents, would thus also not be in the hands of the individual. However, Rawls seems to be reluctant to accept this consequence, since it would have far-reaching consequences for the punishment system, for example.
2. John Rawls (1999): A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 46, p. 266.

In recent years, attitudes and legislation have made life more difficult for oppressed peoples, including refugees, around the world. Many people believe their countries should accept fewer refugees. People believe that refugees are nothing but a burden to their countries, and that they will take away jobs and reduce the standards of living (Wike, Stokes, and Simmons, 2016). Tougher laws against refugees and asylum seekers have been passed in countries like Austria; these laws restrict access to protection for refugees. The law also restricts the rights of the asylum seekers, allowing authorities to turn away migrants at the border (Hume, 2016). Increased security concerns such as the belief that refugees will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks and increase the crime rate in a country have been used to turn away these oppressed groups (Wike, Stokes, and Simmons, 2016).

Cases of increased racial discrimination towards members of other religions and races, as well as towards immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees, have increased where they are deprived of access to the most fundamental of human rights and protection. In such instances, minorities are left exposed to and unprotected from xenophobic attacks and discrimination. In such climates, media often plays a role in building a hostile environment of mistrust and misinformation.

Since the days of the famous economist Max Weber, religion has been viewed as both a cause and outcome of economic development, with the adoption of religious principles being a contributor to economic progress (Michalopoulos, Naghavi & Prarolo, 2014). For instance, the adoption of Muslim economic principles has a long term effect on the economic development of Muslim lands; the adoption of Christian principles, mainly Protestantism, had a significant effect on the economic prosperity of many individuals in the West; and a change in the Judaic religious doctrine in the second century improved Jewish human capital by increasing literacy (Michalopoulos et al., 2014).

 Different religions have different values and perspectives on how the issues of economic inequality, racial discrimination, and intolerance should be addressed. An understanding of Islamic, Christian, and Jewish values will lead to a deeper knowledge of the three Abrahamic faiths and an understanding of how to improve the common good.

The three religions agree that caring for others is essential and obedience to one’s faith will reduce negative attitudes towards vulnerable groups. People practicing the three Abrahamic religions can work together and condemn the individuals targeting minorities and newcomers, reducing the effects of intolerance and racism while also combatting economic inequality.

Islam

In Islam, economic inequality is considered as human condition only in the proportion of skill, initiative, and effort. Islam also teaches against extreme economic inequality, and it emphasizes that all resources are a gift from God, with Qur’an 2:29 stating that “It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth…” People are entrusted with these gifts for a short time (Qur’an 57:7) (Christopher & Hayat, 2012).

The Islamic economic system is based on three divine principles which establish a “falahi” or an Islamic welfare economic system. The first principle is that man is not the absolute owner of resources because they are God’s and man is just a trustee. Second, economic activities should not be guided by self-interest only. And third, the religious aspect of earning and spending are as important as Islam’s other worship obligations and practices (Haq, 2013).

Haq (2013) identifies the systems of Ushr and Zakat, elements of the Islamic economic system which has significant implications on the distribution of income and wealth. Ushr is an obligatory payment from agricultural output, while Zakat is paid for accumulated wealth; Haq (2013) identifies the latter as a major instrument of restricting the excessive accumulation of wealth, as Zakat helps the poor and vulnerable members of society. The wealthy and the elite are warned that they will be hold accountable for disregarding vulnerable groups (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 486).

Muslims are expected to value the poor, and they should spend from their wealth to help the poor: “God said, ‘O son of Adam! Spend, and I shall spend on you’” (Sahih-Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 64, Number 264). Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, reformed the value of taking care of the poor and treating everybody with respect as a way of addressing economic inequality.

Islam also teaches that there should be respect for people of other religions. Prophet Muhammad said, “Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” Islam teaches that caring for others is not optional but a religious duty.

Islam is against any form of discrimination towards any one, and it teaches that differences in color, tribe, race, or tradition should not be taken as an excuse for unfair treatment. The Qur’an is against any form of racial discrimination, and it states, “O Mankind, we created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into tribes and nations so that you may know each other (not that you despise each other). Verily, the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is most righteous of you” (Al-Quran 49:13). Islam advocates for equality among all people as members of one human race.

The Qur’an teaches that all people were created by God, and it states in Surah 30:22 that, “of His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your tongues and colors.” Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also taught that all people are to be treated equally; in his last sermon, he stated that, “All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, an Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab; a white person is not better than a black person, nor is a black person better than a white person except by piety and good actions. Learn that every Muslim is the brother of every other Muslim and that Muslims form one brotherhood.” Muslims are encouraged to stand up and challenge racism and intolerance whenever they see the laws of God being broken.

Christianity

Christianity teaches that all wealth comes from God, and He is in complete ownership and control of all things. Deuteronomy 10:14 (New International Version) states, “Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.” Christianity holds the view that all the riches and wealth that man possess are a gift from God: “Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil-this is a gift of God” (Ecclesiastes 5:19, New International version). Christianity acknowledges the fact that some people will be more economically able compared to others, but this should not make such individuals reject the most vulnerable members of society.

Christianity also teaches that people should care for the oppressed and the poor. Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (New International Version) states that, “If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.”

The apostle Paul teaches the Corinthians that there should be a fair balance so that a person does not have too much or too little. Christianity emphasizes that the immigrant and refugee crisis experienced so far could be solved by reducing economic inequality in the world.

 “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At present your plenty will supply what they need so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: ‘The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little’” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15, New International version). 

Christianity calls for its followers to show “agape” love, where individuals care for those in need. Agape love would reduce the negative attitudes towards members of other religions and races, and people would not practice discrimination or attack vulnerable groups.

The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing drastically in the world we live in. Jesus Christ discouraged the accumulation of wealth, and He gave the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 19:16-31, New International Version) to warn people against accumulating wealth without caring for those in need. Jesus also gave the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37, New International Version) who helped a stranger. Christianity extols individuals to care and welcome the vulnerable people in society.

Therefore, Christianity instills the values of love for one another and having compassion for another person. If individuals followed such values, practices like racism, intolerance, and violence against other people would end.

Judaism

According to Sauer & Sauer (2016), Judaism puts forward two axioms of the Jewish economic theory which have a significant effect on the matter of economic inequality. The first axiom is that God is the creator of the world (Genesis 1:1, New International Version) and man was created in God’s image. Man was then given the world and complete dominion over it, and he should help perfect it through the utilization of resources, work, and innovation (Sauer & Sauer 2016). The second axiom is that man is required and obligated to care for the needy, and the Torah has moral principles which should guide how a man treats others. The Torah, in Leviticus 25:10 (New International Version), states, “proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof,” and this means that foreigners, newcomers, and minorities were to be set free (Sacks, 2015).

The Torah imposed certain infringements on personal property which were designed to ensure that the gap between the economic classes was reduced, avoiding instances of extreme wealth or poverty (Sicker, 2001). There was the law of the sabbatical year, which required that the land should rest and lay fallow in the seventh year, letting the poor people eat (Exodus 23:10-11, New International Version). The law also required that all debts in the seventh year should be forgiven, and every creditor should release that which the neighbor owes. Such laws had a significant effect on reducing the economic inequalities between people.

Judaism removes the system of human and economic freedom from the hands of human legislators. The Torah states that, “Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves” (Leviticus 25:42, New International Version), and this means that personal liberty is not opened up for any political negotiations. Contemporary political and media discourses have made it difficult to integrate oppressed people, but Judaism promotes the values that will see such violence and intolerance reduced.

Judaism takes a positive approach towards all people and teaches that everyone is equal in the eyes of the Creator, and, therefore, all individuals should be treated well. Strangers, refugees, and foreigners are supposed to be treated fairly, as recorded in Leviticus 19:33-34 (New International Version) which states that, “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not ill-treat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

The three Abrahamic religions promote values that seek to address the issue of economic inequality and the effects of it, such as discrimination and rejection of vulnerable groups. The core values of the three Abrahamic religions are equality among all member of human family, because God is the creator of all; care for those in need; and the need to show love to vulnerable groups. Therefore, religion has a significant role to play at reducing economic inequality in society, and it is crucial that people take their religious values with more seriousness.

References

• Al-Quran 2:29, 57:7, 49:13,30:22
• Christopher, C. & Hayat, A. (2012). Equitable Distribution of Wealth: The Economic System of Islam. Inside Islam. Retrieved 14 September 2016, from http://insideislam.wisc.edu/2012/05/equitable-distribution-of-wealth-the-economic-system-of-islam/
• Deuteronomy (10:14, 15:7-8), Ecclesiastes 5:19, Leviticus (19:33-34, 25:10, 25:42), Genesis 1:1, Luke (10:25-37, Luke 19:16-31), 2 Corinthians 8:13-15 (New International Version).
• Di Matteo, L. (2014). All Equal in the Sight of God: Economic Inequality and Religion in the Early Twentieth Century. Lakehead University.
• Haq, G. (2013). Distribution of wealth and Income in Islam. South East Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, 2(2).
• Hume, T. (2016). “Austria passes tough new asylum laws.” CNN. Retrieved 18 September 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/28/europe/austria-tough-migrant-laws/
• Michalopoulos, S., Naghavi, A., & Prarolo, G. (2014). Islam, Inequality, and Pre-Industrial Comparative Development. Harvard Business School.
• Sacks, J. (2015). Judaism Was First in Fight Against Income Inequality. Algemeiner.com. Retrieved 14 September 2016, from http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/05/07/judaism-was-first-in-fight-against-income-inequality/#
• Sahih Al-Bukhari (Volume 2 Book 24 Number 486, Volume 7 Book 54 Number 264).
• Sauer, C. & Sauer, R. (2016). Jewish Theology and Economic Theory. Journal Of Markets And Morality, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-17-number-1/jewish-theology-and-economic-theory
• Sicker, M. (2001). The Political Culture of Judaism (p. 99). Praeger Publishers.
• Wike, R., Stokes, B., & Simmons, K. (2016). Europeans Fear Wave of Refugees Will Mean More Terrorism, Fewer Jobs. Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved 18 September 2016, from http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/europeans-fear-wave-of-refugees-will-mean-more-terrorism-fewer-jobs/

How can we then speak of absolute justice when there are so many innocents oppressed, murdered, and their rights confiscated at the hands of tyrants? “Is God just” Dr. Horkuc asks in this issue when He creates people in their respective particular places and under particular conditions and expect the same scores from both? Horkuc writes in this issue that the cup analogy of Bediuzzaman offers a solution to this dilemma.

Occupied with extreme work load, a great majority of us in modern times are bent double and exhausted in most cases to the point of total collapse. Is it only the amount of unnecessary work load or that we do not know how to deal with the present conditions that underlies this exhaustion? Ihsan Kose argues for a “minimum work principle” in the universe. From gravity to routes ants pursue on their tracks, to electrical circuit boards, the path light moves and all phenomena in the universe apparently manifest themselves with one common thing: lowest energy consumption. The article is prescriptive in the sense that whatever we may be busy with, we can and we should find the most efficient formula for best outcome in return for minimum amount of energy, so that we can make best of our stamina reserves.

Computer games are approached with suspicion, yet the number of people engaging with games and the amount of hours and even days we spend for them are increasing. “Gamification,” however, Ahmet Tugra argues, has become a trendy word. “It aims at transforming real life context in a manner that adopts game thinking in online platforms. From this perspective, it proposes to increase motivation, engagement, sense of enjoyment, and the positive attitudes of people towards work.” Games enhance cognitive development in children, and a balanced adaptation of games into real life contexts may help us generate more convenient work and family environment for adults.

Civil society has yet to define and accept broader human rights … The struggle goes on, building on those who went before us, for the benefit of those who come after us.

The 50th anniversary of President John Kennedy’s assassination this year is poignant for those of us who were well along in high school or had begun college when we heard the news that awful Friday afternoon. We still remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when the word came. I was in the locker room in the seminary dormitory with some classmates when a friend ran in to tell us. First came shock; then, hopeful denial. The television, however, confirmed the unbelievable reality. The next three days we rarely budged from in front of the television – not until the state funeral had ended.

Kennedy was, for many of us, the promise of our generation. His eloquence, humor, and charm captured our idealism, as certainly as his call-to-action inaugural address – “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” – inspired us to build our communities and bring our country further along the path of democracy. He urged us to reach out to the world. The Peace Corps, which Kennedy proposed at the University of Michigan during his campaign, captured our imagination.

Tragic history has a way of deadening dreams, and casting youthful idealism upon its ash heap. We strove to resist that trajectory and continued to push our energy forward in the civil rights movement, and those movements that followed … for women, the environment, and peace.

Many of my generation answered the call, and, with the help of Lyndon Johnson’s masterful implementation, and expansion, of Kennedy’s ideals, joined the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, or the War on Poverty. Others of us dedicated ourselves to other visions of civil society. Some of us were brutally tortured to death. Many were beaten bloody at lunch counters and on buses, or had snarling dogs set upon them. Terroristic violence even killed four little girls at Sunday school in Birmingham, Alabama.

We endured the pain of the unimaginable assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., and strove with grit to keep the dream alive and steady the course, despite the odds set against us.

Of course, we were not alone. We were building on the shoulders of the other generations in our time, and marching with them. All of us were honoring the legacy, lives, and struggles of those who had gone before us and now rested in peace. But it was Kennedy’s clarion voice that called us younger folks forth.

I myself ended up in the farm workers movement, following the leadership of César Chávez, and eventually moved into broader human rights efforts.

As I look back fifty years, I have learned that the struggle is so much more difficult than what we had seen through our idealistic-tinted glasses. I still cannot bear to watch the anniversary replays of President Kennedy’s assassination, and this year is even worse.

But there is never a moment that I don’t feel a stirring deep within my heart when I watch his inaugural address or listen to his speeches calling upon our “better angels,” as another assassinated president, Abraham Lincoln, did a hundred years earlier.

It is with the same stirring of heart that I watch the next generations so passionately pick up the struggle to make the dream real.

When I look back, I also see other formative people and events that helped move me in this direction. I have learned from this that everything we do well in life has a good impact on others and that we can always learn from the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Probably the person who influenced my life the most was my grandmother. She was an intensely devout Christian, who practiced every day what she believed. She gave her money to the poor, visited people in the hospital, doted on her grandchildren, helped my parents support our family of six kids and send us to Catholic school, and prayed and went to Mass every day. My grandmother lived a life of compassion, tolerance, and justice. In her late eighties, she was on a picket line, supporting the United Farm Workers’ grape boycott.

Another important epoch in my life was the eight years in seminary, high school and college, studying to be a priest, even though I eventually chose a different vocation to which I felt called because it offered a more activist role in human rights work; after a stint in graduate school studying philosophy, I went on to become a lawyer.

But my time in the seminary gave me a good liberal arts education and taught me discipline, spirituality, philosophy, and grounded me in Catholic social justice teachings. It was the era of Pope John XXIII and Vatican II. Pope John was much like John Kennedy: he “opened the windows” of the Church and challenged us to bear witness to the Gospel in community life in new ways; to help build civil society, in effect.

And, in my later years, coming to know and work with people in the Hizmet movement inspired by Fethullah Gülen gave me yet a broader, more ecumenical vision of the world, and offered the opportunity of collaborating with people of the Islamic faith to help build civil society. This experience further deepened my own spirituality.

Few of us involved in human rights, I venture to say, are without a spiritual basis for our work. Like all generalizations, mine is surely excessive; but it does capture the point that very many human rights advocates remain in their work because of their spirituality, which comes in all shapes and sizes. As the Christian monk and mystic Thomas Merton warned, without spirituality, we find ourselves caught up in the frenzy of activism and overwork, which overwhelms us.

While in law school, I worked summers with migrant farm workers in Michigan, the vast majority of whom came from the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas, along the border with Mexico. It was the era of César Chávez, who galvanized the country around issues of justice, decent pay and working conditions for field laborers.

So it was that I ended up in the Valley and worked there for ten years, helping to support farm worker organizing efforts and undertaking other human rights endeavors. It was an amazing way to witness that people living in poverty had great personal wisdom and an amazing sense of family and community.

Eventually, my work brought me to Austin, Texas, and the Texas Civil Liberties Union.

In 1990, two of us located free office space in a benefactor’s community building and began the Texas Civil Rights Project. Over the years, through the help of many generous people and organizations, TCRP has grown to a staff of 38 people in five offices: El Paso, South Texas, West Texas, Houston, and Austin.

TCRP handles the full panoply of civil rights issues, including: voting, free speech and assembly, economic justice, jail and prison matters, police misconduct, discrimination, and disability. For 23 years, the Texas Civil Rights Project has been a tireless advocate for racial, social and economic equality for low-income people, through its education and litigation programs.

Some of the achievements of the TCRP staff include:

• Handling more than 3000 legal cases for poor and low-income people
• Developing a vigorous VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) legal program for abused immigrant women in rural Texas that includes our unique “Circuit Rider” component and counseling and support services provided by a MSW supervisor and social work interns
• Publishing twelve Human Rights reports on issues such as hate crimes, Title IX rights of girls in high school, and the death penalty, and seven “self-help” legal manuals, on matters like veterans rights, disability laws, and prisoner rights
• Conducting community and lawyer trainings for more than 50,000 persons
• Publishing more than 400 opinion editorials in Texas newspapers
• Giving more than 500 speeches and talks on civil rights to diverse groups (such as school conferences, law enforcement trainings, and senior citizen organizations)

Due to the tireless advocacy of many TCRP employees, jails in Texas counties now do much more in preventing inmate suicide, providing interpreters for deaf prisoners, protecting vulnerable inmates from sexual assault, and administering HIV medications.

TCRP set the national model in ballot accessibility for blind voters and has led more than 30 regional compliance campaigns in Texas under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thanks to our intrepid staff, businesses, churches, and courthouses in Texas are much more accessible to elderly and people with disabilities, as are government programs.

TCRP’s Title IX programs on sexual harassment and equal sports opportunities have helped make rural middle and high schools more hospitable for young women, and respectful of them, and opened up the prospect of athletic scholarships to college for them. Our Safe Schools project works with community groups on anti-bullying programs for students and our “Equality under the Law” campaign addressed “benign” discrimination against African Americans and Hispanic Americans in banks, restaurants, motels, and other public accommodation.

Efforts to help South Asian, Muslim, and Arab citizens, permanent residents, and students who fell victim to post September 11th discrimination included filing a suit against a major airline and enlisting Texas attorneys to represent, on a pro bono basis, individuals who were questioned by the FBI.

TCRP worked with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) to help create single-member school board districts and assisted in redistricting the Texas Legislature and congressional districts so as to protect the voting and representational rights of minority citizens.

We assisted the NAACP is persuading the U.S. Department of Justice to audit the Austin Police Department and make more than 200 changes, including its use of force practices in the city’s minority communities.

TCRP joined with the American Jewish Congress in one of the first court cases in the country to challenge the constitutionality of government funding of a religiously-orientated job training program that used the Bible as an employment text and proselytized its trainees.

And we are a leading voice in raising questions about the fairness of Texas’ death penalty scheme, and the possibility of executing innocent people. So, too, are we an intrepid advocate of traditional civil liberties, such as free speech and assembly, due process, and equal protection under the United States and Texas Constitutions.

Our work that I’m proudest of dealt with:

• Ending secret collection of and research on blood of all babies born after 2002 
• Directing 480 suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related enforcement campaigns
• Challenging grand jury discrimination against Mexican Americans, women, and poor people
• Eliminating the statutory exclusion of farm and ranch laborers from the Texas workers’ compensation and unemployment compensation laws
• Extending the Texas Equal Rights Amendment to minority voting and redistricting
• Establishing a habeas corpus mechanism to review claims of innocence for persons sentenced to death
• Winning the right of blind voters to cast secret, adapted election ballots 
• Banning mandatory polygraph testing of state employees (and establishing privacy as fundamental right under the Texas Constitution)
• Protecting United Farm Workers Union members from retaliatory employment termination
• Securing the right of blind people to use dog guides in public accommodations 
• Seven McAllen police brutality class actions suits that reorganized the department

The most recent and profound personal development, as mentioned earlier, was coming to work with hizmet. It started with one of the movement’s interfaith dialog trips to Turkey and eventually led to writing a book on the eight-year-long political trial of Fethullah Gülen, which ended successfully and actually helped the process of more deeply democratizing Turkey.

International human rights law had always been a passion, and it was an honor to write on a subject that no one else in the world had written on. In subsequent trips, I met so many people in hizmet and was always singularly inspired by their good deeds, hard work, amiability, and commitment. It reminded me that people from all walks of life and faiths are struggling for democracy and human rights.

There remains much to do, of course. Human rights is a life-long struggle; it is painstaking to build civil society. As Eugene Debs, the renowned American labor organizer, said, every struggle for human rights is lost, and lost, and lost, before it succeeds. Indeed, many people have given their lives over the years, and suffered enormously to help make the world a better place for its people.

Civil society has yet to define and accept broader human rights, such as the right to employment, the right to a social and economic safety net, the right to medical care, the right to participate in community’s cultural life, the right to adequate standard of living, and the right to an education. The struggle goes on, building on those who went before us, for the benefit of those who come after us.

Eleanor Roosevelt put it well in her remarks at the United Nations in 1958:

Where, after all, do universal rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.

Such has been the journey of those of us inspired by John F. Kennedy all those years ago. It has been an incredible blessing to “labor in the vineyard” with so many good and decent people; they have contributed to my own growth as a person. I hope and pray that I have given back to them a portion of what they have given me. That, after all, is what living in the human community is all about:

We make a living from what we get.
We make a life from what we give.
What we have done for ourselves dies with us.
What we have done for others and for the world is immortal.
MaryAnn Evans

Harrington is founder and director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit foundation, promotes civil rights and economic and racial justice throughout Texas, for low-income people. He is author of Wrestling with Free Speech, Religious Freedom, and Democracy in Turkey: The Political Trials and Times of Fethullah Gülen.

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

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

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


“What is that?” he asked.


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


The man smiled and accepted both pots.

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


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


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


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

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

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

Table 1

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

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

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

Appendix

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

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

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