Scientific psychology corroborates these truths and lays bare the inescapable responsibility to know and manage the self (C.G. Jung, 1957). Knowing and accepting realities about ourselves positively offers a platform for personal growth and development, and further permits cathartic motivations for transcending flaws. While religions approach the path to transcendence differently (e.g. based on organic time and place), each testifies to human dignity that is capable of finding safe passage through the contradictions of life without compromising the safety of others.

Religious and secular histories reveal tragic outcomes for humanity when these responsibilities are ignored. The current neoliberal, capitalist ideology, which was systemized by economic theorist Milton Friedman, externalizes, or factors out, human and environmental damage, for these interfere with the profit principle. His open defiance of social responsibility not only shows a separation between the rational mind and rational heart, but clears the way for nullification of the universal human rights principle and bows to nefarious economic warfare waged between groups.

Within earlier historical memory, power’s unwillingness to analyze the subjective and blame the objective played-out on the global stage with catastrophic consequences. Between 1914 and 1945, the world was at war with itself. Yet, national leaders and their people denied their own failed-policies, and chose to violently project responsibility onto others (Fromm’s, 1973). Analyses of Europe’s part in the atrocities of WWII illuminate a reoccurring historical fact: non-defensive wars are often complicated and motivated by un-dealt with personal projections of a nation’s leaders and its peoples. At the heart of humanity’s violent history lie legions of self-denials and self-failures, too colossal to list. Perhaps more ironic than the irresponsible projections themselves is the denial of responsibility, as expressed in the question: where was God?

With the beginning of the West’s wars in the Middle East, in 2003, human rights experts recognized that the topic of human rights was off the table, a frightening but conscious decision that reconfirms the warnings of sages and prophets: human history is a history of choice.

A catharsis for the events of 1914 – 1945 was the establishment of the Bretton Accords, which established international institutions aiming to prevent future crimes against humanity. The sets of principles laid out in the accords sought to mandate individual rights of vital protections, by humanizing finances, employment, and governance. Rights of human security were embedded within a constellation of personal, social, economic, and political rights. The United Nations, which signed the 1948 Convention on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed to this universal principle, and applied it clearly to the subjugated children and women of the global patriarchy by creating the special conventions: Rights of the Child and The Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

While many nation-states embrace moral responsibility to ratify conventions for universal human rights, many UN representatives continue to face non-ratification resistance at home. While the new, global power-brokers of trade and finance systemically and tactically block universal human rights, the global under-privileged are taking their arguments to the streets. Taking responsibility to occupy their own policies is a response validated by scholar Noam Chomsky (Occupy, 2012, p.89) and reflects the Jeffersonian idea of democratic action. Taking possession of rights far exceeds passive verbalization.

A watershed of responsible self-action is being witnessed around the globe: workers are organizing to buy-back their closed factories; students organize to undermine dictatorships and corrupt governments; sexually exploited children are naming criminal-priests; women are fighting the slave-trade; independent journalists air photos of government backed genocides and externally organized coups; neighbors take video of real-time police brutality; independent filmmakers document corporate damages; veterans bow to their own shame and expose military atrocities; whistle-blowers expose mass government fraud; and high-ranking bank officials make tragic, but telling testimonies against system-exploitation by committing suicide. While these examples reflect an existing depth of global darkness, self-responsible action affirms our awareness of our right to live change and change living.

Considering our ever changing universe and the human capacity to re-imagine new life, it is possible to more clearly understand the discreteness of the great religions which direct responsibility to each individual. By means of self-awareness, self-responsibility and self-regulation, we each hold the best possibilities for peaceful co-existence and the preservation of human rights.

June Dayle Jelm, PhD in International Relations, is a Professional Mediator specializing in Domestic Violence in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Faith, especially in the form of religion, refers to a heavenly-inspired system that leads people to goodness, but on the condition that they believe wilfully.

Religion is a divine system or a corpus consisting of systems. The most eminent feature differentiating it from human systems is that it is ordained by God, based on scripture, the good example of the Messenger that it was revealed to, and on how scholars have interpreted both. Arriving at goodness by means of religion is an absolute blessing by God; yet every human contributes to it by his or her choices.

Wisdom, on the other hand, has been decribed in many forms. In the case of Islam, the Qur’an states that wisdom has been bestowed to the Prophet in addition to the Book.1 Because of this fact, many interpreters have said that wisdom and the Book are not one and the same. It is decreed in another ayah that, “whoever is granted the Wisdom has indeed been granted much good.”2 Since the Prophet’s sunnah – his traditions, including his words and silent approvals – specifies the general issues of the Book, generalizes the specific points, and restricts its absolute topics by particular conditions and clauses, it is a great and abundant fountain of goodness. Therefore, some hadith scholars thought it was the Sunnah that “Wisdom” was actually refering to. Besides, the details of daily prayers, fasting, and hajj were determined by the Sunnah.

At the same time, as pointed out by Bediuzzaman, wisdom has been interpreted as the attainment of certain truths of faith and the universe, which have been concealed behind material veils, through spiritual inspiration and discoveries. All we see are a door, some windows, and four walls around us; however, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, decrees that, “I see what you do not see, and hear what you do not hear. The sky has resonated in such a way that you would laugh less and cry more if you saw what I see and knew what I know.” In this regard, reaching the veiled knowledge about the realm behind the physical world has also been considered wisdom.

This cognisance may take place through intuition or an expansion of the imagination, or through divination or direct witness. Whatever we know through rational deduction and certainty of knowledge (ilm al-yaqin) is endorsed by seekers of truth – first inwardly, in their consciences, and then outwardly, in their practices. This is another sign of abundance of goodness.

However, some have heaped the meaning of philosophy upon wisdom. There is a conflictual history between Islamic scholars and positivist philosophers. The struggle of Islamic scholars like Imam Ghazzali against philosophical deviance has become legend. Scholars like Ghazzali and Bediuzzaman used reason, logic, and other methods of philosophy to contest philosophers; so, if their efforts will be considered a part of philosophy, then it is certainly within the domain of wisdom.

One dimension of this conflict had to do with the literalists who interpreted all commandments exclusively and conducted them without question, even though this may have led to contradictions with other rules. Philosophers reacted to this movement, yet drifted to another extreme, where they went so far as to deny the essentials of faith. What we consider “wisdom” would be one that embraces rationality and logic in accordance with positive sciences and humanities, but is also in line with the overall message of the scripture as understood and practiced by the Messenger.

Searching for an accord between laws in nature and the regulations and laws of human life, and sensing and eliciting the concordance between the divine message and universe, are also considered within the territories of wisdom. Such a search for harmony between these dynamics is a key for success and serenity, both in this world and in the life to come after death. The science of jurisprudence in Islam and its applicative branches may be regarded as a vital manifestation of this correspondence and union. This science has been successful because it has been open to analogical reasoning and interpretation. Under current conditions, where such reasoning is missing, it is impossible to govern even the smallest district in any country.

After religion and wisdom, comes power. Unless the laws of wisdom and principles of faith and state are equipped with power, everything shall remain on paper and cannot evoke any sort of influence on people. Without power, how can the wisdom in minds and souls, and the piles of books in the libraries, transform into daily practice? As a matter of fact, we have been witnessing that it is not transformed, since those representatives of brute force who have turned their backs on scientific knowledge and absolute truth, and believe that they can sort out everything by power, have not let it be so; and it seems that they will not, either. In this regard, if a nation does not attach as much importance to power as as it does to wisdom, much of the performance of that nation in the name of national and religious values shall be uncertain. Besides, all three elements of religion, wisdom, and power must work together and in alliance. Otherwise, power not guided by faith and wisdom shall be a mere tool of cruelty and suppression; wisdom without faith shall be a wheel of intrigue; and faith not supported by legitimate power shall become just a mere “issue of conscience.” That is, the raison d’etre of faith and communicating it to people shall not be fully realized.

Notes

1. Surah Al-Baqarah, 2/129, 151, 231; Surah Âl-i Imrân, 3/164; Surah An-Nisâ, 4/113; Surah Al-Jumu’ah, 62/2.
2. Surah Al-Baqarah, 2/269.

Coming to the Canadian experience, which has no doubt been hovering in the backs of our minds, with a nation requiring so much intellectual mediation, we may well worry that as the memory of the parties who fought on the Plains of Abraham fades into the background of the national consciousness, only homo economicus may survive, who looks to the nation only to optimize consumerism in the quest for status, rationalized as the summa of self actualization.

And we may justifiably worry that the universals of human nature which have obstructed utopian visions will continue to haunt the national dream, among them nepotism, inequality of intellectual and social potential, and the quest for dominance through violence, which is also embedded in our genes. And by the way, on the score of economic man, you’ll be amused to know that the most sophisticated instrument for the study of national identity, called the National Identity Scale, is not the work of academics or Statistics Canada, but of marketing agents. You can google it. Their goal is to profile all of our nationalist sentiments, loyalties, and proclivities in order to target our purchasing inclinations. How ironic is it that interested parties are seeking to brand us as consumers by profiling our diversities of national feeling?

There are other obstacles to national experience and identity worthy of mention. The word itself is derived from “natio” which essentially means birthplace, taken from “nasci,” to be born. We may well wonder whether our place of birth is our life’s destiny. He or she who swears an oath to the Queen in a citizenship court is making a vow that is tantamount to a religious conversion. Yet where people are born remains a huge part of their identity. A group of Canadian nationalist academics back in the 1970s, in a narrow spirit of mind, confirmed that very belief by stating that anyone not born in Canada lacked a true national experience and should therefore be barred from all positions of influence within our university systems. What a doctrine to impose upon an essentially immigrant nation, eager to recruit talent from abroad to maintain its national dream!

Yet that issue will never ultimately die, because we will never ultimately agree about how we construct identity and fashion allegiances, who is really in and who is not. How malleable are we, and how much baggage from our pasts is too much when it comes to forming a new national community? And how much superiority can the native born claim for themselves?

Something once said by George Bernard Shaw cuts both ways: “There is nothing that can be changed more completely than human nature when the job is taken in hand early enough.” The gist of it is that we are indeed malleable, but only when we are young. Each of us here is as apt to speak Japanese as any child born in Japan, had we been born there. Yet nothing makes learning Japanese more difficult than first speaking English, because we were born here. So is birth tantamount to the only nation we can experience? How much plasticity do we have? Can a second language ever equal a first? That debate is likewise yours to discover.

The topic of memory in this context is also significant. It is not possible to dwell on all its complexities here, for memory is both key to the construction of t he self and key to those common experiences that define national identity. But self and nation entail different kinds of memory. A self is a point of view concerning its own lived history. National memories are preserved through books, paintings and pictures, letters, and journals housed in national archives and libraries. A nation emerges only when historical memory becomes personal memory, when the story of a people is internalized, inviting us to feel for and with those who created our national past.

Can a nation shed this component and still be a nation? I ask in innocence. Perhaps we can thrive together on current events. But if we require a deeper historical memory, how is it to be framed and disseminated? It is a real challenge for educators, who must referee among the embarrassing facts, the touchy opinions, and political correctness. Can we even afford an embattled Canadian history? Or do we beat our breasts and construct it as one long trail of colonializing abuse and ethnic misunderstanding? After all, two of our three founding peoples are conquered nations, and much of the history of Canada has been devoted to assuaging the loss of those former identities.

The Quebecois have a dearly-held sense of themselves as a first experience quality of nation centered on birth, language, a common history and culture, and at one time a common religion, yet they too must seek to embrace the contractual, legal, and secular components of a modern pluralistic society. The most intense intellectual debates within Quebec today are concerned with this very question. There is a lot of nostalgia in la belle province, and who can blame them? At some level, we all crave the kind of oneness they hope to find in a society still tenuously held together by a common language and traditions, made urgent by a history of perceived subjugation and collective hope.

Meanwhile, it is easy to imagine how irrelevant those confrontations must seem to newer Canadians who have no stakes in that conversation and can only hope for a second order gesellschaft nation or retreat into former national feelings; our historical solitudes go in many directions. Yet this part of our national experience cannot and should not be pretended away. And thus, how do we shape the collective memory of Canada? An attempt will be made in the transformation of our National Museum of Civilization into a Museum of National History, which I think we all recognize as an effort in nation building, in selectively representing the Canadian past in ways which will instill national pride in all its citizens. But whether this new institution will represent a faithful and comprehensive history or a cheerleading version of it remains to be seen. Behind it all is an admirable goal, to give our national memory a monument or shrine to make visible who we are, and to make it accessible to all the people.

I have thrown up a lot of obstacles to the realization of national identity in modern diversified societies. Unfortunately, I cannot resolve all the stressors and dilemmas which I have raised. I would be bigger than God if I had a band-aid for all our national divisions, and I would be a menacing tyrant if I had the power to imprint nationalist universals by fiat in the mind of every citizen.

What I would venture is that we all desire to be members of a national community—to participate personally in that cluster of ideas which not only holds us together but distinguishes us from all other nations, and to experience it as part of our extended personal identity. It is a level of the self that is big, but not too big, and still within imagining. National sentiments are strong when Canada does well in international ratings concerning our financial fundamentals. We are justifiably proud of our social welfare net, our peacekeeping objectives, or when planes fly overhead in formation, or when we take Olympic medals or win the World Series.

But we sense there is even more pro patria to be felt through education, historical consciousness, generous feelings toward our fellow citizens, and openness to dialogue and exchange. Emotions cannot be coerced, but when we feel them, they can help form the bonds that hold us together. In Canada, a dialogue among cultures has replaced the monolithic orientations of older and more traditional societies, which is now as it must be, but it is an ongoing experiment all the same, with an uncertain outcome. That brings us back to the intercultural and interfaith dialogues sponsored by such organizations as the IDI (Intercultural Dialogue Institute), which are vital to the shaping of our national ethos; we become one in sharing our differences and in understanding just how those differences still pertain both to our common humanity and to our national aspirations. In that regard, we can champion Fethullah Gulen’s great commission when he urges that “Each person who loves his or her country has to be a proper representative of that nation. Every member should invest in its values and put energy and aid into its development, and follow this pathway throughout life.” It is a great reciprocity conducted by granting identity to others and assuming an informed identity for ourselves.

A nation is dialogic. It is made by thinking it together. My purpose has been to think about the self and its experience in the context of nation, and how buying in cognitively adds to our experiencing of the self as a thinking participant. I can’t imagine a working nation without conditions like respect for law and the rights of others, respect for democratic institutions, and fiscal integrity. And here we get into the hard points for discussion. We need working languages to avoid our own Tower of Babel; thus it seems reasonable that we foster the two official languages of Canada as efficient vehicles of communication. We need citizens with religious sensibilities, even if they are confirmed atheists, but we must be wary of guiding ourselves in matters of the collective secular nation by religious principles more specific than generic ethics and civic morality; the French Revolution got that right. We need residents who imagine the common good and respect the dignity of life by instinct. And I would add my support for extending the historical consciousness of the nation, because Canada has had a rich history in its scant 400 hundred years of urban settlement. Canada has been pluralistic from its inception, yet we have forged a sense of a single dominion historically grounded and tied to a precious social and political formula based on reason and the spirit of order and cooperation. Yet I think we can remain true to our inspiring cultural diversity through discussion and sharing. Upon such a heritage, minds can build a nation.

I seem to recall that it was a beer company that branded us with a bit of national self-affirmation through its “I am Canadian” campaign. It was a “good feeling” ad. But Gulen said it more eloquently: “It is vital for citizens of a nation to say, ‘this is my country.’ The altruism of today will lead to the happiness of tomorrow’s generations.” And all this we do with our brains and minds in the most remarkable and mysterious of ways are, as a cognitive philosopher, are matters of eternal fascination to me. Nation-building we accomplish only by synchronizing our minds. We build an invisible yet compellingly real national community just by thinking in a collective way. Nation, in that sense, is a cognitive and emotional opportunity for the construction of the self, and clearly as a collective idea, nation has its adaptive value as a point of view from which we exercise our interests in the world. That alone gives grounds for the instauration of national bonds.

Donald A. Beecher is Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Editor’s note: The first part was published in the previous issue #99.

This past April has been a busy one for The Fountain staff. We have had gatherings with our contributors in several states in the US, including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Travel is a great joy when merged with thoughtful discussions – this is at least what we believe at The Fountain. Discussions are a feast when you have participants, each a brilliant mind in their respective fields, and many of whom are faculty or PhD candidates. We are especially thankful to the Dialogue Institute in Jackson, Mississippi, for bringing together a very distinguished group of guests who eagerly shared their views and asked inquisitive questions.

The Dialogue Institute in Houston has been organizing roundtable discussions every Sunday in cooperation with The Fountain, and the “consumerism” theme we laid down in April reminded us of our personal and societal weaknesses as we are tempted to consume more and more, usually unnecessarily. In Pittsburgh, we visited a recently formed study group of Americans (hosted by Peace Islands) who pick an article, and read, discuss, and contemplate over it when each new issue comes out. And finally, we gladly enjoyed a faith-filled event titled “When Beauty Whispers to the Heart,” an interfaith conference organized in cooperation with Sacred Heart University in New Haven, Connecticut, and Peace Islands Institute.

Panels and one-on-one talks about the magazine and its ethos followed one after another, filling a whole month, all the way from the glacier covered Niagara Falls in Buffalo to the warm shores of Miami. We did not have to survive shark attacks and a volcanic eruption, as Walter Mitty of Life magazine did in the movie; but we at least had the same feeling of “drawing closer” when we conversed with our contributors and readers. These gatherings meant a lot to us, as we believe our contributors are among “those who will shape tomorrow with their ideas will be the guides of generations to come. The way they think and reason will redesign the world, and their messages will brighten the future” (quote from the Lead Article).

What you will find in this issue is another journey across an ocean of ideas, from the meaning of true liberty which “Laborers of Thought” of the future will aspire, to the psychology of morality and how we apply it in our everyday lives; from a dialogue of flowers to the artificial replacement of a failing heart. A book review on Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an explains the nature of freedom to practice any faith in North America and how it has evolved since the founding fathers. This review is complemented by Donald Beechers’ “Hearts and Minds for a Country: Nation and Construction of Self Identity,” in which the author discusses the concept of nationalism in the context of Canada, which is by definition an immigrant nation.

So when it comes to self identity, in what kinds of groups are we most likely to flourish? And if the sociological truism holds that we bond first with those who confirm our identities by being most like us, how large is that group likely to be?

Steven Pinker, in The Blank Slate, states that “The universality of ethnocentrism and other forms of group-against-group hostility across societies, and the ease with which such hostility can be aroused in people within our own society” is one of the greatest obstacles to the extension of identity communities.

Still, for an opener, you can see self and group formation at work in high school cafeterias as clusters of the like-minded create an identity by excluding outsiders, largely through gossip, sometimes around matters as trivial as a dress code, or who owns the latest electronic gadgetry. In effect, they are behaving like little tribes or nations. The fascinating part is the emotional drive to belong, and the fear of exclusion, even from groups arbitrarily defined and ephemeral, including those created in cyber space. These same principles pertain to the 700 gangs which form the social fabric of south-central Los Angeles. Yet, arguably, this same group-making process, through intellectual imagination, might be extended all the way up to the world nation or global community, with each echelon defined by shared interests, activities, values, and memories. A nation, among them, is a mutuality of thinking among persons sharing common purposes. Yet as a principle of social cohesion, it is also emotional, allegiance-oriented, exclusionary, and collectively administered. There is no nation without those who are not members. Nations may also entail chauvinism, loyalty tests in time of threat, and hostility toward non-members. Karl Deutsch famously defined a nation as “a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbors.” In his view, national groups lie to themselves about who they are as warriors or victims in order to justify their aggression. They can act as gangs. That is an unnecessarily dark view of the national experience, but it gets much brighter as we go along.

According to the traditional dictionary definition, a national bond arises, not only because people share a common geographical territory, but because they practice the same mores, speak the same language, worship the same gods, fight common enemies, participate in the same identifying rituals and traditions, share a common stock of stories and a common history, and are often related to each other through blood ties. Cohesion around sporting events and beer preferences is merely a parody of bedrock national identity, although in a self-effacing manner, Canadians like to start there. But it is inversely conceivable that diverse peoples with diverse allegiances may somehow share a common territory without a sense of national identity, because most of those listed characteristics typically defining a nation are simply not shared by the members of pluralistic societies. So if such populations are to find an identity center for themselves in a nation, they really have only three options.

One is to redefine themselves around more vague, generic and inclusive categories of nationhood. Another is to impose uniformity through the melting pot, the Lord Durham solution, through enforced and universal education, imposed official languages, an official history, and official social rituals in the search for a common brand of allegiance. A third is to choose a new concept under which they can unite themselves as a secular community and forget about being a nation altogether. In my view of Canadian practice, we are currently pursuing all three solutions at once. The third option entails falling back upon the universals of our humanity. We might simply acknowledge the common desires and instincts of all humankind as members of the global village, and we might view Canada as a piece of this village in which we listen to each other’s first national stories in a spirit of good will. Is that not the mandate of the Canadian ministry of multiculturalism? To be sure, it would seem only right that we remain free to express the national imperatives of our birthplaces, our mother tongues, our religions, and our respective ethnicities, yet such practices appear to obstruct the formation of a specifically Canadian national identity-or maybe not? The point is very much up for discussion.

Let’s return for a moment to the second option, the nationalist teach-in for all citizens. While recognizing diversity, national governments may also recognize the value in proactively promoting a national brand, but it is a challenging enterprise, because a meaningful nationalism cannot be bought with jingoism, cheerleading, and trinkets, or bread, circuses, and revisionist history. Identity as a mind-state entails a combination of pride and duty that is somehow earned and experienced, who knows exactly how? It is something we instinctively desire, yet identity arises only when we feel emotionally drawn to the collectivity of minds, values, and practices that constitute a nation-the argument becomes circular. We may well wonder how such emotional allegiances may best be fostered. It is a point to which I will return. But it must also be lamented that nations may also include stories of failure; in fact, our literature is full to overflowing with them, and they are studied in our university classrooms with empathetic attention. From that perspective, a lament for our national failure to create a national home for new Canadians may be our most common and unifying characteristic; it is an obsession among our literary critics.

There are many stories to choose from, but I am most immediately reminded of a touching personal narrative written by Elena Maccaferri and translated by her sister as A Bench on Which to Rest. Maccaferri came to Canada from a small village above Bologna, lured to a better life by an Italo-Canadian who promised marriage, but failed to meet her at the dock upon her arrival. A hard and lonely life followed, until she was at last found by a man who had also come from her village. She went on to raise children here, who grew up Canadian in soul and spirit, but Elena could never find a true home away from her native mountains, and was overwhelmed by nostalgia. At last, when her children were grown, she returned to Italy, only to discover that all she once knew had vanished. Canada had found no place in her emotions, but had succeeded only in alienating her even from her own children.

Thomas Henricks stated that “for the most part, people experience personhood in the terms that their host societies offer them.” But that does not always happen, and when that host society somehow fails to offer acceptable terms around which personal values can flourish, the story becomes tragic, as it was for Maccaferri. It was a crisis in personal identity in relation to a nation. And while I’m telling stories about the inability of a host nation to inspire allegiance, I’ll mention another, which goes back to my bachelor days as a young Carleton professor. I had just exhausted my resources on a six-bedroom fixer-upper in Ottawa south with rooms left over to rent out to students. In that little community we had a mysterious roomer who never joined in our collective kitchen exploits and conversations. That was not a problem in itself, but his place in the household came to a strange crisis, nevertheless, when one afternoon a couple of the other students found him in the kitchen counting out huge piles of change. He explained simply that if the laundromat owners were so stupid in their choice of coin boxes, they deserved to be robbed. In no time I had a report upstairs, and went down for an account of my own. It was a sad litany: that his father had come to Canada with promises and expectations, and that to his mind this country had ruined him, giving him only custodial work to do. In his disappointment, he had trained his children to blame the entire country, giving them carte blanche to recover his losses any way they could. The laundromat theft had been conducted as a grievance against the nation. Any Canadian was thus a fair target, and revenge could be taken indiscriminately. What bizarre turns the idea of nation can take; it is a reminder that dialogue can help.

When social groups are organized around adhesion to extended clans or tribes, as they were among the First Nations of the New World, we have an early example of the tribal-nation as a tight working survival community sharing a single culture, and calling for unflinching loyalty. But it was only after the long hiatus of the Dark Ages, and a pre-Renaissance period characterized by city states and assorted feudal principalities that the modern nation emerged in conjunction with the political institutions that framed the autonomous state.

The sixteenth century was the first great age of nation building, with England leading the way under the Tudors. And what an experiment it was. A poem I teach nearly every year is entitled The Faerie Queene, written by Edmund Spenser. It was, unabashedly, a national epic which, by chivalric and allegorical example, set out to teach its readers the great civic virtues upon which the new nation could build, including loyalty to the queen and a sense of duty in the cause of right and justice.

Of course, there is nothing like war and the threat of invasion to quicken a sense of common cause and rouse a sense of national fervor. This is simply a by-product of the craving for self- protection which can only be realized where there is a feeling of all-for-one and one-for-all. Canadians still construct some of their strongest moments of national identity through recollections arising from the First and Second World wars. They are noble stories in which we all can share, dealing with a nation coming of age through the baptism of sacrifice. And we have been reminded at times that the nation expects such matters to be treated with ultimate respect and honor. On these occasions the self is lost for a moment in the experience of the nation, and in that regard it is an experience of extended identity, a national ritual that contains the self within the group. The spiritual philosopher, Fethullah Gulen, extends that loss of self in a nation into a hope for a collective future: “Any nation that liberates itself from the deadly web of selfishness and egoism, stereotyping, excessive entitlements, fear of the future, long-lasting hatred and hostility, and at the same time respects the freedom of ideas and beliefs, while turning away from oppressors, as well as giving rights to the innocent, will surely experience long life.” That requires not only self-investment, but collective monitoring and the mastery of the dialogic self in each member. Such a nation must seek to amplify the positive qualities of experiential identity at the national level. But how to extend that experience to the optimum level of respectful allegiance is a challenging formula to meet.

We are, in fact, discussing a rather elusive state of mind. What is it like to experience an ideal national allegiance? How will it feel to be a participating member? One part of our nature seeks a spontaneous glow of unconditional brotherhood in a community of homogenous values. Another part realizes, intellectually, that we have a mutually beneficial contractual arrangement with fellow citizens only at a legal and organizational level. The German terms for these, often employed by scholars, are gemeinschaft for the former, and gesellschaft for the latter. The contrast can be understood historically. In the Middle Ages, rural populations spent their entire lives within view of their parish church steeples; their thought preoccupations were concerned with fixed or received views invested in work, rituals, and customs which remained unchanged throughout generations. Such communities had little need for debate or discussion, because everyone knew what the others were thinking. These were societies entirely integrated through common religious festivals, language, history, and traditions. These were experiential quality nations generating a sense of gemeinschaft.

Renaissance societies worked outwards from this communal base toward new identities based on restraint in a secular, legislated, legal, and impersonal society. This new order we might call a second experiential quality of nation, conceived as a partnership or a social contract to promote political and economic order. Both the communal nation and the legal nation are principles of group organization and experience, but they do not share a common ethos. For better or for worse, the modern plural nation has been compelled to redefine itself as a society regulated by law, charters, and citizenship-a gesellschaft. My point is that as societies foster libertarian individualism, much of that intuitive and communal sense of the first experiential quality of nation disappears. We have heard much, since the nineteenth century, about alienation, solipsism, existentialism, the anxieties of modernity, the breakdown of the nuclear family, rapid mobility, and transnationalism.

The longing for a tribal structure in size and cohesion prevails even in modern societies. We might try to replace that feeling at the national level through an equitably administered legal society, through education, and through health and welfare support. But that returns us to the awkward crux. Does a true sense of brotherhood and identity emerge only when there are collective bonds that include language, religion, customs, food and festivals, and life on a village scale? States may structure themselves around welfare nets, global educational systems, and the legal protection of opportunity for all, but there remains intense anxiety over the oneness of our collective national experience.

Donald A. Beecher is Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
(Editor’s note: A follow-up of this article can be find in the 100th issue of The Fountain Magazine)

It seems that uncertainty instead of diversity is prevailing from the eve of post-modernism, thinning the lines between world cultures and societies from day one. In search of “theory of everything,” we have almost forgotten all good and great theories and ideas about everything, leading us to skepticism and unbelief. The challenge of open skepticism tends to create more refusals than acceptance and the objective of higher education fails bitterly here, an objective that is to create a global level of understanding of the universal phenomena and to proceed with a uniform level of evolution of the intellectual mind. Instead of growing intellectual maturity and reflexivity, the symptoms of anxiety and panic and/or withdrawal are prevailing. Is this a healthy sign? Will we be able to save the sanity of the world?

In sanity lies peace and stability, and both are at stake. Now there are two choices: The first is whether the world knowledge leaders should aspire to regress back to pre-industrial revolution’s feudal monarchy based upon resignation to a single authority, where people are more entitled to powers by declaration of ownership and where there are no choices but moralized obedience to such authorities. In corporate world, Machiavellian moral has already been resounding that might is right and means may not justify the end. Such regression calls for the indoctrinated agenda of the education with priests and preachers ruling the mobs and world streets are rushing for it. The second choice or alternative is that people should embrace postindustrial Marxist-Socialist interventions, which celebrate sharing rather than ownership. The individuals sub-serve the community and in turn communities the nation; whereas, the nations must not compete in status but protect the welfare of its citizens. Whether the traditional concepts of “welfare” and “citizenship” still exist in today’s world is questionable.

Since the right of choice is still available, the nations and communities are making blind choices without thinking of the outcomes of the outcomes. What will happen to nations who will fail to attain socio-cultural and political balance in their visions? They may hear the sound of the doomsday bell ringing in their ears, thinking that they have enough time to fight till the “end.” Actually, sound travels slower than light and people are misled to believe that doomsday has yet to come, whereas, the reality has crossed that threshold much earlier and what they are witnessing is the after-math; just like a Tsunami that passes in a few minutes and only some people survive to witness its after-effects. The victims remain in shock, while those who have not experienced a Tsunami themselves hang in confusion, pondering whether their present condition is the result of the Tsunami or post-Tsunami mishandling of affairs. They may continue creating split-hair logics till doom, but their wish to reverse time remains a dream.

Similar has been the case with the “corporate” Tsunami; it came and it won – not just overpowered but overthrew everything else. We were in midst of celebrating the glory of human worth crowning individual freedom and liberalism while achieving the impossible, reaching beyond skies and galaxies through advents of natural science. We are unable to justify from where this financial meltdown came and suddenly we found ourselves struck with global recession, as if travelling on the smooth pathways of the Milky Way, we were suddenly engulfed by a black hole.

Will this mammoth spit us out alive? Is living inside a dragon “life”? Are we not inside a cave as Plato had remarked, but inside a dragon? The world outside is no more a safer place to live with nuke ideas, but living inside the dragon, the corporate culture, is wearing us out of our vitality and enthusiasm. Our weakening may weaken the dragon but do we want to die with the dragon or live with it? Those of us who believe in the afterlife, we may have the spirit to risk martyrdom or if we have the feudal courage, we may have cut the stomach line of the dragon with our bear hands, as if ploughing the fields. Kingship and martyrdom are the stories of the past. We believe in peace not war, therefore we should manage to live with the dragon. Now onwards, every tear or drop of perspiration is creating dwarfs of “relativism” and “nihilism.” The harder we work, the more we reduce in size, creating our own prototypes. Small is beautiful, but what will happen when all of us will be cut to the same size? We are shrinking together; whether or not will we grow together is questionable. I grew up listening to the stories that explained how once the earth was populated by giants and dinosaurs, and a Tsunami came and all of them became extinct.

I’ve been informed that post-modern life knows no ethical limits, understanding that values are a matter of choice, a matter of aesthetical personal taste, and suddenly I am reminded that the purpose of higher education was to develop that aesthetical taste in favor of public good. Why then should we refuse the hegemony of valued knowledge and insist on creating new knowledge of “no taste”? No wonder this “new knowledge” is impoverishing both bodies and minds rather than nurturing them. The knowledge remains stratified and complex, non-chewable and non-digestive for the common as it was engineered to fit the purpose of the “elitist corporate.” The elitism is created on the type of education one has received rather than how knowledgeable one is, where reason reigns supreme and traditional methods of acquiring knowledge are blandly rejected being accused of spreading false prophecies and hearsay.

It is not only in the field of knowledge that legitimization of factionalism and particularism has gone too far, it has also affected the social fabric of society as well. When we witness the mixing of gender and social identities, the puzzled mind asks: which gender of which race do you belong to? Elongation of the ego exposes shadows and in a consumerist world, the question is how we can cease any production. Who will dare stop them? Who has the right to exercise “choice”? Whatever come may, the post-modern world is committed to the challenge of social change and social justice, no compromise, no deal to public freedom, whether they create demons or mole hills. They are liable to create colonies and their inhabitants. Does residence and citizenship still matter?

As the Tsunami of media and information technology has been rising, social sciences have remained dumbfounded as individuals become plain victims questioning oneself in sheer pain and guilt about one’s identity: who is the citizen of which world, real or cyber? Citizenship itself is challenged employing virtual rights over social networks. With the population of cyber networks increasing at a faster rate than the population of countries and may be that of small continents, everyone is jubilant at the promise of post-modernism fulfilled – the promise of diversity. It is not setting new world order, but a new social order, defining rules of communication and relationships, where virtual existence matters more than the real one and remarkable solutions for issues related to time and space are readily available.

The citizens of a global world have never experienced such flexibility before. The gates of Eden are wide open and you do not need to carry a “good deeds license” to enter. All you need is a cyber-work-space to enter the world of ideas. Is it a dream or an “afterlife” because that too appears to be more virtual than real. Again the boundaries are thinning between the virtual and the real, between a scope of possibilities and number of its realization, all that corporate citizenship wants is huge numbers so the giants are feeding on numbers and digits. Should I worry?

While waves of uncertainty crash to a shore nearby, I embrace the warmth of diversity emanating from the Sun above. I recognize my impotence before such radiance and realize that just like the sun, there is a unity that binds humanity together.

Dr. Arif is the Head of Department Psychology, University of Central Punjab, Pakistan.

Note

[1] Heterotopia: An idealized utopia of heterogeneity, that of mixing social gender and identities by realizing the principle of diversity

A system of education without a clearly defined target and purpose will only serve to confuse future generations. We have to be careful that our youth is taught the proper material in an effective manner to ensure that they are actually learning rather than simply becoming conduits of data.

The social structure of a nation is closely related to the importance it places on the education of its populace. The education of the current generation is especially crucial as they will become the educators of following generations and will share with their students the knowledge they have acquired as part of their own education and experiences. It is vital for the society and morality of a society that its values are transmitted to its younger generation in the process of their learning experience. Value transmission is best possible in a successful marriage, which thus makes family an important educational institution, a vital one for the continued existence of a nation. Those nations which fail to establish the institution of marriage on sound and essential values without regard to the spiritual and moral condition of their society are doomed to extinction.

The development of individuals is strongly influenced by other individuals, dominant customs and traditions, and more importantly by their parents. Similarly governments have a strong influence and authority over the different parts of its populace.

A nation that effectively utilizes their resources is closely aligned with the thoughts, concepts, and culture of the individuals who make up the society and with the prudence, foresight, and sincere devotion of those in power. The administrators that are responsible for the level of care given to individuals and their efforts toward becoming a social entity will be an indication of how closely aligned they are with the prophetic principle that “All of you are shepherds, and all of you are responsible for those under your care” and that “being glad with making others’ happy instead of self concerns.”

Those who are responsible for educating future generations – no matter under what title they do it – should never forget the importance of this. As members of society we try to do whatever it takes to ensure the best possible future for our children by doing everything in our power and overcoming any and all difficulties so that our children are not deprived of anything as we try to prepare a world like Paradise for them. Will it not be a waste of all our efforts if we fail to elevate them to the level of morality and virtue, the capital of true value, if we cannot elevate them to a state of satisfaction, having acquired consciousness and culture? The nations who obtain this capital will have gained a mysterious key to the treasures of the world. On the contrary, the masses that have not elevated to the level of such a cultivation and understanding will lose their first struggle for social life in the future and be knocked out at the first round.

If the new generations’ minds are equipped with the sciences of their time and their hearts are not lit up with breezes from beyond and if they are provided with an ample education, with all their needs fulfilled and all opportunities available for them to succeed then they can look forward to a bright future. These future generations will be able to stand up to every kind of obstacle in the struggle of life, they will be able to overcome – material or spiritual – every kind of difficulty and will never give in to despair. All the hardships that we will have encountered along the way in providing our children with a better education will have been worth it.

As for the unfortunate ones who are deprived of this consciousness will waste away the inheritance they received from their fathers, spiritually as well, they will lead an unstable and pessimistic life, and then perish between the ferocious teeth of misery.

The authorities today, who are at the crossroads of elevating their children to the level of humanity or leaving them to be beasts in human form, have to think the responsibility on their shoulders heavier than mountains and find more profound and consistent cures against the decays brought by years-long neglects. Otherwise, the unfortunate generations who lost the most precious ores of their being in the unknown seas for thousands of times through different erosions will completely lose their ability to germinate and they will become completely barren, never be able to find existence with their own essence, and never reach the glory of the past again.

If on occasion we are able to block out the horror of September 11, those who travel by air are brought back to the reality of it whenever we go through the intensive and intrusive airport security screening now required at every airport in this country, and for that matter throughout the world.

Immediately following 9/11, questions and uninformed, insufficient answers were too often offered in hate-filled newspaper articles and on radio and television stations. Too often, the conversations were by their very nature laced with Islamophobia. The content too often demonstrated our collective ignorance as a people and nation about Islam, the Holy Qur’an, imams, mosques, and what really was the definition of Jihad?

As a counterweight, and spurred primarily by religious leaders in the three Abrahamic faiths, interfaith dialogues and summits began to appear first in America and then throughout the world. As a result, Islam, which had pretty much been a foreign word in America’s religious vocabulary, was now on the lips of everyone.

But in truth, ignorance about Islam continues to drive our reactive behavior toward one of the three great Abrahamic faiths. It is hard to believe, but in a recent poll conducted by the Pew Foundation, 40 percent of Americans still believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, because of his name. There continue to be concerns expressed in this country by American Muslims about their place in American culture and society. Where do they belong, and can they ever really belong, without being under a microscope all the time? My friend Eboo Patel, founder of the Inter Faith Youth Core in Chicago, has said, “I am more afraid now than I was after 9/11.”

And yet, within this capsule of ignorance and fear of the “other,” I believe that as a nation there is another reason why we as Americans have had such a hard time dealing with the horrors of September 11. As a nation, we have never had the opportunity to grieve over the horrible loss of life, the indelible visual experience of all that was attached to that fateful September morning ten years ago.

Ten years ago as a nation we were embraced quite frankly by almost every nation in the global community, offering help, prayers, and whatever support was needed at this time of national crisis. And yet, our immediate response as a nation was to seek retribution and frontier justice. Wanted “dead or alive” was a regrettable pronouncement offered by some. And the taunt to those who were religious terrorists was “bring ’em on.” As the nation gathered in prayer at Washington National cathedral, President Bush unfortunately misspoke and used the word “crusade” in his speech to the nation-a word that was frightening, and historically painful and confrontational to millions in the Muslim world.

Because of the reflexive need to immediately “strike back” at the perpetrators and planners of the 9/11 attacks, we never really had the opportunity to grieve as a nation. When we do not grieve over a great loss, we tend to have overly emotional, often unhelpful knee-jerk responses. Anger and aggression can be the first response to significant loss in one’s family, or in the larger human family. And without time to grieve, think and process, responses can be illogical and result in bad decisions.

For much of the last decade, we have not found the time to grieve over the horrors of September 11, 2001. Yet the hard work of interfaith conversation and interaction emanating from religious scholars, denominational leaders, and theologians of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have led the way to places where people of faith have had wonderful opportunities. Through the discipline of prayer, the blessings of shared compassion, and the core teachings of their religious traditions, they have had a significant impact on moving not only America, but many other nations, from retribution to reconciliation, from theological illiteracy to literacy, from xenophobia to respect, tolerance, and acceptance of the “other.”

9/11 scarred the psyche of America, but also the public image of Islam. And yet the Jesus of Christianity reminds his followers that at the very center of their belief system is the word reconciliation—embraced by unconditional love and the quest for a peace that passes all understanding.

And it is no accident that Islam has as its radius the word salam (peace). The teachings of both Jesus and Muhammad have much in common regarding care for the “other.” Peace and divine love is at the heart of both Christianity and Islam. And it is that quest that now leads us to continue the healing process that must move forward between the brothers and sisters of Abraham. For it is the promise of the one God that true holiness can be found within the unity of our diversity.

It is now time, ten years later, to embrace the moment and make whole that which has been broken by the ignorance, fear, and illiteracy that too often define our understandings of religion. Much of that work has been undertaken in Washington D.C. through the creative efforts of the Rumi Forum, Washington National Cathedral’s Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation, Georgetown University, and the Brookings Institution through the U.S. Islamic World Forum.

Many efforts have begun in other parts of the world to engage in work that promises to positively impact the present opportunity—to seek the path of wholeness and reconciliation rather than division and violence. This is a journey begun by both Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad that now defines a new decade, a decade not solely focused on the 9/11 tragedy, but one that must become part of the global community. It is a journey made sacred by all those who lost their lives in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington and by the efforts of interfaith leaders throughout the world.

It is a new time, a new decade, where life promises to overcome the sting of death, where hate is trumped by the power of God’s love, and where people of faith have the courage to speak out against those who use religion for their own selfish desires for control and power, rather than as a means through which all can experience the reconciling love of God.

As a country, and as people of faith, we cannot make this journey alone. We will need partners and colleagues of other faith traditions that believe that this is the moment when we stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and proclaim that no one has the right to take another person’s life in the name of God.

Answer: By courtesy of belief, all living and non-living things smile into people’s faces as if they change their color, shape, pattern, nature, and therefore transform and fly into the hearts of believers to become spirit and meaning. Stone and soil, tree and leaf, rose and flower, bird and insect-everything, yes every single thing, whispers something to the souls of believers from the horizon of the heart. Moreover, all the laws ordained in nature, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, turn into a significant message and make feelings and consciousness listen to the most effective sermons that do not have letters or words.

The real reasons for disasters

In fact, the laws in nature take effect, sometimes at individual and other times at social level, in accordance with people’s spiritual life and their relations with God Almighty. Unfortunately, when the reasons for floods, earthquakes, catastrophes, and even the corruption of whole ecosystems cannot be fully understood, they are considered to be natural events, and consequently the message that they are to convey cannot be interpreted properly.

Humans, however, are a conscious and intelligent fruit of the universe. Looking into the connection between the universe and humankind, we can consider two perspectives. From one perspective, humankind has been created in the context of the natural world, and we have developed and attained our present level in relation to nature; from another perspective, the general circumstances of the universe have been shaped to be suitable for them. In the former perspective, the universe is the cause and humans are the effect, and in the latter perspective, people are the cause, while the laws in nature and the universe are the effect. Understood in this way, the laws in nature and human beings are closely interconnected. Thus, an earthquake, for instance, is strongly linked to a tremor in people; yet this can only be seen by the eye of a believer.

In one’s individual and social life, as in the laws in nature, experiences of failure or the occurrence of undesirable events are themselves closely connected to spiritual well-being. Almost all misfortunes begin within one’s inner self; then, being nourished in the earth of the self’s weakness, they gradually develop and appear in existence. Hence, the true cause of disasters is humankind, and it is impossible to make realistic comments on the cause–effect mechanism until this very particular relationship is understood.

In this sense, the first step toward searching out and finding the real cause is to question oneself. To say, “This misfortune occurred because of me; my inconsistencies and my disconnection from God caused these things happen!” and to recognize the connection between the disaster and failure to manage one’s free will, and consequently to seek forgiveness is the attitude of a true believer. Indeed, when an individual sees himself or herself as the source of problems, this manner becomes indirect remorse, penitence, and repentance.

Regarding this issue, the Holy Qur’an states, “Whatever affliction befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned; and yet, He overlooks many (of the wrongs you do)” (42:30). Therefore, troubles that target believers are penance for them. Nevertheless, some disasters are not the direct results of sins. For instance, the troubles of one who strives to serve on the path of God cause him or her to attain higher levels of righteousness. Thus, when other people are involved, thinking that their sins are the source of disasters is an erroneous belief. Believers, who are enjoined to think well of others, should suppose that other people, through disasters, attain the splendor of God’s closeness. On the other hand, they should think critically about themselves thus: “Drought and famine are occurring; it’s because of me! Things are not going right; it’s because of me! That issue ended up as a fiasco; it’s because of me!”

Do not destroy my nation because of my sins!

As is widely known, during the era of noble Umar’s caliphate, a great famine took place. The famine was so severe that new regulations for the rationing of provisions were instigated and people were supplied with limited food and drink. Noble Umar (may God be pleased with him) said that his standard of living should have been the standard of the poorest person in Medina. When he learned that the majority of the people were eating bread dipped in olive oil, he did the same thing, too. As someone who had always lived in a humble way, the great caliph was very sensitive about obeying the new rules on rationing. As long as the famine continued, he never put a delicious dish such as meat or fish into his mouth; moreover, he thought that the common disaster was his own fault. He offered supplications such as, “O God! Do not destroy the nation of Muhammad by famine because of my own sins!”

Noble Aslam, who never left noble Umar’s side, reports, “If the famine had lasted a little while longer, the Leader of the Believers would have died of his sorrow! I often saw him prostrating. He was always offering supplications and weeping. Sometimes, he was totally drowned in tears. He kept moaning, “Oh, God! I think that the famine and drought are the results of my sins. Please, do not destroy the nation of Muhammad because of me!” and shaking with sadness.

This example above is an expression of perceiving things with the eye of the heart and a sign of being connected to God. It is only those who are detached (from the true path) who, when some bad incident happens, always impute sin to others, and seek different reasons to blame, and accuse others. They never ever say, “This problem happened as a result of my fault.” They do not see events from this perspective. Consequently, they do not feel a need to repent (for their sins), to try hard to compensate their fault, or to plead with God. They cannot find the real culprit since they do not link the incident to themselves. They cannot be saved from the fault of blaming others.

Today, how many people consider themselves responsible even for changes in the laws in nature, run to their prayer rugs, and mourn as in, “Please, O God! Do not destroy the nation of Muhammad because of me”? How many people are in tears of repentance considering themselves as the cause of deprivation from the help and mercy of God. Indeed, the number of real believers in this world is equal to the number of the individuals who believe that some misfortune happening in their country is because of their sins and feel sad to think of their share in Islam’s unsolved problems.

It is narrated that in a time when misfortunes rained down on people, Salim ibn Qasim, a pious person, visited Muhammad ibn Muqatil, a great scholar of the time. He said, “There is a severe storm of disasters; earthquakes are happening one after another, and people are exhausted by poverty. You are our leader; please, for the sake of God, pray for us!” The humble scholar responded, “Indeed, how I wish that I were not the reason for your destruction! I am afraid that the storm rose because of me, the earthquakes never cease because of me, and my sins hinder Glorious Mercy from coming and embracing you.”

Next morning, Salim ibn Qasim once again, ran to Muhammad ibn Muqatil’s door. This time, however, Salim was smiling with great pleasure. He exclaimed, “Last night, in my dream, I saw our master the Messenger of God, the honor of the universe, saying, ‘God the most Glorious, released dreadful disasters and misfortune upon people. Yet, for the sake of Muhammad ibn Muqatil, who despises himself, prays, and begs humbly, God the Almighty turned the disaster away from your country!’”

Do you see how considering oneself responsible becomes great repentance and supplication in God’s view? On the one hand, think about how God’s servant sees himself or herself; on the other hand, look at his or her value in God’s view. Do you understand how judging the self (nafs) to be the cause of disasters and asking for forgiveness with a sense of shame can raise people?

Assuming responsibility

Some people may think, “What sins have we committed so that we should blame ourselves for disasters?” Actually, the thought, “What sins have I committed?” is a major sin in itself; one who think in this way commits a major lapse. A very sinful person will be on the way of forgiveness if he or she asks for pardon with very deep regret, while one who thinks, “What sins have I committed?” will be considered to be falling into the pit of catastrophe due to this question. For, individuals who are aware of their sins always have the chance of purification by repentance, whereas it is inevitable that those who suppose themselves to be pure will be crushed under the full consequences of their overlooked minor sins. Yes, indeed, “What sins have I committed?” expresses a lack of knowledge of what sin is. Nonetheless, for those individuals, not establishing a relationship with God in accordance with God’s blessings on them, not understanding the great value of being Muslim-by preferring it even over the leadership of the world-and not doing their best to obtain the pleasure of God means that they are poor ones who have closed their eyes to the Glorious bestowal, and therefore it is unnecessary to search for any other sin for one who is sunk in ingratitude up to the neck.

On the other hand, some people admit their sins, but they say, “Who am I that there should be changes in the sky, famine should appear, or rain should fall because of me?” Since they do not attribute any value to themselves, they never imagine that they have a share in causing misfortunes and disasters. This way of thinking can be seen as a sign of modesty and poverty from one point of view; however, it can be a temptation to escape from responsibility at the same time. In this manner, it is possible that a person who says “because of me!” for all kinds of disasters, whether major or minor, might become arrogant through a hidden channel under responsibility, since that kind of person assumes that many incidents happening in the universe are linked to him or her. “I am such a sinful person that everyone is afflicted with disaster because of me!” expresses feelings of shame at first; however, if proper limits are not drawn, and if Satan’s tricks are not defeated, this expression can be transformed into a claim that “I am such an important person that events in the heavens and the earth are shaped in relation to me!” Consequently, it is essential to find the middle path and maintain the balance.

Yes, indeed, it is huge heedlessness for those not to consider that there can be their own share in collective disasters; this negligence can be a result of not comprehending how God Almighty values human beings. On the other hand, while saying, “All these events are related to me, I am the reason for things that do not go right,” hidden arrogance can enter one’s heart. There is a danger of veiled arrogance in the thought, “God Almighty pays attention to me; if I am in good shape, He administers events in a good manner; but if I have a bad attitude, he ruins the balance of events,” since one is imagining one’s ego as the ruler of vast realms.

From this angle, every believer, as part of a larger community, should feel the responsibility for every disaster to a certain extent. Also, with regard to responsibility, every believer should always be committed to the following criterion: If I were involved in all the areas that are relevant to Islam and had decision-making power, I would certainly have to assert that “Today, all the troubles in Muslim communities and all that hinders the nation of Muhammad, peace be upon him, is happening because of me.” Yet, I am not a strong agent in all areas; therefore, I am primarily responsible for the hindrances that are somehow relevant to me. I should see every negative occurrence in my area from the “because of me” point of view and approach general disasters with the idea that “I have a share, too.”

The following hadith of our noble master, the Truthful Messenger of God, peace be upon him, draws attention to the criteria by which we should judge ourselves: “Beware. Every one of you is a shepherd and every one is answerable with regard to his flock. The ruler is a shepherd over the people and shall be questioned about his subjects. A man is a guardian over the members of his family and shall be questioned about them. A woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and his children and shall be questioned about them. A servant is a guardian over the property of his master and shall be questioned about it.”

From this perspective, since Umar was the caliph of the noble Messenger of God and Leader of Believers, it is natural that he thought himself responsible for the whole nation. One who leads a country takes on the great responsibility for a whole nation; similarly, the head of an institution or an association is particularly responsible for his or her area. Everyone should believe that his or her own mistakes could result in negative occurrences, especially mistakes connected with their own duty and responsibility; thus, they should be scared of this danger and live carefully.

In this sense, Sultan Alparslan’s example is noteworthy, showing how one should behave in accord with a wide area of responsibility: on the Manzigert plain, when the Muslim soldiers were all anxious, the Sultan came in front of them in his white clothes, which he called his shroud, prostrated to God, and wept, begging, “O my God! Make our army victorious; do not let them be defeated because of my sins.”

Collective repentance

Yes, indeed, it is veiled repentance for those individuals to identify their limits, positions, responsibilities and areas of responsibility, to ask forgiveness of God the Almighty after relating the problems in these areas to their own mistakes, and to revive their dormant enthusiasm in order to eradicate their mistakes. This kind of repentance is more sincere since it is not revealed, unlike that spoken aloud; this kind of repentance is more heartfelt than one that everyone testifies to. Hence, those individuals who judge their self as responsible for every disaster burn inside with great agony, but no one sees the fire; and they do not reveal their secrets. All alone, expressing penitence without letting anyone hear, they ask for forgiveness thousands of times, remembering their sins, and continue, “O my God! It is not enough to ask for forgiveness once for my sins, I repent millions of times!” seeking numbers that can express infinity in order to show regret at the fear of having broken with the Almighty Lord.

In fact, if salvation is desired at the level of society, all members of the society should repent together and look for ways of atoning for their own sins. This is because regret for an individual mistake should be felt individually; sorrow for a sin in a family should be felt by every family member; likewise, a nationwide sin requires nationwide repentance. Hence, for the salvation of a society, every individual in the society should be purified from the dirt of rebellion.

It is narrated that Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, performed the ritual prayer for rain with his tribe. Although they prayed for several days, it did not rain. Then he asked of the Wisdom of God, “My Lord! You told us to pray for an end to drought, but You have not made it rain though we begged You with open hands.” God Almighty said, “There is a sinful person among you who has not repented yet!” When Moses asked for the name of that person who was an obstacle to the mercy of God, God Almighty said, “I am the Veiler (Sattar), and I veil the sins of my servants. I do not disclose their mistakes and make them ashamed. Repent together so that this individual will be purified from sins, and thereafter your prayers will be answered.”

In brief, we should think that the troubles that confront us are because of our sins. To avoid these troubles, we should repent for our mistakes, faults, sins, rebellious actions and every time we have overstepped the limits, whether in a major or minor way. In addition, we should keep in mind that although repentance from the heart is enough for sins at an individual level, for the faults of society there is a need for deeper trembling, and a more sincere awakening and social repentance. Yes, we should not forget that success in attaining prosperity and peace in our society depends on the repentance of people who are connected to the destiny of this society in a material and spiritual way, especially the repentance of those who have dedicated themselves to the prosperity of their people.

According to the Qur’an, every nation in the world receives at least one prophet who speaks to it in its own language. However, one nation, the Children of Israel, has received a great many prophets. The Qur’an does not explicitly tell us why so many prophets arose among the Children of Israel, but a careful reading of the Qur’an reveals an answer. This was what I learned from a profound and enlightening essay by Irfan Ahmad Khan in a book entitled Jewish-Muslim Encounters edited by Charles Selengut (Paragon House 2001). The book is a collection of eleven papers given at a conference in Cordoba, Spain, sponsored by the Inter-Religious Federation for World Peace.

Almost all prophets, according to Khan, are like Hud who was sent to the people of Ad or Salih who was sent to the people of Thamud to warn them of their impending destruction due to their corrupt and immoral ways and to call them to repentance. However, the prophets of the Children of Israel are different. First, Abraham is the only prophet we know of whose two sons, Isma’il (Ishmael) and Ishaq (Isaac), are also prophets. Indeed, Abraham’s grandson Ya’qub (Jacob) and great grandson Yusuf (Joseph) are also prophets. Thus, starting with Abraham, God established a family dynasty of prophets. With Joseph and his brothers (the tribes) the extended family became the twelve tribes of Israel, or as they are usually called the Children of Israel/Ya’qub. The Children of Israel were blessed with many prophets inviting them to stay firm in their faith to God; this is expressed in various places in the Qur’an: “When death approached Ya’qub, he said to his sons, ‘Who will (you) worship after I am gone?’ They answered, ‘We will worship your God, the God of our forefathers, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, the One God. Unto Him we will surrender ourselves.’” (2:132)

Second, when Musa (Moses) is sent by God he comes not primarily to warn or rebuke the Children of Israel (his own people) but he is sent “to Pharaoh” ( 20:24, 51:38, 73:15 and 79:17), “to Pharaoh and his chiefs” (7:103, 10:75, 11:97, 23:46, and 43:46), “to Pharaoh and his people” (27:12). Musa is sent to Pharaoh to warn him of the destruction that will fall on Egypt if the Pharaoh does not stop setting himself up as a God and does not let the Children of Israel go free. Musa comes to rebuke Pharaoh and to rescue the Children of Israel. Only when the nation is free from Egyptian bondage do they receive the Torah from God, by the hand of Moses without any mediation of an angel.1 This very enlightening essay by Irfan Ahmad Khan stimulated me as a Reform Rabbi to realize that, as opposed to the accusations of some who blame the Qur’an for being antagonistic toward Jews, there are many narrations in the Qur’an, which present events from Jewish history as archetypal events for all humanity to draw lessons from. Perhaps the fact that the spiritual history of the Children of Israel was so well known is a simple explanation of this. As a Rabbi I believe that the many prophets God sends to the Children of Israel is a sign of the ongoing covenant between God and the Children of Israel.2 The Qur’an narrates Prophet Musa speaking to his people as follows: “O my people! Remember God’s favor upon you, for He appointed among you Prophets, and appointed (among you) rulers, and He granted to you favors such as He had not granted to anyone else in the worlds” (Maidah 5:20).

The principle that God can make a covenant with a whole people, and not just with those who are faithful believers, also helps me understand a powerful verse where the Qur’an narrates that at Sinai, before God gives the Torah to the Children of Israel, He makes a covenant with them. God raises the mountain above the whole people saying, “Hold firmly to what We have given you (the Torah) and remember what is in it” (2:63). The whole nation’s fate stands under the shadow of Mount Sinai, and this explains the miracle of all Israel agreeing to the covenant. This may be the reason why Musa is the only prophet whose book comes not from an angel but directly from God. Individuals who hear a prophet may choose to believe or disbelieve, but in this case God Almighty makes “an offer that you cannot refuse,” so, as far as Judaism is concerned, everyone of the Children of Israel has to struggle for all generations to come with living up to the covenant they chose to enter into. This concept, of a chosen (by being pressed into choosing) people, can lead-and among many ultra orthodox Jews has led-to exaggerated and self-righteous feelings of pride. Thus, when the Qur’an (A’raf 7:171) mentions another time the same event, when the Mount was moved above the Children of Israel, this verse is followed by a reminder in 7:172 that the “children of Adam” were all made bear witness against their own souls: “‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said ‘Yes, we do bear witness.’” God Almighty made a covenant with all individuals “lest [they] should say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘We were indeed unaware of this.’” This reminder by the Qur’an that no religious community should be self-righteous is similar to that of prophet Amos who tells the Children of Israel, “’Are you not like the Children of Ethiopia to me, O Children of Israel?’ says God. ‘Did I not redeem Israel from Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?’” (Amos 9:7).

Thus, although the covenant was made with the whole community of Israel, this community like all other nations, also had people among them whose hearts are like rocks that spring forth streams, while others only yield water when split, and others sink for fear of God (2:74). It is this last segment of the Children of Israel that Prophet Muhammad refers to when he rebukes the Children of Israel. The Qur’an correctly understood does not attack all of Israel. Every community, including the Muslim umma, contains groups of faithful believers and a party who disbelieve. This has always been true and sadly will remain true until the end of time when Judgment Day will occur.

There are ten other papers in this book which will be informative and enlightening to most people; one of them is a stimulating comparison of the similarities and differences between Sufism and Kabbalah mysticism. I recommend the volume to both Jews and Muslims who would like to get an insight into a neighbor’s religion as well as a new insight into one’s own religion.

Allen S. Maller is the former Rabbi of Temple Akiba in Culver City, California. He has authored several books and is currently the editor of a series of prayer books for the Jewish High Holy Days.

Notes

1. See A’raf 7:143–145 for information on God’s speaking to Prophet Moses and the Tablets being entrusted to him.

2. Editor’s note: With all respect to the author’s religious tradition claiming an “ongoing covenant” between God and the Children of Israel, which he further expounds on in the paragraph that follows in his interpretation of the Qur’anic verse 2:63 extending the said covenant to cover all generations of the Children of Israel, Muslim interpreters have commented on this verse and 2:64 arguing that favors mentioned in these verses were related to a certain period when the Divine trust-the representation and promotion of God’s eternal religion-rested on the shoulders of the Children of Israel. Muslim commentators point out that the Children of Israel had great power as a leading nation of human civilization even before Prophet Moses, especially in Egypt during and after the time of Prophet Joseph.