Wolf (1999) notes that a nonprofit organization is neither in the profit sector nor in the public sector but sits somewhere between the two. This position allows the nonprofit great flexibility in its operation but requires great skill in its management. Nonprofit organizations have characteristics of profit and public organizations. Wolf defines nonprofit organizations as “those legally constituted, nongovernmental entities incorporated under state law as charitable or not-for-profit corporations that have been set up to serve some public purpose and are tax exempt.” All nonprofit organizations must have the following characteristics:

• They must have a public service mission-their main goal must be to serve others, not themselves.

• They must be organized as a not-for-profit or charitable corporation-they must formally claim to be non-profit.

• Their governance structure must preclude self interest and private financial gain-this goes back to the first characteristic in that the organization’s main goal is to serve people.

• They must be exempt from paying federal tax.

• They must possess the special legal status that stipulates gifts made to them are tax-deductible.

It is obvious that the nonprofit sector has expanded dramatically over the past few years, so has public scrutiny over the sector. Governance is needed to ensure that the organization is providing services that are permitted within the legal system and the bylaws and to ensure that the organization does not permit fraud, potential abuse, and violations of the expectations of the public. Governance of a nonprofit can be defined as the ultimate authority, accountability, and responsibility for an organization (Ott 2001). Leadership, such as the board, is important in the nonprofit sector because it is governed through a complex set of functional roles and procedures that are defined in laws and tax codes that differ from those for the public and for-profit sector. The board is responsible for policies, procedures, financial outcomes, and ensuring that the mission of the organization is being implemented and accomplished to the best of the organization’s ability to serve its target population or general public.

There are some challenges that nonprofit organizations face in our modern societies. The first major challenge for a nonprofit organization is articulating a clear public service mission. A nonprofit organization is required by law to limit its activities to those articulated in the mission statement, so the mission statement must be broad enough to cover all possible activities. The mission statement must also guide the direction of the organization’s programs, services, and activities. In addition, a mission statement may require review and revision over time. For example, an arts council can begin with a mission to develop, foster, and promote the arts, and then develop a stronger mission statement that provides detailed plans for programs and activities, such as working with the school district to develop art education programs, and seeking funds from state, federal, and private sources.

The second major challenge is risk/survival analysis: the search for the proper balance between organizational extension and risk-taking, and organizational security. Engaging in risk/survival analysis means having an understanding of what should and should never be compromised, always being cognizant of the mission and whether or not daily activities or decisions are in harmony with that mission. This challenge identifies a great dilemma for nonprofit organizations: whether it is more important to ensure survival of the organization or to stay true to the mission. There is no easy answer. To meet this challenge, the organization must continually plan, analyze future options (both practical and idealistic), and debate the pros and cons of each option.

The third major challenge facing a nonprofit organization is constituency identification and involvement. Identifying and involving the constituency entails having a working knowledge of the clientele you desire to serve. This must not be too narrow or too broad. The nonprofit organization must establish a concise identification of its constituency in order to avoid problems in this area. The organization must identify the group that it seeks to serve, and then must create a structure that supports a commitment to that group. To meet this challenge, the organization must have a well-defined understanding of its constituency, seek to involve the constituency at all levels of the organization (particularly at the trustee level), and provide programs and activities that reflect a commitment to the constituency.

The fourth major challenge is testing for organized abandonment: that is, disbanding that is the result of careful deliberation, rather than unplanned events, such as financial crisis or management problems. In order to meet this challenge, the organization must have a clearly defined mission, establish criteria for evaluation of the mission, and have a formal system to determine whether or not the mission is relevant and effective. The organization must examine whether or not its mission is obsolete or if other organizations are more effective in achieving its mission.

In conclusion, nonprofit organizations go where other organizations fear to tread. Nonprofits eagerly work with the most disadvantaged members of society-the homeless, the hungry, the ill, and the befuddled. Nonprofits fill the gaps in society-consider the thousands of charter schools that have sprung up to provide a genuine alternative, most frequently for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Nonprofits extend and even function as government service-providers: how would most governmental social service agencies function if not by contracting out to tens of thousands of nonprofit service providers. Think too of the thousands of neighborhood associations that knit together their communities, and sometimes act indistinguishably from chartered governments. Nonprofits help people find meaning-both through quiet worship and organizing millions of people to do “good deeds.” People who want to “do something, to give back to society” sometimes do so through governments, but most do so through nonprofits. Millions of volunteers contribute and share in the nonprofit sector. Finally, unlike the other sectors, the nonprofit sector does not start out by asking how much money can be made, or where the money is going to come from; no, the nonprofit sector asks what the need is and how to fulfill the need. Only then does it seek strategies to support the social needs it discovers. Although by nature humble, it is the nonprofit sector that makes our complex and frequently materialistic and even selfish society, humane, purposeful, and cohesive. The private sector may provide the engine of growth and a quality of life; the public sector may organize us and keep the private sector in line; but it is the nonprofit sector that is our heart, our soul, and our spirit as a society.

References

• Ott, J. Steven (ed.), Understanding Nonprofit Organizations: Governance, Leadership, and Management, Westview Press, Boulder, CO: 2001.
• Wolf, Thomas, Managing a Nonprofit Organization in the Twenty-First Century, Simon & Schuster, New York: 1999.

In order to maintain the effective use of power resources to reach a target, researchers divide them into various subgroups according to different criteria. For instance, capital is categorized into such groups as material, emotional, morality and virtue, intellectual, knowledge (know-how), and consciousness of opportunity and favor. Each one is highlighted by being given a separate name. In addition, various scientific concepts are used as metaphors to imprint on people’s minds the importance of those factors that help a community or nation develop. This is done because the human brain can think more easily through metaphors and understand a fresh and novel point of view.

The definition of social capital draws attention to an important – but often ignored or underemphasized – source of wealth for national development. This concept expounds why developing countries cannot achieve Western standards of development. While financial power and knowledge (intellectual capital) constitute the fuel and mechanical parts of the car of progress, social capital functions as its lubricant and oil. An old car that lacks lubrication cannot take you very far, just as a nation whose social capital has been exhausted or broken cannot progress.

So just what is social capital? Which national riches can be seen more clearly through the lens of social capital?

Defining social capital

Social capital is defined as the individual’s capacity and ability to benefit from and take advantage of public and private institutions through membership. Social capital forms bonds between neighbors, families, individuals, and communities. The society’s civil organizations need social capital to coordinate their existing resources more effectively. The sense of belonging to a society and a nation, and the people’s ability to make use of their various capacities, are involved in social capital. At each society’s base of interpersonal relationships and institutions, all of a person’s opportunities and duties comprise social capital.

Being a member of a social group brings both responsibilities and advantages. Social capital is formed by social structures and institutional characteristics (e.g., reliability, norms, networks of relationships, and systems of facilitating coordinated actions). It facilitates some actions within the structure and makes some benefits available, such as the material gains that accrue with group membership opportunities and chances, as well as the support brought about by relationships within the organization.

If the essence of a relationship is mutual trust and reliance, a system containing expectations and responsibilities arises. This mutual trust and reliance between the members of a civil organization oils the wheels of socioeconomic interactions, reduces costs, maintains the circulation of confidential information among group members, and enhances the availability of chances offered by the group. All of the values and norms needed to erect and maintain a healthy society can be defined as social capital.

Social capital also can be defined as the existence of institutional and inter-institutional participation and cooperation that keeps the individuals grouped around a common purpose and which acts as an adhesive that makes it possible to construct a society or a team. Given that religion and moral education form such values as charity, self-sacrifice, trust, and reliability, it follows that religious and moral teachings play primary roles in constructing social capital. Social capital has yet another meaning: those norms that influence a society’s productivity and health and social networks, as well as interpersonal relationships, respect, trust and credibility. Social bonds can boost efficiency by reducing the cost of work and production and facilitating the coordination and cooperation needed for production and marketing.

Social capital, an indispensable component of society and progress on both the micro- and macrolevels, includes all of the norms that shape the quality and intensity of a society’s social interactions. In this respect, a large amount of social capital allows more resources and opportunities to be mobilized in the pursuit of common goals. Social capital, however, has both positive and negative sides. For example, social clubs exclude non-members from their services by forming an internal social capital. Thus, poor and rich social sectors have different social capitals. The social capital of poor people is built around trust and the exchange of goods or property. The critical point of social progress is making public opportunities and chances available to the poor by reducing the exclusivity of the social capital available to the rich. The Islamic institutions of zakat (the prescribed alms) and interest-free credit practices are quite significant here.

The social capital of socially harmful groups (e.g., drug cartels and corrupt people) prevent socioeconomic progress. In this respect, the social capital value of a society’s subgroups and civil organizations determines whether the net value of its social capital is positive or negative. The value of an institution’s social capital is determined by the levels and degrees of the following: the development of an institutional identity among staff members; the sense of belonging; the extent of common thoughts, visions, and goals; being informed of the chances and opportunities inside or outside the institution; staff members’ respectability in the institution and the institution’s respectability in society; its ability to offer equal opportunities without getting entangled in religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences. In addition, participation in managing a society’s institutions and establishments also strengthens social capital. Thus, we can say that social capital can be defined in many ways and represents the group of differences called capital.

We should distinguish the resources of social capital from its outcome. We can list the following among its outcomes: social control, preservation of family and kinship ties, preservation of the society’s unity and solidarity (both material and spiritual), and the capacity to put forward common ideas and targets due to the unity and harmony of society. All of these are vitally important for economic progress and sustained growth and development.

Social capital also makes an important contribution to forming a sociopolitical environment that allows certain norms and standards that shape society in order to improve it. Unlike economic capital, social capital cannot be bought from another community or nation; every society has to build it up with its own faith, tradition, and education system. Civil organizations play a major role in the rapid construction of positive social capital. The value of social capital directly affects the government’s functioning, as well as that of the justice system and the use of rights and freedoms. And, socioeconomic development is directly related to the common goals and principles determined by the social capital accumulations of subgroups

and institutions. As networks of relationships that are limited to a person’s family and neighbors have a small amount of social capital, they are deprived of chances and opportunities to improve themselves. Those with a larger network of relationships, due to their membership in civil organizations, as well as professional and social clubs, have more social capital and a better chance of enriching and making individual progress.

Social and other types of capital

Social capital is a means of investing in your future. People with a high social capital value are honest, trustworthy, possess professional honor, function as a member of a team, and are sought after in all sections of life. Individuals and institutions that maintain their social capital above a certain value can acquire knowledge, power, and opportunities of critical importance. A collective group identity that increases the capacity of collective action can be enhanced only by building up social capital. As material capital can be used for reaching various objectives, social capital can be used to access critical information or to receive sound advice. Certainly, the advantages of a person’s position within society or a group can be transformed into economic gain. Material capital, the most fluid and that with the highest value of convertibility among all types of capital, can be used to improve men and women, culture, and social capital. However, the convertibility of social capital to economic capital is lower, for social capital, which keeps the common values that make up the society together, is less transferable.

When necessary, social capital can function as other types of capital or can compensate for their absence. For instance, the lack of financial or human capital can be eliminated by introducing strong social relationships and connections. Furthermore, the efficiency of social capital can be raised by reducing operation costs. Research reveals that people with a lower social capital value are less reliable and less receptive to institutionalizing and organizing.

Social capital needs protection and continuity, just like physical (e.g., clean air, water, and environment) and human capital do. In other words, existing social ties among people need to be refreshed and confirmed periodically to maintain their efficiency. The value of social capital increases, instead of decreases, as we use it. For example, the social capital of people who rely on each other and inspire mutual trust increases daily. Thus, dialogues and interactions between different civil organizations and cultures, as well as interfaith dialogues, are important infrastructural activities that enable the construction of social capital.

Social capital, like physical capital, is advantageous for the public and requires that all people work to save and improve it. Such an understanding allows us to comprehend the wisdom of the Divine Order, which wills that every society contains a group that calls for good and prohibits evil. Fresh air and water decrease in proportion with their usage; social capital increases in proportion to its usage. Individuals equally run the risk of not making use of social capital’s potential in an equal manner. Social capital is usually constructed by its relationship to a club or a community. Thus, people who are not members cannot benefit from the opportunities.

Social capital is not held by a person or an institution, but emerges within the network of interpersonal or inter-institutional relationships, and continues to grow as long as the relationship lasts. In other words, the construction of social capital depends upon mutual trust, dialogue, and cooperation. Since social capital emerges within the network of social relationships, it cannot be transferred. Each society has its own methods of operating and achieving success.

All of the cultural elements that motivate a person, generate opportunities, or facilitate the utility of talents and capacities play a role in the construction of social capital.

Measuring social capital

Several criteria are used to measure the value of social capital: the degree of trust and respect for the state and its institutions, the level of people’s participation in making those decisions in which they have a role to play, the extent of their presence in civil organizations, and the average of monthly voluntary service hours, as well as the level of help, support, and self-sacrifice between individuals and neighbors. For example, social capital strengthened by the active support of local citizens and families enhances the quality of education, for students are more successful when teachers improve themselves, take their jobs seriously, and establish a good relationship with the students. Doctors and nurses who work in citizen-monitored and supported health institutions are sure to be more attentive in their jobs. Building a healthy society depends on social capital being rooted in interpersonal trust and assistance.

Social capital and social progress

Researchers have discovered that a nation’s ability to achieve healthy progress does not depend only on financial, structural and legal regulations. For example, the failure of the financial aid offered by the World Bank, as well as its advised structural reforms, to the developing countries raises the following question: What did we miss or undervalue? The resulting analyses and research so far have revealed that the interaction between labor and capital for progress is far more complicated than originally expected. Various types of capital were acknowledged (e.g., physical, geographical, human, cultural, moral, emotional, and social) and held to be significant for progress. Social capital was recognized as the primary prompter and sustainer of development and progress.

Recently, researchers have begun to focus on the need for developing countries to have social, rather than financial and labor, capital. They underline that existing corruption, bribery, and monopolies can be dealt with only by enhancing social capital. We hope that this article helps administrators, who are at the steering wheel of national ships, realize the contribution of our religious, moral, and cultural inheritance to establishing a high-quality social capital, and encourages them to consider social capital in their projects.

References

– Hwe P., and A. Shiell. “Social Capital and Health Promotion: Review.” Social Science and Medicine, no. 51 (2000): 855-871.

– www.worldbank.org./poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm.

Social capital has a long intellectual history in the social sciences. In this paper, social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions. Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions underpinning a society; rather, it is the glue that holds them together.

Lyda Hanifan, a West Virginia school reformer (1916), was the first to use the term social capital. Jane Jacobs reinvented it during the late 1960s, Glenn Loury elaborated upon it during the late 1970s, and James Coleman used it to examine Chicago schools in the 1980s. Coleman and Loury prefer to view social capital as a bottom-up phenomenon that is not directly amenable to public policy intervention. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu developed a contemporary approach, though Anglo-American scholars remained unaware of it until the late 1980s.

The major momentum for scholarship on social capital, however, came with Robert Putnam’s seminal work on democratic governance in contemporary Italy (1993) and his subsequent challenging thesis that late twentieth-century Americans were bowling alone, by which he meant that they were becoming increasingly disengaged from active participation in public life, a trend with disconcerting implications for active democratic participation. He developed his thesis with his bowling alone article (1995), which led to scores of active research projects around the world on social capital.

Organizational-level social capital cannot be measured merely as an aggregation of individual networks, for attention has to be given to inter-organizational networks as well as to the study of this network’s nature. Community-level social capital resides in groups and in the networks among these organizations/groups. Strong society-/community-level social capital creates a civic infrastructure that supports formal and informal processes of decision-making and public involvement. The idea of social capital has coalesced around several fields: families and youth behavior problems, schooling and education, community life, work and organizations, democratic governance, collective action problems, and economic development. Building and maintaining networks is not a natural given; rather, it requires investments that yield a return.

Since Putnam’s identification of the social capital in regional governance and economic development in Italy (1993) and his latest suggestion in the U.S. (1995, 2000), a virtual industry of interest and action has been created around the implications of his findings for the development of low-income communities. Putnam attributes a significant portion of differences in government effectiveness, economic health, and community well-being to the presence (versus absence) of social capital. Stated simply, he considers the main elements of social capital to be trust and cooperation. Social capital consists of networks and norms that enable participants to act together effectively to pursue shared objectives. There is a strong collective aspect of social capital, as the social and economic system as a whole functions better because of the ties among the actors that make it up.

State-Nonprofit Partnerships

Government partnership includes partnering with for-profit corporations and nonprofit organizations, such as social service agencies, cultural groups, neighborhood organizations, hospitals, and health organizations. Alexis de Tocqueville, while touring America in 1831-32, noticed how different Americans were from Europeans in their enthusiasm for banding together to support a good cause. We see the result of this cultural characteristic today, for America did not follow the model of a European welfare state. American policymakers used taxes and direct subsidies to deliver services. America has created a welfare state through nonprofit organizations, the vast majority created since 1959.

State-nonprofit collaborations involve nonprofit organizations addressing local, state, and national problems through negotiated efforts or partnerships with business, government, colleges and universities, or other public or social institutions. Public organizations should look for opportunities to work with other nonprofit organizations-even with their competitors-in solving growing public problems in a timely and efficient manner. These efforts encompass several categories: governments often seek to execute their efforts via structures of interagency collaboration; the role of not-for-profit organizations is large and growing; and the frequency and variety of links with for-profit firms is impressive and government contracting remains a growth industry.

Generating social capital

Putnam (2000) states that civic engagement and social connectedness are practical preconditions for better schools, safer streets, faster economic growth, more effective government, and even healthier and longer lives. Without an adequate supply of social capital, meaning civic engagement, healthy community institutions, norms of mutual reciprocity, and trust, social institutions falter.

The value creation process of public and nonprofit partnerships generates incremental social capital to the partners, members, and to society as a whole. Benefits generated by an effective partnership often exceed the partnership’s purpose and enable the social mission to be accomplished more effectively. Public-nonprofit partnerships focused on social problems can also serve as motivating informative models for others to follow. As a partnership evolves, the value of the benefits can erode. Skills acquired by one partner from another, for example, may no longer be a transferable benefit. Relationships are dynamic and subject to alteration due to changes in the external environment. Also, partners’ need and priorities can change.

Public-nonprofit partnerships can be seen as vehicles for generating social capital by creating and strengthen organizations and collaborations within the community. For example, they enable community members to participate in those aspects of community life that concern them by setting priorities, developing programs, and participating in them. Creative action by public organizations can foster social capital, and linking mobilized nonprofit organizations and citizens can enhance governmental efficacy.

The role of nonprofits

According to Putnam: By almost every measure, Americans’ direct engagement in politics and government has fallen steadily and sharply over the last generation, despite the fact that average levels of education-the best individual-level predictor of political participation-have risen sharply throughout this period. At the same time, membership in and the number of nonprofits has increased (although there has been increased competition among nonprofits for this membership). This would seem to contradict de Tocqueville’s thesis. But, as Putnam points out, contributing to a nonprofit organization or joining an association and reading its newsletter does not necessarily translate into greater civic participation.

Nonprofit organizations play a vital role in creating and sustaining social capital, namely, those bonds of trust and reciprocity that seem to be pivotal for a democratic society and market economy to function effectively. But one would expect American individualism to make it difficult to sustain such organizations. De Tocqueville understood this point well when he wrote in Democracy in America in 1835: Feelings and opinions are recruited, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed, only by the reciprocal influence of men upon one another these influences are almost null in democratic countries; they must therefore be artificially created and this can only be accomplished by associations.

Thus the perpetuation of a vital nonprofit sector is essential to developing and sustaining a sense of community, which is required to uphold contracts and enable both a market system and a democratic policy to operate.

Investing in social capital by attempting to increase civic participation therefore will strengthen democracy. Since nonprofits reach so many people, and because some nonprofits are powerful secondary associations, we are targeting nonprofits. They are an important source, if not the main source, for discussing critical public policy issues. Thus, nonprofits may play a unique intermediary role in helping to stimulate civic participation through a series of actions aimed at public education, research, advocacy, mobilizing, and so on. Public-nonprofit partnerships have emerged as an important institutional arrangement for addressing important societal concerns through the collaborative efforts and, as a result, the combined strengths of organizations from the public, private, and non-profit sectors.

Education is a very important field in which states can have a direct influence upon the generation of social capital. Educational institutions do not simply contribute human capital; they also contribute to social capital in the form of social rules and norms. States can foster the formation and creation of social capital directly or indirectly by providing public goods and public safety. They also can hinder its formation and creation by undertaking activities that are better left to nonprofits. If the state organizes everything, people will become dependent and lose their interest in and ability to work together. If states cannot contribute directly to the creation of social capital, they should create an environment in which nonprofits can do so.

References

• Briggs, S. Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and the Many Faces of Social Capital. Housing Policy Debate. volume 9, no. 1 (1998): 177-221.
• Coleman, James. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
• De Tocqueville, A. Democracy in America. Edited by J. P. Mater. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1994.
• Evans, P. Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy. World Development 24, no. 6 (1996): 1119-32.
• Hall, P. Historical Perspective on Nonprofit Organizations. In The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, edited by Robert D. Herman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.
• Huntoon, L. Government Use of Nonprofit Organizations To Build Social Capital. Journal of Socio-Economics 30 (2001).
• Kanter, R. Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances. Harvard Business Review (Jul.-Aug. 1994): 96-108.
• Light, P. Making Nonprofits Work: A Report on the Tides of Nonprofit Management Reform. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, Brookings Institution Press, 2000.
• Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
• Salamon, L. America’s Nonprofit Sector: A Primer. New York: The Foundation Center, 1999.
• Young, D. Complementary, Supplementary, or Adversarial? A Theoretical and Historical Examination of Nonprofit-Government Relations in the United States. In Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict, edited by Elisabeth T Boris and C. Eugene Steuerle. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 1999.

In a recent study, Mitroff and Denton asked people what gave them the most meaning and purpose in their job. They found that most people do not list money as the most important thing; rather, the first choice was the opportunity to realize one’s full potential as a person. Contrary to expectations, the interviews revealed that people are able to express their intelligence and their creativity significantly more than their feelings and soul. Recognizing these facts, modern organizations have started to find ways to better reflect human being as a whole and to use the benefits of full and deep engagement of their employees.

Conventional Attitudes toward Work

People have embraced materialism, thinking that possessions will make them happy; they have turned to utilitarian individualism and no longer feel connected to one another.1 This disconnectedness gave rise to a business culture in which organizations respond to spiritual matters and concerns by declaring them inappropriate or out of bounds. Conventional wisdom holds that these issues are far too personal and private to be brought up directly in the workplace. It also declares that spiritual matters have virtually nothing to do with the day-to-day demands of work, and even less with corporate affairs. Hence they are to be dealt with outside of work, on employee’s own time, and as the employee sees fit.

Although corporate America declares spiritual issues out of bounds, it draws upon them with calls for employee energy and enthusiasm. This is a contradiction, for enthusiasm is fundamentally a spiritual concept. There is a mutually supportive relation between an individual’s actions and inner life. Attitudes like determination, perseverance, and resolution illuminate one’s inner conscience; the brightness of one’s inner conscience strengthens one’s willpower and resolve, and stimulates one to attain higher horizons.

Organizations create a wall between their employees’ private concerns and their businesses’ public demands. This is both an external and internal division, for it separates the organization from its members’ deepest sources of creativity and productivity, and also produces a fundamental split in its employees’ souls.

Here is a typical concern, as noted by Covey in his best selling, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: “I’ve set and met my career goals and I’m having tremendous professional success. But it’s cost to me my personal and family life. I don’t know my wife and children any more. I’m not even sure I know myself and what’s really important to me. I’ve had to ask myself-is it worth it?’

Religion or Spirituality?

Today, people demand more than mere professional success in their work lives. They want to attach a deeper meaning to what they are doing, and they ask for a greater spiritual satisfaction. Mitroff and Denton’s A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America is a celebration and analysis of this spiritual revival. Their book seeks to identify how people conceive of spirituality and religion, and which ways these concepts can be reflected in the workplace.

The authors report that 60 percent of those interviewed had a positive view of spirituality and a negative view of religion. These respondents viewed spirituality as relating to creation, meaning, spirit, soul, and essence of life. On the other hand, they described religion as dogmatic, restrictive, narrow, and exclusive. The authors point out that only 30 percent had a positive view of both religion and spirituality. We find these results indicative of the division in the souls of people between their inherent spirituality and the Divine message. Yet, these are two inseparable concepts.

Since the beginning of time, people have found true peace and happiness in religion, the collection of Divine principles that guide people to good, not by force but by appealing to their free will. All principles that secure human spiritual and material progress, and thus happiness in this world and the next, are found in religion. Morality and virtue cannot be talked about in the absence of true religion, for they originate in a good, clear conscience. And religion, the connection between humanity and God, makes one’s conscience good and clear.

Spirituality in the Workplace

The idea that the body and soul are mutually antagonistic and can develop only at the other’s expense has influenced philosophical and religious thought. For the soul, the body is a prison, and the activities of daily life are the shackles that keep it in bondage and arrest its growth. This has led inevitably to the universe being divided into the spiritual and the secular.

This body-soul conflict resulted in two different ideals of human perfection. One was that we should surround ourselves with all possible material comforts, while depriving all spheres of worldly activity (i.e., social, political, economic, or cultural) of spirituality. The other was that the senses should be subdued and conquered, extrasensory powers should be awakened, and the sensory world’s limitations should be vanquished. According to this view, physical self-denial, mortification of the flesh, and withdrawal from the world were necessary for spiritual development and perfection.

Islam’s understanding of spirituality transcends this dualism by functioning as the nucleus of its integrated and unified concept of life. The body was created so that the soul could exercise its authority and fulfill its duties and responsibilities as a human being. Thus the body is the soul’s workshop or factory. If the soul is to grow and develop, it can do so only through this workshop. Consequently, this world is not a place of punishment, but a field in which God has sent it to work and perform its duty toward Him. Spiritual development does not consist of turning away from this workshop and retreating into a corner; rather, we should live and work in it, and give the best account of ourselves as we can.

Islam rejects and condemns asceticism and proposes a set of methods and processes for human spiritual development while living in the world, for it states that such growth can occur only in the midst of life. Religious and secular people work in the same sphere of activity. However, religious people will work with greater enthusiasm than their secular counterparts. Religious people also will be more likely active than secular people, in their domestic and social lives, which extend from the household to the market and even to international conferences.

What distinguishes their actions is the nature of their relationship with God and the goals behind their actions. Religious people act in awareness that they must answer to God for what they do. Thus, they try to secure Divine pleasure and ensure that their actions are in accord with God’s laws. Secular people are indifferent toward God and thus are guided only by personal motives. This difference makes a religious person’s whole life a totally spiritual venture, while the life of a secular person is devoid of the spark of spirituality.

Benefits of Recognizing Spirituality

Today, a spiritual revival is sweeping across corporate America. Executives of all lines are mixing mysticism into their management, importing the lessons usually given in churches, temples, and mosques into office corridors. Since the only thing that really motivates people is that which gives them deep meaning and purpose in their jobs and lives, the only organizations that will survive are those that have a deep value base.

There is mounting evidence that spiritually minded programs in the workplace soothe workers’ psyches and engender greater productivity. A recent research project by McKinsey & Co. Australia shows that when companies engage in programs that use spiritual techniques, productivity improves and turnover is greatly reduced. Mitroff and Denton report similar results: Employees who work for organizations they consider to be spiritual are less fearful, less likely to compromise their values, and more job-focused. People do not want to compartmentalize their lives; they want to have their souls acknowledged as whole persons in the workplace. On nearly every dimension in which they make comparison, researchers find that organizations and individuals who perceive themselves as more spiritual score better than those who perceive themselves as less spiritual.

How Does Religion Affect Conduct at Work?

Morals, which originate in high spirituality, are a set of noble principles governing human conduct. People who neglect spirituality, and so are lacking in spiritual values, cannot sustain conduct in accordance with these principles. All religions encourage good conduct and warn against misdeeds. A sincerely religious person cannot continue unethical behavior in good conscience.

People with strong faith consider themselves and their possessions as belonging to God. They bow their ego, ideas, passions, and thinking to God. They do not dodge responsibility for their actions, and always emphasize doing good deeds, for they believe in their ultimate accountability for those deeds.

The Qur’an states: Work righteously: soon will God observe your work, and His Messenger, and the Believers: soon will you be brought back to the Knower of what is hidden and what is open; then will He show you the truth of all that you did (9:105). The meaning is clear: Be honest and proficient at work, for your actions are being watched and recorded. The concept of honesty and trust can be extended to other dimensions of one’s work as a manager or as an employer. For instance, they cannot mislead their boss or their clients or waste time or organizational resources in performing one’s task, for this would be violating an employer’s trust.2

A similar approach is observed in both Christianity and Judaism. In his Letter to the Ephesians (6:6) Paul says: To those who serve; serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men. In Judaism, the Talmud, which is the body of Jewish civil and religious law, says that the first question people are held accountable after death is: Did you conduct your business affairs with honesty and with probity? All other questions about religious duties come after that question. There is a constant juxtaposition in the Torah between Judaism’s ritual commands and ethical obligations toward other people.

The Ten Commandments, which give the guidelines of good ethical conduct, are observed by both Jews and Christians. The Eighth Commandment is: Thou shall not steal [Exodus 20:15). Stealing also can mean to steal the employee’s or employer’s time, money, or other people’s ideas, and so on. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians [4:28) reads: To those who have been thieves; He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

The Islamic term ihsan means to worship God as if you see Him, and if you cannot achieve this state of devotion then remember that He sees you. The knowledge that God is watching is likely to prompt any leader or employer to behave appropriately. In contrast to the fear of God and feeling His presence, the love of God motivates the individual to work toward attaining His pleasure. Employees with ihsan push themselves beyond the call of duty; they are energized and willing to make sacrifices. The same concept is also stated in the Bible: Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God (Colossians 3:23).

What about the Misuse of Religion in the Workplace?

As the workplace becomes more open to religion and spirituality, differences in perceptions become more pronounced. This may cause conflict among employees and between management and an employee. The potential danger of the latter conflict is seen in the results of The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports: a 29 percent increase in the number of religious-based discrimination charges since 1992. It is the third fastest growing claim, after sexual harassment and disability.

Companies have to focus on the pluralistic, moral messages common to all religions to resolve such issues. People have the right to believe that their religious choice is the best: however, they cannot claim that their religion is the “only right one.” Companies must foster this kind of mutual respect and tolerance among employees and between employees and management.

Footnotes:

1. According to utilitarian individualism, the center of life is the autonomous individual who can choose his or her roles and commitments, not on the basis of higher truths but according to the criterion of life effectiveness as he or she judges it.
2. Islam is very sensitive on this issue. If an employee works on an hourly basis, he or she can perform the non-obligatory prayers on the job only with the employer’s permission. But if he or she works on a product basis, he can perform the non-obligatory prayers freely as long as the work is finished on time. On the other hand, employers are obliged to pay their workers fairly.

References:

• Beekun, Rafik. Islamic Business Ethics. Brentwood, MD: Amana Publications, 1997.
• Conlin, Michelle. “Religion in the Workplace: The Growing Presence of Spirituality in Corporate America,” Business Week (1 Nov 1999].
• Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York, Fireside: 1990.
• Dalai Larna. Ethics for the New Millennium. New York, Riverhead Books: 1999.
• Gulen, M. Fethullah. The Infinite Light. London:Truestar (London] Ltd., 1995.
• Jones, Laurie B. Jesus CEO: Using Ancient Wisdom for Visionary Leadership. New York: Hyperion, 1995.
• Mitroff, Ian I. and Elizabeth A. Denton. A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Look at Spintuality, Religion and Values in the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.
• Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. The Book of Jewish Values. New York: Belltower, 2000.
• Nash, Laura. Believers in Business. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994.

Japan’s first diplomatic relations with a Muslim country begin at the end of the 19th century with the arrival of Japanese emissaries to the Ottoman government. The Ottomans sent the battleship Ertugrul to Japan to establish mutual goodwill between the two countries. On its way back to Istanbul the ship met with a typhoon: out of 656 persons on board only 69 survived .These were rescued by nearby villagers who had mobilized in the middle of the night. Two volunteer journalists, TorajiroYamada (1866-1957) and Osotora Noda, came to Istanbul in 1892 to deliver the donations which had been collected in campaigns all over Japan for the relief of families of the victims of the disaster. Sultan Abdul Hamid II asked the two journalists to stay on in Istanbul for two years in order to teach Japanese to some officials of the Turkish army. During this period both of them embraced Islam, and they are therefore celebrated as the first Japanese ever to become Muslim.

In 1902 an Ottoman emissary, Mohammed Ali, came to Japan and negotiated with Japanese government officials to build a mosque in Yokohama Harbour for the thirty or more Muslim traders who had recently settled in Japan. However, this effort did not prove fruitful.

During the Russo-Japanese war (1904-5) almost 5000 Tartar Muslim captives were accommodated in various detention camps in Japan. Japanese officials segregated them from Russians and fixed appropriate places for their prayers. A number of Egyptian army officers said to have served alongside the Japanese army as volunteer observers of the war married Japanese wives, had children and stayed on in Japan.

Rumours of a religious conference to be held in Tokyo in 1906 circulated widely in the Christian and Islamic world. The occasion was billed as the Japanese calling for a conference to compare world religions and choose the one they regarded as the best. Although there was a suspicion that the rumour was originated by Christian missionaries seeking to put Muslims at a disadvantage, many concerned Muslims responded and made ready to travel to Japan. In spite of the fact that some of them arrived in Japan, there is no certain evidence that a Muslim delegation attended the conference.

The first orderly propagation of Islam was started by the Egyptian, Ahmad Fadly, in 1909. He held three conferences to clear the bad image of Islam among the Japanese created by Christian missionary pamphlets attacking the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace. Fadly’s speeches were delivered in English but some were translated and published in Japanese media.

Abdul Rasheed Ibrahim (1852-1944), a Tartar Muslim scholar and traveller who determined during a trip to Japan in 1908 to dedicate his remaining years to the propagation of Islam in Japan, expended great efforts to gather the Muslims in Japan into a formal association. After several months he managed to establish the Japan (Asia Gikai) Assembly. This organization was headed by Abu Bakr Ohara and a piece of land to build a mosque was provided for it. One Mitsutara Omar Yamaoka embraced Islam and went on pilgrimage to Makka in the company of Abdul Rasheed Ibrahim. On his return he and Bumpachiro Ahmad Ariga, a Japanese trader who had accepted Islam in Bombay at about the same time, started to preach Islam together.

Mohammed Barakatullah, a Professor of Urdu, arrived in Japan in 1909 and, with Ahmad Fadly, began to publish a journal called Islamic Fraternity. As Barakatullah attacked British imperial policy in India and the Islamic world, this journal was soon stopped due to British pressure. However, Hasan Hatano who adopted Islam at Barakatullah’s hands, published several journals after that.

Between the World Wars

The first Muslim community in Japan came into being in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution with the arrival of several hundred Turko-Tartar Muslims from Central Asia. By 1923, the number of these Muslim refugees exceeded three thousand and they were given asylum by the strongly anti-Communist Japanese government. Under the leadership of Muhammad Abdul Hai Kurban Ali (1890-1972), who was provided with the job of teaching Turkish and Russian to the Japanese military, the Muslims in Tokyo improved their situation rapidly. They opened a school in 1927 which was later also used as a mosque for Friday and Id congregations until 1937. In 1931 with the support of non- Muslim Japanese an office and an Arabic printing press were set up. With this assistance, a monthly magazine in the Tartar language, and the first Arabic printing in Japan of the Qur’an were realized.

Muslim traders from India reached significant numbers after World War I in Kobe. With the migration to Kobe of Turko-Tartars, the Muslim population there increased to such an extent that it became necessary to have a mosque. The Kobe Mosque was built in October 1935 with donations, a great portion of which was given by Ferozzuddin of Calcutta. For the opening ceremony of the Kobe Mosque Ayas Shaky Bey, president of the Idel-Oural Turko-Tartar Muslims in the Far East, wrote:

At the present time when political conditions in Muslim countries are rather strained, when all the world is giving a secondary place to religion, when Russia makes its fundamental policies on the basis of atheism and anti-religious principals in general, the Muslims here are to be congratulated on having built …. the first historical mosque in Kobe.

Another mosque was built in Tokyo in May 1938 through the active efforts of the same Kurban Ali, with support mainly from Japanese political and business circles, as well as government leaders all of whom were non-Muslims. This mosque was demolished because of irrecoverable damage in 1986, and a new one was projected. Turko-Tartar settlers built another mosque in Nagoya around 1938 but it was destroyed during air raids in 1945 and they too migrated to Kobe.

During and after World War II

During World War II, interest in Islam gathered pace rapidly through organizations and research centres on Islam and Muslim World set up by the military government. It is said that during this period over 100 books and journals on Islam were published in Japan. However, these organizations or research centres were not managed by Muslims nor was their purpose in any way to propagate Islam. Their only purpose was to equip the military with such knowledge about Islam and Muslims as might be useful to them to govern the large Muslim communities in the areas they occupied in China and south-east Asia. Not surprisingly, after the end of the war in 1945, these organizations and research centres disappeared rapidly.

The first Islamic organization recognized in Japanese law as a religious entity in Japan, now called the Japan Muslim Association, was established in 1953 with Sadiq Imazumi (1905-60) elected as its first president. Its membership in 1959 was almost entirely made up of indigenous Japanese Muslims, a characteristic which this association has continued to maintain. Another organization, Islamic Centre- Japan, came into being in 1966 consisting mainly of foreign (i.e. non-Japanese) Muslims. Both associations have gone a long way to propagate the message of Islam in Japan by arranging seminars and publishing books etc. They have also sent many young Japanese Muslims to Muslim countries for Islamic training and education.

Another wave of interest in Islam and the Muslim world was triggered by the so-called ‘oil shock’ of 1973. On realizing the importance of these countries for the Japanese economy, the Japanese mass media gave considerable publicity to the Muslim world in general and the Arab world in particular. Many Japanese who until then had no idea about Islam got the chance to see scenes of the pilgrimage in Makka, and to hear the call to prayer and recitations from the Qur’an. The number of Japanese Muslims showed a sharp increase during this period, especially after a well-known medical doctor, Dr Shawqi Futaki (1900-94), embraced Islam and, together with some senior staff members of his clinic, established the Japan Islamic Congress. Unfortunately this organization is no longer functioning and its members, most of whom accepted Islam during the ‘oil shock’, have dispersed.

In 1976 a co-ordinating body, the Council of Islamic Organizations in Japan, was formed to unify Muslim organizations in the country (there were over a dozen at that time), and Professor Abdul Kerim Saitoh (b. 1908) was elected as the co-ordinator.

Between 1920 and 1970 five Japanese translations of the Our’an were published. Leaving aside the question of the translators’ competence in Arabic, it is not certain that they were Muslim. It was not until 1972 that the long-cherished desire of all Muslims in Japan for a Muslim Japanese translation of the Qur’an was realized when Umar Ryochi Mita (1892-1 983), a former president of the Japan Muslim Association, published his translation: he had devoted some 13 years of his later life to this task. During the 1970s the number of Japanese Muslims increased and well-prepared leaders emerged among them. The Osaka Mosque, opened in 1977 with Alhaj M. Mustapha Komura (b. 1912) as its leader, was the first mosque to be established and managed by Japanese Muslims alone.

Islam in Japan today

It is an admitted fact that Japan is a hard land for Islam to penetrate, not only on account of its religious culture but also its rushed imitation of Western materialist civilization and the indifference to religious values that is a part of the cultural baggage of that civilization. After World War II the Japanese Constitution was reformed and a clear separation of politics and education from religion was instituted. As a result, ordinary Japanese youngsters nowadays do not know what religion they belong to. On the other side, the abnormal growth of a few new religious cults suggests that Japanese youngsters are in search of a way to satisfy their spiritual needs.

By and large, the Japanese people get their information about Islam mainly from Western! Christian oriented and managed news organizations. Hence they do not have a good impression of Islam. In a recently broadcast television interview, a Japanese stated that Islam was a religion to be afraid of simply because he did not know enough about it to think otherwise. Although several pamphlets and explanatory books have been published in Japanese, the need for reading materials on Islam, particularly on the interpretation of the Qur’an, is still enormous.

Though quite late, a new mosque on the site of the former Tokyo Mosque is about to be built with the sponsorship of the Turkish government. One of the editors of a monthly Islamic Newspaper says that although such a mosque is quite important in the capital, what is more important is that its community should be led by an imam with a very strong character both in faith and morality and competent in the Japanese language.

Until recently Japanese Muslims could not conduct their funerals in accordance with the stipulations of Islam and were obliged to comply with Japanese law which requires cremation. Thanks to the efforts of the Japan Muslim Association, a cemetery was bought in 1968 and made available to any Muslim who wants to be buried there.

Muslims in Japan worry seriously about the education of their young, for the fact is that quite a number of the children of Japanese converts to Islam are also Muslims. A modern boarding school with special arrangements for Islamic education for Muslim children is the long cherished desire of Muslims in Japan.

The number of Muslims of Japanese descent in Japan is roughly 50,000, compared to 150-200,000 Muslims of non-Japanese descent. But the younger generation have aspirations to increase these numbers. Perhaps some day it may be said that Islam is as popular a religion in Japan as it now is in most of the rest of the world.

USEFUL READING

• ABU BAKR MORIMOTO (1980) Islam in Japan, Its Past, Present and Future, Islamic Centre Japan, Tokyo.
• HEE-SOO LEE & IBRAHIM ILHAN (1989) Osmanli-Japon Munasebetleri, Turkish Religious Affairs Foundation, Ankara.
• SALIH M. SAMARRAI (1935) The Relation Between Japan and the Middle East; An Islamic Perspective, A Souvenir booklet issued in commemoration of the opening ceremony of the Kobe Mosque.