After he began to call his people to belief, the Prophet had to face all kinds of torment during his peaceful mission for thirteen years in Mecca. After numerous grievous incidents, he had to leave his town and reluctantly immigrated to Medina. From most people’s point of view, the Meccans were absolutely to be declared as “the enemy”-or “the other.” However, the Prophet did not behave inimical to anyone. He always treated people humanely, no matter what lethal traps they set for him. He never failed to extend his tender hand with a candid clemency and compassion. Even during many inexorable combats, he always prayed to his Lord, chiefly for those who smashed his helmet off, broke his tooth, and left his face covered with blood in battles like Badr and Uhud. Not only did he hinder his followers from bearing any oppugnant attitude against their merciless foes, he also blocked maledictions and imprecations to any adversary, even those who, for instance on the day of Uhud, had ripped the bodies of nearly 70 beloved ones into pieces beyond recognition with an incredible brutality.

Although his opponents were bloodthirsty and yearning for war, his sword was never besmeared by red hot blood; he never killed anyone. He did not represent anything other than loving compassion in the world.

He never broke off his previous social connections. He did not approach anyone with a bias. He always held the door open in order to mildly flatter their vanities. He never hurt anyone’s pride deliberately. While his sworn enemies took the gloves off for any opportunity to assassinate him, he treated everyone amicably by taking into consideration the potential positions they would likely to hold in the near future. Because he knew that every individual had a respectable essence, he thought the most appropriate action was to awaken this divine kernel. He took action in this direction, though horrid provocations did not cease, and he did that with a worthy perseverance.

Glad tidings

The Prophet dealt with every one of his opponents with utmost care, and he took very strategic measures not to destroy them but to conquer their hearts.

Giving the glad tidings of a coming peace, the following verse was revealed right after the Battle of the Trench:

(When you obey God in His commands and prohibitions,) it may be that God will bring about love and friendship between you and those of them with whom you are in enmity. God is All-Powerful, and God is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate. (60:7)

Peace was so close, just at their threshold. Having received this good news, the Prophet initiated immediate action by demanding to marry the daughter of Abu Sufyan, who was then the political leader of the Meccans. Establishing bonds of kinship with him would be a plausible step in order to eradicate hostility. Umm Habiba, Abu Sufyan’s daughter, was among the group of Muslims who had fled the Meccan torture and sought refuge in Ethiopia. However, her husband died there, and she was left alone with her child without any protection. By marrying her, the Prophet would not only save this devoted Muslim woman from despair and honor her, but would also form a connection with Abu Sufyan that would not be possible by any other way. This marriage was realized soon, and afterwards everything changed dramatically.

Abu Sufyan, who was one of the staunch enemies of the Prophet until that day, could easily enter the Prophet’s home to visit Umm Habiba, his daughter. Now, Abu Sufyan could learn more about Islam through his daughter Umm Habiba. He began to realize soon that Muslims were not as he had believed. In a short period of time, the difference in Abu Sufyan’s attitude became more and more obvious. He turned out to be more moderate, more cautious, and more candid in reciprocal dialogue attempts.

Prominent figures of Mecca, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Safwan ibn-i Umayya, Suhayl ibn Amr and Ikrima ibn al-Jahl were exerting pressure on Abu Sufyan to take drastic actions against believers. Despite all of their intolerable pressure, Abu Sufyan resisted their aggressiveness, having realized that they were the ones who were unfair, not those on the Prophet’s side.

Making peace

Even in the most critical conditions he did not give up. Despite all the provocations of evil-doers and his own fellow tribesmen’s objections, he made agreements with his crucial adversaries and fulfilled peaceful commitments with them.

The radical change of Abu Sufyan was an explicit hope for others. The Prophet tried his best to take advantage of every single opportunity to get in touch with any of them.

After his immigration to Medina, the economic and social conditions of Mecca had gradually deteriorated. The Meccans were suffering from drought, famine, hunger, and misery. For sure, he could not have remained indifferent to this heart-rending situation. He sent them food and other needed aid; he literally inundated them with an immense benevolent contribution on the back of hundreds of camels. But, unfortunately the Meccans rejected all of it. Then he sent all the aid directly to Abu Sufyan. Afterwards Abu Sufyan distributed everything to the poor and needy Meccans.

The Prophet those days gave weight to free commerce and trading with other communities, particularly with Meccans. He knew that business trading was an excellent opportunity to get in touch with others. Thus they could have found so many new ways to maintain peaceful relations.

Regrettably, all the peaceful attempts made by God’s Holy Messenger were either repelled or responded to with brutal violence by the Meccans. They once attacked a Muslim tribe in the pitch dark of midnight and slaughtered 23 civilians in a village near Medina. By committing this crime, the Meccans also violated the Hudaybiya peace treaty.

Following this brutal attack, the Messenger of God sent envoys to Mecca, offering them various options to solve the problem peacefully, rather than an immediate retaliation: he asked them to pay the blood money and cut their relations with other warring tribes that participated in this crime. Failing to obey these conditions would mean the Hudaybiya treaty was violated as well as a declaration of war. But the Meccans refused every amicable offer. The only option left for the Prophet was to march to Mecca. Realizing that they would not be able to resist, some of the eminent Meccans fled in confusion to distant towns of the Arab Sahara. God’s Messenger sent someone in pursuit of every missing Meccan. Umm Haqim, Ikrima’s wife, who had fled all the way to Yemen, went after him. She dared all dangers on the way to find her husband, another relentless enemy of the Prophet and the son of Abu Jahl, and to introduce him to the Prophet’s mercy. Umayr ibn Wahb, once a hitman hired by Safwan ibn Umayya to kill the Prophet, went after Safwan twice, reaching him in Jeddah en route to Ethiopia, and convinced to him to return to Mecca. Suhayl ibn Amr was brought back by Abdullah, his own son whom he tortured for years. He wrote letter after letter to Wahshi, who had murdered Hamza, the Prophet’s uncle, and invited Hind, who had hired Wahshi for this murder, to come in peace and that she was forgiven. The Prophet called them back home promising to forgive all their past assaults and guaranteed their protection. Mecca became a land of peace and serenity, thanks to his efforts and merciful invitation.

The Prophet’s immense forgiveness is an example for us today as to how we should engage with past atrocities. It is a message of self-reformation that teaches us that we can subdue feelings of revenge and hatred and build a society in compassion and love.

Fatih Harpci is a PhD candidate at the Temple University, Department of Religion, Philadelphia.

We remember Africa today with recent famines and drought, especially in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya, worst in the last sixty years. If one is not watching only wild life documentaries, Africa is one large portion of the old world, home for diverse cultures, a continent rich with natural resources, and this last one has been the major reason why it has become a large battlefield for many centuries.

Nigeria is the most populous country of Africa (seventh in the world), with over 250 ethnicities, over 500 different languages spoken (one of the countries with highest linguistic diversity). Nevertheless, Nigeria has also been the stage for tribal warfare and strife, and bitter incidents of some recent bloodshed still linger in our memories. In this respect, the theme of the conference fits perfectly well in this country, where there are seventeen schools, a university, and a recently established dialogue foundation inspired by Fethullah Gülen.

What other forms of engagement can we offer other than education and dialogue for peaceful engagement? What can be a more lucrative investment for a peaceful future than the one made in education and dialogue? With awareness of this need and commitment to serving all humanity, regardless of race, color, religion, or nationality, growing numbers of volunteers of education and dialogue are establishing schools, hospitals, dialogue centers, and relief organizations all over the world. Humble but selfless efforts of these volunteers who are inspired from thinkers like Fethullah Gülen are now yielding fruits of dialogue in more than 130 countries where children of warring nations are educated side by side, members of different religions enjoy the same meal, and pray for a peaceful future.

The current issue of The Fountain offers essays reflecting this culture of coexistence. The lead article expounds on the unique qualities of being human, reminding us the “know thyself” principle of Socrates, for “the one who has perceived the secrets of his or her own self has also known God.”

“Different Approaches to Interpersonal Conflict” stresses on how vital it is to be familiar with “conflict-related behavioral tendencies” for it “might help in the development of strategies for interpersonal, intercultural conflict resolution or prevention.”

Also in this issue Dr. Kurucan explains Islam’s stance for issues like freedom of practicing and teaching one’s religion, and in what conditions Islam allows war, if it does, in cases of violation of this right.

‘Peaceful coexistence is the most important project of our era. But we cannot do it alone or in isolation; we must do it together.’

The world has become very small.

Mass communications, mass travel, and economic interdependence have created a contemporary world in which we as individuals and groups no longer can live in isolation from other groups as well as we could have in previous periods. Nations and groups of people who barely knew of each other now see each other’s lives and worlds in living color and in real time through television and the internet. Governments who counted on secrecy and submission just a few years ago now find themselves humbled, bewildered, and even overthrown through mass communications that broadcast their tyrannical deeds—and the bravery of those who resist them—to the entire world. Regions who thrived in their own prosperity in isolation from the poverty and stagnation of other regions now find their economies racked by volatility as globalism ties the purse strings of world commerce together into complicated knots.

The world has become small, and we are with each other—knowing of, affecting, and interacting with each other—more than we ever have in the history of the world. And we are not the same. Yes, we are all human beings. Yes, all of us are subject to the universal conditions of human existence like uncertainty, change, loss, and death. But how we deal with those conditions and what we make them mean depends in large part on our distinctive cultures, backgrounds, languages, and histories. Herein lie the differences in the human family. We do not think the same. We don’t pray to the same gods. We don’t choose the same cultural values. We don’t share specific histories. We interpret the world, and ourselves in it, in very different ways.

Given these differences, how can we all live together? Is peaceful coexistence possible globally, regionally, or even within one family? If so, what are the necessary components that create it? In other words, what are the preconditions—philosophically, socially, politically, culturally, or otherwise—for peaceful coexistence among different people? These are powerful and complex questions that require asking even more questions in order to answer.

First we must ask questions of history.

Have we as human beings ever lived together peacefully? Have people of very different faiths, for example, ever lived with each other for a sustained period of time without seeking to oppress or eradicate each other? Answering these questions requires a significant and thorough study of world history.

If we determine that sustained peaceful coexistence has been achieved in certain situations—for example, under the Ottomans in the fifteenth century, or in thirteenth-century Spain—we must further determine what factors allowed that coexistence to occur. What were the specific conditions—economic, political, social, cultural, etc.—that made that coexistence possible? These conditions and factors are myriad; to distinguish them so that they can be meaningful to us today requires intensive analysis from highly skilled and knowledgeable individuals.

Once distinguished, can the conditions that made peaceful coexistence possible elsewhere and in a different era be transported to the present time, into a current situation of conflict and violence? Can the conditions be recreated today, the present time, although taken from the past? This may seem simple, but it is not. People change from era to era. Notions of what is permissible, moral, and just change over time even within one culture, much more across cultures. What worked in a previous period, in terms of a conception of societal harmony and justice, cannot simply be picked up and moved into a new era with different notions of morality, truth, society, etc. Things must be translated first, and even before being translated, we must determine if the factors in question can be translated at all. Worldviews may have changed so much in the intervening centuries that they no longer work as viable concepts for today.

If certain conditions and factors that generate peaceful coexistence can be translated from the past into today’s world, they must then be implemented socially, culturally, politically, economically, and legally. In many instances, this will require a fundamental overhaul of current socio-political systems. Transformations of this nature are daunting simply because of their sheer magnitude. Moreover, such societal transformations contain within them the seeds for violence and injustice. They rarely happen without conflict. Implementation of new societal structures must happen in a way that minimizes or omits opportunities for breakdown, violence, and retribution from those who may feel left out or trampled upon by the changes. Otherwise, the implementation of a new system for peaceful coexistence ends up perpetuating yet more violent conflict.

These are the questions we must ask of history. But we cannot stop there. We must also ask questions of the religions.

What is the general stance of our religious traditions to those who do not share its beliefs and commitments? Does it demand eradication of all contrary belief systems and the people who propagate them? Or does it request accommodation of ‘the stranger,’ or those who believe and live differently? In short, do people of faith ground themselves into patterns of tolerance or intolerance as they root themselves in their faith traditions?

These are difficult questions to answer because the religions themselves, as historical entities that grow and change over time, sometimes seem to have multiple ways of being with regard to peaceful coexistence. Over the centuries, adherents of the largest two religions in the world—Christianity and Islam—have lived both peacefully and non-peacefully with each other, and with people of other religions they encountered. Certainly, the teachings of both religions encourage peaceful coexistence in their respective sacred texts and traditions. However, both these religions also have suffered violent expression in the hands of those who either ignore the teachings of coexistence, or twist the teachings to justify violence and terror.

Whatever our religious traditions were intended to be, the fact is that historically they have been used to perpetrate some of the worst imaginable violence ever created in the human family. And we have to face this hard fact with courage, and with resolve to enlist our religious traditions as major players in the project of peaceful coexistence.

The potential for religious conflict in society is the chief reason why societies that have achieved peaceful coexistence to any extent champion religious tolerance as a chief civic virtue, and they actually implement that virtue into society culturally and legally. Given the diverse and absolute claims of many religious and moral traditions, tolerance is really all we can ask of people. We cannot, in a truly pluralistic society, expect morally committed or devout persons to embrace or to celebrate practices that they, due to their faith or ethics, consider to be sinful, heretical, or abhorrent. We cannot expect them to acknowledge the legitimacy of gods, or modes of worship, or ways of life they consider to be false. To expect this in the realm of religion is to be fundamentally intolerant. We cannot advocate, in the name of tolerance, a society that tolerates everything but certain forms of traditional religious or moral conviction.

Tolerance, then, is the capacity to put up with or to accommodate ideas, beliefs, and behaviors that one finds deeply problematic, and is society’s most essential civic virtue, especially in societies as ethnically, religiously, and racially diverse as many countries are becoming in this period of globalization. Daily life in such societies simply will not move along if the citizenry cannot practice basic tolerance. Of course, simply gritting our teeth and grudgingly putting up with others we don’t like or with whom we disagree is the low-water mark of societal growth. Ideally, we would grow to a place of greater understanding and appreciation for those who are radically different from us, even if we still do not accept or agree with their beliefs or practices. Sometimes, however, basic tolerance, especially in matters of religion, is the best we can do.

These are the questions we must ask of our religions. But we cannot stop here, either. We must also ask questions of ourselves.

We must search ourselves and examine our hearts. Are we really committed to living together with people who are different from us? Do we really accept the fact that we as people will never all believe, think, pray, live, or act the same—and that we just have to deal with it? Or do we resent these ‘facts on the ground’ and spend our efforts trying to coerce others or force them into changing to be more like us? Or, having given up on making other people like us, do we isolate ourselves into enclaves of sameness and construct the daily arc of our lives so that we don’t have to encounter many people who are different from us?

Part of the reason why achieving peaceful coexistence is so challenging has to do with individuals. All the legal, cultural, and societal structures that support peaceful coexistence may be in place; however, they will fail to show results unless one thing is true—people genuinely must want to live in peace. This is not a given. While we may think, and commonly say, that all people really want is to live in peace, this is not true. Not everyone wants to live in peace. Often people put qualifiers to the prospects for peace in their lives and worlds. For example, they say, ‘I want peace in my region, but not if it means giving up any of our land.’ Or, ‘I want peace in the region, but we cannot allow attacks on our national honor.’ In other words, we say we want peace, but not if it means we have to give up something that we deem more important than peace. Many of us value other things more than peace.

Even in our personal lives, in our relationships with family and friends, we often keep grudges and enmities in place for years and years despite many opportunities to do away with them and create peace. Why? Because we would have to give up something that we value more than peace, in order to achieve peace in that situation—a feeling of being right, a sense of superiority, the perverse joy we take in condemning other people or groups, and other things. We have to let go of these types of things to create peace, yet we often prefer them to peace. So, the conflict and tension endure year after year, and all the while we are saying, to ourselves and to others, that we want peace. We are not being honest about the situation. We value other things more than peace.

Ultimately, achieving peaceful coexistence at the individual, interpersonal level has to do with a person’s capacity for difference. How comfortable are we with people who are different from us? Do we feel threatened by them? Do we feel nervous around them? Or, can we be relaxed and comfortable within ourselves even when surrounded by people who believe, look, and act differently than us? Today’s global world demands all of us to expand our inner capacities for difference, so that we are not easily threatened by people who are not exactly like us. All of us must stretch our comfort zones beyond their current boundaries.

These are the hard, searching questions we must ask ourselves.

Only when we give ourselves authentically to these questions with a view toward creating sustained, peaceful coexistence will we have a future worth living for. Moreover, all of us must do this work together—religious and secular, liberals and conservatives—all of us. Otherwise, the forces of globalization that have made our world smaller will bring with it new and more barbaric forms of hatred, oppression, and violence.

Achieving peaceful coexistence is, then, the most important project of our era. And we must give ourselves to it wholly, with our fullest capacities for knowledge and understanding, with our truest intentions for truth and justice, and with our bravest strengths in order to journey through the challenges and difficulties that the process entails. We most certainly can do it. But we cannot do it alone or in isolation; we must do it together.

Establishing peace between people of different religions, backgrounds, and nationalities has always been a primary concern of civilized nations. Such a goal cannot be achieved overnight, of course, for it requires that all people become aware of the need for understanding and appreciating various religions and cultures through peaceful dialogue. The Fountain attaches great importance to such values, and strives to bring our readers’ articles that embrace this concept. To ensure a peaceful and productive future for everyone, it is vital that all societies incorporate and abide by these values.

In this issue, we present two articles that discuss this goal. The first article emphasizes the importance of interfaith dialogue and shows how misunderstanding other people’s religions actually veils many common beliefs and practices. Only dialogue can bring about a mutual understanding and appreciation of differences.

Thee second article focuses on the two largest religions today: Islam and Christianity. Interesting facts are brought forward about Islam’s respect for Christianity, and how the respect was implemented from the days of Prophet Muhammad and on into the Ottoman era. For instance, after Jerusalem was conquered during the Caliphate of Umar, all people, regardless of race and religion, were guaranteed their rights to life, property, and religion, as well as the rights to pray and keep their churches and synagogues.

As The Fountoin always strives to keep our readers up-to-date on current issues and developments in various fields of technology and science, we present an article on the energy market’s current situation and short-term future trends, as well as one on the increasing computerization of motorized transport.

On the more spiritual side, one article sheds light on our pursuit of and path to happiness and perfection. We have been created perfectly; we have all the faculties and senses we need. But are all of our amazing capabilities meant to be used here alone? After all, we are here only for a while and then enter the grave. According to the author, our eternal life starts at that point. While we are in this world, we are supposed to prepare ourselves our eternal life by using our senses, intellect, and feelings, not to mention worshipping God, to realize our full potential and achieve all kinds of perfection. The author describes and shares two analogies to explain his views.

Thank you to all of our readers who participated in our Writing Competition 2000! The deadline for writing submittals has passed, and we look forward to announcing the winners in our October 2000 issue. Keep an eye out to see if you’re one of them!

Please keep sending or e-mailing your comments. We eagerly await your input on each issue and value your opinions. Always feel free to send in general feedback and requests for topics or questions that you would like answered. Remember this is your magazine. It’s up to you to shape it the way you would lik to, and it’s up to us to implement your ideas and suggestions.

We hope to hear from you soon!

Enjoy your magazine!

never relieved; it snares the unbeliever in a wild solitude,

wretched in spirit, facing a stride away the blackness

where all his ways come to dead end, where the light

he can bring to bear, his only light, is the torch of ignorance.

In that darkness his imagination is cruelly imprisoned

disabling perception; he discerns neither beginnings nor ends;

nothingness looms monstrously out of bottomless despair;

everything appears confused, ill-proportioned, futile, lost,

a chaos of particles blown by poisonous interstellar winds.

But the believer’s spirit, like his world, is consoled by light

as bright as sunlit sky, a wide-dimensioned space where time

unfolds in purposed direction; and earth displays its beauties

interlinked and opening out like petals; where all paths turn

through infinite, measured variety toward a brighter Paradise.

In that light his imagination is compassionately freed:

enabling vision of eternal spring under glistening clouds,

the spirit can surrender itself to a brief, peaceful sleep,

the heart flies like an arrow to its rest, and shining horizons

beckon to an infinite expanse of light pouring down.

Believing souls traverse that expanse to eternal life

where their dreams are vivid with memories of their past…

their traversing is itself a dream-like journey and surely

they attain their journey’s end, having so earnestly desired it

in the depths of their hearts and in their spirits battled

so mightily against errors of self hood and human arrogance.