The Coronavirus Pandemic has shaken much of the world to its core and caused many disruptions. Economies have been crippled, millions have been laid off, quarantine has forced us to stay at home for an extended period of time, and thousands have died. Control over our lives and society, it seems, has been lost for most of us.

Perhaps it is possible to, ironically, use what takes control away from us as a means to regain it. One should ponder this coronavirus disaster, why it has come to us, what we can learn from it, and how we can prevent it from happening again. This way, we can regain control through reflection, faith, and science in order to learn from our past mistakes to help ensure that such a crisis does not happen again. Otherwise, we could continue to lose control of our societies.

Our brains have a finite amount of resources but must be taken care of in order to ensure that our bodies can perform all of our necessary daily functions. We can strengthen our brains through long-term potentiation (LTP), which essentially means using it regularly in order to keep it fresh, strong, and up to date. It also explains how our brains change and adapt to different situations and scenarios we encounter, thus serve as a means for us to learn from our hardships and develop new strategies for survival and growth. How can we maintain control of our minds and bodies if we do not learn from our mistakes and continue to grow?

We can continue to find control and peace in anything that speaks to us on a personal or spiritual level. This can range from simple scraps of paper to eloquent forms of art, such as Ebru. Our authors delve into a wide range of topics that they are passionate about. Their arts and crafts, whether a canvas for art or a sheet of paper for writing, is their field where they are in complete control. Surely, we can maintain control in these hobbies or actions even when it seems that everything else around us is falling apart.

“The Orientalists” piece in this issue is providing an alternative perspective on some of the travelers to the East. The perception of the East in the Western mind has been much shaped by the extensive chronicles of these travelers who endured long and strenuous journeys across North Africa and all the way to India. Lawrence Brazier shares with us a panorama of some of the leading Orientalists many of whom, according to him, “were travelers who found the East, indeed, ‘other’ than what they experienced at home. Their quest was a personal enthusiasm for the Orient.”

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.

These situations entail the psychology of morality-an intriguing and growing topic of study. Significant and insightful research has been completed in an attempt to understand more about morality from a psychological perspective. Many questions have been raised in the realm of morality and ethics, such as: How do people think about morality? What are people’s concepts of a moral person? How do people apply morality in conflict and their everyday lives?

In psychologists’ attempts to answer these questions, we learn more about mankind as a whole and about our own individual selves. This article will summarize some of the most prominent studies in the field of morality psychology and use these perspectives to help attain a better understanding of who a moral person is and what they do.

Exploring differences in moral foundations between political liberals and conservatives is one interesting area of research in the psychology of morality. Graham, et al. (2009) established a definition of a moral foundation as consisting of five moral intuitions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The researchers found that political liberals were likely to chiefly judge a moral situation along the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity aspects, while conservatives were more likely to use all aspects equally. The results of this study seem to agree with the ideologies of liberals and conservatives. Considering that conservatives are less receptive to changes in political policies and culture, it makes sense that they would place a high value on the authority of a government, and also that they would give more weight to protecting their in-group from outside influences. This ideology may in turn stem from a Hobbesian worldview (Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679) in that everyone is at the most basic level self-interested, and therefore they must protect their own interests from the interests of others.

Liberals, on the other hand, would be more likely to go against the authority of the government or in-group concerns if they felt a moral injustice was being committed. This may be one reason why conservatives sometimes accuse liberals of not being patriotic.

As for the purity/sanctity condition, there is some doubt as to whether it can really be considered a moral facet. Conservatives seem to think that this is the case, but liberals on the other hand give nearly zero consideration to aspects of purity during moral judgments, as it seems to be an unrelated concept. Additionally, this idea may explain why conservatives tend to be against gay marriage, while liberals are more likely to support gay relationships.

Before moving on, let me pose another question: which action is more moral, volunteering time in a soup kitchen or keeping your vow to your wife not to go to the racetrack and gamble on payday?

Now we turn our attention to an enlightening study by Janoff-Bulman, et al. (2009) that analyzed morality in a different way: by categorizing it into two distinctive types, prescriptive and proscriptive. Prescriptive morality has a commendatory and encouraging nature, and it is characterized by taking positive action and the question what one should do to be moral. Proscriptive morality is more commanding and punishing in its aspects, and it is characterized by preventing negative action and the question what one should not do to prevent immorality. The distinction between the two can be states as helping versus not harming.

The researchers provide evidence for these two different types of morality in their studies. For example, in one experiment, participants were asked to describe what they thought it meant to be-depending on the manipulation-either moral or immoral. They had correctly predicted that proscriptive morality tended to have more concrete and defined language, so as to assist its adherents in knowing exactly what actions are wrong. Prescriptive morality’s language was more abstract so as to include more possible right actions.

It was also found that people were more disapproving when someone committed forbidden acts as opposed to someone failing to perform righteous acts. This finding-that it is generally more objectionable to see an overtly immoral act than to see a failure to commit a positive act-is strong evidence for the prescriptive/proscriptive distinctions of morality.

There are many more questions about morality researchers are asking. For instance, what lies behind the rationalization of a racist behavior or attitude? How are people’s moral principles influenced by the particular identity of the individuals involved? Uhlmann, et al. (2009) examined these topics. Most of us tend to think of ourselves as having a relatively stable moral standing, but this study showed that for most people, this simply is not the case. People were presented with different moral dilemmas that measured if they would support either a consequentialist solution or a deontological solution to the dilemma. According to the researchers’ hypothesis, changing some details of the scenario could influence people’s preference for either consequentialism (the idea that it is permissible to commit an action that would normally be considered immoral for the benefit of the greater good) or deontology (the idea that there are some actions that are morally wrong under any and all circumstances); this is in fact what they observed.

They observed that political liberals were more likely to sacrifice a white man to save a black group of people and less likely to sacrifice a black man to save a white group. The reverse effect was observed for conservatives in that they were more willing to sacrifice a black man to save a white group and vice versa. They also found that conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of Iraqi civilians by American forces than the unintentional killing of American civilians by Iraqi armed forces.

These results provides a striking example of how people’s moral concepts can change when the specifics of those involved in the moral equation change, which in turn suggests that people value some lives more than others. Conservatives, in particular, seem to value people who are part of the in-group over people who are not. This study also suggests that liberals may actually devalue in-group members in an attempt to maintain a non-racist morality.

Another major question is how do religious concepts and the knowledge that one’s actions are being judged affect how people behave morally? The following study (Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007) asked participants to play a game that would measure their generosity towards total strangers. The researchers discovered that people who were primed with words relating to God and religion were more generous on average than those who received no priming. The researchers also found that priming people with secular concepts of moral institutions had the same effect.

These results provide strong evidence that people will try to act more morally if they have some idea in the back of their minds, whether conscious or not, about being judged in some manner for their moral actions. This does not have to apply exclusively to religious concepts, as the results of this study show. As a matter of fact, related research conducted by Bateson, Nettle, and Roberts (2006) showed that just the indirect suggestion of being judged by other people was enough to reproduce this effect-an increase in moral behavior. Specifically, they saw a three-fold increase in the amount paid for drinks supplied on an honor system when the image associated with payment resembled human eyes versus a control image. Apparently, a pair of eyes is enough to trigger a conscious or subconscious idea of being watched and judged.

What is known about the neural activity of the brain itself with regards to moral judgments? What roles do cognitive and emotional processes in the brain play in thinking about morality? Greene et al. (2004) conducted detailed biological mapping of brain neuronal activity of individuals during their thought processes that went along with solving hypothetical moral dilemmas. It was observed that areas in the brain associated with abstract reasoning and cognitive control-regions noted included the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex-were found to be more active during very difficult moral judgments where utilitarian resolutions require violation of personal moral convictions. They concluded from their work that utilitarian moral judgments rely more on cognitive processes and abstract thinking, whilst more personal moral judgments relied primarily on social-emotional processes.

This is good evidence for two different types of moral processing-cognitive or more logical, and emotional or more personal. During this study, Greene and colleagues also considered the degree of personal relatedness of a scenario with the likelihood of utilitarian resolution, and therefore the associated cognitive processes and abstract-thinking brain regions. They looked at what happens when you alter the classic moral dilemma of the runaway trolley car (Thomson, 1986) by making it either more personal or less personal. It was observed that people were more likely to engage in utilitarian calculations when the harm was less personal-in the case, that involved pulling a lever to kill a person-as opposed to when harm was more personal, in the case requiring pushing someone off of a bridge.

Morality is often connected to religion and religious values, and a natural topic to investigate is the role that sacred values may play in moral psychology. Ginges et al. (2007) examined the Israeli-Palestine conflict in an attempt to answer the question of how sacred values are involved in the resolution of political conflicts. The researchers wanted to shed some light on several issues related to sacred values in political conflict – namely, how do instrumental incentives, such as monetary gain, affect compromise with sacred values?

Interestingly, they observed that adding instrumental incentives to hypothetical deals involving the forfeiting of some sacred value actually made the subjects who held sacred values more opposed to and outraged about compromise than if they simply offered the compromise on its own. They also found that these people were less opposed to compromise if the deal also stipulated that the opposing party would give up one of their own sacred rights.

These results are important in that they show how radically different sacred values are from instrumental values. Sacred values are, for the most part, non-negotiable, except in the cases mentioned above, and it seems as though the idea of offering something of instrumental value in an attempt to negotiate the non-negotiable only serves as an insult to those who hold these sacred values. It is only when some other sacred value is offered up that we see some willingness to compromise, suggesting that sacred values cannot be compared with instrumental values, but they can be compared to other sacred values. Because of this, one may wonder whether sacred values can really be considered truly uncontestable, as opposed to simply a different type of value that is not comparable with more material principles.

An important side of the psychology of morality concerns how people perceive the moral legitimacy of authority under different circumstances. More specifically, how much of a moral investment do the participants have in the moral issues. The researchers Skitka, et al. (2009) correlated an individual’s general degree of moral conviction with how much they either supported or agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on physician-assisted suicide in 2006 that prevented the Attorney General from prosecuting doctors in Oregon who operated under state law. It was discovered that the degree of moral investment a person had about this decision increased the variance of people’s perception of the legitimacy of authority. More specifically, people who supported the decision with high moral conviction more strongly supported the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction, and people against the decision with high moral conviction more strongly opposed the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction.

These results are strong evidence for the idea that our perceived legitimacy of authority is intimately tied with our moral conviction on the issues that matter most to us. In other words, if the government made a ruling that we did not agree with, but did not care much about (for example, the ruling that pizza is a vegetable), we wouldn’t have much reason to deny the legitimacy of the government. However, decisions made about issues we have a strong moral standing on tend to either strongly reinforce or strongly undermine the perceived legitimacy of authority in our attempt to reconcile our moral standing versus the decree of authority. Additionally, a study could be run to test the hypothesis that liberals would be more willing to deny the legitimacy of the government, and conservatives would be more willing to affirm the government’s power.

We believe it is moral to care about others and give charity, but what motivates the moral response of giving? Some psychologists are interested in this question. Olivola & Shafir (2011) found that people were willing to give more money to a charity if they were required to run a marathon as opposed to simply attending a picnic. This finding shows that associating donations with self-sacrifice or suffering activates people’s concepts of morality.

How could we measure if having concepts of justice and fairness cause people to strengthen their moral responses as well? An experiment might be set up in this manner: one group of participants would be told that they would be donating to a village in Africa that is suffering from a drought, and as a result, running low on food. The other group would be told that local rebels are constantly raiding the village and taking their food, thus depleting their food supplies. We would then measure how much people would be willing to donate to the village in each situation. The condition of need arising from a natural disaster should not activate concepts of justice and fairness; however, even if some people think suffering from droughts is an inherently unjust event, the second condition – need arising from a military-type attack – should greatly outweigh the first in terms of justice/fairness considerations. Based on the results of the Olivola & Shafir (2011) study, it is reasonable to expect that people would donate more money to the people being raided, since that condition should activate moral concepts such as justice and fairness.

What do these studies tell us about what a truly moral person is? Let’s first look at the five moral foundations again, from Graham, et al. (2009). It appears that a truly moral person bases their judgments primarily on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. This is because there can be situations where authority or in-group concerns can conflict with harm and fairness considerations, and in these situations the latter set of moral outlooks should prevail. One only needs to consider an example such as this: imagine you are asked to commit atrocities in the name of your country. It should be clear that these atrocities couldn’t be justified in this way. Based on the results of Skitka et al. (2009) such a request may even lead one to deny the legitimacy of whatever authority commanded this action-which is what a truly moral person would and should do in that situation. For reasons like these, harm/care and fairness/reciprocity should be on the forefront of one’s moral concerns.

Harm/care and fairness/reciprocity are also probably closely related to each other, and in many situations, one moral concept is found with the other. Consider an instance where a person beats his wife in an act of drunken violence. It’s clear that harm/care are involved in this situation, but also consider that we could say that what he is doing is an injustice to his wife. Similarly, suppose an example where a banker swindles a client for thousands of dollars. It’s clear this has to do with fairness/reciprocity, but we could also consider this action as a way of harming somebody else in a non-physical manner.

Research further clarifies a truly moral person as one who leads a disciplined life that builds off of the proscriptive, preventing immorality, and subsequently the prescriptive, acting morally. Such a person must be a role model for everyone else to follow. For this reason, a truly moral person is careful not to commit proscribed acts. A person who performs many good deeds, but also many bad deeds, will appear insincere and hypocritical. In other words, a truly moral person does their best to not mix the good with the bad. Once a person has built a strong moral foundation of avoiding proscribed behaviors, he or she can branch out and help others with ever-increasing frequency. Furthermore, with regards to the study on the effects of being watched, a truly moral person acts in every situation as though he or she is being watched or will be judged later on, even if they know that they are alone. This is because they know that any action they do may have consequences at some point, either immediate or distant.

Work in the area of the psychology of morality sheds some light on how a moral person behaves, however an ideally moral person does what is right with 100% accuracy, and no matter what the circumstances. This is an ideal, and very few people can be considered to be ideal moral examples. Prophets are the only people who could be considered to be morally infallible. Prophets like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, peace be upon them, serve as examples of perfect moral conduct. Even though none of us can hope to attain the rank of a Prophet, every person ought to strive for this ideal and be the best person they can be. If we hope to have any positive impact on the world we must first start by changing ourselves for the better. Only then can we attempt to sincerely help other people around us, starting with our close family and friends, and later on, the larger world.

M. Tarik Ozgur is a graduate of Lehigh University Physiology Department in 2013.

References

• Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology letters, 2(3), 412-414.
• Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18), 7357-7360.
• Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B.A. Liberals and Conservatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (5), 1029.
• Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
• Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521-537.
• Olivola, C. Y. (2011). When noble means hinder noble ends: The benefits and costs of a preference for martyrdom in altruism. The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to Study of Charity, 49-62. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God Is Watching You Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game. Psychological Science, 18(9), 803-809.
• Skitka, L. J., Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Sargis, E. G. (2009). Knitting together an elephant: An integrative approach to understanding the psychology of justice reasoning. In The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 1-26).
• Thomson, J.J. (1986). Rights, Restitution, and Risk Essays, in Moral Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 476-491.

Ethics in Ibn Bajja’s philosophy

In Ibn Bajja’s philosophy, beings are created in order to achieve a goal. This goal, if achieved, will lead them to happiness. One who realizes this goal is, thus, happy.⁴ This goal is to know God and to worship God properly. Continuous pleasure can only be attained by the intellectual knowledge of the Eternal One.5 In Ibn Bajja’s own words:

“The one, who knows God (the only one God, with no partners) truly, knows that the greatest suffering is in God’s displeasure and being away from Him, and that the greatest happiness is in God’s pleasure and being close to Him. To be close to God can only be achieved through knowing ones own self.” ⁴

According to him, one should be considered a human to the extent that he or she differs from other beings (animals, plants, etc.). Among different kinds of animate beings, only humans can perform actions through free will.⁶ This is possible only through using their intellect, and controlling corporeal pleasures, instead of being controlled by them or banishing them totally.⁴ Actions are human in nature insomuch as they lead to this goal. For example, eating is an animal action if it is done to fulfill desire. On the other hand, it is a human action if it is done to preserve strength to achieve spiritual blessings.² When someone breaks a stone only because they were hurt by it, this is an animal action. If they do the same action in order to prevent somebody else from being hurt, this is a human action.⁶

Ibn Bajja believes that reaching happiness is not obtained by sudden leaps but through gradual steps.4 One should give priority to spiritual forms over corporeal forms, and if possible, should not socialize with pure materialists or those who mix their spiritual form with the corporeal one, except in some indispensable situations. Otherwise, as in the case of today’s materialistic world, one can easily be distracted from thinking about critical questions that would normally come to each and every individual’s mind, such as who we are, where we come from, where we are going , why we exist, and how to know about God. Secondly, one should go beyond the spiritual forms to reach the intellectual level, and socialize with those who also seek intellectual forms.³

Rule of the “solitary individual”

The “solitary individual” (tadbeer al-mutawahhed) holds an important place in Ibn Bajja’s thought. The term “tadbeer” or governance in Ibn Bajja’s philosophy means the actions done towards an end. On the other hand, al-Mutawahhed means a solitary individual who lives in a society, but who is different, intellectually, from his or her peers.1 They are, thus, alone in their thoughts within the society.⁴ Al-Mutawahhed is free and active when exposed to various influences, and they achieve the highest moral virtues: a balance between spiritual and material aspects of life.⁴ Unvirtuous people, on the other hand, are passive under various influences, and make decisions under the influence of their corporeal pleasures or animal desires, but not through using their intellect, which is what makes them human beings.

Ibn Bajja classifies cities before he gives a recipe to the solitary individual on how to achieve happiness. The cities are classified as stressing the moral values of the society. The perfect or ideal city is based on love. The citizens of this city do not quarrel at all. All views are true and all actions are right. They eat properly. Hence there is no need for doctors or judges. Ibn Bajja supports his claim with the question, “Cannot the healthy body rouse itself to resist diseases whose obscure causes come from outside?”6 On the other hand, if there is any contention in a city, it results in the need for a judge who can establish justice. Similarly, if people get harmful foods, they will need a doctor who has knowledge of treatments. So in an imperfect city, there is need for a doctor and a judge. As Ibn Bajja puts it: “The more a city needs them, the more honorable is the rank of both these classes.” ⁶

The imperfect city, being based on temporary corporeal pleasures, is not suitable for the metaphysical essence of humanity. Still, the imperfect city inherits a way to a virtuous society through solitary individuals.4 If one is in an imperfect city which does not supply any method to obtain knowledge, and is morally corrupted, and if there exists a perfect city, one should migrate to it; thus, they can gain knowledge.¹ If there is no such option, he or she should protect themself from the corruptions of their present society, and simultaneously build a social project which will provide happiness to individuals, and begin converting the society into a virtuous one.¹ The solitary individual is in a state of transition. During this state, they continue their personal education, and at the same time help convert an imperfect city into a perfect one.⁴

Contemplative seclusions

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, provides a great example of a “solitary individual.” Before he started receiving revelations, he would retreat to the mountain cave of Hira. He continued these retreats later on, especially during Ramadan, the month of fasting, when he went into seclusion for ten days, and spent time in prayer. This tradition, or itiqaf, is still being observed throughout the Muslim world. We can argue that these seclusions and contemplative retreats paved the way for him to transform a an “imperfect city” (Mecca), that was mired in ignorance, paganism, violence, and immorality, to a community of believers who exceled in ethics, learning, and peace; this was the perfect city of Medina. Yet, the Prophet was not just a solitary individual. He engaged with society in all possible ways during and before his prophethood, as a tradesman in caravans, as a social activist in a league dedicated to protect and support the distressed (Hilf al-Fudul), as a peacemaker among tribes, and as a husband and father.

Conclusion

Ibn Bajja’s philosophy on the governance of a solitary individual finds perfect embodiment in Prophetic practice. Personal education and social life are two processes that co-exist, whether in a perfect or an imperfect city, and the Prophetic practice of seclusion is a perfect way of linking the two. The construction of a perfect city joins these two processes after a period of personal education which leads to personal perfection. The solitary individual is always on the way: he or she is reading, contemplating, observing and acting constantly, and he or she does this independently of the status of the society within which they live.

References

1. Köroğlu, Burhan. 1996. “Ibn-i Bacce’nin Ahlâk ve Siyaset Düşüncesi,” (The Ethical and Political Thought of Avempace), Divan, 1, 45-46.
2. Sharif, M. M. 2004. “A History of Muslim Philosophy,” Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 3, 508-526,. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/index.html
3. Al-Allaf, M. 2003. “The Solitary Being (al-Mutawahhed): Definitions and Dimensions of Ibn Bajja (Avempace) Philosophy,” The Essence of Islamic Philosophy, ILC-Classic.
4. Aydınlı, Y. 1997. Ibn Bacce’nin Insan Görüşü, (The Human in the Thought of Ibn Bajja), Marmara Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları.
5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ibn Bajja, http://plato.stanford.edu/
6. Dunlop, D. M. 1999. Ibn Bajjah’s Tadbiru’l-Mutawahhid (Rule of Solitary), Ibn Bajja Texts and Studies II, Islamic Philosophy (77), Strauss Offsetdruck.
7. Sahih Bukhari, 3, 33(260).
8. http://www.lastprophet.info/en/chronology/index.php

This matter has two aspects; we are concerned with one aspect, while the other one is beyond our capacity. Regarding the aspect associated with us, service to revive ethical values is done only because it is ordered by God. Unless all these deeds—those that make our nights sleepless, ruin our comfort, restrain us from food and drink, tire our minds and bodies—are performed for the good pleasure of God, it means that we have been acting in vain. Having sincere intentions lies at the soul of all actions. Unless this soul exists, both the deeds we have done and the ones we shall do will bear no positive worth.

“O you who believe! Respond to God and to the Messenger when the Messenger calls you (in the Name of God) to that which gives you life.” (Al Anfal 8:24)

Yes, this is a matter of life-giving, that is, a revival and helping others revive. And this revival, as clearly stated in the above verse, is considered possible only by faith and by making it the essence of life. Our personal thoughts and desires should in no way interfere in our deeds performed for God’s good pleasure in order to reach “the rank of contentment.” This is important, for there is a fine balance here. For instance, the belief that an unfaithful person shall face perdition may cause some sensitive souls to feel resentment; but this is a judgment in which we have no say of. Likewise, it would also put our balance on the brink of collapse if we were to include our personal feelings and push hard on legitimate bounds, or contrarily conceive unnecessary limits even for some legitimate forms of relationship, say, in an effort to prevent sexual misbehavior. Therefore, it is significant to stay in line with what has been prescribed and be content with it especially at times when we think we could serve God’s good pleasure by other means; this is what we are accountable of.

The other aspect, mentioned previously as being beyond our capacity, imposing upon others our message. This is something really beyond our power and ability, and this is not something we are responsible of. Just as it is God who can make someone accept, it is also Him who can make them not accept. Just as we do not consider this to be within our own authority, we cannot claim the opposite to ourselves either. If our words are welcomed and people respond to our call, we should not associate this with our intelligence, knowledge or ability, as everything is a favor of God. By contrast, if we are not welcomed, we should question ourselves, check our senses, intentions, worship; continually engage in self-inspection, and never fall in despair. Throughout history, numerous great figures of logic and reasoning have come and gone, and they have only been followed by a handful of people. Again, many people of inspiration and blessings have passed away, after whom one or two followers may or may not have gone. Indeed, faith is a light which God turns on in the heart of His servant, and the decision to turn it on is only under His authority.

Bediuzzaman walked on a holy path, by the grace of God, throughout his life, and despite all his achievements he did not associate anything to himself. He always managed to restrain and throw aside his ego by saying, “God Almighty may and is able to glorify His religion even by a sinful slave; yes, you should regard yourself that sinful slave!” In the same way, he lived his life through a continuous self-inspection and self-reckoning, declaring “you can not be a recipient of these blessings, but a mere passage through which others can reach them!”

The following generations after him, however, have found themselves surrounded by pleasurable services already established and have started wondering what else they could do. Just then, one more time, God Almighty poured on them His blessings, and now, everything we can see around the world today is merely the works of His own action, made out of His own material. Thus the end result is an abundance of positive consequences that can even surpass the works of saints.

“All becomes easy when God manifests Himself;
Creates He the causes and bestows them in a moment.”

It is a clear fact that these good services cannot be run by people who go through ups and downs; some of us are so weak in character that we want to leave half way when faced with difficulty or feel depressed, but after we realize all other routes are no exit, we get back on track. Even though a group of people, a community, may receive great honors and rewards based on their sincerity and hard work, we should admit that God Almighty is the real agent behind all things. So, no one should blur these services by mixing with it some other thoughts, delusions, or future expectations. No one should exploit the results obtained from these services for his or her own benefit so that all these favors can become a means of salvation for them. However, this spring of benevolence that can meet even the spiritual and otherworldly needs of next generations, may possibly become useless if we spoil it by crediting the blessings granted to ourselves.

It is therefore necessary to practice self-introspection, hold ourselves to account for all of our actions, and do our best to maintain self-control. Each of these favors should trigger even more servanthood and prayer with even more deeply observed worship, turning each prostration to a gate of reunion, not willing to lift our heads even for a moment, knowing that each favor will multiply with our gratitude. We have to rethink our condition; if we are brushing aside over our prayers, if we are being dragged away by our lust, and if we are enjoying all the carnal pleasures of this life in its fullest sense, then we have already started spoiling these favors.

According to a study by researchers of the Human Footprint Project [1], humans have influenced 83% of the earth’s surface. The study is based on four factors: population, travel routes, land use, and lights. One of the findings of the study shows that an average American is responsible for more carbon emissions in one year, than a person in Tanzania in a lifetime. This significant difference is certainly related to the average lifespan, income, culture, and climate. However, do any of us have the rights to disturb the environment more than others? Are we consuming something that doesn’t belong to us, and leaving an unsustainable environment for future generations? To answer these questions, it is imperative that we understand and acknowledge exactly what we have inherited, what we are responsible for, and what we will leave to future generations.

Our influence on the earth and environment in a general sense is not limited to the consumption of goods. One of the most influential yet less-visible traces is the footprint we leave in the digital environment. There are active or passive traces left in a digital environment by personal activity. An active trace is left when personal information is released by a person himself, whereas a passive trace (digital shadow) is left when personal data is collected during personal activity. These traces, also known as digital footprints, can spread very quickly and may reach to millions in a very short time. One can leave digital traces by simply visiting a website, sending a blog post, or posting a photo or message to a friend’s website.

Our digital traces affect the environment in many ways. Every trace takes our time to generate it and for others to read it. It consumes storage and network resources on the server that increase the costs, power usage, and eventually our carbon footprint, or the total greenhouse gas emissions. We need to seek a balance in our use of digital media in order to utilize the benefits efficiently and to minimize our consumption of time and other resources.

Have you ever wondered “how often a person leaves digital traces behind every day?” or “how much of our privacy are we sharing with others?” A recent study reveals some figures about the size of the digital universe as 281 billion gigabytes (GB) for 2008 and 1.8 billion terabytes for 2011 [2]. The digital trace generated by the average person on a daily basis was about 45 GB in 2008. This includes private information such as emails, photos, VOIP calls, and instant messages.

How about passive digital traces we leave behind by credit card purchases, bank accounts, phone records, web searches, general backup data, medical and hospital records, surveillance cameras, and so on? There are more passive traces collected than our active digital traces, which provide more personal information.

As of 2006, there were over 1 billion Visa credit cards worldwide and counting [3]. Credit cards give a lot of private information about a person: stores we prefer, movies we watch, places we travel, books we read, prescriptions we take, rent and utility fees we pay; mainly our lifestyle is hidden in our credit card statements. It might contain a lot of details we want to keep private. We can easily learn a lot about our social life just by analyzing one of our credit card statements.

Web searches provide more insightful information about a person. 113 billion web searches were conducted in July 2009, a 41 percent increase compared to 2008 [4]. Besides all the information we leave with our credit card, web searches may show things we have not actually done. They contain information about our future plans, such as travel, job search, health related issues, meetings, and education. Websites can provide smarter search results and personalized advertisements according to our search habits. Search engines even know how fast we type or process information, our typos, languages we speak, how smart we search, and even our physical location from the IP address.

Today many cars have GPS (Global Positioning System) capabilities and smart phones have GPS sensors. GPS devices can show our exact location anywhere in the world, provide turn-by-turn instructions from one location to another, provide a list of nearby stores, and warn us about traffic problems. A recent market research [5] estimates that the mobile location technology market that crosses the US will be $75 billion by 2013 with growing usage of GPS capabilities in automobiles and consumer electronics. Beside all the benefits, GPS devices leave an important digital trace behind, our exact location, which can be stored for later use or tracked by third parties.

Even if a person doesn’t have a GPS sensor with him, there are cameras all around the city that can help capture one’s location. We can see cameras inside and outside of the banks, stores, traffic lights, and even closed-circuit TV (CCTV) surveillance cameras in some cities. The total number of CCTV cameras in England is 4.2 million, or one for every 14 people according to an estimate. According to Scotland Yard, one crime per 1,000 CCTV cameras is solved in a year [6].

The number of smart phones increased 13.9 percent worldwide, compared to 2007, and reached 139 million in 2008 [7]. Many smart phones have real-time video streaming capabilities and are widely used. Users upload hundreds of thousands of videos per day to YouTube about themselves or people around them. Considering that there are thousands of video sharing websites like YouTube, sharing videos on these websites lies at the center of important privacy concerns. There are websites to share videos, photos, music, location, blog posts, and personal updates. With the rise of the micro-blogging trend, we can see real-time updates about a person on websites like Twitter. This allows us to track every minute of a person’s life.

Social networking is a new way of communication. Many websites provide tools to build online communities of people, who want to share and learn interests and activities of others. We can build our friend list and share photos, videos, and updates about our life. According to Nielsen Online’s report on Internet usage in June 2009 [8], users spent an average of 4 hours and 39 minutes during June on one of the most famous social networking sites, Facebook, which has 87 million visitors. Normally these websites provide privacy settings to limit who can access our friend list, photos, or other information. Since most of the people don’t refuse friend requests, it is very easy to be added as a friend and get access to all the private information of people we do not even know. Once we get accepted by a person as a friend, it gets easier to be accepted as friend by his/her friends, since we have mutual friends. These connections increase our friend list exponentially.

I had known about this process for some time, so I wanted to confirm it myself by setting up an account with fake information and identity on Facebook in 2008. I selected a college and input random personal information to my profile. I visited some group pages on Facebook and joined them. Then Facebook started to offer possible friend lists that have common interests with me. I started to make random friend requests to many users on these lists. In one day, I had around a hundred friends in my list that I don’t know personally. As a friend on their list, I have access to all information they share with others. Most of the users are using default settings and are not aware of privacy issues. Even if we are careful about all these settings and our privacy, our information is accessible by website managers. Digital traces left by users are valuable commercial assets for companies, and most of them share or sell this information to third party companies which provide online advertisements, products, and services.

There is a positive side of these digital traces. Websites provide better recommendation of products and services, targeted advertisements, smarter search results, and personal news. Entertainment businesses can provide appropriate suggestions by using location services. However, erasing our digital traces is difficult or even impossible in some cases. To protect our privacy and identity, it is essential that we are aware of places our personal information is stored. It is the responsibility of websites to protect user’s data. However, it will be a good start to be aware as users of our traces on the digital universe and to share personal information carefully.

With various effects on our natural and social environment, digital traces are one of the most influential and yet less known by-products of consumption. It is an important responsibility for us to decide how we affect our environment, how we spend our time, and what we are going to leave to future generations. With all the unique values given to humans, we need to learn to make meaningful contributions and carry more responsibility for our actions, especially in the digital world where boundaries are unlimited.

Acknowledgment: This article is produced either in part or a whole at MERGEOUS [9], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realm of science and religion.

Halil I. Demir is an internet entrepreneur and freelance writer.

References

1. Wildlife Conservation Society [http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint]
2. EMC Report, “The Diverse and Exploding Digital Universe,” 2008.
3. Visa USA Internal Statistics, Q4 2006.
4. ComScore Press Release, August 31, 2009.
5. RNCOS Market Research Report, “World GPS Market Forecast to 2013,” April 2009.
6. Telegraph, 24 Aug 2009.
7. Gartner Press Release, Worldwide Smartphone Sales, Mart 2009.
8. Nielsen Online’s Report, June 2009.
9. Mergeous [http://www.mergeous.com]

This article does not claim to provide answers about social traits or morality in general, but simply summarizes the findings of two recent scientific papers that appeared in the journals Science and Nature, describing interesting research on social ethics and moral behavior. The broader implications of the studies are left to the reader to reflect upon.

The article published in Science magazine presents a line of evidence that spending money on others makes us happier. The Nature article comes up with a – perhaps – more surprising finding: preverbal infants can evaluate social actions, and strongly prefer individuals who help others. The results of the two articles thus suggest that not only do we become happier by doing good to others, but we also feel sympathy for other individuals who do so, even before we start talking.

Spending on others makes us happier

In order to investigate the effects of spending money on others, researchers at the University of Vancouver in collaboration with Dr. Michael Norton of Harvard University, first asked a representative group of 632 Americans to rate their general happiness, report their annual income, and estimate how much they spend monthly on: i) bills and expenses, ii) gifts for themselves, iii) gift for others, and iv) charity donations.1 The first and second items of expenditure were averaged to calculate an index of “personal spending,” whereas the third and fourth items were used similarly to deduce a “prosocial spending” index. Data analysis revealed that significantly greater happiness was associated with higher prosocial spending, whereas personal spending was found to be unrelated to happiness.

Second, a group of employees who received a profit-sharing bonus from their companies were put to a similar test. All sixteen employees reported their annual income as well as their general happiness one month before receiving the bonus. Almost two months after the bonus, the same participants reported their general happiness and were asked to estimate how much of their bonus was spent personally or prosocially. The prosocial spending was again found to be the significant predictor of happiness, whilst the income and the bonus both remained insignificant.

Finally, the researchers designed experiments in order to further decipher the correlation between happiness and prosocial spending. To this end, forty-six university students were asked to assess their happiness in the morning, and were given $5 or $20 (a one time stipend) to be spent by 5 p.m. on the same day. Some participants were randomly instructed to spend the money on a bill, an expense, or a gift for themselves (personal spending condition), and the rest were told to spend the money on a gift for someone else, or a donation to charity (prosocial spending condition). After 5 pm, participants were asked to report their general happiness. The participants in the prosocial-spending group reported greater post-stipend happiness, with the effect of stipend size (i.e. $5 or $20) remaining insignificant. This work hence demonstrated that spending money on others promotes more happiness than spending money on oneself-a result that was apparently counterintuitive. Interestingly, when the conditions of the experiments were described to 109 students from the same university and they were asked their opinion on what condition would make them happiest, they were doubly wrong about their prediction: a significant proportion estimated that the $20 on personal spending would cause the highest happiness.

Preverbal infants can evaluate social actions

The second study by a Yale group describes experimental designs where preverbal infants (i.e. infants having not yet learned to speak) were made to watch animated events.2 (The group of infants chosen for the experiments were 6–10 months old.) In the first scheme (see figure, Scheme 1), a character (a red, circular object with eyes) tries to climb a slope, but fails in its first two attempts (A). At the third attempt, another character comes into the picture, either helping the climber by pushing from behind (B), or hindering it by pushing down (C). When the infants were encouraged to choose between the helper and the hinderer, they almost always reached for the helper (only 2 of 26 infants chose the hinderer). Interestingly, when the climber was made to look like an inanimate object as a control, infants did not show any preference for B or C. (Eyes were removed from the climber, and the climber no longer underwent self-propelling motion with the experiment unchanged in all other aspects.) This suggested that the infants did not choose the helper in the first experiment because they simply preferred the action or the shape or the color (further control experiments) of the helper, but instead their choice was purely social: With the eyes removed from the climber, the infants no longer identified the climber as an individual, and did not perceive the events as social interactions.

It is known that infants look at unexpected events for longer times.2 After the experiment described above, the same infants were subjected to a second test where their observation times were measured. In the display (see figure, Scheme 2), the climber sitting atop a hill initially goes back and forth (D) between the helper and the hinderer, and eventually approaches one of the two (E, the climber ends up approaching the helper; F, the climber ends up approaching the hinderer). On average, the infants stared at the display longer when the climber approached the hinderer (which is a surprising action), compared to the climber approaching the helper (which is an unsurprising action). These findings altogether suggest for the first time that the preverbal infants, although themselves unaffected as third parties (hence remaining unbiased), could make judgments about the value of a social act by differentially evaluating those who perform in positive and negative ways.

Social cooperation

Social ethics is not only puzzling for philosophers and sociologists, but also for biologists because social traits are not inherently specific to humans. For instance, altruistic forms of behavior appear to be ubiquitous in nature and occur in creatures from bacteria to mammals. Even within a rapidly growing bacterial culture, a minority of cells are known to commit to reduced growth rates.3 This slow-growing subpopulation can survive an antibiotic encounter to regenerate the colony, providing an insurance policy for the whole population despite their reduced self-benefit. Towards the other end of the spectrum of living beings, vervet monkeys have watchmen that warn fellow monkeys in the presence of predators by attracting attention to themselves,4 increasing their own risk of being attacked. On first reflection, altruism contradicts the selfishness which is the natural outcome of the underlying assumption of Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest. If only the fittest survive, according to natural selection, how can such magnanimous behavior continue to exist, when individuals who do not maximize their own interest should have been wiped out long before we can come to know them? Biologists are nowadays trying hard to reconcile altruism with selfishness, and altruistic behavior poses yet another challenge for evolutionary biologists (see a recent article in The Fountain for a detailed review5).

Reflections

• Surely We have created human of the best stature as the perfect pattern of creation. (Tin 95:4)
• Those men and women who give alms and lend to God a goodly loan, it will be increased manifold to their credit, and they will have an honorable, generous reward in addition. (Al-Hadid 57:18)
• The Prophet (may peace be upon him) reported that God said, “I created my servants in the right religion but devils made them go astray.” Every child is born with the fitrah (an innate disposition towards virtue, knowledge, and beauty). Everyone is born in the nature of Islam. (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Bill Sayoran is a freelance writer living in Boston. He can be contacted at billsayoran@gmail.com.

Notes

1. “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness”, Science, vol. 319, 21 March 2008.
2. “Social Evaluation by Preverbal Infants” Nature, vol. 450, 22 November 2007. Videos of the animated events can be found at the Nature magazine website: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7169/suppinfo/nature06288.html
3. “Is Bacterial Persistence a Social Trait?”, PLoS ONE, Issue 8, August 2007.
4. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
5. “Darwinism and Altruism: Is There A Problem?,” The Fountain, Issue 64, July–August 2008.
6. http://saifur.tripod.com/religion.html

It is usually easy to associate with people from one’s own culture. Why step out of your comfort zone to extend a friendly hand to someone from a different culture? Perhaps, if my experience is typical, to enjoy one of the most rewarding experiences of your life. This opportunity is readily available to Americans who wish to make the effort. To interact successfully with Turkish students and professionals in America, for example, the American host must navigate differing perceptions of family, society, and ultimate duty. By practicing role reversal, a person of goodwill can overcome the barriers of language, religion, and nationality. Allow the person getting help to become a helper, and the student to become a teacher. Take into consideration the enthusiasm many cultures have for personal relationships. You might find your own life changed for the better.

Turning the tables to build intercultural friendships

Americans in university cities can build lifelong friendships with sojourners from around the world. Year after year, bright and ambitious young people leave other countries to acquire an American degree, make American friends, and soak up a culture and language very different from their own. They have traveled halfway around the world to meet us. Traveling a few miles across the city is a small step by comparison, but the rewards are great.

My adventure in trans-cultural friendship combined a personal interest in the Turkish language and culture with a graduate-school class. I analyzed interactions with Turkish sojourners in several different settings, wrote a scholarly paper, and completed the class. My family also made lifelong friendships with fascinating people. Much that we learned can be applied in other contexts.

Edward T. Hall describes Turkey as a “high context” culture, and America as ““low context.” In Turkey, much more time is devoted to developing the relationships behind transactions than to the transactions themselves (Friedman, 1979, pp. 45–54). Relationships, connections, and group harmony are the important values. The validity of the group is more important than individual rectitude.

Given these insights, it would appear that an American wishing to establish rapport with Turkish sojourners should understand the basic elements of Turkish culture. Beyond this, the technique of “turning the tables” has value. Create a situation in which the guest can function as a host, the student as a teacher, the outsider as the portal to an alternate inside.

First adventure

In August 2004, I went to a local university to meet a “language partner.” Picture a casually dressed, fifty-something man walking through the parking lot with an elegant young woman. The director of the language partners program introduces them, gives them a list of suggested activities, and leaves it to them to make further arrangements.

“Dawn” is an engineer who wants help with her colloquial English. The fifty-something man wants to learn Turkish. Each wants to see the world through the eyes of the other culture.

The two arranged a first meeting in a wide-open public place-the university’s student union. They brought notebooks. He brought a Turkish elementary-school primer. They sat on adjacent chairs and practiced reading aloud.

On the second meeting, in the same place, Dawn introduced her husband “Freedom.” The researcher and Freedom chatted for a few minutes, discussing common interests in history and politics. The researcher apparently passed the test, since the couple extended an invitation to continue the lessons at their apartment.

When you are invited into a Turkish home, the researcher had learned, expect to be served food and drink, and be sure to bring a small gift. With this in mind, he purchased a book at a used bookstore. He knocked on the door, greeted the couple, and stepped in. Freedom reminded him to leave his shoes at the door. The three chatted for a few minutes about history and politics, Dawn served tea and cookies, and they began doing language work.

This established the pattern the visits followed over the next eighteen months. The American would speak to Freedom first, discussing Freedom’s academic progress. He would present them with a small gift, usually an inexpensive but thoughtfully chosen book. Dawn would serve tea and a snack of some kind-baklava, spinach cake, yaprak dolmasi (stuffed grape leaves), and so on. The language partners would work together on their parallel projects while the husband was in the apartment. Week by week, I made progress in my Turkish textbook.

Since I am a professional writer, I also proofread Freedom’s scholarly papers for colloquial correctness. Towards the end of the experience, I also helped Dawn translate three affidavits into clear English.

A few months into the adventure, the researcher invited his young friends over for a Thanksgiving dinner. The Turkish couple brought a bouquet of roses. Dawn brought a pair of fluffy slippers in a grocery bag to wear while visiting, which greatly fascinated the American six-year-old daughter. The families ate together, then sat in the living room and talked while the six- and eight-year-old girls frolicked. The guests enjoyed being around children.

Some time later, Freedom and Dawn invited the researcher’s family to their apartment for an iftar, the formal after-sunset feast held during Ramadan. That year, at the end of Ramadan, the researcher’s family had their friends over for a Bayram (Eid) dinner. Over the course of the project, the researcher had the Turkish couple over for dinner several times, and invited them to attend his daughter’s wedding as valued friends of the family.

Towards the end of Freedom’s master’s degree program, Dawn got a job translating for a Turkish family that had come to the USA seeking specialized medical care for their thirteen-year-old son. Dawn introduced the researcher to this family so that he could continue his informal self-study of Turkish. In May of 2006, Freedom completed his degree program, and the couple returned to Turkey.

I e-mailed them nearly twice as often as they e-mailed me (142 to 74). Fifty-one times, these exchanges involved the kind of practical help that a native speaker of English can offer someone whose native language lies completely outside of the Indo-European family.

These numbers are not asymmetric when weighed against the fact that I was a guest in their apartment approximately sixty times, and received from them the coaching I needed to acquire a rudimentary knowledge of Turkish.

Another goal of the encounters, to foster mutual understanding, was also apparently reached. In an e-mail from Turkey several months after their return Dawn wrote:

“Turkish people are religious people (of course not all of them but the majority). I saw the same thing in the USA. From the cinema and TV shows we watch through TV, American people seem like they don’t care about religion and they are very free about what they do in their lives. I think in real life it is not like that. As I see in your family, you care about your family very much and you try to teach your children about what is important in life for you. I think it is the same in Turkey.” (Gençer, 2006)

Second adventure

A second adventure in acculturation involved a Turkish family sojourning in the USA to seek medical care for a seriously ill son. The project began when Dawn introduced everyone at the clinic lounge. Later social encounters included picnics, and a series of language exercises at the hospital cafeteria.

The “Smith” family consisted of “Henry,” the father. “Margaret,” the mother. “Janet,” a seventeen-year-old daughter, and “Eric,” a son who had his thirteenth birthday while in a sterile ward of the hospital, undergoing bone marrow transplant therapy.

I met the family through Dawn, who had found work as a translator for the Smiths, helping them in their dealings with medical personnel. At one highly stressful point in their sojourn, the daughter’s student visa was revoked. Janet had curtailed her exchange student activities to find the university-connected health center, whose services offered the last hope of saving her brother’s life. As she was the only member of the family comfortable with the English language, Janet was needed at the hospital. Furthermore, Eric had only consented to the painful course of treatment because that ordeal gave him the opportunity to spend time with his beloved sister.

While Janet’s visa situation was being negotiated, she, Henry, and Margaret composed affidavits to plead their case. Dawn translated these into English, to the best of her ability, and asked for my help with a final edit.

At the initial meeting, following Dawn’s directions, I found the fourth-floor children’s lounge. Dawn took me in through the airlock, and explained how to put on the disposable overshoes. We went to Eric’s room. He was seated in his bed wearing pajamas and playing a video game. Janet, the big sister, was also present. Dawn and the parents, Henry and Margaret, escorted me to a visitor’s lounge.

We sat around a table, they offered me some donuts, and we conversed. Henry and Janet had an apartment near the hospital, but Margaret spent every night with her son in the hospital room. Dawn explained that American hospital personnel do not understand the intensity of the family bond in Turkish families. Apparently, it would be unthinkable for a Turkish mother to leave a dangerously ill child in the care of strangers overnight. She slept in an overstuffed chair in the room.

Janet’s visa problems were resolved, and I had banked some good will for my earlier efforts on their behalf. They were glad to hear that our church was praying for their son’s healing. After all, Margaret explained through Dawn, Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

I brought a few small presents, including a book of handy English phrases, listed with their Turkish equivalents, and the English repeated phonetically in the Turkish alphabet.

The Turkish tutorial sessions began in June 2006, and lasted almost six months. For our first tutorial session, Henry greeted me with a smile, and led me to the first-floor cafeteria. He was cleanly dressed, but looked as though he had missed shaving that day. I used an unobtrusive digital voice recorder to record the lessons. A continuous buzz of background conversation can be heard on the recording. Henry brought out several sheets of neatly hand-written Turkish sentences, and a brief essay describing his situation. The bulk of the conversation consisted of discussing the prepared lesson. I heard myself on tape frequently interrupting, and interjecting encouraging words (Yes! Yes!) and attempts at Turkish repartee. Henry spoke carefully, slowly, with frequent backtracking and repetition.

After we had talked for a bit over an hour, Henry asked, “Is that OK for today?”

“I’ve learned a little sentence in Turkish that goes like this: Affedersiniz. Kaybolduk. Bana yardým eder misiniz?” I answered. (Excuse me. I’m lost. Can you help me?) He laughed, I turned off the recorder, and we made arrangements to meet the next week.

Time after time, when we settled down to talk, Henry’s careful preparations guided the remainder of the conversation. He was in charge, genial, and seemed to take pleasure in imparting information, in helping.

We exchanged frequent e-mails to set up or cancel our meetings. Henry spent at least five times as long coaching my Turkish as I did his English. In part, this was because his English is much better than my Turkish.

Twice, Henry accepted an invitation to attend a picnic-one on the Fourth of July, sponsored by my church, the other a few weeks later sponsored by the Divan Cultural Center, a Cary, NC organization dedicated to fostering Turkish–American friendship. Both times, he and Margaret seemed to enjoy themselves, and delight in the opportunity to interact with other adults.

Even under conditions of weariness and extreme personal stress, this Turkish professional, a government-employed engineer, was unfailingly polite, and seemed to genuinely enjoy interacting with a sympathetic American. The format of becoming a tutor, a mentor, apparently provided a space of mastery during a time of uncertainty and anxiety.

Henry maintained control of the conversations, staying on the sure ground of a topic he knew well, the Turkish language. Although I was able to buy him a beverage once, he was careful to not let that happen again. When he attended a Fourth of July picnic sponsored by our church, he brought us a gift bag of imported delicacies. When he came to the Divan Cultural Center picnic, he timed his arrival to be after the food had already been mostly consumed. He was apparently wary of incurring asymmetrical obligations.

Conclusions

My family has “adopted” another young Turkish couple. This ongoing project involves several issues. How can an American establish rapport with people from a different nation, linguistic family, and religion? What can he learn once the rapport is established?

The technique of “turning the tables” helped insights and perspectives to cross the boundaries. By becoming a student of the Turkish language, I allowed people who were immersed in an alien linguistic environment to feel at home, and to talk about a topic they knew very well. By demonstrating a sincere interest in, and respect for, their home culture, I helped them to feel at home in my culture. By fulfilling the Turkish expectations of guests, I helped guests in my country to fulfill the satisfying role of hosts.

The first project demonstrates the progress of a mutually satisfying and symmetrical relationship with a Turkish family over the course of nearly two years.

The second project demonstrates how important control can be to a Turkish sojourner whose life has been shaped by traumatic events beyond his control. Although Henry often looked tired, he was always punctual and fully engaged in our conversations. The heart of each encounter consisted of animated conversation in simplified English and Turkish, a great deal of laughter, and a sense of delight in being able to make ourselves clear to one another in the other’s language.

What insights were conveyed over the bridges thus built? To some extent, Turkish sojourners and immigrants do indeed bring with them “differing perceptions of family, society, and ultimate duty.” For example, to avoid offending Turkish sensibilities, the wise westerner avoids extended contact with someone of the opposite sex unless the other party’s spouse is also present.

The longing all respondents expressed was for Americans to think beyond their own culture, and to take an interest in the different lives of people in other parts of the world. Given the Turkish enthusiasm for personal relationships, a small effort by a citizen of the United States can dramatically aid cultural understanding in both directions.

Thomas C. Smedley, MS, is a student at Regent University pursuing a doctorate in Communication Research. He is a technical writer with a special interest in building bridges between disparate communities – programmers and end users, Americans and Turks.

References

• Berry, J., Kim, U., Minde, T. and Mok, D. (1987, Autumn). Comparative Studies of Acculturative Stress. International Migration Review. 21-3, 491-511
• Gençer, N. (2005). Personal conversation.
• Gudykunst, W. & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Teske, R. and Nelson, B. (1974, May). Acculturation and Assimilation: A Clarification. American Ethnologist. 1-2, 351-367.
• Weinstock, S. (1963, June). Role Elements: A Link between Acculturation and Occupational Status. The British Journal of Sociology. 14-2, 144-149.

A: There is no Mujaddid (renewer) presently. All of them have passed on having completed their mission. Today what is left behind as a duty for us is to recognize them and make sound assessments of their interpretations and perspectives. All of them and especially “the sage of the age” (Bediuzzaman) never drew attention to themselves when they started service to belief and the Qur’an and they understood this phenomenon as a “collective personality” (shakhs al-manawi) rather than a [particular] individual (shakhs), in the sense that after this, service to belief and Islam would be represented by the “collective [spiritual] personality.” As a matter of fact, some people may fall into an error as a result of a false ijtihad (independent reasoning), and may incline to show added fondness and favor toward certain individuals. Such favored individuals-if they are any righteous-are expected to direct this favor into preventing these people from splitting apart, and will never exploit it for a personal interest (or attribute this favor to any of their personal qualities). Certainly, it is always possible that such individuals, who ensure the unity of their community and encourage them for good service, may be blessed with things that they have never thought about or never expected. If it is useful for the community, then such a fondness must be maintained. “Otherwise, all (personal) talents and gifts should be shattered like a crystal bowl; and the “collective [spiritual] personality” should always be indicated as the foundation.”

Meanwhile, there are some individuals who have become the lifeblood of a community out of a respect arising from the bottom; you can observe the presence of such individuals in every part of the structure top to bottom, although they are “nothing.” However, if these individuals are beneficial to the community even at a tiniest level, then it is not worth causing troubles for them. Such individuals become an idol, if they cannot provide guidance for the society, construct the spirit of revival at a desired level, embrace every section of the society and be in harmony with them, and can only get along with those who respect them; such idols should be brought down. It is unacceptable that these individuals are capable of representing the “collective personality” if they cannot work in harmony even with those “pharaohs” within the society.

If such individuals are equipped with some sincerity (ikhlas), when they realize they cannot be in harmony with the entire society, they would go into a self-denial and would bury themselves in an “individual absence” (ghaybubiyyat al-fardiyya), like Ibrahim Adham did, in order to find out their own souls. Otherwise, being at the head of such service may place this person in a risk to lose some of the things they possess.

Turning back to the original question, even though the Renewer (Mujaddid) had been awaited as a single individual, at a time when the world has become more global and we are experiencing a “shrinking” of distances both in time and space (taqarrub al-zaman and taqarrub al-makan), and masses apparently living far apart have become members of the same household, service to humanity (hidma) should be undertaken, not by an individual par excellence (fard al-farid), but rather by the collective [spiritual] body (shakhs al-manawi). Those who will constitute the shakhs al-manawi might be persons drawn from a wide spectrum; from those who participate to the smallest degree to those whose contribution is unimaginably great and who cooperate with everyone in perfect harmony. This service will not involve people with specialties; however, some special people will be the teachers of this communal school; they will be the “individuals par excellence” of the transcendental dervish lodge of this age; they will be the head teachers of the madrasa beyond these times; they will be the commanders of this collective barracks.

I believe that today the (spiritual ranks of) the Qutb and Fard are primarily represented by the collective spiritual bodies. At certain times, the ranks of Qutb and Ghaus are conjoined, whereas the rank of Qutb al-Irshad (Pole of Guidance) might have several representations, for it is related to guidance (irshad). The Autad (pillars) will perhaps be represented within this collective understanding or will assume the role of the lifeblood of a sacred and absolute unity that will be achieved either through uniting with this collective understanding or through spreading among all Islamic communities/groups (jamaats).

There are countless righteous saints of sevens, or forties who are climbing the stairs of Qutb al-Irshad. Even though they appear disconnected, one day they will certainly reach a point of intersection. Our master the Messenger of God says, “Souls are soldiers lined up in ranks; they come together as much as they know each other.” People who share the same soul, the same meaning, and the same thought will certainly unite, even though they are far apart, just like rivers flowing into the same sea, reaching the target sometimes by carving into mountains or by finding out different routes when their paths are blocked by visible or hidden obstructions; or like those who have intended for pilgrimage may meet at holy precincts like Arafat, Ka‘ba, or Rawda. It does not matter if they had the intention to meet or not, the domains they would like to do services at will unite them, and they will represent this grand truth with a hope-inspiring “collective gathering” (jamm al-ghafir).

All of these depend on the existence of unpretentious people with no expectations (hasbi), and they are certainly a grace of God. Therefore, people must seriously train themselves in the direction of being with no expectation in return (hasbi) and altruism. They must be unpretentious and just like the people during the Makka period could not see the season of conquests, they should also free themselves from every kind of worldly expectations and seek the pleasure of God. They should never forget that God may not allow them to continue this work till the end. These people of courage should be loyal, but should never be after any expectation. Service is done not for the reward to be given here, but because it is God’s order. If some reward is given here, then it should be regarded as ulufe (a regular salary the Sultan paid to some soldiers), but it should never be attributed to any individuals.

*This refers to the classical models of the Hidden Government in which there are ranks of saints: one Qutb (axis, pole) or Ghauth (help), 4 Autad (pillars), 7 Abrar (pious), and 40 Abdals (substitutes). Below this are 300 akhyar (Good) and 4000 Hidden saints. (Schimmel, 1975, 200).

You can send us your questions:

questions@fountainmagazine.com

But it was not always this way. Centuries ago, when most of Europe was enduring the appalling ignorance and superstitions of its Dark and Middle Ages, when not even the thought of America existed, Islamic civilization burst upon the international scene. Like a magnificent rose unfolding layer upon layer of petals in the form of religious and scientific insights, scientific discoveries and progress, and a passion for justice and improving life for everyone, it flourished in lands that had never had a high civilization, such as the Arabian peninsula, Central Asia, and Spain.

Absorbing the accumulated knowledge of Greece, Rome, and the earlier civilizations that came under Islamic rule, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars and scientists working within the Islamic worldview translated their works and absorbed their useful knowledge. However, contrary to popular Western belief, those scholars and scientists did not just transmit this knowledge to Europe. Rather, they built upon it, developed methods of observation and experimentation unknown to the earlier civilizations and now considered ‘modern,’ and made original contributions in many scientific fields. In other words, the West based its modern scientific foundation and Renaissance upon the knowledge it acquired from the Islamic world.

Unfortunately, due to the hostile relationship between the Catholic church in Rome and the newly emerging class of European scientists, much of modern science was based upon a materialistic worldview. The resulting side effects are still with us: a terribly polluted environment; the belief that science should progress regardless of the resulting controversy (e.g., cloning, developing nuclear and other horrifying weapons, and genetic engineering); and the illusion that humanity has no need for God.

Our main article discusses the contributions of those scientists who worked within Islamic civilization and its worldview regardless of their ethnicity or religion. The author relates some of their accomplishments and how they laid the groundwork for Europe’s Renaissance. This topic is supplemented by several other scientific articles, each of which shows us the amazing nature of life and the universe, thereby reminding us that humanity does need God.

Another article shows us the reality behind the cliché: ‘It’s a small world.’ In these days of fear and pain in many lands, we would be well-advised to take its message to heart: Between any two people, there are, on the average, only six steps of separation. Thus, we are not separate from a starving child, a dying man, or a grieving woman, regardless of any artificial man-made considerations. All of us form one large extended family interconnected by interweaving ties of blood, acquaintance, friendship, and love. All revealed religions know this truth and call their followers to live according to it so that peace, love, and personal and social well-being will prevail.

Having recognized this truth, we should turn to God and implore Him to enable us to live as individuals overflowing with love and concern for their family members and neighbors, working together to ensure that everyone enjoys modern society’s benefits, and to help us to prepare for our eternal existence in the next world. Our first article, ‘Time to Pray,’ is an eloquent appeal for us to petition God to enable all of us to do exactly that.

A little note for our online readers. The Fountain’s new web site is ‘www.fountainmagazine.com’.