“The work of Gulen’s followers in Turkey shows that Islam-as taught by Gulen-seeks tolerance, not conflict; it aims for a better society, not political power; and it manifests itself in prayer and concrete local action.”

“As early as the eighteenth century, Goethe knew that the East and the West were inseparable. However, today’s society has not been able to fulfill Goethe’s dream, although plenty of time has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Societies remain trapped in prejudices and stereotypes that strengthen the view of a separate East and West. European enlargement has made this even more pronounced and overwhelming. But fortunately, today there are voices in the world which inspire courage; voices which are not given due attention, voices which, nevertheless, have for years promoted a different world view and have successfully served people and the public good,” read the invitation to a Potsdam University conference about the renowned Turkish scholar Fethullah Gulen and the movement named after him. The conference, titled “Muslims between tradition and modernity-the Gulen Movement as a bridge between cultures,” was jointly organized by the University of Potsdam’s Institute of Religion and the Forum for Intercultural Dialogue, Berlin and was supported by the German Orient Institute, Abraham Geiger College, and the Protestant Academy of Berlin.

Attended by thirty-two academics who presented papers and about 500 observers from all over the world, the conference was the first of its kind in that it had no Turkish or Muslim scholars on its editorial board, which instead featured academics such as Professor Karl-Josef Kuschel from Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Professor Christina von Braun from Berlin’s Humboldt University, and Professor Markus Witte from the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University of Frankfurt. Judging by this fact only, it may be said that the conference was a platform of outsiders looking at and discussing the Gulen Movement.

An outsider’s observations are always fruitful for a social movement, both when they are affirming and when they are critical. An outsider’s eye is the mirror where a social entity, whether it be an individual self or a collective personality, watches and re-defines its self. There were both admiring and critical presentations in the Potsdam Conference. Participants in the Gulen Movement must have recorded both the “commendations and condemnations” and will probably act to strengthen the former and correct the latter.

Strikingly there was a common point between the laudatory and critical presentations: both groups believed that the Gulen Movement offers the Western world a series of opportunities that should not be missed. Both affirmed that the principles of the Gulen Movement may help the Western world to deal with its problems, not only when they relate to Muslims, but also when they relate to the very roots of Western civilization. This point necessitates further discussion and may even open new “zones of activity” for the Gulen Movement and other similar Muslim social entities.

Professor Dr. Leonid R. Sykiainen, a professor of Islamic law and comparative legal studies as the State University–Higher School of Economics in Moscow, suggested, for example, that the Gulen dialogic approach should be adopted to the comparative study of Islamic and Western legal systems. Sykiainen claimed that at developed levels of dialogue the universal language of law should be utilized. “A comparative study of Islamic jurisprudence, which is on its own a magnificent art, should be one of the topics of a future Gulen conference,” he said. This call was important in the sense that it digressed from the established conference mode of “speaking about Fethullah Gulen and the Gulen Movement” and suggested “speaking about a legal issue through the Gulen paradigm.”

A similar suggestion came from Professor Dr. Reverend Simon Robinson, a professor of applied and professional ethics at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK, who underlined that the work of Gulen provides a basis for expanding the theory and practice of corporate responsibility. Robinson related the Gulen Movement’s sense of responsibility to the strong creation theology that develops a complex view of responsibility in terms of accountability, imputability, and moral liability. He observed how this core view of responsibility reinforces and validates plural responsibilities, including civil and global responsibility. “Hence, a conceptual bridge is established between religion, corporate responsibility, citizenship, and sustainability,” he said. Robinson called on the Gulen Movement to become involved more explicitly in the ongoing dialogue about global responsibility and to extend further the dialogue and practice of responsibility in business beyond its present networks to include, wherever possible, other faith networks and secular corporations.

Dr. Sylvia Powels-Niami, a lecturer in the Religious Studies and Jewish Studies departments of Potsdam University, claimed in her paper that with its focus on intercultural and interfaith dialogue, the Gulen Movement has assumed the important task of continuing the ancient Islamic dialectical tradition that gave birth to the development of Kalam as speculative theology by bringing reason and religion into harmony. Powels-Niami observed that the Gulen Movement’s activities are not only building bridges between the East and the West, faith and science but they have also the potential to revive the abandoned religious sciences of Islam and even develop new ones.

A suggestion for furthering Muslim–Christian–Jewish scholarly contacts and thus facilitating the emergence of new multi-disciplinary studies came from Professor Dr. Admiel Kosman, an organizer of the conference from Abraham Geiger College. Urging that the findings of the conference should be conveyed to the general public, Kosman suggested that a “joint study house” should be founded in either Berlin or in Istanbul where Muslim, Christian and Jewish texts and traditions can be studied and a new generation of imams, priests and rabbis can be educated with the kind of openness and tolerance Gulen promotes. Kosman was also the person who read the greeting letter which Fethullah Gulen sent to the conference.

In his letter Gulen reaffirmed his conviction that dialogue will bring about universal peace and the good nature of the human being is going to come to the fore sooner or later. “What we need to do in order to reach this hopeful day is to set off on the journey. In this journey, every single step is important and is worth respect and praise. On this way, each step has to be based on mutual respect and understanding and this is not true only for states and nations, but also for individuals. Leading this dialogue is not a duty that falls only on the shoulders of governments or governmental organs. In order to light this torch of respect and peace, voluntary services run by civil society and individuals are at least as important as official ones. Humanity needs people that will carry that torch,” Gulen wrote in his letter.

A paper that received much applause from the audience was that of Dr. Rainer Hermann, an academic and a journalist with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Dr. Hermann has been observing the Gulen Movement for more than ten years. He was the very first western intellectual to realize that the Gulen Movement did not offer an alternative to the secular-democratic system, but to the politicization of Islam. At Potsdam, Hermann skillfully placed the Gulen Movement on the social map of modern Turkey: “The Republic of Turkey is not a secular state with a separation between religion and state, but rather a laicist state whose elites have long attempted to banish religion from society. Indeed, the ruling Kemalist elites still believe that the moment a religion expands beyond the private domain, it must necessarily become political and impose a theocratic order upon the state and society. Fethullah Gulen deserves the credit for overturning these prejudices. Gulen has made Islam into a social force that has fuelled much of Turkey’s democratization and modernization. People, and not politics, form the focus of his sermons and ideas… All this is new for Turkey, where the official discourse has never focused on the individual, but rather on the perceived need to fight the motherland’s inner and outer foes to preserve national security,” he told the conference. “Gulen’s work has fostered a form of Islam in Turkey that lives in harmony with the West and modern ideas without sacrificing any precepts of its faith. The work of Gulen’s followers in Turkey shows that Islam-as taught by Gulen-seeks tolerance, not conflict; it aims for a better society, not political power; and it manifests itself in prayer and concrete local action,” he said.

Dr. Rainer Hermann focused on the activities of the Movement in Turkey only. Hermann had seven points for the audience: (1) the Gulen Movement is a social and apolitical movement; (2) Gulen is a modern Muslim who looks for a synthesis of Islam and science and of Turkish culture, a culture of dialogue and tolerance, and Western civilization; (3) Gulen has promoted science as a means to understand the creation and as a means to prosperity; (4) Gulen leaves no doubt that Islam and democracy are compatible; (5) Gulen’s interpretation of Islam fits to Europe; (6) Gulen owes his success to various reasons, including the elevated social position of preachers; (7) Fethullah Gulen makes a crucial contribution to the modernization of Turkey.

Hermann was not the only one who expressed appreciation of the work of the Gulen Movement. Dr. Bekim Agai of Halle University, Germany, told the audience that thanks to the activities of the Gulen Movement, Turkish migrants in Europe are no longer a part of the problems of Europe, but are problem solvers, and not only on issues relating to the migrants themselves. Ercan Karakoyun, a PhD candidate at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, and a participant in the Gulen Movement himself, informed the audience about the activities of the Movement in Germany and the contribution these activities have made to the integration of Turkish migrants into the general German society.

A controversial paper was presented by Swedish academician Dr. Klas Grinell. Though he accepted that the Gulen Movement is not engaged in party politics and is not attempting to gain political power, Grinell claimed that the Movement has a political stance: “This Movement supports democracy, human rights and EU membership for Turkey. This is a political position,” he said. Grinell said that having studied Gulen textually he regards Gulen as a conservative leader. But on the other hand he named Gulen as a perfect match for decolonial political theory. “Gulen is looking for dignity from within and not from outside when it comes to producing knowledge,” he said. This is a revolutionary position in epistemology indeed. Grinell had no explanation for labeling Gulen as both a conservative and a revolutionary, but his contribution underlined the fact that the Gulen Movement should not be studied in reference to the Jesuits, Opus Dei, or the Focolare Movement. If decoloniality is a party of Gulen’s revolutionary epistemology, it should be studied in reference to its own dynamics only. This should be the theme of a future conference.

Thus, the conference ended with the clear conviction that further studies need to be done on the Gulen Movement and on the solutions it proposes for the problems of the modern world. Though several questions were left untouched, the conference was a great success in the sense that it not only clarified certain reservations of the participants, but it also managed to reach the general public through media attention to the issue.

Kerim Balci is a columnist at Today’s Zaman, a leading English newspaper published in Turkey. He is also a PhD candidate on Philosophy of Language, Durham University, UK.

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

The real reasons for disasters

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

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

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

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

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

Do not destroy my nation because of my sins!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assuming responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collective repentance

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

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

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

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

Collective responsibility

But just acknowledging this shared responsibility is not enough. Frequently, the real problem is group inaction, for harm can be prevented if enough people form a group to prevent it. Collective responsibility often can be ascribed to those people who have the ability to form such groups but do not do so. To the extent that this is the case, they are collectively responsible for their collective inaction.

Members of the dominant Western culture may consider it overly severe to assert that all of us are collectively responsible for our failure to do something about the world’s many problems. While not saying that people who do not form groups are guilty due to their inaction, I do feel that our inaction should provoke a sense of shame within us.

Goodin describes his approach as putting consequences to the fore, meaning that consequences quickly take up the whole stage, not just its front and center. He preserves a central link between responsibility and causality, and claims to make better sense of our present practices of responsibility. Larry May sets out to expand significantly our sense of responsibility within groups. The keystone of moral responsibility here is that for who one chooses to be. Attitudes and habits, states of mind and character, roles and affiliations, and the professional, institutional, and social climates shaping our interests, perceptions, and values are reviewed even as we continue to shape them.

A welcome but difficult result is that we are responsible for failures of awareness and insensitivity, as well as unexamined habits, traits, allegiances, and identifications that predispose us to moral failure. Another result is that people should see themselves as responsible for certain harmful events occurring within their communities, even if they are not direct participants or cannot prevent them. We are”and should feel”accountable for tolerating our own morally flawed character, contributing to a morally irresponsible attitudinal climate, or failing to reckon adequately with our institutional roles. These enriched bases of responsibility are not intended as new bases for subjecting people to punishment. I suggest that shame and taint, not just guilt, are appropriate individual reactions to expanded responsibility.

My concern is the collectivities, attitudinal climates, and expectation of groups that shape what people think is up to them and what they become used to ignoring. This has implications for all people who function within institutions where the most significant outcomes are the work of many minds and hands. A group’s responsibility is a fundamental moral issue. Therefore, groups are responsible for events and should be held responsible for them.

Shared responsibility

People should see themselves as sharing responsibility for the harm experienced by their communities far more often than they do. There is a distinction between shared responsibility and collective responsibility. Collective responsibility applies to a group as such (not necessarily to individual members), whereas shared responsibility applies to individuals within groups because of their membership relation with the group. We live in a world of groups. Groups affect our daily life, attitudes, and character, and greatly increase our power to act. Individuals receive great benefits from group membership. Those increased benefits and power should come with increased responsibility. Yet, although groups cause more and greater harm than individuals and have a greater capacity to correct large-scale social problems, individuals typically identify less with harm caused by groups and less often assume responsibility for them.

People share responsibility for harm done by groups, including those that result from omission. More harm occurs collectively than individually, and yet people take less responsibility for it for two reasons: Groups break problems into pieces, responsibility gets diffused, and groups allow individuals to assume that someone else will”or at least could”act. An expanded notion of moral negligence, the idea that since individuals within groups and the group’s structure and policies influence one another, and since group membership structures its members’ values and tends to desensitize them, individual members should be aware of this and responsible for reducing the risk of harm perpetrated by their group. Since there is a duty to act, the failure to do so may constitute negligence. This makes group members responsible for group values and, derivatively, for whatever harm the group does.

Shared responsibility is particularly appropriate for the value transformations that occur within groups. Since people affect one another’s conduct more, and attitudes are more closely shared, people should feel a heightened sense of responsibility to offset any risks associated with misconduct, including negligent omission or inaction. Of course, there is always the problem of defining the scope of negligence. This problem can be handled by using a reasonable person standard to ascertain what our roles would commit us to. We are not negatively responsible for all of the world’s failures, but only what a reasonable group of fellow citizens would expect of someone in our circumstances. Recognizing negative responsibility, including responsibility for omis-sions that allow an unreasonable risk of group harm, helps people lead lives that are more integrated with their moral values, because that involves both acts and omissions. To be in harmony with ourselves, we need to integrate principles with behavior that promotes moral integrity.

Conclusion

Shared responsibility, by focusing the issues of responsibility in a different light, provides us with the beginning of an account of how people, as moral agents, are connected to and function within groups and institutions. This analysis also provides a picture of the nature of informal groups and social relations. Most human relations influence the daily life, attitudes, assumptions, aspirations, and acts of individuals everywhere, such as in voluntary associations. We should remember the team’s perception of the Challenger space shuttle disaster: It is time to take your engineer’s cap off and put on your manager’s cap.1 An aggregate approach or something like it is necessary here, making shared and vicarious responsibility particularly appropriate. 

Footnote

1. Amy Gutnam and Dennis Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997), 189.

References

• Goodin, Robert E. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• Gutnam, Amy and Dennis Thompson. Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997.
• May, Larry. Sharing Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
• Thampson, Dennis E. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

The great transformation that followed the Industrial Revolution at the end of Middle Ages created imbalances between the legitimate use of resources and environmental well-being. The Industrial Revolution brought about improvements in agriculture, the large-scale production of iron and steel, the development of machinery, and the factory mode of production. Behind these changes lay a new energy system based on the rapid expansion of the use of coal as fuel. Coal dominated industrial society’s energy production until well into the twentieth century, when oil and gas superseded it. These cheap, concentrated, and abundant fossil fuels led to the explosive growth of population, wealth, technology, production, and trade. Cheap energy tilted the balance between the careful use of resources with a maximum effectiveness and the polluting effects of these resources.

Contemporary industrial civilization differs strikingly from traditional civilizations in two important ways. Both these differences have impacted upon the present environmental crisis. First, the huge consumption of fossil fuels and use of modern technology have enabled unprecedented production levels of goods and wealth accumulation, and have allowed large numbers of people to live in luxury. Although this production has not required traditional forms of slavery, a large portion of humanity has been left out of the productive process or benefits little from the wealth it produces. Second. industrial society exhibits growth and innovation rates so much faster than any previous civilization that a new situation has emerged. The increase of the world’s population is the most obvious kind of growth: It doubled between 1850 and 1930, and then doubled again between 1930 and 1975. Though growth rates have peaked. the world’s population may double again between 1975 to and 2010. Meanwhile, technological innovation has accelerated so rapidly that many persons living today can remember a world into which no cars, airplanes, or radios existed. Technological changes in transportation and communication have been viewed, until quite recently, as instruments of progress. Now they are being reexamined for the rate of energy consumed and the quality of life delivered. Further innovations may have a different character.

Innovative, energy-intensive technology exacerbates two tendencies found in both industrial society that it shares with and traditional civilizations:

” These civilizations developed large integrated economic and political systems. Industrial (and post-industrial) society is rapidly incorporating the whole world into its integrated economy.

” Traditional civilizations tended to be so unstable that few flourished for more than a few centuries. Industrial society becomes dysfunctional as it depletes resources, pollutes the environment, and manufactures weapons, all at a rate that many believe cannot be sustained for even a century longer.

The development of large-scale technology in the service of extensive, complex institutions has engendered a new situation. Never before has so much energy been available for human use. The novelty of the sheer quantity of energy is matched by its concentration. In this century, the governments of industrial nations have increased and centralized their power. In recent decades, the appearance and expansion of multinational corporations and energy conglomerates has allowed the leaders of a few institutions to determine much of our planet’s future. These firms are drawing the whole world into a single integrated economy dedicated to establishing a universal, high-energy consumer culture. No previous time has seen, on a global level, such an acceleration of growth and social change as that caused by these institutions.

Better living conditions for all is the well-publicized promise offered by the present industrial society. And although in absolute numbers more people are hungry than ever before, it is true that today more people, and a higher percentage of people, are wealthier than at any time in the past. The revolution of rising expectations suggests that the world’s poor increasingly believe that economic development and industrialization will bring affluence even to them.

But the costs and dangers of the present order are no less familiar. The growing world economy’s voracious appetite exploits resources at an unprecedented and accelerating rate. Huge though the global reserves of usable natural resources are, present trends ensure their depletion within an ominously brief time. The processes of the world global economy poison the environment on which we all depend, and the accompanying misuse of land and water threatens, over time, to transform large parts of the planet into desert.

The shift from a world consisting of many societies with largely self-reliant economies to a single global society with an integrated economy makes the whole system vulnerable to disaster, should one essential part of the system malfunction. War or large-scale revolution anywhere in the world may disrupt the economic and political stability of the entire world. Thus, while the global economy serves us, it makes us dependent and transforms us into its slaves, for when its smooth functioning becomes necessary for our survival, its perpetuation, whatever the cost, becomes our most urgent and necessary task. When its smooth functioning depends on a disciplined, rational, careful work force, all that is spontaneous, emotional, exuberant, and unpredictable-qualities that make up part of our humanity-must be sacrificed. Such issues are already beginning to emerge in the nuclear power debate.

In this age of cheap and abundant energy, we feel as powerless to affect the decisions of Exxon as of OPEC. We can feel the edge of the old adage that technological advance does not give power to people generally, but gives some people greater power over many other people. Environmental costs in the form of stripped landscapes, polluted waterways, marine oil slicks, and smog are increasing. If we do not act now, we will continue to pay the human costs in increased regimentation and rising cancer deaths.

The decline of what Muslims ethicists call “contentment” (qana’at) and the rise of a consumer society have made every whim and appetite worth pursuing. Unmitigated pleasure can be enjoyed without struggle, self-discipline, or hang-over. Advertising often gives the impression that advancing technology and a high-energy life style can fulfill all our desires at the touch of a finger. A high-energy life style offers instant gratification in the form of fast food, electronic entertainment, high-speed travel, air conditioning and central heating, painkilling drugs, and laborsaving machinery.

The human aspiration to overcome biological limits, to extend the boundaries of human knowledge, power, and experience as far as possible, regardless of the cost, has led to the space program, supersonic transport, and the development of fusion power. These infinite aspirations are enclosed in finite flesh, and thus present a contradiction that must be resolved by religion, for it is religion that makes us aware of the limits by showing us death as an imminent reality.

It is ironic that although we witness death almost every day, the certainty of our own death always lurks on the fringes of consciousness. In his book The Denial of Death (New York: Free Press, 1974). Ernest Becker argues that since we know we are to die and are therefore doomed to live in a tragic and terrifying world, the situation calls for new heroism (basically matters of belief and will), dedicated to a vision. “But modern man is drinking and drugging himself out of awareness or he spends his time shopping, which is the same thing.”

The vision to be free includes not only freedom from human finitude and death, but also repudiation of the smelly, messy, and transient fleshiness of our own bodies. Bodies originate in the soil. They feel hunger and thirst. They eat and drink and defecate. They fall sick, deteriorate with age, die, and rot in the dirt. They also generate passions, irrational emotions, and “lower” impulses. They engender lust, lechery, and fornication. How could anyone with such a body become free? Repudiating the body and physical work only encourages our penchant for mechanization.

We live and make public policy in industrial culture as if we half-believed these dreams to be real. We pursue scientific research as if the knowledge gained will improve rather than threaten human well-being. We talk and plan as if industrial civilization will continue forever. Such a pretense has a long historical lineage in history. The Pharaohs and Qaruns, as the Qur’an reminds us, believed in their own divinity and hence eternity. The Greeks observed that those whose ambitions and success raised them too high suffered a fatally distorted perception of reality-called arrogance-that led to a form of madness inevitably resulting in their downfall.

Fortunately, an alternative does exist. Environmentalism has an important religious dimension. It does not demand a sudden end to technological advancement, but rather calls for stringent measures to develop a morally and spiritually satisfying life style for all. Only such a strategy might succeed in arresting environmental deterioration and establishing and then maintaining satisfying and egalitarian human communities for long into the future.

RELIGIOUSLY INSPIRED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Religion remains an important source of moral-spiritual awareness that engenders responsibility and accountability for the individual as well as the collective good. Religious beliefs help make sense out of many otherwise inexplicable human conditions. It is religion that reminds humanity of its creatureliness. Belief in the transitory nature of life and final judgment in the Divine court means abandoning the aspiration to surpass human limits and of the pretense that gaining power will not bring with it the often irresistible temptation to misuse it.

This must not mean an end of scientific enterprise, but rather a careful directing of science and technology to those activities that really will improve the quality of human life. Mortality remains the greatest measure of human limitation, and a spiritual-moral culture must find ways to help people face the sorrow connected with their own death and the deaths of those they love. At the same time, it must reconcile us to our limited sojourn on Earth without denigrating our bodies. The pious life must involve physical labor as well as prayer.

These considerations soon become a question about the meaning of human life. Whether a high-energy, consumerist society can for long preserve humane conditions is much in doubt. The choice of the right path to arrest the deteriorating condition is, in part, ours.

If we, as Muslims, believe that the Earth’s resources are a part of God’s creation, we must use them in a way that ensures that all life, present and future, will have access to its needed resources. We must also make sure that any threats to life from the pollution engendered by our use of these same resources are minimized.

As followers of Islam, the religion that encourages us to prove the existence of the “Master of the Day of Judgment” through natural phenomena, we should reflect seriously upon the relationship between religion and the environment.

Why should Muslims pay attention to environmental ethics? I can think of at least three answers:

First, the Qur’anic imperative: “Do not defile the Earth…” (7:54). The Islamic revelation calls upon humanity to avoid corrupting the Earth. Although “corruption” here means defiling the material as well the spiritual environment, the Qur’an underscores the interrelationship between the material and spiritual dimensions of the problem. Spiritual problems cannot be worked out apart from correcting humanity’s relations with the physical environment. Human beings must live in harmony with the environment if they want to avoid becoming alienated from nature. The Qur’an repeatedly points toward the portents of God’s existence in nature, for it states that both terrestrial and celestial bodies are all the ayat (signs or proofs) of the Divine presence. In order to overcome their alienation from God, human beings must learn to live in harmony with their physical and mental environments.

Second, humanity is entrusted with the khilafa of God. This position can be interpreted as conveying humanity’s “lordship” over God’s creation and that nature exists to serve human beings. In fact, some environmentalists claim that such an anthropocentric view, commonly held by Abrahamic religions, is the source of our environmental crisis. However, it must be pointed out that although religion has an important place in determining people’s ideas and culture, it is too simplistic to extract such “lordship” from the creation story. Quite the contrary, for this khiafa implies God’s commandment to human beings to assume “stewardship” over His creation, to continue to watch over the world and its creatures as benevolent, responsible guardians. For Muslims, humanity is God’s trustee and therefore must serve the purposes of the “Master of the Day of Judgment.” The Earth belongs to God, and He has entrusted us with its safekeeping. As such, all human beings are answerable for their actions, for how they use or abuse this Trust of God.

Third, there is a purpose in human life: to worship (‘ibada) God. I am using the word ‘ibada here in its essential meaning of “serving” God by fulfilling all that God requires us to do. This includes living in harmony and peace with one another. In Islam, faith in God means being aware of matters of ultimate concern. There is a sense of urgency in such an understanding of faith. The Qur’an speaks about of the Day of Judgment in terms of urgency and calls upon human beings to respond to their limited life on Earth.

The spiritual and physical environments face constant challenges by human behavior. Just as awareness about moral dangers should create in us a sense of urgency when we are warned that excessive materialism will damage spiritual well-being, pollution of the physical environment must be treated as a matter of ultimate significance. Environmentalists all over the world warn us that our oceans are rising and so we are going to be drowned, that our food and water are filled with chemicals and so we are going to die of cancer, that the ozone hole will introduce lethal radiation from outer space, and that we actually are going to destroy ourselves, thereby proving that the cosmic experiment of intelligent life on Earth has been a failure. These issues are related to the ultimate value of human life.

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

The Qur’an declares that “reforming the Earth” is the ideal human endeavor. It also criticizes humanity for several very basic human traits: that human beings are too proud and petty, narrow-minded, and selfish. “Man is by nature timid,” says the Qur’an. “When evil befalls him, he panics, but when good things come to him he prevents them from reaching others.” This pettiness causes individuals to become so submerged in nature that they lose sight of its Creator. Only when nature fails them do they turn, in utter frustration, to God. Their shortsightedness deludes them into thinking that charity, altruism, and sacrificing for others will impoverish them. This, however, is Satan’s influence, for God promises prosperity in return for generosity to the poor.

The Qur’an insists, therefore, that individuals transcend their pettiness and enlarge themselves in order to develop the inner moral quality of taqwa (usually translated ‘fear of God,” but actually meaning, “to guard against danger”). Using taqwa, individuals can discern right from wrong and, above all, evaluate their own actions properly and so avoid self-deception, a danger to which they are always exposed. People often think they have done something consequential, although in the long run the deed has no importance. The real worth of one’s deeds can be judged only through taqwa, and an individual’s aim should be the ultimate benefit of humanity, not the self’s immediate pleasures or ambitions.

The Qur’an (6:38) declares in no uncertain terms that: “There is no creature upon the Earth or in the skies that does not form part of a community as you do. All things progress through life thanks to Divine guidance: some are more advanced, some are less advanced.” This means that humanity is not the only community living on the Earth. God’s sustaining provisions reach all of His creatures, and thus all are worthy of respect and protection. Prophet Muhammad regarded all living creatures as worthy of protection and kind treatment. When asked whether kindness to animals will be rewarded, he said: “For charity shown to any creature with a wet heart, there is a reward,” (wetness indicates life). This tradition also suggests humanity’s stewardship over nature.

The Qur’an does not regard nature as opposed to God for, in reality, nature is muslim, meaning “submitted to God’s Will.” Every creature that exists in the heavens or upon the Earth bows its head in submission to God’s laws, willingly or unwillingly. “The seven heavens and the Earth and all that exists within them sing the praises of God; there is no atom that does not praise God with thanks and gratitude, although you may be unaware of how this praise is expressed.” (17:44; 3:38). Giving thanks imparts worth and value, and the Qur’an emphasizes God’s greatness and glory by including animate and inanimate creatures in His worship. Such inclusion is designed to create a respect and reverence for nature in human beings. Nature is in harmony with those individuals who give thanks. Just as when people of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds overcome their fear of each other when they pray together, this shared aspect of creatureliness overcomes the alienation between humanity and nature.

There is a total harmony between God and nature. There is however, an unfolding process and progression in nature, for God placed in it a creative power that made it grow, bifurcate, and ramify. The Qur’an asks: “Do the unbelievers not see that We have created the planets [in this solar system from the burning, swirling gases that] We tore away from [the sun as it revolved]? Do they not see that We created every living thing from water [that is, this viscous soup of solar gases]?)” (21:30).

God gave nature the power of growth, bifurcation, progression, and change. The Qur’an abounds in statements that nature is the proof (ayah) of God’s existence, unity, and wisdom. Nature is well-knit and originally without any flaw. God has created every thing according to a its proper measurement (qadar). Nature is therefore one of His prime miracles. Thoughtful reflections on this divine miracle and keen observation of it can lead us to faith in God and encourage us to worship God. Nature is the reminder (dhikr) of God. The Qur’an calls upon humanity to reflect on nature and learn from it:

“In the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and in the alternation of night and day [in which the means of livelihood are found] there are signs [of Truth] for those with the ability and will to understand. Those who, whether sitting, standing or reclining on their sides, remember God and deliberate upon the creation of the heavens and the Earth [and the purpose that underpins the whole cosmos] saying: “0 Lord! You have not created all this in vain. May You be glorified: You are far above the creation of playthings and trifles. So, 0 Lord, deliver us from the fires of Hell!'” (3:190-91).

The Qur’an emphasizes three dimensions of the human-nature relationship, with nature functioning as the proof of God’s existence:

• Worship engendered by nature

• Appreciation of beauty and aesthetics derived through nature

• Gratitude based on the realization of utility and value in nature.

The Qur’an teaches that nature has surrendered itself to the laws of God and thus is muslim. Nature is not only muslim in the sense that it obeys God’s laws and rules; the Qur’an (17:44) goes one step further and says that all nature sings God’s praises, although ordinary human senses cannot grasp that form of worship.

Whereas nature is the handiwork of God and the Qur’an speaks of its beauty, value, and goodness, it also underscores the purposefulness of creation. Everything in creation has a purpose, and everything functions as a sign of God’s existence. Moreover, God created the natural world long before human beings, thus making human beings dependent on the natural order for their survival. There is no reason why human beings should be valued more than other creatures when the human body depends on and is connected with the biotic and abiotic parts of this ecosystem. All living creatures are part of the divine purpose, and are interconnected in the ecological system. Human beings must realize this interconnectedness with the rest of nature and must reach out to all other sentient beings (17:44: 22:18).

The Qur’anic verse: “Every created being has a size [and proportion known to God alone]” (13:8; 15:21) proclaims the natural balance that needs to be preserved for ecological systems. The massive ecological damage caused by humanity indicates its disobedience to God. It is humanity’s responsibility to maintain ecological balance as a proof of its gratitude to the Creator. In Islam, the requirement of tahara (ritual purity), usually understood in the context of Muslim ritual cleansing, has an extended application: the elimination of internal and external impurities that pollute our body and spirit. Thus water, an important source of ritual tahara and human consumption must be kept pure. This general rule applies to other ecological systems, mountain ranges, and waterfalls also, because they are essential for healthy living.

THE HUMANITY-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIP

In Islam, an individual’s relationship with the environment is governed by certain moral precepts. These originate with God’s creation of humanity and the role it was given as God’s vicegerent (khalifa) on Earth. This vicegerency covers every aspect of life, be it individual, social, or environmental. It regulates a whole spectrum of relationships with God, one’s own self, other human beings, and with animate and inanimate objects. Diverse elements in God’s creation, including humans, form essential parts of God’s measured and balanced creation.

The role of human beings, however, is not only to benefit from their surroundings. They are expected to preserve, protect, and promote their fellow creatures. The Prophet emphasized this interdependency in a tradition: “All creatures are God’s dependents, and the best among them is the one who is most beneficial to God’s dependents.” Through his own example, the Prophet laid down the rules of caring for trees, animals, and all natural elements. He encouraged others to do the same as part of their religious-ethical responsibility by making such assertions as: “The only reasons God does not cause His punishment to pour over you are the presence of the elderly, the suckling babes, and the animals that graze upon your land.”

Humanity has an ethical responsibility, then, to face the challenge of acting as God’s trustee over His creation, for human beings have been given the gift of intuitive reasoning. This means that human beings are responsible for their actions:

“We offered the Trust to the heavens, the Earth, and the mountains [namely that they attain autonomous existence and acquire total responsibility for their own actions]; but they declined, afraid that they would be unable [to meet the challenge]. But humanity accepted [the Trust], for it was ignorant and unjust” (33:73).

But, as history shows us, human beings often act with arrogance and injustice, not only toward one another, but also toward nature. They think they control nature by discovering, domineering, and then exploiting the laws undergirding natural phenomena. However, since it is God Who has given these laws to nature, He sometimes disrupts its natural course to remind human beings that He is still in control. The Qur’an reminds humanity of its arrogance and forgetfulness by underlining the alienation and desperation of human beings when nature departs from its ordained path:

“It is He Who enables you to travel across land and sea. [Picture this:] a boat full of [passengers is crossing] the waters carried along by gently winds. Suddenly the weather changes; a fierce storm tosses the vessel this way and that, while huge waves threaten to capsize it. [Forsaking their false gods, the terrified seafarers] cry out [to the One True God] with complete sincerity saying: ‘0 God! We swear that if You save us from this [storm] we shall be truly grateful!’ But when God delivers them [safely to the shore) they return to their selfish and evil ways. 0 people! Your selfishness and arrogance will be your downfall” (10:22-23).

Human beings, however, are the most honored creation of God (17:70). That which distinguishes humanity from nature is humanity’s possession of reason, knowledge of right and wrong, and its moral agency to act with freedom. Cognition and volition were specifically given to human being so they could exercise authority over and take responsibility for preserving the natural order. The Qur’an records the angels’ doubts about humanity’s ability to fulfill the responsibilities of stewardship: “Will they not abuse the authority and corrupt God’s creation?” God silenced the angels by reminding them that He knew what they did not know (2:30).

Although the Qur’an does not draw the following conclusion, it is not difficult to demonstrate that the test for human beings has always remained the just exercise of authority over those under their stewardship, including nature. The just exercise of power without fully and sincerely submitting to the will of God and accepting social responsibility and personal accountability to maintain a healthy spiritual and material environment can-and has-lead to the present ecological injustices. There is nothing more dangerous to human well-being than the unsupervised exercise of power. According to Seyyid Hussein Nasr: “There is no more dangerous a creature on the Earth than a khalifat Allah who no longer considers himself to be ‘abd Allah and who therefore does not see himself as owing allegiance to a being beyond himself. Such a creature is able to possess a power of destruction which is truly Satanic in the sense that ‘Satan is the ape of God’; for such a human type wields, at least for a short time, a god-like but destructive dominion over the earth because this dominion is devoid of the care which God displays towards all His creatures and bereft of that love which runs through the arteries of the universe.”

The Qur’an says that God created everything in the heavens and Earth for the sake of humanity (22:65; 45:13). However, it is not primarily a relationship of subjugation and utilization of nature. Rather, the meaning of this statement suggests that human beings are the most important beneficiaries of the natural world and possess priority over the other creations of God. At the same time, their moral agency places upon them responsibilities toward other creatures who also depend for their survival on the resources of this biosphere. The Prophet said: “The earth is made for me as a place of prostration (masjid) and as a purifier.” This means that the soil has to be kept pure and be used with care and reverence, since it is the place on which a Muslim prostrates as a symbol of complete humility and submission to God.

Thus, the fundamental aspect of environmental ethics in Islam requires human beings to intervene to protect the Earth. They cannot claim exclusive rights over everything in nature, as some interpreters have done. They cannot stand back while the environment is being destroyed. Furthermore, human responsibility is not limited to a particular period of history, for all must work to leave this world in a better shape and order for future generations and other animate and inanimate species.

The Prophet is reported as having said: “God is beautiful and loves everything beautiful. God is generous and loves generosity, and is pure and loves purity.” Islam emphasizes nature’s beauty, goodness, and value, and creates among its followers an attitude of reverence and respect for nature without making them its worshippers or slaves. In Islam, human beings are neither the masters nor slaves of nature; humans and nature are interrelated in their worship of God, and it is humanity’s duty to serve God and take care of His creation.

THE SACRED LAW OF ISLAM AND ECOJUSTICE

The Shari’a is the Divine blue-print for the Islamic social order. It is a network of duties and responsibilities toward God, one’s own self, other human beings, and the rest of creation. It is important to note that the Shari’a is a comprehensive system that considers life an organic whole. Human beings and all biotic and abiotic members of the biosphere are components of this whole. The Shari’a creates a moral order where humans, individually and collectively, on the micro-level and the macro-level recognize their worth and value, fulfill their duties toward others, and establish an order of peace, justice, and equilibrium.

The fundamental principles of the Shari’a are justice and balance. It seeks to establish a balance between human freedom and welfare, human rights and duties, and individual and communal goals. Seyyid Hussein Nasr has highlighted the following guidance of the Shari’a in matters of environmental ethics:

“The divine law (al-Shari’ah) is explicit in extending the religious duties of man to the natural order and the environment. One must not only feed the poor but also avoid polluting running water. It is pleasing in the eyes of God not only to be kind to one’s parents, but also to plant trees, and treat animals gently and with kindness.”

The ethical concerns of Islam are summed up in the following five guidelines provided by the Qur’an and the Sunna:

• Use of the natural environment is permissible, but should not involve unnecessary destruction. “Do not be wasteful” (7:31) is the Qur’anic dictum.

• Life’s component elements must be protected so that their use may continue in a sustainable way.

• Preservation of the environment must be undertaken in an altruistic fashion, and not merely for its benefit to human beings. Other members of the biosphere who share this planet must be kept in mind.

• The process of development must sustain life, even if one anticipates no direct benefit from it.

• Sustainable use of the ecosystem requires that life is maintained with due balance in everything. Human beings are not the owners, but rather the maintainers, of this balance.

In conclusion, it is worth remembering that as we prepare for the world to come, and even as we run toward our Lord, the Prophet has reminded us to care for the environment. He said: “If the last day comes and one of you has a palm-seedling that he was going to plant, let him plant it, because God will reward him for doing so.”

What this tradition seems to emphasize is that even when the world is ending and a person sees no apparent reason for planting trees, he or she is still commanded to do so because it is pleasing to God. This statement sums up Islam’s environmental ethics: at no time should a Muslim neglect his or her responsibility to think about the environment and its protection. This responsibility is engendered by our faith in God’s wisdom and our own well-being. It is the convergence of faith and action in Islam that essentially links the environment to religion: one who does not use natural resources carefully so that all beings, present and future, have access to the resources they need, has violated the divinely ordained ecosystem.