At first, we were all astonished by the spiritual atmosphere of the school and the order and discipline that permeated every aspect, a stark contrast to the environment of insecurity and chaos prevalent in our country. Our Turkish teachers, who came from Turkey, were paragons of love, understanding, loyalty, and compassion. In my first year, we felt we had found the most trustworthy people to nourish our spirits and fill our hearts with peace. As time went on, we found ourselves fulfilled not only in a spiritual sense but also academically, and this was largely through the works of our esteemed teacher, M. Fethullah Gülen. Teachers who ventured from Turkey to over 160 countries held the highest standards in education. One of the fundamental principles of the Hizmet Movement was the union of heart and mind. Humans are multidimensional beings, requiring development on both fronts; it was first Hocaefendi and later our schoolteachers who explained and exemplified this for us.

Another prominent and important foundation of the Hizmet Movement is seeing people as individuals and treating them as such. In a world where people are judged and belittled based on their race, language, beliefs, color, and thoughts, the Hizmet Movement and the works of our esteemed teacher served as a remedy and elixir for us all, easing these troubles in our hearts. We observed through our teachers’ actions that regardless of a person’s color, race, or belief, we should extend a hand of help and compassion.

The aid campaigns held annually in our country also underscored the universality and humanitarian nature of this movement. These campaigns reached out to thousands and continue to extend a helping hand around the world. In a time when people were at war and in conflict, the Hizmet Movement embraced everyone in the spirit of Mevlana, welcoming all humanity with an invitation to peace and love. As Hocaefendi once said, “Only love can save this world,” a statement worthy of being written in gold.

One of the greatest ongoing issues in Afghanistan is the trampling of women’s rights and the extreme level of injustice they endure. The Hizmet Movement exemplifies one of the most democratic approaches, advocating respect for women’s rights and offering equal educational opportunities. The female teachers in Afghanistan were all highly educated, intelligent, and served as excellent role models, leading us to recognize our own rights. Girls’ schools were opened in various cities of our country, providing us with educational opportunities.

The most powerful element that has led this beautiful and positive movement to be accepted in 160 countries around the world is the selflessness of Hizmet volunteers. In the face of countless services and the provision of both material and spiritual education on every continent under challenging conditions, they never expected anything in return because Hizmet is a movement of volunteers, who would respond to aggression with neither hands nor words. This beautiful journey that I embarked upon in 2012 was truly our ultimate purpose in life, as shown to us by Hocaefendi and our teachers through their actions, words, and works. Now, our duty is to reach out to those who have fallen by the wayside and those who have forgotten they are travelers on this path, embracing them because they, too, are human.

Our teacher’s passing has cast a profound sadness upon us all, for “the death of a scholar is the death of a world.” Thousands of students from every continent shed tears at our loss. We hope that these tears will contribute to the development of future generations and allow them to encounter our teacher’s vision and ideas.

May our teacher’s soul rest in peace, and may his memory forever live on in our hearts and minds.

To attain happiness and to avoid mood disorders, which should we pursue

The messages of modern society are all too familiar to us: buy more, eat more, sleep more, take more pictures, and care less about the effects of our actions. We are encouraged to maximize pleasure while avoiding anything that inconveniences us. We cloister ourselves with our material goods and social media habits, promoting self-centeredness. This induces a fluctuating happiness in which phases of pleasure and displeasure repeatedly alternate, which can result in various mood disorders and has been linked to decreases in well-being. In this article, we are going to analyze self-centeredness and its consequences and also interpret its role in a variety of mood disorders and various areas of life.

The Self-centeredness / Selflessness Happiness Model (SSHM) is a theoretical model proposed by Dambrun et al. in 2011 [1]. This model represents different sorts of happiness that are dependent upon the self, particularly the structure of the self. They claim that self-centered psychological functioning derives from how someone perceives themselves and the belief that they are powerful, permanent, and independent. This functioning causes fluctuating happiness and afflictive affects which are also the roots of many mood disturbances. This is heavily contrasted by the perception of the self as flexible which leads to selfless psychological functioning and is a crucial factor at attaining more authentic/durable happiness [1].

After proposing this model, Michael Dambrun conducted a study in 2017 that built upon this model. According to this research, self-centered psychological functioning allows individuals to fluctuate between joy and sorrow, a vacillation that results in afflictive affects. Conversely, selfless psychological functioning gives the individual more emotional stability and feeling of harmony with the environment. They tested these hypotheses in two studies consisting of a heterogeneous sample of citizens (n=547). Analyses of these two studies indicate that self-centeredness (measured by egocentrism and materialism) and selflessness (measured by transcendence and connectedness to others) were two different psychological constructs rather than strict oppositional ideas.

In addition to showing the distinct functioning, these analyses also revealed that self-centered functioning is significantly associated with fluctuating happiness that is the root of afflictive affects. However, selflessness is linked to authentic/durable happiness, which is the result of perceiving the self as flexible and harmonious with the environment and universe. These associations are mediated by distinct psychological processes. For self-centeredness, afflictive affects play a crucial role in the correlation with fluctuating happiness in self-centered individuals.

In contrast, selfless individuals attain authentic-durable happiness that is partially mediated by emotional stability and perceiving themselves as harmonious with others and the universe (2). In our view, individuals who are more concerned about their happiness are more susceptible to mood fluctuations and disorders, while individuals who have more significant interest for the happiness of others attain more robust and durable emotions.

These studies also suggest that self-centeredness causes problems in society; as such, we will to analyze the results later.

Fluctuating happiness in the self-centered individual

The idea of the self as a real, permanent entity with its distinct boundaries results in self-centered psychological functioning. Laborit’s [3] study suggests that each organized structure in the form of an entity seeks gratifications that positively reinforce it and avoids things that risk its homeostasis. The hedonic principal is a major ruler in self-centered functioning and is deeply associated with egoism, egocentrism, an exaggerated importance given to the self, and ego inflation (through material possessions, for example) (e.g. Higgins,1997) [4].

The hedonic principle and its associations are also correlated with some personality disorders, particularly narcissistic personality disorder [5]. This principle induces the individual to focus on attaining pleasure and avoiding displeasure. Feelings of temporary happiness, joy, and gratification are the result of impulsive actions for attaining pleasure and avoiding displeasure. However, only the presence or absence of certain stimuli reinforce the individual and only give temporary pleasure and happiness (Wallace & Shapiro, 2006 [6]). The experience of pleasure depends on circumstances, is an unstable condition that may soon become neutral or may be displaced with displeasure. (i.e., hedonic adaptation, e.g., Brickman, Coates & Janoff-Bulman, 1978; Lyubomirsky, 2011 [7]). Focusing on attaining more pleasure and avoiding displeasure lead an individual to recognize and realize the impossibility of attaining valued objects, durable pleasure, and cause them to repeatedly vacillate between pleasure and displeasure and the arising affects such as frustration, nervousness, anger, hostility, or jealousy, all of which damage their well-being and health (e.g., Miller) [8]. Contrarily, altruism, also called selflessness or focusing on others’ happiness, is significantly associated with a higher quality of well-being, health, and longevity [9].

Self-centeredness cause depressive symptomatology

A self-centered lifestyle may cause not only mood disorders but also social problems that also increase the prevalence of different mood disorders. Loneliness is a big problem in contemporary society, though we mostly live in crowded cities adorned with skyscrapers. As the title describes, a study conducted in 2017 shows loneliness and self-centeredness have a reciprocal effect that cause depression and various mood disorders, as well as health and social problems [10].

Loneliness increases not only the motivation to repair or replace deficient social relationships, but also the implicit motivation for self-preservation. John T. Cacioppo et al. reported a cross-lagged analysis of 10 waves of longitudinal data (n=229) on loneliness and self-centeredness (as gauged by Feeney and Collins’s measure of choric self-focus) in a representative sample of middle-aged and other adults. Loneliness increases the implicit motivation for self-preservation, and loneliness in the current year anticipates self-centeredness in the following year beyond what is reasoned by current-year demographic variables, self-centeredness, depressive symptomatology, and overall negative mood and emotions. Their study also revealed that self-centeredness in the current year foretells loneliness in the subsequent year, a reciprocal relationship that could potentially contribute to the maintenance of loneliness [12].

Generation Me and its consequences on human mood

An increase in narcissism with some indicators of increased self-focus in Americans born after 1970 leads authors to describe that generation as “Generation Me” [5, 12]. This narcissism and self-focus are also intimately related to self-centered psychological functioning since both are formed by an exaggerated importance given to the self, ego-inflation, and so on. We think self-centered psychological functioning may also be considered as a part of this dynamic, thus being a member of Generation Me may be one of the major risk factors for narcissistic personality traits and disorder [2, 12].

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which there is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by a grandiose self-view, unrealistic sense of entitlement, exaggerated feelings of self-importance, and a lack of understanding of others’ feelings [13, 14]. Narcissists who consider themselves to be superior to others, and also have unrealistic expectations for the future, become angry and aggressive when in trouble, take more resources for themselves and leave less for others, and value money, fame, and image over family, helping others, and community. Though narcissism has some benefits, like public speaking, it has lots of adverse effects on human mood and behavior and comorbidities with psychological disorders [15].

Selfless functioning

The principle of “harmony” has a primary role in the selflessly functioning individual; harmony directs all mental activities (conation, motivation, attention, emotion, cognition, behavior). Harmony and emotional stability are associated with empathy, benevolence, compassion, and deep respect; all of these have a beneficial effect on behavior and a reduction of psychological distress [2]. Many studies have revealed the results of altruism on happiness and health and have consistently found a deep and intimate connection between altruism and current and future health and well-being.

References

1. Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General Psychology, 15 (2), 138-157.
2. Dambrun M. Self-centeredness and selflessness: happiness correlates and mediating psychological processes. Hung T-M, ed. PeerJ. 2017; 5:e3306. doi:10.7717/peerj.3306.
3. Laborit (1979) Laborit H. L’inhibition de l’action: biologie, physiologie, psychologie, sociologie. Edition Masson; Paris: 1979.
4. Higgins (1997) Higgins ET. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist. 1997; 52:1280–1300. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
5. Jean M. Twenge The Evidence for Generation Me and Against Generation We Vol 1, Issue 1, pp. 11 – 16,First published date: March-01-20131177/2167696812466548
6. Wallace & Shapiro (2006) Wallace BA, Shapiro SL. Mental balance and well-being: building bridges between Buddhism and Western psychology. American Psychologist. 2006;61:690–701. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.690. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
7. Brickman P., Coates D., Janoff-Bulman R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: is happiness relative? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36, 917–92710.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
8. Miller et al. (1996) Miller TQ, Smith TW, Turner CW, Guijarro ML, Hallet AJ. A meta-analytic review of research on hostility and physical health. Psychological Bulletin. 1996;119:322–348. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.322. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. “altruism (n .)”.Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper. Retrieved 19 September 2014.
10. Cacioppo JT, Chen HY, Cacioppo S. Reciprocal Influences Between Loneliness and Self-Centeredness: A Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis in a Population-Based Sample of African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Adults. Pers Soc Psychol Bull.2017 Aug;43(8):1125-1135. doi: 10.1177/0146167217705120. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
11. Twenge JM. Generation Me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—And more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press; 2006.
12. PubMed Caligor, E; Levy, KN; Yeomans, FE (May 2015). “Narcissistic personality disorder: diagnostic and clinical challenges.”. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 172 (5): 415–22. PMID25930131. doi:1176/appi.ajp.2014.14060723
13. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5(5th ed.). Washington [etc.]: American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013. pp. 645, 669–72.
14. Cai H, Shi Y, Fang X, Luo YLL. Narcissism predicts impulsive buying: phenotypic and genetic evidence. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015;6:881. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00881.
15. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5(5th ed.). Washington [etc.]: American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013. pp. 645, 669–72.

Speaking about altruism, Ronald M. Green, a professor of religion, said, “Humility and selflessness, we know, are the very center of the moral life.” [1] According to James Ozinga, a professor of Political Science at Oakland University, altruism is, “Simply doing for others at some cost to oneself, and selfishness is doing for oneself at some cost to others.”[2]

In this article we will not embark upon complex debates whether altruism itself is a self-consistent concept, or if the very readiness to give away is an indicator of impossibly pure altruism (for “altruism,” by definition, ought to be totally about “other people,” and extend not an iota’s weight of importance to the “I-ness” of a person). It is clear from the viewpoint of pure logics, though, that we have to identify ourselves as independent agents in order to grasp the meaning of anything, as it is precisely this that distinguishes us from animals who are unaware of themselves and, thus, unable to think. Nor will we consider the problem of the performer of the altruistic act deriving out of it some intrinsic pleasure, thus flouting his initial “other-regarding” impetus, the idea that the famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was ever eager to accentuate. For Hobbes, if you relieve a beggar, you do it to relieve yourself of the distress at seeing the beggar’s distress.[3] It is enough to adhere to the aforementioned definition of “altruism” in order to check these kinds of debates. Thus, the aim of this article will be to shed light on the religious understanding of altruism in conformity with the definition of altruism as “doing for others at some cost to oneself,” as well as to find out whether secular and religious approaches to the issue are mutually exclusive or not.

The founding father of the term “altruism” was Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the initiator of modern positivism and, thus, one of the leading figures of modern science. In fact, he was the first to coin the term “altruism” itself. As he wrote, “the being, whether man or animal, who loves nothing outside himself, and really lives for himself alone, is by that very fact condemned to spend his life in a miserable alternation of ignoble torpor and uncontrolled excitement.” [4]

“Altruism” was part of his grand project of a completely new-fangled worldview. He envisioned this as “the Religion of the Great Being, Humanity,” whereby the principle of human rationality was asserted to be sufficient enough to invest humanity with all possible material progress and physical strength, but with no recourse whatsoever to the centuries-revered religious institutions. According to him, the Church’s institutions were irrelevant as far as meeting humanity’s real needs were concerned. Moreover, religion in any of its manifestations, and as the most authentic philosophy of life, had grown out-of-date, and would eventually be supplanted by positivistic science, with the rationalistic ethics being the culmination. Society, he believed, cannot be without ethics, and ethics cannot be without holding selfish instincts in check, thus tempering one’s egoistic personality with a desire to live for others. Regretfully enough, by tolerating no sense of individualism, Comte was extreme, the dictum of social duties in his philosophy being always prioritized over any particular and quite natural considerations pertaining to each and every person.

Another prominent philosopher of that age, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), came up with his own notion of altruistic relationships, which was close to the Comtean one. Although he did not use the term “altruism” in his treatment of the issue, for him the most important fact about the moral nature of man was the so-called “Moral Law,” which, similar to the Comtean philosophy, was determined solely by human minds and was autonomous from God or any religious tradition. The Law was, or is, universal in its nature and perfectly reasonable, though somewhat strained as far as its practicability was concerned. Kant wrote that, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.”[5]

He thought that humans can govern themselves merely by the power of intelligence, and thus be held fully responsible for all actions, including any indulgences in animalistic or all-to-human inclinations – things the ultimate source of which are not, Kant believed, our intelligence. To make it clearer, the formulation of the same Law can be described as, to “act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”[6]

According to this, before undertaking any course of action regarding another person, we have to deliberate what would happen if the action were implemented unto the whole of humanity. If our conscience assures us of the action being equally beneficent in both cases, then it conforms with the Moral Law and is morally acceptable; if it does not, it is denuded of any virtue. Say, for example, that we have to produce evidence against our own brother in a court. The radical rottenness of human nature could easily induce us to tell a lie in order to release our brother. But if we are decent enough to remember Kant’s Law at such a critical moment, we will understand that telling a lie can inflict definite harm on our brother’s plaintiffs, and that acting here as a false witness will be a means to achieve some further goal; namely, the welfare of the brother, but not the end-in-itself, which is – as far as this case is concerned – the confirmation of truth.

According to Kant, people are too clever to engage themselves in self-contradictory enterprises, which can do harm to nobody but themselves. Thus, the Moral Law – when deployed before any action as a heuristic devise – divests us of fallacious predilections that affect us due to our base humanity; it also reveals to us the ideally impartial and fair state of human interactions. Our intelligence and ability to reach these conclusions enables us to transcend our base humanity.

General and abstract as the nature of the law is (it is to be filled with concrete schemata of actions in each and every case of its real-life implementation), it is of great avail in the sense that it helps us distance ourselves from evil commands of our self-indulgence, which may go unnoticed, and allows us to assume both a proactive and beneficent course of action towards others.[7] In other words, it should be the well-being of others, as shown to us by the impartial judgments of the Law, that drives our actions, not our self-interest.

However, the surrounding people’s whims and fashions, ages-old traditions and the shortage of certitude in our philosophy of life may well distract us from that rationalistic predisposition of ours to be compassionate and altruistic. Moreover, not all human beings can be motivated to be altruistic by reason alone; it is obvious that a great majority of people may need to pass through a long process of moral self-cultivation, constantly performing good deeds and listening to good advice, in order to become attuned to Kant’s mode of action. Also, many people would not adhere to the results of their sound reasoning to be altruistic; after all, practically, we know that humanity’s crooked nature is not conductive to an impartial attitude towards everyone; even if we can be altruistic to people dear to our heart, it does not mean that we will be equally good to everyone. Also, would self-sacrifıcing for others have any limits, whereby one could duly stop and give free reins to his egoistic pursuits? Do we not need some degree of self-prosperity, and, thus, a healthy deal of self-regard?[8] The American political philosopher, Jean Hampton, said, “If we are so ‘altruistic’ that we become unable to develop and express ourselves properly, we become unable to give to others what they may want more than anything else.”[9] These ideas of the philosophers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment mirrored the then-popular and almost unimpeded belief in human abilities to succeed in all possible enterprises solely by the means of their intelligence and personal initiative, as opposed to the total submission of the Medieval European human’s mind and heart to the dictates of Church organizations and traditional ways of living.    

Needless to say, as a founder of the “positivistic” scientific worldview, Comte has played and is playing a great role in the way we perceive things today. The same goes for Kant, who – in his various interpretations – was and still is the main proponent of the agnostic attitude of many Western people as far as belief in God is concerned. But was humanity truly oblivious to the acute necessity of altruism, all the way from antiquity through Comte’s epoch? Surely it wasn’t. And the reason why people didn’t think of altruism until the Renaissance was simple: the absence of the notion of egoism! The religious frame of mind so characteristic to the pre-modern epochs was the main reason behind the proliferation of selfless individuals and communities – at least within common cultural boundaries. Thus, it was the notion of “egoism,” as elaborated by Thomas Hobbes, which triggered a powerful reaction in other rationalistic and not-too-religious thinkers. This “reaction” led to the widespread adoption of the secular notion of “selflessness” or “anti-egoism,” eventually leading to the term “altruism.”

Yes, this drastic division between the good (altruistic) and bad (egoistic) dispositions of human nature was drawn in a full-fledged manner for the first time by Hobbes, who tried to show that egoism and altruism are conflicting parts of one and the same human being. In his Leviathan, he maintained that altruism is impossible at all because, by nature, humans are possessors of a strong bend towards assertiveness. Hobbes believed that human nature is “essentially individual, non-social, competitive, and aggressive.”[10] As opposed to an altruistic society, Hobbes saw a daunting chasm, across which nothing could be handed, gaping between human nature and human benevolence. It is this chasm that has led to power struggles that then engulf the whole of society. It is only out of this inauspicious state of things that the necessity for social pacts and conventions arise; they are finally agreed upon by nothing better than formidable state machinery. Hobbes believed that this was the only way the intrinsically self-regarding nature of man could be persuaded to live in a mutually beneficial state of coexistence with others. Through the suppression of individual desires, man can attain a degree of security and welfare, thus fulfilling some of his egoistic desires. As Hobbes put it, “We gain by it the largest scope for action our crowded world permits.” [11]

After Hobbes, it took a whole series of English philosophers (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Butler, and others) nearly a century to get around to the idea that the nature of man is not that egotistic. Still, they failed to explain the dualistic (altruism vs. egotism) nature of man. Hartley (1705-1757) and Mill (1806-1873) said that the two inclinations of our souls could be fused by the way of association – we may be self-regarding when harrying for the aid of others (as Hobbes said), but, in due course, our thoughts grow to be so submersed in other people’s welfare that we start to regard them and not ourselves as a primary object of our attention and assistance.[12] Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) upheld a so-called “quantitative view.” Due to the mirroring capability of our conscience, we can see others as a huge bulk of our own emotional world; thus, the happiness of the maximum possible number of people is highly conducive to the accruing of our own happiness, the latter playing a role in Bentham’s philosophy; he believed it to be the key motive behind human behavior. Adam Smith (1723-1790) was another thinker who contributed ideas to the discussion. For him, sympathy played an enormous part in our lives; we just cannot stay uninvolved in other’s sufferings or happiness. For him, man’s ability to share feelings with others, and even to identify with others, is something agreeable, invigorating, and contributes to man’s overall well-being.[13]

The Islamic solution to altruism encourages people to see everything as reflective of a sacred, divine oneness of being. There is no reason to be egoistic, for the Divine Presence is overbearing, insofar that any claim one could lay to existing apart of that Divine Reality is moot. On the other hand, a relative degree of existence is still warrantable for man, as far as his duties before the Super-Being are concerned. The primary duty is intellectual and spritual love of the Real Source of all existence and ever-readiness to sacrifice the very idea of one’s own autonomous existence in order to comprehend His Existence unhindered by one’s ego. Man must follow, most unfailingly, His will in every passing moment. These acts are supereregatory and are considered to be among the most important spiritual stations of the Sufic tradition of Islam – “isar,” or the “preference of others, first and foremost, God’s desires and orders, to one’s own desires.” This was eloquently described by the Islamic mystic, Rabi’ah al-‘Adawiyah (d. 801):

O Lord, if I worship You out of fear of hell, burn me in hell. If I worship You for hope of paradise, forbid it to me. And if I worship You for Your Own sake, do not deprive me of Your eternal beauty.[14]

In the Islamic world-vision, Kant’s impartial stance to others is enforced by the Sacred Law itself in such verses of the Quran, including:

“Say, each works according to his manner, but your Lord is most knowing of who is best guided in way” (17:84); “And we have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with definite preference” (17:70); “O, mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you different peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Aquainted” (49:19).

According to these and others, every man is a bearer of God’s spirit:

“And when I have proportioned man and breathed into him of My spirit, then (o, My angels!) fall down to him in prostration” (15:29). To accept and, eventially, love every human being as he is means exactly what the German thinker meant by his imperative “not to take any human being as a means to accomplish some further goal.” The meaning of humanism, then, finds its expression in the Islamic revelation, although it is “theocentric” – deriving its meaning from the Holy Scripture, not the human intellect.[15] Still, to follow the idea is a supererogative act, for not everyone can relinqish his egocentric desires. Our altruistic feelings will anyway stem from our initial understanding of ourselves as independent, and, therefore, egoistic or pragmatic agents.[16] We ourselves are the first baseline of our self-perception, so without self-love, we cannot understand what it means to love others. The benevolence of others unto us may well enslave us, but this is because our ego is enamored with those who do good to it. However, as the famous Islamic theologian Imam al-Ghazzali (1058–1111) put it, those whose aethetic and moral predelections are of a higher level, cease to love themselves and, as it were, become dissolved in their love for abstract kinds of beauty and benevolence.[17]

A critical verse reads, “Those who fulfill their vows in full and fear a day whose ill effects will spread afar, who feed, for His sake, the destitute, orphan, and captive, they declare: We feed you only for God’s sake; we do not desire recompense of thanks from you” (76:7-9). In this, we can see that Muslims were entreated to embody the ideal of altruism within the Islamic World through the institutions of “Waqf” – charitable trusts. This Arabic word means, “to cause a thing to withhold, to stop and or to prevent”; the word also means, “to endow the property rights of a good to the public service perpetually, and to prevent others from obtaining its property rights.”[18]

Such foundations were usually open to everyone in need. Notably, 75% of such trusts in the Ottoman Empire of the 18^th century devoted substantial funds to serving outside constituencies, and 18% were precisely charitable ones. “Waqf” is also defined as “the detention of an object from possession for good, by considering it God’s property, and devoting all of its conceivable favors of revenue to different kinds of charitable purposes for the benefit of the public.”[19]

Muslims founding these institutions believed that this worldly existence is a temporary one, and one needed to devote one’s income for the betterment of other people’s lives, so as to make safe the blessedness of the next, eternal life.[20] All over the huge Islamic lands, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, countless amenities vital to social life have been funded and upheld through “waqfs,” some of which have even survived more than a millennium,[21] providing the penurious with basic needs such as food, shelter, education, and improvements like cemeteries, lighthouses, public baths, aqueducts, fountains, bridges, mosques, roads, and so on, augmenting amity and concord.[22]

Religion is clearly not antagonistic to altruism, even in the Comtean sense of the latter. Surveys conducted by the European Value Systems Study Group and the British Household Panel Survey reveal that churchgoers are some three times more likely to be involved in voluntary service for others than are non-churchgoers.[23] Love for humanity can be induced not only by the secularist or humanistic tendencies of modern Western civilization to exalt human beings to the highest ontological level, but also, and even primarily, by the religious injunction to love humanity as the best pattern of God’s creation. In fact, any monotheistic religion and humanism agree on this point, the difference being that the first is believed to arrive at it by virtue of a transcendent, supernatural source, and the second, by man’s independent reasoning. However, contrary to philosophical humanism, which is always open to unceasing doubts and critiques as to its intrinsic logical consistency, the religions of monotheism, resting upon articles of immutable and certain faith, have centuries-old social institutions and meditational practices which provide humanity with the priceless spiritual rationale for altruism. As the authors of the book, “The Altruistic Species,” Andrew Michael Flescher and Daniel L. Worthen concluded:

Altruism is neither a given nor an impossibility for human beings, but rather an ongoing opportunity in which to participate. Being more a matter of skill than talent, and therefore largely the result of hard work, it is something we should regard as contingent on our moral development.[24]

[1] Green. Ronald M. 1979. Religious Reason: The Rational and Moral Basis of Religious Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 188.

[2] Ozinga. James R. 1999. Altruism. London: Praeger, p. xvi.

[3] Neusner, Jacob, Bruce Chilton. 2005. Altruism in World Religions, Georgetown University Press p. 50.

[4] Comte, Auguste. System of Positive Polity, Volume 1: Containing the General View of Positivism & Introductory Principles. Translated by John Henry Bridges. New York: BurtFranklin. (Original work published 1851), p. 565–56.

[5] Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. H.J. Paton (New York: Harper and Row, p. 67.

[6] Ibid, p. 91.

[7] Hill, Thomas, Jr. 1993. “Beneficence and Self-Love: A Kantian Perspective,” in Altruism, ed. by Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr., and Jeffrey Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 13ff.

[8] Flescher, Andrew Michael, Daniel L. Worthen. 2007. The Altruistic Species: Scientific, Philosophical, and Religious Perspectives of Human Benevolence. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, p. 186-193.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Singer, Peter. 1981. The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Socio-biology. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 50.

[11] Palmer, George Herbert. 1970. Altruism: its Nature and Varieties. Westport: Greenwood Press, p.4.

[12] Ibid, p. 6.

[13] Ibid, p. 7.

[14] Sells, Michael (ed.). 1996. Early Islamic Mysticism. Translated by Paul Losensky. New York: Paulist Press, p. 169.

[15] Kim, Heon Choul. 2009. Gülen’s Dialogic Sufism: A Constructional and Constructive Factor of Dialogue. Conference proceedings. Washington D.C. pp. 520-547.

[16] Robert M. Berchman, p. 23.

[17] Çağrıcı, Mus­tafa. 1982. Gazzali’ye Göre İslâm Ahlâkı, Is­tanbul, pp. 139-143.

[18] Akgündüz, Ahmet. 1996. İslam Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi. 2nd Ed. Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, p. 77.

[19] Bilmen, Ömer N. 1969. Istılahat-ı Fıkhıyye Kamusu. Vol. 4., p. 294.

[20] Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin. 1996. Place of the Waqf in Turkish Cultural System. Translated by R Acun and M Oz. Istanbul: Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II). http://www.history.hacettepe.edu.tr/archive/waqfkultur.html.

[21] Çizakça, Murat. 2000. A History of Philanthropic Foundations: The Islamic World from the Seventh Century to the Present. Istanbul: Bogazici University Press.

[22] Yalawae, Asming, and Izah M. Tahir. “The Role of Islamic Institution in Achieving Equality and Human Development: Waqf or Endowment.” Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia (UDM). http://www.capabilityapproach.com.

[23] Gill, Robin. 1999. Churchgoing and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 174-5.

[24] Flescher, Andrew Michael, Daniel L. Worthen. 2007. The Altruistic Species: Scientific, Philosophical, and Religious Perspectives of Human Benevolence. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, p. 239.

Selflessness is when one relinquishes oneself from certain personal desires and aspirations, forgoing certain goals associated with property or wealth, and even values associated with one’s self-honor and dignity, all for the sake of lofty aims and noble goals. When a person is able to actualize such renouncements in their life, then that person can be considered to be a selfless person.

For example, when one, either through individual or collective efforts, relentlessly endeavors to exalt faith and spirituality, and in their pursuit builds centers and institutes for learning, establishes schools, or when dormitories and youth centers are built to cater to the needs and demands of the younger generations, when all these are enabled, either through financial support or through one’s own voluntary work, then such acts are considered to be sacrifices. Given that the intent behind is purely to serve an exalted aim that is greater than the self, then the only criteria is to make the doer of these acts a selfless person, or a person of sacrifice.

A closer examination will reveal that there is no contradiction between selflessness and reason. In other words, selflessness, or sacrifice, is not a mere emotional expression that is incongruent to reason. In fact, not only does reason justify selflessness, arguably it necessitates it. At an immediate and rather superficial glance, a contradiction between the two may be observed. Let us take, for example the numbers of selfless people who, while working tirelessly in educational institutes and campaigns, make great self sacrifices, although fully aware that none of the fruits of their genuine labor will show immediate results. Yet they devote their entire lives and health to these campaigns. It is as if God has bestowed on them special favors, for their work becomes far more efficient and productive then reason would allow. The cycle continues, as they in turn use these favors for furthering their efforts.

For those onlookers who may view the matter with little reflection, such attitudes can be considered to be apparent contradictions to reason. To selflessly strive for some cause and sacrifice thousands of other truths for the sake of one truth may appear to them to be a sacrifice that unnecessarily conflicts with reason.

However, if the heart has attained enlightenment beyond the discernment of the inner workings of the universe, then the depth in appreciation takes on a different aspect. If one realizes that everything in creation flows towards the Hereafter and if the compelling beauty of The Most Beautiful One is felt within one’s conscience, then thousands of years of happiness in this world cannot equate a single minute of life in Paradise and thousands of years of life in Paradise cannot equal a moment’s view of the beauty of Almighty God; here then the tradeoff between the fleeting pleasure of this world to that of the unending Hereafter will not be even as precious as the wing of a small insect. A person with such depth and foresight can perfectly exercise reason and will willingly make apparent sacrifices for real returns that will be attained from the transcendent realms.

In our time we have sent out rockets to explore the speculative possibilities of cities in space. Let us take this as a reality and for a moment imagine that such a source of comfort, which is beyond both the sight and hearing of human beings, has actually been discovered; here, life does not resemble our way of living and is beyond our comprehension. Large amounts of funds are spent to transport humanity there. In this process, there is a good probability that some will fail to perceive the possibility and may question the motives for such a prospect; this is because they are unfamiliar with these worlds and the goal may sound unfathomable to them. Objections may be raised with arguments like: “Many people are dying of hunger in Africa, but you are traveling to outer space with shuttles for the sake of adventure and are wasting large amounts of money.”

This approach is the outcome of superficial reasoning. What if, indeed, such a world was discovered? What would happen if one day a happier world outside this contaminated and muddled earthly life was to be found and somehow we could all be moved there, where our lives-with God’s grace-could continue happily for years to come? That is, a time will come when everyone will realize that this service has good and valuable implications for all of humanity and is certainly compatible with reason.

The innate ability to fathom far-reaching and multi-dimensional reasoning surely surpasses the limits of our logic; yet, it is clearly conceivable on a logical basis, beyond the influence of five sensory shackles, that every act of sacrifice made to this end is necessary. Therefore, endeavors to achieve greater future benefits cannot be considered to be illogical.

Similarly, a believer’s quest can be likened to the above. In order to attain a life of genuine happiness in Paradise and the privilege of meeting with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and in order to be mesmerized by the beauty of Almighty God Himself, all efforts or selfless acts made in the process only confirm the need for such a logical investment.

Most of the time, the criticisms that are hurled at those people of sacrifice come from no deeper an analysis than the above; they are usually based on shallow reasoning. In fact, such criticisms stem from two streams of different perspectives of the world. Hasan al-Basri once touched on this difference when he profoundly remarked: “If you had seen the Companions of the holy Prophet, you would call them ‘mad.’ … and if they had seen you, they would hesitate and ask, ‘are they believers?’”

Today is no different; some people may regard those who are engaged in sacrificial services as “mad” and question “why should you work so hard without any material gain?” This perception is revealing and delineates those who contemplate personal return and benefit in every act. In other words, for those mindsets who carry the proverbial attitude: “what’s in it for me?” it is not possible to understand why an elderly or infirm person would want to continue working just like an ordinary person, for example in the construction of a building or campaigning for donations for their good work, or for that matter, allocate all their physical and/or mental efforts towards a cause. Indeed, such mindsets cannot conceive the possibility of making all these sacrifices just to please God. As a result of their failure to grasp this, they will continue with their misguided considerations and false accusations of such selfless work.

On the other hand, for those of us with the insight to see beyond the materiality of things, selfless acts are perfectly normal and the most intelligent person is the one who is prepared to give up everything they own to serve God by serving humanity. If a person with such breadth and depth of heart is not seen to sacrifice all of their wealth all at once, then chances are high that they are most probably cherishing the noble thought: “Let me hold back part of my wealth so that I can invest it to earn more therefore continue to spend in the path to God.”

To sum up, it is clear there is no essential contradiction between selflessness and logic. I can safely and confidently assert that logic entails sacrifice. Whoever can grasp this fine point will use their logic to make more profound sacrifices.