The Coronavirus pandemic has swept the world in recent months and with it came a wave of panic, unease, and a need for courage. Humanity is collectively fighting for its health, a treasure that we sometimes take for granted. It is imperative that we constantly look to maintain our health through reviewing potentially harmful practices and working to discover new methods of cleanliness and purity. Many of our articles in this issue will explore the theme of health across the spectrum including bodily, psychological, spiritual, and moral health. We also discuss Coronavirus in detail in this issue’s Science Square and dispel some conspiracy theories that the virus is man-made.

Washing our hands regularly is actually one of the most simple and effective ways to help prevent the spread of viruses, including Covid-19. Such a simple procedure seems like common sense nowadays, but this process was actually a breakthrough in the nineteenth century. Consistent hand washing and sterilization is especially important for hospital staff as they can easily transmit new diseases and germs into patients with weakened immune systems. Taking responsibility for our individual health will contribute to the overall health of our society by at least not spreading disease.

Diabetes is another disease that threatens the well-being of millions across the globe. It is complicated, and we explore in this issue the differences that excessive fat and sugar consumption can have in regards to causing and accelerating diabetes. We can best preserve our health with reasonably sized diets that are rich in nutrients, and routines that physical exercise.  

The effects of selfishness versus selflessness on the mind are also explored. It is no secret that many current societies promote selfishness over the well-being of others whether through subliminal advertisement messaging or the consistent emphasis placed upon trampling over others for career success. The way that we view and treat others, whether positively or negatively, has a rippling effect throughout society and works to either bolster or deteriorate our collective mental health and happiness.

We must especially work hard to preserve the health of our children, from the food that they eat to the media and technology that they use. Cell phone usage among infants and toddlers is becoming more and more widespread, however studies have shown that excessive usage can stunt their growth or even permanently alter their very fragile and rapidly developing brains.

Our world is rapidly changing, as it seems that every year produces new innovations and challenges to keep up with. It is up to us to stay informed and aware, lest we fall behind and fail to preserve the very things that we hold most dear.

East and West. Maybe it is not easy to draw straight lines where these two are clearly separated, and yet everyone has a conceptualization of what is meant when this distinction is proposed. While some circles try to delineate the differences and polarize societies on the basis of “us vs. them,” there are others who prefer to highlight commonalities, shared pains and joys, the benefits of interaction, and an inevitable future of less separation and more coexistence.

One dynamic of our shared society that will shape such a future is migration. Migration is a reality of the human condition. Throughout history, migrations, be they mass or individual movements, have not only shaped our societies, national borders, languages, religious traditions, and of course, identities, but have also been a major catalyst for disputes and conflicts. Hence, for the last several years, the US has been debating whether a wall should be built across the Mexican border; we continue to watch the heart-breaking tragedy of thousands of refugees rowing across the Mediterranean; the ongoing plight of Syrians fleeing their country’s violence; and more recently, the forced migration of teachers, doctors, and civil servants affiliated with the Hizmet Movement from Turkey, their homeland, where they have suffered persecution for the last few years. Due to many reasons, including geographical, historical, and colonial ties, Europe has been one of the major destinations for those seeking freedom and a life of security, especially for many Muslims. Akbar Ahmed’s book Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Identity (2018) is one of the most comprehensive researches into this very complex social phenomenon. In this issue, Behzad Fatmi from India reviews Ahmed’s book and explains how the author dissects the fundamental character of European society vis-à-vis the place of Muslim communities in the continent.

Learning theoretically about diseases is surely important. But having a first-hand experience, or at least spending time with those who suffer from a disease, teaches much more than what one can learn from books. Ceyda Sablak shares her experience with some patients who told what they have been through with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). She writes how important it is to have an accurate and concrete diagnosis, even if it turns out to be a terminal illness. While it is painful to go through such an illness, it is no less of a burden on the shoulders of doctors and the family who have to be present next to their loved ones and do as much as they can to continue to care for them.

So when it comes to self identity, in what kinds of groups are we most likely to flourish? And if the sociological truism holds that we bond first with those who confirm our identities by being most like us, how large is that group likely to be?

Steven Pinker, in The Blank Slate, states that “The universality of ethnocentrism and other forms of group-against-group hostility across societies, and the ease with which such hostility can be aroused in people within our own society” is one of the greatest obstacles to the extension of identity communities.

Still, for an opener, you can see self and group formation at work in high school cafeterias as clusters of the like-minded create an identity by excluding outsiders, largely through gossip, sometimes around matters as trivial as a dress code, or who owns the latest electronic gadgetry. In effect, they are behaving like little tribes or nations. The fascinating part is the emotional drive to belong, and the fear of exclusion, even from groups arbitrarily defined and ephemeral, including those created in cyber space. These same principles pertain to the 700 gangs which form the social fabric of south-central Los Angeles. Yet, arguably, this same group-making process, through intellectual imagination, might be extended all the way up to the world nation or global community, with each echelon defined by shared interests, activities, values, and memories. A nation, among them, is a mutuality of thinking among persons sharing common purposes. Yet as a principle of social cohesion, it is also emotional, allegiance-oriented, exclusionary, and collectively administered. There is no nation without those who are not members. Nations may also entail chauvinism, loyalty tests in time of threat, and hostility toward non-members. Karl Deutsch famously defined a nation as “a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbors.” In his view, national groups lie to themselves about who they are as warriors or victims in order to justify their aggression. They can act as gangs. That is an unnecessarily dark view of the national experience, but it gets much brighter as we go along.

According to the traditional dictionary definition, a national bond arises, not only because people share a common geographical territory, but because they practice the same mores, speak the same language, worship the same gods, fight common enemies, participate in the same identifying rituals and traditions, share a common stock of stories and a common history, and are often related to each other through blood ties. Cohesion around sporting events and beer preferences is merely a parody of bedrock national identity, although in a self-effacing manner, Canadians like to start there. But it is inversely conceivable that diverse peoples with diverse allegiances may somehow share a common territory without a sense of national identity, because most of those listed characteristics typically defining a nation are simply not shared by the members of pluralistic societies. So if such populations are to find an identity center for themselves in a nation, they really have only three options.

One is to redefine themselves around more vague, generic and inclusive categories of nationhood. Another is to impose uniformity through the melting pot, the Lord Durham solution, through enforced and universal education, imposed official languages, an official history, and official social rituals in the search for a common brand of allegiance. A third is to choose a new concept under which they can unite themselves as a secular community and forget about being a nation altogether. In my view of Canadian practice, we are currently pursuing all three solutions at once. The third option entails falling back upon the universals of our humanity. We might simply acknowledge the common desires and instincts of all humankind as members of the global village, and we might view Canada as a piece of this village in which we listen to each other’s first national stories in a spirit of good will. Is that not the mandate of the Canadian ministry of multiculturalism? To be sure, it would seem only right that we remain free to express the national imperatives of our birthplaces, our mother tongues, our religions, and our respective ethnicities, yet such practices appear to obstruct the formation of a specifically Canadian national identity-or maybe not? The point is very much up for discussion.

Let’s return for a moment to the second option, the nationalist teach-in for all citizens. While recognizing diversity, national governments may also recognize the value in proactively promoting a national brand, but it is a challenging enterprise, because a meaningful nationalism cannot be bought with jingoism, cheerleading, and trinkets, or bread, circuses, and revisionist history. Identity as a mind-state entails a combination of pride and duty that is somehow earned and experienced, who knows exactly how? It is something we instinctively desire, yet identity arises only when we feel emotionally drawn to the collectivity of minds, values, and practices that constitute a nation-the argument becomes circular. We may well wonder how such emotional allegiances may best be fostered. It is a point to which I will return. But it must also be lamented that nations may also include stories of failure; in fact, our literature is full to overflowing with them, and they are studied in our university classrooms with empathetic attention. From that perspective, a lament for our national failure to create a national home for new Canadians may be our most common and unifying characteristic; it is an obsession among our literary critics.

There are many stories to choose from, but I am most immediately reminded of a touching personal narrative written by Elena Maccaferri and translated by her sister as A Bench on Which to Rest. Maccaferri came to Canada from a small village above Bologna, lured to a better life by an Italo-Canadian who promised marriage, but failed to meet her at the dock upon her arrival. A hard and lonely life followed, until she was at last found by a man who had also come from her village. She went on to raise children here, who grew up Canadian in soul and spirit, but Elena could never find a true home away from her native mountains, and was overwhelmed by nostalgia. At last, when her children were grown, she returned to Italy, only to discover that all she once knew had vanished. Canada had found no place in her emotions, but had succeeded only in alienating her even from her own children.

Thomas Henricks stated that “for the most part, people experience personhood in the terms that their host societies offer them.” But that does not always happen, and when that host society somehow fails to offer acceptable terms around which personal values can flourish, the story becomes tragic, as it was for Maccaferri. It was a crisis in personal identity in relation to a nation. And while I’m telling stories about the inability of a host nation to inspire allegiance, I’ll mention another, which goes back to my bachelor days as a young Carleton professor. I had just exhausted my resources on a six-bedroom fixer-upper in Ottawa south with rooms left over to rent out to students. In that little community we had a mysterious roomer who never joined in our collective kitchen exploits and conversations. That was not a problem in itself, but his place in the household came to a strange crisis, nevertheless, when one afternoon a couple of the other students found him in the kitchen counting out huge piles of change. He explained simply that if the laundromat owners were so stupid in their choice of coin boxes, they deserved to be robbed. In no time I had a report upstairs, and went down for an account of my own. It was a sad litany: that his father had come to Canada with promises and expectations, and that to his mind this country had ruined him, giving him only custodial work to do. In his disappointment, he had trained his children to blame the entire country, giving them carte blanche to recover his losses any way they could. The laundromat theft had been conducted as a grievance against the nation. Any Canadian was thus a fair target, and revenge could be taken indiscriminately. What bizarre turns the idea of nation can take; it is a reminder that dialogue can help.

When social groups are organized around adhesion to extended clans or tribes, as they were among the First Nations of the New World, we have an early example of the tribal-nation as a tight working survival community sharing a single culture, and calling for unflinching loyalty. But it was only after the long hiatus of the Dark Ages, and a pre-Renaissance period characterized by city states and assorted feudal principalities that the modern nation emerged in conjunction with the political institutions that framed the autonomous state.

The sixteenth century was the first great age of nation building, with England leading the way under the Tudors. And what an experiment it was. A poem I teach nearly every year is entitled The Faerie Queene, written by Edmund Spenser. It was, unabashedly, a national epic which, by chivalric and allegorical example, set out to teach its readers the great civic virtues upon which the new nation could build, including loyalty to the queen and a sense of duty in the cause of right and justice.

Of course, there is nothing like war and the threat of invasion to quicken a sense of common cause and rouse a sense of national fervor. This is simply a by-product of the craving for self- protection which can only be realized where there is a feeling of all-for-one and one-for-all. Canadians still construct some of their strongest moments of national identity through recollections arising from the First and Second World wars. They are noble stories in which we all can share, dealing with a nation coming of age through the baptism of sacrifice. And we have been reminded at times that the nation expects such matters to be treated with ultimate respect and honor. On these occasions the self is lost for a moment in the experience of the nation, and in that regard it is an experience of extended identity, a national ritual that contains the self within the group. The spiritual philosopher, Fethullah Gulen, extends that loss of self in a nation into a hope for a collective future: “Any nation that liberates itself from the deadly web of selfishness and egoism, stereotyping, excessive entitlements, fear of the future, long-lasting hatred and hostility, and at the same time respects the freedom of ideas and beliefs, while turning away from oppressors, as well as giving rights to the innocent, will surely experience long life.” That requires not only self-investment, but collective monitoring and the mastery of the dialogic self in each member. Such a nation must seek to amplify the positive qualities of experiential identity at the national level. But how to extend that experience to the optimum level of respectful allegiance is a challenging formula to meet.

We are, in fact, discussing a rather elusive state of mind. What is it like to experience an ideal national allegiance? How will it feel to be a participating member? One part of our nature seeks a spontaneous glow of unconditional brotherhood in a community of homogenous values. Another part realizes, intellectually, that we have a mutually beneficial contractual arrangement with fellow citizens only at a legal and organizational level. The German terms for these, often employed by scholars, are gemeinschaft for the former, and gesellschaft for the latter. The contrast can be understood historically. In the Middle Ages, rural populations spent their entire lives within view of their parish church steeples; their thought preoccupations were concerned with fixed or received views invested in work, rituals, and customs which remained unchanged throughout generations. Such communities had little need for debate or discussion, because everyone knew what the others were thinking. These were societies entirely integrated through common religious festivals, language, history, and traditions. These were experiential quality nations generating a sense of gemeinschaft.

Renaissance societies worked outwards from this communal base toward new identities based on restraint in a secular, legislated, legal, and impersonal society. This new order we might call a second experiential quality of nation, conceived as a partnership or a social contract to promote political and economic order. Both the communal nation and the legal nation are principles of group organization and experience, but they do not share a common ethos. For better or for worse, the modern plural nation has been compelled to redefine itself as a society regulated by law, charters, and citizenship-a gesellschaft. My point is that as societies foster libertarian individualism, much of that intuitive and communal sense of the first experiential quality of nation disappears. We have heard much, since the nineteenth century, about alienation, solipsism, existentialism, the anxieties of modernity, the breakdown of the nuclear family, rapid mobility, and transnationalism.

The longing for a tribal structure in size and cohesion prevails even in modern societies. We might try to replace that feeling at the national level through an equitably administered legal society, through education, and through health and welfare support. But that returns us to the awkward crux. Does a true sense of brotherhood and identity emerge only when there are collective bonds that include language, religion, customs, food and festivals, and life on a village scale? States may structure themselves around welfare nets, global educational systems, and the legal protection of opportunity for all, but there remains intense anxiety over the oneness of our collective national experience.

Donald A. Beecher is Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
(Editor’s note: A follow-up of this article can be find in the 100th issue of The Fountain Magazine)

Honor killings are not a new type of murder or unique to any particular time or place. They are not associated with Islam, and there is no difference in their base causes or those of Femicide and crimes of passion. Several religious and cultural traditions have held the view that women are second class citizens compared to men; that their place in society is to benefit men; or that they are possessions to be dealt with in a manner befitting a man’s choice. In Ancient Rome, “honor played an important part in the structure of Roman society… justifications for honor killings can be found in the family law of the Roman Empire” (Shah-David, 2011 p. 191). The legal differentiations between honor killings and other forms of homicide are based in Roman law. The father, or pater familias (head of the family), had jus vitae ac necis (power of life and death), thus no punishment could be imposed on a father or husband for killing their female family members (Bettiga-Bourerbout, 2005). It is also said that Judeo-Christian religious tradition claims men and women were punished because of Eve’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit; women were punished further by being made subservient to men, and made to suffer through the pain of child birth and menstruation (Azeem, n.d.). Yet as Shah-David claims, killing in the name of honor is also found in other societies, such as Hindu communities and in Sardinia and Sicily. Despite these incidences, “this does not mean that Roman Catholicism encourages it” (2011 p. 191). In Australia, in a case of a Western Caucasian couple, a man strangled his wife, and community members claimed, “It is an honor killing…to avenge his male pride, to reassert his status in the world. He saw himself as the patriarch of the family and refused to accept her right to leave.” (The Age, 2006). The question must be asked why Islam remains as justification for femicide and why its occurrence is amplified when committed in Muslim societies.

Islam calls people to unburden themselves from the restraints and false claims of the material life and to return to God and the true way of life. As such, a society with material values will stand against such an ideal (Abushouk, 2006). Honor killings are a cultural practice, just as the Western media magnifying their occurrence is also cultural. It is statistically recorded that crime incidents against women in some Western countries are drastically higher when compared to Muslim and some non-Western countries. (Nation Master, 2011). These statistics support that Islam is not behind the underlying attitudes of violence towards women.

Honor killing is the murder of a person who has supposedly brought dishonor to a family and where a public display condemning that person is required to restore family respect. This supposed shame is most commonly attributed to a family member who commits – or is accused, or suspected of committing – an indecent sexual act. Even rape is sometimes considered to “blacken” a woman’s chastity, and thus tarnishing her family’s honor. There is a belief that blood will remove the stain upon the family. This means the death of the woman – and sometimes, though less often, the death of the man, too. These deaths are very often public.

Honor killings may also occur when a woman will not enter into a forced marriage, seeks to obtain a divorce, or acts in any way which may be considered sexually promiscuous and a male family member feels dishonored by such displays (Merry, 2009). Being “too Western” is also a reason given to justify this type of crime (Chesler, 2010).

However, Islam gives very clear instructions about behaviors regarding women, adultery, divorce and legal testimony; these instructions go against any justification for honor killings. Women are considered the spiritual equal of men, their responsibilities towards God the same. There are differences between a man and woman regarding their respective worldly duties, but there is plenty of evidence in the Qur’an and in the practice of the Prophet that women should be treated fairly and gently. They are to be treated with a deep respect, going so far as to lay heaven under a mother’s feet (Hadith, Ahmad Nasai), and are entitled to receive honor and the best form of care: “The best among you is the one who is the best towards his wife” (Muslim).

Therefore, the relationship between men and women is to achieve mutual benefit and pleasure, and to help each other achieve their purpose in life. With regard to adultery, both men and women are equally responsible. Even though couples are encouraged to stay together, divorce is still halal (permissible) in Islam if a man and woman feel they cannot be equitable to each other and if they have exhausted all possible solutions. As such, claiming that wanting a divorce is grounds for dishonor and murder cannot in any way be ascribed to Islam. The Qur’an also states that four reliable witnesses be brought to testify against a women they claim is impious (An-Nisa 4:15). This is far from a support for honor killings on grounds of suspicion. A lack of Islam and cultural reasons can be the only other basis for this rationalization. And many people – both Muslim and non-Muslim – have expressed concern over “Western values” spreading through the Islamic world (Abou El Fadl, 2005). Sexual promiscuity may be seen as encouraged by Western media and Hollywood. Yet the concerns people express over this is by no means an excuse or justification for murder, but rather an example of why Islamic values must be holistically implemented, especially in Muslim’s lives.

Any justification for killing in the name of honor goes against true honor from God. Culturally developed and encouraged desires have an influence over people and their self-control, allowing a justification and belief to develop that they have a right and responsibility to commit heinous acts. No example in Islam can support honor killing. Therefore, we see that it is a cultural practice caused by the incorrect or incomplete application of Islam in Muslim societies. There are many examples, as given above, which prove that honor killing or other forms of femicide are among many very serious human problems. It is a grave form of human violence, and a true and comprehensive interpretation of Islamic values proves that Muslims can, and must, positively contribute to solving this problem, not the other way around. If some disgraceful practices are being attributed to Islam, it is not because they are part of Islam but because some Muslim communities are simultaneously practicing and propagating a blend of Islamic, contemporary, and Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance) teachings. Islam is a holistic religion; a person’s life, death, actions, beliefs, feelings, obligations, and their very nature is addressed in the Qur’an and the Prophet’s practice. Through the revealed scriptures and the examples of the Prophets, God has taught humanity about our vices and virtues, but also how to overcome and strengthen them so we can achieve balance and happiness. A proper understanding of how to achieve this balance entails a thorough, rather than partial, reading of the wonderful sources at our disposal.

Kim Soltani is a student of Islamic Studies at the Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation, Charles Sturt University, Sydney, Australia.

References

• Abou El Fadl, K. 2005. The nature and role of women. In The Great Theft. New York: Harper SanFransisco.
• Abushouk, A. I. 2006. Globalization and Muslim identity challenges and prospects. The Muslim World. 96(4), 487-505. Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur.
• Azeem, S. (n.d.) Women in Islam versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth & The Reality. Canada: Queens University.
• Bettiga-Bourerbout, M., 2005. “Crimes of Honor” in the Italian Penal Code: an analysis of history and reform. In Honor: crimes, paradigms and violence against women. (eds S. Hossain, & L. Welchman,) Victoria: Spinifex Press.
• Chesler, P., 2010 Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings. In The Middle East Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
• Hadith. (n.d.). Ahmad Nasai, Retrieved from http://www.soundvision.com/Info/mothers/inquran&hadith.asp
• Kaandhlawi, Z., 2004. Faza’il-e-a’maal (A. R. Arshad, Trans.). India:Millat Book Centre.
• Merry, S., 2009. Gender violence: a cultural perspective. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
• Murad, A., (n.d.).Boys will be Boys. Retrieved from http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/boys.htm
• Nation Master. 2011. Crime Statistics Rape (per capita) (most recent) by country. Retrieved from http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
• Quran. (n.d.). Trans. Sahih International. Retrieved from http://www.quran.com
• Shah-Davis, S. 2011. A women’s honor and a nation’s shame. In Gender, Sexualities and Law (ed J Jones, A Grear, R Fenton, K Stevenson). New York: Routledge.
• The Age. 2006. Honor killing in the suburbs. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Honor-killing-in-the-suburbs/2004/11/05/1099547388469.html%E2%80%9D
• United Nations Department of Public Information. 1996. Women and Violence. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm

Cultural differences have a potential to trigger conflicts at all levels, and the response each society gives to these conflicts depend on what they hold most dear as a foundational norm: independent existence of individuals or social interdependence. This calls for awareness in differences and discussion to benefit from cultural diversity.

Michael was having a problem with his neighbor next door. He decided to seek advice from his coworkers on the issue. Paul suggested that he express the problem openly right away, and, if that wouldn’t help, to take the neighbor to the court. Akihiro, on the other hand, warned him not to get too serious, and recommended him to write a letter which talks about their good memories in the past and how pleasant their neighborhood was. The backup plan in this case would be to invite a mutually respected neighbor of theirs to mediate the situation.

Of course, Michael has many other options to address the given problem. Yet, it is interesting to note the differences between the suggestions of the two coworkers. One party is focused on the issue per se and pursues a direct approach; whereas the other is concerned about the relationship and follows indirect/accommodating means to handle the situation. This article is intended to provide a better understanding of these two main approaches in conflicting situations. Since the responses to unease are generally situational, we may not judge whether any of the resolution efforts are good or bad, but rather, look closely on their rationale respectively.

Cultures differ on various aspects of life. Naturally, the approach of their members to conflict will also vary depending on the value they place on issues of interest and dominant cultural characteristics. A close examination of these features in a given society will give an idea on how its members would respond to conflicting situations in general. Given the growing interconnectedness of societies today, such knowledge of cultural tendencies might help in the development of strategies for conflict resolution and prevention.

Societies that promote independent existence of individuals are referred to as individualistic, and those which assume a great deal of social interdependence are grouped as collectivistic cultures.¹ Prior to discussing responses to conflict in these two types of cultures, it may be better to highlight some examples of their interpretations which will provide hints about their foundational norms.

He who hesitates is lost. (American expression)

Strike while the iron is hot. (American expression)

More haste, less speed. (Chinese expression)

A deliberate inaction is better than a blind action. (Chinese expression)

Different cultures may have different viewpoints about the same issue. This affects the responses of their members and the methods they favor in various situations. Existing theories in social sciences, which generally reflect social values of individualism and autonomy, may be inadequate in societies that do not share the same values and foundational norms, and vice versa. Such a cross-cultural analysis requires an understanding of the prevalent cultural values and norms in a given society.¹ These shared values, through which cultures develop and continue, are communicated in a variety of ways. One technique that commonly appears is the use of proverbs or sayings, and such quotes throughout the commentary will provide a general idea about some differing characteristics of these two cultural approaches.

Rather than criticizing or promoting any specific cultural aspect, this piece aims to discuss another dimension of multicultural approach to serve to break the stereotyped images (if any) about different cultures, and to help accept everybody as they are in a world of cultural diversity. Once we have a broad picture, we will further look into how interpersonal conflict is handled, and conclude with some overarching suggestions to foster mutual understanding in cases of unease.

Two’s company, but three’s a crowd. (American expression)

If you congregate, you live. If you scatter, you die. (Korean proverb)

One who leaves the herd, gets snatched by the wolf. (Turkish proverb)

One palm makes no applause. (Chinese proverb)

Two widely held worldviews have become evident in the cross-cultural literature as variables on which most cultures vary: individualism which objectifies the self, and collectivism which submerges the self to emphasize the group. A middle course in the de bate between those who claim the primacy of society and those who emphasize the primal significance of the individual would state that there is no society without an individual; and also that no individual can survive without society.² These concepts do not necessarily form opposite poles and may coexist due to the enormous intercultural mix, yet one approach may still have dominance to the other in a given culture.³

“The freedom to be an individual is the essence of America.” (Marilyn vos Savant)

“It is hard to be an individual in Japan.” (Haruki Murakami)

In individualistic societies, a person is an autonomous entity defined by a somewhat distinctive set of attributes, qualities, or processes; and these internal attributes determine the behavior. Yet, in collectivistic societies, a person is an interdependent entity who is part of the encompassing social relationships. This is not to say that a person in such a society lacks unique attributes, but rather that these are not primary forces that guide the behavior. In such societies, behavior is a consequence of being responsive to others and origins of behaviors are relationships and social harmony.³

He who converses not knows nothing. (English proverb)

He, who knows, does not speak. He, who speaks, does not know. (Lao Tzu)

In Western cultures, a highly verbal individual is perceived more positively, whereas in Eastern cultures perceptions for highly verbal individuals may not be that positive. Traditionally, communication apprehension has been attributed to a weak sense of identity and is viewed as a deficiency; but on the contrary, this reticence may be due to politeness or a tendency to preserve harmony in collectivistic cultures, depending on the social context.

Stand up for your own rights. (American expression)

Unless you blow your own horn, who will? (American expression)

Once you preach, the point is gone. (Zen phrase)

Mature rice plants bow down lower. (Korean expression)

According to individualistic point of view, communicators can get things done by being assertive. On the other hand, from the collectivistic standpoint, people are expected to preserve group identity and may be discouraged from asserting themselves as individuals. Therefore, it will not be a true assumption to attribute this lack of assertiveness to some negative traits such as low self-esteem, shyness, disinterest, or ignorance.³

Cultural dimensions of conflict resolution

“The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions.” (Nhat Hanh)

Keeping all the above examples in mind, now let’s briefly compare and contrast responses to conflict in individualistic and collectivistic societies:

Since individuals’ self-articulated interests are of utmost importance, individualistic perspective frames conflict as the divergence of interests or issues, which limits the focus of solution efforts solely to reconciling the differences in interests between parties. Yet in collectivistic cultures, social harmony is a critical aspiration and community involvement is likely even in interpersonal matters. Then, a deeper and wider analysis that will address the concerns of both types of approaches should better view conflict as a situation and place the situation to the heart of any resolution endeavor.¹

“He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense.” (Joseph Conrad)

The one who raises his/her voice has already lost. (Japanese proverb)

Members of individualistic cultures tend to prefer direct/dominating/prompt communication styles, since they deem open discussion as the best way to deal with their interpersonal problems. On the other hand, individuals in interdependent societies are less likely to “express negative emotions (such as anger) to confront each other, and to use verbal aggressiveness and open discussion in conflict situations. They may avoid reactions to their relational problems that can potentially cause further conflict”. Among them, the stress is not so much upon the individual and his/her interests, but on the maintenance of the collectivity and the continuation of harmonious relationships; conflict is viewed as damaging to social fabric and relational harmony, so it should be avoided as much as possible. This naturally leads to the adoption of high compromising and avoiding behaviors and a relatively low preference for competing and assertive postures which emphasize the value they place on maintaining social harmony rather than personal interests in conflict interactions.³

“Peace is not absence of conflict; it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.” (Ronald Reagan)

There is a natural tendency to avoid conflicts as much as possible. While it is a major strategy to preserve harmonious relationships in Eastern cultures, Western societies may view accommodation efforts as giving up critical values and personal rights. Furthermore, according to the Western approach, people will prefer to avoid conflict only if their stake in an issue is not high enough to get involved, whereas collectivist cultures actually utilize it as a social remedy.³

In collectivistic societies, “understanding is seen not as the result of putting meaning into words, but rather as the greater understanding of shared perspective, expectations, and intimacy”, and avoidance is utilized as a strategy to handle the conflict. Besides expressing the discomfort indirectly/nonverbally in a polite and educating way, non-confrontational communication modes in problematic situations include, but are not limited to: “(a) the use of management to prevent a conflict before it happens, (b) expression of conflict emotions like anger or frustration by non-communication, such as ignorance or silence, (c) pretense of being harmonious in peoples’ presence, even though parties are actually avoiding each other, (d) management of conflict using a third party, (e) tendency of directing accusations against oneself.”³

Cultural differences in third party intervention

“The Believers are but brothers; so make peace and reconciliation between your brothers… ”⁴

How, when, and why a third party interferes has been the central focus of conflict resolution studies. Models on interpersonal conflict that assume a great deal of individual autonomy and privacy in interpersonal matters hardly speak about engaging one’s social network into a conflict, however interpersonal conflict intervention in a collectivistic setting will not take place only between contending individuals and the intervener, but is likely to engage other entities (e.g. extended family members) almost in any given conflict. This involvement of others, with the purpose of securing, improving or sustaining a resolution, can be added strength for conflict intervention and resolution.¹

“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” (Paulo Freire)

Western literature on interpersonal conflict intervention generally undermines the adjustment of the involvement style depending on the stage of the disagreement. However in collectivistic societies, “third parties are expected to function in a reconciliatory mode, unless clear injustice or deviance takes place. In this case, third parties should get actively involved in restoring justice and eliminating deviance before returning to the reconciliatory role.” Consultation may be utilized “when relationship issues (perception and attitudes) are not suitable for mediation, and to help parties clarify their underlying needs (security, or identity for example) and interests tied to such needs. Mediation, on the other hand, aims at negotiating certain substantive issues, based on a clear understanding of relationship issues and parties’ own needs and interests.”¹

Adhering to the common good while not favoring any of the parties has good intentions, yet the mediator may face difficulties in modern diverse societies, where notions of common good may be too diverse and vague; focus being on the individual. Material resources are often the codes used, thus legal procedures are vital parts of the resolution in these societies, and mediators are expected to be professionals who are knowledgeable of legal procedures. Thus, actions in a resolution process are task-oriented. Conversely in collectivistic societies, where the main focus is on social harmony and social norms/values form the basis of a solution, mediators are generally seniors (in terms of age or hierarchy) who are knowledgeable of cultural norms. Some codes mainly used by interveners in these cultures include honor, dignity, unity, future of the next generations, religious values, and tradition of forgiveness.^1,5

Speaking of religion and its role in conflict, one’s voluntary sacrifice from his/her rights in some conflicting situations, repelling evil with what is better,⁶ and forgiveness has been encouraged for thousands of years by major world religions.⁷ “Adherents of these religions have claimed that forgiveness yields numerous emotional and spiritual benefits, and can dramatically transform one’s life.”⁸ Hence, it may be useful to explore their resources, which are rich with conflict intervention principles, values and models, in a way that would prepare them for contemporary practice. For instance, it is stated that reconciling a dispute between two parties is a charity,9 and that “kind words and forgiving of faults are better than charity followed by injury.”¹⁰

The most beneficial approach for the involved parties in a conflict situation would be an attempt to address fully the concerns of both parties and to find mutually satisfactory solutions to the cause of the conflict. This collaborative approach is of utmost importance and most viable, particularly when the issues are critical and maintaining an ongoing relationship is important. For an effective assistance, third parties involved in mediation processes should carefully study the needs and values of contending parties and have cultural awareness in order to provide mutually satisfactory resolution options regardless of the society they operate.

Considering that disagreements could be resolved much easily when parties are aware of corresponding needs/values and interests/concerns, getting to know one another would be an important basis for any resolution endeavor. Therefore, the more we exchange ideas without prejudice, the more we’ll understand each other. Although some disagreements yield positive outcomes and new ideas, intense conflicts generally drain energy and resources. Hence, it is heartening to observe that peace studies such as conflict resolution are blossoming, despite some scholars expecting a “clash of civilizations” and some claiming that we are at the “end of history.” Contrary to the arguments that define life as a series of struggles for limited resources, this relatively new field of social sciences will help humanity make the best out of its potential and reach a better state of living. Comprehensive resolutions which are globally applicable to disagreements in-between individuals, organizations, or nations overall, call for good deeds, positive motives, and pure intentions without self-interest. Tolerance, forgiveness, altruism, compassion, submission to ethical/moral codes, fairness, openness of hearts and minds, and welcoming people as they encompass some of the universal means to cure conflicts at various levels.

References

1. Abdalla, Amr. 2000. “Principles of Islamic Interpersonal Conflict Intervention: A Search within Islam and Western Literature.” Journal of Law & Religion 15, no. 1. 151-184.

2. Nasr, Seyyed H. 2002. The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

3. Kim, Min-Sun. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.

4. Qur’an, 49:10.

5. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. 1996. “Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context: Some Conceptual Questions.” Peace and Change 21, no. 1. 22-40.

6. Qur’an, 41:34.

7. For some of the Qur’anic verses on interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation not mentioned in the text, the reader may refer to 2:280; 3:134, 4:128, 135, 149; 24:22; 25:63; and 42:37, 40, 43.

8. McCullough, Michael E., Kenneth I. Pargament, and Carl E. Thoresen. 2000. Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

9. Bukhari, Sulh, 11; Muslim, Zakat, 52.

10. Qur’an, 2:263.

According to the British writer Raymond Williams, culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in English. It has many definitions but here is the crux to remember: Culture is the way of life of a given society. Our culture is what we are as a group; it is learnt from birth and is passed down from one generation to another.¹

Culture is to the person as water is to the fish. It influences the way we perceive the world, tells us how to behave, and tells scholars how to think about the causes of behavior. It even shapes the moods and opinions of public about what to eat, what to wear, what to think is right or wrong, and much more. However, people are generally unaware of their cultural conditioning and do not realize that the way they recognize the world is not necessarily same as the way other groups do.²

An array of traditions, norms and values observed in a society raise its cultural character which distinguish societies from one another. These cultural variations influence the course of communications, may cause (the escalation of) conflict when it leads to miscommunication or misinterpretation, and can be problematic in cross-cultural encounters when one acts as if differences did not exist.³ The deeper one interacts with a different cultural group, the more he/she understands its the norms and priorities. This awareness of the ways cultures operate in communication and conflict will yield to the ability to respond effectively to these differences and prevent misunderstandings in intercultural settings.

One can list many dimensions or their sublevels that cause variations both between and within cultures. Below, we will discuss some major aspects along which cultures vary. Although it seems that there are no direct linkages between each topic, it is interesting to see how they actually relate to one another.

Senses of Self:

From the outside, a tree grown in California would probably look just like a tree grown in Japan. However, the growth of each tree is largely dependent on the soil that roots of the trees have to interact with in order to grow. The strength of the roots is also dependent on the environment the tree is exposed to, from sunshine to thunderstorms. Imagine the values of a particular culture represented as the roots of a tree. These roots (values) are the source of strength needed by the tree to survive in the surrounding environment (society). Of course, we don’t really see the roots, but we are constantly exposed to the tree nevertheless. The type of fertilizer and water fed to the tree contributes significantly to the growth of it. In addition, you can not transplant a tree into other soil unless you prepare the roots for the new soil.

The roots of each tree may have a different form, much like the cultures they represent. The Japanese roots are twisted together because they may have rockier soil and need the combined strength of the roots to support the tree during rough weather. The American roots, however, are individual, separate, straight, and deep, responding to their soil condition. ⁴

Societies that value individual uniqueness and self-determination are referred to as individualistic cultures in which people make up their own mind and show initiative independently. In this way of life, people deem themselves as the masters of their lives which they think they can control by themselves. On the contrary, cultures in which people identify themselves with groups are categorized as collectivistic societies. These societies consider many external parameters outside one’s control that affect the course of their lives, and there is more emphasis on the role of destiny in daily life. Many of the Asian cultures are collectivist, while Anglo cultures tend to be individualist.

A “self-determining” individual tries to preserve his/her image and interests by taking a competitive stance in interpersonal encounters. However, for those in collectivistic cultures, direct confrontation may reflect poorly on the group or disturb overall harmony; then open criticisms of others are generally avoided. When there is conflict, a third party is utilized for resolution. Since no direct confrontation takes place, potential damage to the relationships is minimized.

The value placed on individual freedom in individualist societies leads to the idea that everybody is equal regardless of age, social status, or authority, which calls for a tendency to be informal when addressing one another. In the US, for instance, superiors and subordinates often interact socially as equals, and an outsider typically cannot tell them apart. However, collectivistic societies place more value on seniority and hierarchy and, therefore, are more formal. They also put more emphasis on the role of power/status: Is the boss, a) always right because he is the boss, or b) only when he gets it right?

Someone devoted to freewill and someone with a more philosophical orientation may face miscommunication. The first would expect immediate action and responsibility and, failing to see it, may conclude that the latter is lagging, hindering, or dishonest. The second person would expect respect for the natural order of things and, failing to see it, may conclude that the former is pushy or impolite.

Communication styles:

Japanese can find Westerners to be offensively blunt. Westerners can find Japanese to be secretive, devious and bafflingly unforthcoming with information. French can feel that Germans insult their intelligence by explaining the obvious, while Germans can feel that French managers provide no direction. ⁵

In some cultures, people presume ample commonality of understanding and attitude in their counterparts hence they feel that it is unnecessary to be “over-explicit”; information is communicated in indirect ways embedded in the existing context or internalized in the person per se. Whereas in other cultures, information is part of, and conveyed through, the verbal content of the communication; things are made explicit, and there is considerable dependence on what is actually said. The first types of cultures are known as high-context, and the latter low-context respectively. Due to the significance of social information networks, collectivistic cultures tend to be high context.

Since the focus is the message itself rather than the context, low context cultures are open to communication errors when they assume more shared knowledge than there actually is. This direct approach may help to avoid communication errors when used properly (in a good timing and context). However, communicators may fail to “feel the emotional state” of the other party, or may hurt feelings while trying to be “direct.”

Though, low context cultures expect thorough explanations, high context cultures take them as redundant discussions on details, and even somewhat hesitate to make mistakes with too much talk. These cultures are more cautious about the potential implications of the message delivered. Silence and other indirect/non-confrontational methods are frequently applied and patience is promoted for the sake of overall harmony. On one side, silence is viewed as a communication breakdown, whereas on the other it is utilized as an actual communication component at times.

Perception of time:

I was once told that one of the South American groups in the U.S. used to send to different invitations for the same occasion. One was truly showing the ceremony time, yet the other was for an hour before the actual kickoff. The first was for the American friends and the latter one was for their own community to offset possible delays.

Time is beyond what a clock reads: “There are two blessings in which most people are in great loss: Good health and free time.” ⁶ In addition to being a major blessing, it is one of the most central differences that separate cultures and cultural ways of doing things.

In the West, time has a present focus moving toward the future at an acknowledged swiftness. Events are explained via specific causes, and there is an appropriate time and place for everything. This notion of time is actually a product of the Industrial Revolution which requires certain tasks to be achieved at a predetermined hour. Concentration is on one event at a time, schedules and deadlines take priority, and interruptions are not very welcome, which ultimately seals people off from one another, as limited time allows some people in and leaves some others out.

In Western cultures, time is considered as a limited reserve which is continually being used up. It’s like having a bathtub full of water that is running down the drain, and can never be replaced. It has to be used as it runs down the drain or it is wasted.⁵ Time is perceived quantitatively; it is measured and almost tangible. Many expressions such as Boucicault’s following words highlight its importance and urge its awareness in these societies: “Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them.” “Time is money” is a household expression, and people often talk about “saving,” “spending,” “wasting,” “finding,” or “losing” time. Time orders life and priorities: “I don’t have time to do that.” Since time is prioritized, so is accomplishing a task as quickly as possible; thus taking risks are expected to bring the future closer.

As time is limited, punctuality becomes a desirable quality and wasting someone’s time is regarded as an insult. Lest communication takes more time, individual-oriented cultures promote direct and competitive communication, whereas group-oriented cultures prefer indirect and harmonious approaches to communicate and avoid direct confrontation. Individualistic cultures may view this communication avoidance as passive, unwilling, or even ignorant. On the other hand, collectivistic cultures may view the direct approach to communication as being rude.

In the East, time is circular, spiral, even repetitive, and has unlimited continuity; in old agricultural societies which depend on the months/seasons of the year, it renews itself annually (traditional Chinese calendar has a period of 12 years). Other unrelated events or mystical reasons may be used to explain a given event, “as time is viewed an unfolding of stories already written, or a play in which much of the set is invisible.” ³ This idea of time also goes along with fate and destiny, and is connected to other people as well as periods of history. People may handle many things at once in this approach. A manager’s office in such a culture typically has an open door, a ringing phone and a meeting all going on at the same time. Within all these intermingling events, punctuality is nice, but not essential.

In Eastern cultures, time is more plentiful and people tend to be more patient. It is quite acceptable to make people wait all day, and then tell them to come back later. Time-abundant cultures tend to rely on trust to do business, whereas time-limited cultures don’t have time to develop trust and have other mechanisms to substitute trust (such as judiciary mechanisms).⁵ This time pressure may also account for segmented relationships in Anglo cultures, while time-abundant societies tend to establish lifetime relationships. Furthermore, societies that have a more flexible sense of time are more comfortable with uncertainties and accommodate changes in verbal plans, whereas time-limited cultures prefer everything to be expressed in written details and abide by these binding plans.

In one viewpoint, past and future are both present in this stretching time that loops back and forth. In the other, time starts with the very current instant and extends into the future. In a negotiation setting of parties with these two different notions of time, one of the parties may take time to provide extensive information regarding their stories and their relationships to the issue; weaving themes, feelings, ideas, and experiences together as they remember the past and project the future. When it is the other party’s chance to speak, they may promptly project flow charts showing processes for decision-making and speak about their intentions for entering the negotiation process right away. Neither side would feel satisfied with this meeting, but everyone would feel that they were not “on the same page.” ³

Therefore, as people from different cultural backgrounds work together, they should ask questions about their values and needs, and how these may affect their progress. Both cultures would be comfortable with meeting face to face in a mediation setting to frankly discuss differences of any sort.

Figure 1, serves as a summary of the dimensions we have mentioned so far. While the generalizations listed do not apply uniformly to all cultures, they will help convey a pattern:

Figure 1. Comparison of various cultural dimensions

Most North European and North American cultures fall into Group A.

Most Latin American, Asian, South European, and some African cultures overall fall into Group B.

Each of the variables discussed here shows only a glimpse of various dimensions across cultures, which do not apply to all individuals within a culture. One should not generalize by ignoring individual differences; e.g., “he is like that because he is Asian – all Asians are nonverbal.” An individual’s behavior may well vary depending on the situation, individual personality, mood, etc. as well. Cultural differences discussed here are general guidelines and there will always be exceptions. Anyone is unique in a sense and must be approached accordingly. It is important to remember this uniqueness at times of negotiations or unease, and not rush to make decisions before clearly understanding the situation. Keep in mind that different cultures see the world through diverse filtering lenses; there may not be a disagreement but just a different interpretation of what is going on.

As a result of globalization, the world is becoming smaller and people of various cultures are able to communicate freely. Ideas and perspectives can span across cultures through different forms of media like the television, the newspapers and the Internet; thus, cultures are blending more and more every day, which makes dialogue and mutual understanding essential. Only by learning about, respecting, and celebrating these differences, we can build mutuality and co-operative relationships, rather than breeding enmities.

Osman Senkaya has a Master’s Degree in Nonprofit Leadership.

Notes

¹ http://www.celt.iastate.edu/international/culture-extras/CultureResources.pdf

² Kim, Min-Sun. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.

³ LeBaron, Michelle. “Cross-Cultural Communication.” http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cross-cultural_communication

⁴ Elashmawi, Farid, and Philip R. Harris. 1993. Multicultural Management: New Skills for Global Success. 3rd ed.: Gulf Publishing Company.

⁵ “Differences in Cultures.” http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/cultural.htm

⁶ Sahih Bukhari: Vol. 8, Book 76, Number 421.

⁷ Foster, Dean A. 1992. Bargaining Across Borders: How to negotiate business successfully anywhere in the world: McGraw-Hill.

Almost every society eventually creates an “other”that serves as such for certain political, economic, or social purposes. And in most cases, the identification of this “other” rests on a simplistic “us versus them” dichotomy: we are “good” people, and they are “bad” people. Because this simple dichotomy is more mythical than real, the maintenance of this myth requires a continuous pumping of misinformation into the public realm. Misinformation is not necessarily incorrect information; it is also purposeful manipulation of reality. Each society foregrounds the good acts of its own people and backgrounds their bad acts while foregrounding the bad acts of “others” and backgrounding their good acts. Thus, we all accomplish giving our own communities a delusional sense of moral and cultural superiority over others, which eventually turns the material conflicts between us and others into moral conflicts between good and evil.

The common “good Westerners-bad Muslims” dichotomy results in manipulation of the information provided to the people in the West about both Muslims and Westerners themselves. This is why in some of the Western media, evil acts of Muslim people are almost always associated with Islam while noble acts of Muslim people such as Mr. Osman are either ignored or associated with their nationality rather than their religion. In the same vein, evil acts of Western people such as those who gassed the nursery of a Muslim mosque in Ohio while about 300 people were praying inside in September 2008 are largely ignored by some of the mainstream Western media, for it goes against the “good Westerners” image.

A striking example that is used as evidence to the evilness of Muslims is the degree of support for terrorism among Muslims. Authors from Sam Harris to Robert Spencer have sought refuge in Muslim support for terrorism when they wanted to denounce Islam. Some surveys reveal that there are some Muslims who justify killing innocent people in certain circumstances. According to the respectable PEW institution’s surveys, 10 to 50 percent of people in different Muslim societies (with an average of 20-25%) often times or sometimes justify suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam. Such findings are construed as evidence to both the belligerent nature of the religion of Islam and the evilness of the Muslim mind. Yet another truth that goes uncovered in some of the Western media is the fact that there is comparable support for terrorism among Western people as well. According to a 2007 survey by World Public Opinion, for example, 24% of Americans find “bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” often times or sometimes justified. But such surveys never find a place in the some of the mainstream American media because they go against the common “good American-bad Muslim” dichotomy.

The problem of misinformation is not unique to the West. It is equally problematic in Muslim societies. Most Muslims have known the United States and Americans through the lenses of Vietnam, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the like. But few of them are aware of such programs like Peace Corps or Volunteers for Prosperity because such good American acts go against the mythical “bad Americans-good Muslims” dichotomy in the Muslim world. Similarly, most Muslims have memorized many non-Muslim names for their brutal acts against Muslims, but very few Muslims are familiar with Muslim names who are held responsible for the crimes against humanity. Whereas the former figures confirm the mythical “good Muslims-bad non-Muslims” image, the latter contradicts it. Therefore, the former examples have been highlighted in the Muslim media and the latter has been ignored.

On the forefront of this universal misinformation campaign are two institutions: the media and governments. The media loves sensational, flashy news because such news pumps up their ratings. Consequently, the media capitalize on overstated evilness of some other people and the existential threat they pose to “our” society. In the same vein, our governments love the existence of “external threats to our national security,” mythical or real, because it allows them to divert public attention from failed domestic policies to international politics and also to implement certain political and military agenda that they could not have carried out without a foreign threat. John Mueller, a professor of political science from Ohio State University, estimated that “the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000-about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor.” Yet whereas no sane American is obsessed with the adversity of a meteor falling on his/her head, many have been made to obsessively think, fear, and guard themselves against a terrorist attack by some evil others.

Most of us have been misinformed about other societies to some extent. We are all, therefore, in need of a therapy of knowledge refinement. But how do we do that? Personally, I think there are two effective ways/channels of refining our knowledge and acquiring authentic information about other societies. First, we need to diversify our sources of information by reading multiple and multi-national news papers or portals. Second, we need to diversify our pool of friends and include in it as many people from “other” societies as possible. Nothing is more powerful than a concrete counter-example when it comes to destroying a myth. As we diversify our sources of information and befriend people from other societies, we will realize that “we” are not as “good” as we are told we are, and “they” are not as “bad” as we are told they are, which will hopefully help us re-appreciate the essential commonality between all of us: humanity. Hopefully, we will then also realize that the major struggle is not between “good” us versus “bad” them but rather between the good people and the bad ones among us all. We need to find ways of testing or confirming knowledge we get from the media and not forget that the media is owned and operated by people, who, like us, have many presumptions, biases, priorities, or simply misconceptions, that can spill over when they are “reporting.”

Kaan Kerem has a PhD in political science. He is a freelance writer on philosophy and scientific thought.

Variation in forms of democracy

Although it is common to discuss democracy as if it is problematic only in the Muslim world, in reality democracies all over the world have to deal with a number of controversial issues about the diverse forms of government, varieties of representation, the types of freedom citizens require or demand, the unlegislated distribution of political power, uneven separation of powers, and the breach of the system of rule by the accumulated powers. (Diamond, 2008: 17-24, 30-33)

Gulen’s intellectual contribution to the global discussion of democracy, which is determined by his adherence to Islamic values, is not limited to an analysis of democracy’s value and meaning for individuals and societies. In addition, he examines how democracy is affected by the crises which people and systems undergo, as well as the complexities of life in modern industrialized societies, and the contraction in the space available for individual and collective expression of cultural, moral and spiritual values. (Cetin, 2008: 226-30)

According to Gulen the understanding of democracy and human rights within the theoretical heritage of Islam is not dogmatic but it centers around values such as compromise, stability, the protection of the life, honor and dignity of the human being, justice, equity, dialogue, and consultation. Islamic political theory is flexible and does not bind Muslims by any rigid limits in the choice of concrete forms of government and political system. The main principle in Islamic political theory is the implementation of three fundamental values: equality, justice and consultation. The forms and means of enactment of these are vested in the hands of the community. Thus, the actual realization of the three pillars can and must take into account the conditions of Muslims’ lives, their traditions, cultural preferences, and other factors. Gulen argues that the social, cultural, political and historical aspects of societies, should be taken into account in the development of democracy in the entire world.

Observers discussing the compatibility between Western and Muslim perspectives on democracy and human rights sometimes make the error of attacking “Islam” and demanding its reform, instead of commenting on the approaches or methods of particular activists, regimes or countries and reforming those. Some observers even claim Islamic principles and institutions directly contradict democratic values in their modern meaning, and so any step by Muslim societies towards the establishment of democracy must be accompanied by rejecting Islamic political and legal traditions. At the other extreme, ideologically motivated Muslims claim to have the only correct understanding of Islam, and that Islamic fundamentals of power, politics and believers’ rights have nothing in common with Western democratic institutions. These extremists often argue that “the power of the people” is alien to Islam, which puts forward the principle of the supremacy of Islamic law instead. (Sykiainen, 2007: 122-3)

In fact, the concepts advanced in this type of argumentation are taken out of the whole context of Islamic thought and its socio-political heritage and are addressed to less well-educated Muslims (and others) in order to justify political extremism. Nevertheless, within both traditional and modern Islamic political and legal thought, there are several different perspectives on government which are more genuinely representative of the Islamic legal tradition and which do not justify extremism. (Gulen, 2004:220; also <http://en.fgulen.com/a.page/press/interview/ a1203.html>).

Islamic jurisprudence embodies the divine revelation, the art of lawyers, local and global cultures, and global relationships. Islamic law and the legal system, its common principles and the majority of its concrete norms are similar to the fundamental ideas and particular provisions of other legal systems. Islamic legal culture has always cooperated closely with and been receptive to other legal cultures. In this sense, Islamic law is of benefit not only to Muslims but to the whole of humanity. Over many centuries a great variety of views on the fundamentals of the executive and the legislature have developed within Islamic culture, and diverse notions of the relations between the state and the individual have been elaborated. (Sykiainen, 2007: 119-132)

One of the key features of the Islamic understanding of democracy is the concept of shura (collective and community consultation). Without any qualification or limitation, all members of a community are eligible to give or request consultation on any matter, except one covered by a clear-cut revelation from God. Consequently, all political matters concerning the selection of the ruler, the structure and shape of the government, the form of political system, the running of the government and of the various affairs of the state, and all other related matters are to be decided by consultation through the participation of all the members of the community. (Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

In public and government affairs collective consultation is concerned with two main issues: the selection of the head of state and running of the government together with reviewing the legality and propriety of governmental and presidential actions. On the selection of the head of state, collective consultation is flexible and adopts various forms. Elections, whether direct or indirect, are considered to be an Islamic method of selecting the head of state or members of the legislative body which satisfies the consultation process. With regard to the running of the government and control over the legality and propriety of the executive’s actions, Islamic law is also very flexible. The establishment of a representative body through direct or indirect elections is compatible with Islam and is a good application of community and collective consultation. In addition to their reviewing authorities, representative bodies may be empowered to legislate on different matters provided that such regulations do not violate any unambiguous and clear-cut principle or rule of Islamic injunctions. If democracy is the government of the people by the people for the people, shura is a process which guarantees that all affairs of the people are decided by the people and for their interests. So, the basics of democracy and the fundamentals of shura in the political field are not opposed. (Gulen, 2004:223; Sykiainen, 2007:110, Cetin 2008: 218; Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

This genuine Islamic idea is one of the most basic human rights and a means of protecting and preserving all other human rights under Islamic law, especially the right to equality, the freedom of thought, and the right to express oneself freely in order to correct or demand the correction of what is not right, even if it is something committed by the highest officials, including the head of state. State officials and authorities do not have political immunity while in office in Islam. (Gulen, 2006)

Law, order and, human rights

Gulen analyzes the different rights recognized in Islam, including freedom of religion and belief, thought and expression, to own property and the sanctity of one’s home, to marry and have children, to communicate and to travel, and the right to an unimpeded education. He underlines that the principles of Islamic jurisprudence are based on these and other rights, all of which have now been accepted by modern legal systems, such as the protection of life, religion, property, family life, and intellect, as well as the basic understanding of the equality of people, which is based on the fact that all people are human beings, and subsequently, the rejection of all racial, color, and linguistic discrimination. (Ünal and Williams, 2000:135-8)

Every single right must be respected in Islam. In particular, the right of an individual cannot be violated for the interest of the community. This idea is central to the concept of human rights in Islam and the interpretation of Islamic tradition with regard to this issue. Gulen recalls that if there are nine criminals and only one innocent person on a ship, in order to punish the criminals, Islam does not permit the sinking of that ship because of the innocent person. Though this may sound utopian today considering the mass and “collateral” damage caused by modern nations at war, Gulen argues that the bar should be set at the highest possible level for democracy and every effort to reach that level should be attempted. (Gulen, 2006; also personal correspondence, 08.11.2008).

Gulen underlines that people everywhere always demand freedom of choice within their beliefs, that is, in the way they run their affairs and in their expression of spiritual and religious values. He stresses the separation of the eternal and the evolving judgments (ijtihad) of Islamic jurisprudence. Specifically, political affairs in general and democratic institutions and human rights in particular are covered by Islamic legislative provisions which can relate and respond to the needs of changing circumstances and times. Gulen points out that democracy will continue to evolve and refine itself in the future. Islamic principles of equality, tolerance, and justice can help in this regard, provided that the injunctions of the Qur’an and the Sunna as well as any definite judgments of Islamic law are re-examined and restored in the light of advancing knowledge and changes in societies. (Sykiainen, 2007: 129-30)

It is possible to envisage a kind of democracy with a spiritual dimension. It is a democracy which contains respect for and observance of human rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, expression and religion, a democracy which prepares the necessary conditions for people to live and practice as they believe, which renders people able to fulfill their wish and need for eternity, and which takes or deals with human beings as a whole with regard to their all material and immaterial needs. For, human life does not start and end with life in this world; the world is only a temporal, transit station, and people are ceaselessly moving toward their eternal abode. The system that governs them must not ignore or neglect this crucial matter. We therefore have to seek ways to sophisticate and humanize democracy. No such stage or democracy has been attained yet, in east or west, north or south, but we can aspire to and work for such an aim. (Gulen, 2006; Gulen in Saritoprak and Ünal, 2005: 452)

Democratic culture

In Gulen’s view, therefore it is vital to encourage the building of a strong civil society in order to have and retain a ‘culture’ of democracy, and this can only be done through sound education. In a democracy, where people are entitled to freedom of speech, expression, religion, and the right to sell their labor, and other such rights, every individual should know what kinds of rights they have and what authority, weight and say they have in state and government affairs. (Gulen, 2006; Cetin, 2008: 216-20)

In all societies on some occasions, or even for extended periods, some interests will not be happy about all individuals being aware of their rights; they may see such education as an obstacle to their gaining political or economic power or even arbitrary rule. Consequently, they may attempt to limit citizens’ access to information and institutions and try to guide them in directions which do not serve citizens’ own true interests. (Gulen, 2006)

However, it is impossible to enjoy and practice democracy in a society where people are unaware of their rights and freedom, where people do not know how to seek and pursue their rights, where, in short, they do not have a developed democratic culture. In such societies occasional openings or temporary freedoms might be enjoyed, but it is always possible for special interests to come up with further impositions and undemocratic interventions. In many parts of the world we see tyrannical, authoritarian and dictatorial leaders who exploit or manipulate, for example, the electoral process, the legal system or the constitution not in the name of the progress or development of the country but for the continuance of their own power or in pursuit of self-interest or the interest of a select group around them. (Gulen, 2006)

To counteract the activities of vested interests, while individuals are being asked to fulfill their rights and duties in democratic system, in addition to knowledge they also need to have the self-confidence and the civic courage to own and defend their rights (Gulen, 2006). Here Gulen’s contribution to the development of democracy around the globe lies not only in his intellectual contribution to debate, but also in his ability to inspire action; this practical ability has led to the development of schools, universities, intercultural and interfaith dialogue groups and other institutions throughout the world.

Conclusions

Gulen’s approach is powerful proof of the democratic ideas propagated by Islam, as he is convinced that Islamic democracy and secular political liberalization are not two separate phenomena. He points out that the dominant Islamic culture in the Muslim world co-exists with democratic arrangements on the global level. So, the concept of modernization and democratization does not inevitably mean Westernization but can involve the possibility of adoption of many Western democratic achievements within the Islamic framework. Thus, political culture and democracy practiced among Muslims develop not by their isolation from or opposition to others but by giving of their own achievements and taking the best from others. Gulen proves that Islamic intellectual heritage and political culture must be revisited and respected and that Muslims’ progress depends on the development of knowledge in Islamic sciences (‘ilm) and contemporary technical education (fen). Finally, Gulen life’s work has shown that there is no inherent conflict between Islamic thought and tradition and modern democracy. He has contributed positively to the understanding of democracy, civil society and human rights. (Cetin 2008: 219; Hunt, 2007:8-9; Barton, 2005: 43; Eickelman, 2002:4.)

Muhammed Cetin is the Publications Co-ordinator of the Institute of Interfaith Dialog (IID) and also writes weekly as a columnist in the international daily Today’s Zaman. He has a PhD in sociology.

References

• Barton, G. (2005) “Progressive Islamic thought, civil society and the Gulen movement in the national context: parallels with Indonesia.” Presented at the conference “Islam in the Contemporary World: The Fethullah Gulen Movement in Thought and Practice,” Rice University Conference, Houston, Texas, November 12-13, 2005, pp.51.
• Çetin, M. (2008) “Reductionist Approaches to the Rise and Aims of the Gulen Movement,” at the conference “Islam in the Age of Global Challenges: Alternative Perspectives of the Gulen Movement,” November 14-15, 2008, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., pp. 204-40.
• Diamond, L. (2008) The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. Times Books.
• Eickelman, D. F. (2002) “The Arab “Street” and the Middle East’s Democracy deficit.” Naval War College Review, LV(4), p.10. Available from: <http:// nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2002/autumn/pdfs/art3-a02.pdf> [October 9, 2006].
• Gulen, M. F. (2004) Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2005) The Statue of Our Souls: Revival in Islamic Thought and Activism. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2006) “Demokrasi Yokusu”, 02.01.2006 [Herkül online] http://www.herkul.org/kiriktesti/index.php?view=article&article_id=2846
• Hunt, R. (2007) “Challenges in Understanding the Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 1-10.
• Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007) Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: Contributions of the Gulen Movement. Somerset, New Jersey, IID Press & The Light Inc.
• Saritoprak, Z. & Ünal, A. (2005) An interview with Fethullah Gulen. The Muslim World Special Issue, Islam in Contemporary Turkey: the Contributions of Gulen 95(3), 447-67.
• Sykiainen, L. (2007) “Democracy and the Dialogue between Western and Islamic Legal Cultures: The Gulen Case.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 121-32.
• Ünal, A. & Williams, A. (2000) Fethullah Gulen: Advocate of Dialogue. Fairfax, VA, The Fountain.

Fallacy one: Literalism

A critical fallacy in the arguments of “scientific crusaders” is that their understanding of religions relies on the most primitive way of approaching a text: literalism. Any serious and “scientific” inquiry into a text requires asking certain questions such as “Who wrote this text?” “To whom was it written?” “In which context was it written?” and “Why was it written?” Yet we rarely see the aforementioned scientists using this method when they approach religious texts. Samuel Harris, for example, simply takes certain verses in the Qur’an about killing certain non-Muslims at face value and pays no attention either to the context in which these verses were revealed or to the gigantic Islamic literature on the exegesis of these verses. As such, he simply turns a blind eye to all developments in hermeneutics and uses the most primitive method of text-reading.

Samuel Harris might not be interested in finding out what Muslim scholars have thought about killing innocent people; however, he has to be aware of the fact that it is not the individuals’ own interpretations but mostly scholars’ interpretations that have shaped Muslims’ opinions on any issue. An interesting point is that there is no precedent whatsoever for suicidal terrorism in traditional Islam before the late twentieth century. There has been a solid consensus among Muslim scholars for fourteen centuries on the sanctity of human life, because the Qur’an declares unequivocally that killing an innocent person unjustly is like killing all of mankind (Maidah 5:32). Thus, the critical question becomes: if something (such as terrorism) is “inherent” in a religion (such as Islam), why did that religion not encourage that thing for fourteen centuries but suddenly started to encourage it later? Unfortunately, scientific crusaders do not seem to be very interested in this kind of question.

Fallacy two: Crime against empirics

A second fallacy of scientist crusaders is that their understanding of religion’s influence on society is highly impressionistic and lacks any credible scientific inquiry or understanding. Samuel Harris’ argument about the violent nature of European Muslim youth and Richard Dawkins’ argument regarding oppression of women in Islamic societies are purely impressionistic inferences because they totally ignore other potential factors that can also influence juvenile violence and gender discrimination. The fact that Muslim youth in Europe are also disproportionately poorer and less educated than many other groups does not seem to undermine Harris’ sense of cognitive comfort. Yet any scientist with a basic knowledge of quantitative methods knows that we cannot analyze the influence of one factor on a dependent variable independent of other related factors. Statistics tells us that we will have nothing but biased results in such control-free analysis. Indeed, Scott Atran reports a study that reveals that “religious education is a negative predictor of Muslims entering European prisons.” ⁴ If a Muslim’s becoming more religious decreases the likelihood of his or her involvement in violence, then religion is a peaceful element. If this is the case, then the root causes of violence may be a combination of the very things which Harris avoids studying.

Dawkins’ argument about oppression of women in Muslim societies suffers from the same problem. He commits the same methodological error as Harris by excluding other potential explanatory factors from his analysis. Thus, his study cannot tell us whether it is Islam or something else (such as tradition, poverty, education, etc.) that distinguishes Muslim societies from the Western Christian societies regarding the oppression of women. Fortunately, we have some other (and more scientific) studies to examine the issue. A report by UNICEF in 2000 revealed that average domestic violence is essentially no different in Christian and Muslim societies. Below is the table from this report that gives the details about domestic violence rates in different Christian and Muslim countries. According to these survey results, average domestic violence against women was 25.5% in Western Christian societies (Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States); 30% in Muslim societies (Egypt, Israeli Arabs, and Tajikistan); and 38.3% in African Christian societies (Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe). The survey results indicate that domestic violence rates in Muslim societies were higher than they were in certain Christian societies but lower than they were in other Christian societies. As such, these figures solidly refute Dawkins’ impressionistic argument and rather suggest that something other than Islam is the root cause of domestic violence in Muslim societies.

Here, Dawkins can respond, “These data do not refute my arguments entirely, only the argument that Islam encourages more domestic violence than Christianity. But the argument that both of these religions encourage domestic violence remains valid and sound.” Yet, is this really the case? If one accepts Dawkins’ argument, one must also argue that increasing religiosity of a married Muslim or Christian man should increase domestic violence in his home. It is easy to check this. We can simply ask a random sample of large numbers of married Muslim and Christian women first to grade the religiosity of their husbands on a scale of 0–10, and then ask them how often their husbands behave violently at home. Although we do not have such a study on Muslims yet, to our surprise (and to Dawkins’ shame), we already have one study on Christians, which used exactly this method. In a study of nearly 1,000 New Zealand families, Fergusson et al. (1986) found that the self-reported religious attendance of parents (both fathers and mothers) is inversely related to their self-reported perpetration of domestic assaults. They reported a graded pattern: men and women who attend services once a month or more are least likely to report being involved in domestic violence, followed by those who attend less than monthly. On the other hand, men and women who never attend religious services are much more likely than their more religious counterparts to be involved in domestic violence.⁵The findings of this earlier study were later supported by another one, which employed a more objective measure of religiosity, on American couples as well. ⁶ (Although we have yet to prove it, this relationship between religiosity and domestic violence is very likely to hold for Muslim men as well. After all, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, “The best of you is the one who treats his wife in the best manner.” ⁷) Once again, contrary to Dawkins and Harris, we find that religion is an element of peace, not violence.

It is also worth mentioning that much less crime has been reported in religious schools (imam-hatip) than in secular schools in Turkey. Naci Akay, former Istanbul Head of National Education, said there have never been any activities reported in these schools that pose a threat to public safety. Likewise, Ibrahim Solmaz and Ahmet Gundogdu, chairmen of ONDER and Egitim-Bir-Sen respectively (two civil educational organizations) said parents prefer these schools mainly because they do not have high crime rates and students are much less likely to develop bad habits like drug abuse, alcoholism, or gambling. ⁸

The holy month of Ramadan in which Muslims observe day-long fast and additional devotion, is also a time of security for the entire Muslim world: crime rates plummet in this month, and sometimes fall to zero.

Fallacy three: Avoiding the literature

Another major problem for the crusaders of science is that they completely ignore the literature on the root causes of conflict and violence. None of the major theories on domestic or international conflict emphasize religion as a central factor, let alone singling it out as the root cause of violence. The major theories explain violence as resulting from peoples’ ambition for power, from liberalism with its inevitable conflict of interests and peoples’ inability to solve them in cooperative ways, and from class conflicts. To the subscribers to any of these theories, the argument that we could minimize or eliminate violence in this world if we could substitute scientific inquiry for religious faith is simply laughable. For them, religion is at most a secondary factor and therefore its elimination does not help to address the root causes of violence. As such, scientific crusaders’ emphasis on religion as a cause of violence is misleading and unhelpful because it moves our attention away from other more influential factors which could be more successfully addressed. In this respect, the anti-religion arguments of Harris, Dawkins, and the like resemble the wishful thinking of the nineteenth-century positivists. Ironically, ignoring the real forces at work neither makes the world more peaceful nor serves these scientists’ very goal of converting people to “scientism”. The new rise of religious faith since the second half of the twentieth century indicates that science and reason alone have failed to provide sufficient answers to peoples’ metaphysical questions or solutions to their moral problems. Hence, the return to religion!

Fallacy four: Imbalanced sheet

Last but not least, we have been taught since elementary school that we should never come to a judgment on any issue without first evaluating its pros and cons. What we see in the books of Dawkins and Harris, however, are only questionably negative aspects of religions and religious people. We see no appreciation whatsoever of the virtues of religions and their positive influences on their adherents. To start with one of the most obvious, is it not intriguing enough a question for Darwinian Dawkins to ask what prevented the Muslim Moors of Spain from following the “survival of the fittest” rule and simply annihilating the Jews and Christians of the Iberian Peninsula? How rational or scientific is it to simply avoid studies that have found that “teens from intact families with frequent religious attendance were the least likely to have ever shoplifted,” ⁹ “adolescents’ religiosity was related to a decreased likelihood of delinquent behavior,” ¹⁰ “increasing individual religiosity decreased tax fraud acceptability,” ¹¹ and “regular religious attendance was inversely associated with the perpetration of domestic violence,” ¹² to name but a few? Interestingly, the books of scientific crusaders have no place for such virtuous consequences of believing in God. It seems not only religious people have dogmas!

To conclude, certain scientists’ arguments against religions in general and Islam in particular lack scientific basis and thus do not merit much scholarly attention. There might be some valid grounds to criticize religions and their adherents as they are, but, believers or not, we all deserve more holistic, more scientific, and less hostile evaluations of religions. If atheist scientists want to wage a crusade against dogma, their own would be a good place to start.

Kaan Kerem has a PhD in political science. He is a freelance writer on philosophy and scientific thought.

Notes

1. Author of The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006.

2. Author of The End of Faith, W.W. Norton & Company, 2004.

3. http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#harris.

4. http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#atran.

5. Ferguson, David M., L. John Horwood, Kathryn L. Kershaw and Frederick T. Shannon (1986). “Factors Associated with Reports of Wife Assault in New Zealand.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46: 663–70.

6. Ellison, Christopher G. and Kristin L. Anderson (2001). “Religious Involvement and Domestic Violence among U.S. Couples.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(2):269–86.

7. Ibn Maja, Section: Marriage, Hadith # 50.

8. http://www.yenisafak.com.tr/arsiv/2004/mayis/31/g01.html

9. Fagan, Patrick (2006). A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good. Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation.

10. Regnerus, Mark D. (2003). “Linked Lives, Faith and Behavior: Intergenerational Religious Influence on Adolescent Delinquency.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(2): 189–203.

11. Steven Stack and Augustine Kposowa (2006). “The Effect of Religiosity on Tax Fraud Acceptability: A Cross-National Analysis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(3):325–51.

12. See note 7.

A: Islam saved women who were exploited, enslaved, and regarded as second class in the darkness of the pre-Islamic Age of Ignorance from the position of a poor creature and elevated them to a new status as a blessed being. Islam freed women from being treated as a tool of pleasure and laid Paradise under their feet. If the essential sources of religion and the exemplary lives of the first two generations of Muslims who lived after God’s Messenger are carefully studied, it will be seen that Muslim women were absolutely not confined to their home and they were never oppressed. If those who come up with such claims are not prejudiced and are not making deliberate assertions, then these ideas stem from being ignorant of the essential principles the religion set on this matter and from attributing misconceptions and misapplications-which originate from interference of local customs-throughout history to Islam.

Islam is the only religion which has given women such extensive rights; when we look at the Qur’an, practices of the Prophet, and the history of Islam, except for some abuses caused by individuals’ mistakes, it will be seen that women gained the most exalted status in Muslim societies. Yes, women have a unique position in Islam, which can never be found in other systems. Even the societies considered as the most developed in our time are backward on this issue and they cannot be compared with Islam.

In these modern societies, even though women seem to have a certain freedom, it is rather a freedom to satisfy certain carnal desires, and such a freedom, whether for men or women, cannot be welcomed by primordial human nature and sound intellect; it cannot be acceptable in any divine religion. In recent centuries, the difficulties of making a living brought by bloody wars between states and the pressures of economic needs pushed women into the workforce and out of their homes. After this emergence, women started to earn their own livelihood and to some extent they gained economic freedom as individuals, but in many cases they were not saved from being exploited by capital holders, who wish to benefit particularly from their physical attractions. Unfortunately, especially in Western societies, women have found superficial and artificial love only at a particular moment of their lives in proportion to their contribution to the market, to material values, and to their serving men’s carnal desires. However, they have mostly lost the respect and love they previously experienced in social life as daughters, sisters, wives, mothers, and grandmothers, and this can never be replaced by anything else. In the long run, under the guise of freedom this time, they got to be exploited on and on with modern techniques (!), they were deprived of most inalienable rights, and become a victim of abuse equivalent of the dark ages.

As a reaction to all the injustice done to women (such as their lack of civil and property rights and the absence of justice toward women in family law) a movement to claim women’s rights emerged, particularly in the West. Even though this movement is considered an awakening of women, it occurred as a reaction and was doomed to imbalance like all other reactionary movements and ended up in extremism. Although the starting point was to defend women, in time it deviated from the original aim to the degree of being full of hatred towards men and to feeling a grudge against them. The movement named feminism, which was born from the idea of protecting women and providing them with rights equal to those of men, has only left behind longing, sorrow, and wreckage as a movement of discontentment. Nevertheless, the representatives of feminism, which now has different varieties, have pursued very different demands and the movement has frequently deviated from protecting the rights of women to the excess of trying to establish their dominance.

Two bodies, one soul

God has created woman as a partner to man, not as anything else. In this respect, he cannot be without her and she cannot be without him. According to Muhammed Lutfi Effendi, the Sufi scholar and poet (d. 1956), even though Adam was in Paradise, he lived in sorrow during the time when he was without Eve. Had Eve been created first, then at that time she would have lived in sorrow without Adam, since they could not do without one another with respect to their creation. They were like two bodies and a single soul and represented the two different faces of one truth. God has created women and men in relation to each other as He created the electron in relation to the proton, the negative pole in relation to the positive one, the female seed in relation to the male one. As He composed a whole from these pairs, He willed woman and man to make couples. Yes, as the positive is joined to the negative, the electron is joined to the proton, night is joined to day, summer is joined to winter, and the earth depends on the sky, to the same extent woman and man are created dependent on one another. God’s Messenger expressed this truth as follows: “Surely, women are the other half of men.”

In this respect, women and men are equal halves in terms of their humanity, but neither of them is ever the same as the other. They hold certain differences in their primordial nature, physical potentials, spiritual worlds, and psychological structures; but men are not a biologically mature form of women, nor are women a less or more developed form of man. Both are individual human creatures and they are in essential need of one another. In accordance with this balanced understanding, women were granted the lofty status they deserve at the time of the Prophet; they undertook responsibilities to suit their nature, and the vital position of women in society was reestablished. This great revolution took place at a dark period when the world was immersed in savagery and when it was being discussed whether women had a soul or not.

The place of women between extremes

Islam did not deprive women of anything; it just kindly granted them exemption from certain liabilities. For example, Islam does not hold women responsible for attending congregational prayers and sermons, fasting or praying at certain times, or undertaking paid work to support themselves or their family. However, Islam does not prevent any woman’s voluntary attendance at a congregational prayer, such as Friday Prayer. In the reference books on the sayings and life of the Prophet there are reports that women attended different congregational prayers including the prayer for rain.

Not making women liable for everything men are responsible for is an expression of Islam’s kind approach towards women. This manifestation of divine Mercy is based on the following essential: Women are generally more compassionate and merciful than men. As a compliment to her vast compassion, the All-Merciful Creator who is the sole owner of true mercy honored women with a different aspect of His blessings and freed her from certain liabilities.

According to Islam, women’s role in this world is not only restricted to doing the housework and raising children. In fact, as long as it does not conflict with her primordial nature or with observing religious requirements, she is responsible for carrying out the duties that befall her in every area of society and making up for shortcomings where men fall short in social life. However, this reality was ignored in time, even among Muslims; rough understandings and crude thinking upset this system based on women and men’s mutual assistance. After this upset, both family life and the social order were also upset. Different peoples’ perception of their own historical heritage as a part of Islam, their seeing and reflecting their folklore and traditions as essentials of religion, and making judgments pertaining to this issue at certain periods all resulted in the usurpation of women’s rights; they were pushed into a more restricted area day by day, and in some places they were totally isolated from life without consideration of where this issue leads. However, the source of mistaken thoughts and deviations in this matter is not Islam whatsoever. The mistakes belong to those who misinterpret and misapply the religion. Such mistakes in practice must definitely be corrected.

On the other hand, while correcting these mistakes, approaching the issue from a feminist standpoint will upset the balance again and an opposite extremism will replace the former. For instance, just as it is very ugly to see women as merely child-bearing objects and is insolence towards them, it is equally unbecoming and unnatural to build a society where women are unable to bear and bring up the children they wish for, or for a woman to feel a need to rebel against marrying and to avoid bearing children in order to show that she is not a machine. As a woman is not a dirty dish, her place at home is not confined to the kitchen with the dirty dishes. However, a woman who claims to have no household responsibilities and thereby turns her home to a quarters for eating and sleeping is far from being a good mother, a good teacher, and a good spiritual guide to her children.

Besides all this, it is another form of oppression to make women work under difficult conditions, such as mining and road-building. It contradicts human nature to push women into heavy tasks like agricultural manual labor, or military field operations, and other harsh pursuits, just for the sake of proving their equality with men; it is nothing but cruel torture. It shows ignorance of women’s qualities and conflicts with their primordial nature. Therefore, just as an understanding which imprisons women at home and takes them completely away from social life is absolutely incorrect according to Islam, likewise, depriving women of financial support, preventing them from bearing and raising children in security, and forcing women into the labor force to do uncongenial work is also oppressive. A woman, like a man, can have a certain job as far as her (and his) physiology and psychology are taken into consideration; but both women and men should know that a good life consists of sharing and division of labor. Each should assist the other by doing tasks in compliance with their nature.