Violence. It surrounds us. It is all over the media. It is so common in our society today that violence has become the norm rather than the exception. Perhaps one out of every ten people in the United States have experienced or witnessed a violent crime. Psychology Today states that homicide is the 5^th most common cause of death in the United States in all age brackets between 1 and 44 years. Violence to one’s self, in the form of suicide, is ranked second only to death by accidental causes. As violence is a behavior, it is common to lay the blame for violence to a psychological abnormality. Unfortunately, that is not the cut and dried case.

The potential for violence exists in all of us. It is part of our biology. Especially in males. Men are far more predisposed to violence than women, and this has been the case since the dawn of time. We were violent to hunt for food, protect ourselves and our families and to maintain order in society. As we can see, violence is still required today to do much the same thing.

Everywhere, we see the potential for violence. In how the police keep the peace, in how the military defends politics and diplomacy across the globe. In how one group seizes property, or food, or people against their will through the use of violence.

While we are predisposed to violence as a species, let us not forget that we haven’t brought ourselves to the point of extinction yet. This is because for all of our violent tendencies, society has developed a moral structure. Whether it’s because of a common belief in a spiritual concept, a religion, or just some inner moral compass, society has evolved with laws. These laws guide us through what is right and what is wrong. Such an evolution has brought some structure to societies, and has maintained some control over humanity’s violent aspects.

While yes, psychology is part of the equation of violence, there are other determining factors that make a person more predisposed to violence. For instance, it has often been discussed that environment, and external influence play a large part in violent behavior. A person who grows up in a violent environment, or around violent people may be more apt to be violent themselves. This can be seen across the United States where people grow up, and live in rough neighborhoods. Young impressionable people tend to go with the flow in order to be accepted by the elder violent natured individuals in their society. Observing aggressive behavior makes children learn new aggressive behaviors, for we tend to imitate the specific behaviors that we see, and start to believe that it is OK to do the same (Bandura 1973).

Influences in that environment could be a constant state of war such as we see in developing countries. It could be gang members who recruit younger people through coercion, or exposure to violence. It could be any number of hate groups who are able to influence people, imparting to them at a young age that one race or another is inferior, or to blame for something. In doing so, such groups are able to convince people that an ethnic group is deserving violence. So it can successfully be debated that environment, and external influence, are definitely keys to violent behavior.

There are others who argue that it is only biology that is the defining factor regarding violent behavior. In an article for Medical News Today, the author writes that the Hypothalamus, the ventrolateral part of the ventromedial hypothalamus, and the Lateral Septum areas of the brain are specifically to blame for violent behavior. Biology can be a factor to understand violent behavior in relation to build-up of electrical impulses that finally get released in a physical expression. But it surely does not help to explain exactly why these impulses get built-up.

In my opinion, I believe it is a combination of factors. I am United States Air Force veteran who has deployed to numerous locations where violence is common, and then spent time as a contractor there. From my exposure to these other cultures, I can say that I believe that environment plays a large part in violent behavior along with external influence. The more people are fed the idea that violence is acceptable, the more they are inclined to exhibit violent behavior.

It is true though that biology is really the tie that binds all of us into a predisposition for violence. Studies have shown that any person placed under enough negative mental stress will react violently to the situation they are in. In effect the Fight or Flight response is triggered. This is because regardless of environment, influence, or predisposition, we are all human and are all hardwired in the same way. Violence is a product of the Fight or Flight response. When presented with a given situation imbued with enough negative mental stress, we will either fight or run. Factors such as environment and influence will either mitigate or exacerbate our response.

To make matters worse, the ingestion of certain drugs such as amphetamines can produce states where the individual is more prone to be violent. The same can be said for alcohol, which is notorious for lowering impulse control. If the condition is chronic, then the individual will become violent over and over again. Again this is a matter of an external influence.

Now having said that, there are certain people who argue that psychology is the only defining factor. According many health professionals, mental illness is widely considered the principal cause for violent behavior.

People with psychotic tendencies who have no real sense of right or wrong are certainly more predisposed to violence. This is especially so in Paranoid Schizophrenics, where people come to believe they are being persecuted. They may then attack the person they believe is persecuting them. The same can be said of people who are sexually deviant. Often they will perform violent acts against other people to satisfy a psychological need. However, there is a standing argument that sexual deviance is a product of both environment, and the individual being a victim of sexual violence themselves. Therefore, potentially, sexual deviance is a result of environment and negative external influence.

The trend of violence in today’s society has reached epidemic proportions. In violent riots, people may act out violently because people around him or her are acting violently. It is perceived as normal to do so in such situations in which peer pressure, an external influence, lowers an individual’s self-control, thus allowing for violent behavior.

A child with a history of parental abuse kills small animals for the sheer enjoyment of doing so. The child has experienced violent behavior and is looking for an outlet to express his or her own violent tendencies. Once the child knows he or she has an outlet, they will continue to find ways to express their violent tendencies. The concern here is that as this person gets older, the need for release will need to be satisfied to a greater degree. Much in the way a drug addict needs larger and larger doses to maintain a high.

A soldier acts out violently on numerous occasions. He has a string of prior violent actions before joining the Army. Because of his violent tendencies, he is more accepted as a soldier. In such a situation, where violence is considered the norm, a person with a predisposition to violence could function for years before anyone caught on that they were actually emotionally disturbed.

A man with an automatic rifle walks in to a church and opens fire, killing dozens of people. Perhaps he has a deep seated hatred for an ethnic group. Or perhaps he has an issue with the religion being preached in the church. What is disturbing is that he has convinced himself over time that his actions are acceptable. He has decided that it is right to render violence to other people.

We see so much violence now that we have become jaded to it. Oversaturation of the topic by the media has made us numb to the violence in our society. We have in fact come to expect it. This is because the media knows that bad news sells better than good news. This is another example of external influence.

It is therefore my opinion that yes psychology does play a part. So does environment and external influence. When these three factors are combined with the fact that we are by nature, and biology violent creatures, the predisposition for violence increases exponentially. A word of caution however in stereotyping people who, based on these factors, are predisposed to violent behavior. We are all capable of violence. It merely depends on the situation we find ourselves in at a given moment in time.

References

• Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

·       Fields. R. Douglas. 2016. “The Science of Violence,” Psychology Today.

• https://psychweb.chbs.jmu.edu/Graysojh/pdfs/Volume101-ChildrenWhoAbuseAnimals.pdf
• https://www.traversebaycac.org/2018/06/15/animal-abuse-child-abuse-link/

Interfaith dialogue has been a very controversial issue and there have been a lot of discussions about it: its necessity, rationale, and success (Kurucan 2006). These questions have made it obvious that people are not aware of the real meaning of interfaith dialogue.

Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca (1969) explain dialogue as follows: “… (it) is not supposed to be a debate … but rather a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (196, 37). Related to this description, Gulen (2000) describes interfaith dialogue as “… seek(ing) to realize religion’s basic oneness and unity, and the universality of belief. Religion embraces all beliefs and races in brotherhood, and exalts love, respect, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, human rights, peace, brotherhood, and freedom via its Prophets” (The Fountain, September 2000). These descriptions bring out another question: how useful and beneficial can interfaith dialogue be in solving problems?

Interfaith dialogue does not aim to change the ideas of people about their religions or faiths, but seeks to find common ground between religions, to focus on communities, and through an emphasis on harmony and peace, find solutions to many of our common problems. In fact, one of the reasons for interfaith dialogue is to “provide an atmosphere of freedom” (Kurucan 2006, 17).

Another major proponent of dialogue was Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University. When he visited the Vatican in 1977 in a delegation, Nasr highlighted five areas that Christianity and Islam can work together to make the world better. These five areas are “dangers of modern technocracy and ecological ruin, energy crises, youth problems and decadence of morality and faith” (Kot 2009). In addition, Rev. Allman states, “The ability to discuss our religious and cultural differences is more than an ‘extra-curricular activity’; it is a skill which is vital for participants in democracy, especially a democratic society such as ours, which is filled with people whose differences are deep and complex” (The Network, 1999).

These statements show the importance of interfaith dialogue for the improvement of humanity and the goodwill of societies. Pinto (2003) highlights the role of interfaith dialogue in today’s society as “…an inevitable fact of our being-with-other-faiths.”

In connection to this, Swidler et al. (2007) state that, “In the past, during the age of divergence, we could live in isolation from each other; we could ignore each other. Now, in the age of convergence, we are forced to live in one world. We increasingly live in a global village” (Stress added, p.1).

Today most of the common reasons for dispute between religions, or between people of different religions, are that they do not understand one another’s beliefs or ideas (Baum 2011). Interfaith dialogue meetings, panels, conferences help these misconceptions and unfamiliarity disappear. And the result of such dialogues can be tremendous. As Smock states, “… when two or more faiths come together to explore or promote the possibility of peace, the effects can be especially potent” (viii).

The benefits of interfaith dialogue are obvious but still it is not an easy work. Once again, Smock (2002) highlights that “interfaith dialogue is a difficult, often painful endeavor” (viii). There are some prerequisites for interfaith dialogue to be successful. Swidler (2003) categorizes them as:

“1) an openness to learn from the other. 2) knowledge of one’s own tradition. 3) a similarly disposed and knowledgeable dialogue partner from the other tradition” (p. 12).

The importance of each prerequisite will be explained in detailed below.

Ingredients for a successful interfaith dialogue meeting

1) The most important component of interfaith dialogue is to remember the real meaning of dialogue. It is a two-way discussion that requires respect and understanding. This component may seem very simple to understand but it is very easy to forget. Swidler (2007) states that, “If this basic goal is kept fixed in view and acted on with imagination, creative and fruitful dialogue – and a growing transformation of each participant’s life and that of their communities – will follow” (p. 19). So for better results out of interfaith dialogue, the real meaning of dialogue should not be forgotten. Be sure to explain dialogue as “… a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca, 1969, 37).

2) In these meetings, participants must be aware of the fact that all of the participants are from different religious and cultural backgrounds, so interfaith dialogue is based on understanding and respecting all participants. In interfaith dialogue, none of the participants should try to discredit or question the belief system of the other participants.

3) Smock (2002) writes that stating the purpose of the meeting very clearly and choosing the right participants goes a long way towards determining the success of a dialogue. The purpose of the meeting should be decided by the participants before the meetings, very clearly and in detail.

4) While describing how to start dialogue, Bohme et al. (1991) state that suspension is an important part of dialogue. Listening to the other participants is a compulsory part of the process. During these meetings, all of the participants should be free of their biases and be open to understanding and recognizing new perspectives. Interfaith dialogue meetings are great ways to learn about different religions and different thoughts.

5) It should not be forgotten that in these meetings, we come together as people, not as belief systems, but these meetings provide an incredible opportunity to learn about, discuss, and understand other religions. “… the dialogue among the world’s religions and traditions should lead to a better mutual knowledge and understanding, and an exchange of the mutual values as an enrichment of one’s own faith and of the faith of the others” (Cosijns & Braybrooke, 2008, 55-56). However, a problem or mistake made in the meetings should not be used to generalize about a whole belief system. Kurucan (2006) states that by interfaith dialogue, “We refer to dialogue between the people of different religions” (17). So people in these meetings should not be seen as categories, sole representatives of their religions, but they should be seen as individual people, with their strengths and flaws – just like all of us.

6) Interfaith dialogue aims to find solutions to the problems of the world and other people by focusing on the similarities between belief systems. It does not focus on the differences and controversial issues.

7) Smock (2002) states that one-time interfaith dialogue meetings cannot be very useful, so there should be some follow-up sessions to enforce the benefits of the meetings.

8) In addition, it would be a good idea to learn about the religious practices of the other participants, see the differences between your own understandings, and be very careful about these differences during the dialogue process. Crowley (2006) states that setting the stasis – the parts that the participants may have different ideas about – is an important part of civil discussion. In interfaith dialogue, being aware of the stasis is important, so as not to offend the other participants.

9) No exclusives and no syncretism. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) state that in interfaith dialogues, no religion should be excluded. This would be a huge handicap for the success of interfaith dialogue. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) also highlights that trying to synchronize all religions into one can be just as dangerous as exclusiveness. As stated above, it is very crucial to accept all religions and religious people in their own belief system.

10) Dialogue can only happen between equals. If a religious group sees one group as inferior or even superior to another, no dialogue can happen. There cannot be sharing and understanding between the groups, which is the main aim of any interfaith dialogue.

Interfaith dialogue is an important concept in the globalized world. People from different religions live side by side in the globalized village and there are tons of problems that human beings face today. These interfaith groups are very crucial for a world in which “every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s one child every five seconds” (www.bread.org). The role of the interfaith dialogue in solving these problems cannot be underestimated. Smock (2002) states that “while religion can and does contribute to violent conflicts, it can be a powerful factor struggling for peace and reconciliation (viii).

References

• Abu-Nimer, M. & Khoury, A. & Welty, E. 2007. Unity in diversity: Interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Bohm, D. & Factor, D. & Garrett, P. 1991. Dialogue: A Proposal. Retrieved from http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
• Cosijns L.F. & Braybrooke , M. 2008. Dialogue among the faith communities. Lanham, MA: Hamilton Books.
• Crowley, S. 2006. Toward a civil discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press
• Gulen, M.F. 2000. “Necessity of interfaith dialog.” The Fountain Magazine. Issue 31.
• Kot, Z. 2009. “Muslim-Christian relations: The traditionalist interfaith dialogue” (Unpublished master thesis) George Washington University, Washington, DC.
• Kurucan, A. 2006. Nicin Diyalog: Diyalogun temelleri. Uskudar, Istanbul: Isik Yayinlari
• Perelman C.H. & Olbrechts- Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Pinto, H. 2003. Faucault, Christianity and interfaith dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge Publications
• Smock, D. R. 2002. Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Swidler, L. & Duran, K. & Firestone, R. 2007. Trialogue: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Dialogue. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications.

Destruction is easy. Those who want to destroy something should first know how to construct something. Otherwise, the shortcomings that emerge after destruction will be impossible to solve. Some issues are not open to destruction unless a clear alternative has been set forth. I think one of the most significant missions of the prophets was to set the balance pertaining to this issue. They exposed all the fallacies in society, and exclaimed bravely, “this is incorrect.” They did so convincingly, looking people in the eye. They immediately offered alternative “corrections,” and prevented any sort of chaos or shortcomings. That is, they handled every matter on both positive and negative fronts and did not allow any kind of mental or sensual abyss to emerge. Without plans and projects of “construction” that have been built upon a firm foundation, any sort of destruction or demolition will be reckless.

As a matter of fact, simply due to the lack of this approach, sometimes individuals, sometimes families, sometimes states – in a direct proportion to the dimension of the mischief committed – are destined to collapse. The Ottomans primarily come to our minds, if we want to examine the issue from a state or national perspective. Sometimes, sultans were dethroned with thoughts of replacing them with better ones. But these absences created a power gap, they couldn’t find better rulers, and the people yearned for the old sultans. Because of this, the Ottomans were severely weakened, creating a power vacuum in the region.

It’s with deep regret that we must acknowledge this sort of historical mistake is still being committed. Without alternative, precise plans and projects in place, states or governments are being erased. That is, opposition consists only of loaded slogans and criticism. If they were asked how things really should have been, they would not know. A state or government may surely make mistakes. It should be open to criticism. But that criticism should never amount to, “let’s destroy it and then figure out an alternative.” Such a thought would weaken the state and could even cause the total loss of national credibility.

Believers should have no affiliation with those pursuing incorrect actions. To prevent a serious dissolution of national will, and against the dangers presented, they should always do what is expected of them. To those who chase them and torment them, believers should merely utter, “everyone acts according to his own character” (Qur’an 17:84). On this issue, balance is very important.

In conclusion, everything should be done in accordance with the proper rules. And while endeavoring to construct, the utmost care should be taken to avoid total destruction. Shortcomings should be avoided by heeding historical lessons. And the nation and state should not be recklessly sacrificed.

Whatever the conditions may be, a believer should not go out of the frame of good manners, civility, and decency, for others ascribe all of their actions to faith. Thus, even in the face of the most grave situations or unyielding cases, believers should not swerve from their direction. Examining the life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, we see that he never changed his manners, even at times when he was challenged by Abu Jahl, the man who did all possible evil to oppose the Prophet.

There is occasionally a bitter tone in some of the Qur’anic passages as far as unbelief and unbelievers are concerned. However, we should clarify here that this harsh style is for devious thoughts and ideas, not for individuals. The Qur’anic message does not position any individual as an opponent just because of who they are. It is profane thoughts and views of denial – which are not unique to certain individuals but which have always existed and will continue to exist – that the Qur’an deals with rather harshly. This is a lesson believers should learn from the Qur’an in their engagement with others.

This is an attitude to be adopted not among people only, but among states, too. Let us reify the concept by an example from the Qur’an. God’s message to Moses, peace be upon him, concerning his encounter with the Pharaoh was, “but speak to him with gentle words, so that he might reflect and be mindful or feel some awe (of me, and behave with humility)” (Ta Ha 20:44). Speaking with gentle words and softly, even if it is the Pharaoh you are going to deal with – the Pharaoh who afflicted you and your nation with all possible oppression and violence. Another remarkable point here is that the Qur’an binds reflection and God-consciousness to “gentle words.” By a reverse conceptualization, we could induce the meaning that “in case you advance towards him in virulence, he shall neither reflect nor stand in awe.” So, benignity and tolerance are indispensable articles to communicate a message, whoever the addressee is.

That is, a believer always has to stand in the climate of a gentle attitude, gentle state, gentle heart, gentle conscience, and gentle words, so that they can serve others with true guidance. Otherwise, all the states and attitudes of those who have not been softened, melted, and molded in this Prophetic spirit will be artificial and theatrical. Such insincere people may smile for a while, but they will expose their teeth and present their genuine nature when their tails are stepped upon. Indeed, for how long could a firefly deceive astronomers that it is a star?

In the light of these criteria, it is also possible to read the descent of the Messiah on earth in the latter times with a message of being “without a hand to those who beat you, without a speech to those who curse you, and no hearts for those who break hearts,” even if some may consider this out of balance.

The example of Bediuzzaman, the sufferer of the age, is unique. Even towards those who had been his most merciless, inhumane torturers he managed to communicate the truths of faith and was never offended. Indeed, have believers not exerted every single effort to shine the inspirations of their souls to those who dug ditches and pushed them in?¹

Communicating with someone, or spreading a message, is impossible by raving or clamoring, violence or anger. Maybe violence was once a method or tool; but time has invalidated it. Today, the principle of persuasion is, and will be, dominant ever after. Today’s devotees of love should reach the level framed above, and should make abundant practices about that.

As as pointed out above, in the latter times, the Messiah will surely descend on earth in order to fulfill that significant mission, even, say, if he is in the remotest corner of the Hereafter. But this descent is dependent upon the meaning and spirit within your representative, collective body. Yes, he will descend to be the mold for that meaning. If that spirit is missing, I think, his corporeal descent will not mean anything. To conclude, we should know that a resurrection in the latter times will be realized by the reviving breaths of the heroes of love who represent gentle states, gentle attitudes, gentle hearts, and gentle words.

1- See 85:4 in the Qur’an for the short passage on tyrants who dug ditches of fire and killed believers.

With half the world living on less than $2.50 per day and with 46.2 million people in the United States living below the poverty line, poverty is a growing concern.

The United States is known all over the world to be a very powerful and rich country. It is not just American people who believe in the American Dream, but also many people from other countries have been dreaming of coming to the US to live in better conditions. Although the US is thought to be a rich country, we still see hungry and homeless people, especially women and children in the streets. Women, who are either married or unmarried, whether supported by their husbands or single mothers with no support, struggle to earn money for food, clothes, safe shelter, and other intangible needs such as love and happiness. When observed closely, it is easy to understand the reasons why this is so. It is because of the wage gap between men and women, the decreased amount of opportunities in having high income jobs, and the fact that more women are the head of their household compared to men, means that the ratio of poor women is rising, and the increased need for governmental help makes “welfare” necessary.

Understanding the definition of poverty becomes very important because it categorizes people into groups which are poor and wealthy. Richard Ropers states that poverty can be understood and described in numerous ways, and that people will not understand the meaning of poverty if they do not recognize the situation of the poor. To be poor means to not have any sustenance, shelter, or any support from family. However nowadays, living alone, or being pushed out of society, being under depression of unchanging destitution also describes poverty. Being fired from a job, losing self-esteem, having no power, or being away from cultural values are also other parameters to describe poverty (Ropers, 25). Ropers also describes “widespread poverty” as a disloyalty to the democratic values’ failure to gain optimism. Successful leaders must aim to provide economical comfort for their citizens. If the majority of the people are not happy because of poverty, it means the government is not as strong to deal with the problems.

The official poverty line is inadmissible as an accurate system to determine the number of poor people. “The US government identifies the poverty line by multiplying the cost of a minimally nutritious diet by three,” then the number of people who live in the same house is calculated (Popers 35). According to the Census data for 2011, 46.2 million people in the United States lived below the poverty line. According to Peter Edelman, a law professor in Georgetown University, even though there are so many hard working people, they are still living in poverty or just barely above the poverty line (Bilitteri, 723). These people are not given the necessary governmental support. There is also a huge gap between the poor and the wealthy people in the US (Cooper, 337). The highest income is $102,000 for households, just 1% of the population, and the lowest earning is $250 for people, who make up 90% of the population, explains Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (Bilitteri, 723).

One given image portrayed in the media is that “the poor have only themselves to blame” (Mantsios, 638). The problem of poverty is not just one individual’s problem. There is a strong connection between the poor and society. How can a defenseless child be responsible for being poor, not having shelter, and for not earning any money? How can a single or divorced mother with a little baby, without any family help, be expected to work full time without feeding the little one for hours. The term “poor are eyesores” (Mantsios, 637) is not a responsible and thoughtful depiction, rather, it is a way of not being able to see the problems of the people outside and breaking away from the realities of the poor.

More and more women, especially single mothers, are experiencing poverty at a higher rate than the rest of society. Ropers notes that 58% of women are facing poverty, and in this category 48% of the women are the head of their household. According to Albelda and Tilly, 50% of single women are below the poverty line with no support of a husband. In 1993, while 16% of families struggled against poverty, simultaneously, 52% of single mothers, bereft of husband or family support, experiences real difficulty to provide for their basic needs. Most women work at least two jobs at the same time. On the one hand they work at home without earning any money, and on the other hand work outside to earn money (Albelle & Tilly 307). In 1947, about 38% of women were working mostly in paid labor jobs; however, in 1954, the number of working women who were African American, doubled to 54%. Then in 1996 the ratio of working women rose up to 88%, as reported by Albella and Tilly. Even though the number of hard working women is increasing year by year, they are still, except for a small percentage, earning low income and their situation still remains below the poverty line. According to Albelda and Tilly, “women’s earnings are considerably lower than men’s, approximately 70 cents to the man’s dollar.” This difference makes women’s lives miserable as they try to work outside and head the household all at the same time.

For so many years, women have been endeavoring to have the same rights, opportunities, and benefits as men have in their working lives. Although women’s working situations are not as bad as some years ago, women still face graceless and unpleasant discrimination when they look for jobs. Even though women are more educated nowadays and have more opportunities to get a job, there are distinctive wage gaps between men and women. Being the head of the family (Bernstein, 370), giving birth to a child, being under differentiation of occupation, and being sexually abused by employers are some of the common reasons as to why women are behind men when it comes to the benefits of the jobs (Wage Project, 373).

Family responsibilities are one of the most common reasons why women work in a part time job instead of having a full time job (Bernstein, 371). There are so many married or single women who do most of the household responsibilities while trying to work in a job. It is hard to deal with the chores and manage the expectations at work at the same time. For this reason, women in these kinds of situations prefer to work in part time jobs. According to Bernstein, only 25% of women are able to work full day, for the rest of the women cannot dedicate their whole day for work. This being the case, women cannot get the equal remuneration like other women who work in full time jobs. Interestingly, there is also a huge payment gap between women who work full time and men who work full time. Bernstein explains that “on average women work a lot less than men: 1,498 hours a year, vs. 2,219 worked by the typical man.” According to The Wage Project, part time women employees make only 38% of men’s full time yearly salary. Bernstein also mentions the Hartmann and Rose’s data which shows that women employees can have the same benefits if they leave all the family responsibilities behind and come to work behaving like a “traditional man.” The continuation of such unfair treatment is sure to wear down woman, a situation that’s already strained them enough.

Another reason for the wage gap between men and women is the choice a women makes to have a child (Wage Project, 378). Bernstein says after quoting Bergland that after delivering a child, women have to work part time or stay away from work for a while because they do not receive the necessary help from the society.

Nowadays, the position of women employees is assumed to not be as powerful as men’s by most bosses (Wage Project, 377). Even if men and women have the same educational level (Bernstein, 372) and women show more talent, the suggestions made by women are mostly not considered important until, of course, there is no other choice but to accept (Wage project, 375). Bernstein states that women’s yearly salary is much less than men’s, even when they are at the same educational level.

Sexual harassment is another important factor for women to leave their jobs (Wage Project, 377). Sometimes in situations like these, women are unfortunately seen as sexual means by their bosses. If the women, even if they are educated, do not accept the advances of their bosses, they have no choice but to leave or drop out of their jobs, benefits, emotional solidity, and sometimes even their lives (Wage Project, 377). Women encounter such discriminatory situations at the same time while they are dealing with difficulties which they have in their personal lives.

Some people think that people are getting welfare because they are too lazy and they don’t want to work. This theory can be true for just a few people. Making this kind of generalization for all people who are in poverty is derogatory against them. Albelda and Tilly say that the reasons for the poverty experience by single mothers and their families is not because of their laziness or lack of ambition. They are in poverty because they don’t have parent support, they face job discrimination, they earn less than men, and they have the added responsibility of taking care of their children. Blaming the poor is so easy, but being aware of their situation and helping them out of it would be the best thing for all.

Making reforms on the welfare program will make it work well. Some malicious people display themselves as poor to get support from welfare. Under the welfare program, the situation of the applicant must be clarified through an attentive investigation. Determining the really needy persons, eliminating their needs, and opening free high qualified career courses will make welfare a more beneficial program for the poor and will reduce the complaints made against the program.

Being in poverty is mostly not a personal choice. People in poverty don’t just lack food or safe shelter, but they have also lost their hope and happiness. Women, especially single mothers with no support, encounter the most difficult situations of all. Having an income less than men, taking care of their children without any support, facing job discrimination, and heading the family are the most common adversities faced by women today. Receiving no government support will not help reduce their problems; on the contrary, having access to effective government support will let people in poverty know that there are people with helping hands, people who care about them and who think about them. Poor people need helping hands, at least to not let them give up their hopes and dreams.

References

• Albelda, Randy.,& Tilly, Chris. 2001. “‘Women, Income, and Poverty’: There’s a Family connection.” Race, Class, and Gender in The United States. Ed. Paula S. Rothenberg. New Jersey: Worth,. 305-314.
• Billitteri, Thomas J. “Gender Pay Gap.” CQ Researcher 18.11 (2008): 241-264. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. “Domestic Poverty.” CQ Researcher 17.31 (2007): 721-744. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. Cooper, Mary H. “The Working Poor.” CQ Researcher 5.41 (1995): 969-992. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. 5 Nov. 2008 “Income Inequality.” CQ Researcher 8.15 (1998): 337-360. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. 5 Nov. 2008
• Glazer, Sarah. “Welfare Reform.” CQ Researcher 11.27 (2001):601-632. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Elisabeth Sturn Library, Reno, NV. 5 Nov. 2008 Berstein, Aoron. 2007. “‘Women’s Pay: Why the Gap Remains A Chasm.” Race, Class, And Gender in The United States. Ed. Paula S. Rothenberg. NJ: Worth. 370-372. Mantsios, Gregory. 2007. “‘Media Magic: Making Class Invisible.’” Race, Class, And Gender in The United States. Paula S.Rothenberg. New Jersey: Worth. 636-643. Ropers, H. Richard. 1991. Persistent Poverty, New York: Plenum. Rothenberg, Paula S. (Ed.). 2007. The Wage Gap And Its Costs. Race, Class, And Gender in The United States. NJ: Worth. 373-378.

An average English reader is often familiar with the Shakespearean character Hamlet and his inaction—or rather, delay in action—being at variance with his strong aspiration to restore order to the world around him. Despite his beautiful country rotting around him, the young nobleman Hamlet vacillates between listening to the inner voice of “the man of contemplation” and the inner voice of “the man of action.” The desolate quietness and inactivity of many intellectuals and thinkers of our modern age looks very much like the inability of Hamlet’s taking action. And when they finally decide to carry out their ideas, they mostly end up taking the wrong action, as in the Shakespearean tragedy of Hamlet. One may certainly be a man of original thoughts and lofty ideals, but thoughts go in vain unless they are implemented in practical, daily life. Dr. Suat Yildirim rightly puts forward in his foreword to the honorable scholar and author M. Fethullah Gülen’s Reflections on the Qur’an that, “Integrating theoretical knowledge and thought with action is very rare, and indeed according to many is even impossible. Undoubtedly this assessment is true to an extent, but there are always exceptions, like the works of Fethullah Gülen. A renowned scholar and man of action and thought, Gülen adds this new work to his existing collection of more than fifty [now seventy] books.”

Our intellectually productive and spiritually proactive author epitomized long ago the very field of exerting effort and struggle in the two words “action and thought” in his book titled, Statue of Our Souls. Describing “thought” as the contemplative activity or “action in one’s inner world,” this man of action and mission states that deep contemplation and reflection can deepen us in our faith, but contemplation will be of little avail if it is not transformed into action in our practical lives. Having led a life marked by activism and a passion for the service of all humanity, Gülen conceptualized his idea of activism with the term “positive action” which can evidently be seen in the worldwide civil society initiatives he has inspired. His activism based on this positive action lies in his “deep spirituality,” which is best reflected in his recent book, Reflections on the Qur’an: Commentaries on Selected Verses, recently published by the Tughra Books in New Jersey.

What is strikingly noticeable in this work are the proofs showing that the Qur’an is the greatest Divine gift to be understood and conveyed from the Mercy of God to the human mind for a thorough reflection. Indeed, everyone has the right to reflect upon the Qur’an to understand the messages in its verses; more than that, it is a duty upon those equipped with necessary, accurate knowledge. In this work, paying careful attention to the disciplines of tafsir methodology and having frequent references to both the classical and contemporary sources, including Bediüzzaman Said Nursi’s Risale-i Nur Collection, the author approaches many issues from a different, wider perspective and presents new insights and fresh interpretations to the understanding of the modern age.

Activism as the Philosophy of Life

In this work, the author presents readers with an important “philosophy of life” in his exposition of the verse, “Therefore, when you are free (from one task), resume (another task)” (Al-Inshirah 94:7). He expounds on how believers should live their lives without wasting any minute and without leaving any gaps, “hasting from one activity to the other, fulfilling their duties that fall upon them within the framework of services rendered for God’s sake and for the happiness of humanity.” He advises believers to remain active all the time “by changing activities” and further recommends them to “rest by working and work while resting”:

Indeed, a believer should always be active; both their working and resting should be an activity. In other words, believers should arrange their working hours in such a way that there should be no gaps in their lives. In fact, as a requirement of being a human, people should rest as well, yet this kind of resting should be an “active resting.” For instance, when people whose minds are busy with reading and writing become tired, they can rest by lying and sleeping, but they can also rest by changing the work or activity they do. They may read the Qur’an, perform the Prayer, do physical exercise, or engage in a friendly conversation. After a while, they can return to their normal activity.

In the book, one can clearly see a holistic approach from thorough contemplation and reflection to belief, from belief to its practice, and from practice to deeper devotion and consciousness of God. One can encounter an example of this all-inclusive approach in the exposition of the verse, “Whoever keeps from disobedience to God in reverence for Him and in piety, He enables a way out for him (of every difficulty)” (At-Talaq 65:2). Here, the author interprets the key concept of “taqwa,” or reverent piety and righteousness, used in the verse in an extraordinarily exquisite way. He states that taqwa means observing the Divine ordinances in every walk of life, which requires, therefore, obeying both the religious commandments and the laws of God’s creation and maintenance of the universe. The author calls the former (i.e., obeying the religious rules and commands) “internal piety and righteousness” and the latter “external piety and righteousness.” He states, however, that it is not easy to attain taqwa, or reverent piety and righteousness in both dimensions. He further elucidates that the verse under discussion makes use of the word taqwa in verbal form to mean “keeping from disobedience to God and doing His commands in reverence for Him and in piety. The mood of the verb chosen expresses submission, admission, and adopting the action ordered with the verb used as an indispensable dimension or depth of one’s nature or character. That is, it denotes thinking, acting, and living a life in obedience to God, fulfilling His commands, refraining from His prohibitions, and following His laws of the creation and maintenance of the universe and the laws He has established for life.”

In the verse under discussion, the author also draws readers’ attention to the necessity of observing Sunnatu’llah, or God’s Practice, as much as the obligation of observing religious commandments. He says, “if we abstain from the unlawful, fulfill the obligatory commands in perfect sensitivity, avoid the dubious as much as possible, and even become cautious with respect to the allowable, and if we observe God’s Practice or way of dealing with His creation—which we also call God’s laws of life and creation and maintenance of the universe—God will then save us from the different degrees of difficulties into which we have fallen.” He further states that a really pious person is one who believes and practices what he believes by fulfilling both his “personal responsibilities in devotion to God” and “social responsibilities within society.” He also emphasizes that social responsibilities extend further beyond one’s personal relationship with God.

Preserving this holistic approach throughout the book, the author focuses his efforts not on pure contemplation or abstract trains of thought, but rather on actively helping people to accomplish their duty of reflecting thoroughly upon the created books of the universe and man, along with the revealed book of the Qur’an—which is the written counterpart of the universe and the human.

Contemplation on the Outer and the Human Inner World for Renewal

On reflecting upon the “created” books of the universe and the human inner world, the author asserts, “Our lacking of such a comprehensive contemplation or reflection is our greatest problem and shortcoming. Truly, we are devoid of reflective thoughts that renew our faith and keep us alive at all times.” While expounding on another verse that says, “We will show them Our manifest signs (proofs) in the horizons of the universe and within their own selves, until it will become manifest to them that it (the Qur’an) is indeed the truth” (Fussilat 41:53), the author first states that, “the signs and proofs of truth are dealt with in two categories,” and then refers to those proofs that are provided by the universe as “external proofs” while he refers to the ones that are available within man himself as “internal proofs.” As for the expression, “We will show,” used in the verse under discussion, he says that it means “humanity will continue to see and discover more and more truths and admit that the Qur’an and the universe describe each other, that the Qur’an translates the universe, and the universe “reads” the Qur’an.” He further elaborates on the issue as follows:

The proofs provided by sciences are not restricted to those that have already been discovered. There are still so many matters to be studied by sciences such as anatomy, physiology, psychology, biology, physics, and astrophysics that will be clarified in the future and provide numerous new proofs for the truth of all Islamic beliefs, including especially God’s existence and Unity, the Qur’an as the Word of God, and our master Muhammad as the Messenger of God.

Should people successfully read the signs and proofs of these three “books”, such people of perception could then advance safely towards walking along the broad, Straight Path, which is illuminated by the Qur’an and best applied in the life of the noble Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace and blessings.

Qur’an as the Greatest Miracle

In a hadith, the noble Prophet said, “Every Prophet before me was bestowed miracles because of which people believed, and the (greatest) miracle I have been given is the (matchless, miraculous) Qur’an which God has revealed to me (as guidance for the entire humanity and jinn). Therefore, I hope my followers will outnumber the followers of all the other Prophets on the Day of Resurrection.” In order to help realize this glad tiding of the Prophet, the believers ought to reflect upon and truly understand the Qur’an, put it into practice in their daily lives, and thus benefit from its Messages greatly.

In compliance with the miraculous nature of the Qur’an’s eloquence, the author explains matters in this extensive commentary on selected verses of the Qur’an with consummate succinctness without tiring the reader. In doing so, he analyzes a matter from different perspectives, and if need be, he clarifies the matter in detail without causing any objections or further questions. He presents matters in such a systematic and persuasive manner that the addressee becomes fully satisfied and enlightened.

The author thoroughly explains, for instance, how believers will attain prosperity in both this world and the next through their adherence to the holy Prophet’s greatest miracle and how their honor and happiness will widely be circulated throughout the world by means of the Qur’an in his exposition of the verse, “Now We send down to you a Book which contains what you must heed in life for your honor and happiness. Will you not, then, reason and understand?” (Al-Anbiya’ 21:10). Here, the author expounds first on the fact that the addressee of the Divine Message, “We send down to you a Book,” is “all humanity,” beginning with the Companions of the Prophet and including all of humanity and all times to come until the end of the world. He puts forward that the Almighty God “promised the first addressees of the Qur’an, explicitly, and all those to come later, implicitly, that they would gain reputation and glory through the Book—the Qur’an—sent down to them.” He elucidates that the word “dhikr,” which is used in the verse and given the meaning of honor and happiness as well as reputation and glory, also suggests advice and preaching, “The hadith, ‘Religion is advice,’ which is short in wording but comprehensive in meaning, highlights this reality.” The author presents more insights into what the verse further suggests: “While the states and communities around you complete their lifespan and withdraw from the stage of history one after the other, you will be able to exist eternally owing to this blessed ‘dhikr’—the Qur’an.” He further says that the Qur’an is the “reference source for everyone” who wants to learn more of the true religion of Islam and embrace it.

Speaking for the Sake of the Reform of the Addressee

The author frequently draws attention to the Qur’anic style of speaking sincerely and for the sake of the reform of the addressees while giving advice to them or warning them because of their wrong. In his exposition of the verses, “Go, both of you, to the Pharaoh, for he has exceedingly rebelled. But speak to him with gentle words, so that he might reflect and be mindful or feel some awe (of Me, and behave with humility)” (Ta-Ha 20:43-44), the author emphasizes that “speaking with gentle words” (even to such people as the relentless enemy of God and despotic tyrant Pharaoh) should be an indispensable attribute of the spiritual guide or conveyor of the Message. He further elaborates on “gentleness” not only in speech but also in behavior and manners as part of the nature of such people. If not, he says, the addressees will move away. If one acts in this way, however, there might appear some who “might reflect and be mindful” of God.

Reminding us of the principles of loving for God’s sake and hating for God’s sake, the author further states that “a person is loved for his virtues and perfections and is disliked because of his vices and evils. So our hate is directed toward attributes and deeds, rather than the persons themselves. The Qur’an describes those who sin and do wrong as those who wrong themselves. Therefore, we pity those who wrong themselves and desire their reformation. In any event, we should be gentle and kindhearted and act gently in conveying Islam to others. Even if our addressees do not accept Islam, we have done our duty.”

Inaccurate Interpretations

While providing further insights on this Qur’anic manner of addressing people for their guidance and reform in his exposition of another verse in Suratu’l-A’la (87:9) which says, “So remind and instruct (them in the truth) in case reminder and instruction may be of use,” the author corrects certain misinterpretations by saying:

If we do not consider the reason why this and similar other verses were revealed, some inaccurate interpretations may arise, such as “Why do I continue reminding and instructing since they are of no use!” or “I have gone to them many times, but they do not pay heed,” or “Those people are not qualified to believe; therefore, it is useless to continue preaching them.” The verse says quite the opposite… Indeed, conveying God’s Message to people and calling them to believe in it is God’s command which must be fulfilled incessantly. While doing this, we should not consider whether people will accept it or not.

He further states that the conditional clause in the verse under discussion, “In case reminder and instruction may be of use,” has the meaning of emphasizing our responsibility of conveying the message rather than limiting it.

An eloquent, powerful speech, the Qur’an, which was revealed for the guidance and benefit of people, absolutely has the potential and capacity to give benefit. Some may not benefit from it while there are many who do benefit from it and are guided! Therefore, we should understand the verse in discussion as, “Remind and instruct, because it is definitely of use.”

Our author refers to the following two mistakes that have usually been made while interpreting another verse that says, “Certainly, she (minister’s wife) was burning with desire for him (Prophet Joseph); and he would have desired her had it not been that he had already seen the argument and proof of his Lord” (Yusuf 12:24). He states that, “Joseph, a sinless, sincere Prophet, is approached like an ordinary man overwhelmed with his emotions and desires,” and, therefore, the verse is interpreted from this wrong perspective: “She desired, and was moved toward him; and he desired, and was moved toward her, but just at that point he saw the evidence of his Lord and stopped.” As for the second misinterpretation of the verse, he says, “There are others who approach the issue contrary to human realities and claim that Prophet Joseph, upon whom be peace, had no sexual desires. This would imply a defect of a Prophet of God and is utterly unrealistic.”

Intrinsic Relations among the Verses

The author effectively raises awareness in the reader that the verses of the Qur’an interpret each other and make references to one another. One can, therefore, see clearly in this work how the individual verses of the Qur’an are intrinsically related with some other verses and with the totality of the Qur’an. For instance, the author shows this intrinsic relation among verses when he elaborates more on the aforementioned subject of the believers’ honor, reputation, and dignity in his exposition of verse 28 of Suratu’l-Kahf as follows:

Islam has always existed and will continue to exist with its own dynamics. It gets its unbeatable power from God. For this reason, whoever holds fast to Islam truly and sincerely is destined to be honorable and dignified, while whoever breaks with it is condemned to be despicable. The history of Islam offers plenty of examples of this.

The author presents further insights on the same subject in his exposition of another verse in Suratu’l-Maedah about the attributes of the chosen people who have taken the responsibility to represent the Religion and convey its message to others. These are the people who are “most humble towards the believers, dignified and commanding in the face of the unbelievers, striving (continuously and in solidarity) in God’s cause, and fearing not the censure of any who censure…” (Al-Maedah 5:54). In his analysis of the verse, the author states that a believer’s honor and dignity lies not in their social status, wealth or profession but in being a believer. He says:

Indeed, all might, dignity, and glory belong to God, to His Messenger, and to the believers as pointed out clearly in Suratu’l-Munafiqun (63:8). Therefore, we should continue serving Islam everywhere-at home and in schools, in the streets and at the markets-feeling in ourselves the honor and glory of Islam without fearing the censure of anyone who will censure and without feeling any inferiority complex in the face of unbelievers. While stating the attributes of the dignified community which God will raise up to exalt Islam, the Qur’an also miraculously points to certain characteristics of our time.

In relation to these believers who are “dignified and commanding in the face of the unbelievers” and who would come in the distant future after the Companions, the author further states that these chosen people “are not stern as the Companions were against the uncivilized disbelievers of the desert. Since at the present the victory over hostile ideas is through persuasion rather than force, it will be enough for us to stand firm and dignified with the honor of Islam in the face of the unbelievers.” Of course, this part of the respectable author’s analysis alludes to another verse in Suratu’l-Fath where he makes this comparison of the chosen people with the Companions, who were “firm and unyielding against the unbelievers, and compassionate among themselves” (48:29). While the first praiseworthy quality of the Companions is given in the verse as their being “firm and unyielding against the unbelievers,” their second quality is given as being “compassionate among themselves.” In the verse under discussion, however, the author asserts that those chosen people that would come centuries after the Companions are described first as “most humble towards the believers” and then as “dignified and commanding in the face of the unbelievers,” thus giving precedence to humility and the persuasion of the civilized people of modern times. In this way, it is made aware that Qur’anic verses, just like the one under discussion, extend ropes of relations to all times after their revelations no matter when and in what circumstances they were revealed.

Reasons of Revelation and Universal Messages

Indeed, this issue is one of the striking characteristics that is immediately noticeable in the book! Drawing the reader’s attention to the universality of the Qur’an, the author says, “Since the Qur’an is a universal Book, its messages are also universal.” Therefore, interpreting a verse “only according to the reason it was revealed would limit the scope of the verse,” he says in his exposition of the verse, “Who is more in the wrong than he bars God’s places of worship, so that His Name be not mentioned and invoked in them” (Al-Baqarah 2:114).

Even if this was revealed to denounce the Assyrian and Babylon kings and Romans who banned the Jews or Christians from worshipping in Baytu’l-Maqdis in Jerusalem and the Makkan polytheists who prevented the Muslims in Makkah from worshipping in the Masjidu’l-Haram, further interpretation is appropriate…This verse relates to anybody who bars God’s places of worship, so that His Name cannot be mentioned and invoked in them. The use of the “places of worship” in the plural also corroborates this interpretation of the verse. Therefore, those who wanted and attempted to crucify Jesus are greater in wrongdoing than others no matter when they live. Similarly, those who have banned people from worshipping in Baytu’l-Maqdis are greater in wrongdoing than others; those who prevented God’s Messenger and his Companions, from entering the Ka’bah and worshipping in the Masjidu’l-Haram as well as those who follow them in barring people from mosques in all ages are greater in wrongdoing than others. Likewise, the ones who leave the mosques and masjids abandoned and those who prevent believers from their religious practices do the greatest wrong.

Our author here includes all those who bar people from places of worship and who are thus denounced by the verse, starting from such ancient tyrants as Nebuchadnezzar, Shapur, Titus, and Adrianus to all the wicked people who attack the places of worship in any period of history, including the brutal forces that will demolish the Ka’bah and the Masjidu’n-Nabawi at the End of Time.

Psychological Exegesis in the Stories of Prophets

Oftentimes, the author turns the reader’s attention to the need for the psychological exegesis of the Qur’an, saying that the exegetes have as yet devoted very little attention to the psychological aspects of the Qur’an. He does this especially when he expounds on the stories of the Prophets and the bygone nations mentioned in the Qur’an. The respected author asserts that the stories of the Prophets and their peoples are neither figurative nor symbolic; all the Qur’anic characters are the real flesh-and-blood figures that present us with the never-fading embodiments of certain truths. Through the eye of the modern man, he reads like a book all the words, actions, manners, and mindset of, for instance, the tyrant Pharaoh, relentless Capitalist Korah, and such hypocrites as the wives of Prophets Noah and Lot who betrayed them, siding with unbelievers against the Prophets. While he clearly portrays their psychology and character traits and presents us with clear hints to be able to recognize such hypocrite people, Pharaoh-like despots or Korah-like ultra materialists and thus see their projections in our own times, he extends ropes of relations to the modern age and raises in us the awareness for the need to take necessary precautions against such evil people.

On the other hand, through the narratives of the lives of the Prophets, he raises in the reader the awareness towards achieving the aim of becoming the living embodiments of the Qur’an. Often, the author strongly recommends the readers of the Qur’an to “try to make the connection between the time, place, conditions, and the figures mentioned in the verses and their own time and place and the very conditions surrounding them” in order to truly benefit from them and see their similar projections in their own times. He further says, “If we view the narratives in the Qur’an as certain stories about certain bygone peoples, our benefit from it will be little.” He asserts, however, that the door to its blessings and benefits will be opened if we approach it with the conviction that the Qur’an addresses us directly.

In conclusion, the core message this essential work gives to its audience is the necessity of understanding and reflecting upon the messages of the Qur’an, committing to them, and then acting upon them in their own practical lives. Throughout the book, readers can certainly see the fasla’l-khitab-clear, effective and decisive communication of ideas towards achieving this end. Being quite exceptional in his decisive and persuasive communication of messages in the book, the author achieves addressing both the scholarly and the general audience of the contemporary age. His minimal use of technical terms of the field of Qur’anic exegesis enables his message to reach a wide and diverse readership. Without lowering the quality, he has penned the book in a grand but simple manner comprehendible to the average English reader. As a final point, following the good example of our respected author who completes his exposition of most of the verses with a heartfelt prayer that is in compliant with the general message of the relevant verse, we pray to our Lord to grant him continued success in his services and to make this book be a means of tremendous reward for the author and beneficial for the wider audience—both Muslims and all interested seekers striving to explore the depths of meanings and purposes of the Divine Speech.

Book review by Huseyin Bingul

Middle Eastern men, especially Muslim men, have been depicted in the media as angry, violent, oppressive, and inhumane madmen who terrorize the innocent. Wilson, or Willow as she is referred to in the book, openly discusses her initial fear of Middle Eastern men as she states, “I had been taught to fear [Middle Eastern men]… they always seem like nice guys. It’s only after you’ve gotten involved that you discover the honor-killing wife-imprisoning fundamentalist reality beneath the façade” (43). Wilson, through her interaction and relationships with men in Egypt, depicts a very different side of Muslim men in the Middle East. She portrays men as kind, protective, and respectful. Her interaction and relationship with these men varies greatly, beginning with her husband, Omar, and continuing even to two local shopkeepers. Willow’s husband, whom she met in Egypt and is Muslim, is far from the stereotypical Middle Eastern man depicted in the media. He is kind, gentle, respectful, intelligent, and patient. Though Omar had never shown anything other than these qualities, Willow was often skeptical of him and how he would be once they married. When Omar’s female relatives began to place ideas in Willow’s head that Omar was a “traditional” man who would require her to slave in the home cooking and cleaning, she became alarmed and confronted him. Omar responded, “I am not marrying you to have a servant, I’m marrying you because I love you… You have this idea of a stereotypical Arab man in your head, and you keep confusing him with me” (204). Omar never deviated from being an honorable man through the entire book; he always respected and supported Willow in whatever it was she wanted to do: to visit Iran alone, to visit her family in Colorado alone, and even to move to the U.S. with Willow. Another major reoccurring theme when it came to her interaction with men in Egypt was this concept of them being very protective of their women, “The men began to treat me with the same protective chivalry they extended to other Muslim women” (108). While living in Tura, Willow and her friend Jo regularly shopped at a duken where they formed a friendship with its owners, Mohammad and Namir. There was one particular visit to the duken where a fellow shopper questioned Willow asking her if she was American. Mohammad and Namir immediately turned their attention to the man watching and listening to how he spoke to Willow. Willow described the scenario as following, “I noticed that Namir and Mohammad had stopped stocking the shelves and stood very still, looking at the man with an expression that was not friendly. Without speaking, but very clearly, they were saying Stop, go back, and approach her more suitably” (131). Willow further explains her and Jo’s relationship with the shopkeepers by elucidating, “Mohammad and Namir subtly defended our honor by insisting that within the confines of their shop we should be treated like Arab women… with the proper degree of respect” (130). There was also a fararghi, or poultry seller, Am Mahmoud, who came to Willow’s defense as well. While shopping in the market one afternoon, a group of American tourists stared at Willow trying to decipher if she was American or a Muslim. Willow describes Am Mahmoud’s reaction: “At the same moment, Am Mahmoud himself, cleaning his hands with a cloth, stepped between me and the street, screening me from the view of the tourists… the tourists moved on… Am Mahmoud had protected me from exposure and embarrassment as he would an Egyptian girl” (211-212). Though Willow also acknowledges the presence of some desperate, gawking men in Egypt, she more importantly acknowledges and shares with her audience the truth that men in the Middle East are not as they appear in the media. They are human beings and share the same emotions that everyone else experiences. They are protective of their women and have no intention of abusing or oppressing them. They are kind, gentle, and respectful; quite the opposite of violent, angry, and controlling as seen in the media.

Women have also been utilized as a tool in the American media to depict the Middle East and Islam as oppressive and condescending towards women. The media stresses the human rights violations of women in the Middle East, including honor-killings, abuse, polygamy, and lack of education. The media often portrays women as helpless and forced to cover head-to-toe with drapery. What the media does not discuss are the independent women in the Middle East or the reasons behind gender discrepancies within Islam. Wilson, on the other hand, exposes a different side to women in the Middle East: independent women, who are the head of the family. One very solid example of this type of women is Omar’s mother, Sohair who is also Muslim. Sohair was a single mother who worked hard her entire life to bring herself and her children out of poverty. Wilson also explains that just as in the West, many young women in the Middle East are also becoming more concerned with their careers and their education rather than just being a housewife. In addition to meeting Sohair, Willow realized the role of women through her interaction in the market and as a bride in Egypt. Wilson discusses women’s role as she states, “She is the one who builds relationships with the vendors of the best meat and the freshest fruit, and argues for the lowest price; she knows herbal remedies for dysentery; it is she who cooks for ten people out of three pots when relatives drop by unexpectedly. In Egypt, women create the civilization the men merely live in” (207). She goes on to discuss women’s rights in the Middle East and how they are better off since they have influence rather than rights: “Why push for rights when you have influence? A gusty, intelligent woman in the Middle East can steer fortunes of her entire family with a minimum of exposure and risk; giving her a full complement of western rights would limit the scope of her power by exposing her to the same public scrutiny as men” (270). Wilson further addresses women’s rights in Egypt and how if she were to marry Omar as a Christian, she would have fewer rights than as a Muslim (90). She even briefly discusses how the marriage license “entitled [her] to a slew of things if Omar took a second wife” (94). Lastly, Wilson touches on the believed double standard of men and women in the Middle East and in regards to being a Muslim. Willow explains that neither Islam nor the Qur’an warrants female oppression, “Islam, in its purely textual form, took my side. There is no religious limit on the public spaces that women can inhabit; nothing prevents them from running businesses or driving cars, there is no reason they must walk behind men or cover their faces. A woman’s role is not defined by the kitchen and the nursery” (80). While visiting Colorado and enjoying coffee with a friend, the friend inquired about women not being allowed to be in the company of another man if he is not her husband or of her husband’s family. Willow beaks this idea of an oppressive, double standard as she says, “There are only two genders here. Creating a rule for one necessarily creates the same rule for the other. You could just as easily asked whether Omar could go out with another woman or be alone with her, and I would have given the same answer: no” (228). Women hold much more respect than the media leads on to believe. They present one side of the matter without fully explaining the other. Willow summarizes the truth of women in the Middle East for her audience as follows, “It was such a tantalizing contradiction, being a woman in the Middle East—far less free than a woman in the West, but far more appreciated” (250).

The media has created an image of all Muslims as being extremists. What they fail to mention in their new reports is the simple fact that that extremists make up only a small fraction of the Muslim population and those in the Middle East fear these individuals as well, not just Westerners. Islam is the second largest religion in the world; if all or even a majority of Muslims were extremists and terrorists then there would be a much greater number of attacks around the world and on a much more regular basis. Wilson makes clear this point throughout her work. She briefly describes a fundamentalist mosque near her apartment and how “the screams of the muezzin” woke the entire neighborhood up at 4 am (123). Wilson even attempts to explain the truth behind fundamentalists and their actions, “The fundamentalists we could see from our bathroom window hated us for very religious reasons… It became clear to me… how little the anger of our local extremists had to do with military America. While the situation in Iraq gave them political legitimacy and direction, and a dangerous amount of emotional leverage with average Muslims, it was not the reason they were angry. They hated America that exports culture” (135-136). The media is also guilty of blaming Islam for supporting terrorism; which Wilson makes clear is not the case by any means, “Dozens of fatwas against terrorism have been issued since 9/11, many by high-ranking clerics. The silence of the press to positive gains made by moderate Muslims has enabled damaging misconceptions about the religion and its leaders” (243). Wilson even interviewed a mufti, who stated that Islam “aims to protect human dignity and human rights” and that it forbids “tyranny, prostitution, suicide, drug abuse – anything that treats a human being as an object” (247). Finally, Wilson attempts to also clear up the misconception that all Muslims hate Americans and that the Middle East only has a negative view of America and its people as she explains, “To speak about America in such bitter generalities was not typical in Egypt, except perhaps among hard-line fundamentalists” (278). Once again the author tries to make clear that the false generalizations and fallacies presented by the media. Though terrorism is a real problem, and though the extremists do use Islam as an excuse, it does not represent Islam or the Middle East by any means. Just as Americans do not all want to be stereotyped by what is seen in Hollywood, Muslims do not want to be stereotyped by only what is broadcast in the news.

“There was so much about Islam and the people who lived it that was left unsaid in the media and in public discussion, and I could do something about it” are the very words which explain the purpose of G. Willow Wilson’s The Butterfly Mosque. Wilson’s work was a well-written attempt to bridge the gap between the Middle East, mainly Islam, and the United States. She illustrated the truth: the good and bad of both cultures. While she focused on closing the gap between what is seen in the media in the U.S. in regards to men, women, and fundamentalists, she never presented only one side of the matter. She acknowledged and made reference to the fact that there were truths to the stereotypes, but that the stereotypes did not apply to everyone. These incorrect stereotypes of men being oppressive and violent, women being submissive and abused, and all Muslims being fundamentalists are incorrectly applied to the majority when in reality this applies to a small minority. Readers of this work will finish this book with a new perspective on Islam and that of Middle Eastern culture.

Jessica Danielle Phillips is a senior in International Relations at Rollins College in Winter Park, FL.

Book review
Wilson, G. Willow. The Butterfly Mosque. New York: Grove Press, 2010.

The theory of plate tectonics explains what happens at plate boundaries. According to this theory, there are three primary plate boundary conditions; divergent, convergent, and transform boundaries. Divergent plate boundaries are characterized by ocean ridges and sea floor spreading; volcanoes are the most obvious setting. Here, a new crust is generated because the plates pull away from each other. Convergent plate boundaries are characterized by trenches and island arcs. In this setting, the crust is consumed in the Earth’s interior as one of the plates dives under another. In the case of transform plate boundaries, the crust is neither produced nor destroyed, as plates horizontally slide past each other. Significant earthquakes can occur under all of these boundary conditions.

We typically associate Japan with earthquakes because we know that it is a very earthquake prone island. The state of Alaska in the United States is also earthquake prone. The total number of earthquakes in Alaska per year is greater than the total number of earthquakes in the rest of the United States. The examples of Japan and Alaska reveal that more earthquakes occur at locations close to the plate boundaries. On a global scale, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Chile, and western United States, are located along the so-called “Pacific Ring of Fire,” where about 90% of the world’s earthquakes and 80% of the world’s largest earthquakes occur.

The magnitude of an earthquake is a representation of the total amount of energy released by the event. Typically, it is measured using the recorded ground oscillations from a seismogram. However, the interpretation of the magnitude is not straightforward because the magnitude scale is logarithmic. For instance, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake produces approximately 10 times more ground motion and releases about 32 times more energy compared to a magnitude 6.0 earthquake (2).

According to the statistics published by the US Geological Survey, every year on average 134 earthquakes with magnitudes 6.0 to 6.9 occur worldwide, 17 earthquakes with magnitudes 7.0 to 7.9, and at least one large earthquake with a magnitude greater than 8 (Figure 3). Further, the number of earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater has remained fairly constant but the number of moderate earthquakes (i.e., 6.0 or less) appears to be increasing. According to experts at the US Geological Survey, a partial explanation may lie in the fact that there is a tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world over the last twenty year. Thus, the actual number of earthquakes has not increased, but our ability to detect them. In scientific terms, this is referred to as reporting bias (3). When it comes to myths about earthquake activity related to weather and time, scientists rejects any connection. Earthquakes occur whether it is warm or windy, early in the morning or late at night.

In the United States, earthquakes are one of the most significant natural hazard for around 75 million Americans living in 39 states, including the state of California where the majority of the state’s population lives within 32 km of active faults. Historically, the region has been very active (Figure 4). To help predict earthquakes in California, a multidisciplinary group of scientists and engineers from various disciplines established a team entitled Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP). The team had a very ambitious objective to develop a comprehensive earthquake rupture forecast model for the state of California using the best available science. The details of the sophisticated model are beyond the scope of this essay, but the recently released report (USGS Open File Report 2007-1437) is available for public access (5). In her essay entitled, “The big one is evitable. Catastrophe is not,” Cathleen Decker, an editor of the Los Angeles Times, refers to the future predictions presented in the report as a “Chilling look into the future” (7). Based on historical evidence and scientific data, it is almost certain (with a 99% chance) that there will be at least one earthquake with magnitude 6.7 or greater in the state of California within the next thirty years. The likelihood of a more significant earthquake (magnitude 7.5 or greater) within the next thirty years in California is 46%. In the Greater Bay Area specifically (area includes large cities such as San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland), the probability of at least one earthquake with magnitude 6.7 or greater within the next thirty years is about 67% (6).

The current state of science considerably reduces the risk of death and damage by making resources available to individuals, teachers, policy makers, and engineers, but unfortunately, science at this time can neither prevent nor predict the exact time when an earthquake will occur. Casualties, financial losses, and mental trauma are sometimes inevitable for earthquake victims. Social and emotional suffering are often not limited to actual victims, but to everyone who has access to the news. Unlike financial and material losses, the psychological consequences of an earthquake exposure are long lasting. To address these consequences, earthquake preparedness should include mental and social aspects of the disaster as well.

Reference

• This dynamic Earth The Story of Plate Tectonics by W. Jasquelyne Kious and Robert I. Tilling (Online edition) U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/Vigil.html
• USGS Earthquake Hazard Program – Earthquake Facts and Statistics http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php
• USGS Earthquake Hazard Program – Are Earthquakes Really on the Increase? http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
• California Geological Survey – Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment – Historic Earthquakes http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/Pages/historic.aspx
• The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2) By 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008 http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1437/
• USGS Earthquake Hazard Program – 2008 Bay Area Earthquake Probabilities http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/
• Los Angeles Times (January 17, 2010) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-week17-2010jan17,0,4714976.story

•conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq)

•compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan)

•deployed thousands of special forces to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc.)

•imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse

•waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries

•killed Osama bin Laden, the inspirational leader of Al Qaeda who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Have these actions – which some have called, “World War IV” – made America safe?

In a narrow sense, America is safer and justice has been served. There has not been another attack on the scale of 9/11. Our defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved. This is the positive side of the ledger.

In a broader sense, however, America is not safe enough. Anti-American suicide terrorism rose rapidly around the world in the decade since September 11, 2001. In 2003, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously asked, “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” As even a casual glance at the facts shows, the answer is a disappointing no. The negative side of the balance sheet is daunting.

September 11, 2001 was so devastating largely because it was a suicide attack in which 19 hijackers killed themselves in the course of killing 3,000 innocent people. So the key to tracking the threat is to focus on suicide terrorism, especially those inspired against Americans.

Look at the numbers. In 2000 – the year before 9/11 – there were 20 suicide attacks around the world and one – against the US Cole in Yemen – was anti-American inspired. By contrast, in 2010, there were well over 200 suicide attacks and about 90 percent were anti-American inspired – against US troops or those working with America – a ten-fold increase over the past decade.

Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. Yes, these attacks are mostly (although not exclusively) focused on military and diplomatic targets. However, so too were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and (as mentioned) bombing of the US Cole in Yemen in 2000 were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month.

American military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, lack of will among the American people, lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.

No. American military policies are not failing for the standard excuses. Something else is creating the mismatch between America’s effort and the results.

What went wrong

America has been waging a long war against terrorism, but without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill us. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, this was perfectly understandable. If toppling the Taliban was necessary to take out Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, so be it.

But, in an instant, there was also a great need to know, or perhaps better to say, to “understand” the events of that terrible day. A simple narrative was readily available and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Since the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill us. Within weeks after the attack, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, “Why do they hate us?” and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of who we are, not what we do.

The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution – one whose ambition only made it seem all the more worthy in light of the trauma of that terrible day. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: to transform Arab societies – with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.

The only problem: Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of suicide terrorism. What drives this phenomenon more than any other single factor is foreign military presence – which inspires wave after wave of individuals to join terrorist groups in order to carry out suicide attacks in the hope that these would end the foreign presence in their lands.

On September 11, 2001, the United States had deployed over 12,000 combat forces to countries on the Persian Gulf (5,000 in Saudi Arabia and 7,000 in other countries along the rim). We now know that these troops were the principle rallying cry of Osama bin Laden in his efforts to mobilize volunteers for suicide attacks against the United States and that the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers – their last video will testimonials – prominently justify their actions as in response to Western military control of the governments on the Arabian peninsula. Further, escalation of American combat forces in the region for the Iraq war directly fueled still further anti-American suicide terrorism.

Hence, the grand solution became the grand catalyst for more anti-American inspired suicide terrorism than ever before.

What we know

Vast new research on suicide terrorism has produced important new knowledge. Here is a summary of what we know:

•Occupation causes suicide terrorism

Over 95% of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation

•The more occupation, the more suicide terrorism

As America has occupied two large Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq with a total population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically – from about 300 from 1980 to 2003 to 2000+ from 2004 to 2010. Further, 90% of all suicide attacks are now anti-American.

•Indirect occupation is the equivalent of direct occupation

The US compelled Pakistan to deploy 100,000 troops against the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pakistani suicide attacks escalated dramatically.

•Ending occupation can end suicide terrorism even without transforming Muslim countries

Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%. Since America and its allies began withdrawing from Iraq, suicide attacks are also falling fast.

•Empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism

In Iraq, the surge’s apparent success was not the result of increased US military control of Anbar Province, but rather quite the reverse – the empowerment of Sunni tribal leaders for their own security, commonly called the Anbar Awakening.

•Taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism

In Afghanistan the ISAF’s expansion strategy, designed to exert more central government control over the Pashtun tribes in the Western and Southern provinces, caused a resurgence in the Taliban and an increase in the number of suicide attacks.

The tide is turning

The oxygen for America’s strategy is, fundamentally, how we understand the root cause of the terrorist threat we face. In recent years, the intellectual climate has begun to change. In January 2010, a Zogby poll found that 27% of Americans now believe that the “most important factor” motivating terrorists to attack the United States is that they “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”

American military policies are also changing. The United States started to draw down military forces from Iraq in 2008, has already removed 100,000 troops, and is on schedule to end its commitment of heavy combat forces there next year. Since their peak in 2007, suicide attacks in the country have fallen by over 80 percent and the country is more stable today than at any point since America conquered the country in 2003.

In Afghanistan, President Obama announced in July his plan to remove about a third of US forces from the country over the next year and to continue drawing down thereafter. If so, there is good reason to expect that suicide attacks will soon begin to decline significantly there as well.

Fortunately the US does not need to station large ground forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan to keep them from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy called “Off-Shore Balancing” that relies on over-the-horizon air and naval forces and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with empowering local groups to oppose the terrorist groups. No matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will maintain a significant air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and those forces are well-suited to striking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias – just as they did so successfully against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.

Above all, to truly move beyond the war on terror, it is important for scholars, policy intellectuals, government leaders, and the public at large to continue to educate themselves about the factors that lead to suicide attacks like 9/11. The more we know, the fewer mistakes and the better our policies – and the more we can all live our lives in peace.

Robert A. Pape is Professor and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and author of Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (2010).

Turning to the path that Bosnian identity has followed in the New World, we must first recognize that ethnic identity and religion can intersect at different angles. Over the course of my encounters with members of the Bosnian community, I have come to observe that Bosnian refugees consider themselves Muslims in a cultural sense, a sense they said was generally devoid of actual practical content. This suggests a conception of ethnic identity perceived to be one and the same thing as religious identity. This “culture=religion” formulation may help explain, at least in part, the rather scarce presence of Bosnian Muslims in American mosques in cities where Bosnian refugees have resettled (This, however, should not be construed to mean that one can express piety only by going to the mosque; the role and function of mosques in American society would itself require another essay). The relative indifference of important segments of the Bosnian population toward religious practice is additionally due to the lack of understanding and focus on the suffering of Bosnian Muslims during the 1992–1995 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The influence of recent memories of not having been treated fairly by the international community-including the Muslim world-during the war, it was reported to me, plays a role in the scarce presence of Bosnian Muslims in the greater American Muslim community.

Among Bosnian refugees in the city of Syracuse, statements by both the refugees themselves and the officials of the Islamic Society in Syracuse confirm the actualization of the “culture=religion” identity formulation amongst Bosnians in Syracuse. Some young Bosnians, for example, do not attend in big numbers at the otherwise compulsory congregational Friday prayer performed in the multinational Syracuse mosque. My own observations and the remarks of the officials from the Islamic Society confirm that no more than ten per cent of the Bosnian Muslim population attends the Friday prayer. Nevertheless, these same youth convey the unease they feel when their identity as Muslims is questioned (especially by non-Muslims in the workplace, at school et cetera). Bosnians have recently launched a mosque of their own in the eastern part of the city; however, leading members of the community told me the number of attendees in Friday prayers since the facility opened about two years ago is far less than they would have liked. However, attendance of commemorative events and bajram (eid) celebrations is remarkably more sizeable.

At the same time, some Bosnian Muslims have expressed discontent regarding the prevailing formulation in which religion is perceived as a cultural décor. There are sincere efforts by some members of the Bosnian population toward an authentic religious identity filled with actual content. Included among such efforts are the weekend classes offered at the Bosnian mosque, in particular for young Bosnian children, in which the essentials of faith, practical information about prayers, and similar topics are taught. But I have also been privy to conversations in which concerns were being raised that some young Bosnians have for some time been, to use their word for it, “Americanizing”: They are not as respectful toward their elders any more, they come home late, and drink-all of which suggest to the concerned that there are dangers ahead which might arise from experiments with American notions of freedom. Though one could argue that these notions do not necessarily or always imply these behaviors, it is important to recognize that Bosnian youth are growing up in an individualistic culture that includes values and practices which parents might find to be at odds with their own upbringing back in Bosnia. Coupled with the lack of adequate parental supervision over children due to demanding work schedules, this clash of values is a cause of concern for a youth that is not given the guidance to navigate through the intricacies of becoming American. In addition, a Bosnian friend of mine, who is currently a professor of political science, reminded that the refugees will soon face another hurdle: the increasing inability of young Bosnians to speak the Bosnian language. He claims that Bosnian children in particular speak only English among themselves, raising the probability that in a generation or two, the Bosnian language may become rare among Bosnians themselves.

Refugees from Srebrenitza living in Syracuse seek to keep the memory of the Srebrenitza massacre of 1995 alive. They publish booklets in English and Bosnian languages, issue bumper stickers (‘Never Forget Srebrenitza’), and hold commemorative ceremonies on the anniversary of the event. Bosnian Muslims concerned about the future of Bosnian identity in the New World see these activities as vital in terms of constructing a collective Bosnian consciousness in America.

It seems quite clear, at least to this observer, that the hyphenated identity term “Bosnian-American” is on its way to becoming the standard description to use in relation to Bosnians in the United States. The exact referent of that term will become clearer based on certain issues including (but certainly are not limited to), on the one side, the scope, nature, and effects of their feelings toward America, and on the other, their choice between cultural or practical religion.

Fethi Keles is an Adjunct Instructor of Anthropology at Syracuse University.