Fethullah Gülen was a multifaceted personality—a Sunni Turkish Muslim devoted to the well-being of the Turkish people; a renowned Sufi Islamic scholar; a mujaddid (renewer of faith); a humanist, visionary, teacher, poet, philosopher, and educationist; a preacher and motivator; a philanthropist; an ardent advocate of peace and non-violence; an Islamically grounded postmodern critic of the modernist vision of development; an ascetic and a loner; a voice for the voiceless and marginalized; a spiritual mentor and guide for millions; and the builder of one of the most vibrant Islamic civic-social movements and developmental models, known as Hizmet. This movement, originating in Turkey, has spread to approximately 160 countries across the world. Above all, he gave hope to the hopeless.

The inclusivity of Gülen’s Islamic thought, along with its philosophy of positive action and adaptive culture, enabled him and the Hizmet movement to thrive in diverse contexts—be they political, social, economic, modern, or traditional. This inclusivity fostered interactions with diverse viewpoints, including political ones, and facilitated collaborative relationships across cultures, faith groups, languages, and civilizations, all with the aim of serving humanity through social initiatives.

For this reason, modern social science scholarship, particularly in the field of religious movements, struggles to categorize Gülen and the Hizmet movement. Labels such as modernist, reformist, revivalist, fundamentalist, traditionalist, conservative, or Islamist fail to capture their essence. This difficulty also highlights why a “modernist mindset” often fails to grasp Gülen’s Islamic moral and ethical universalism and his everyday humility, which is deeply rooted in Prophetic traditions. For example, Dexter Filkins, a writer for The New Yorker who published a largely critical piece on the Hizmet movement following Turkey’s disputed 2016 military coup, expressed surprise and disbelief at Gülen’s response to a question during their interview that same year. When asked how he wished to be remembered, Gülen replied: “I wish to be forgotten after I die. I wish for my grave to remain unknown. I hope to die in solitude, with no one becoming aware of my death, and thus, no one conducting my funeral prayer. I wish for no one to remember me.” The writer sarcastically noted that this was “an answer the like of which I’ve never heard from another leader in politics or religion.”

Filkins, unfamiliar with Sufi discourse, failed to understand the depth of Gülen’s response. In the Sufi tradition, one lives in a constant state of nothingness, or fana (self-annihilation) before God, striving to remain His humble servant and to avoid the worldly temptations of glory, power, fame, and recognition. Similarly, some Western writers reduced the Hizmet movement to the concept of “market Islam.” Such characterizations reveal the limitations of a modernist framework, which relies heavily on rigid categories, binaries, and power-centric narratives. Unsurprisingly, many Western and Westernized media outlets interpreted Gülen’s legacy narrowly through the lens of the disputed 2016 military coup in Turkey.

Gülen’s Islamic ecumenism enabled him to critically address extremist, ideological, reactionary, and exclusivist traditions—whether rooted in Islamic or secular discourses. As such, he refrained from aligning with or approving, and often directly denounced, both the anti-religious, ideological secular state, including Kemalism, and Islamist constructs, such as Erdoğanism. For Gülen, these ideological and political frameworks were inherently inimical to the common good, as they relied on divisive “us versus them” binaries. Instead, he advocated for governance by a “neutral state” that respects the boundaries and autonomy of civil society, alongside the principles of equality, freedom, non-discrimination, and citizenship. This stance explains why both Gülen and the Hizmet movement became targets of attack from various ideological factions in Turkey—Kemalist, secularist, nationalist, and Islamist—primarily from state-centric political forces. These groups perceived Gülen’s vision of a “civil society Islam” as “too autonomous,” “too democratic,” and therefore “too dangerous” for the survival of Turkey’s tradition of statism, prompting efforts to suppress the movement under various pretexts.

It is extremely challenging to encapsulate the legacy of such a multifaceted personality, one who had over five decades of active public life within and beyond Turkey. Yet, certain elements of Gülen’s ideas and actions emerge as uniquely remarkable and exemplary.

First, Gülen’s Islamic hermeneutics is based on interpreting both the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet in synchrony, the latter as the explainer of the former. While many scholars of the twentieth century focused only on the Qur’an and many times on its literal interpretation. Gülen emphasized that the Qur’an is best exemplified through the life and practices of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his Companions, viewing them as inseparable. He believed that a proper, balanced, and inclusive understanding of the Qur’an—and its application to modern challenges—requires a profound knowledge of their lives and legacies.

Gülen introduced a methodological framework: an inclusive understanding of Islamic universalism requires an intra-textual approach that integrates the Qur’an and other Scriptures with the lived world of Prophetic Traditions, as narrated in multiple Islamic sources. He argued that an ahistorical, literal, and mechanical reading of the Qur’an and other Islamic texts has, in some cases, led to distorted, radicalized, power-centered, and violence-prone interpretations of Islam and its history. These misinterpretations, depending on the individuals or groups propagating them, have significantly harmed the image of Islam.

For this reason, Gülen emphasized that Muslims must prioritize the accurate representation of Islam in both private and public domains, both among themselves and in their interactions with others. Notably, he was one of the first Islamic scholars to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks and global terrorism. Drawing from his understanding of Islamic universal ethics and morality, he boldly stated: “A Muslim cannot be a terrorist, and a terrorist cannot be a Muslim.”

Second, Gülen’s Islamic ontology and praxis, following the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), has developed a human-centered theology. This paradigm, rare in the annals of Islamic philosophical and theological thought, advocates for the peaceful coexistence of diverse cultures, religions, civilizations, nationalities, races, political ideologies, and governing systems in the rapidly globalizing world. It is grounded in God-ordained universal human values such as love, tolerance, peace, friendship, trust, altruism, respect, compassion, forgiveness, solidarity, and social responsibility.

For this reason, Gülen, departing from conventional understandings of the Divine, boldly declared that “diversity is divinely intended.” This entails that promoting and preserving diversity in its various forms is a sacred act. Notably, for Gülen, the concept of diversity extends beyond collective differences to include diversity within each collective. He believed that faith in diversity is fundamental to any conception of democracy, as it necessitates an accommodation of differences. Most violent conflicts, in his view, arise from the politics of intolerance and a rejection of differences.

It is therefore unsurprising that Gülen prioritized “dialogue” and “consultation” as the two most essential principles for the functioning of any democratic society and state.

These humanistic values were crushed under various forms of modernity, pursued in the name of “science,” “positivism,” and “systems,” which have produced and continue to foster violence and homogenization. For Gülen, the challenge of his era—and for future generations—was to re-center these humanistic values within global developmental and political discourses. He believed that the promotion and expansion of these values are the true measure of sincerity, worship, and service to both God and humanity.

For this reason, Gülen strongly advocated for the need to “humanize and spiritualize” modernity and modern governance systems. Such an approach, he argued, would prioritize “human security” over the narrower concept of “national security.”

A third prominent legacy of Fethullah Gülen is his groundbreaking work in education, for which the Hizmet movement is renowned across the globe. One of the key reasons behind Gülen’s success in the field of education, both within and beyond Turkey, is his framing of access to and attainment of education as a fundamental expression of Islamic universal faith, identity, and humanity. While many have advocated for education, few have transformed their call into a vibrant social movement that has significantly contributed to the democratization of Turkish public life. This peaceful, democratic assertion of the “Muslim periphery” has made Turkish society more inclusive and diverse—a remarkable legacy in the Turkish context.

Gülen viewed education not only as a prerequisite for attaining iman (faith) but also as an equalizing force and a means of building capabilities to navigate the complexities of the modern world. This perspective inspired a dedicated generation, who, within a short span of time, carried the educational mission to many parts of the world, often in the face of great challenges and difficulties. I believe Gülen’s educational model as a “social movement” is desperately needed in underdeveloped regions across the globe to help reduce social and economic inequalities and contribute to the common good.

Gülen considered education as a vocation, an ethical enterprise, a holistic experience, and a social process with the potential to transform human beings. The high modernism of the West, while making significant positive contributions to humanity, has also produced a “scientific-technocratic, heartless mind” that has failed to prevent cycles of violence and destruction. Gülen’s educational model seeks to balance the virtues of the heart with the rational mind, ensuring that softer humanistic values guide and temper the destructive ambitions often associated with unchecked scientific and technological advancement. I believe this model of education, particularly in schools, is highly relevant to today’s globalized world, which stands at a crossroads marked by high nationalist-populist politics. The unpredictable impulses of these movements risk pushing the world toward greater conflict and violence on a global scale.

Above all, Gülen will be remembered as an apostle of peace and non-violence. This is evident in his resolute commitment to ensuring the Hizmet movement remained peaceful despite decades of relentless, systematic attacks by the Erdoğan regime. These attacks included the illegal appropriation of Hizmet properties, estimated at approximately $50 billion, and the widespread persecution of its volunteers. Few instances of such prolonged persecution exist in recent human history. Despite these immense challenges and false accusations, he responded with unwavering peace, legality, and non-violence. He lifted the “Gülen community” from a “slumber of hopelessness” and guided them to continue their hizmet—service to humanity for the sake of Allah—without expectation of reward.

The room was silent, save for the gentle ticking of the clock on the wall. Every tick resonated with exquisite clarity, accentuating the significance of each passing second, while the echoes reverberated through the stillness of the space. I sat down at my desk, ready to immerse myself in the world of creativity and productivity. My mind brimmed with ideas and aspirations, eager to transform them into reality. But as I poised my fingers over the keyboard, a familiar pang of distraction tugged at my concentration.

Distractions. They seem to infiltrate our lives like mischievous specters, beckoning us away from what truly matters. They come in various forms—internal and external, subtle and overt—constantly testing our resolve and threatening to derail us from our path.

I pondered my own distractions, peering into the depths of my mind. The first one to reveal itself was the siren call of social media. Its allure, a never-ending stream of updates, likes, and comments, was hard to resist. Scrolling through timelines and newsfeeds became an insidious habit, nibbling away at my precious time. Not only did social media offer a constant source of entertainment, but it also provided a platform for comparison. The carefully curated lives of others, adorned with filters and highlights, often left me feeling inadequate and disconnected from my own journey. It was as if every minute spent scrolling was a minute lost, a minute where my aspirations languished in the shadow of someone else’s success.

Then, there was the allure of procrastination, a tempting mistress with countless guises. It cunningly whispered, “You can do it later,” as I found myself lured into the labyrinth of mindless tasks, trivial errands, and endless YouTube videos. Time slipped through my fingers like sand, leaving behind a sense of unease and unfulfilled potential. The act of procrastination, I realized, was not merely a result of laziness or lack of motivation. It was often rooted in fear—an apprehension of failure, of not living up to expectations, or of venturing into the unknown. Procrastination became a comfortable refuge, shielding me from the discomfort and vulnerability that accompanied creative endeavors. It was a defense mechanism, a way to preserve my ego and avoid the possibility of disappointment.

Moreover, the incessant demands of daily life often crept into my thoughts like stealthy thieves. My responsibilities, obligations, and the expectations of others vied for my attention, leaving me feeling torn and overwhelmed. It seemed that the more I wanted to concentrate on my true passions, the more the world conspired to distract me. The weight of societal pressures and the fear of falling short threatened to suffocate my creative spirit. The pressures to conform, to achieve conventional definitions of success, and to live up to the standards set by others created a constant undercurrent of anxiety. It was as if the path I yearned to walk on—my own unique and authentic path—was perpetually obstructed by a multitude of “shoulds” and “musts.”

Meanwhile, the outside world seeped in through the cracks of the windows, teasing me with snippets of life unfolding beyond the confines of my sanctuary. The distant sound of traffic—a constant reminder of the ceaseless activity beyond our walls. The melodious chirping of birds in the garden, once a soothing symphony, now felt like an invitation to daydream, tempting me to abandon my focus and wander into the realms of imagination. Even the benign ticking of the clock, which initially seemed like a gentle companion, gradually transformed into a reminder of time slipping away, exacerbating my sense of urgency and feeding the restlessness within me.

Yet, amidst the cacophony of distractions, I realized that the power to cope and remain focused lay within me. It required a delicate interplay, a skillful balance between self-discipline and self-compassion. I first began by acknowledging the potency of my distractions, treating them not as adversaries but as allies in disguise. Instead of fighting against them, I invited them to the stage and allowed them to perform their mesmerizing routines.

When social media beckoned, tempting me with its endless allure, I came to view it not as a mindless time sink but as a vast playground of ideas and connections. I learned to harness its power in moderation, setting specific time limits, while also surrounding myself with kindred spirits who shared my passion for growth and artistic expression. Engaging in meaningful conversations and collaborations became a source of profound inspiration, fueling my own creative journey. By embracing social media as a catalyst for growth and connection, it transformed from a hindrance into a supportive force.

Even procrastination, once seen as the bane of productivity, took on a new light. I discovered that creative minds need moments of respite and mental incubation. Procrastination became a form of active rest—a deliberate pause to recharge and rejuvenate—knowing that a rested mind could produce better work. I learned to discern when it was a sign of needing rest and replenishment, and when it was a disguise for fear or resistance. By nurturing self-awareness, I could navigate this delicate balance and harness it as a stepping stone towards creative breakthroughs.

However, the demands of daily life remained a persistent challenge. The responsibilities, obligations, and expectations that tugged at my attention threatened to drown out the whispers of my true passions. It was during these moments that I turned to self-compassion and prioritization. I recognized that it was impossible to please everyone or fulfill every expectation placed upon me. I had to discern between what truly mattered to me and what was merely noise in the background.  

Therefore, establishing boundaries was crucial to ensure that my time and energy were directed toward activities aligned with my priorities and values. I consciously limited my exposure to social media, relegating it to designated breaks. I even assigned a specific day for leisurely pursuits, embracing the art of doing nothing without guilt. This structured approach created a sense of order and clarity, empowering me to navigate distractions with purpose and intention. To strengthen my focus, I implemented mindfulness practices. I discovered that by observing my thoughts and emotions with curiosity rather than judgment, I could create a space between myself and the distractions. Meditation and deep breathing exercises became my anchors, allowing me to root myself in the present moment and navigate the tempest of diversions.

Additionally, I found solace in the power of routine. By cultivating consistent habits and rituals, I could reduce decision fatigue and eliminate the need to negotiate with distractions each day. I created a sacred writing space, adorned with inspirational quotes and objects, a sanctuary where distractions were politely asked to wait outside. This physical space served as a tangible reminder of my commitment to my craft, a dedicated haven where focus and creativity could flourish.

However, it wasn’t enough to merely cope with distractions; I yearned to find true meaning in life and forge a path that aligned with my deepest values. I embarked on a journey of self-discovery, questioning the purpose of my existence and the legacy I wished to leave behind. I sought experiences that nourished my soul—nature walks that filled me with awe, conversations that ignited my curiosity, and artistic expression that allowed me to tap into the depths of my being. In the silence of introspection, I discovered that meaning was not an elusive destination but an ever-evolving process. It lay in the pursuit of development, the cultivation of relationships, and the exploration of one’s passions. I realized that true fulfillment came not from external achievements but from embracing the present moment, savoring the small joys, and nurturing the connections that imbued life with purpose.

To move forward on my chosen path, I learned to let go of societal expectations and comparisons. I recognized that my journey was unique and incomparable to others. Each step I took, no matter how small, became a testament to my courage and determination. I celebrated progress, not perfection, and reveled in the beauty of embracing imperfections. Yet, even armed with newfound knowledge and coping strategies, there were moments when doubt and uncertainty crept in, casting shadows on my sense of purpose. In those instances, I reminded myself of the ultimate purpose that anchored me—the deep longing within my soul to create, to express, and to contribute to the tapestry of human experience.

I surrounded myself with reminders of my purpose—a vision board adorned with my dreams, quotes that resonated with my soul, and the stories of those who had walked similar paths: artists, thinkers, and creators who faced their own distractions and emerged stronger on the other side. Their tales reminded me that the pursuit of meaning and the struggle with distractions were universal experiences, shared by those who dared to forge their own paths. In their stories, I found inspiration and guidance, knowing that the challenges I faced were not insurmountable. These reminders became beacons of light, illuminating my way forward and reminding me that the distractions were transient and inconsequential in the grand symphony of life.

Life, I realized, rarely unfolds according to our meticulously crafted plans, and unexpected detours often lead to the most profound discoveries. I discovered that meaning was not a fixed destination, but a continuous voyage—an ever-evolving tapestry woven through the interplay of distractions and focus, challenges and triumphs. It was in navigating this labyrinth that I found purpose, fulfillment, and a deep sense of alignment with my truest self. As I journeyed forward, distractions no longer posed as hindrances but as companions in this dynamic rhythm of life. Their presence reminded me of the inherent ebb and flow, the delicate balance between discipline and surrender, and the ever-present invitation to explore new realms of creativity and growth.

And so, as I sat down at my desk once again, I could feel the words flowing from my fingertips, igniting a profound sense of alignment—a deep connection between my innermost self and the work I was creating. The distractions, once perceived as hindrances, transformed into opportunities for progress and introspection. They reminded me to appreciate the journey, to savor the process, and to find fulfillment in the act of creation itself.

In those moments, I was not just writing; I was living. I was transcending the distractions and entering a state of flow—an effortless immersion in the present moment where time ceased to exist and the outside world faded away. It was through this inner dialogue that I uncovered my true passion and purpose, freeing myself from the grip of superficial distractions.

The origins of a seemingly nameless civic-social movement which later became popularly known as the “Gülen Movement” or “Hizmet Movement” date back to the early 1970s in Turkey.  The Movement’s goal is to produce “social good” throughout the world, which are manifested around peaceful activities like promoting dialogue among communities, human rights, love, tolerance, ethics, education, women’s issues, and eradication of poverty. It derives inspiration from the ideas and thoughts of Fethullah Gülen, a Muslim cleric who is known as “Hojaefendi.” The Movement has successfully nurtured a generation to establish a global network of socio-cultural institutions including schools, coaching centers, universities, media outlets, publishing houses, hospitals, dialogue centers, and relief organizations.

At its core, the Movement is a faith based social movement that takes inspiration from Islamic ideals to reinforce the civic, moral, and ethical goals of Islam. The goal is to transform individuals and society in such a way to produce a “golden generation,” which in turn provides leadership to all walks of human life.

The Movement has espoused a purely civic social aspect of Islam – as opposed to discourses of “Islam and modernity” – to universalize the message of the Movement which has ultimately paved the way for it to become transnational.

“The movement encapsulates a faith-inspired peace-invoking service. It promotes universal values, superiority of the law and human rights along with freedom of belief, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.” [1]

As the movement’s chief source of inspiration, Fethullah Gülen dwells upon the universal values of humanity as an integral part of Islam’s fundamental doctrine and values. His approach to faith bends on Sufism and this has always made him a propounder of the human-centric discourse of Islam. The goal of this discourse is to promote a civic and ethical transformation of an individual and society at large, based upon the prophetic model of insan al-kamil (perfect human being). Gülen maintains that “Morality is the essence of religion and a most fundamental portion of the divine message. The Prophet, who is the greatest embodiment of morals, said: Islam consists in good morals; I have been sent to perfect and complete good morals” [2].

Gülen further underlines that the basic dynamics of a life of action and thought is directly tied with our spiritual life, which is based upon our religious values [3]. Gülen’s very idea of hizmet, meaning “service,” reminds the spiritual fervor of Imam Rabbani’s “abadiyat,” (meaning eternity) notion, becomes in a way “service to eternal God.” The attainment of “service to eternity” can only be achieved by serving the humanity. This universal Islamic discourse of Gülen discards the need of state agencies as a perquisite to serve Islam and its interests. Rather, he maintains that Islam can best be served by participating in socially beneficial activities such as promoting peace, imparting education, providing relief and health facilities. To emphasize this point, Gülen has said; “Islam does not need a state to survive; in the modern age, civil society can independently maintain Islam even where Muslims are not in majority” [4].

These conceptual and ideological clusters helped create and broaden the vision of transnational networks of Hizmet Movement that had entered the global arena and made it to engage in a comprehensive perspective on social-civic challenges. Its transnational character became even firmer when Gülen himself moved to the United States and was actively involved in promoting and improving the overall wellbeing of society investing his robust efforts to foster dialogue and peace. Since then, themes such as peace, human rights, ethics, pluralism, altruism, reconciliation and dialogue have occupied even more space in the center of the Movement’s agenda in order to gain a better understanding of, and appreciation for, cultures, histories, civilizations and traditions.

Despite its current national experience in its homeland Turkey differs widely in terms of the social relevance and political interactions, at the transnational level one can hardly doubt that the Movement has progressively developed an ability to address and mobilize around problems of a social and civic nature.

Unlike many other Islamic modernist movements including Salafism and al-Nahdah in Arabia, the Muhammadiyah movement in Indonesia, the Aligarh and Nadwa movements in India, the Hizmet Movement has been characterized by mass interaction and participation at local, national, and transnational levels. This interaction and participation have attracted thousands of volunteers across the globe and have generated a global network of thousands of socio-cultural institutions including schools, coaching centers, universities, hospitals, dialogue centers, relief organizations etc. Their transnational networks active on global and local civic social issues have multiplied, built alliances with national and supranational civil actors including UN’s institutions, and influenced their views and actions.

Professor Anwar Alam maintains:

“Hizmet is a transnational civil society movement calling up everyone to collaborate around a common ideal of good work for humanity. The movement aims to facilitate an environment in which all can work together in a pluralistic, peaceful, all embracing spirit and voluntary altruism, regardless of subscription to a certain faith.” [5]

Unlike other movements, Hizmet’s most effective paradigm of conceptualizing such an unusual combination of coalitions, coordination, and diversities of convergence and pluralism, of national and transnational struggles is an example of a model grassroots movement.

Transnational networking of the Movement has emerged as a crucial aspect of its global activities and as the main form of organizational linkage between local nation-based civic actors to the cross-border activism of Hizmet. The Movement aptly fits into Robert Putnam’s theory on “Social Capital” which refers to “the connections among individuals, social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” Hizmet’s transnational network is a result of its employment of “social trust” and “reciprocity.”

Thus, these forms of movement within Hizmet can be characterized by voluntary horizontal and, at times, vertical patterns of coordination that are reciprocal and asymmetrical. Within the Hizmet Movement, in particular, the transnational network can be understood as maintaining coordination among different civil society actors including both organizations and individuals such as experts, located in several countries, based on a shared frame of work, and investing joint efforts for common good. Being a faith based movement, the crucial factor that motivates its volunteers is, as Anwar Alam rightly observed, “the in-built Islamic cognitive structure of the ‘ikhlas-iman-hijrah-dawa’” linkage that provides the motivational resources for the expansion of the movement.” While detailing the micro structure of the Movement he concluded, “in short, the whole Hizmet Movement runs on the informal principle of consultation, trust, cooperation, and faith” [6].

In spite of the different perspectives and viewpoints in course, the Movement flourished as a self-organized and self-sustained actor on the global scene with its own policy priorities and agenda for social-civic changes. The Movement is clearly transnational in its very nature and in the reach of its activism that converges in fostering universal values. While having such a vivid picture of the transnational character of the Movement, one can rightly argue that this transnational character became the reason the Movement not only survived but thrived, in wake of the so called failed coup attempt of 2016 and subsequent witch hunts and purges that were launched by the Turkish regime.

References

1 Alam, Anwar. 2019. For the sake of Allah, The Origin, Development, and Discourse of the Gülen Movement. Blue Dome Press, USA, p. 28.

2 Gülen, M. Fethullah. 1998. Towards the Lost Paradise. Izmir: kaynak.  Al-Bukhari, “Al-adab-ul-Mufrad” no. 273, and  Ibn-Sa’ad, “al-tabaqat” vol.1, p. 192.

3 Ibid, p. 87.

4 Quoted in Mustafa Akyol, “What made the Gulen Movement Possible” in International Conference Proceedings: Muslim World in Transition: Contributions of the Gülen Movement, Leeds Metropolitan University Press, London, October 2007, p. 31.

5 Alam, op. cit. p. 27.

6 Alam, op. cit. p. 159-164.

Question: What are the lessons today’s believers should draw from the following Divine message: “Believers should not go forth to war all together. But why should not a party from every community of them mobilize to acquire profound, correct knowledge and understanding of the Religion, and warn their people when they return to them so that they may beware (of wrongful attitudes)” (at-Tawbah 9:122). 

Answer: In this verse, God Almighty first reveals that it is not correct for all believers to simultaneously go on a military campaign and take part in war. Then He states that a party should stay behind to gain insight into the spirit of religion and that when their people come back from different fronts, these learned ones should guide them with fair exhortation, feed them with religious knowledge, and teach them what they should know; this is because those people who engaged with the enemy during warfare may have failed to receive the religious education they need.

Why did they have to fight?

In the early period of Islam, since believers told people the truth, and represented and expressed justice, they faced attacks by the antagonists of religion. In such a situation, believers could not say to the enemies coming to exterminate them, “Come on, let us sit in the mosque and discuss first.” Even if they did, those enemies, who were fixed on grudge and destruction, would have tried to demolish that mosque and bury the believers therein. In order to stand against such demolition, they fought to protect their chastity, honor, religion, home, and flag.

After the demise of the noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, may God be pleased with them, similar problems emerged and Muslims had to engage with enemies in different places. During the time of Caliph Abu Bakr they had to fight on eight different fronts in order to repress the cases of apostasy in different tribes. Besides, the Sassanid and Roman empires, which were the super powers of the time, also had their eyes on Muslims. Since they accosted Muslims at every opportunity, Muslims had to fight defensive wars against them in different parts of the world.

In such a situation, had everyone attended war without any exception, there would have been a serious gap in terms of religious education. In the verse mentioned above, God Almighty commands that a group of people should stay behind for scholarly purposes in order to compensate for the lack of knowledge in those who return from war. Thus He pointed out that Muslims must definitely retain their learned state and attain the horizons necessitated by the conditions of their era. If believers fail to attain such a state and horizons, it is not possible to stand against attacks on different fronts anyway.

Cultural envoys

As for the conditions of our era, when knowledge and power of discourse came to the fore, continuing to exist as ourselves will be possible by means of the power of knowledge, pen, and discourse. With the approach of Bediuzzaman, victory over the civilized can be through persuasion. Therefore, the devoted souls who are the cultural envoys in our time should take their values to different parts of the world—not with weapons and brutal force, but with knowledge, wisdom, love, tolerance, and goodness. The way of peace and love opens the way that leads to hearts, whereas brutal force causes grudge and hatred to rise from the dead. For this reason, unless you remain under invasion and have no any other way but to fight, no solution should be sought through force. As for the issue of using force, it should be evaluated within a perspective of defense or eliminating an inescapable danger.

It is for this reason that the most important duty to be fulfilled with respect to Islam and humanity is going to the four corners of the world, to exchange cultural values there. It is also important in the meantime to benefit from different patterns and colors wherever we are, as far as they do not contradict one’s essential teachings. By coming into contact with different people in the places they go, the devoted souls will both serve as honorary representatives of their cultural values, and they will receive the beautiful sides of those cultures and present them to their own people. However, as they will be predominantly busy with their pursuits of peaceful action, they may not be sufficiently nourished in terms of knowledge and spirituality. Then, it is necessary to edify individuals well-versed in the values of spiritual heritage, who know essential sources better, and thus who will help those in the field of peaceful action be nourished as is necessary. Those who undertake the responsibility to deepen in correct and profound knowledge and comprehension of Islam should constantly flow like a pure freshwater spring, nourishing the altruistic souls running in the field, who should in return take what they will from that source and complete their scholarly equipment.

Scholarly Ones Open to Both Physical and Spiritual Disciplines

By referring to acquiring “profound, correct knowledge and understanding of the Religion,” the verse points to the fact that those who stay behind need to be equipped with knowledge pertaining to faith, Islam, and to ihsan, or perfect goodness. Together with that, the sound functioning of these values, their easily being welcome by a society (perhaps of a very different cultural background), and their being liked and valued, depends on correct discernment of non-religious realities and rules as well. Therefore, besides religion, it bears much importance to master the natural sciences, which constitute the basis for most modern sciences. It is important to carry out research in this respect, and behold appreciatively the creation displayed in nature.

As Bediüzzaman put it, while learning religious disciplines on the one hand, modern sciences should not be neglected either. He pointed out that a student’s endeavor would soar only when these two are found together. Excluding one of these two will mean leaving the other devoid of wings. One should neither make concessions from learning religious disciplines, which are the light of the heart, nor ignore modern sciences, which are the light of the mind, reason, and judgment.

In addition, this verse emphasizes the importance of love of knowledge and research. Therefore, one must make very serious efforts in order to master both the religious and modern sciences, and remain like a “student” until the end of their life. The Arabic word for student (talib) means “seeker” of knowledge. No matter whether a person studies religious disciplines or modern sciences, if that person is utilizing the essences distilled from those studies for the sake of knowing God and maintaining a sound balance, then that person will be treated as a true student or seeker of knowledge. So what does such a treatment mean? As the Messenger of God stated, God Almighty makes the way to Paradise easier to one who sets forth demanding to acquire knowledge. [1]

Seeking knowledge is very important and the benefits a scholar can bring to society are great. Thus, one’s society is responsible for supporting seekers of knowledge and doing what they can for them. It is very difficult for someone dedicated to knowledge to devote time for anything else. Accordingly, some Islamic scholars stated that even if they wear expensive clothes and the threshold of their door is made of gold, it is still possible to give alms to seekers of knowledge, because the vitality of a nation depends on such mastering of knowledge. If this cannot be done, the nation will collapse and disintegrate. Due to this stagnancy, some cracks emerged in the Islamic world in the fifth century after the holy migration (11th century CE). With the recession in the 13th and 14th centuries, a complete breakdown and disintegration happened. Muslim societies have not been able to straighten up since.

Dignified Contentment and Remaining Under Obligation

In response to people’s support and care, seekers of knowledge must do their best in terms of being worthy of such kindness and must not waste a second of their time. Through very serious planning, division of labor, and a discipline of mutual helping, these seekers must be completely focused on this task. They must devote all of their energy to the task so as to be deserving of the people’s regard for them—even if that means sleeping only four hours if necessary and devoting twenty hours of the day to studying. Who knows? When they study with such seriousness, maybe God Almighty will grant them in two years what another person can attain in ten years.

Incidentally, let me share how I feel about one issue: I feel heartbroken for those who pursue PhD degrees, but cannot finish that in even ten years. Time is the greatest capital for a human. If a person has taken such a path once, they should persevere, exert their brains, make use of all arguments they can make use of, benefit from all sources they can, and if possible, they should even finish their PhD before the time determined for them.

I wish to underline one more point concerning scholarly ones: Dignified contentment is a very important principle for those dedicated to scholarly pursuits, with respect to the honor of both knowledge and learned ones. Actually, the path of the Prophets is also based on this essential. In many verses of the Qur’an, it is stated that they said, “I ask of you no wage for that (for conveying God’s Message); my wage is only due from the Lord of the worlds” (ash-Shuara 26:127). In this respect, scholarly ones should not be obliged to anyone if possible, in any phase of their lives—neither while they are students, nor when they become teachers, or teacher of teachers…

May God forbid, if one does not have this feeling of dignified contentment, and if that person carries out certain tasks for the sake of some returns, such as becoming a manager, director general, MP, minister, or prime minister, then such a person cannot be saved from being obliged to other people. Unfortunately, the concessions they make on account of being obliged will not only cost them dearly, but cost their nation as well. In this respect, those who engage in scholarly pursuits must arrange their lives in accordance with the principle of dignified contentment. They must use the means of their fathers if they can, or they must make a modest living with their own means, if they can. They should live frugally, never becoming obliged to anyone and never having to make concessions.

Note

1. Sahih, Muslim, Dhikr, 38.

In recent years, attitudes and legislation have made life more difficult for oppressed peoples, including refugees, around the world. Many people believe their countries should accept fewer refugees. People believe that refugees are nothing but a burden to their countries, and that they will take away jobs and reduce the standards of living (Wike, Stokes, and Simmons, 2016). Tougher laws against refugees and asylum seekers have been passed in countries like Austria; these laws restrict access to protection for refugees. The law also restricts the rights of the asylum seekers, allowing authorities to turn away migrants at the border (Hume, 2016). Increased security concerns such as the belief that refugees will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks and increase the crime rate in a country have been used to turn away these oppressed groups (Wike, Stokes, and Simmons, 2016).

Cases of increased racial discrimination towards members of other religions and races, as well as towards immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees, have increased where they are deprived of access to the most fundamental of human rights and protection. In such instances, minorities are left exposed to and unprotected from xenophobic attacks and discrimination. In such climates, media often plays a role in building a hostile environment of mistrust and misinformation.

Since the days of the famous economist Max Weber, religion has been viewed as both a cause and outcome of economic development, with the adoption of religious principles being a contributor to economic progress (Michalopoulos, Naghavi & Prarolo, 2014). For instance, the adoption of Muslim economic principles has a long term effect on the economic development of Muslim lands; the adoption of Christian principles, mainly Protestantism, had a significant effect on the economic prosperity of many individuals in the West; and a change in the Judaic religious doctrine in the second century improved Jewish human capital by increasing literacy (Michalopoulos et al., 2014).

 Different religions have different values and perspectives on how the issues of economic inequality, racial discrimination, and intolerance should be addressed. An understanding of Islamic, Christian, and Jewish values will lead to a deeper knowledge of the three Abrahamic faiths and an understanding of how to improve the common good.

The three religions agree that caring for others is essential and obedience to one’s faith will reduce negative attitudes towards vulnerable groups. People practicing the three Abrahamic religions can work together and condemn the individuals targeting minorities and newcomers, reducing the effects of intolerance and racism while also combatting economic inequality.

Islam

In Islam, economic inequality is considered as human condition only in the proportion of skill, initiative, and effort. Islam also teaches against extreme economic inequality, and it emphasizes that all resources are a gift from God, with Qur’an 2:29 stating that “It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth…” People are entrusted with these gifts for a short time (Qur’an 57:7) (Christopher & Hayat, 2012).

The Islamic economic system is based on three divine principles which establish a “falahi” or an Islamic welfare economic system. The first principle is that man is not the absolute owner of resources because they are God’s and man is just a trustee. Second, economic activities should not be guided by self-interest only. And third, the religious aspect of earning and spending are as important as Islam’s other worship obligations and practices (Haq, 2013).

Haq (2013) identifies the systems of Ushr and Zakat, elements of the Islamic economic system which has significant implications on the distribution of income and wealth. Ushr is an obligatory payment from agricultural output, while Zakat is paid for accumulated wealth; Haq (2013) identifies the latter as a major instrument of restricting the excessive accumulation of wealth, as Zakat helps the poor and vulnerable members of society. The wealthy and the elite are warned that they will be hold accountable for disregarding vulnerable groups (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 486).

Muslims are expected to value the poor, and they should spend from their wealth to help the poor: “God said, ‘O son of Adam! Spend, and I shall spend on you’” (Sahih-Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 64, Number 264). Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, reformed the value of taking care of the poor and treating everybody with respect as a way of addressing economic inequality.

Islam also teaches that there should be respect for people of other religions. Prophet Muhammad said, “Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” Islam teaches that caring for others is not optional but a religious duty.

Islam is against any form of discrimination towards any one, and it teaches that differences in color, tribe, race, or tradition should not be taken as an excuse for unfair treatment. The Qur’an is against any form of racial discrimination, and it states, “O Mankind, we created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into tribes and nations so that you may know each other (not that you despise each other). Verily, the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is most righteous of you” (Al-Quran 49:13). Islam advocates for equality among all people as members of one human race.

The Qur’an teaches that all people were created by God, and it states in Surah 30:22 that, “of His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your tongues and colors.” Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also taught that all people are to be treated equally; in his last sermon, he stated that, “All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, an Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab; a white person is not better than a black person, nor is a black person better than a white person except by piety and good actions. Learn that every Muslim is the brother of every other Muslim and that Muslims form one brotherhood.” Muslims are encouraged to stand up and challenge racism and intolerance whenever they see the laws of God being broken.

Christianity

Christianity teaches that all wealth comes from God, and He is in complete ownership and control of all things. Deuteronomy 10:14 (New International Version) states, “Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.” Christianity holds the view that all the riches and wealth that man possess are a gift from God: “Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil-this is a gift of God” (Ecclesiastes 5:19, New International version). Christianity acknowledges the fact that some people will be more economically able compared to others, but this should not make such individuals reject the most vulnerable members of society.

Christianity also teaches that people should care for the oppressed and the poor. Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (New International Version) states that, “If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.”

The apostle Paul teaches the Corinthians that there should be a fair balance so that a person does not have too much or too little. Christianity emphasizes that the immigrant and refugee crisis experienced so far could be solved by reducing economic inequality in the world.

 “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At present your plenty will supply what they need so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: ‘The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little’” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15, New International version). 

Christianity calls for its followers to show “agape” love, where individuals care for those in need. Agape love would reduce the negative attitudes towards members of other religions and races, and people would not practice discrimination or attack vulnerable groups.

The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing drastically in the world we live in. Jesus Christ discouraged the accumulation of wealth, and He gave the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 19:16-31, New International Version) to warn people against accumulating wealth without caring for those in need. Jesus also gave the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37, New International Version) who helped a stranger. Christianity extols individuals to care and welcome the vulnerable people in society.

Therefore, Christianity instills the values of love for one another and having compassion for another person. If individuals followed such values, practices like racism, intolerance, and violence against other people would end.

Judaism

According to Sauer & Sauer (2016), Judaism puts forward two axioms of the Jewish economic theory which have a significant effect on the matter of economic inequality. The first axiom is that God is the creator of the world (Genesis 1:1, New International Version) and man was created in God’s image. Man was then given the world and complete dominion over it, and he should help perfect it through the utilization of resources, work, and innovation (Sauer & Sauer 2016). The second axiom is that man is required and obligated to care for the needy, and the Torah has moral principles which should guide how a man treats others. The Torah, in Leviticus 25:10 (New International Version), states, “proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof,” and this means that foreigners, newcomers, and minorities were to be set free (Sacks, 2015).

The Torah imposed certain infringements on personal property which were designed to ensure that the gap between the economic classes was reduced, avoiding instances of extreme wealth or poverty (Sicker, 2001). There was the law of the sabbatical year, which required that the land should rest and lay fallow in the seventh year, letting the poor people eat (Exodus 23:10-11, New International Version). The law also required that all debts in the seventh year should be forgiven, and every creditor should release that which the neighbor owes. Such laws had a significant effect on reducing the economic inequalities between people.

Judaism removes the system of human and economic freedom from the hands of human legislators. The Torah states that, “Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves” (Leviticus 25:42, New International Version), and this means that personal liberty is not opened up for any political negotiations. Contemporary political and media discourses have made it difficult to integrate oppressed people, but Judaism promotes the values that will see such violence and intolerance reduced.

Judaism takes a positive approach towards all people and teaches that everyone is equal in the eyes of the Creator, and, therefore, all individuals should be treated well. Strangers, refugees, and foreigners are supposed to be treated fairly, as recorded in Leviticus 19:33-34 (New International Version) which states that, “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not ill-treat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

The three Abrahamic religions promote values that seek to address the issue of economic inequality and the effects of it, such as discrimination and rejection of vulnerable groups. The core values of the three Abrahamic religions are equality among all member of human family, because God is the creator of all; care for those in need; and the need to show love to vulnerable groups. Therefore, religion has a significant role to play at reducing economic inequality in society, and it is crucial that people take their religious values with more seriousness.

References

• Al-Quran 2:29, 57:7, 49:13,30:22
• Christopher, C. & Hayat, A. (2012). Equitable Distribution of Wealth: The Economic System of Islam. Inside Islam. Retrieved 14 September 2016, from http://insideislam.wisc.edu/2012/05/equitable-distribution-of-wealth-the-economic-system-of-islam/
• Deuteronomy (10:14, 15:7-8), Ecclesiastes 5:19, Leviticus (19:33-34, 25:10, 25:42), Genesis 1:1, Luke (10:25-37, Luke 19:16-31), 2 Corinthians 8:13-15 (New International Version).
• Di Matteo, L. (2014). All Equal in the Sight of God: Economic Inequality and Religion in the Early Twentieth Century. Lakehead University.
• Haq, G. (2013). Distribution of wealth and Income in Islam. South East Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, 2(2).
• Hume, T. (2016). “Austria passes tough new asylum laws.” CNN. Retrieved 18 September 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/28/europe/austria-tough-migrant-laws/
• Michalopoulos, S., Naghavi, A., & Prarolo, G. (2014). Islam, Inequality, and Pre-Industrial Comparative Development. Harvard Business School.
• Sacks, J. (2015). Judaism Was First in Fight Against Income Inequality. Algemeiner.com. Retrieved 14 September 2016, from http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/05/07/judaism-was-first-in-fight-against-income-inequality/#
• Sahih Al-Bukhari (Volume 2 Book 24 Number 486, Volume 7 Book 54 Number 264).
• Sauer, C. & Sauer, R. (2016). Jewish Theology and Economic Theory. Journal Of Markets And Morality, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-17-number-1/jewish-theology-and-economic-theory
• Sicker, M. (2001). The Political Culture of Judaism (p. 99). Praeger Publishers.
• Wike, R., Stokes, B., & Simmons, K. (2016). Europeans Fear Wave of Refugees Will Mean More Terrorism, Fewer Jobs. Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved 18 September 2016, from http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/europeans-fear-wave-of-refugees-will-mean-more-terrorism-fewer-jobs/

Both of these ladies were ecologically conscientious, even though they never received an education about the environment. Despite this, I would have thought that by now, decades later, there would be more of a focus on environmental education (EE) in schools. And though a search on Google Scholar shows a lot of research about EE, it doesn’t show a ton of applications of EE in contemporary schools.

EE perspectives are present in many ideologies, such as ecopedagogy, egocentrism, anthropocentrism, autopoiesis intrinsic value theory, ecofeminism, green socialism, eco-Marxism, etcetera (Lummis, 2002). And yet I am interested in EE programs, and there are shockingly few of them.

Value education is based on cognitive and affective development. The main aim of education, according to value education, is to create a “good citizen” for a “good society” (Lickona, 1999; Rest, 1974). The most important side of these education programs is to develop self-awareness, helping people to become aware of the larger world (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002, p.257; Rest, 1974, p.461).

Awareness is directly related to ego development, and to thinking critically. Experimental programs are needed, and a person’s cognitive structure needs to interact with the environment to develop their ego. The main subject here is being “interactionist”  (Rest, 1974). I would like to define this term, environmentally, as “to have an interaction with the natural environment and to have individual outputs.” I understand that in terms of EE, value education should trigger environmental awareness.

There are experimental studies ongoing in the hopes of achieving environmental awareness. Unfortunately, none of these studies mention value education. This is a shame, as the typical properties of value education (Rest, 1974) and EE overlap: to develop responsibility and awareness, cooperative learning, to think critically, and to develop behavioural changes in the long-term.

Value education should be an important part of EE because educational philosophy plays a critical role in shaping teaching programs. Teachers and administrators should first think about the philosophical roots of their aims. Rest (1974) says that value education is based on the thoughts of Plato, Hegel, Dewey, and Piaget; in other words, “progressivist” approaches. Pierre Walter (2009) also mentions the progressivist origins of EE.

We should not forget that we first encounter value education in our families. Value education and EE may also be evaluated in terms of education children learn from watching adults/parents. A lot of research highlights the importance of parental education (Kasapoglu and Turan, 2008; Gokdere, 2005).

Unfortunately, current research shows there is a gap between theory and practice in EE (Bolstad and Baker, 2004; Elliott, 1999; Hart and Nolan, 1999; Mansaray, Ajiboye and Audu, 1998). This gap may close with the use of value education, but there is significant overlap between the two disciplines. Using one to develop the other is a method that has not yet been tried, but could lead to future improvements in both disciplines.

References
Gokdere, M. (2005). “A Study On Environmental Knowledge Level Of Primary Students In Turkey”. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 6, Issue 2.
Hart, P. & Nolan, K. (1999). “A Critical Analysis Of Research In Environmental Education”. Studies in Science Education, Volume 34’ Issue 1, p. 1-69.
Kasapoglu, A., & Turan, F. (2008). “Attitude Behaviour Relationship In Environmental Education: A Case Study From Turkey”. International Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 65, Issue 2, p. 219-231.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). “Mind The Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally And What Are The Barriers To Pro-Environmental Behaviour?”. Environmental Education Research, Volume 8, Issue 3, p. 239-260.
Lickona, T. (1999). “Character education: The cultivation of virtue”. In Charles M. Reigeluth (Ed.), “Instructional design theories and models (Volume II)”. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Lummis, G. (2002). “Globalisation: Building A Partnership Ethic For A Ecopedagogy In Western Australia”.  Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 27, Issue 1, Article 2, 1-1.
Rest, J. (1974). “Developmental Psychology As A Guide To Value Education: A Review Of "Kohlbergian" Programs”. Review of Educational Research, Volume 44, Issue 2 (Spring, 1974), p. 241-259.

Masses who have developed with different thoughts and objectives that are in conflict, and who have been deprived of positive cultivation, they form a society wherein passion, animosity, and hatred run rampant. Such a society promises nothing in the way of goodness and decency.

The harmony in this resplendent book of the universe continues with the mutual support of all things, living and non-living, and their coming together to form a cohesive whole. Every kind of destruction and devastation transpires due to the collision of opposing currents. Such destruction is proportionate to the intensity of the clash.

Human societies are united under the same feelings, thoughts, and visions. They reach spiritual perfection with the same edification and all have a promising future.

As for those masses who have developed with different thoughts and objectives that are in conflict, and who have been deprived of positive cultivation, they form a society wherein passion, animosity, and hatred run rampant. Such a society promises nothing in the way of goodness and decency. In such a tumultuous society, the odds of an individual finding his or her true purpose and attaining serenity are unlikely – and perhaps even impossible. This is especially true when that society’s chief institutions are at the epicenter of the upheaval. When this happens, the society has become completely disordered. As a result, chaos and confusion reign.

However, the regularity of human societies, as with the order and harmony in the universe, is necessary and indispensible, both so that humanity can conform to nature’s universal harmony and so that humans do not contradict their own innate disposition. Every movement that does not adhere to the general symphony present in the book of the universe is a debacle, and the populace that falls prey to this erroneous movement is very unfortunate.

As such, in a population where successive oppressions and counter aggressions in the name of reprisal form a vicious cycle, the turmoil and mayhem resulting from disputes, uncertainties, and above all, deficiencies of the heart and soul, will engulf its surroundings like a terrifying tornado. In the ensuing terror, none will have the security to consider and examine the events or the reasons behind them. And of course, in the meantime, with collisions taking place one after another, the nation-tree will be shaken over and over again; homes will be intermittently destroyed, and individuals left stupefied. If only those rushing to society’s rescue in the sphere of belief and thought possessed a sense of order, faith in renewal, the power of persuasion, and sincerity and earnestness. Alas! Not in the least!

Virtually none of them has embarked upon this task with a clear worldview, an initial plan and system, or any anxiety over their destiny. Perhaps, with respect to the majority, even those who first sensed and recoiled in the face of such danger, especially the sensitive and exceptionally spiteful, were so unrefined in spirit that they said “yes” to every kind of tyranny, attack, and domination for the sake of satiating their carnal selves…

How sad it is that in this struggle, which defies all reason and comprehension – or more precisely, in this uproar – those most wronged and perpetually subjected to tumult have been the innocent multitudes. These naive masses, united by their centuries old cultural and historical values, have been unable to determine quite where they have come from and where they are going. They have been dragged into error after error, unaware of whose account they were acting. They have been corrupted and afflicted even more as their intellectuals have been denying their past and all they ought to take pride in, who could have otherwise served as a beacon of light and direction. When, eventually, the seeds scattered on our soil with countless ill intentions sprang up and developed, all segments of society formed into “enemy-camps” ready for conflict.

The masses have become such an ill-fated and uninhibited horde-who excuse everything as permissible, obliterate in one stroke all that is sacred, and ridicule all their values-that an individual falling into their clutches is but a vagrant, not bound by any limitations. And, as such, the national spirit worn away for centuries by internal erosion, and paralyzed in these ill-omened hands, has become completely bedridden.

If only the behavior of those wanting to protect their spirit in the face of such destructive movements were heartfelt, valiant, compassionate, and constructive… Alas! They too, could not establish the expected balance and provide the people with a sense of security…

On the contrary, by responding to excessiveness with excessiveness, they sacrificed myriad magnificent, righteous, and beneficial things. In this chaos, truth was slaughtered innumerable times; on top of that, those who slaughtered it did so for another presumed truth. How many times the masses were fooled and the multitudes were set against each other with wrong being shown as right and right being shown as wrong! Time and time again, after the battles erupting between enemy camps exhausted both groups, rifts had already formed that were difficult to heal.

Indeed, in this collective chaos, however harmful and destructive this ravenous “miscreant-spirit” has been, those naive immature spirits unable to rest their defense on a sensible system and who return “hate” for hate and “anger” for anger, have been just as detrimental. And thus, on one side are those miserable creatures who have rejected all their human values, have denied their past and their source of pride, and through an ever-increasing estrangement, have completely altered their nature-those irreverent, unloving, rootless, disbelieving slaves of their desires. And on the other side, up against these wretched creatures, are only those simpletons, deprived of the fighting spirit and ideal, who respond with anger, coercion, and brute force… For years on end, people grappled with the waves emerging from these opposing currents, resisted all these eddies, were assaulted again and again, and were repeatedly abandoned to hopelessness…

At this time, we await a community of devotees, who will “neutralize” these damaging currents. They will be respectful of the truth, hold the sake and pleasure of God over everything else, possess reason and conscience, have enlightened minds, radiant hearts, and souls that take flight in the realms high above. They will be reverent towards all the universal values we inherited from our forebears, to traditions and customs, to art and culture, and to morality and sound upbringing. This cadre would not overturn the spiritual roots and historical values that have held us on our feet for centuries. On the contrary, they would revive these in the face of changing world conditions; and, viewing each of these as a part of the national structure, would take complete ownership of them.

At a time when our sense of identity faces annihilation, this group of blessed ones-the possessors of this “sense of sacred suffering” who take upon themselves the task of its rescue-will applaud goodness and neutralize evil. They will do so by thwarting the internal decay and discord that has gnawed away at society for years on end, by ensuring a road for peace, and by removing the archaic methods, damaging fanaticisms, and monopolist designs used by both groups and which have crippled our society.

Today, when society’s ailments have reached their peak, when real enmity and our enemies have clearly emerged, and when the dialogue we have with the world to which we are connected gains strength with every passing day, we are exceedingly hopeful for humankind and hold the belief that we will rise once again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

While Fethullah Gulen is revered by many for his authority as a scholar and for his achievements in education and intercultural dialogue, his views on language should earn him equal renown as a philosopher of language. Linguistics offers an analysis of a language’s system – its structure, sounds, grammar, and semantics – but the philosophy of language describes the way language creates meaning. Gulen is anchored in the optimistic tradition of the philosophy of language that establishes the relationship between language, belief, truth, and the meaning of life.

Gulen draws insights on the nature of language from the Qur’an. For Gulen, God has created with a purpose; such is also true of language. He echoes the Qur’an in this sense, in which glad tidings of paradise are given to believers who, “will hear therein neither vain talk nor falsehood” (78:35). In Gulen’s writings there is always a conscious effort to awaken in his audience an awareness of our relationship to God and of our duties towards humanity and the world.

He writes that his concept of “speech” is an effort to expound on the following verse in the Qur’an: “The All-Merciful. He has taught the Qur’an. He has created the human. He has taught him speech” (Rahman 55:1–4). In his book Speech and Power of Expression, Gulen writes, “In creating humankind, the Most Merciful gave us the ability to speak of the human essence, our inner depths, the entire cosmos, and the truth beyond material existence before sending us to the dimension of external existence” (p. 1)

The “Referential paradigm of language” that was an offshoot of Positivism’s exclusive reliance upon rationalism and science looks at language as an empirical object of investigation only and limits meaning to the word-object relation only, reducing reality to mere physical phenomenon that can be quantitatively measured and explained (Medina, 2005:40). However, Gulen writes that language is not only a tool for describing facts and performing vocative functions – it also defines and constitutes our humanity. It “gives voice to our thoughts, it is the rhythm of our feelings, and the excitement of our hearts; it is the interpreter in our communication with God Almighty. Language is a reflection of the Divine Archetype and is the repository of divine knowledge. By virtue of the faculty of language, humankind has been elevated to the rank of vicegerent on this earth” (p. 8).

In this sense, Gulen argues that language not only reveals and expresses the Divine and the Transcendental; it can also establish a relation between the Creator and the created. Gulen writes, “It is through speech that human beings have become the addressee of God and it is thanks to this faculty that they can address Him” (p. 1).

This constructive and creative view of language is a counter to the extreme form of postmodern philosophy of language that presents a pessimistic view of language, denies the divine origin of language, and reduces language to empty signs and elusive images – turns it into chimeras unanchored in any reality or purpose or meaning. This reductive view of language that looks at texts as auto-referential only turns language into a closed system of self-referring signs that endlessly defer meaning. The result is nihilism, solipsism, and the coarsening of the values that define our humanity. Virtues like duty, love, sacrifice, and the idea of the sacred are dismissed as mere linguistic projections.

Gulen, on the other hand, presents an optimistic view of language and writes, “By means of the faculty of speech bestowed in our nature, the facility has been afforded for humans to express and interpret everything at their discretion… Speech is an instrument by way of which truth is acknowledged as the highest reality and all beings become a musical instrument as if in a symphony, thereby removing the veil over things, enabling them to express themselves” (p. 2).

The “Luciferan thrust” of Postmodernism dismisses the ideals of beauty, sacredness, duty, sacrifice, the truth of the heart, and virtue as mere flattering words that mask and hide selfish motives. Freud dismissed the idea of the sacred as “infantile fantasy,” the hangover of the primitive mind, and Karl Marx described religion as the opiate for the masses. The result is a shuddering collapse of all the values that define our humanity, reducing the universe to a “Wasteland,” a “Flatland” inhabited by alienated, depressed “hollow men” who can “connect nothing with nothing.”

But Gulen does not look at beautiful language as mere simulacrum, as empty of meaning. In his account, language is “one of the most precious of gifts” from God, and words are underpinned by ideas and values. Language can inculcate moral values. There is a relationship between language, belief, meaning, and understanding. Language nourishes our aspirations, which arise from “our distinctive foundational essence”; language lends a wing “to our ideals” and takes “their feet off the ground to the heavens”; lifting us to “the upper reaches of a spiritual ascension and preparing for us thrones in realms beyond the material world.” Gulen repeatedly highlights the higher spiritual function of language. He says, “Responding to our desire for eternity, speech enriches our feelings in an indescribable manner and gives our souls a depth that cannot be bound by the dimensions of corporeality” (p. 7-8).

The reductive and degrading views of human nature put forth by the pseudo prophets of modernity, who define the essence of humanity in terms of libido, monetary profit, or class struggle, cannot explain how good literature stirs the soul and uplifts the heart. According to Gulen, literature that wells from, and voices what is in, our hearts will always remind us of the Divinity that was breathed into human beings and forms the quintessence of humanity. The constructive use of language is like “a strong gust” of wind that lifts people up “in the sky where kites wander,” “and they enjoy the freedom and ease of a bird taking wing in the spacious sky…they experience constant transformations and perceive the magnificence of transcendent life through the colorful dimensions of speech…” (p. 6).

Gulen cites the Holy Qur’an as an excellent example of the zenith of language that has an immense depth of meaning, and whose “voice is heard beyond ramparts and echoes in even the most obstinate and bigoted of hearts. There is such dazzling magic in the presentation of its themes that it is impossible not to be impressed upon hearing it.”

According to Gulen, language that embeds lofty ideals and noble goals “is as expansive as the skies, as full of vigor as the earth, as lustrous as silk, and as comforting as a mother’s embrace. It articulates to us the glory of our faith, the riches of our society, the purity and integrity of our fellow companions, the struggle of our ancestors, and our values that make us unique. Good speech that originates directly from, and voices what is in, our hearts will always remind us of our Divine origin. To the extent of the sacredness of its color, wealth, and goals, good speech will echo in our hearts like celestial voices providing us with proofs of its origin” (p. 8).

Western literary theory and Positivist epistemology support each other in looking at literature as auto-referential; they view literature as self-reflexive and not referring to any meaning outside it. It is parasitic and, in the words of the French poet Valery, it is like a dance that leads nowhere.

On the other hand, Gulen establishes a relationship between literature and axiology. He says that literature not only describes and creates beauty, it also tells us about our relationship to life and the purpose of life. He rejects the concept of Art for the sake of Art, which is exclusively concerned with creating elegance of form only.

Equally emphatic is his rejection of naturalism in literature that, in the name of realism, puts the emphasis on the sordid, mean, and brutal aspects of life. He advises that literary people should “put their language skills and artistic talents at the service of the right, good, and beautiful, instead of hurting the souls of the masses…by describing what is corrupt, or contaminating people’s pure thoughts with dirty images, and condemning them to the slavery of materialism with descriptions of carnal desires” (p. 15-16).

Gulen exhorts artists to take the prophets and writers of Sufi literature as role models, because all of them have, “acted in cooperation and are united in building prosperous cities from speech, weaving lace from the silken threads of language, and stringing exquisite necklaces with the jewels of words” (p. 5).

Language is an instrument given exclusively to humankind. It has tremendous power and can perform diverse and contradictory functions. In this context, Gulen quotes a hadith that says that a believer must guard his speech because it can be equally used as a remedy and as a weapon. The range of its power can extend in opposite directions: it can revive and kill, establish peace and start war, disclose and hide, liberate and imprison, construct and destroy, exaggerate and downplay. It is therefore necessary to keep watch that one’s language is not misused. When the use of language is yoked to an agenda of self-aggrandisement, or the acquisition of power or monetary profit, it is severed from its divine purpose of pursuing Truth and serving humanity. It degenerates into the rhetoric of hatred and misrepresentation, and generated suspicion, deception, competition and aggression. It becomes an instrument of manipulation and exploitation. Gulen emphasises that we need to use language in a constructive way. He argues for promoting interfaith and intercultural dialogue, because language has tremendous power to make people understand others and to change their perception. It can persuade people to work for peace. It is, in the words of Gulen, “the sword of humankind,” and, “wherever the flag of speech waves, the most powerful armies are defeated and scattered. In the arenas in which speech shouts out, the sounds of cannon balls become like the buzzing of bees. From behind the battlements on which the banner of speech has been raised, the sound of its drums are heard. In the precincts where its march reverberates, kings shake in their boots” (p. 2).

Good speech influences people to make the best of their potential, removes misunderstandings and false consciousness, helps them expand tolerance and promote cooperation, encourages collaboration, and establishes peace. Gulen expresses the educative value of language in these words, “foxes take their leave of deception, and lions are terrified, seeking shelter in their dens.” No “combatant has ever possessed a weapon mightier than speech” (p. 5).

Cognitive linguistics postulates that language is inseparable from thought, and Gulen writes, “Speech is the key that opens the locks on the doors of the treasury of thought” (p. 2). As the famous linguist Wittgenstein said, “My world ends where my language ends.” In Gulen’s view, since language is intertwined with thought, it should be developed and enriched to empower a nation intellectually and morally. He notes and cautions that nations which do not think and speak become dependent on others: “Societies which do not think and speak will find others speak and think on their behalf” (p. 18). Imported views estrange us from our own rich heritage. It is of supreme importance for a nation to be respectful towards the history of its language.

However, language has to go beyond historical value and respond positively to every positive new development. For, as Gulen says, “reaching out to the future at full speed requires catching up with industrialization, global commerce, and technological warehouses.” If language and thought, both living phenomena, do not evolve with the times, they will become stagnant, as solidified as rock, and will lose their soul. Nations that can manage to develop their language and make it accommodating, while at the same time staying faithful to the roots of it, are the most dynamic in thought and influence.

Language can serve both genealogical and teleological functions. As a symbol making activity, language not only embodies, but also preserves, all of our core values and cognitive and intellectual reserves. It also renews our link with our origins and traditional heritage. With its new developments and transformations, language looks to the future – just as our heritage of wisdom, ethics, and ideals can give direction to future, too.

Gulen compares the teleological function of language to a “golden-winged turtledove released by our hopes to the future” (p. 8). The core values of every society are embedded in the symbols of its language. Gulen argues, “Language is not only a means of speech and thought; it is a bridge with the significant function of bringing the wealth of the past to our day and conveying today’s heritage and our new compositions to the future” (p. 17).

Language is an important tool for humankind in our efforts to better understand the cosmos and events both holistically and analytically. The relationship between language and thought comprises cognitive and intellectual reflections on existence and events, transforming these reflections into sources of information, and becoming productive while forming links between the cosmos and our knowledge. The future prospects of a nation are very much dependent on evaluating these relationships. Language is one of the fundamental dynamics in the composition of a culture. We should not cast everything that is old into oblivion, nor turn our face to the past and close our doors to what is new. Let us embrace the past with the utmost sincerity and at the same time salute the coming days with their open, new developments and transformations.

I will conclude with summing up Gulen’s message – Let us use language as a bridge between different cultures and religions to establish peace. Let us use language as a beacon house to illuminate minds and souls, and as a bond to bring people together on the basis of shared human values: compassion, tolerance, harmony, and peace.

References

• Gulen, M. Fethullah. 2010. Speech and Power of Expression: On Language, Esthetics, and Belief, NJ: Tughra Books.
• Medina, Jose. 2005. Language: Key Concepts in Philosophy, Continuum.

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

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

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

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

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

He who hesitates is lost. (American expression)

Strike while the iron is hot. (American expression)

More haste, less speed. (Chinese expression)

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

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

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

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

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

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

One palm makes no applause. (Chinese proverb)

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

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

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

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

He who converses not knows nothing. (English proverb)

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

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

Stand up for your own rights. (American expression)

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

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

Mature rice plants bow down lower. (Korean expression)

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

Cultural dimensions of conflict resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural differences in third party intervention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

4. Qur’an, 49:10.

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

6. Qur’an, 41:34.

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

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

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

10. Qur’an, 2:263.