This is not the first time that the world is witnessing a pandemic; previous incidents were regional in scope and did not affect the affluent segment of society. However, COVID-19 is first of its kind in modern times whose impact was felt wide across many nations precisely because of the fact that its carrier happens to be the modern upwardly mobile segment of the globalized world. Apart from this class dimension, COVID-19 has also ignited the old debate of religion vs science as its faster spread has been traced to congregation of religious faith groups across many communities amidst a worldwide call for social distancing in order to contain the spread of the virus.

Thus, the congregation of South Korea’s Shincheonji Church of Jesus in Wuhan has been widely held responsible for half of South Korea’s COVID-19 contractions and in other parts of other South East countries. A major source of COVID-19 in India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and further in parts of West Asia was traced to the congregation of an Indian transnational Islamist movement known as Tablighi Jamaat. The Shia religious congregation in Qom, the major center of Shia Islamic knowledge production, was identified as the major source for the spread of COVID-19 in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Bahrain. A good number of Hindu devotees defied Indian lockdown and gathered in various temples on the occasion of the Hindu festival RamNavemi. A few Sikh devotees were arrested for illegal gathering at Gurudawara, a place of worship for the Sikh community. There are several reports from the USA that many denominational Churches and orthodox Jewish religious groups continue to hold congregation for religious practices and have been found to be instrumental in the spread of COVID-19 within the country. Worst of all, in view of the conservative nature of American society, many states in USA have officially exempted places of worship from ban on gathering and stay-at-home order [1].

Given the global demonization of Islam, Islamic movements, and the widespread prevalence of Islamophobia, Islamic congregations received wide attention from the public for its blind faith and conservative, messianic, and eschatological approach towards life and religion. However, a careful observation reveals that similar approach to religion, life, and normal congregational practices during the COVID-19 pandemic has been found among segments of many religions and their communities including Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, and many others as mentioned above. While religious gatherings have been blamed for the spread of this virus, “secular gatherings” have also been potential carriers. For instance, one can trace the roots of this virus’ spread across Europe to an Austrian Ski resort, a famous tourist destination in the village of Ischgl in Tyrol, despite warnings beforehand from public health officials as early as March 5.

It is in the above context, particularly the raging issue of religion vs science or religious vs secular, that I am trying to figure out a “Hizmet” approach towards dealing with this global pandemic. How does Hizmet, a civic-social Islamic movement with a good presence in many parts of the world, approach the problem of COVID-19, a highly contagious virus that has brought the world to standstill and is threatening millions of lives? One way of approaching this subject matter is to find out the official statement of Fethullah Gülen, whose pacific exposition of Islam’s universal values (based upon the examples of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his Companions) through speeches, writings, and concerted actions has inspired this movement and continue to provide spiritual, moral, and ethical leadership to the movement while it is facing the existential dilemma in the backdrop of the brutal crackdown of the Erdogan regime in Turkey, its birthplace. However, listening to the sermon of Gülen is one thing; developing a Hizmet approach to COVID-19 is another. The latter needs to be excavated from the life trajectory of Gülen, and everyday Hizmet praxis as they have been unfolding while dealing with different contingencies of life situations from time to time.

It seems to me that Hizmet’s approaches towards the phenomenon of COVID-19 is shaped through two broad principles: (A) relationship between religion and science in general and (B) revival of ethical dimension of Islam as exemplified by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Hizmet sees the relationship between the religion and science as one of complementarity or one of organic whole, as opposed to modern discourse which presumes a perennial inherent conflict between the two, mostly shaped through Church-State struggle and development of positivism in the European Continent which eventually led to the secular’s high distrust towards religion and regulation, control, marginalization and finally banishment of religion to the other world. The more religion, science, and secular became modern, ideological, and identity discourse, the more they became bereft of their inner ethical dimension, lost their internal connectivity to each other, and finally found themselves in an antagonistic relationship, often resulting into violent responses. For Hizmet, religion and science are two mega methods and approaches to address the various aspects of the ever-changing complexities of life processes with a view to create a harmony between their physical-material, metaphysical, and spiritual aspects.

It is this ethic driven human discourse upon which Gülen constructed a philosophy of life based upon the unity of religion and science, heart and mind, universal and particular, and reason and faith which on the one hand prevents the “process of othering” – whether emanating from an exclusive understanding of religion or secular – and on the other helps in dispelling the fear of relatively conservative religio-socio segments of humanity towards scientific-technological solution to human problem such as COVID-19. We learn from history how religious bigotry and fear of treatment of medical science resulted in many deaths during the period of epidemics in the past. The resistance of Ulama (clergy) to state’s prescribed medical measures including quarantine during plague epidemic (1835) and Cholera epidemic (1848) in the Ottoman Empire, particularly in Egypt, has been well documented [2]. Today, a similar situation has come to exist in India wherein a vast segment of the Indian Muslim population is currently exhibiting a strong resistance and non-cooperative attitude towards undergoing any kind of medical testing. It must be recalled here that the quarantine system, or what is referred as “social distancing,” was first invented by the sixth Umayyad caliph Al-Walid in early eighth-century AD, in Damascus, to combat the spread of the virus.

A second aspect of Hizmet’s approach towards COVID-19 comes from its ethical understanding of Islam and its universal principles and values which arise from a human-centered Islamic theology and take form in Gülen’s vast sermons and published works as well as everyday praxis of Hizmet movement. Thus, like any Islamic movement, or for that matter like any believer, absolute belief in hereafter (life after death) is the cardinal principle of the Hizmet movement. However, unlike many other religious groups the Hizmet movement does not disassociate the “earthly life” from the Hereafter. In other words, whereas many religious movements, whether with a political or social focus, tended to pay a very less premium on building human resources with an idea that real life begins in Hereafter, the Hizmet movement, under the spiritual leadership of Gülen, invested heavily in human resources and in developing human capabilities through the combination of Islamic universal ethics, morality, and scientific knowledge. This system has an understanding that the most important call of Islam, as exemplified in the model of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the preservation and balanced growth of lives on Earth which demands ceaseless positive actions that will be accounted for in the Hereafter. All other principles and rituals of Islamic practices must be subjected to this fundamental principle of Islamic universalism.

It is this cardinal principle which led the Hizmet movement to develop a “praxis of service, trust, and cooperation” with an eventual goal of shaping human potential towards becoming an insan-i kamil (the perfected human). Guided by the Islamic principle of preservation of life in view of challenges posed by COVID-19, Gülen promptly issued a formal statement on March 13, 2020 offering his profound condolences to all those who lost their loved ones, asked people (and he was surely not alone in doing so) to trust public health officials and to take precautions based upon medical and scientific data, to show empathy with victims, and offer help to the needy in dealing with COVID-19. When I inquired from one senior volunteer of Hizmet in India about Hizmet’s position on COVID-19 he immediately responded without any pause that “protection of life is the most important duty of Muslims in accordance with Islamic faith” and then further stated, “whom to preach to if there will be no human beings?” Unfortunately, many Islamic movement leaders and government officials in Muslim communities fumbled and did not prevent Muslim gatherings either on Friday or on other social occasions partly due to ideological understanding of iman (faith) and Hereafter with a consequence that they became the major source of COVID-19 in their respective countries.

In view of mandatory daily prayers in Islam including Friday congregation a question has emerged whether a mosque, as well as Islamic congregation on Friday, is an essential part of Islamic faith, and whether or not it is permissible to abandon or forbid these prayers. I do not have training in Islamic theology and hence I lack requisite competence to reflect on such questions. However, what is minimally clear to me in light of my understanding of Islamic history in general, and discourse of the Hizmet movement in particular, is that Islam enjoins the preservation of creation and a healthy life on this Earth which is evident from the expression of mankind as “inheritors of the Earth” in the words of Gülen. All other principles, rituals, practices and value systems connected with interpretive field of Islam must be subjected to the central maxim of Islamic faith: the duty to preserve life on Earth as God’s vicegerent/trustee.

The life trajectory of Gülen and Hizmet movement, which spans over more than 50 years, demonstrates this divine mandate: building all round human capital to manage the affairs and challenges of earthly life through rigorous ethical, moral, and spiritual training, creation of quality educational institutions and construction of cultural-dialogue centers all over the world with a view to develop a mutual understanding of each other to address the common challenges of humanity. For this reason, the Gülen (Hizmet) movement avoided giving an Islamic nomenclature to their education and dialogue institutions so as to meet the principle of Islamic universalism. Education and dialogue initiatives are for all and bring them together in the common goal of serving humanity. One is therefore not surprised when one does not find a mosque-like structure where Gülen lives in Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, the government in Muslim countries and various Islamic movements have prided in constructing mosques and Islamic madrassas in modern times and have transformed them as the most important institutions of Islamic identity at the cost of moral, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of Islamic faith. The Erdoğan regime in Turkey is spearheading the construction of mosques and madrassas within and outside Turkey with a view to wear the mantle of Caliph in coming years. As Islam has been transformed into a matter of “market identity,” one is not shocked to see how many Muslims in many countries in violation of appeal of their governments, World Health Organization guidelines, and in violation of Islamic ethics of life preservation gathered together to perform the Friday prayer! The Pakistani government had to obtain a fatwa from Al Azhar, the famous Sunni Islamic seminary, to enforce its ban on Friday congregations!

COVID-19 is a grim reminder to the globalized humanity of the spiritual call of Gülen and principles of Hizmet movement: (a) that the world is truly inter-connected and inter-dependent; (b) that the transparency in dealings, dialogue, mutual trust and cooperation and collaborative research is needed to overcome the common challenges of humanity such as COVID-19; (C) that humanity is in dire need of philosophy that restores the dialogue between mankind and nature (ecology and environment) and develops a harmonious relationship between the two and connects different cultures, traditions and economies based on the universal value of dialogue, tolerance, trust and respect; (d) that modernity must realize its limitations of establishing supremacy over nature; and (E) that mankind must undergo ethical, moral and spiritual training to overcome his/her greed and ego, to develop self-restraint and build the moral capacity to live together and cooperate.

Last, if not least, Hizmet has developed a “culture of self-disciplining” and “solution providing perspective,” which has proved to be its biggest asset in successfully confronting many challenges thrown before it from time to time, of which the most recent one is brutal crackdown of the Erdoğan regime since 2013. These two aspects of Hizmet movement is badly needed to fight the challenges of COVID-19 till the time a medical breakthrough in terms of vaccination/medicine develops.

Notes

1. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2020/03/27/482359/religious-exemptions-coronavirus-pandemic-will-worsen-crisis/
2. Birsen Bulmus, Plague, Quarantines and Geopolitics in the Ottoman Empire, Edinburgh University Press, 2012, especially Chapter 2, pp 15-38. See also Khaled Fahmy, ‘Law, medicine and society in nineteenth-century Egypt’, Égypte/Monde arabe, vol. 34, 1998, PP, 14-15 available at: https://journals.openedition.org/ema/1488, accessed on April 18, 2029.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generally accepted as a Christian country, Australia became exposed to Christianity along with Judaism and Islam little more than 200 years ago, due to the arrival of the British settlers and scattered landings of Muslim Indonesian sailors on the northern shores (Stephenson, 2007). Evidence has shown that it is inaccurate to claim that Indonesian Muslims were the first to discover Australia. The earliest reliable evidence dates their presence in Australia to the mid-1700s, whereas it is known the Dutch had discovered it by 1606 (Ganter, 2008). Since the arrival of the first fleet in 1788, Australia has been subject to a regular influx of refugees and immigrants. As a direct result, integration of cultures has become an integral part of Australian society. Over the last 60 years, the population of Australia has become one of the most ethnically diverse in the world (Kurti, 2013). It is clear that today’s Australia is a multicultural and religiously diverse society. According to the 2011 Australian Census, over a quarter (26% or 5.3 million) of Australia’s population was born overseas and a further one-fifth (20% or 4.1 million) had at least one parent born overseas (Ozdowski, 2012). Since the 1970s, federal and local governments, NGOs, and various intercultural and interfaith organizations have worked incessantly to make Australia everyone’s home. The primary aim of this was to overcome misconceptions and to promote community cohesion through principles of respect, acceptance, tolerance, and collaboration.

Many cultures, including Australian (and by implication Western European cultures), view anything or anyone who comes across as different in regard to customs, appearance, dress or language, in a mistrustful way which can invoke a variety of emotions, ranging from mild loathing to extreme fear. Such views are further affected by constant media exposure of adverse events, including minor misdemeanors carried out by minority groups from particular ethnic and religious backgrounds. Controversial news travels faster and attracts more attention than noncontroversial news, so it is unsurprising that print and electronic media release unfavorable news almost exclusively on a daily basis. Furthermore, the overwhelming influence of visual and print media has on people’s perceptions and views, intentionally or otherwise, results in a one dimensional view of events. This type of news, informed by biased information, tends to shape responses to events in our lives in a way that creates serious prejudices.

Australia can be proud of its record when it comes to amicable and respectful inter-cultural community relations. This, along with its inclusive view of the religious beliefs of others, is founded on mutual respect and the forbearance of alternative points of view. In recent times, however, small but concerning components of insularity and corresponding multi-racial indifference has emerged, threatening the otherwise harmonious levels of co-existence. Much of the early success of colonial expansionism was due to the respect and tolerance of cultural differences by the British colonialists, especially in the Indian-sub continent. A notable exception, however, was the early treatment of the native Aboriginal people in Australia by European settlers (Reynolds, 1987). The initially negative treatment of native people by the white settlers evolved over time and led to a general shift in attitudes towards accepting each other’s views, cultures, and traditions.

In today’s world, one would have to be either intellectually myopic or simply deeply misinformed to have formed the view that ‘all is well’ in the world of human relations, with naked violence, in its worst possible forms, paraded in front of us daily in the international and local media. Those who profess naivety would appear to accept no responsibility for what is all too often a one-sided view of events. At a personal level, our relationships are strengthened by an open minded approach to the beliefs of others without feeling the need to force others with differing views to believe what we believe and perceive. However, they can also be affected by a sense of profound disquiet that comes in the wake of the often quite virulent proselytizing of those who cannot, or will not, acknowledge the rights of others to believe in their own version of the “truth.”

Few will argue that prejudice ‘feeds’ on ignorance, possibly the worst form of ignorance being one that is “fed” by innuendo, half truths, and downright slander. Australia, as a country with a historically Christian tradition, can be quite proud of its generally open-minded and fair approach towards fellow Australians who choose to follow other religious or cultural beliefs and traditions. According to (Koleth, 2010-11; 3-41) in Australia: “Multiculturalism has served a variety of goals over the years, including, the pursuit of social justice, the recognition of identities and appreciation of diversity, the integration of migrants, nation building, and attempts to achieve and maintain social cohesion.” This has become one of many reasons why our immigration policies, which have led to an enhanced acceptance of “multiculturalism,” now enjoy high levels of success and positive acclaim within the international community (Ozdowski, 2012).

One of the achievements of our immigration policy has been the acceptance of those who are refugees on humanitarian grounds, providing the bounty of many skills and practical abilities that migrants bring to our country. This has become vital to engender notions of acceptance and understanding in all people. In Australia, communities come from diverse political, cultural, and religious persuasions. Thus, the focus should be on a deeper level of unconditional acceptance, understanding, and affection between people who may not necessarily be well acquainted at a personal level. A good example of this is contained in a biblical utterance from Paul of Tarsus in his letter to the Corinthians: “And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (Corinthians 13:2). As this quote highlights, love forms the foundation of social acceptance and cohesion. It is, therefore, not too fanciful or naive to suggest that this type of love offers the best possibility for peaceful and harmonious co-existence between peoples of widely differing cultural and religious backgrounds.

Similar to the Christian teachings, Islam and its proponents promote tolerance at all levels: between family members, husband and wife, parent and child, as well as between groups and nations. The Qur’an says, ”O Mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes so that you might [affectionately] come to know one another. Surely, the most honored among you, in the sight of God, is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted” (49:13). To this end, the Qur’an commonly advocates tolerance, respect, and goodwill towards the People of the Book (Christians and Jews). For example, the Qur’an declares: “God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, nor drive you away from your home, to be kindly to them, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable” (60:8).

Thus, in a spirit of tolerance, acceptance and understanding, Australia seems to fit well within this ideal paradigm. In Australia, immigrants of all nationalities and religious beliefs are well integrated by international standards. However, there still exists a pressing need for interfaith and intercultural dialogue between all members and from all strata of society. Currently, there are government organizations and NGOs promoting dialogue through various events and programs. Affinity Intercultural Foundation, the Australian Intercultural Society, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Victoria Multicultural Commission, and the Community Relations Commission for a multicultural NSW are some of the organizations who are genuinely exerting creditable efforts toward the goal of dialogue. The high degree of diversity in Australia could quite naturally lead to social segregation. Fortunately, the commonsense and basically fair-minded attitudes that prevail in Australia have prevented this from happening to the same extent as in Europe (Ozdowski, 2012). At the beginning of white settlement in Australia, by a combination of free and convict settlers, there existed a degree of European based xenophobia towards anyone who either looked or dressed differently; but familiarity, liberal values, and a broadly democratic view of life have tempered misconceptions.

Australia is proud of its strong and unshakable friendships with people of varying religious beliefs, including those encompassed by the large monotheistic religions Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. It needs to be acknowledged after all, that if we can believe in one single external power in our lives, it is possible to accept that we are all children from the same source. Many philosophers have suggested that ultimately ‘all is perception’; however, if that perception of our fellow human beings is one of ‘difference’ in terms of language, culture, dress, and beliefs, then we are presented with the challenge to ensure that these differences do not create the sort of divisions that lead to a ‘ghetto’ response that is sadly all too often one of the consequences of such differences.

There is beauty in diversity and diversity in beauty. This beauty is further enhanced in the human experience if all people in the world agree to differ amicably with a sense of respect for different views, or more simply put, “agree to disagree.” What a beautiful world that would be to live in. Finally, it may be said that the achievement of cultural and interfaith harmony begins with the necessary education that enables us to recognize that whatever differences there are, these must not cause divisions and unfounded suspicions. Differences are something to be embraced rather than feared; they give life a special richness that would be absent if everyone was the same. Above all, along with viewing love as a bond between people, we are bound to recognize love as an ingredient for human tolerance and harmony.

References

• Ganter, R. 2008. Muslim Australians: The Deep Histories of Contact. Journal of Australian Studies, 32(4), 482–483.
• Koleth, E. 2010-11. Multiculturalism: a review of Australian policy statements and recent debates in Australia and overseas, Parliament of Australia, Research Paper No.6, pp. 3-41.
• Kurti, P. 2013. Multiculturalism and the Fetish of Diversity. CIS policy monographs 138: Centre for Independent Studies (Australia)
• Ozdowski, S. 2012. “Australian Multiculturalism: the roots of its success.” Third International Conference on Human Rights Education: Promoting Change in Times of Transition and Crisis, The Jagiellonian University: Krakow, Poland.
• Reynolds, H. 1987. Frontier: Aborigines, settlers and land. Sydney: Allen – Unwin.
• Stephenson, P. 2007. The outsiders within: Telling Australia’s indigenous-Asian story. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press Ltd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Life, illness, and death are basic human conditions. But at the same time, it is a very individual decision which specific meaning you ascribe to these elements. These meanings also affect the behavior patterns of our life and its consequences. Ascriptions of meaning can – considered without any judgment – be of religious, nationalist, pluralist, and atheistic nature, or be supported from the symbiosis of several ways of thinking.

In the training of health care professionals and in public lectures, the author of this article noticed that illness has a very negative image: the color which stands for physical and mental discomfort is a deep black, while shiny white is the color of health. Consequently, modern medicine therapies have been developed that do not necessarily try to diagnose the causes of diseases, but most of all combat the declared enemy. For this purpose, high-dose drugs, radiation and other weapons are out in the field, according to the motto: attack is the best defense.

The doctors make every effort to win the battle, but there is a risk that the emotional state of the ill person falls into despair – because it is taught to him that his new physical condition is an unnatural, undesirable condition. Thus, a melancholy forms, which reduces the quality of life dramatically. The patient regards the illness as invincible.

In the following, I will present some perspectives that renowned scholar Said Nursi (d. 1960) demonstrated decades ago. They are still powerful today. In my opinion, they harbor the potential to raise the quality of life not only of the ill, but also of healthy people.

In his treatise “The Twenty-fifth Gleam: 25 Remedies for the Sick”¹ Said Nursi throws 25 views (Turkish: Deva² ) on the phenomenon of illness. His outlook could assist in transforming the negative picture of illness into a positive one.

What makes a shift in perspective so important?

Anyone who prepares himself while he or she is a healthy person, if they later catch a more serious illness, will benefit from this text. Nursi’s thoughts on the meaning of illness and potential remedies can play an important role in preparation. Those who internalize his message can help prevent the emotional fall into depression and may instead hope for a cure.

Said Nursi’s first view presents its readers with the understanding that illness should not be seen as a problem that brings bitterness into life, but that you can also draw strength out of it. There may, as said before, be different ascriptions of meaning to human life, but ultimately all people agree that life is something precious and offers a variety of opportunities. The direction of our lives depends on which use we make of these opportunities.

Those who consider illness as something negative will experience every illness as a curse. Such an attitude has a negative impact on the patient and their environment and turns them very pessimistic. They might castigate themselves, and ask questions like: “Why is it me of all people who has ​​this disease?” In extreme cases, this can lead the patient to become delusional and withdraw from society. A shift in perspective, however, can release positive energy and let sorrow and pain melt away.

Those who recognize the opportunities offered by life and appreciate the efforts and labors of everyday life as something positive will concede that even diseases have a meaningful function – for themselves and humanity as a whole.

Nursi says that ill people perceive time differently, which enables them to observe their environment from a more passive perspective. This passivity is supposed to tear modern, urbanized people from the hustle and bustle of everyday life and move them to a pause. It decelerates the lives of those affected and leads them to horizons healthy people find difficulty to access.

Nursi’s second view goes to the role of prayer which he defines in two forms: positive and negative prayers. He refers to prayers like ritual worship, fasting, supplication, and other forms of remembrance as “positive” (müspet) prayers. “Negative” (menfi) prayer on the other hand is attaining awareness and knowledge of one’s own vulnerability and mortality – which is more likely to arise in moments of illness rather than any other time – as a result of which one turns to God in praise of His ultimate power and infinity. Nursi signifies these positive and negative prayers as the second remedy.

The insight into our own transience, which is the third remedy, allows the ill person to recall their past mistakes, many of which might have been forgotten, and allows them to reconcile with themselves and their fellow humans. According to Nursi, this allows a person to realize they are not as perfect and as infallible as they thought. Illness makes people honest: honest with themselves and with others. The confession of the own fallibility is tantamount to an admission of human weakness and mortality.

Viewed from this perspective, the question arises as to whether illness itself is a cure for mankind. It conveys us new views and leads us to reconsider our previous positions. The ill person becomes an observer, and he finally has time to start thinking. As said by Nursi, he realizes that mankind may be considered the crown of creation. But man’s frailty, his aging, and also the health problems of other people make him realize that life on earth is not all there is – a realization that opens his eyes and takes him out of the darkness into the light. Becoming aware of one’s mortality takes away any thoughtlessness. It causes a person to shed laziness and reflect on their obligations.

If the patient manages to do so, they will feel gratitude and be patient, not least in dealing with physical ailments. This gratitude and patience is what Nursi refers to as the fourth remedy. For Nursi, the body is not the property of man, but rather a loan, which he may not dispose of freely. Suffering is to be endured, since it can do some good, too. Nursi characterizes it as a kind of bonus, which God the ultimate owner of our body grants to us, and we should not protest against it.

Chronic diseases or disabilities, which are seen very negatively in today’s society, can be reinterpreted positively in this way because, as Nursi asserts, they bring a gain in knowledge compared that we cannot achieve when healthy. As a result of their illness, they understand new things that healthy people cannot, just as blind, deaf, or dumb people perceive their environment differently, and sometimes more sharply, than people without physical limitations.

Each person strives for well-being, mercy, and forgiveness, and every sorrow and misfortune also harbors rays of mercy in it. From behind the veil of the illness many quite pleasant insights can emerge. A new consciousness arises, and thus many people gain the courage to take risks and reposition oneself in life.

This maturity Nursi describes as the fifth remedy and it can be observed especially in young ill people. Because of their illness, and in contrast to their peers, they have to cope with issues that seem to contradict their youth. They do not fall into the typical noise of youth and are relieved of thoughtlessness and of the pressures of everyday life.

From this point of view, health, for some people, can be even a calamity that can make their heads spin and blind, and lets them lose sight of the fact that their life does not last forever.

Conclusion

Even these first 5 of 25 views on the subject of illness show that not everything, which is interpreted as negative, is actually negative. A shift in perspective can often work wonders.

Nevertheless, such a shift in perspective appears quite disconcerting initially in our modern society in which health equals to a gift and illness to a disaster. If we have considered diseases as the enemy for so long, why should we suddenly welcome disease? A notion that a disease may also enrich the patient and their friends and family is a useful approach. Surely, the thought that positive thinking can influence the illness (coping), and even contribute to the healing process, is quite common. However, the angle shift described by Said Nursi goes much further. And in my eyes, there is no doubt that it is able to significantly improve the quality of a patient’s life and environment.

Illness allows ill persons to pull out from everyday life, at least for some time. Thereby, it gives them new insights and opens doors that probably would have remained closed if they had stayed healthy. Illness allows a refocusing of which we can benefit from as individuals and communities.

Erdogan Karakaya is pursuing a master’s degree in history in Heidelberg, Germany.

Footnotes

1. Nursi, Said. 2009. 25 Remedies for the Sick, the Twenty-fifth Gleam, NJ: Tughra Books.
2. Deva in Turkish actually means cure, resort, and solution. In this article it is also understood as view or view angle.

In the case of Islam, the Qur’an does not separate between the physical and the spiritual, or between matter and meaning. They are all on one continuum. Matter is the vehicle conveying meaning, like the material of a book for instance, the paper, ink and shapes of the letters etc., all mean something; they convey meaning and there cannot be meaning without the matter. From the Qur’anic perspective, that is what nature is about. Everything is seen as a sign or a symbol pointing to a transcendent reality, i.e. something that transcends the material, transcends what is here. There is an ontological continuity with the world to the very concept of God.

This connection between the spiritual and the physical, the Divine and the Creator, imparts a certain degree of sanctity to the world of nature. Just as the scripture is sacred, so is the world in the Islamic interpretation. In fact, just as the Qur’an presents the world of nature as a sign, it also calls its own verses signs, using the same word. The verses in the Qur’an that talk about natural phenomena includes both the verse itself and what the verse relates to in the outside world. This semantic connection is further strengthened through various Qur’anic descriptions.

According to the Qur’an, God communicates by “sending” His signs. There is basically no essential difference between linguistic and non-linguistic (phenomenological) signs; both types are equally Divine signs. All that we usually call natural phenomena—such as rain, wind, the structure of the heaven and the earth, alternation of day and night, the turning about of the winds, etc.—would be understood not as simple natural phenomena but as the many “signs” or “symbols” pointing to the Divine intervention in human affairs, as evidences of the Divine Providence, care and wisdom displayed by God for the good of human beings on this earth.

God speaks through words in the scriptures and through actions in the world; both of these are seen as modes of communication. That is why nature is also referred to as the “cosmic Qur’an” in the Islamic tradition. God speaks through verbal speech and through creative activity. Both of them are signs and one does not exist without the other because the Qur’an always refers to the outer world. God speaks as He creates, and in order to understand His verbal speech, one needs to observe the creational activity in the world. The reverse is also true: in order to understand what is going on in the world, one needs to listen to the scripture (verbal speech). Like a movie and its script, if the movie is in another language or there is no sound, how are you to understand? That would be the same as looking at nature without scripture. Inversely, if we were to hear the sound of the movie but the screen was blank, that would be like listening to the scripture but not being involved in the world. As nature is viewed as the cosmic Qur’an, the two must be read together. It is viewed less as a book and more as a speech; there’s the idea that everything is dynamic and constantly in creation.

The Qur’an has a very clear view of nature and a coherent view of causality. It tells of the causal relationship of science that is assigned to the Divine Attributes. For instance, the difference between seeing an inanimate egg versus seeing a living, flying bird that has come from something apparently lifeless, makes one wonder. Because of the polarity between the two i.e. the cause being very simple yet the outcome is dynamic, the relationship and the connection is seen to exist.

The Qur’anic text mentions the heavens 310 times, the earth 451 times, the process of rain, the clouds and water more than 50 times. It also talks about the seas, trees, vegetation, the formation of the human embryo, etc.

In the heavens and on the earth there are indeed (clear) signs for the believers (pointing to God’s Existence, Oneness, and Lordship); And in your creation and His scattering (innumerable kinds of) living creatures (through the earth) there are (clear) signs for a people who seek certainty of faith (in His existence, Oneness, and Lordship). And in the alternation of night and day (with their periods shortening and lengthening), and in the provision (rain) God sends down from the sky and reviving thereby the earth after its death, and in His turning about of the winds — (in all this) there are (clear) signs for a people who are able to reason and understand. Those are the Revelations of God that We recite to you (through Gabriel) with truth. In what other statement, if not in God and His Revelations, will they, then, believe? (Al-Jathiyah, 45:3−6)

God it is Who has made the sea to be of service to you by making it subservient (to His command) so that the ships may run through it by His command, and that you may seek of His bounty, and that (in return) you may give thanks. He has also made of service to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth, all is from Him (a gift of His Grace). Surely in this there are (clear) signs for a people who reflect. (45:12−13)

Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of night and day there are signs for the people of discernment. They remember and mention God (with their tongues and hearts), standing and sitting and lying down on their sides (whether during the Prayer or not), and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth: “Our Lord, You have not created this (the universe) without meaning and purpose. All-Glorified You are. (3:190−191)

We have set up firm mountains on the earth lest it should shake them with its movement, and We have made thereon broad paths, so that they might find their way. And We have established the heaven as a canopy well-secured (against collapse and the ascension of devils). Yet they turn away from all such signs (of truth manifested) in the universe. It is He Who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Every one (of such celestial bodies) floats in its orbit. (21:31−33)

O humankind! If you are in doubt about the Resurrection, (consider that) We created you from earth (in the beginning while there was nothing of your existence as humankind, and the material origin of every one of you is also earth). Then (We have created you) from a drop of seminal fluid, then from a clot clinging (to the womb wall), then from a lump in part shaped and in part not shaped, and differentiated and undifferentiated, and so do We clarify for you (the reality of the Resurrection). And We cause what We will (to come into the world) to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then We bring you out as (dependent) infants, then (We provide what is necessary and appropriate) so that you may attain your age of full strength. Among you some are caused to die (during this period of growth and afterwards), and some are kept back to the most miserable state of old age, ceasing to know anything after once having known some things. (As another proof for the Resurrection and a sign to comprehend it,) you see earth dry and lifeless, and suddenly, when We send down the (known, blessed) water on it, it stirs and swells and grows every pleasant pair of vegetation. And so, God is He Who is the Absolute Truth and Ever-Constant, and He gives life to the dead, and He has full power over everything. (22:5−6)

It also makes ample use of phrases like, “So look at…,” “Do they not see…?” “Do they not think…?” calling repeatedly on its audience to look at the world.

Say: “Go about on the earth and see how God originated creation. Then God will bring forth the other (second) creation (in the form of the Hereafter). Surely God has full power over everything” (29:20)

Then, let human consider his food (and so reflect on his Lord’s Mercy and the truth of Resurrection), That We pour down the water in abundance; Then We split the earth in clefts; And so We enable grain to grow therein, And grapes, and edible plants, And olive-trees and date-palms, And gardens dense with foliage, And (diverse other) fruits and herbage, As a means of livelihood for you and your animals. (80:24−32)

Do they not consider the camels – how they are created? And the heaven, how it has been raised high? And the mountains, how they have been set firm? And at the earth, how it has been spread out? (88:17−20)

There is less interest in the “why” but rather in the “how.” Thus science, as a systematic study of nature that developed in Islamic civilization, could not treat nature and its study as an entity separate from the Islamic worldview; this includes the sciences that were inspired by the very worldview of Islam—the concept of time, space, functions (everything is relational). Many scientific findings including functions like sine, cosine, all have a background to a particular worldview. The regularities, the laws of nature are actually mirroring the laws of the Divine Names.

In this Qur’anic view, nature is a dynamic system rather than an inert body. Nature accepts and acts upon Divine Commands, like all else between the heavens and the earth. This view of nature grants it distinct metaphysical qualities. Rather than being self-subsisting, autonomous or random, nature is described by the Qur’an as a sophisticated system of interconnected, consistent, uniform, and highly active entities, all of which are ontologically dependent on the Creator and exalt Him in their own specific ways. As the Qur’an often repeats “The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is between them sing the glories of God.”

This dependence and subservience of nature to God however does not occur haphazardly, since God’s ways and laws are unchanging (33:62). Actually, that is how the Muslim is supposed to reach belief in the Divine i.e., through observing the uniformity of nature, which is a sign of Divine activity. Thus the entire world of nature operates through immutable laws that can be discovered through the investigation of nature. Since these laws are both uniform and knowable, and since nature points to something higher than itself—indeed, to the Creator Himself—it follows that the study of nature leads to an understanding of God, and is in fact a form of worship.

Science historian Professor Briffault wrote about the scientific enterprise as it was carried out centuries ago in the Muslim civilization as follows:

The method of continuous observation was systematically carried out—some observations extending over twelve years—at the observatories of Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo. So much importance did they attach to accuracy in their records that those of special interest were formally signed on oath in legal form. (Briffault, 143)

He also wrote:

Not only did the Arabs create those mathematics which were to be the indispensable instrument of scientific analysis, they laid the foundation of those methods of experimental research which in conjunction with mathematical analysis gave birth to modern science (Briffault, 144-145)

In fact, the emergence of science within the Islamic civilization is interconnected to the phenomenon of the Qur’an which provides a clear conception of nature, the laws of nature and causality, thus giving a coherent view of the subject of scientific investigation (i.e. nature). Sciences that emerged in Islamic civilization can be shown to have intrinsic links with the Islamic worldview including Islamic rituals such as the five daily canonical prayers and the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Many branches of science were directly related to Islamic practices and emerged from a specific view of nature anchored in Islam: astronomy used to determine the distance and direction toward Mecca (the direction Muslims face for their obligatory prayers five times a day); geography; cartography, and more. At the time, when the earth was generally thought to be flat, Idrisi (12th century) drew it as spherical.

Muslim scientists were concerned more with the infinite than the finite. Time and space were no longer static concepts (Greeks), but dynamic. Since God reveals himself in this world at every moment of existence, and this world is continuously coming into existence, they regarded the universe not as finite or as being, but as becoming. They expressed this conviction by elevating numbers to the status of functions that imply movement, dynamism, and relational connections rather than separate, static entities.

The Qur’an continuously states in the clearest terms that nothing at all other than God possesses the attributes of Divinity, and that under whatever name, no cause has attributes like maker, creator, giver of sustenance, bringer down of rain from the skies, and raiser of plants from the earth.

Say: “Who is it that provides for you from heaven and earth, or Who is it that possesses full power over (your) hearing and eyes, or Who is it that brings forth the living from the dead and brings forth the dead from the living, and Who directs the whole affair (the universe)?” They will say, “It is God.” Then, say: “Will you not then keep your duty to him in reverence for Him and in fear of His punishment?”

The universe exists in order to make the Creator known. By considering the manner in which beings are created, those who think may find attributes which pertain to their Creator. These Divine attributes are known in the Islamic traditions as the “Beautiful Names.” As such, Muslims are supposed to study the universe in order to get to know their Sustainer through it. Both causes and effects, and particularly their orderly relationships, mirror the Divine Names. The Qur’an points out the numerous and significant benefits in the effects so that it will be understood that unconscious causes are infinitely distant from intending the effects. It may also be understood that causes are only veils and these wise aims are the work of the One Who is All-Knowing, Wise, and Powerful, possessing infinite knowledge, wisdom and power etc. In this way, the Qur’an dismisses causes from owning their effects. A Muslim scholar explains this point with a metaphor: when seen from afar, mountain peaks on the horizon appear to be adjacent to the sky. But as one approaches, it is understood that there is an infinite distance between the earth and the sky. Similarly, when seen from afar, that is, when seen superficially without questioning, causes and effects appear to be adjacent. But on drawing close, and scrutinizing the relationship intentionally, it may be realized that there is a great distance between the cause and the effect. That is, it is understood that even an apparently powerful cause such as the sun has not the slightest influence on a most simple effect. The so-called cause of the effect does not possess the knowledge and will not be necessary for the occurrence of the effect. Cause and effect occur together but they have no relationship by which they affect each other. In fact their purposeful arrangement is a sign from the Creator that has created them side by side. The Qur’an says that should all causes unite, they would be powerless to create even the least significant being, like a mosquito.

The general logic of the Qur’an concerning causality is that:

1. Since causes are extremely commonplace and powerless and the effects attributed to them are significant and full of art, this dismisses causes.
2. And the aims and benefits of effects also discharge ignorant and lifeless causes, and hand them over to an All-Wise Maker.
3. Also, the adornment and skill on the face of effects indicates a Wise Maker Who wants to make His power known to conscious beings and desires to make Himself loved.

This conception of the world by no means denies the uniformity of the world. It is actually quite the opposite; order is itself a proof of unity. Each relation between cause and effect is itself considered to be a sign pointing to the Maker and ascribing all the rest of creation to Him. The crucial point is that these relations are vertical and directly connected to the Maker. The remarkable ordering of the universe is understood to proceed from God’s Wisdom. The rules and ordinances of creation proceed from Divine Attributes. The uniformity of sequence of cause and effect is also a sign (aya) pointing to God and making Him known with His Names and Attributes.

Given the inherent relationships between God, humanity, and nature, it is impossible in Islam to conceive of nature as an independent, self-subsisting entity. Likewise, science—as an organized enterprise that studies and explores the natural world—is conceived as an entity integral to Islam. In fact, the lack of separation of state and religion in Islamic polity is applicable to all other domains, as Muslims believe that Islam is not merely a set of commandments and rituals but a complete way of life, encompassing all domains of knowledge and human activity. This worldview is based on the principle of Tawhid, the Oneness of God, a concept that lies at the heart of the Islamic tradition. Oneness or Tawhid unifies all realms of being and of knowledge, making them branches of the same tree. Everything is interconnected and stems from One Unique source. It may be difficult for the modern materialist mind—accustomed to regarding religion solely as a set of personal beliefs—to understand this aspect of Islam.

Meaning of phenomena and regularity is intentional and there is mercy in this. Order is not a given but is a gift and a sign of care and love. When a baby is delivered out of the womb, the mother’s milk is ready for feeding. There is always the same arrangement for all babies—it is a given. This is where philosophy and science begin to “touch” one another, and where Islam provides a philosophy to what science observes.

Dr. Yamina Mermer is a member of the Scriptural Reasoning Group based at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, UK.
Dr. Eren Tatari is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rollins College, Florida.

To date, many have spoken for Islam: experts, apologists, extremists, politicians, religious leaders, even fiction writers. In this cacophony of voices everyday Muslims have remained silent. Many have speculated on their silence, promoting causes and foreseeing the clash of civilizations and the end of world.

The silenced majority of Muslims have spoken for Who Speaks for Islam? written by John L. Esposito, professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University and Dalia Mogahed, a senior Analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, provides a comprehensive analysis on a multiyear, mammoth, Gallup poll data – “the largest study of its kind” – which attempts to answer popular questions such as: Is Islam to blame for extremism? Why is there so much anti-Americanism in the Muslim world? Who are the extremists? What do Muslim women really want?

The Gallup Institution surveyed over 55,000 Muslims in over 35 Muslim populated countries. When we ponder on the role this data may play in the betterment of relations with 1.3 billion inhabitants of the world, we can’t help, but appreciate in depth the painstaking efforts shown in this project. Readers can also read about the challenges and method of the survey at the end of the book.

Most of the answers of the surveyed go against the popular perceptions and shed light on the level of misinformation and distortion we all are exposed to, reminding us one more time of Einstein’s advice that a man should look for what is and not for what he believes should be. Constructed in a comprehensive design and plain language, the data can easily be grasped by say, even the statistics illiterate. Every effort is made to ensure a wider readership. The book is organized in five chapters under five crucial questions:

Who are Muslims?

After exploring the five pillars of Islam (i.e. profession of faith, prayer, fasting during Ramadan, almsgiving, and pilgrimage to Mecca), the books touches upon sensitive issues such as the meaning of jihad, the role of family and culture in Islam, nostalgia for a glorious past, and politics.

Democracy or theocracy?

Many important questions are tackled in this chapter such as: Why is democracy absent in so much of the Muslim world? Is Islam the problem? How do Muslims view democracy? Should support for Sharia make the West panic? What do Muslims believe the chances are of improving relations with the West? Many Muslims view democracy as necessary for progress but skeptical about America and Europe’s intentions in promoting democracy in Muslim countries.

What makes a radical?

Extremists and terrorists were thought to be uneducated, poor, religious fanatics who reject modernization and technology, yet within weeks of 9/11, the media reported the “stunning discovery” that many of the attackers were, like Bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al- Zawahiri, well educated (some of them in western universities), middle to upper class, and from stable family backgrounds. Investigating diagnosis and misdiagnosis, this chapter explores the causes of extremism based on poll data.

What do women want?

When asked by the Gallup Poll of American households, “What do you admire least about Muslims or Islamic world?” American women answer “gender inequality” as among the top responses. Many have engaged in struggle to liberate the Muslim woman, yet her voice rarely makes its way in the discourse. Interesting answers are given by Muslim women to questions, like: How do Muslim women feel about Islam and the Sacred Law (Sharia)? Do they want to be liberated by the West? How do they view gender equality?

Clash or coexistence?

Confronting myths vs. realities, this chapter offers insights into what can be done to end global terrorism. The ability to move beyond presuppositions and stereotypes in our attitudes and policies and to form partnerships that transcend an “us” and “them” view of the world is critical to this cause. According to data findings, public diplomacy, defined as winning minds and hearts, is required. Finally, here is a trial size bite from the book without spoiling it. There is a prevalent assumption about Islam and democracy being incompatible. Yet that the majority of the respondents declared democracy as one of the things they admired most about West. Another impressive finding of this book was the answer Muslims gave to the open ended question: What can the West do to improve relations with Muslims? The answer was: Show respect. Respect comes with better understanding and reading Who Speaks for Islam? may be an important step toward it.

What do you think?

“Who am I?” People from all backgrounds, experiences, and ages find different responses to this complicated question. Understanding one’s self is probably the greatest intellectual challenge for human beings. A simple answer to this question can be found via basic states of belonging: professional status, family membership, social status, and so on. However, such simple responses do not help us to resolve the underlying existential problems. The so-called question, in other words, seeks for an answer about the “self” itself, rather than for different social labels that are embedded in the self.

Early psychologists attempted to define the “self” in various ways. One basic definition relies on the physical body as the boundary between the self and others. This simplistic understanding of the self was extended by Gordon Allport (1961) to include psychological components, such as self-esteem. A further conceptualization of self regarded other people and prior experiences as parts of the self. William James, who had an important influence in the history of psychology, defined the self in three dimensions. Material or bodily self refers to one’s possessions, including everything one owns, the social self implies our social roles within the social environment, and the spiritual self includes thoughts and feelings about who we are (James, 1890).

Interestingly enough, psychologists after William James have tended to focus on the first and second components of the self. Today, psychology has developed branches, such as neuroscience, social psychology, and transpersonal psychology, which can be regarded as a continuation of the material, social, and spiritual self, respectively. More specifically, however, the third dimension, as transpersonal psychology and the psychology of religion, is not regarded as being part of mainstream psychology. Accordingly, the psychology of religion has been studied in university theology departments rather than psychology departments. This should not come as a surprise, because the search for an understanding of the “self” intensified among psychologists during the twentieth century, a time when religion was on the wane. The philosophical roots of this perspective can be seen even in the dualism postulated by Descartes as the body-mind distinction. Thus, we can view William James’ definition as a resistance against the understanding of that period.

Today’s popular conception of the self has evolved into another three-dimensional definition that is similar to that of William James: the individual self, which is defined as differentiation from others, the relational self, referring to assimilation with others, and the collective self, achieved by inclusion into larger social groups (Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). Although this perspective is functional in understanding the individual within the context, it reduces the existence of the “self” to a simple interaction between the individual and others (social environment); but this is a purely profane approach and excludes the spiritual self. Today, psychologists use instruments of self-concept or self-esteem; these have been standardized with national norms to compare respondents to others and judge them as having high or low self-esteem. The psychological norms are, therefore, defined based on societal norms, which are, by their very nature, arbitrary. I call this kind of conceptualization a “horizontal perspective,” as it lacks the complexity and richness of the inner world of human beings and reduces the self to the result of relationships with the other selves that surround it.

On the other hand, the conceptualization of the self with the inclusion of a spiritual component can bring about alternative perspectives. In this perspective, the “self” is basically defined in terms of a relationship between human beings and God. Moreover, the existence of the self can be explained directly with the existence of God. I call this a “vertical perspective.” Let’s delve into an example from religious thinkers who dealt with self from spiritual aspects. Said Nursi (1951/2007), an Islamic scholar, provides a striking point that exemplifies the relationship between the self and God:

An absolute and all-encompassing entity has no limits or terms and therefore cannot be shaped or formed, or determined in a way that will allow its essential nature to be comprehended. For example, light undetermined by darkness cannot be known or perceived. However, light can be determined if a real or hypothetical boundary line of darkness is drawn. In the same way, the Divine Attributes and Names (e.g., Knowledge, Power, Wisdom, and Compassion) cannot be determined, for they are all-encompassing and have no limits or like. Therefore, as their essence cannot be known or perceived, a hypothetical boundary is needed for them to become known. In order to make Himself known through His Attributes and Names, God Almighty has drawn a hypothetical line before His all-encompassing Attributes and Names. This line is the human [self]. By reflecting all of His Attributes and Names on it and thereby making it an essential dimension of human existence, the self has become a Divine trust, an arena in which the manifestations of Divine Attributes and Names are reflected in order to mirror the Divine Being. The self imagines within itself a fictitious lordship, power, and knowledge, which are reflections of their Divine counterparts, and thus posits a boundary line, hypothesizing a limit to the all-encompassing Divine Attributes, saying: “This is mine, and the rest is His.” The self thus makes a division. By means of the miniature measure it contains, the self slowly comes to understand the true nature of the Divine Attributes and Names. The self obtains a degree of understanding of God’s Absolute Knowledge through its partial knowledge and can intuit the Exalted Fashioner’s primary, originative art through its defective, acquired art. For example, the self says: “I have built and arranged this house, so there must be One Who made and arranged this universe.” (Nursi, 1951/2007, p. 552)

Unlike the definition of the self in psychology, the vertical perspective, which is defined as the self in relation to God and the rationale behind the existence of the self, is regarded in religion as facilitating one’s knowledge about the names of God. This perspective has some practical implications. For example, it challenges the overuse of psychological concepts, such as self-esteem and self-confidence, which have often been emphasized and are regarded as the key to success in life in many textbooks concerned with psychology and education. In today’s competitive world, superiority to others is appreciated. There is a mechanism of social comparison that forces us to rank ourselves in comparison to others who belong to the same society. It comes as no surprise that such a vicious cycle will create extremely individualist and ego-centric personalities. The self as represented in the concepts of self-esteem and self-concept becomes misleading, because this perception equates the self with egoism and self-centeredness. As a result, the gap between “the self” and “knowledge of self” is increasing (Wickland & Eckert, 1992). As scholars attempt to develop “knowledge of self” with the horizontal perspective, deviations from the real “self,” the essence of “self” that can be recognized through understanding God, can never be known.

This spiritual perspective offers us the opportunity to become acquainted with the self through trying to understand the reflections of God’s names (or attributes) in the Universe. This perspective is concisely represented with the statement “Whoever knows oneself, knows God,” an expression attributed to different persons in history (Al-Arabi, 1980). Above all, as the pseudo-selves that we assume are based on our subjective ranking in comparison to others, the example given above encourages human beings to find the essence of the self through attempting to understand God. Attaining the goal of self-actualization becomes possible because personal development is a perpetual endeavor and individuals do not restrict themselves to their rivals. There is always a further target to reach, since the individuals are guided by “the absolute and all-encompassing.”

Nevertheless, the prevalent concepts of the self do not cover the spiritual aspect of human beings. Individuals are forced to survive within a system that determines winners and losers, and this in turn can motivate people to attain their goals in different ways. While the so-called biased consideration of self-the horizontal comparison-is restrictive in nature, the vertical perspective, which does not include a comparison but rather a connection, provides an unending, unlimited, and satisfying journey throughout one’s lifetime.

The modern view of the self, which is devoid of any spiritual aspect, has incurred some negative results in the fields of religion and psychology. The field of psychology, except for Carl Jung, who appreciated the significance of the religious understanding of self, as well as a few psychologists who have recognized that the spiritual dimension makes people’s lives more meaningful, valuable and purposeful, has ignored a source of wisdom that has been generated over the centuries.

Conceptualization of the self merely within the individual and social aspects falls short of explaining and resolving many psychological phenomena, such as suicide, depression, eating, and anxiety disorders. Such problems can be regarded as a consequence of an over-investment in particular aspects of the self, and the neglect of deeper mechanisms, such as the conscience, benevolence, transcendence etc., which all together constitute the spiritual self. However, there are a number of psychologists who have acknowledged this problem. Here is an example: “The more we invest in the self, the more we have to lose… Indeed, the most successful and outwardly perfect self may produce the greatest inclination to escape [from the self], because higher standards create greater vulnerability and hence greater stress.” (Baumeister, 1991, p. 31). According to this argument, “outwardly perfect selves” who have enough self-esteem and social status without spiritual richness cannot avoid such problems as suicide, binge eating or masochism, which are several of the ways to escape the self. Hopefully, the following decades will reveal how the consideration of the spiritual self, as well as other conceptualizations, can improve our understanding of the self and simultaneously pave the way for understanding “self-actualization.”

Zekeriya Ozsoy is doctoral student studying educational psychology. For correspondence with the author: ozsoyzekeriya@gmail.com.

References

• Ibn al-‘Arabi (after 1229/1980). Fusus al-hikam (The Bezels of Wisdom), ed. A. Affifi, Cairo, 1946; trans. R.W.J. Austin, The Bezels of Wisdom, New York: Paulist Press.
• Allport, G. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
• Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Why escape? – The burden of self. In Escaping the self: Alcoholism, Spirituality, Masochism, and Other Flights from the Burden of Selfhood. New York City: Basic.
• Goldstein, K. (1934/1995). The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man. New York: Zone Books.
• Holy Bible: New International Version. (1978). New York: American Bible Society.
• Nursi, Said. (1952/2007). The Words: Reconstruction of Islamic Thought and Belief. New Jersey: The Light, Inc.
• James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. (2 vols.). New York: Henry Holt.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review. 50, 370-396.
• The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English by Ali Unal (2006).
• Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Individual Self, Relational Self, and Collective Self. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
• Wicklund, R. A., & Eckert, M. (1992). The Self-knower: A Hero under Control. New York: Plenum.

How does Islam view the idea of psychological projection developed by Freud? First of all, it is appropriate to highlight the writings of Said Nursi in which he tells the story of two travelers with different states in their hearts. One was serene and optimistic and viewed the world in positive ways while the other one was anxious and pessimistic, seeing the world as all negative. Both went to similar places, where ordinary lifestyles could be observed. The former one saw the place as beautiful with many good things existing there. However, it was different for the latter; wherever he looked he saw negative things.

According to Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, this difference of perspective between these two travelers is actually rooted in the state of their heart. The first traveler had no unnecessary anxiety in his heart; he was serene and content because he had relinquished all to God. He knew that whatever God had decided upon for him was best for him and he was never frightened of the future, because as long as he did the best he could, God would give him the best. Therefore, as a result, he had nothing to be depressed or worried about, as he knew that everything was taken care of by God.

The second traveler, however, had not put his trust in God enough to believe that everything was already under His management. He believed that he had the power to change things, but also believed that he did not have enough power to control everything, which in turn led to his insecurity and ego. In his heart, anxiety kept haunting him and he was worried about almost everything. As a result, in order to control his anxiety, he turned to drinking and other sins. When the two met, the first one commented that the second had perceived of everything in a negative light because he had no certainty in his heart.

There is one difference in the concept of psychological projection as coined by Freud and that from the Islamic perspective. For Freud, psychological projection happens when someone needs to suppress their negative thoughts or feelings. Considering the examples given above, lying and stealing are bad deeds and the feelings of guilt are that which the doer desires to repress. However, in Islam, projection can happen with both positive and negative feelings, as explained metaphorically by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi in his book.

Projection of this kind from an Islamic point of view can be related to a hadith regarding the heart, “…In the body, there is a piece of flesh. If it is good, the whole body is good, and if it is bad, the whole body is bad; truly, it is the heart.” This hadith underlines the importance of having a good heart to reflect well on the outer world. To apply this to the story of the two men, an insincere, insecure, worried heart reflects the similar world for the second man, while the contrary is true for the first man.

Realizing this aspect of the human psyche makes an impact on Muslims as preachers. Technically, all Muslims are in some way a preacher, regardless of their professions. Be they an engineer, educator, psychologist, policeman or officer, these professionals are entrusted by God to enjoin the good and forbid the bad. Being a good preacher might require us to filter our thoughts from unnecessary projections to those we are preaching. For example, a good Muslim psychologist who works as a counselor, and who also happens to be a single parent, must not perceive his or her client from his or her own point of view. This includes not jumping to conclusions too soon, for example, saying the client is lonely (as he or she feels, as a single parent) and deciding that all the problems of the client are rooted in loneliness. A good preacher must understand the nature and background of the audience and make an analysis that is as objective as possible.

Another impact of projection is the importance of cleansing the heart in order to construct a more optimistic view of the world. Al-Ghazali emphasizes the effectiveness of remembrance of God as a way to cleanse the heart. Performing additional forms of worships, in addition to the obligatory ones, can be a good way to make remembrance of God, for example, uttering istighfar (repentant supplication) before sleeping and engaging in self-supervision, or muraqaba. Cleansing of the heart can help a person have a more positive light in viewing this world, thus allowing more room for improvements and more opportunity to achieve something greater in life.

Psychological projection also gives us an understanding about how others might make criticisms based on their state of heart. This is important to note, because sometimes people easily succumb to the poison of criticism and cease performing correct actions merely because they are blinded by this criticism. For instance, a man is told by his friend that his good appearance when going to mosque will make others say something bad about him, because others might envy him. However, the second man’s statement may just reflect his own envy towards the first man’s good appearance. If the first man succumbs to the statement, he will try to worsen his appearance, despite the fact that we are encouraged to dress nicely when going to the mosque. By being aware of the existence of psychological projection, the first man can be more objective towards the “advice” of the second man and analyze it in the best way.

To benefit from understanding the nature of projection, we can go back to the story told by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. From this story, we can learn that projection can be both good and bad for the self. The heart, as the core of the self, can project serenity, confidence and many other positive feelings onto real life, if it has been cleansed and is pure and reflective of the line of the religious prescriptions. A positive state of heart can be very important to lead us further and it can make it easier for us to worship God. However, if the heart is negative, this can be bad as it will project whatever negative thoughts and feelings a person has. This insecure state of heart can lead to other sins, such as drinking or other problems that are rife in today’s society.

Once again we need to emphasize that understanding projection is important for us as people, because all believers are preachers. Whether we are to help others or only ourselves, pensive reflection on our backgrounds and assessments of our lives can be made to ascertain the state of our heart, and this in turn will make it more effective in helping others. Therefore, as we can see, understanding the real nature of our feelings and thoughts can be very helpful in developing ourselves.

Taufik Mohammad, PhD, is a senior lecturer in Universiti Sains Malaysia.

References

• Reported by Bukhari and Muslim with the authority of al-Numan bin Basheer. The Hadith Software, version 1.0, Islamasoft Solutions, 2002.
• Said Nursi, The Words, NJ: The Light, Inc. 2005.