The Door to Brotherhood: Dialogue…

In the book 'Prophet Muhammad and the Law of Brotherhood,' published by the Directorate of Religious Affairs and co-authored by Üsküdar Üniversitesi Founding Rector, Psychiatrist Prof. Dr. Nevzat Tarhan, Tarhan examines tolerance and dialogue under the title 'The Door to Brotherhood: Dialogue.' In the work, Tarhan draws attention to tolerance, participation, and dialogue, addressing different types of brotherhood; “Human brotherhood, religious brotherhood, national brotherhood... Whichever brotherhood it may be, all brotherhoods are true. They are the colors of truth, just like the seven colors of the rainbow,” he states.

In the work, published by the Directorate of Religious Affairs and reaching its readers, Tarhan uses the following expressions:

"The Door to Brotherhood: Dialogue"

“Human Brotherhood, Religious Brotherhood, National Brotherhood... Whichever brotherhood it may be, all brotherhoods are true. They are the colors of truth, just like the seven colors of the rainbow. Not ignoring a person's potential for friendship unless hostile behavior is observed is a fundamental human value.

Tolerance and dialogue are two important concepts that complement each other and will open the door to brotherhood. Dialogue is necessary to put tolerance into practice and establish brotherhood. When there is dialogue, tolerance comes into effect. For example, when a new medicine is discovered, it cannot be claimed to be good without being used on people, and without its results, benefits, and risks being observed. Tolerance is also a pleasant-sounding word, but its application through life and dialogue must be observed to see its results. To open the door to brotherhood, tolerance and dialogue must be considered together. Tolerance is defined in two ways:

Negative Tolerance

Negative tolerance is when a person tolerates, is patient with, and shows respect to the other side, but does not listen to them. This type of tolerance is not beneficial because it does not create dialogue. In negative tolerance, there is passive listening and passive dialogue. While the other person is speaking, the individual thinks about what they will say next and tries to impose their own opinion. It is not a substantive, beneficial tolerance, and it becomes clear that this type of tolerance cannot yield results.

Negative tolerance can also be called arrogant tolerance. In this tolerance, there is an endurance of the other party, knowing that they are not agreeable, but no attempt to understand them. There is no approach that acknowledges they might have valid points from their perspective.

Positive Tolerance

Positive tolerance refers to a reciprocal relationship that seeks to understand the other party and an understanding that maintains this relationship in a healthy way. In this tolerance, there is active dialogue. There is an effort to listen to the other party, gather their views, and develop a synthesis in response. Positive results are obtained from this type of tolerance. Positive tolerance is the result of horizontal relationships between people.

In positive tolerance, there can be aspects where the other party is right, and there are self-confident behaviors such as trying to understand them and being open to discussion. The Ottoman Empire provided the finest example of positive tolerance. Because the empire was based on justice, it established the concept of free subjects. For instance, during the Ottoman period, sects worshipping the devil emerged in Lebanon. When the Sultan was asked what should be done about them, the answer was, 'If they do not harm societal trust and public order, let them be.' The Ottoman Empire harmed no one and did not interfere. Adherents of all beliefs lived according to their own traditions. Everyone conducted their own trade, owned their own property, and formed their free populace. What the Ottomans did in the Middle Ages by treating all religions and ethnic groups equally, the West is now trying to achieve with a liberal secular approach in modernism. 'Free subjects' is a concept that defined the limits of tolerance in the Ottoman Empire.

Tolerance Is Respect for Different Ideas

Tolerance is also used synonymously with 'tolerance' in society. It means showing tolerance for the different ideas of people on the opposing side. Approximately 250 years ago, Voltaire's statement, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' provided the most beautiful example of positive tolerance. It illustrated the respect he showed for others expressing their thoughts, even when he disagreed with them. This behavior is also a sign of self-confidence. A person who trusts their own ideas is open to tolerance and dialogue. Conversely, a person who does not trust their own ideas is closed off to all of these, because they know they will lose when they speak. Someone who strives to find truth and reality does not fear dialogue or a free discussion environment, but someone who does not believe in the realities they hold and lacks self-confidence fears all of these. Lack of self-confidence is one of the psychological states that sabotages tolerance.

The Enemy of Tolerance: Selfishness

A selfish person pursuing their individual interest will choose their own interest when faced with a choice between their own interest and that of others.

Egocentrism is one of the factors that most sabotages tolerance. Modernism has caused the greatest harm to tolerance by exalting individualism in an egocentric manner. Thus, social empathy has also suffered. An egocentric person is closed to criticism, places themselves at the center, and cannot empathize. There is no effort to listen to the other party in situations, and they are in an effort to dictate their own truths to the other party. This is because they have sanctified their own ego and see themselves as special and important. It is not possible for such people to engage in dialogue; they only communicate with those who approve of them. They do not engage in dialogue that is aligned with truths and common interests, but rather dialogue that suits their own interests. This situation does not open the door to brotherhood and harms tolerance and dialogue.

Culture of Sharing

Since egocentrism also harms the culture of sharing, brotherhood cannot be established. Game theories reveal one party's gain and the other's loss. Instead, the win-win formula, which ensures the gain of both sides, should be applied. Feelings of brotherhood can only be developed this way. One person losing and the other winning serves personal interest. Common interest, however, emerges from both sides acting in a 'win-win' manner, and if a person develops an ethical standard for this in their mind, a culture of sharing emerges. It is necessary to teach how to be happy by giving, not by taking. In our culture, there is an understanding of repelling evil with goodness rather than fighting it directly. This method means combating negativity by strengthening the positive; it is a slow method but permanent.

Reasons for Intolerance

In human relationships, there are differences and similarities. A tolerant person tries to establish a relationship with the other based on similarities, not differences. However, a person with weak tolerance acts by seeing differences, not similarities. For example, an intolerant person does not see ten good behaviors but sees one wrong behavior. These are individuals with narcissistic traits. They exalt their own egos and devalue the egos of others, thus they cannot open the door to brotherhood. Intolerant people also have a perfectionist trait. They appear humble but expect perfection from others. This stems from hidden arrogance.

One of the factors that hinders the development of dialogue and tolerance is emotional deafness and blindness. In this condition, it is impossible to hear the emotions of the other person or read clues about them, thus the doors to brotherhood cannot be opened.

If there is intolerance in society, it means there is a problem with establishing dialogue. After determining the source of the problem, a method is decided upon based on the steps both sides will take.

Intercultural dialogue has also revealed the errors of modern humanity. As in Fukuyama's example of the fat dog, he likens modern humans to a fat dog comfortably lying in the shade of a tree with a full belly. It has no concern for the hungry dogs, which is why it causes the hungry dogs to become its enemies. Here, it is very difficult for hungry dogs and well-fed dogs to establish dialogue. Fukuyama proposes the development of morality and altruism against this situation. The author states that if these qualities do not develop, the fat dog will eventually be torn apart by the hungry dogs. He claims that if morality and altruism are not taught to people in modern society, humanity will also meet its end. It is of crucial importance for rich societies and people to be altruistic and empathetic, as this will affect the future of humanity. The obstacle to brotherhood and dialogue is societal narcissism.

The Door to Brotherhood: Dialogue

Monologue means one person speaks and the other listens. One side explains their view to the other. In a monologue, the person is not ready to change their view or debate. In dialogue, however, two different views are discussed. Both sides openly state their different views and reveal the facts.

Plato was the first to use dialogue. During his time, discussions on doctrine and method arose. However, Plato called dialogue 'a method for determining truth' and wrote his books using this method. According to this method, Plato puts forward his own view, the opposing view states its ideas, he makes his defense, and by refuting the opposing view, he convinces himself of his own view. This result is achieved by engaging in dialogue with the opposing view. However, there is a drawback here, such as Plato assuming the correctness of his own idea.

Hegel, on the other hand, explains the dialectic of any subject with the thesis, antithesis, synthesis paradigm. In dialectics, there is a view, an opposite to that view, and as a result of the dialogue between these views, sparks of truth and synthesis emerge from the clash of ideas. This is how dialogue becomes a doctrine. This situation is the transformation of dialectics into a doctrine. For this reason, dialogue is not only a method but also a doctrine.

Negative Dialogue

The falsification method in the test system forms the basis of negative dialogue. Negative dialogue is finding the truth by eliminating errors. It is a method that proceeds by correcting errors sequentially, advancing through them. Negative dialogue is a way that proceeds by correcting errors, convincing the other party, and making the other party feel psychologically bad. It also causes a loss of time and energy. Ultimately, it also harms dialogue. Dialogue conducted by correcting negativities reveals the truth but harms tolerance, communication, and empathy. It causes a person to remain in a constant state of tension. Because it deals with flaws, it can lead to conflict. When truth emerges through discussion, the other party's ego is hurt, making them feel bad. The other side also relieves their ego but cannot transfer the truth to the opposing side. By seeking the weak points of the other party, it pushes the other party into a personality and power conflict. Being in an understanding that will open the door to brotherhood requires avoiding negative dialogue.

Positive Dialogue

In positive dialogue, which can also be called the verification method, the person who knows the truth acts directly with truths. It is the method used by Rumi. The paradigm of positive dialogue includes the method of seeing beauty, thinking beautifully, and enjoying life. In positive dialogue, Rumi's compass method is applied. In this method, one leg of the compass (person) remains fixed on fundamental values like human rights, while the other leg can freely wander everywhere. The compass paradigm means being ready for any dialogue and opening without abandoning fundamental needs.

Since there is no debate in positive dialogue, there is no question of the other party feeling bad. Truths should be brought out without crushing the personality of the other party. In such situations, both sides win. One side is proven right, while the other learns a truth they did not know, and truth prevails.

Tolerance and Participation

Brotherhood develops as a result of dialogue and tolerance. Participation emerges in every field. Participation is the result of pluralism. As a result of participation, productivity increases. For example, if a person in a two-person household feels like a partner in the family, they no longer see events with two eyes, but with four eyes, and hear with four ears. This is because they grieve for the other, worry for the other, and defend their rights. When there is positive dialogue and participation, two people become like 11 people. If the same situation occurs in society, synchronization takes place. Harmony is created in society. Productivity and efficiency increase. We can see examples of this in the universe. For instance, a battery illuminates a small area because photons scatter from the light source. However, when light becomes a laser, if all photons move in the same direction, towards the same target, with similar motion, the light can travel up to one kilometer. The same purpose and similar motion lead to synchronization. Thus, productivity and efficiency have increased.

For dialogue to occur, the mind must be open to unfamiliar ideas. Unresolved differences should be respected, not rejected. Differences that align with societal norms should be respected. A philosophy of life needs to be developed that is sensitive to the needs of others, feels concern for others, and keeps the mind and emotions open to unfamiliar ideas.

These messages are also the messages of sacred teachings. They are a requirement of brotherhood. It is a necessity of sharing the same world. Considering the concepts of tolerance and dialogue, reflecting on 'human brotherhood,' and opening the door to brotherhood through dialogue, while adhering to ethical values, is inevitable.”