|
submit
articles |
| CONFLICT MANAGEMENT:
The SALAM Model The SNT Formula Dr. Iqbal Unus As Muslims who are aspiring to become a
model Muslim community, one of the things that frustrate us is that so
often we tend to differ, disagree and dispute with one another, and in the
process sometimes dismember our relationships and our groups. It is not
that we do not hear the words of Allah that we are One Ummah, Ummatun
Wahidah, nor is it that we do not hear the words of the Prophet
(saw) that all Muslims are like one body. Our problem is probably that we may be
focusing on solving the wrong problem. Instead of being frustrated by the
presence of dispute, disagreement, difference, or any combination of
those, we should be focusing on how we deal with them when they occur.
This is what I hope to discuss in a brief way as a way of reminding myself
and all of us of our responsibility in this matter. I use the word CONFLICT to refer to all
kinds of disputes or differences in thinking or action between individuals
or between groups of individuals. We must first recognize that no group of
people is free of conflict. That is the nature of human beings and
societies. We do a disservice by insisting on an absence of conflict. Allah SWT created us different in many
ways: The Qur'an says: Instead, we should look at conflict in a
positive way. It can be good for our collective social health. Conflict
can be good because it can help bring about necessary changes in a
situation, and can even lead to good decision making. We lose much by
attempting to eliminate conflict. We gain much by managing it in order to
benefit from it. Rather than suppressing or avoiding it, we
should respond to conflict methodically so that it contributes to the
group's success. Let us analyze the nature of conflict a little further. The Nature of Conflict Conflict can be functional or
dysfunctional, and occasional or chronic.
Overall, conflict that is dysfunctional and
chronic is undesirable, whereas conflict that is functional and occasional
is not only acceptable and normal, but functional and occasional conflict
is even desirable. A healthy tension within a group, caused by
conflict, is desirable for success. The companions of the Prophet (saw)
experienced functional and occasional conflict. For example, upon the death of the Prophet
(saw), Umar RA insisted that the Messenger of Allah did not die, and
threatened to punish those who said so, until Abu Bakr RA appeared on the
scene and recited the verse of the Qur'an that began: "Muhammad is no
more than a Messenger...." [3:144] The companions differed on where to bury
the Prophet (saw). They had conflict of opinions about who should be the
successor of the Prophet (saw), raising several questions, like: should
the successor be from the Ansars or the Muhajireen; should it be one
person or a group of persons, should he given the same authority as the
Prophet had as judge and leader or less or different? Sayyidina Umar and Sayyidina Abu Bakr had
conflicting opinions on the permissibility of fighting those who withheld
zakah. Now, conflict may sound like a strong word
to some; they may prefer use of words like disagreement or difference of
opinion. Whatever word you choose, the nature of the phenomenon remains
the same. I will use the word conflict, recognizing that some may disagree
with me. Conflict may arise on matters of limited
significance like where to go for dinner or on matters of great
significance like the results of the supreme sacrifice of millions of
Muslims on the battlefields of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, one of the
most glorious chapters in contemporary Muslim history is in danger of
becoming a messy footnote. Chronic conflict occurs when individuals or
organizations routinely differ in their approaches, expectations or views
in matters that have an impact on the parties involved. These differences
cause tensions and hard feelings whose intensity increases as the
significance of the matters under consideration does. Conflict management cannot be done in
isolation. Conflict has a context and this context must be understood by
all concerned. A confrontational approach to conflict
management forces people to take sides. If this occurs early in the
conflict resolution process, the chances of arriving at an acceptable
solution diminish greatly. To manage and possibly resolve a conflict,
start by not taking sides. Keep an open mind. Encourage the other side to
do the same. Chronic conflict is usually caused by bad
systems, not bad people. It is a situation that recurs time after time and
often even when the parties to the conflict are no longer the same as
before. Chronic conflict is a product of - for
example - misunderstood instructions, mismatched objectives, misdirected
communication, mishandled decisions, etc. Individuals and groups in such
situations become defensive even though they may themselves be victims of
a bad system of policies and procedures that govern their interaction.
Properly understood instruction, clearly matched objectives, well-directed
communication, and correctly handled decision can create a system that
minimizes conflict. Occasional conflict - as opposed to chronic
conflict - may require the leader or manager to focus on specific causes,
often of personnel nature. However, new circumstances may produce new
avenues for occasional conflict. The right approach for dealing with such
a situation is to create a culture of acceptance and mutual respect for
one another-within the bounds of right and wrong. Occasional conflict is
an acceptable risk we take when we work together. Causes of Conflict 1. Differences in Goals 2. Interdependence
3. Perceptions
Patterns of Conflict Conflict develops and grows in a certain
way. We will examine two instances of conflict in early Muslim history to
observe the underlying pattern of conflict. The first incidence is the
case of land distribution after the conquest of Iraq in the days of 'Umar
(RA). The other incidence is that of the conflict between 'All (RA) and
Mu'awiya (RA) regarding succession following the death of 'Uthman (RA). 1. Distribution of Land A crisis emerges After Muslim armies had entered Iraq as
victors, the responsibility to decide if and how to divide the conquered
land fell on the khalifah, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA). Opinions were
divided on the issue and Muslims were in conflict with one another. The disagreement escalates. On the one hand, the army commanders
thought that the land should be divided and distributed. For example, a
senior companion `Abdur Rahman ibn `Awf also favored distribution. `Uthman,
`Ali and `Umar (RA) thought that the land should not be distributed but
left with the original cultivators. Confrontation occupies the center of attention. A general assembly was called. It included
all Muhajireen, and five representatives each from Aws and Khazraj tribes. Crisis deepens. The general assembly discussed the matter
for several days. The crisis became prolonged and complicated. Further
crisis is resorted to. The conflict is resolved. `Umar (RA) one day referred to the Qur'anic verse that concluded with the words "...those who come after them." The assembly was convinced when `Umar (RA) said: "How, then, can I distribute it amongst you and leave those who come afterwards without any share?" Thus, the conflict was resolved by resorting to an acceptable authority. 2. Succession of Khilafah The crisis emerges. `Uthman (RA)'s assassination resulted in a
deep division among people who demanded that the new Khalifah, `Ali ibn
Talib (RA) punish the assassins and those who favored the conciliatory
approach of the Khalifah. Mu`awaiya (RA) refused to accept the leadership
of `Ali (RA). The conflict escalates. `Ali (RA) replaced, only with partial
success, governors appointed by the previous Khalifah, while refusing to
accede to the demands that the those who murdered `Uthman be punished. On
the other hand, Mu`awiya (RA) continued to seek subjugation of tribes
through persuasion or fore, in defiance of the Khalifah. Confrontation occupies the center of attention. `Ali (RA) sent a letter to Mu`awiya (RA)
asking him to submit to his leadership. Mu'awiya refused. The Khalifah
sent an army to subdue him. The two armies faced each other for three
months while concerned people on either side continued to attempt a
settlement. A truce lasted an additional month before it broke out into an
all out war. There was much bloodshed, but no victor. The two leaders
continued to exhort their followers against the other. The crisis deepens. Finally, it was agreed that the matter of
the appointment of the Khalifah be left to the decision of two referees,
Abu Musa from `Ali (RA)'s side and `Amr ibn al-`As from the other side.
After six months the referees met and after much discussion agreed to the
solution that both the contenders be deposed and then people be allowed to
choose whomever they wish to. After Abu Musa announced the withdrawal of
the `Ali and Mu`awiya, `Amr announced that he accepts `Alis withdrawal
but confirms Mu`awiya's claim to the Khilafah! The schism widened further. Conflict is resolved. With no solution in sight, a group of Muslims decided that the struggle would end only with the assassination of `Ali (RA), Mu`awiya (RA) and `Amr (RA). They succeeded only in killing `Ali (RA), enabling Mu`awiya to become the undisputed ruler. From a shortsighted point of view, the conflict was resolved by resorting to brute force. From a long-term perspective, the apparent resolution eventually led to a profound schism in the Muslim Ummah. The Do's and Donts of Conflict Do 1. Do assume that everybody is doing the
best that he or she can do. Everybody is behaving in ways that make sense
to him or herself. 2. Do accept that most conflicts are the
result of bad systems and not bad people. 3. Do allow that often conflicts arise when
present systems do not allow people to get what they need from each other. Don't 1. Do not assume that the 'right' answer
has already been discovered and is held by one of the parties involved in
the conflict. 2. Do not assume that the-truth of a
particular position is related to the force or eloquence with which it is
presented, the number of people who hold that position, the title of the
person who espouses it, or other circumstances that are irrelevant to the
merit of the position itself. 3. Do not go for 'winning,' 'being right,'-
and 'having the answer,' rather than being willing to negotiate and seek
alternatives. 4. Do not assume that people rather than
systems are at fault. 5. Do not assume that others' positions or
behaviors are unreasonable. 6. Do not assume that resolution will
necessarily create winners and losers. The S-A-L-A-M Model It is not the purpose of this booklet to
talk about the theory of conflict - on why and how it occurs - but to
point out how we can handle it to our advantage. For this purpose, I draw
your attention to a model which I call the SALAM model of conflict
management. The English acronym SALAM is a
transliterated version of the corresponding Islamic terms. I want to use
the letters of SALAM to refer to a process of dealing with conflict. The SALAM model points to a systematic way of approaching the conflict and moving towards a fair resolution, assuming of course that all parties to the conflict want to reach a fair conclusion. S =
stating the conflicting view The first letter S stands for
stating the conflicting view. We should not assume that we already know
what the nature or content of the conflict is. Let it be stated what it is
that we are in conflict about. The Qur'an advises us not to act on what we
do not know. In Sūrah Al Isra: "And pursue not that
of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing or of seeing or
of (feeling in) the heart will be inquired into (on the Day of
Reckoning)." [17:36] In Sūrah Al Najm: "But they have no
knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture
avails nothing against the truth." [53:28 Once what is in conflict is clearly stated
- without agreement or disagreement, it is possible to relate it to the
conflicting parties' purposes. This will establish what is at stake and
how critical is the disagreement. Some conflict might be resolved just by
stating the parameters of conflict clearly, because one party or the other
might find that it can live with the situation without trying to change
it. Therefore, S stands for stating the
conflicting view. The second letter A stands for agreeing
that a conflict exists, again without making any judgment. At this stage, we must detach issues from
personalities. One way to do that is, when possible, let each side state
the other side's position as fairly as it can. This enables them both to
focus on issue, not persons. The third letter L stands for listening for
and learning the difference. Of course, that is the tough part. Most of the time, we listen not to learn
but to respond when our turn comes. Here we must turn to the essence of
the Islamic principles of shura, by focusing on the issues. The two
parties should move to a higher level by consulting with one another on
how to attack the problem between them. Through this exercise of shura,
they direct their mutual resources of creativity, experience, wisdom, etc.
to attack the problem, not one another. As far as shura is concerned, there is
probably no other Islamic concept that is talked about as much as and
practiced as little as shura. Therefore, I will not spend more time
discussing what shura is. However, within the context of avoiding
conflict, one must stress the pro-active nature of shura. When the Prophet
received the news about Abu Sufyan's caravan before the Battle of Badr, he
consulted the members of his expedition. Sayiddina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina
Umar spoke and then al Miqdad ibn 'Amr spoke, and then there was a long
silence. The Prophet (saw) asked for advice. It seemed he was anxious to
hear the Ansar's view because he had made a pledge with at al `Aqabah. Then Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, their leaders,
addressed the Prophet (saw) asking the Prophet (saw) if he was seeking to
hear their views, and the Prophet (saw) confirmed that indeed he was. This
anecdote stresses the pro-active nature of shura, the idea the one has to
invite and seek shura, not simply engage in it because it is forced by
circumstances. Of course at this stage, we must examine
the guidelines of Shariah with respect to the issues at hand. This should
also be a mutual effort, to make the Shariah - in a sense - an unbiased
arbitrator. The fourth letter A stand for advising one
another. This is a stage where compromises begin to take shape. We advise
one another in the Islamic manner of nasīha, recognizing that the advisor
is not always right. Two things are important here. First: we move to common ground by proposing action that meets the principal needs of the other party while enabling us to reach our goals. Second: we offer to help carry out whatever is agreed upon. Again, we are talking about a pro-active mode of behavior. It requires a continual monitoring of actions and prompt evaluative response to them. We all know the very famous hadith of the
Prophet (saw) related by Muslim on the authority of Abu Ruqayya Tamim ibn
Aus ad-Dari (ra): The Prophet (saw) said: Religion is good advice. We
said: To whom? He said: To Allah and His Book, and His Messenger, and to
the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk. We see that the Prophet (saw) extended the principle of nasīha to every one from the top to the bottom, from the leaders to the common folks. Thus the giving or receiving of nasīha is not restricted to one group of the other but is a general operational principle, specially when we study this hadith with the other famous one: A believer is a mirror to his brother. The last letter M stands for minimizing
areas of disagreement that could lead to aggression or withdrawal. We do not want the other party to become an
aggressor because they did not get what they wanted. In most situations,
we also do not want the other party to withdraw from us. In most
situations, this will be only a short-lived resolution of the conflict,
until the other party feels strong enough to challenge the resolution. Therefore, we want to seek agreement in as
many aspects of the conflict as possible, minimizing those aspects in
which either party has to yield its position. We recognize that conflict
is unavoidable; and that it is even desirable to have functional and
occasional conflict. When two people always agree with one another, one of them is redundant. The S-N-T Formula There are ways to keep conflict functional
and occasional, and avoid the emergence of dysfunctional and chronic
conflict. This can be achieved by adopting a mode of behavior that I call
the S-N-T formula. Those of you need who need crutches to
remember things - as I do - can make a mental note that S-N-T is the
English word SAINT without the vowels. S = Shura (Consultation) As far as shura is concerned, we have
already discussed it above. However, within the context of avoiding
conflict, one must stress the pro-active nature of shura, the idea that
one has to invite and seek shura, not simply engage in it because it is
forced by circumstances. The case of decision making before the Battle of
Badr quoted earlier is illustrative of this point. If we consult others in a pro-active way,
seeking shura before crises emerge, differing points of view are brought
into focus well before positions harden, and those consulted are likely to
be supportive and accommodating even if things do not go their way
entirely. Nasīha is the second element in the S-N-T
formula. Again, we are talking about a pro-active mode of behavior. It
requires a continual monitoring of actions and prompt evaluative response
to them. We have seen that in the famous hadith
"Religion is advice..." the Prophet (saw) extended the principle
of nasīha to every one from the top to the bottom, from the leaders to
the common folks, as exemplified in the two hadiths quoted earlier. Nasīha
is not a passive mode of behavior. It requires an active
monitoring of actions and prompt evaluative response to them. It calls for
acting on the hadith of the Prophet (saw) "A believer is a mirror to
his brother." Like consultation, giving and receiving
advice is also a prophetic tradition. The Qur'an attributes this quality
of character to many prophets' including Shuayb AS, Yunus AS, Hud AS, and
Prophet Muhammad SAW himself. When parties that could be in a conflict
engage in a give and take of sincere advice as a normal mode of
inter-personal and inter-group behavior, the potential of conflict is
minimized. This happens because the parties involved are able to correct
one anothers views and action before they become a source of conflict. The third element of the S-N-T formula is
Ta'wun, that is cooperation. The Qur'an advise Muslims to cooperate with
one another. Thus the Muslim way of doing things should be in cooperation,
but within the envelope which the Qur'an defines by saying:
"Cooperate with one another in goodness and piety; and do not
cooperate with one another in sin and transgression." This attitude
of practicing ta'wun in a discrete way forces one to come to grips with
what is goodness and piety and what is sin and transgression. And this
coming to grips with issues in a pro-active way leads to reduced incidence
of conflict that could be dysfunctional or chronic. Thus if one were to adopt the S-N-T formula, that is shura, nasīha and ta'wun, as a mode of inter-personal or inter-group and intra-group behavior, one's effort will be less diminished by avoidable conflict.
reprinted with permission from the author. You may reach Dr. Unus by e-mail at: Iqbalunus@aol.com April 10, 1998 Pre-Publication Draft for limited circulation. Unauthorized copying prohibited. This booklet was written while Dr. Iqbal Unus was the Director of the Human Resource Development Department of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, USA |
