Laura Farooq Sani, a Research Associate at the Ayaan Institute examines the word conflict, its different meanings between Islam and the West, and considers similarities and differences which might advance an understanding of how to deal with conflict resolution/management.

What’s in a word? Words have a dictionary translation and meaning. However, words can also convey complex meanings, culture, tradition, and religion.  This complexity is added to when different cultures have different understanding of words that on the surface seem to have a globally defined meaning.

Defining the word “conflict” between the East and the West

Human beings tend to pinpoint difficult concepts and abstract ideas and reduce them to a mere linguistic simplification. These efforts, however, are quite crucial for such concepts to be grasped by all who would like to engage in meaningful discussions and refer to them while being fully understood by others. The dictionary, for example, is a source one can consult if in need of a universal explanation of a word. Nevertheless, this unidimensional representation of the word may not be as befitting to give an accurate picture of the matter. Moreover, certain ideologies subtly inserted in the definition might have a greater impact on the individual’s mental lexicon, especially if the word of focus is little known about or too sophisticated to comprehend. Such is the case for the word conflict.

In this line of thinking, this paper gives an overview of the definition of “conflict”. It begins by discussing the definition of conflict, which originated from the Latin word conflīctus in the English language. Then, it goes on to compare the usage of the word with its Arabic equivalent mainly through the prism of the normative religious scriptures, namely the Holy Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah. Comments on how conflict is treated and categorized in both languages are interwoven when scrutinizing the dictionary entries. The essay also seeks to explain the employment of the word in constructions such as conflict management and conflict resolution based on nuances of meaning and ideological approach.

The analysis of the word conflict ought to be undertaken by inquiring about its origin. Utilizing the linguistic science of etymology, one might be able not only to trace down the nascency of an idea, but also trace the historical development of its meaning, depending on the epoch or spatial context it was used in. As mentioned in the introductory lines of the paper, the late Middle English word conflict comes from the Latin con- and fligere which literally means to “strike together”. As the word evolves within the ancient language itself, it happened to signify “fight or contest” later on (Oxford Languages, para. 1).  More contemporary definitions of what conflict means are “a situation in which people, groups or countries disagree strongly or are involved in a serious argument” and “a violent situation or period of fighting between two countries” (The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary). A rather similar definition was offered in Cambridge Dictionary – “an active disagreement between people with opposing opinions or principles” and “fighting between people with opposing opinions or principles”. The last set of definitions from a dictionary entry, which I render the most encompassing of this complex concept, is “fight, battle, war”; “competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)”; “mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands” and “the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction” (Merriam-Webster).

What can be inferred from the more recent definitions is that they describe one aspect of the original understanding of conflīctus, namely fight, and tried to broaden it with other words propelled by negativity – disagreement, violence, argument, opposition, and even war. Although positioning conflict as solemnly bad and destructive has held ground in academia, few published studies have conclusively shown that term conflict is too elaborate and complex to be cut short of the merit of its contingent positive outcomes. Tjosvold (2006) maintained that individuals involved in a conflict might not have opposing views, but rather divergent. These divergent views can be negotiated through conversing about the differences that constitute them and, thus, serve as a way to create innovative solutions to existing problems or “strengthen relationships” (p. 87).

Another issue about the generated definitions is equating conflict with war or battle. The established synonymous connection restates a popular belief that “conflict escalation ‘just happens’ without human choice” (Tjosvold, 2006, p.88). Binding conflict and war in such a way assumes that the one is a natural and inevitable continuation of the other. The fatal linkage makes no attempt to give sufficient consideration of the persistent endeavors of international organizations, such as the UN, in the field of conflict management. The key component to prevent a conflict from further escalation, whose outcome is war is management with the intention of resolution. Moreover, the association of conflict with war refers to only one type of conflict – a military one. This practice is reductionist as it distorts the term completely exhausting it with armed conflict and inhibits the concept of producing other subtypes of its own, such as ideological, psychological, environmental or economic conflict.

Yet another serious weakness with the dictionary definitions is that the explanation of conflict predominately insinuates the participation of two independent entities or more, such as people or countries. One of the limitations with such praxis is that it overlooks the possibility of conflict to take place within one entity as it is the case for the psychological conflict. In psychology, conflict can exist within an individual who has “two or more strong motives that cannot be solved together” (Britannica).

Although the purpose of the dictionary is to provide a basic understanding of a concept or idea to the general public, the explanations for conflict previously enlisted have a direct impact on the way the word is used in the annual reports of international agencies such as the UN, NATO and OSCE. If one is to browse over their booklets, agenda papers or even websites, they might find no tangible definition of what conflict means for them. However, it can be extrapolated that the term conflict is impregnated with negativity and appears to be in agreement with the dictionary entries hovering over words like fight, war, unrest or battle.

With regard to the term conflict, this part of the essay will focus on words within the Arabic language which can serve as a direct translation of the reviewed noun. There are three main words which correspond to conflict: niza’ [نِزاع], khisam [خصام] and khilaf [خلاف]. The form of their verbal noun suggests that the verb takes the pattern of [فاعل]. Such verbs imply the participation of at least two entities. This mode of representation of the words corresponds to original usage of the Latin word con- fligere, having the meaning of “struck together”.

Although all three words discussed above mean conflict each one of them alludes to a different aspect of it. The first word niza’ comes from the root [ن-ز-ع] which is generally understood as pull off/out, snatch, take off or strip down. The three-letter root is used 20 times in the Holy Quran and numerous times in the Prophetic Sunnah. However, only seven times and exclusively in the Holy Quran the meaning of the root points to dispute or conflict. One illustrious example is where Allah the Almighty says, “Had He shown them to you as many, you [believers] would have certainly faltered and disputed (ولتنازعتم) in the matter. But Allah saved you [from that]” (Al Quran 8:43).

What might look a bit unclear is how the root of the word, having the initial meaning of “pull off”, has manifested itself in the Quranic verse to refer to disagreement. A key factor which can facilitate the understanding of this connection is that a contestation about scarce resources can give rise to friction and hostility (Schmidt & Kochan, 1972). The fact that two subjects who might have divergent goals, attitudes or interests and exist in the same space gives impetus for confrontation to occur. The collision based on such incompatibility leads one of the parties to usurp the territory or possessions of the other (Cooper, 2003). Put in other words, one side of the conflict might desire to strip (نزع) the other of something of particular necessity.

The consequence of niza’ is the negation of the right to co-exist. Because of this, it is treated as a potentially harmful and abnormal human condition from which Allah has saved the believers (as in the cited verse). Contrary to that, although the word conflict in the English language is imbued with negativity, some theories maintain that it is a natural phenomenon needed for the fittest to survive and societies to prosper (Lukin, 2007). One criticism of this proposition is that it relies too heavily on Darwinism and, thus, contradicts Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. It also gives a hint why most of the actions of the UN and other intergovernmental institutions are directed towards conflict management and not conflict resolution.

Furthermore, conflict, if looked at through the prism of the Islamic texts is rendered haram (unlawful). This is exemplified in a hadith where the Prophet peace be upon him said, “It is enough sin for you that you never stop disputing”. The knowledge that to dispute is sinful has implications for the Islamic methodology towards conflict. In contrast to the Western practice of managing conflict to prevent it further escalation, the Islamic one veers towards conflict resolution or transformation.

The second of the above-mentioned words khisam is equivalent to rivalry or quarrel. The linguistic expression points to the involvement of two parties with opposing worldviews where one of them desires to take precedence over the other. This aspect of conflict is akin to the definition given by Deutsch (1973) in which three key terms surface: incompatibility, intrusion and ineffectiveness. According to him, conflict occurs when “one party is interfering, disrupting, obstructing, or in some other way making another party’s actions less effective” (Huber, 214, p.170).

The third word, namely khilaf comes from the root [خ-ل-ف] and bespeaks of the presence of irreconcilable differences between the two entities. Here, it is good to note that although khilaf has a negative connotation, another word from the same root which is ikhtilaf [اختلاف] is a positive one. The latter refers to the difference of opinion regarding a matter within a certain legal framework. It is usually used to denote scholarly disagreement in the field of Islamic jurisprudence for issues rather than those agreed upon. This is permissible and rather encouraged. It is said (although some scholars such as Ibn Baaz deem it as fabricated) that the Prophet peace be upon him said, “Verily, my Companions are like the stars in the sky. No matter which one you follow, you will be guided. And their difference of opinion (واختلاف) is mercy for you” (al-Alusi, n.d., p.24).

Khilaf, besides having the antagonistic nuance of difference, can signal grave contradictions or inconsistencies. A good illustration of this is in the words of Allah the Almighty: “Do they not deliberate on the Quran? Had it been [sent down] from other than Allah, they would have surely found in it much discrepancy (اختلافا كثيرا)” (Q4:82). Even though the used word is ikhtilaf, the adjective employed with it (كثيرا) points to utter incompatibility, thus has the meaning of khilaf.

So far, we saw that words with the same root can have contrasting meanings as in khilaf and ikhlitaf. Now the paper will briefly review another positive type of conflict promoted in Islam, which is tanafus [تنافس]. The main argument in relation to the concept of tanafus is that it is not an entirely pure form of conflict as both its nature and consequences are constructive and good. The verb form of tanafus is found only once in the Holy Quran: “So let whoever wants to strive for (فليتنافس) that [the rewards of Paradise mentioned in the previous verses] do it [diligently]” (Q83:26). The meaning here is that of competition for amassing noble deeds or attaining something of high value.

It does seem viable to conclude with rather cautious confidence that word conflict bears some negativity in its definition, both in Islam and in the Western social and political thought. The Western perspective, which manifests itself through the usage of the word in English, assumes that the outcomes of conflict can be both positive and negative because, more or less, conflict is a natural condition in the human interactions which facilitates growth and future advancement of cooperation. Historically, after long military conflicts peace treaties are signed (as the Peace of Westphalia), new bodies which try to uphold peace emerge (as the League of Nations or UN) and ceasefire is agreed upon (as in the Israeli-Palestine conflict). The Islamic perspective partially conforms to the idea that conflict has an unfavorable nature as well as consequences in words such as niza’, khisam and khilaf. However, it further gives an elaboration of positive conflict in the concept of ikhtilaf and a suggestion for another type of constructive and beneficial conflict, having the meaning of competition for good deeds, in the word tanafus.

REFERENCES

Alusi, Maḥmūd ibn ‘Abd Allāh. Ar-Rūh al-Ma’ānī fī Tafsīri-l-Qur’āni-l-‘Aẓīm wa Sab’u-l-Mathānī, vol. 1, Dar Ihia al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut.

Britannica (n.d.). Conflict. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/science/conflict-psychology

Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.). Conflict. In Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conflict

Cooper, H. T. (2003). What Is Conflict? How Are Conflicts Resolved?. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 3(1), 85-100.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press.

Huber, D. L. (2014). Leadership and Nursing Care Management (5th ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences.

Lukin, Yu. I. (2007). Management of the Conflicts. Triksta. Moscow. (original in Russian).

Manzur, I. (1997). Lisan al-‘arab (Vol. 6, p.233). Dar Sadir, Beirut.

Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Conflict. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict

Oxford Languages (n.d.). Conflict. In Oxford Languages dictionary. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Schmidt, S. M., & Kochan, T. A. (1972). Conflict: Toward Conceptual Clarity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 359-371.

The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (n.d.). Conflict. In the Oxford Advanced Learner’s.com dictionary. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/conflict_1?q=conflict

Tirmidhī, M. I. Jami’ al-Tirmidhi. Chapters on Righteousness and Maintaining Good Relations with Relatives 27/58. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/27/100

Tjosvold, D. (2006). Defining Conflict and Making Choices about its Management: Lighting the Dark Side of Organizational Life. International Journal of Conflict Management.

Laura Farooq Sani, a Research Associate at Ayaan Institute