CC BY
29
Библиографический список
1. Аминов Н.А., Болотов И.А., Воробьев А.Н. Психологический отбор на педагогические специальности. Ярославль: НПЦ «Психодиагностика», 1994.
2. Аминов Н.А. Осадчева И.И. Блохина Л.Н. Актуальные проблемы психодиагностики свойств ЦНС в школе Б.М. Теплова и В.Д. Небы-лицына. Мир науки, культуры, образования. 2016; № 3 (58): 212 - 217.
3. Небылицын В.Д. Основные свойства нервной системы человека как нейрофизиологическая основа индивидуальности. Естественнонаучные основы психологии. Под ред.акциейА.А. Смирнова, А.Р Лурия, В.Д. Небылицына. Москва: Педагогика, 1978: 295 - 336.
4. Гоулман Д. Эмоциональный интеллект на работе. АСТ Москва ВКТ, 2010.
5. Гиту Орме Эмоциональное мышление как инструмент достижения успеха. Москва: КСП, 2003.
6. Психодиагностика. Теория и практика: учебник для бакалавров. Под редакцией М.К. Акимовой. Москва: Юрайт, 2014.
7. Блохина Л.Н. Индивидуальные различия в психологической адаптации к условиям профессиональной деятельности у госслужащих (на примере таможенной службы): Автореферат ... диссертации кандидата психологических наук. Москва, 2008.
8. Сарсембаева Э.Ю. Учёт латеральной организации мозга в управленческой деятельности педагога-руководителя: учебное пособие. Павлодар. Инновационный Евразийский университет, 2016.
9. Аминов Н.А. Модели управления образования и стили преподавания. Вопросы психологии. 1994; 2: 88 - 99
10. Собчик Л.Н. Введение в психологию индивидуальности. Москва: Институт прикладной психологии, 1998.
11. Данилова Н.Н. Психофизиология: учебник для вузов. Москва: Аспект Пресс, 2001.3
12. Кривцова С. В., Лэнгле А., Орглер К. Шкала экзистенции А. Лэнгле и К. Орглер. Экзистенциальный анализ. № 1. Бюллетень. Москва: ИЭАПП, 2009: 141 - 170.
13. Лэнгле А. Экзистенционально-аналитическая теория эмоций. Москва: Генезис, 2013.
References
1. Aminov N.A., Bolotov I.A., Vorob'ev A.N. Psihologicheskijotborna pedagogicheskie special'nosti. Yaroslavl': NPC «Psihodiagnostika», 1994.
2. Aminov N.A. Osadcheva I.I. Blohina L.N. Aktual'nye problemy psihodiagnostiki svojstv CNS v shkole B.M. Teplova i V.D. Nebylicyna. Mir nauki, kul'tury, obrazovaniya. 2016; № 3 (58): 212 - 217.
3. Nebylicyn V.D. Osnovnye svojstva nervnoj sistemy cheloveka kak nejrofiziologicheskaya osnova individual'nosti. Estestvennonauchnye os-novypsihologii. Pod red.akciejA.A. Smirnova, A.R. Luriya, V.D. Nebylicyna. Moskva: Pedagogika, 1978: 295 - 336.
4. Goulman D. 'Emocional'nyj intellekt na rabote. AST Moskva VKT, 2010.
5. Gitu Orme 'Emocional'noe myshlenie kak instrument dostizheniya uspeha. Moskva: KSP, 2003.
6. Psihodiagnostika. Teoriya ipraktika: uchebnik dlya bakalavrov. Pod redakciej M.K. Akimovoj. Moskva: Yurajt, 2014.
7. Blohina L.N. Individual'nye razlichiya v psihologicheskoj adaptacii k usloviyam professional'noj deyatel'nosti u gossluzhaschih (na primere tamozhennojsluzhby): Avtoreferat ... dissertacii kandidata psihologicheskih nauk. Moskva, 2008.
8. Sarsembaeva 'E.Yu. Uchet lateral'noj organizacii mozga v upravlencheskoj deyatel'nostipedagoga-rukovoditelya: uchebnoe posobie. Pav-lodar. Innovacionnyj Evrazijskij universitet, 2016.
9. Aminov N.A. Modeli upravleniya obrazovaniya i stili prepodavaniya. Voprosy psihologii. 1994; 2: 88 - 99
10. Sobchik L.N. Vvedenie vpsihologiyu individual'nosti. Moskva: Institut prikladnoj psihologii, 1998.
11. Danilova N.N. Psihofiziologiya: uchebnik dlya vuzov. Moskva: Aspekt Press, 2001.3
12. Krivcova S. V., L'engle A., Orgler K. Shkala 'ekzistencii A. L'engle i K. Orgler. 'Ekzistencial'nyjanaliz. № 1. Byulleten'. Moskva: I'EAPP, 2009: 141 - 170.
13. L'engle A. 'Ekzistencional'no-analiticheskaya teoriya 'emocij. Moskva: Genezis, 2013.
Статья поступила в редакцию 01.06.17
УДК 159
Hatem Abu Queder, School Principal (Israel); PhD student, Tiraspol State University of Chishnau (Moldova),
E-mail: [email protected]
THE FORGIVENESS PROCESS: ITS DEFINITIONS, BENEFITS, MODEL OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ITS EXAMINATION IN RELIGIOUS AND ISLAMIC SOURCES. The research literature indicates the fact that forgiveness has a significant contribution to mental welfare, reduction of anxiety and depression as well as to improvement of health condition of an individual. In the course of recent decades, forgiveness has evolved as a psychological term that is being theoretically studied, empirically researched and implemented in therapy. Most researchers address forgiveness in close relations as a process, which both the offended person and the offender go through to cope with the offence. Two types of motivation for forgiveness are described in published research works: the need of the offended person for revenge or avoiding contact with the offender becomes the need for doing good things to them or as a promoting forgiveness. The other type is motivation in general to go into a process of forgiveness even prior to the inception of such a process. Multiple personality factors affect the forgiveness process: forgiveness promoting factors include emotional stability and extroversion. Forgiveness inhibiting factors are related to emotional vulnerability and neuroticism.
Key words: forgiveness, Sulha, offender, offended, forgiveness model, forgiveness in Islam, decisive forgiveness, emotional forgiveness.
Х. Абу Койдкр, директор средней школы, Израиль; аспирант, Тираспольский государственный университет,
г. Кишинёв, Молдавия, E-mail: [email protected]
ПРОЦЕСС ПРОЩЕНИЯ: ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ, ДОСТОИНСТВА, МОДЕЛЬ ПРИМЕНЕНИЯ И ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ В РЕЛИГИОЗНЫХ ИСЛАМСКИХ ИСТОЧНИКАХ
Научная литература свидетельствует о том, что прощение вносит существенный вклад в обеспечение психического благополучия, снижение тревожности и депрессии, а также к улучшению состояния здоровья человека. В течение последних десятилетий, прощение превратилось в психологический термин, было теоретически и эмпирически исследовано. В настоящий момент в литературе описано два вида мотивации для прощения: необходимость обиженного человека осуществить месть и после этого простить, другой тип мотивации - просто простить обидчика без осуществления мести. Множественные личностные факторы влияют на процесс прощения: прежде всего, эмоциональная стабильность и экстраверсия. В качестве тормозящих факторов для прощения являются эмоциональная уязвимость и нейротизм. В статье подробно рассмотрена модель прощения в исламе.
Ключевые слова: прощение, преступник, обиженный, модель прощения, прощение в Исламе, решающий прощения, эмоциональное прощение.
1. Theoretical definition of forgiveness concept
Forgiveness is an emotional and cognitive process an individual goes through regarding some wrong done to him by another person. An individual undergoing a process of forgiveness is the forgiving person. During this process, an individual diminishes and reduces those negative feelings brought about within him due to an offender's conduct, and sometimes he would even convert the negative feelings to positive feelings [1, pp. 192-213]. Forgiveness is a mental, emotional or spiritual process in which a person ceases sensing insult or anger for another person for an action he deemed as injury, disagreement or mistake. Alternatively, forgiveness is the cessation of demanding punishment or compensation. The term forgiveness can be addressed from the viewpoint of a forgiving person, the one who is forgiven and also from the viewpoint of relationships between the forgiven and the one who forgives. In some conditions, forgiveness is given without expecting any compensation and without any response on the part of the offender (for example, a person might forgive or ask for absolution, another person who already passed away). Sometimes, a necessary part of the process of forgiveness is some recognition of an offender of his action, an apology and might even compensation to the victim, or simply asking their forgiveness [1, pp. 192-213].
Forgiveness and unforgiveness are terms research has dealt with, and full agreement cannot be found regarding their definition. Most researchers agree that forgiveness is a process a person who was profoundly and unjustly hurt, goes through, which leads to reduction of hostility, reduction of desire for revenge and reduction in the need of avoidance of contact with the offender. Minority of authors include in the definition, in addition to cessation of negative feelings, as well the replacement thereof with compassion, mercy, acceptance which includes reconciliation with the offender and even love. However, there is an agreement that forgiveness not necessarily obligates positive feelings towards the offender. It is possible to forgive without forgetting the offence, without feeling sorry for the offender and having feelings of compassion and empathy for him, and without reconciling with an offender and resuming contact with them. Benziman [2, p. 11] states that "full forgiveness is a dialogue process that an offender and the offended carry within it the memory of the wrong together and immerse it in the fabric of their lives, without blurring the guilt of one and the scars he left in the soul of the other".
Baskin and Enright state that "a concession of hostility that is willful and of free choice, in the face of an obvious wrong of a person (or persons) and assuming an attitude of generosity towards the offender, despite the fact that the offender has no right to accept this optimal treatment" [3, pp. 79 - 90]. Other researchers, distinguish between two types of forgiveness: decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness. The first type involves a cognitive decision and a statement of willingness to renounce revenge and avoidance of contact with the offender (unless it is dangerous to maintain the contact) and releasing him from punishment for his deeds. The second type involves reducing of negative feelings towards an offender and replacing them with more positive ones. The term unforgiveness has as well gained various definitions, Worthington et al. [Worthington, E. L. and Wade, N. G. (1999). The Psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(4), pp. 385 - 418.] define this term as a complex of negative feelings such as hostility, hate, anger, and fear towards an offender that accompany the offended over time. Elsewhere, researchers define unforgiveness as "a complex of delayed feelings, including resentment, bitterness, hate, hostility, anger and fear which develop after recurring contemplation of the offense that took place and which elicit a desire for revenge or avoidance of encounter, towards the offender" [Wade, N.G., Worthington, E.L. & Meyer, J. E. (2005). But do the work? A meta - analysis of group interventions to promote forgiveness. In: Worthington, E.L.J. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Routledge, pp. 423- 439.].
2. Literature review of the term of forgiveness. Research literature indicates that forgiveness has significant contribution to mental welfare, to reduction of anxiety and depression and also to improvement of an individual's health condition [4, pp. 89-103]. Upon extension of research in the field of forgiveness, addressing of forgiveness as a personality trait was added which expresses the tendency of an individual to forgive over time in variety of situations. Emphasis was put on three dimensions of forgiveness: forgiveness to oneself, forgiveness to another and forgiveness to a situation. Forgiveness was attributed for many generations to religion as a recommended commandment in order to improve relationship of Man with god and with others [5, pp. 17 - 40]. During recent decades,
forgiveness evolved as a psychological term that is being studied theoretically, researched empirically and applied in therapy. Forgiveness has dyadic dimension such as considering repenting of an offender, accepting his apology and to think how the relationship might change following that. Another component in forgiveness contains acceptance, condoning and excusing regarding the offense in order for it be possible to forgive, and there is a belief that to forgive is to forget [6, pp. 209 - 223], there are those who consider forgiveness as a onetime action, however most researchers address forgiveness in close relations as a process which both offender and offended go through in order to cope with the offense. The term "process" indicates that time is involved in an ability to forgive, and that forgiveness is not an action performed in a single moment but rather is achieved over time, meaning, time which has passed since the offense has significance. Some researchers claim that the process of forgiveness is similar to coping, and others view forgiveness as a process of transformation. While in coping, there is an option of returning to previous condition, prior to the offense, transformation emphasizes change and development through structuring of meaning [7].
The prevalent perception in the literature between an offender and the offended is dichotomous, meaning that when there is violation of basic trust between two people one is perceived as the offended and the other as an offender. Alternative perception is that the roles of offender and offended alternate between them during the interaction between the two. For example, in some African cultures, the offended is encouraged to understand the offender and remember how everyone is occasionally an offender, and by that promote an interpersonal process of forgiveness. This view indicates the duality of forgiveness, particularly when the subject matter is close interpersonal relationships. Therefore, although in each offense one side is usually labelled as the offended and the other as an offender, there is something of each in both of them [8, pp. 133 - 155]. Forgiveness is related as well to intercultural differences. Those who consider forgiveness as an intrapersonal process are more part of individualistic cultures, and those who consider forgiveness as an interpersonal process are more part of collective cultures. Amongst collective cultures like the Arab Muslim culture, the tendency to forgive is related to the need for group harmony and to the importance assigned to interpersonal relations as compared to individualistic cultures. From a cultural perspective, it is important to examine how religions affect forgiveness. Judaism and Christianity perceive forgiveness as a religious obligation. Both religions emphasize the intrapersonal aspect while remorse of the offender is not necessary. In any event, Judaism emphasizes as well the interpersonal aspect expressed in remorse being a necessary condition in order to award forgiveness to another. The interpersonal view of forgiveness in Islam is related to the recognition that any offended is also an offender and vice versa. In Islam, there is greater tolerance for retaliation as compared to Christianity and Judaism. Although the position towards reconciliation as part of forgiveness is different amongst the three religions, none of them view reconciliation as a mandatory requirement.
Upon addressing the issue of motivation for forgiveness, the literature describes two types of motivations. One type is described as a structured part of the forgiveness process, while the need of an offended to retaliate or avoid contact with an offender turns into a need of doing good to him as promoting reconciliation. The second type is the motivation to enter the process of forgiveness before such a process has even started. A person can have motivation to enter upon a process of forgiveness out of various reasons such as altruism, maintaining health and mental welfare, and also the desire or need to continue a close relationship with family members or friends. Religious belief, social and cultural norms might affect as well. The altruistic character of forgiveness not necessarily indicates its quality or the willingness of the person to undergo the process, despite the fact, probably, that the motivation to forgive will affect the process.
The ability to forgive according to personality of an individual is defined as forgiveness, and related to humility and ability to be empathetic towards an offender [9, pp. 673-685]. Personality factors promoting forgiveness include emotional stability and extroversion. Factors delaying forgiveness are connected to emotional vulnerability and neuroticism. Depression as part of neuroticism is found to be connected to forgiveness in certain conditions. When an offence was mediocre and committed by an acquaintance, those who were depressed tended less to forgive. But when an offense was severe or it was committed by a very close friend, no differences were found between those who were depressed and the others. The antithesis of a forgiving personality is the narcissistic personality. Those people are lacking the required abilities to forgive due to a negative perception
of another, self-admiration and perfectionism. Apologies from a narcissistic person are usually more connected to the need to feel perfect than to a desire to correct repair what was done to another [10, pp. 156 - 175]. Additionally, narcissistic people who do not forgive were found to be vindictive [11, pp. 576 - 884].
In order for forgiveness to occur, an offender must repent, apologize and promise that the wrong will not recur. Forgiveness can occur only if an offended accepts this apology and choses to forgive. Therefore, a possible exit from the paradox is bilateral. An offender repents and so demonstrates he has gone through a change and he is not the same person who caused the wrong in the past and therefore, he deserves forgiveness, and the offended is an active person who can choose whether to forgive or not. Only he can choose to exit the paradoxical circle by the necessity of change that has taken place for the offender.
3. Theoretical model of forgiveness. In the frame of reference to forgiveness as a psychological term in the recent decades, much has been written and researched theoretically and empirically, including development of forgiveness models [12, pp. 1059 - 1085]. For example, the approach based on a stage of moral-cognitive development throughout life according to Kolberg's idea of justice [13, pp. 31 - 53] that consider forgiveness as a process of six stages. Upon maturity, it is expected of human beings to open up to higher stages of forgiveness. Furthermore, it can be claimed that it might be preferable to examine the higher stage in which forgiveness is awarded out of love and commitment particularly through emotional models such as that of Worthington and Weid in addition, an attempt was made to develop a descriptive integrative model, which sums up the knowledge accumulated to a heuristic model as a basis for further empiric research of forgiveness.
The suggested model as part of current paper constitutes an innovation due to the component of duality and the integration between an offended and an offender. Most forgiveness models were developed from the perspective of an offended person. The model is based on the hypothesis that the roles of an offended and an offender are interchanging between them, that there is something of each in both of them. Therefore, each participant needs both to forgive and to ask for forgiveness. According to the suggestion of Hoyt et al. [14, pp. 375-394], the model combines parameters of an individual with the dyadic, to settle conflicts in close inter-personal relations.
4. Components of forgiveness model. The top part of the model, (1), relates to the existence of a close relationship between two people that was based upon basic, mutual trust that was violated following an offence experienced by both members of the dyad. Part (2) relates to mutuality and duality according to which in every offensive event, each side experiences an offence, but also fills a role of an offender as well. There is a hypothesis that relationships have a history in which course there were situations of trust violation of both parties, which were not always discussed directly and have not been resolved fully. Thus, it is possible to conclude that in close inter-personal relations such as marriage, friendship, or parents-children relations, each side might be offended at least once. In such situation, there is a probability that the subjective perception will be of another as an offender and of self as the offended. The third part, (3), relates to arousal of negative feelings such as hate, anger and fear, negative thoughts such as remembering, hostility and loss of appreciation of the offender, negative motivations such as revenge and avoidance, and negative behavior such as aggression towards the offender due to violation of thrust that both sides experience. These reactions might be mutual. Block (1) and blocks (2) and (3) presented in the diagram are considered as unforgiveness and an essential preliminary condition for forgiveness to occur. The transition from un-forgiveness to forgiveness begins with block (4) with the intrapersonal component, which includes recognition of an offender within the offended person. Meaning in the ability of the offended to understand that he not only has the status of an offended but also a potential to offend. Such internal observation can assist in advancing freeing from negative emotions, thoughts and behavior that in a later stage will be replaced with positive ones. Those who believe the "solidarity model" move to block (7), and for them the forgiveness process might end here [15]. There are those cases in which the "solidarity model" is essential, for example in a case of forgiveness to a person who died, and occasionally is even recommended in those cases when there will be no continuation of contact between the two parties. In a close relationship that continuing to exist, it is called for to go to the interpersonal component in block (5). The bilateral arrow between
the intrapersonal component (4) and the interpersonal component (5) indicates that the process is not linear or having stages but rather is interactive. The interpersonal component includes participation of an offender in three different levels: 1. Recognition of the offender that he hurt the offended. 2. Repenting and good behavior of an offender towards the offender. 3. The offender indicates to the offended that although he offended he was as well hurt. Thus, a dialogue was initiated between the two as offenders/victims. These actions are motivations to develop positive feelings of empathy towards each other, that will replace the feelings of hostility between the parties without the relationship necessarily continue. There are those who are capable of completing the intrapersonal component in block 4 only after they had gone with the offender through the interpersonal process in block 5, while each party expresses remorse regarding offending the other party and goes through the three stages in block 5. Some can complete the intrapersonal component by virtue of their personality qualities, their religious belief or due to their sense of obligation towards the other party. In other dyads, in which the line between an offender and the offended was blurred from inception, it is possible that one of the offended individuals feels they will be able to forgive only after a retaliation that would create an experience of equality in the face of the one who offended them, which will enable both parties to ask for forgiveness and to forgive. Ending of the interpersonal component might lead to forgiveness on the part of the offended, without the need to continuing the relationship. Some will undermine the nature of compensation-depended forgiveness, versus a unilateral forgiveness and/or severing of relationships.
Appendix 1: graphic representation of the structure and dynamic of forgiveness
There are those who consider reconciliation, block 6, as an inseparable part of forgiveness, as it requires two parties in order to forgive, and it is essential when two people continue with the relationship between them [16]. When the relationship continues, reconciliation can ensue the interpersonal component in block (5), or after forgiveness in block (7). Block (8) shows that personal variables come in play in the complex dynamic of forgiveness: personality structure, extent of religiousness, evolvement of morality and more. These might influence the speed according to which an individual would connect into the forgiveness process. The bilateral arrows in the model indicate that what promotes forgiveness or inhibits it in block (8) is a complex process. For example, an offender or the offended may have personality traits that inhibit forgiveness such as narcissism. There are cases in which the powerful religious belief and the religious-cultural commandments will speed up a forgiveness process. A study dealing in interpersonal offences in family found that there are reciprocal relationships between forgiveness and forgiving-ness, which indicates that relations connected to forgivingness are as well related to the ability to forgive and vice versa. With the exception of personal and interpersonal component of forgiveness, there are as well social and cultural components which relate to the social benefit on one hand and the social damage on the other hand, when there is no forgiveness, as appears in block (8). Other variables in block (8) which influence and are affected by forgiveness process are motivations to forgive [17, pp. 1586 - 1603]. Or the preliminary motivation to enter in a process of forgiveness prior to its inception, moral-cognitive development, and as well personality traits.
4. Forgiveness in Muslim society and religion. Study of forgiveness in Muslim society is greatly deficient as compared to forgiveness in Western society [18, pp. 474-479]. However, in the few studies conducted on Muslim societies, there are findings emphasizing the impact of Islamic culture on perception of forgiveness amongst that society. in various studies conducted in different Arab societies and which examined various aspects of forgiveness in different ethnic groups, it can be seen that the findings emphasize the impact religious origin of participants on their perception of forgiveness and their forgiveness in practice. Other researchers used different research tools more adjusted to the Muslim society as opposed to Christian Lebanese and French societies [19, pp. 275 - 285]. Forgiveness is inseparable part of religious faiths, Western and Eastern alike [20, pp. 308 - 316]. Psychology as a discipline, adopted the term several decades ago, as an option of dealing with offences in close interpersonal relationships. Accordingly, psychological motivations to forgiveness as well as personality traits were examined and tested . Impact of the various religions is sensed in the definitions and theoretical frames relating to forgiveness - for example, theoreticians and researchers of a Christian background, emphasize the intrap-
(3) Negative feelings, thoughts, motivation and behavior
( 8 )
Influencing variables:
Motivation to forgive and the moral-cognitive development Personal interest: health, personal welfare
Inter-personal interests: family, society, culture, religious expectations, restoration of loss
Relationship Interests: feelings of love/commitment/proximity Personality traits: Forgiveness Pleasantness: A high level of: empathy, altruism, a low level of repeated thoughts, sense of vengeance Emotional stability/narcissism Avoidance, self-appreciation, paranoia, extroversion, independence
V
( 5 )
Intra-personal process of
change Recognizing validity in the victim
Development of positive feelings, thoughts and motivations and behaviors in order to replace the negative
v
( 5 ) Interpersonal process of change Expressions of remorse and doing good
ersonal aspect and researchers influenced by Judaism, emphasize interpersonal aspect.
Examination of the subject of forgiveness in Islam will be based first acdporemnot on the Quran, which ¡scoosidered tSefirotsaurce for shaping and structuring ways of individual behavior. According to Islamictraditiu^theQuranis wotOs otGod, and from itate dcrioeS the commandments and religious laws as a whole. It was passed to MuhaQmaCtoeprophetovere3 yQarc,thrcugh nngeIG abri)l ieA ra-bic language. Additional source for examining the subject of forgiveness is based on the Sunnah, that delineates the words and deeds of prophet Muhammad. Islam commanded the believers to demonstrate forgiveness between them, between women and men, between parents and children, between different generations, and forgiveness towards people with different opinions, people with different political standpoints or different ideas, and also, towards people from other religions. Forgiveness between humans is derived from forgiveness from God.
The term of Sulha (Arabic for reconciliation ceremony) is derived from the forgiveness of God to human beings. According to Islam, there are two types of forgiveness, one is forgiveness of God to Man, and the other is forgiveness of Man to Man. Islam does not relate in any form to forgiveness of Man to God, and according to the Islamic belief, God does not offend or brings evil to Man [21, pp. 127 - 141].
According to Islam, a Muslim must act and fulfil God's expectations of Girri1 tu hiattmostrbilty.
Therefore God, who has unlimited ability for forgiveness, com-unaods oiusNms to foccive evenwhen thecommoo resccnse to offending them is retaliation or punishment, and does not condition it budemanQ forapologo o t temotse oatUepartcf the offender [22, pp. 685 - 704]. The way of forgiveness outlined by Islam is an inter-meeintewat ofSoucivnness, it 7 o otintlvid ualfosgiveness without any return but rather there is a spiritual return for it from God, great value to a believer on Judgment Day, return of respect for him and his family in this world and great empowerment. From all these are derived the various rituals existing presently of conducting the Sulha, in which on one hand, the end of hatred and compensation of the offended is promised and on the other hand, respect and reputation of the offended are preserved. The forgiveness a Muslim believer awards constitutes a value that intensifies and strengthens his honor as an offended and enables him to continue to be a positive and accepted integral part of society. All these enable the continuation of existence of social bonds, and in other words, there is reconciliation between the parties. However, it is emphasized that reconciliation is a central factor in the perception of forgiveness in Islam, however not necessary for its existence, especially in those cases in which the offender is a negative person who it is impossible to trust or to avoid
offending him in the future. Thus, although forgiveness is perceived as a gift to others, it is in fact a selfish action, emphasizing that the best interest of an offended is to forgive and not to receive compensation or some sort of return, but rather to earn forgiveness from God due to his forgiveness, and as well the strengthening of status, honor and reputation for him and his family or community [23].
Occasionally, there is partial forgiveness, this thing is a sort of pragmatic conflict settlement customary occasionally amongst Muslim societies, and brings reconciliation although forgiveness is not necessary to the reconciliation process. In forgiveness, according to Islam, there is great emphasize on its consequences to society, and that is due to the fact that the subject of matter is a collectivist society, which members more demonstrate a behavior of forgiveness towards the offending party. As a result of the influence of religion upon culture, it can be seen that Eastern culture, as opposed to Western culture, views forgiveness as part of strategies for conflict resolution, a process that includes shame on the part of the offender and respect to offended party, and leads to reconciliation. Thus, in fact, the terms Sulha, Soleh (Arabic for forgiveness) and Massalha (Arabic for reconciliation), all have same root, are very common in the Arab society, and all indicate processes of forgiveness and conflict resolution [24].
Following the terms of forgiveness as they appeared in the Quran:
a. Al-Halam: the meaning of this word is anger management, and avoiding conduct out of anger, a person who does not punish, who responds kindly.
b. Al-Afu: the renunciation of right or revenge, the dismissal of materialistic or visible responsibility derived from the offence. The renunciation of the offended of his right to be compensated or mending the offense on the part of the offender.
References
c. Al-Safah: removal of the mental consequences of the offence, meaning, the offense does not hurt mentally anymore and does not bereave the offended of anything.
d. Al-Majafra: making the sin disappear, removing it as if it never took place, and thus there is no intent bring about some sort of response as a result of the offence. As a result of this action, the offense is not seen or experienced and its consequences are not seen.
e. Al-Ahsan: this is the highest level of forgiveness, reached by prophets and saints, those who offend them however their reaction to it will be a continuity of giving to those offending them [25].
The Quran presented various examples of forgiveness between people, parts are events presented by the Quran and the other part is urging the believers to show forgiveness. Example for forgiveness as an event is forgiveness of prophet Joseph to his brothers upon standing before of him with his parents. His brothers offended him severely, for many years he was a slave in Egypt and suffered in prison, however, in the occasion of meeting with them he told them in Sura (Quran chapter) Joseph Aya (Quran verse) 92: "said, today there is no shame on you, and God will forgive you, because he is the most merciful". Opposite to him, Jacob, who was also offended severely and suffered greatly from the loss of his son Joseph, tells his children in Aya 98: "said, I will seek forgiveness for you from my Lord, as he is forgiving and merciful". Much was written about education of children in Islam in which there is an emphasis on a supportive and warm relation to children, and on the commandment to award to children a sense of security. Examples of this can be found in the stories of prophet Muhammad and his behavior with his grandchildren and the boys who were close to him. He is the one setting the way to teach the little ones, saying: "be educational and don't be aggressive".
1. Legaree T.A., Turner J., & Lollis, S. Forgiveness and therapy: A critical review of conceptualization' practices, and values found in the literature. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2007: 33: 192 - 213.
2. Benziman Y. To forgive and not forget: ethics of forgiveness, P. 11. 2008Jerusalem: Von Leer Institute, Unified Kibbutz publication, 2008.
3. Baskin W. & Enright R D. (2004). Intervention studies in forgiveness: A meta - analysis. Journal of Counseling and Development. 2004; 82: 79 - 90.
4. Toussaint L.L., Williams D.R., Musick M.A., Everson - Rose S. A. Way forgiveness may protect against depression: Hopelessness as an explanatory mechanism. Personality and Mental Health. 2008; 2: 89 - 103.
5. Rye M.S., Pargament K. I., Ali M.A., Beck G.L., Dorff E.N., Hallisey C., Narayanan V. & Williams J.G. Religious perspectives on forgiveness. In: McCullough, M. E. Pargament, K. I. & Thoresen, C.E. (EdsJ, Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Guilford Press, 2000: 17 - 40.
6. Friesen M.D. & Fletcher G.J.O. Exploring the Lay Representation of Forgiveness: Convergent and Discriminant Validity. Personal Relations. 2007; 14: 209 - 223.
7. Flanigan B. Forgiving the unforgivable. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1992.
8. Exline J.J. & Baumeister R.F. Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and barriers. In: McCullough M.E. Pargament, K. I. & Thoresen C.E. (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Guilford Press, 2000: 133 - 155.
9. Toussaint L. & Webb J.R. Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2005; 145(6): 673 - 685.
10. Emmons R.A. Personality and forgiveness. In McCullough, M.E., Pargament K.I. & Thoresen C.E. (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Guilford Press, 2000: 156 - 175.
11. Brown R.P. Vengeance is mine: Narcissism, vengeance, and the tendency to forgive. Journal of research in Personality. 2004; 38: 576 -584.
12. Abu-Nimer M. & Nasser I. Forgiveness between Arab and Islamic Context, Between Theology and Practice. Journal of Religious Ethics. 2013; 41: 474 - 479.
13. Strlan P. & Covic T. A review of forgiveness process models and a coping framework to guide future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2006; 25(10): 1059 - 1085.
14. Kohlberg L. Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive - developmental approach. In Lickona (Ed), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976: 31 - 53.
15. Hoyt W.T., Fincham F.D., McCullough M.E., Maio G. & Davila J. Responses to interpersonal transgressions in families: Forginingness, forgivability and relationship - specific effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 89(3): 375.
16. Govier T. Forgiveness and revenge. London: Routledge, 2002.
17. McCullough M.E, Sandage S.T., Brown,S.W., Rachal K.C, Worthington E.L. & Hight T.L. Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 75(6): 1586 - 1603.
18. Abu-Nimer M. Conflict Resolution, Culture. And Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding. Conflict Resolution, Culture, and Religion. 2001; 38: 685 - 704.
19. Mullet E. & Azar,F. Apologies, Repentance, and Forgiveness: A Muslim - Christian Comparison. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 2009; 19: 275.
20. Recine A.G., Werner J.S. & Recine L. Concept analysis of forgiveness with multi - cultural emphasis. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007; 59(3): 308 - 316.
21. Davary B. Smith H. & Smith W. Forgiveness in Islam: Is it an Ultimate Reality. Ultimate reality and meaning: interdisciplinary studies in the philosophy of understanding. 2004; 27: 127 - 141.
22. Alkakhtani S.E. Explanation of the divine names of God according to the Quran and the Sunna. Palestine: Al-Nur (in Hebrew), 2008.
23. Ayoub M. Repentance in the Islamic Tradition. In: Etzioni, A. and Carney D.E. (Eds.). Repentance: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997: 96 - 121.
24. Irani G.I. & Funk N.C. Rituals of Reconciliation: Arab - Islamic Perspectives. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, 2000.
25. Alkakhtani S.E. Explanation of the divine names of God according to the Quran and the Sunna. Palestine: Al-Nur (in Hebrew), 2008.
Статья поступила в редакцию 29.05.17
