Last night, I went down a very unexpected rabbit hole. If you are German and 25-40 years old, you will probably know Arafat Abou Chaker. It turns out he has a live streamed podcast where he plays the role of mediator. YouTube recommended me a video where Manuellsen, a German rapper, sat down to settle a conflict with two internet streamers I never heard of.
Both parties had some serious internet conflict start starded with a racial slur. Long story short, it was a very very heated argument and beef. But in the end, just through talking and mediating, Arafat ended the conflict.
It turns out talking and mediating can work better than fighting legal battles. So, while I might have lost 10 IQ points watching it, I regained 20 because I understood that we in the West should learn from Islam’s practice of Sulh.
Here is a definition I found online:
In Islamic law, Sulh (Arabic: صلح) refers to the process of amicable settlement and the peaceful resolution of disputes. It is considered a form of contract (Aqd) where parties voluntarily agree to resolve their differences to restore social harmony.
I don’t believe the reason Sulh works has inherently something with Islam or works only because of Islam, but rather because of hyper-local and social accountability.
First, in a legal battle, lawyers have no skin in the game regarding the relationship of the two conflict parties (they profit from the process independent of who “wins”). In Sulh there is a mediator, in this case Arafat. He and the conflict parties live in an existing social network. In the process of Sulh, everyone has real downside because they risk reputation, ego, and social standing by facing each other directly. The mediator himself has real downside too – because if the peace fails, he risks reputation.
Second, the legal system is often an attempt to use the State as a weapon to do something to another (breaking the Silver Rule). Sulh is much more the cessation of “doing” in order to return to a state of peace and social harmony. While a litigation will be “won” by one party, it does not remove the human conflict itself, rather it suppresses it. This can lead to future violence and retaliation because the underlying ego-dishonor remains (or is actually amplified). In that sense, Sulh is antifragile, the legal system fragile. In Sulh, both parties resolve their conflict directly and as a result their relationship actually becomes stronger.
Arafat – in this case – works great as a mediator because he has more Weight (Social Status) than the other two conflict parties. Arafat works because of his perceived power. While the West also has systems for mediatios, they often fail because the mediator is a neutral “nobody” with no social power to enforce the social contract.
After watching this, I believe many disputes can be solved better by actually sitting down and talking to each other. This is because Sulh restores social harmony instead of just claiming a winner of a legal battle. The legal system seeks “Truth” which is important. However, Sulh seems to seek “Peace” over “Truth” and sometimes, for social harmony, Truth can be the enemy of Peace. It restores peace and social harmony by actually allowing to bury some facts, and this allows both parties to walk away with dignity and without losing their face.
Sulh – obviously – won’t work for all disputes. If there are severe power imbalances or serious crimes, the legal system is necessary for deterrence and enforcement. But perhaps we should view the legal system as a backstop, not the default.
The interesting reflection is this: If you are in a conflict, would you rather “win” or actually restore peace and social harmony?
Leave a Reply