Interpersonal Conflict-handling Styles: An Islamic Perspective

Introduction

Conflict is an inevitable reality of any social organization. Putnam and Poole (1987, p. 552) defined conflict as “the interaction of interdependent people who perceive opposition of goals, aims, and values, and who see the other party as potentially interfering with the realization of these goals.” Rahim (2001) views interpersonal conflict as the manifestation of incompatibility, disagreement or a difference between two or more interacting individuals. People vary in their approaches and skills to handle conflict. A conflict-handling style refers to a general and steady orientation regarding the counterpart and the conflict issues, which is demonstrated in visible behaviours (Thomas, 1976). A person’s conflict-handling style depends on an array of factors including culture, biographic characteristics, social/organizational status, religion and others.

Culture has a definite role to shape an individuals’ perception of conflict (Hofstede, 1980) as well as the choice of conflict-handling style (Tjosvold & Wong, 2004). A good number of studies revealed that preference for conflict-handling styles differs among cultures (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Elsayed-Ekhouly & Buda, 1996; He, Zhu, & Peng, 2001; Morris et al., 1998; Ting-Toomey, Yee-Jung, Shapiro, Wright, & Oetzel, 2000; Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, & Lin, 1991). Studies on conflict-handling styles dealing with comparative cultural context in conjunction with the individualism–collectivism dimension observed that people from high-context, collectivistic cultures tend to prefer avoiding and accommodating styles over the competing and confrontational styles than their counterpart from low-context and individualistic cultures (Dsilva & Whyte, 1998; Zhang, 2007).

Religion is also considered as a determining factor for the choice of conflict-handling styles. Among many factors, religion constitutes an essential part of the culture (Geertz, 1973). Many studies (Croucher, 2011; Geertz, 1973; Polkinghorn & Byrne, 2001; Randeree, 2008; Wekhian, 2015; Wilson & Power, 2004) tried to explore the relationship between religious affiliation and/or religiosity and the conflict-handling styles. Islam is a prominent world religion. South Asia being the host of nearly one-third of the total Muslim population in the world qualifies attention for research in a variety of areas where Islam has its directives. Approximately 600 million Muslims live in South Asia, which constitutes 31.4 per cent of the total South Asian population ( Central Intelligence Agency, n.d. ). India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan represent the major concentration of Muslims in this region. Therefore, Islam has an important place in the life of South Asian people. As a matter of fact, Islam, as a religion, is not confined to faith only. It influences every aspect of life, including economics, politics, law, human dealings and culture.

“Conflict,” a regular phenomenon related to human interaction is also not an exception. There are specific instructions as regard to handling conflict in Islam. However, so far, no serious attempt, to explore the Islamic view of conflict, is observed in the literature. The existing studies simply explored the association between the conflict-handling styles and the religious affiliation and/or religiosity of the respondents, without explaining the underlying reasons behind such association from the Islamic perspective. Hence, there is an obvious gap in research to explore the Islamic view of conflict and the practice of the Muslims. Keeping this research space in mind, the present study is set out to explore conflict from Islamic perspective based on what further studies can be conducted to see the practice of a Muslim community as regard to their adherence to the religious instructions concerning the conflict.

Conflict-handling Styles

There are multiplicities of ways in handling conflicts. Different scholars have come up with a different typology of conflict-handling styles. However, Rahim and Bonoma’s (1979) typology based on the original work of Blake and Mouton (1964) has been observed to be the most popular. Anchored in two dimensions of the disputants’ concern: (a) concern for self and (b) concern for others, Rahim and Bonoma (1979) identified five different styles as depicted in Figure 1: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Source: Rahim & Bonoma, 1979.

We may conceptualize these five styles as follows: (a) integrating (high concern for self and others) style refers to mutually favourable solutions to the disputants. Here the parties try to develop a “win–win” situation through creativity, flexibility, exchange of information and open communication; (b) obliging (low concern for self and high concern for others) style implies overwhelming concern for maintaining an interpersonal relationship (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2001). Here one party in the conflict is ready to forgo his/her own interest for the gain of his/her counterpart; (c) dominating (high concern for self and low concern for others) style is characterized by the aggressive mentality of the disputant. Here he tries to maximize his pie of the cake with no regard to the other party; (d) avoiding (low concern for self and others) style indicates reluctance of the party to get involved in a conflict and carry it forward. It accompanies behaviour such as, withdrawal, buck-passing or sidestepping (Rahim, 2002); (e) compromising (medium level of concern for self and others) implies willingness to follow a mutually satisfactory outcome where both parties are ready to give up something of value in order to ensure optimum rather than satisfaction (Montes, Rodríguez, & Serrano, 2012).

People differ regarding their preferred style of handling conflict. In fact, the style of conflict handling entails an individual’s general tendency to display a certain type of conflict behaviour over time and across situations (Cupach & Canary, 1997). Ruble and Schneer (1994) argued that conflict-handling styles are a fairly stable personal disposition of an individual. However, people may adopt and exercise different styles depending on the situation (Boonsathorn, 2007).

Conflict, Culture and Religion

Culture is considered one of the determinants of conflict-handling styles. Volkema and Bergmann (2001) held the belief that any analysis of conflict styles, conflict instruments and behavioural implications of conflicts must take care of cultural influences. Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) suggest that a person learns conflict styles through the process of socialization. The culture in which one is socialized plays a definite role in determining one’s conflict-handling style. It is, perhaps, because of the cultural influence on conflict behaviour, we see similar issues are disputed in dissimilar ways in different cultures (Ross, 1993). Ting-Toomey (1985) also explained cultural variation in conflict-handling styles along Hall’s (1976) high- versus low-context scheme of cultural variability. Hofstede (1984) singled out individualism–collectivism as the central dimension differentiating cultures. Rahim (2001) maintained that people from individualistic cultures prefer a dominating or obliging style to resolve their conflicts.

Elsayed-Ekhouly and Buda (1996) observed that Arab executives (collectivists) intended to use “integrating” and “avoiding” style in handling interpersonal conflicts at work, while their American counterparts (individualists) favour “obliging,” “dominating” and “compromising” style. A similar result was observed in the study of Taiwanese (collectivists) and American students (individualists) by Trubisky et al. (1991). Ohbuchi, Fukushima and Tedeschi (1999) discovered that participants from the collectivist culture of Japan emphasized avoidance styles in conflict, while the US participants were more assertive, dominating and active in their conflict-handling approaches. Wekhian (2015) found that first-generation Arab immigrants in the USA identified themselves with collectivism, believed to have a higher level of religiosity, and preferred obliging, compromising, integrating and avoiding conflict-handling styles.

The role of religion in shaping conflict-handling styles has also been examined in the literature. Alston (1975) and Geertz (1973) view religion as the mainstay through which people identify themselves. Wilson and Power (2004), in their study comparing Australian Christians and Muslims, found that the groups of Christians and Muslims with low religiosity preferred collaborative (integrating) style, while the Muslims with higher religiosity tend to prefer compromising style. Croucher (2011) investigated the influence of religion, specifically Islam and Christianity in Western Europe, on the participants’ preferred style of interpersonal conflicts. He observed a significant impact of religion on participants’ preference of conflict-handling styles. He revealed that the Muslims have a preference for compromising and obliging styles, while the Christians favoured dominating styles. In another study, Croucher, Holody, Hicks, Oommen and DeMaris (2011) examined the effects of various demographic variables on conflict style preferences in India. The findings revealed that the Muslims have a preference for integrating and compromising styles over the dominating and avoiding styles, while the Hindus preferred the integrating and dominating styles. In a more recent study of Wekhian (2015), among the first generation, Arab immigrants to the USA found that religiosity is significantly related to the choice of obliging, compromising, integrating and dominating conflict-management styles. However, the study did not find any significant relationship with the avoiding style.

Conflict and Islam

Islam is one of the prominent world religions. With 2.08 billion (2014) population, it constitutes the second-largest religion in the world. ¹ The word Islam is derived from the Arabic word salam, which means peace. The life of a Muslim is guided by two major divine sources: the holy Quran and the Sunnah. The holy Quran is the book believed to be the words of God relayed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him [PBUH]) through the angel Gabriel. The Sunnah refers to the deeds and sayings of the PBUH, including everything he stated, reported, did and described.

Islam is very comprehensive, and it deals with every aspect of life. Islamic scholars identified five branches of Islam: (a) Imaniyah (b) Ebadah (c) Muamalah (d) Muasharah and (e) Akhlakh (Al-Nawawi, 2001). Imaniyah refers to the belief segment which essentially entails unconditional belief in the oneness of Allah (the essential name of God in Islamic monotheism) and the prophethood of PBUH. It also includes the belief in angels, the holy books, on the prophets sent by God, on the Day of Judgment, on the fate and on the life hereafter. Imaniyah is the foundation of Islam through which a person enters into the fold of Islam and becomes eligible to claim himself/herself to be a Muslim. Adherence to other branches makes a Muslim more devotee to Islam. Ebadah refers to the worship to Allah in the form of daily prayers, paying zakat (obligatory payment to the poor by the rich Muslims), observing Ramadan (obligatory fasting for one month every year), performing Hajj (specific rituals to be performed in a particular time period in Makkah, Saudi Arabia), dikir (remembrance of Allah), etc. Muamalah indicates the financial dealings, including lending money, borrowing money, buying, selling and exchanging goods, business contracts, etc. Muasharah represents rituals and social activities such as marriage, birth, death, festivals, observing rights of parents, relatives, neighbours, etc. Akhlakh refers to interpersonal dealings and character that includes doing good to the people, respecting elders, virtues of forgiveness, being honest in dealings, etc. A devotee Muslim is expected to follow the rulings of Islam in every branch. Conflict, an inevitable part of interpersonal dealings, falls within the purview of Akhlakh.

In Islam, “rights” (in Arabic “Haq”) are bifurcated into Haqqullah (rights of Allah) and Haqqul ebad (rights of a slave of Allah, i.e., human being). Dealing with others, handling interpersonal conflict or issues related to interpersonal relationships fall within the scope of Haqqul ebad. According to one prophetic remark, Allah may forgive Haqqullah but not Haqqul ebad. In the Day of Judgment, for not fulfiling Haqqul ebad, a person either has to pay from his own virtues or has to carry the sins of the claimants. Thus, a devotee Muslim cannot just ignore Haqqul ebad, and hence pay no attention to handling interpersonal conflict.

There are verses in the holy Quran with specific mentioning about the conflict. Following are such few verses:

And hasten for forgiveness from your Rabb and to a Paradise whose width is as vast as the heavens and the earth, prepared for those who fear Allah. Those who spend freely whether in prosperity or in adversity; who hold and check their anger and forgive people and (indeed) Allah loves the doers of good. (Al-Imran 3: 133–134).

(It is permitted that) An ill-deed be revenged by an ill-deed. However, whoever forgives and resolves his differences (which terminate enmity and lead to friendship as this is even better than forgiveness), then his great reward is Allah’s responsibility. (But whoever exceeds the limits while taking revenge let him know) that verily He (Allah) does not like the oppressors. (Ash-shura 42: 40).

And whenever they get angry they readily forgive. (Ash-shura 42: 37).

Also, there are explicit sayings in Hadiths (Prophetic remarks) as regard conflict. Following are a few of them:

Abu Umamah (RA) narrates that Prophet of Allah (PBUH) said: I guarantee an abode on the boundary of Paradise for him who gives up a quarrel, even if he is right; and an abode in the center of paradise for him who abandons lying, even if it is for the sake of fun.; and an abode in the highest grade of paradise for him who excels in good conduct. (Abu Daud, cited in Kandhlavi, 2014, p. 413).

Abu Hurairah (RA) narrates that Prophet of Allah (PBUH) said: Musa ibn-Imran (PBUH) said: O my Rabb! Who is the most respectable slave to you? Allah, the Almighty, and Majestic replied: He who forgives, despite having the power of to avenge. (Baihaqi, cited in Kandhlavi, 2014, p. 417 (62)).

Abu Hurairah (RA) narrates that a person requested Prophet of Allah (PBUH): Advise me. He said, Do not get angry. The man repeated this several times, and he replied: Do not get angry. (Bukhari, cited in Kandhlavi, 2014, p. 419 (67))

Abu Hurairah (RA) narrates that Prophet of Allah (PBUH) said: The powerful is not he who knocks down others; undoubtedly the powerful is the one who controls himself in a fit of anger. (Bukhari, cited in Kandhlavi, 2014, p. 419 (68)).

Aishah (RA), wife of Prophet of Allah (PBUH) narrates that Rasulullah (PBUH) said: O’Aishah! Verily, Allah is kind and loves kindness. Whatever He confers for kindness is neither conferred upon being harsh nor through any other means except it. (Muslim, cited in Kandhlavi, 2014, p. 421 (76)).

Jarir Ibn Abdullah (RA) narrates that Prophet of Allah (PBUH) said: Whoever is deprived of kindness is deprived of all good. (Muslim, cited in Kandhlavi, 2014, p. 421 (77)).

Besides, there are many instances from the life of the PBUH that demonstrate the Islamic way of handling conflict. For instance, one day one non-believer entered into the mosque of the Prophet in Medina and started passing urine inside the Mosque. The companions of the prophet considered it very disgracing and a sign of audacity. They were eager to take it to the task. But the PBUH was very calm and asked them to be patient. Once the man finished the job, the PBUH called him and convinced him to realize that the mosque is a sacred place, and passing urine in such a place is extremely derogatory to the Muslims. Another story, with the similar spirit, runs as follows: At the early years of prophethood, PBUH started preaching in Makkah amid tough opposition, and most of the people of Makkah negated his invitation with harsh behaviour. During that time, one lady, out of anger and betray with the invitation of the prophet, used to throw trash on his way on a regular basis. The prophet used to clean them every day to find his way. One day he found no trash in the street. So immediately, he rushed to the house of that lady to know about her well-being and discovered her in the sick bed. Upon this, he tried his best to help her back to her health (Harun, 2000). Thus, the Quran, Hadith and the deeds of the PBUH persuasively indicate that Islam, in case of conflict, overwhelmingly emphasize on “concern for others” over “concern for self” in the form of forgiveness, kindness and overpowering one’s own anger.

On the contrary to kindness, there are verses in the Quran about war and revenge as well. However, it is allowed or encouraged only on the religious ground, not for personal interest. As mentioned by Wekhian (2015), Islam’s view of war is that of a necessary evil; and one may resort to war, only when it is absolutely unavoidable. Also, there is a specific guidance in the Quran and Sunnah regarding the etiquette of war and conflict. PBUH commanded fighters “[d]on’t transgress, don’t kill who is not a fighter, don’t kill women, children, old men, or a person who works in the field and even a worshipper and don’t destroy crops or cut trees.” “Murder of a human being is considered one of the greatest sins” (Khan, 1980). Again, according to the Quran and Sunnah, the lives of non-combatants are considered sacred, and any unnecessary destruction of an enemy’s crops or property is forbidden in the etiquette of conflict. Islam, therefore, guides its followers regarding approaches to resolve a conflict. Conflict is undesirable, and physical confrontation is the last resort; however, when necessary, there are rules and etiquettes for resolving these conflicts. Islam allows equity when reconciling conflicts, but when amicable terms and forgiveness can be reached, they are preferred. Thus, it is plausible that based on conventional dimensions of “concern for self” and “concern for others,” the Islamic view of conflict-handling styles takes the preference as depicted in Figure 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Source: Generated by the author based on the Islamic literature mentioned in the text.

Conclusion

Being a comprehensive religion, Islam has specific guidance as regard conflict-handling styles. According to Quran and the prophetic remarks, Islam prohibits dominating style and encourages obliging style, while it considers compromising, integrating and avoiding styles as acceptable for resolving interpersonal conflict. However, apparently, the majority of the Muslims are not aware of the comprehensiveness of Islam: that it is not confined to worshiping of God only; rather it pervades every aspect of human life, including interpersonal conflicts. The widespread ignorance of Islamic creed related to interpersonal conflict among the Muslim community may be instrumental in the recent rise of internal chaos and Islamic extremism in many Muslim countries. Therefore, the Islamic scholars and the community leaders should emphasize on the totality of Islam through their speeches, actions and education.

Implications for Managers

Managing conflict within the workplace is almost a regular affair in any organization. Even though the interactionist views of conflict holds that conflict is essential for the advancement of an organization, conflict within the workplace or in any social organization is not free from its negativity. They divert attention from job task, impede interaction with the customers and damage emotional state of mind. The resulting anger often lingers after conflicts appear to be over. Conflicts generate stress, which may lead people to become more narrow-minded, self-centred and adversarial (Penny & Spector, 2005). Studies considering the classification of the conflicts within the workplace as “task,” “process” and “relationship” conflicts demonstrate that “relationship” conflicts are almost always dysfunctional, while a low level of “process” conflict and low to moderate level of “task” conflicts, in specific cases, can be functional (Gamero, Gonzalez-Roma, & Peiro, 2008; Yang & Mossholder, 2004). Thus, to manage the conflicting parties within the organization and reduce the level of dysfunctional conflicts, the managers can use the knowledge of Islamic instructions in their training, mentoring and counselling.

Direction for Future Research

There are precise directives in Islam regarding almost every aspect of life, including financial management, food and consumer items, distribution of inheritance, and human interactions. The rise of Islamic banking and widespread practice of halal food are the vivid examples of the influence of Islamic values and principles in real life business and social arena. Therefore, the level of religiosity (Islamic) may be a strong mediating variable for many organizational studies such as the studies related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour, job engagement and other aspects of job attitudes vis-a-vis the status of business from the Islamic perspective (permissible, not permissible, etc.). For example, a comparative study of job satisfaction among the Muslim employees of conventional and Islamic banks can be conducted where the level of religiosity of employees can be a mediating variable. Also, there may be studies in specific areas of human interactions within the workplace. For example, the influence of Islamic values as regard preferred conflict-handling styles, preferred leadership styles or mannerism in the workplace of the Muslim employees.