Keywords

13.1 Introduction

Turkey is an Islamic secular and constitutional Republic, formerly parliamentary, located between Asia and Europe. The dominant form of religion is the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam. There are also some Sufi Muslims, and the current administration has enacted measures to increase the influence of Islam. Turkey adopted a presidential system with a referendum in 2017, and its culture is a unique mix between Eastern and Western traditions and lifestyles.

In contrast, Muslims in Israel constitute a religious minority. Living as distinct conservative populations within the Jewish society, they are facing two powerful, apparently contradictory forces. While they are exposed to processes of modernization, leading to changes in their traditions, lifestyles and religiosity, at the same time they report being discriminated due to their Palestinian identity and non-acceptance of the Israeli state, which increases their cohesion and intensifies their sense of religious belonging. Hence, despite sharing the same religious identity, the religious subjectivities and value profiles of the Muslims in both Turkey and Israel are not necessarily similar.

This chapter addresses the differences and similarities of the religious subjectivities and values of young adult Muslim students in Turkey and in Israel, focusing on the role of the cultural context in shaping these differences and similarities. Our research questions are: What are the religious and/or secular subjectivities and value profiles of young adult Muslim students in Israel and Turkey? How are the two groups’ religious views and value profiles similar and how do they differ?

To answer these questions, parts of a mixed-method study, Young Adults and Religion in a Global Perspective (YARG), that was conducted in two stages, were used (for more on this project see Chap. 1 of this volume). In the first stage, a survey including background questions, in addition to questions about religiosity and religious practices, and the Portrait Values Questionnaire, PVQ-RR, (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2012) was administered (for the survey, see appendix 3). The PVQ questionnaire consists of 57 portrait items with a six-point Likert-scale ranging from “Exactly like me” to “Not at all like me”. Results of the PVQ portrait a value profile of the respondents, at the individual as well as at the group level, and enable inter-group comparisons.

Based on these data, a sub-sample of 22 Muslim students in Israel and 37 Muslim students in Turkey were chosen to participate in the second stage of the study and were administered the Faith Q-Sort (FQS ; Wulff, 2019) . The FQS is a new instrument consisting of 101 cards (appendix 1), developed for a systematic study of religious/spiritual subjectivities. The cards include statements that cover a wide variety of contemporary religiosities and are expected to meet the complexity and diversity of different religious traditions. The participant is asked to sort the cards according to a scale ranging from those that describe him/her the most (+4) to those that describe him/her the least (−4). The sorting procedure usually ends with a set of questions through which the participant is asked to briefly explain his or her priorities; this is followed by a semi-structured open interview aiming at shedding light on the results of the FQS , and getting a deeper understanding of the background for particular beliefs, practices and values (for more on the FQS see Chaps. 1 and 3 of this volume).

The following sections lay the theoretical background for the study by summarizing the cultural background of Muslims in Israel and in Turkey and by introducing our findings of both groups. Finally, we will conclude by theoretical interpretation of our findings.

13.2 Muslims in Israel and in Turkey

To introduce the ethnographic field, we start with a general overview of the demographic situation of Muslims in Turkey and Israel , pointing to the significant differences in minority/majority position which they currently occupy and the consequent effects on identity apprehensions among the surveyed populations.

13.2.1 Muslims in Israel : A Conflict-Ridden Minority Position

The Arab citizens of Israel form 21% of the state’s population. Over the years, this relatively large minority group has created different relationships with the state and its institutions. Jews and Arabs in Israel usually live in separate settlements, and the standard of living and level of education of Arab citizens are, on the average, lower than those of the Jewish population (Arar & Keynan, 2015; Rubinstein, 2017). The majority of the Arabs in Israel (84%) is Muslim. Muslims constitute 18% of the Israeli population, with a Sunni majority (CBS, 2017).

The Muslim society generally consists of a collectivistic culture, emphasizing the group needs and values over the individual’s, such as family cohesion, harmonious relationships, conformity and interdependence over individual aspiration (Shahla, 2012; Sliman-Dakhlalla, 2013). Religious and traditional values that stress conservatism play a major role in setting the norms and social behavior of the community (Jamal, 2017). Muslims in Israel are in a difficult position due to the Israeli –Palestinian conflict. Their ties and roots with their relatives in the diaspora, alongside with perceiving themselves as being deprived of equal rights have led to a process of politicization, which involves opposing the Zionist vision of Israel and the establishment of a strong Palestinian identity (Jamal, 2017; Kheir, 2011; Smooha, 2017). Hence, despite their Israeli citizenship, they generally do not do military service, which is an important part of the integration of individuals and communities within the Israeli society. This contributes to their exclusion from the center of the Israeli society discourse (Jamal, 2017; Smooha, 2017). Accordingly, in a previous study of status-based rejection sensitivity, Muslim students reported a high degree of feelings of rejection by the Jewish community, and were low on measures of psychological, social and academic adaptation (Kheir, 2011). Similarly, recent data (Pew Research Survey, 2016) indicate that a high percentage of Muslims in Israel claimed to have negative experiences and to face discrimination due to their ethnic affiliation, compared to other religious minorities.

On the cultural and religious levels, Muslims in Israel are exposed to contradicting forces (Suwaed, 2014). They have absorbed significant secular and western trends from the Israeli culture since the establishment of the state (Jamal, 2017; Shtendal, 1992), yet they are indirectly affected, religiously and culturally, by the Muslim-Arab countries, emphasizing conservative , religious and traditional values (Jamal, 2017). For Muslims in Israel , the results of the conflict between these contradictory forces seem to be related to the political arena, as the attitudes of the Arab public are affected by the government’s policy, with heightened religiosity in times of escalation (Gara, 2015; Rubinstein, 2017). Processes of return to religion and increased religiosity among Muslims in Israel are extensive, but their manifestations are not uniform and unequivocal, and obviously conflict with socio-economic processes. With the global technological development, and with the use of digital media, the young adult Muslims today seem to be less observant of religious traditions. Recent data of the Pew research center in Israel (2016) indicate that in comparison to older Muslims (ages 50+), younger Muslims (ages 18–49) are less likely to observe the Ramadan, and to attend the mosque weekly and pray regularly. Furthermore, recent research (Weinstock et al., 2015) revealed that changes in sociodemographic characteristics of the Muslim community and its surrounding areas across time, alongside the use of communication technologies, were positively related to a higher degree of endorsement of individualistic and gender-egalitarian values across three generations. Adolescent girls in the villages endorsed these values more than their mothers, who also endorsed them to a higher degree than the grandmothers.

Thus, it seems that the religious subjectivities and values of young adult Muslims in Israel nowadays are significantly shaped by different processes and forces than those of Muslim majority countries. While they share the conflict between traditionalism and modernization with Muslims worldwide, their position as a religious minority that is part of a major political conflict seems to play an important role in shaping the results of that conflict. In face of the Islamic brotherhood stands the individual’s liberty, which may seem incompatible with the religious commandments. Returning to the heritage of Islam contradicts the foreground of modernization, and the young adult Israeli Muslims seem to be looking for interim ways between the poles (Beeri & Soffer, 2004; Jamal, 2017; Lybarger, 2007).

13.2.2 Muslims in Turkey: Majority Identities

The Republic of Turkey was established in 1923 as a secular democratic state with a predominantly Muslim population (TÜİK, 2017; Türkiye’ de Dini Hayatlar Araştırması, 2014; Inglehart et al., 2014). The Turkish citizens represent different social identities, including religious, ethnic and linguistic. The religious landscape of Turkey is characterized by a diversity of religious communities. The vast majority of the Muslim citizens of Turkey belong to the Sunni-Hanifi branch of Islam. The most prominent religious minority communities are the Alevis, followed by Greek, Armenian and Assyrian Christian minorities, and Jews.

According to the World Values Survey (Inglehart et al., 2014), the Turkish citizens demonstrate high levels of religiosity on both faith and practice . 98% believe in God, 68% hold God to have an important place in their lives, and 49% pray several times a day. Attendance at religious services is less frequent, alongside low rates of memberships in religious communities and trust to local (0.3%) and national religious authorities (2%), compared to the higher level of trust in the teachings of the religion (30%).

The country has frequently been characterized as traditional and conservative . According to the World Values Survey (2011; N = 1605; Inglehart et al., 2014), Turkish citizens demonstrate strong traditional values and survival values. The data showed Turkish citizens to emphasize the place of religion, parent-child ties, and issues of physical security. National studies on childrearing and the socialization of values in children have characterized the traditional Turkish rural area family relationships with both material and emotional interdependence (e.g. Kağitçibasi, 1984, 1996, 2005, 2007; Kağitçibasi & Ataca, 2005). Obedience and loyalty to parents have often been reported as desirable traits in children (Kâğitçibasi, 1984). The traditional values are also characterized by children placing a significant importance in making their parents proud (Inglehart et al., 2014).

Turkey has been undergoing rapid and remarkable socioeconomic changes with increased urbanization, smaller families with fewer children and a rapid growth in literacy, income and consumption. In line with this development, urban families are oriented towards a different set of socialization goals, such as recognizing autonomy to a higher extent, compared to traditional rural families. The decrease in material interdependency leads parents to place greater importance on their children’s emotional and educational needs, resulting in more independent and self-reliant children (Kağitçibasi & Ataca, 2005). Yet some of the main qualities of the traditional Turkish families are relatively stable: even when material interdependency of family members decreases, as in the upper socioeconomic groups, emotional interdependence and relatedness remain very important (e.g. Imamoglu & Yasak, 1997; Kâğitçibasi, 1990; Yağmurlu et al., 2009). This sociocultural development of integrating collectivistic traditional values with individualistic attitudes and values has frequently been referred to as “a culture of relatedness” (Kağitçibasi, 1996), where traditional emotional intimacy and sensitivity to the needs of family members persist in the urban Turkish society.

To sum up, the sociocultural context of Turkey cannot be described as either collectivistic or individualistic. In accordance with studies conducted in Turkey (e.g. Sunar, 2002), one might expect Turkish people to retain a traditionally collectivistic identity, combined with assuming more individualistic achievements and self-enhancement outcomes.

13.3 Demographics and Religiosity Measures

The research sample included 546 Muslim students (Turkey: N = 346; Israel : N = 199). The Israeli sample consisted of 57% male respondents and 43% female respondents, compared to 31% males and 69% females in the Turkish sample. The age range of the respondents was 18-30 for the Israeli sample, and 18-31 for the Turkish sample. 92% of the Israeli respondents were single, compared to 98% of the Turkish respondents.

Of these samples, 22 from Israel and 37 from Turkey were chosen to the second stage of the study, which included introducing them to the FQS and a semi-structured interview.

The survey contained a bloc on “Social life” including items on religious belonging, self-assessed degrees of personal and family religiosity, and frequency of public and private religious practice . As a measure of self-reported religiosity and family religiosity we relate to the following questions: “Regardless of whether you consider yourself as belonging or close to a particular religious group, community , or tradition, how religious would you say you are?”, and ”How religious would you say the family you grew up in was?” Answers were given on a ten-point Likert scale, ranging from “0- Not at all religious” to “10-Very religious”. For assessing public and private religious practices, we relate to the following questions: “Apart from special occasions such as weddings and funerals, about how often do you take part in religious ceremonies or services these days?”, and “Apart from when you are at religious ceremonies or services, how often do you engage in private religious or spiritual practices, such as worship, prayer, or meditation?” The questions were answered on a seven-point frequency scale (“Every day,” “More than once a week,” “Once a week,” “At least once a month,” “Only on special days or celebrations,” “Less often,” “Never,” with the addition of the option “I don’t know”).

Among the 13 samples of the YARG research project, the Israeli Muslim students were ranked second in terms of self-reported religiosity, while the young adult Turkish Muslim students were ranked sixth. The survey data revealed that the Israeli and Turkish students differ significantly in their self-reported religiosity [t(473.47) = 6.13, p < .05] and family religiosity [t(460.66) = 3.91, p < .05], with Israeli respondents scoring higher in both variables. Furthermore, the groups differed significantly in the gap between self and family religiosity [t(544) = 2.41, p < .05], and involvement in religious practices in private [t(416.99) = 5.21, p < .05]. The gap was larger for the Turkish sample, and the involvement in private religious practices was higher for the Israeli sample. No significant differences were found in involvement in religious practices in public [t(518.49) = 1.43, p > .05]. Figure 13.1 reflects the mean scores of both groups in these measures.

Fig. 13.1
figure 1

Mean scores of religious measures for Israel and Turkey

Full size image

13.4 FQS Prototypes of Young Adult Muslim Students in Israel and in Turkey

The FQS was analyzed using the KenQ Method. From arrays of statements sorted by the respondents, the software discerns shared patterns in the sorts known as prototypes. Analysis of the FQS sorts of the young adult Muslim students in Israel and Turkey yielded five prototypes in each group. We will briefly discuss the main characteristics of each prototype followed by a comparison between the prototypes of both groups.

13.4.1 Prototypes in the Israeli Material

Five prototypes were identified among the Israeli students. The FQS data indicated that the Israeli respondents seem to hold a neutral stance regarding religious practices, neither stressing religious practices in private (FQS23) nor participating in religious practices to meet others’ wishes or expectations (FQS7). This position towards religious practices is general, as they are not overly interested in engagement with other peoples’ religious traditions (FQS81). However, neutrality towards religious practices need not imply a careless position towards religion. They have not moved from one group to another in search of a spiritual or ideological home (FQS72) and are not fearful of turning to the divine (FQS39). This might be one reason why they do not feel adrift, without direction or goal (FQS35).

13.4.1.1 Committed Practicing Believer

Of all prototypes, this one is characterized by the highest sense of religiosity, as reflected in a strong belief in scriptural inerrancy (FQS15) and adherence to religious traditions (FQS31), alongside a strong belief in a benevolent divine (FQS85). This is illustrated by one respondent (YILSK264) in this way: “the faith is the most important thing in life, and I personally, I believe in the existence of the Gods, that is Allah among us, that -- for me I should not think that there is no such a thing. Everything is written, or this is a real thing for me -- I should not be skeptical about it, according to my way of thinking”.

Persons of this prototype strongly affirm the statement “Being religious or spiritual is central to whom he or she is” (FQS16). Compared to the other prototypes, they place more importance on religious practices as they, for example, give up worldly pleasures for religious or spiritual reasons (FQS98). Importantly and uniquely, they take a clear distance from relating to the divine as feminine (FQS19), strongly believe that religion should play the central role in the ruling of the nation (FQS71), and is the only one that does not support individual freedom of choice in matters of faith and morality (FQS100).

13.4.1.2 Institutionally Unattached Universalist

Persons of this prototype express a strong belief in a personal God, as they perceive the divine as a sheltering parent (FQS41). However, their relationship to the divine is not based on temporary needs of protection, as they do not pray chiefly for solace (FQS62). Organized religion does not seem to play a role in their lives, as they reject the idea of being an active, contributing member of a religious or spiritual community (FQS97). At the same time, they also allocate their time or money to religious institutions or worthy causes (FQS1).

The Institutionally Unattached Universalists support freedom of choice in matters of faith and morality (FQS100) and believe that one can be deeply moral without being religious (FQS83), as this respondent (YILSK278) explains: “not always religion is what builds the person. The values, and principles, and morals—the education is more important”. Uniquely, their sexual behavior is not guided by religion (FQS59), and they express a certain level of anxiety when thinking about death (FQS80).

13.4.1.3 Religiously Uninterested But Culturally Committed

Persons of this prototype are characterized by a low sense of traditional religiosity. Feeling distant from God or the divine (FQS45), they are consumed by day-to-day responsibilities, leaving little or no time for spiritual matters (FQS43). However, they seem to maintain some of the religious traditions of their culture, as they do not approve the use of methods for attaining altered states of consciousnessFootnote 1 (FQS50), which are generally forbidden according to Islam, and they highly value their own purity and strive to safeguard it (FQS48). They are unique in seeing the primary spiritual goal in life to be self-realization (FQS93).

They do not face life’s difficulties with a sense of peace (FQS75) and are not confident of attaining eternal salvation (FQS38). These anxieties might be due to their lack of religious belief, or due to their lack of faith in the afterlife, as this respondent explains:

it is that faith, like, does not necessarily have to be faith in religious beliefs only, like, it might be faith and—in other values which are not religious—like, I live life because—because of life, not because I want like, that [life hereafter]. (YILSK018)

13.4.1.4 Experientially Inclined Believer

Persons of this prototype believe in a divine being with whom one can have a personal relationship (FQS53). However, their beliefs are not reflected in daily religious practices, as they become more religious or spiritual at times of crisis or need (FQS17) and express their own religiosity primarily in charitable acts (FQS27). They also long for a deeper and more confident faith (FQS8) and seek to intensify their relationship with God (FQS49).

of course I seek a higher level of religion, but the environment that we are in does not always allow that—that we follow these rules, or not rules, the commandments—I have that faith inside me, and I have this closeness to our God. (YILSK041)

Uniquely, the Experientially Inclined Believer feels threatened by evil forces in the world (FQS61). Yet, their perception of the divine as a compassionate entity to whom they can turn to at any time (FQS39) seems to protect them against such a feeling.

13.4.1.5 Scripture and Institution-Oriented Traditionalist

Persons of this prototype feel that it is important to maintain continuity of the religious traditions of family and ancestors (FQS58) and to be loyal to the religion of one’s nation (FQS46). One respondent explains that the importance of such a maintenance lies in maintaining religion itself:

I believe that there always should be the religious rituals that should be inside the household itself, […] they should tell in detail the little children about it, explain to them about the holiday’s prayer, what do they do in this holiday, why is the holiday named like that, for the continuity of this life. Because I believe that if at some point these relations between the grandfathers and the grandsons and the siblings themselves gets cut, so maybe religions might get lost at some point. (YILSK161)

For persons of this prototype, religion is a central means for becoming a better and more moral person (FQS3), and they live their earthly lives in conscious anticipation of a life hereafter (FQS52). They neither consider religious scriptures to be outdated (FQS32) nor of human authorship (FQS18), and they think that the world’s traditions point to a common truth (FQS4). Furthermore, they do not feel contempt for all religious institutions, ideas and practices (FQS25) and strongly disagree with the notion that hypocrisy is common in religious circles (FQS101). They are also foreign to understanding and relating to the divine as feminine (FQS19).

13.4.2 Prototypes in the Turkish Material

Five different prototypes were identified among the Turkish respondents. In general, the Turkish students strive to safeguard their own purity (FQS48). It is characteristic to them not to think that morality necessarily needs to be based on religious principles (FQS83). Instead, they value equality and freedom of choice regarding religion and religiosity (FQS100). The openness regarding subjective religiosity is further shown in their negative attitudes towards the idea of ruling the country based on religion (FQS71). From that point of view, it is possible to suggest that despite outlook differences, secularism is common in our Turkish sample.

13.4.2.1 Socially Concerned Universalist

The Socially Concerned Universalists do not center their lives on a religious or spiritual quest (FQS64). They believe that one can live a moral life without being religious (FQS83). This might be one reason why they express their religion primarily in charitable acts or social action (FQS27) and do not participate in religious practices to meet others’ wishes or expectations (FQS7). They definitely do not feel adrift or without direction or purpose in life (FQS35). Moreover, they believe that the world’s religious traditions point to a common truth (FQS4), as demonstrated by this respondent (YTRHE304): “I think that all of them point to the oneness of God”. This might be one reason why they do not feel closest to those who share the same faith or outlook (FQS47).

Persons of this prototype deeply believe that self-realization is a primary spiritual goal in life (FQS93) and seldom if ever doubt their own convictions (FQS57). Uniquely, the experience of battling with inner impulses that are experienced as dark or evil is foreign to them (FQS63).

13.4.2.2 Secular Individualistic Rationalist

The distinctive characteristic of the Secular Individualistic Rationalist is that persons of this prototype reject religious ideas conflicting with rational principles (FQS70) as elaborated by a respondent (YTRHE306): “I reject, I generally reject anything that is contrary to the science and rational principles”. They strongly view religion as the illusory creation of human fears and desires (FQS60). Hence, it is not surprising that persons of this prototype do not live their lives according to religious practices and laws (FQS67).

Like for the Socially Concerned Universalist, self-realization is the most important spiritual goal in life (FQS93). However, persons of this prototype feel uniquely detached from God or the divine (FQS45) and do not believe in a divine being with whom one can have a personal relationship (FQS53). Instead, divinity is seen as a life source or creative energy (FQS9). Interestingly, it is nevertheless the only prototype slightly agreeing with having a thorough knowledge of religious scriptures and texts (FQS42).

13.4.2.3 Confident and Open-Minded Individualist

Like persons representing the previous prototypes, the Confident and Open-Minded Individualists believe in self-realization as a primary spiritual goal in life (FQS93). They believe in some way but do not consider themselves to be religious (FQS28) and clearly reject the idea of remaining loyal to the religion of their nation (FQS46). Persons of this prototype are the only ones who slightly agree with the idea of moving away from their group to another in search for a spiritual or ideological home (FQS72). In the words of a respondent (YTRHE101P): “I cannot remain as part of that religion just because my nation is that way […] I choose a religion in which I find peace.” This spiritual search is also reflected in spending time in reading and talking about their views (FQS6). Uniquely, it is very important for them to follow a spiritual path that is in harmony with the environment (FQS86).

The Confident and Open-Minded Individualist feel confident in turning to the divine (FQS39), whom they do not picture outside the traditional religious framework of a supernatural being (FQS9). This might explain why they do not feel threatened by evil forces in the world (FQS61). They are also the only ones who did not reject the idea of experiencing moments of intense divine, mysterious, or supernatural presence (FQS10).

13.4.2.4 Confident Believer

Confident Believers are unique in their interest in traditional religion. Their religious outlook is clear and not vague (FQS84), and they do not doubt their long-held religious convictions (FQS2). For them, religion is not the illusory creation of human fears and desires (FQS60), and they are strongly interested in religious matters (FQS24). They are unique in following certain dietary practices to express their convictions (FQS40), and in agreeing slightly with the idea of willingly giving up worldly pleasures for religious reasons (FQS98).

They also strongly believe in God or the divine, whom they perceive as a sheltering parent (FQS41), and with whom one can have a personal relationship (FQS53). This promotes feelings of being protected by a supernatural being (FQS74), as described by respondent YTRHE124: “I believe in the existence of a creator that protects and takes care of me. Someone who is always there for me”. For that reason, it is understandable that persons of this prototype turn to the divine and their religion in times of distress (FQS17).

This prototype’s traditional religious views are also apparent in their strong disagreement with the perception of God as feminine (FQS19). They are also the only ones to mainly associate with people of the same religious tradition (FQS76), and they do not feel reluctant to reveal their religious experiences and convictions to others (FQS82).

13.4.2.5 Anxious Uncertain Individualist

Similar to the Confident and Open-Minded Individualists, the Anxious Uncertain Individualists believe in some way, without regarding themselves as religious (FQS28), and they do not center their lives on a religious or spiritual quest (FQS64). Uniquely, they regret the personal loss of religious faith or a sense of divine presence (FQS26) and strongly long for a deeper faith (FQS8). As expressed by one respondent (YTRHE140): “I have a belief, yes. But I think that this belief is incomplete”. This incomplete faith might partially explain why they fear death (FQS80) and feel a sense of guilt and personal inadequacy (FQS69).

Even though they have not dedicated their lives to serving the divine (FQS36), they feel protected and guided by a spiritual being (FQS74). Stressing individual self-realization as a primary spiritual goal in life (FQS93), they uniquely also emphasize personal agency regarding sexual behavior, that for persons of this prototype is not guided by a religious or spiritual outlook (FQS59).

13.5 Comparison Between the Israeli and Turkish Prototypes

To sum up the presentation of the Israeli and Turkish prototypes, some interesting tendencies and issues can be highlighted. Overall, both the FQS results and the survey data indicate that the Israeli respondents seem to hold a higher sense of religiosity, compared to the Turkish respondents. Yet, respondents from both groups do not seem to allocate high importance to involvement in religious practices per se, such as prayers, and they do not regard religion as a means for maintaining or forming social relationships (FQS21). The FQS data further reveals a lack of religious social involvement. This lack was stronger among the Turkish sample, reflected in the consensus in disagreeing with the statement “Is an active, contributing member of a religious or a spiritual community .” (FQS97). This can be compared to the Israeli sample, where only one prototype (Institutionally Unattached Universalist) was in disagreement. Moreover, while none of the Israeli prototypes showed interest in searching for a spiritual home other than Islam (FQS72), nor strongly viewed religion as an illusory creation of human fears (FQS60), these ideas were agreed upon by certain Turkish prototypes.

Young adults of both groups of our sample show adherence to the statement “Values personal purity and strives to safeguard it” (FQS48). For the Muslims in Israel this might be interpreted from a religious perspective. Even though some of them are less observant religiously, they still keep elementary religious commandments, such as keeping bodily and spiritual purity. However, at least for some young adult Turkish Muslims, keeping bodily purity does not necessarily stem from religious reasons, but maybe out of personal hygiene, as they do not believe in religion (for instance, the Secular Individualistic Rationalist). Additionally, young adult Muslims in both samples report working actively towards making the world a better place to live (FQS51). However, the Turkish sample tends to agree more with this statement, alongside higher prevalence of agreement on statements that adhere to freedom of choice in religious matters (FQS100). This can be contrasted to a consensus among Muslim students in Israel in keeping the traditions of family and ancestors (FQS58).

When looking more specifically into the prototypes of both samples, similarities between certain pairs of prototypes can be observed. The Israeli Institutionally Unattached Universalist has high resemblance with the Turkish Socially Concerned Universalists: both support freedom of choice in religious matters (FQS100), do not participate in religious practices (FQS7; FQS97), and do not feel closest to those who share their outlook (FQS47). The Israeli Religiously Uninterested but Culturally Committed and the Turkish Secular Individualistic Rationalists both feel distant from the divine (FQS45), and highly reject the idea of dedicating their lives to the divine (FQS36). For them, morality is not necessarily related to religion (FQS83), and religion is not perceived as a central means for becoming a better person (FQS3). Personal self-realization is a primary goal in life for persons of both prototypes (FQS93). The Turkish Confident Believers had high similarity with the Israeli Committed Practicing Believers. Both are strong believers in the idea of divinity (FQS55) and in religious scriptures (FQS2), and are not consumed by day-to-day responsibilities, leaving little or no time for spiritual matters (FQS43). Uniquely, in comparison with the other prototypes, they express their religious convictions by following certain dietary practices (FQS40), and willingly give up worldly or bodily pleasures for religious or spiritual reasons (FQS98).

However, the Turkish Confident Believers have in some respects even higher similarity with the Israeli Experientially Inclined Believers, as both become more religious in times of need (FQS17), believe in a divine being with whom they can have a personal relationship (FQS53), believe in religious texts (FQS32), do not view religion as a creation of human fears (FQS60), and do not have a vague and shifting religious outlook (FQS84).

However, it is important to note that regardless of the high similarity between the groups, differences in the degree of adherence to certain statements still exist and each prototype of the above-mentioned pairs has its own unique characteristics. While the Israeli Committed Practicing Believers believe that religion should play a central role in the ruling of the nation (FQS71), the Confident Believers reject the idea. Furthermore, unlike the Turkish Socially Concerned Universalists, who express their religion primarily in charitable acts or social action (FQS27), the Israeli Institutionally Unattached Universalists do not engage themselves in these acts, despite giving money or time to a religious organization or a worthy cause (FQS1). Finally, the Turkish Confident and Open-Minded Individualist and Anxious Uncertain Individualist, and the Israeli Scripture and Institution-oriented Traditionalist are unique prototypes in each group with no similarities with the other prototypes in the other group.

13.5.1 Values

Using PVQ-RR (Schwartz et al., 2012), we tested the difference between the young adult Muslim students in Israel and in Turkey in the four larger value categories. The data revealed the following differences: the Israeli sample differed significantly from the Turkish one in conservation [t(528) = 2.69, p < .05] and self-transcendence [t(436.08) = −2.62, p < .05]. Muslim students in Israel (M = −0.05, SD = 0.35) seem to adhere to conservation more than Muslim students in Turkey (M = -0.14, SD = 0.35), and less than them to self-transcendence (M = 0.16, SD = 0.30 compared to M = 0.24, SD = 0.34, respectively). No significant differences were found between the groups in openness to change [t(528) = 1.27, p > .05], nor self-enhancement [t(528) = 0.60, p > .05].

To test the correlation between the different prototypes of each group and the higher-order value types, we used the correlations between the higher-order value type scores and the individual’s correlation with the prototypes as co-ordinates for a two-dimensional plot. The results are presented in Fig. 13.2.

Fig. 13.2
figure 2

Correlations of the Turkish and Israeli Muslim prototypes with the Schwartz higher-order categories

Full size image

As Fig. 13.2 shows, both the Israeli Committed Practicing Believer, Scripture and Institution-Oriented Traditionalist, and the Turkish Confident and Open-Minded Individualist emphasize conservation and self-transcendence over openness to change and self-enhancement. However, this tendency is more prominent for the former prototypes compared to the latter. Characterized by a deep sense of religious belief, our findings regarding the Israeli Committed Practicing Believer, and the Scripture and Institution-Oriented Traditionalist are in accordance to Schwartz’s and Huismans’ (1995) previous findings indicating that religiosity correlates positively with values related to conservation and self-transcendence. In contrast, these findings are somewhat confusing regarding the Turkish Confident and Open-Minded Individualist; a prototype that does not reject the idea of moving from one religion to another in search for a spiritual home. However, it is important to note that persons of this prototype tend to believe in some way even though they do not view themselves as religious, and they have a strong sense of the existence of a divine being. i.e., the fact that they are not loyal to their religion, does not imply a lack of theistic beliefs.

The Turkish Confident Believer and the Israeli Experientially Inclined Believer both value conservation more than openness to change, and both emphasize self-enhancement over self-transcendence. Although both have a strong sense of belief in God, they seem to be occupied by daily personal matters and enhancing themselves, which leaves little or no time for religious practices, except at times of crisis or need. Notably, regardless of the similarity between both prototypes, the Turkish Confident Believer is also similar to the Israeli Committed Practicing Believer. As mentioned earlier, both display a high sense of belief in religious texts that is not prominent among the Experientially Inclined Believers. Yet, the fact that the Committed Practicing Believer and the Confident Believer are different in their adherence to self-transcendence and self-enhancement reflects the importance of accounting for cultural differences when referring to the correlations between religiosity and values, as well as the fact that the latter prototype is more “self-oriented” in terms of personal choices, since persons belonging to this prototype perceive self-realization as a primary spiritual goal in life.

None of the Israeli prototypes values openness to change over conservation alongside self-transcendence over self-enhancement. The combination of adhering to self-transcendence and openness to change is unique for the Turkish Anxious Uncertain Individualist and the Secular Individualistic Rationalist. Both prototypes share the personal perception that self-realization is a primary goal in life, and support freedom of choice in matters of faith and morality. However, the Secular Individualistic Rationalist seems to adhere to Openness to Change values more than the Anxious Uncertain Individualist. This is reflected in adhering to statements that reflect distance from God and from religion compared to the Anxious Uncertain Individualist who regrets to some extent the loss of religious faith, and longs for a deeper and more confident faith. The high self-transcendence of both prototypes is apparently not related to religiosity, as neither prototype has a strong sense of religious belief.

The Turkish Socially Concerned Universalist, the Israeli Institutionally Unattached Universalist and Religiously Uninterested but Culturally Committed Believer all seem to value openness to change over conservation and self-enhancement over self-transcendence. However, despite the high similarity between the Turkish Socially Concerned Universalist and the Israeli Institutionally Unattached Universalist, the latter demonstrates higher distance from religiosity, and more openness to religions and practices other than Islam, adhering more to openness to change values. The Religiously Uninterested but Culturally Committed prototype adheres to self-enhancement values more than both former prototypes. This is not surprising, considering the personal characteristics of those belonging to this prototype, as reflected in the interview data – they strongly support freedom of choice and seek to enhance themselves in the pursuit of their goals, and feel distant from religion and the divine. Though this prototype has much in common with the Turkish Secular Individualistic Rationalist, the latter seems to value self-transcendence to a larger extent.

Looking generally at Fig. 13.2, the openness to change-conservation dimension seems to be related to religiosity positively: the more religious prototypes in their beliefs and practices adhere more to conservation as opposed to openness to change, and vice versa. In contrast, for the Israeli sample, the self-transcendence/self-enhancement dimension seems to be related to a higher extent to general worldviews about life, which are not necessarily religious and for some they even contradict common religious perceptions. Yet, for the Turkish sample, this dimension seems to be related negatively to religiosity, so that the more religious prototypes in their beliefs and practices adhere more to self-enhancement as opposed to self-transcendence, and vice versa.

Overall, the data emphasizes that the linkages between religiosities and values are not unidimensional, and that the cultural context plays an important role in shaping these linkages. Furthermore, the fact that two prototypes are similar in their religious views and practices does not necessarily mean that their values will be similar, and this emphasizes the importance of differentiating between religion and values.

13.6 Conclusions

Major changes are taking place in the life views, religion and values of young adults globally (e.g. Woodhead & Catto, 2013). While most research on this topic relates to Western contexts, we explored the religiosities and values of young adult Muslim students in Middle Eastern countries: Turkey and Israel . Specifically, we compared the religious subjectivities and value profiles, and their correlations, among young adult Muslim students in both groups. This comparison is highly unique and valuable also by heightening the importance of the cultural context in shaping these religiosities and values.

Basing on the results of a survey including the Portrait Values Questionnaire, the Faith Q-Sort, and semi-structured interviews, our data revealed major differences between these groups. Specifically, young adult Muslim students in Israel describe themselves and their families as more religious than Muslim students in Turkey, and accordingly they are also more involved in religious practices in private. Furthermore, they report a smaller gap between self and family religiosity, compared to the Turkish students, which might be considered as an indicator of the cultural differences between the groups, as the Turkish culture upholds a mix of traditional conservative values alongside individualistic values, and leans towards urbanization that adheres to westernization, while the Muslim community in Israel still seems to adhere to conservative values to a higher extent, despite the modernization process that is taking place among the Arab society in Israel generally. Recent data further indicates that the discrimination against the Muslim minority in Israel , especially in the division of resources, seems to strengthen the power of the religious institutions, as they supply alternative social and psychological resources important for the survival of the community (e.g. Jamal, 2017). Notably, for both groups, the level of involvement in religious practices in public was low, and no significant differences were found between the groups. One possible explanation for this might relate to the fact that our samples consisted of young adult students, who have little or no time to participate in such public practices, and thus, when possible, become involved in religious practices in private.

Five different prototypes emerged from the analysis of the FQS ’s of each group, which differed in their worldviews, levels of religiosity and characteristics, degree of belief in God and ways of relating to the divine being, involvement in religious practices and the ways for expressing religiosity and personal beliefs. Despite the uniqueness of each of the prototypes in their relevant groups, similarities between pairs including one prototype from each could be noted. These similarities lead to the conclusion that regardless of its different expressions in different cultures, religiosity can take similar forms cross-culturally. It might be valuable for future research to look in more detail for these similarities among other cultures as well, perhaps standing on their nature and identifying different categories among them.

Correlating the different prototypes of each group with Schwartz’s larger value categories (conservation vs. openness to change, self-transcendence vs. self-enhancement dimensions), revealed interesting findings. In correspondence with previous studies (e.g. Schwartz & Huismans, 1995), prototypes that adhered to religiosity, among both groups, adhered also to conservation more than openness to change values. However, contrary to previous studies, for the Israeli prototypes, the self-transcendence/self-enhancement dimension seemed to be related to general worldviews about life, which are not necessarily religious. Furthermore, among the Turkish prototypes, higher religiosity related more to self-enhancement, rather than to self-transcendence. These findings are valuable as it seems that the religious subjectivities of the young adult Muslim students in both samples do not relate to values as we might expect. Since the sample sizes are small, generalizations are not possible. However, since we are using FQS that allows distinctions within religiosity, and since these distinctions become visible in value profiles, the current chapter gives a powerful suggestion for future research on values to relate to a much more nuanced understanding of religiosity within a specific cultural context.