Heightened Senses

Hello. I'm Imraan. This is my attempt at a productive silence.

Category: Books

Freedom?! What Freedom?! Freedom-fanaticism and the fallacy of the State-Religion. Enough of the ‘Politics of Derision.’

A good friend of mine, Siraj Datoo (Editor in Chief of The Student Journals – studentjournals.co.uk) was in September on BBC World Have Your Say, as part of an interesting discussion on the protests across the Muslim world and from the Muslim communities in the West.

It’s a great discussion and I found it very thought-provoking. Yes, I know it’s a little late for me to comment – but in a narcissistic aim to feed my ego, I might as well chime in on the discussion.

If you’d like my rant and comments on this programme (very badly composed as I sort of zoned out and typed furiously over the course of a few minutes), I’ll include my thoughts under the link. Siraj’s blog can be found here.

I very much enjoyed this programme. I liked the French fellow – he seemed to have interesting things to say, but alas, did seem to speak a little from the privileged perspective.

I enjoyed this platform particularly because most of the panelists were articulate, educated, peace-oriented (although that’s the de facto human condition if you strip away all those things the higher powers use to divide us) – thankfully no fringe-fanatics were interviewed, no Anjem Choudarys or fanatical, angry, bearded clerics in sight, thank God!). Though the BBC is now an arm of the British Government in many respects, I think that this programme was pretty balanced and nuanced. Only that they didn’t discuss the problem of modern Western imperialism in the Middle East and the ‘global south’ in general.

The American fellow is moronic, if you’ll excuse me, comparing the President of the US to say the Prophet Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha etc – absolute madness. Most Westerners don’t feel about their leaders what Muslims in general feel about the Prophet Muhammad – he is seen as the paragon of virtue, of love, of humanity – I imagine the same way Christians feel about Jesus. If you actually read the histories and biographies of his life, his track record is far better than that of say, Sarkozy or Obama.

His talk (that is, our American friend) of freedom of speech in the States being a result of the struggle for liberation from British imperialism is a bit rich; many of the protestors, as was said on the show, live in the third world. They are affected by imperialism to this day. It’s all fair and well that the ‘free’ man can criticise – only he doesn’t realise that in his hand he firmly grasps the whip the beat at the backs of the barbarians he is trying to civilise.

More importantly, they are subject to rampant, unrestrained imperialism on the part of the US, Britain, the ‘free world’.

Do you think their burning of US flags and effigies of Obama are as a result of their hatred of ‘freedom’? As Chomsky said, it’s not that they hate our freedoms, but it’s that we hate their freedoms. The US has for decades continued to prop up the most authoritarian, fanatical regimes across the Arab and Muslims world (and elsewhere) – which undermines daily the dignity and freedoms of the Muslims. We saw it with Gaddhafi, Mubarak, the House of Saud, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, the Bahraini monarchy (now a client state), the Israeli government that for decades has massacred the Palestinians and Lebanese without restraint.. the list goes on…not to mention that they currently occupy two countries now in the Middle East. Don’t even get me started on what they’re doing across Africa, the Far East, the South Pacific.

Mahesh was completely misguided – liberating the Kuwaitis was a benevolent act on the part of the US?!

So long as this mentality of crazy, right-wing (party fanatical Christian Right) jingoism continues in the world, the West will never understand why it is the Muslim world feels under attack when symbols of their identity – especially their religious identity (no doubt the Islamic identity is the most powerful one extant today, the staying power and message of the Prophet hasn’t waned – which says something about the universality of Islam I think) – is denigrated.

Yes, the film was used as an excuse for violence – madness. But the anger, resentment, feeling of threat on the part of the Muslim world is not something they imagined. The US and Western imperial agenda is still alive, these protestors live in so-called ‘postcolonial’ societies (can you sense the irony?!) whose progress toward dignity, individual freedom, is constantly hampered by either US funds or Saudi petrodollars to prop up and perpetuate the most barbaric conditions – degrading the dignity of those Muslims, Christians and Jews who happen to live in those failed states.

As a community – we feel the frustration (as many of us more privileged in the West travel ‘home’ often) of our brethren, just as much as we feel under attack in or actual homes in the West because of this ‘softer’ approach toward marginalising an Islamic way of life in so-called democracies. The Prophet, hijab, halal meat, male circumcision, the Islamic moral code (that’s the whole of the Shari’ah – not just the punitive stuff the Right likes to parade on Fox News) – all of this is being sidelined in favour of something more ‘civilised’. Funny, I don’t see the Kosher food or male circumcision in the state of Israel as being demonised by our press in the West. But they do indeed seem to care a little too much about it in, Germany and France – where Muslims are a significant minority (as well as Jews, incidentally).

It’s ironic, is it not, that their aim to liberate those poor, oppressed, Muslim women in the Islamic world, they have to ban the burqa in France?! That’s just a pretext for something far more pernicious, sinister. Islam is coming under attack from a very influential atheistic lobby and Religious Right; my concern, and perhaps it’s paranoia – but if they continue to inflict this kind of neoimperialism and liberal arrogance on the Arab, Muslim and Third-World, and the Muslims (and perhaps even others) keep protesting both here in the West, and there, feeding the paranoia of the Religious Right and the secularists, the mass deportations might begin sooner than we think.

The proper response to such cartoons varies depending on the context of the people who are protesting – but certainly it should be a peaceful one. Moreover, the privileged Muslims in the West at least should pool their funds together – we need better PR. Thought it’s unfair that we are put in this situation to have to defend ourselves (people are uneducated about the Islamic world, about Muslims) – we need films, books, media of our own to be accessible, highly promoted – to build an understanding of what Islam has to offer to society, and what its potential can be as part of the ‘Liberal’ world.

I do believe in the tenets of freedom of speech – and if someone wants to disrespect a particular religion or institution – I will defend his right to do so. Only, he doesn’t realise that he has shackled himself to the state-religion, which is far more threatening, serpentine, insidious, far more dangerous than religion proper could ever be to his freedoms.

But I fear that by the time he realises it, it will be too late. Ah, the arrogance of the West (when I speak of the West, I don’t of course include countries in the Eastern bloc, or say the more developed countries in Latin America – I have far more respect for them, and to an extent the mediterranean countries, and their governments than I do for say the Israeli, British, German, American, Canadian, French, Autralian total Hegemon).

I quote Noam Chomsky way too much, but when he was asked about the politics of so-called secularist humanists who promote freedom (Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, specifically) and use their platform to promote an “aggressive foreign policy”, Chomsky responded (here):

“I think they are religious fanatics. They happen to believe in the state-religion, which is much more dangerous than other religions, for the most part. So they…both of them, happen to be defenders of the state-religion, namely the religion that says that ‘we have to support the violence and atrocities of our own state, because it’s being done for all sorts of wonderful reasons…which is exactly what everyone says in every state…and that’s just another religion, like the religion that ‘markets know best’..it doesn’t happen to be a religion that you pray to…once a week. But it’s just another religion as is very destructive.”

Finally -the West needs a culture shift; for some reason Muslims are expected to put their Western, nationalist identity before their faith – something that Muslims, I believe, are resisting –  this is something that ardent secularists cannot grasp. The idea of liberalism and living in a free society from the perspective of minority groups is somewhat different to that of the secular, caucasian, affluent Right-wing.

But the fact that this sort of hate speech and rampant disrespect for beliefs that people hold dear – is just as much a damning inditement to the failures of a ‘free’ system that is solely based on the state-institution and of Capital, that ironically claims its virtues to be that it creates a context for universal acceptance, of respect. That it in fact can take place, in the first place, is very, very, telling. And yes, in case you ask, I would just as much defend the rights of Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etc to take offence if their religious figures and symbols came under such attack, and I would, if able, attend their protests also.

I’ve written too much, bedtime!

P.S By the way, I don’t despise atheists/secularists nor do I dislike Right-Wing Christians – but their political agenda is and are, well… just obscene. I think they’re the greatest threat to actual freedom – especially the freedom to choose your own identity, your allegiances, your priorities is this perpetuation of the free, secular myth. It hasn’t been able to take the place of religious beliefs, something it has aspired to do for the last century, fundamentally because it misunderstands the importance in impact of religion and religious beliefs of the lives of adherents. But then that’s another debate. 

American Radical; The Trials of Norman Finkelstein

Dear friends,

I was so glad to discover that the aforementioned film is still available on Al-Jazeera. I’d definitely recommend that you have a look if you have the time.

I have watched it at least a couple of times – I think it portrays a brutally honest look into the life of perhaps one of the most principled public figures alive today. For those of you who think that this will be a little dry – I assure you it isn’t (or so I think). It is both an honest look at what it’s like to lead his sort of life – an academic – though not always valued by the establishment stooges is nonetheless an incredibly prolific and insightful figure.

For those who don’t know him, Norman Finkelstein is an American academic, a political scientist more specifically, and a son of two Jewish Holocaust-survivors, who just happens to be one of the most vocal and articulate critics of the politics of the state of Israel and Zionism. Perhaps after the late Edward Said – he is probably the most sympathetic and fair critic of the subject – despite himself not being a Palestinian.

He has been embroiled in various academic discussions, most notably with perhaps the most, umm…let’s say ‘voracious’ popinjays of the Zionist Lobby, Felix Frankfurter Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, of Harvard University, whose book, The Case for Israel he labelled a “fraud”. BAD idea…

Though usually staunchly pragmatic, perhaps he was a little foolhardy and rushed into a conflict with the Professor during a live debate on Democracy Now! (with Amy Goodman) – a very interesting watch and someone has uploaded it to YouTube. He clearly won the debate. Hands down.

This, by my estimation, resulted in his being removed from his post DePaul University in Chicago (the rather curious reasons for which are discussed in the film), and a huge public outcry and campaign against his unfair dismissal, which was supported by some very high-profile personalities.

Incidentally, Professor Dershowitz is also featured in this documentary, so certainly I don’t think a case can be made that the film was one-sided.

I am really a fan of his – he embodies perhaps the most important of the characteristics of what it means to be human, that is, empathy, and hope. Moreover, watching so thoughtfully reflect on his life is quite a treat. Perhaps I sound rather like a sycophant?! You decide!

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/2011/04/2011412103819678591.html

Consciousness

I’ve just discovered a few lectures by Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr, University Professor at George Washington University, eminent scholar,  ‘traditionalist’/perennialist, often called a polymath and probably the most important Islamic philosopher of modern times.

The topic of this talk is Conciousness‘; a term that’s often whitewashed out of the modern discourse which Dr Nasr agues is what will lead to man’s ultimate destruction (I’m paraphrasing, and these are just my interpretations of his talk); we have been alienated from ourselves, and our place in the Cosmos, that we see ourselves from the external rather than the internal, which is what has caused such blind arrogance of the ‘scientistic’ world view.

Anyhow, I hope you enjoy it! There’s another great talk on YouTube which further expounds on his worldview labelled ‘God and Man’ which I recommend highly as well.

They’re very easy to follow (as far as philosophy talks go) because of the clarity of his speech, I managed to sit through the first one in one sitting without too many ‘brainfog moments’. So to all you fellow sleepy people reading this, don’t panic!

Love, and best wishes,

Georges Jordac

Here’ a plug for a book that most Western Shi’as will already be familiar with – I’ve heard it mentioned several times on various pulpits.  It has been recommended to me on several occasions and I recently started reading it.

NB – before I continue I must state that I have not read the book in full, nor am I an expert on the subject, the following are just cursory thoughts on the first couple of chapters of the book.**

It’s called, The Voice of Human Justice (Sautu’l ‘Adala ti’l Insaniyah [sic]) and was written by  a Lebanese and (purportedly) Christian scholar – Georges Jordac – interestingly I can’t seem to find any biographical information on him from outside of Shi’a websites; no matter.  Interestingly, as of January 2012, irib.ir reports that:

Jordac is old and retired now. He has been living with his books in his apartment in Beirut over the past few years. He is not well and has decided to sell his library and to take a rest until the end of his life,” scholar Hojjatoleslam Mohammadreza Zaeri had earlier said.

I’d be curious to see as to what happens to his personal collection down the line, though the state of Iran’s National Library and Archives (INLA) seems to have put in a bid to purchase the collection – my hope is that down the line it will be loaned to western libraries – I’m sure there must be much by way of his personal letters which would make for interesting examination and exploration.

So anyway, I started to read the book lately. One paragraph at the end of the second chapter really made me think:

It makes no difference in the position of Ali whether or not history recognizes him and whether his eminence appears greater or lesser. Notwithstanding this, history has testified that he was the deepest stage of human thought. He sacrificed his life for the sake of truth and reality. He was the father of the martyrs and proclaimer of justice. He was the unique man of the East, who will live forever!

This book, a biography, reads almost as if it could have been written by a Shi’i. I’m astounded at the amount of reverence given to the beloved Imam Ali (A.S) from outside of the Muslim fold – there are several quotes included (the English translation unfortunately does not contain any bibliographic footnotes – although the edition I have is intended for mass-distribution and is abridged) that I have yet to come across in Shi’a texts, though I suspect it’s because I haven’t read enough.

What is interesting is that as a biography (or if I’m being more fair to Jordac, a treatise on the justice of the Imam Ali A.S)   tone is very indicative of someone who venerates the Imam, who appears to  believe (and I’m inclined to agree with him) that from all the research he has carried out that there is only one way to examine the life of this great man, and he makes no apologies for his tone nor the content of his book.

These quotes at least so far, are selected for their special emphasis on social justice, especially where wealth is concerned – this is the running theme of the book.

If a person starves it is due to the fact that his share has been taken by another.

And

I have not seen any excessive bounty which is not associated with a right which has been violated

Assuming that the quotes are indeed attributable to Imam Ali (A.S) and the translations are accurate (both are from page 13 of the 2006 edition), I can’t help but see (what would today be considered) Marxian themes – and I don’t mean this necessarily in a normative way  –  running through the thinking of either the author (who has cleverly sewn into Imam Ali’s words such an ideology – indeed the author himself uses the word ‘capitalists’  on page 12, among other places – is it just me or does it seem almost anachronistic to use it in a biography of the Imam? ) or the fact that indeed, Imam Ali’s (A.S) thoughts, in so far as his ideas on wealth go, would be firmly on the Left today.

The implications for justice, democracy, human rights, free-will etc. are vast – because on a cursory glance, it would appear that injustice in so far as material wealth is a product of (either) human greed/weakness or societal mis-management/mis-organisation [sic!]. Jordac talks of in this first chapter Imam Ali’s (A.S) establishment of a public treasury through which all citizens had access, suggests that the wealth of the individual was only really his insomuch as it could be used to benefit society as a whole – indeed his admonitions towards one of his governors to discourage hoarding would suggest that indeed wealth needs to circulate.

Moreover, this discourse would tie firmly the individual’s responsibility of self with his responsibility over the iniquity exhibited in society – that the poorer person’s misfortune might be put down to the richer’s (illegitimate) displacement of the former’s wealth – our responsibility over ourselves are so crucially important to bear in mind that we might be answerable for others’ fates if we are not vigilant over ourselves.  (Of course, the Qur’an speaks  – from what I understand, and again I’m no expert – of personal responsibility, and the fact that we’re tested according to our means – we are intentionally placed in different societal positions, although that doesn’t necessarily contradict the above. [1]

Say: What!  shall I seek a Lord other than Allah? And He is the Lord of all things; and no soul earns (evil) but against itself, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another; then to your Lord is your return, so He will inform you of that in which you differed. ..

And He it is Who has made you successors in the land and raised some of you above others by (various) grades, that He might try you by what He has given you; surely your Lord is quick to requite (evil), and He is most surely the Forgiving, the Merciful.  (Qur’an VI: 164-5;The Qur’an, 7th Edn;   M. H. Shakir (Trans.); 135;  ( Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc.; New York : 1999 ); Emphasis added.

Anyway, the point of all this is – how much are we actually responsible for? If human justice entails such vigilance over ourselves, our wealth and our conduct that we should not unintentionally usurp the justified wealth (and if I was to extrapolate further, any possessions or commodities or rights)  of others, what does it say to those of us who live very, very comfortably in the West – who have perpetual access to food, shelter, clothing, technology, information; how much will we account for, and for how much will we be held to account?


[1] Note, I have not gone into tafsir literature here – this is just a layperson’s understanding.