If I were a parent, I would not have taken part in this experiment, not even for a week. Thousands of parents don’t have a choice.
One week ago a Conservative councillor from York said that no one is starving in the UK. On the evidence of last week, he is wrong. Not because the income used in our experiment was a starvation rate, but because for those who have to exist on such precarious incomes it does not take much to push them over the edge.
“Lots of people living on the breadline are getting by most of the time, but then some kind of crisis hits,” says Molly Hodson of the Trussell Trust, the charity whose network of 298 food banks has given out more than 209,000 emergency food packages since April.
“Say you’re off work for a week and you end up on statutory sick pay, or your car breaks down and you don’t get to work and lose your job. Then the crisis spirals into a disaster. Even something as simple as cold weather: a lot of people on low incomes are on meters for electricity and gas. Whenever there’s a bout of very cold weather, people are making the decision between heating and eating.”
The above is an extract from a very sad piece from Saturday’s Independent, by Charlie Cooper, highlighting the extent of the plight, and most importantly, the hunger faced by so many millions of people in what should be one of the richest countries in the world. Do read it, and then if you have no tears in your eyes at the end, consider reevaluating your priorities.
This isn’t some attempt at piety from some guy who lives on the other end of your computer-screen; but whilst you’re eating your take-away and watching the latest episode of the X-Factor, as you undoubtedly will do sometime this coming year, do recognise how privileged your position is…or perhaps when you’re reading that article on The Sun’s website (don’t ask me how I found this piece…though I am looking for looking for a cup of disinfectant that I can leave my eyeballs in overnight) that Katie Price is marrying a builder/part-time stripper (which has been categorised as ‘News’) on your iPad whilst sipping your lunchtime latte, have a think about what it actually is that matters.
Then, why don’t you make a contribution or two toward a homeless shelter, a charity for families or elderly in crisis, perhaps? I won’t tell you which ones. Why not, with your guaranteed income for this month, set up a regular payment or two both here and abroad. One tragedy of all this penny-pinching is not just the effect it has on people at home – forcing them into prolonged hunger and political and economic oblivion – but the lack of good a larger public purse could do in the third world.
I’m reminded of a couple of quotes that I read last year, which were attributed to Imam Ali (may God’s blessings descend upon him always), that are very appropriate. Too bad our statesmen today haven’t the integrity to speak this way:
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.
I’m intrigued by this piece reported by the BBC; we’re living in a rapidly moving postmodern world where the likes of ‘scientists’ or ‘naturalists’ (or however else they style themselves) seem to be dominating the discourse in the area of pedagogy, science, natural history, politics…
So when you read that schools might lose their funding from the Government because those at the helm do not necessarily favour Evolution by Natural Selection as the sole model for determining how complex biological life came into being (obviously without invoking a higher power/God), is it just me or is this where science gets dangerous?
For the past couple of centuries the ‘secular’ model of governing a state seems to have been the preferred one, especially after the Enlightenment, as it was deemed then that religion would and already had become rather tyrannical and be inept at governing various groups of people fairly and without prejudice.
Yet I find myself living in a world now where the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection seems to have become the basic currency with which any discourse might be exchanged; now I have no problem per se with the theory of Evolution as a process for explaining to some degree of coherence the explanation for how life came to ‘be’ in the world – what troubles me is that Creationism is now being deemed as part of myth – i.e. religion.
(I must add here, of course, that it makes no sense to deem Creationism a mere folly – at its most basic level this lens suggests that there is a cause beyond this universe that at the very least, set our universe in motion. It does not necessarily mean that the world is some six-thousand years old as the Young Earth Creationists believe. I am happy to say that I am a Creationist who thinks life emerged, at least on the physical plane, out of a process of Evolution – remember of course, the gene-centered theory is now a minority position – but does that mean that I think that this is a necessary contradiction? I like the term Intelligent Designto sum this position up – what assumptions you make about my beliefs without questioning them, or by consigning them to meremythshouldn’t be a fault in me – rather it is the judgemental nature of science that we should take issue with (which ironically prides itself on being objective – something which modern studies in hermeneutics suggests is incredibly fallacious).
Moreover, I firmly believe that what defines ‘us’ as sentient beings has roots in something inexplicable by science – our ability to reflect on our own existence rather than be merely dominated by essentialist biological assumptions to me indicates that exists what Islam has always deemed the ‘fitrah’, that innate sense of the sacred essentially.
Is it just me or is science, of Scientism going to be come the new tyranny? I don’t buy that Science can be necessarily a moral agent for world, nor necessarily the prioritised objective lens through which we view it; historically it was the view of science and scientists that the world was created by a God which drove further explorations into His Mystery (forget the whole Galileo episode for a little while). Religion, or a God-oriented view of nature, as Professor Steve Fuller of Warwick University says, has been an instrumental driverof science – I am convinced that the meaning we ascribe to science was hermeneutically born out of the belief in God (just look at the science that came out of the Islamic world or in Europe); if we forget where science actually came from, and to how much it owes to religion, then science fails to have any significant meaning, nay, purpose, which scientists and apologists for Scientism suggest is a necessary agent for their work.
But science – more specifically the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection – shouldn’t have to be the modern meta-narrative of our world – the fact that we one day might be able to explain the physical processes that constitute our existence and the world that we observe around us does nothing to help us actualise in the world. Our purpose to understand or to know, or to create (all things that are certainly valuable things -and as yet science cannot explain the need for our aesthetic agency) did nothing to stop the catastrophes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example; except to tell us that those that are weak (and now I mean this in a sociological sense) are doomed to perish, either at the hands of the strong or out of the actions of the strong.
Proponents of science today that are trying to systematically reject the normative narrative that religions have to offer fail to see that their commitment to pure, objective science that might some day explain the world is becoming a force that can be just as tyrannical. It is because of philosophy and religion that we endeavour to feed and clothe and heal the hungry, the homeless that exist far enough outside of our communities to have no impact on our own worlds and our abilities to thrive in them; according to science, altruism is merely a biological function and not a end-good, moreover Evolution by Natural Selection has its own normative process and agency – that the strong survive and that the weak shall perish. Though we see it happen in the animal kingdom we do not see it as a moral problem – yet when we see injustices and such cruel realities in our own, we find them morally and normatively abhorrent. Why? As Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr says – if indeed we are merely composed of atoms banging against one-another then our attempts at being ‘moral agents’ is pure ‘sentimentality’. So far I cannot think of an adequate argument against this.
Somehow it has come in vogue that invoking a deity seems to be something that is unscientific – as if to say that by invoking God one has just filled an empty space with an explanation, which in itself cannot be explained; yet the trouble is that within the philosophy of science, no-one can seriously claim that all explanations require further explanations for them to become true – in our cause and effect universe within which we find ourselves, that is tantamount to invoking an infinite regress.
Remember, Newton didn’t know what gravity actually was, rather, he was able to explain the effects of gravity were – does that mean that gravity itself doesn’t exist or is an inadequate explanation for what he observed? Of course not.
If indeed we emerged out of a slow process of biological evolution which by some miraculous chance allowed us to exist despite tremendous odds against that chance, does that mean that because we cannot explain the origins of the universe within which we are found, that same universe in which evolution could actually occur, does that mean necessarily that it is an unscientific explanation? Certainly not on this account too.
Now whether you favour a ‘naturalistic’ explanation to the cause of our universe, or whether you think that it is better explained by an uncaused cause – surely you should be allowed to offer both, or other explanations, as part of a scientific education. Moreover, surely educators should be allowed to express which of those theories they actually believe in.
In my experience it was those teachers that expressed their opinions in the classroom that had the most profound impact on my education, those who spoke out, who weren’t afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom (recall, this is constantly being redefined – not a hundred years ago were women considered cattle or the expendable commodities of men, not a few centuries was it certain that the world was flat, not a month ago was it believed that a supermassive black hole could ‘exist’ at the centre of a small galaxy etc). Today, science tells us that biological life for a given individual begins at the point when two gametes meet, yet that same science cannot tell us whether it is actually ethical to terminate that life, even though it increasingly provides us the means to do it.
As a student of history and politics at university, or as someone who has an interest in religion and philosophy – the theory of Evolution has done very little to change my approach to these disciplines; the notion of the survival of the fittest as a model for perpetuating life has very little to do with my studies of the past, or my ability to grasp theological positions. Moreover, having studied both the theories of Evolution and the case for ‘Creationism’ (argh I hate that term), I have come to a conclusion for myself. I do not think that scientists have the right to tell me what to believe – knowledge has to come from a perspective of reflection. The obsession with purity or an arrogance of superiority is/are what were traditionally ascribed to organised religion; today as religion is increasingly dying in our society we see science filling that space. Nature does indeed abhor a vacuum, after all. But scientists cannot agree to it because they refuse to recognise their own fallacies.
We have thrived for millennia without understanding Evolution in the way science explains it – I do not see it as the theory that will be our Saving Grace. For that, we need to look within ourselves, not merely at ourselves.
————————-
Finally – it’s worth watching Steve Fullers short interview on Intelligent Design – it’s about 7 minutes long and worth every second, in my humble opinion.
Matthew writes yet another brilliant piece – this time explaining somewhat the hysterical rants of our dear Melanie Phillips – she is a truly peculiar institution. Moreover, in my opinion, she is the proof that the Forces that Be has/have a very dark sense of humour. She is simply one of those people that I cannot despise (even though many love to hate her); rather, I pity her warped view of the world and how she is in a state of bondage to the Zionist, Neoconservative and Fundamentalist Right demographic.
My favourite part of this piece is when he writes the following:
“A number of years ago when I paid more attention to the ravings found on the American blogosphere than I do now, I coined the term “truthspace”, referring to a kind of reality bubble where speakers and writers come out with claims that are demonstrably false, but this does not matter to their audience with whom they are ideologically united and they agree on the ‘necessity’ of these claims being accepted as truth, even if they are not.”
I wonder if hermeneutical arguments do indeed apply to her – is she merely a product of someone else’s ideology or is there something deeper, perhaps more pathological (in a philosophical sense) there?
You be the judge – but just in case you’d rather not I’d definitely recommend that you read Matthew’s post.
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, etcto 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.
A brilliant edition of ‘The Stream’ speaking of the cartoons and the rage that followed it; is such a shame that more voices of moderation aren’t given this kind of exposure.
That said, I think the discourse lets-off too easily the greater power-play here – I read it as classical orientalism – a way of subduing the Eastern man because he is quick to murderous rage, necessitating condemnation from Western Governments and schooling in what it is to live in the ‘modern world’ (thank you President Clinton, you very wicked man).
Nouman Ali Khan was particularly excellent – speaking of the moral imperatives as opposed to the legislative ones which are important. And I think that that moral space should be recognised; as a person of ‘belief’, I wonder if it is a failing on the part of the faithful that this has been allowed to be perpetrated; our world today seems to be blinded by the notion of rights that extend even to the bigoted (which is fine in principle), the only problem being that we are so individualistic that we block out moral voices and moral instruction as soon as it interferes with our whims and desires – isn’t the point of morality (and I speak of universals here) that it should be able to shape or control our impulses for wickedness?
It’s an unpopular view to have, no-doubt, in today’s world. What do you think?
Great conversation on Al Jazeera’s The Stream yesterday: I was with Lisa Fletcher and Anushay Hossain in the studio — I love her blog Anushay’s Point — and Omid Safi, Nouman Ali Khan, and Michael Muhammad Knight joined in on Skype. Plus an excellent video comment from Hind Makki in Chicago, which led to a lively post-show discussion, starting at the 25.15 mark, on reclaiming the narrative from both ‘Islamist’ extremists and Islamophobic bigots.
It’s a good thing Nouman Ali Khan wasn’t in the studio, because I’d only have totally embarrassed him by leaping up to give him a huge hug. I really do have to figure out how to be cool on TV…
Like I say, hang around for the post-show segment — the silent majority is silent no longer!
I think that this is a fantastic interview – for the most part, Ahmadinejad was very clear, very forthright. Whatever you make of his politics (and I’m considerabely more ‘Leftist’ than he is), I must give him credit for being one of those few political leaders who speaks honestly, makes no apologies for his beliefs and isn’t polemical in the way you see Western Leaders are.
If you have the time to spare, do watch this interview, please! The translator did a very good job too.
Best,
I.
PS – I know some will not watch this because they’re not fans of Piers Morgan (I don’t like him much, but prefer him to Larry King in a way because he’s more honest about what he doesn’t know) – but this was a fairly sympathetic and friendly interview. Just wait for the bit where Ahmadinejad tells him off (in his usual quiet fashion) for demanding answers based of what the former believes are false premises!
Though I will not spend too much time arguing the case, and my brainfog is rather severe tonight; if the sentences don’t flow into one-another I apologise – I’ve been piecing this together over several days.
Nevertheless something is becoming increasingly apparent to me. Following the ‘riots’ and killings since the release of what they tell me is a terrible video depicting the blessed Prophet Muhammad in the most overt and pernicious way, the responses to these protests, especially in our press, have been less than satisfying.
Firstly, let me state what my position is – I embrace freedom of speech as a policy – it is the only way a democratic system can flourish. Does that mean that I think that I should say whatever I want to, because I’m free to do it? That’s a slightly different question. No-doubt such a video was supposed to generate a rather dramatic response, who wouldn’t have thought that it wouldn’t?
The best argument I have read that tries to explain something of the sentiments of those who killed the American Ambassador to Libya in Benghazi is Myriam Francois-Cerrah’s assessment of the situation, which was published on the Huffington Post blog and her own. She writes about the anti-imperial overtones as well as the stripping away of the dignity of those who live in the Muslim world, which has been perpetrated by us, the imperial powers who for years have (in my words) savagely oppressed these people through political, economic and military means.
Now one of the questions you might ask is – so who bears the responsibility for the death of the American Ambassador? Much of the media has now come to the conclusion that it was probably Salafist militants that had staged the attack in response to the death of one of their leaders; that the inflammatory video was merely an excuse to be manipulated, and subsequently carry out the intended assassinations under that pretence, their plans having been already drawn for an attack on the Consulate.
Moreover, the press praises those Libyans who stood up against these militants and drove them away through protest. My question is – why should the Libyan people bear the responsibility of driving away those that have manipulated that abhorrent video and since carried out the killings? Who created those monsters in the first place? And why should the many be judged for the actions of the few? These are important moral questions seldom asked.
No-doubt, the men who perpetrated those crimes behaved in the most barbaric of ways (and I don’t mean to sound like an orientalist here, Arabs are not barbaric) – in murdering a man who was far-removed or completely detached from the atrocious film’s production. And though it is great to see some sort of outward anger to that particular brand of ‘resistance’ or violence, is that merely enough? Could this all be something of a red-herring in terms of subverting our attention from the increasing likelihood of a war with Iran, among other things?
Does reporting such stories not ignore the fact that a sacred right of free-speech was violated, manipulated, subverted for poisonous intents? Isn’t the point of a right that it should be cherished, rather than abused or misused? Or employed in such a way that would no-doubt alienate the rights of those elsewhere who seek to respond?
Secondly, could not some of the blame be redirected elsewhere? You see, the trouble with our idea of the universal, near-inalienable right to free-speech or free-expression comes with a caveat; that is, our right to publish obscene materials comes at the cost of the rights of those who are offended to protest. Moreover, the ‘legitimate’ deaths that occur in response to, say, a terrorist threat are fine, even if innocent civillians are killed (the recently Hit List policy is a testament to it); the deaths that occur as a (initially perceived) result of such a video are not okay. States and governments can be violent, but people can’t be.
Why is that the case? What makes governments immune to the same criticisms that those who are violent face? Why are some deaths acceptable to people whilst others aren’t, even though both are driven by ill-founded rogue ideologies? Truly, in a secular world, why is death even so important to the ‘West’? This conception of death is based on a [militant] secular argument rooted in an ideology that sees itself as threatened by (militant or peaceful) religious ideology, and extremism (excuse the orientalist overtones please), yet does not see itself as the reason for the flourishing of that sort of thinking.*
As I wrote in a comment on the Huffington Post’s site,** that though I abhor violence in principle (whether carried out by militants or nation-states), it is a sad state of affairs I think when Christians, Jews, Hindus etc., don’t react more strongly and protest their point of view when they are attacked, [and when Muslims don’t stand up for the rights of other faiths, of the rights of God’s word to be heard in the world, through whatever authentic religion and medium].
The world has lost its sense of the sacred – the only thing that seems to matter any more are the socio-economic imperatives that govern us – don’t do anything that might affect the economy and we’ll all get on fine – and I don’t like that. All that seems to matter is our ‘rights’. Religious space is being increasingly encroached upon; it is the duty of the faithful of whatever religion to speak out against the violation of the sacred space.
Humanity is at a loss, and I think because we’ve lost that sense of the sacred. How many of us roam ‘free’ and fed whilst most of the world starves; how much freedom do we have whilst propping up dictatorships elsewhere? How many ‘rights’ do we uphold for ourselves whilst systematically violating the rights of others; yet we rain fire from the skies, slay millions (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) or let others do it whilst we look away (Romania, Indonesia, Latin America).Where is the sacred duty of feeding and clothing the poor, trying to make peace, sincerly liberating people from tyrants and occupation, of preserving the lives of innocents?
Back to the point – what are the moral obligations of those who produced such a film, knowing full-well that the fury of the Muslims world would be unleashed in the form of demonstrations outside of the US Embassies or local governments, and by a very small minority, these protests would inevitably turn into a violent spectacle. And oddly enough, this violence didn’t occur in the ‘West’, for obvious reason, but such a film is another orientalist tool to make the people of the East appear more violent than the civilised West, even though more have died in the name of secular nationalism, communism, and capitalism than have died at the hands of such protesters.
Should not Muslims be enraged and protest (peacefuly) at such an insult to the figure they hold most dear in their religion? Should they merely learn to accept this sort venomous speech? Do they not have a right to be offended? To speak their minds? To affirm that though free-speech is an important part of living in the modern world, we should use it responsibly and in the interest for promoting cooperation between peoples, to promote an actual demoractic world? You see, you can’t blame peoples’ religious persuasion of creating discord among them – people are in my view, fundamentally religious or driven by ideology – whereas they can choose what it is that they say.
“The Church of the Nativity was besieged in 2002 whilst the Latin patriarch said : ‘the basilica is a place of refuge for everybody, even fighters, as long as they lay down their arms. We have an obligation to give refuge to Palestinians and Israelis alike.’
That is an example of the kind of human rights and humanity we need to get back to. Not the ones dicatated to us by the state.”
*Moreover, if you want another reading on it, this conception of a good deahth is rooted in capitalism – think about it, violence in a country, especially if people die, has adverse effects on that country’s economy – consumer confidence decreases, foreign investment lessens. Dead people cannot buy goods, cannot work and feed the system. And when these legitimate deaths are carried out through illegitimate wars and deaths, mechanisms are built so that these countries’ economic output are channelled toward the global capitalist networks.
As an example, why else do we militarily interveine in Libya and not Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Egypt?
**(I don’t think I’ve given up any intellectual property rights here)
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!
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.
Heightened Senses 