A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Dawah Opportunity...Please Help. |
|---|
| Maliha |
| 10/31/02 at 15:04:33 |
| [slm] I went to speak to a local university about my experience as a Muslimah in America. I pretty much talked about how when I was younger I understood Islam only in the cultural context, when i came here i drifted away for a while, and how I came "back" into the folds of Allah's Mercy and Guidance. One student wrote this email...which is *long* and *winded* and I just really am stumped as to how I should respond. To all the intellectuals on this board, please, take the time to read and help me come up with a good response to this brother. May Allah reward you immensely and shower you with His infinite Mercy and Maghfirah (Amin). Jazakumu Allahu Khayran, Maliha [quote] I am a student in Dr. Smith's REL340 class in which you spoke and shared last week. Following our brief conversation it occurred to me that I had an additional couple of things to express and hoped that to receive your thoughts in reply. Let me begin by saying I am returning to school after some 14 years of professional work in I.T. (but without a degree). I have decided to get my degree in mathematics and will probably follow through to masters level education. A nice thing about school is that one can explore options outside of one's norms without the need for an agenda and without the need to manage politics as one would at the office (one is not as readily held to norms and roles). As I get older, I would like to approach, in the limit, the ability to listen to any point of view without becoming angry or otherwise so emotional that my mind is closed. If you love Woody Allen films as I do - unlikely for you - then you might recall the scene from Deconstructing Harry when Harry goes down to hell to get his girlfriend back (the Devil is played by Billy Crystal). He confronts the Devil and in the end they end up "hitting it off". My interpretation is that the persons I think are the Devil are may in fact be a lot like me. I still find this difficult at times when I get into arguments with my wife who anyway does more to get along with me that any single other person! This mind frame is a necessary condition to making adult choices and implies no requirement to follow along helplessly. So it was nice that Dr. Smith invited you by and that you chose to speak and share freely about your choices and experiences to date. The whole matter of growing up - to include religion and ethical conflicts and belief systems - is too complex to fully address in one email. So how to begin? I am trying to grapple with the apparently freeing notion that, while different religions orient themselves around different beliefs and underlying philosophies, many end-goals are the same. Presumably this would free people to express and receive more acts of loving care, acceptance, and commonality. But this does not follow automatically nor does it follow even in a minority of cases. For example, you say you choose to dress the way you do because, among other things, it facilitates the ability of others to see you as a whole woman. As you will recall, certain American oriented women immediately asked: why should you take upon yourself the responsibility of the thoughts of other people (say men in respects to lust)? Indeed, the more you are dressed the more men may wonder how you look undressed. Moreover, in no case can you change what men choose to think. So whether one sees this as a definite improvement from the past days when women were really treated as dirt; whether you see this as a struggle of the sexes; or whether one sees this as cultural custom in which you choose to live in a certain role of a women can be ignored so long as we are clear on this: it would be good if women have real, substantial respect especially as reflected in respects to social justice. No doubt this is true. (Recall that any belief system, of which religions are key, advance a certain standard based on a telos such that by performing the standard some larger good is achieved - to include reconnecting in mind and body to the supreme force - beyond spatial and temporal limitations - in that belief system.) So on the matter of standards and goals: I have asked Dr. Smith to talk more about this because I personally do not believe that this really possible - although nice to consider - for the following reasons. In truth, it is one of a number of variations of individualism that might be seen as prototypical of American thought at large. And it is somewhat existentialist in orientation, which means it contains throwbacks to the Greeks especially Prometheus. But as Warren Buffet once said to a questioner, "I might be old fashioned , but I'm not old fashioned stupid." The only original thoughts are my analogies - plus poems - along the way to possibly make things clearer. Nevertheless detractors might be tempted to respond as follows: Yes, while I suffer certain limits to my personal freedom some larger good is achieved and this is acceptable to me. Moreover, America is full of individuals that are sick from individualism - be it on drugs, depressed, divorced, work too much, and so on. So I am unmoved. Now there are at least two possibilities: „X This detraction is off base „X This detraction is correct but simply shows what a lousy job Americans do at carrying out our own ideals. So what are those ideals? Are they defensible? Why don't we do them? Thus this detraction fails to really engage and assess the more powerful underlying currents of individualism. Part of my thoughts can be neatly summarized in this analogy. The goal of a business is not to make money. No, the goal of a business is to make customers (people). If the business can do this, revenue will come as a side effect and success is assured. Businesses fail or take on risk when this becomes confused, because that is the first step towards manipulating people for money. Similarly the goal of each and every person is to become a full individual - not the member of some club be it America or Judaism. If he or she can do this, a side effect will be that this same individual will want to engage in community and help to secure a larger good. How can this be the case? This can be the case if the individual turns within. This happens, simply, when the following occurs to a person: my approach does not work anymore; my approach is insufficient; what used to pass as meaningful for me is no longer so because I now see that thing in a fuller light. Indeed, on page 107 in "The Middle Passage: From Misery to Meaning in Midlife", the author James Hollis writes: "The goal of individualism is wholeness". It is my personal opinion that owing to the mind-body problem and due to the fact that technology and other industrial infrastructure existing nowadays, an individual can reach the age of legal-maturity and then eek out an existence at least till their mid-30s with no additional advances in maturity. With decent to acceptable prospects, a single adult can easily navigate till middle age in relative isolation. Food, shelter, and housing can be easily secured without the immediate support of an (extended) family structure. Therefore it's not until marriage, kids, or latter mid-life, with its physical and psychological demands, that an adult realizes the real limits to individual control and happiness. Unless a person finds a way to bridge this gulf - namely to reengage with family, friends, and society as a newly constituted individual - he is destined for terminal unhappiness. I think a typical and natural outcome is realize the level to which one is contingent (cannot fully control towards securing a want or stopping an unwanted occurrence) and to which cooperation is required for overall peace to prevail. So what else? With no further development, a person continues employing their life survival skills to date that, while achieving a local maximum, cannot scale up to achieve a global maximum. (More on this below.) However, a 1000 years ago, the pressing need for survival required significantly more attention to securing food, shelter, and clothing. And because of this, individuals were of necessity more apt to work in a community and more apt to assign the cause of things they did not understand to an unforeseen force. Religion was just framework in which this dance was done. Because the body was so at risk, the mind places considerable additional focus on means and ways to organize the community towards survival. Religions are those means and, as Dr. Smith remarked, it has succeeded nicely. Indeed, this is the real payoff in western Democracy. Because each individual's development of life skills is so varied and because those life skills are, in effect, helpful at reducing the immediate conflict of the mind-body dualism, it is helpful to secure and further individual's freedom through political and ideological pluralism (counter-balanced, I guess, by checks and balances in the operational sense of power-relationships). Since otherwise the imposition of ideology eventually looses to the battle for personal identity and progress. Do you know how steel is tempered? It is heated to its near boiling point and allowed to cool according to a temperature curve (faster sometimes; slower sometimes). The hotter the metal the more energy of the atoms so the more they jump around. The jumpiness of the atoms is random. As the metal cools, the more the atoms arrange themselves in a final state. And yet, from time to time, the metal chooses a locally-optimal state that is not globally optimal. In those cases, simply random chance of the atom's movement explodes a local configuration: those atoms are rearranged into a more globally optimal state. This is similar to the classical computer science traveling salesman problem (TSP) : locally optimal tours can actually prevent the globally optimal tour from occurring. So what is required is the ability to explode open fixed tours - e.g. the ability to change. In fact, an algorithmic equivalent to steel tempering has been applied to the TSP problem to generate near optimal solutions (say within 20%) based on randomness! You will recognize the foregoing as two things: „X An operational definition of religion. „X Equally or dually, it is an implicit attempt to clarify that religion was invented hand in hand with surviving life. Knowing this, let us be careful from reckless cause-effect assignments as if religion caused things it simply never did. This brings me to my next point: the problem has never been belief or religion. The problem has been the attachment to the belief. The problem is that, despite all evidence to contrary, some people are so resolute in their beliefs that they will never change. The best example of that stems (and this will not be a surprise) from existentialist philosophy and literature. I may have this wrong in the details, but the gist of a Kafka book goes like this: a banker dies and re-awakes in the form of a cockroach. The banker knows his form has changed, however, rather than behaving like a bug he continues to behave like a banker even though he is a cockroach and cockroaches do not bank. He denies reality. Here the belief of the man that he is banker is so strong that it out weighs all reality. Now this is a big problem - because it so detached from reality. My father is a career field biologist and I spent my formative years running around the most northern parts of Canada in the mountains. Although I longed for the city and for work in science/math, I never guessed I'd get married in Virginia; I only came here to do consulting for AT&T. I'd never thought I'd returned to school. Similarly, the idea that this man's destiny is to be a banker is totally unsupportable. Now I turn your attention to "The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief, and Experience" (in VCU library) page 113: For most of human history individual religious identity was ascribed and immutable. Together with language and cultural heritage, it was part of the attachment to a 'tribe' (real or metaphysical). In many cultures today, religious identity is still determined by kinship, and considered immutable like 'race'. It is a matter of birth within a certain family. Thus, many Moslems around the world consider Salman Rushdie a Moslem, which to them implies clear loyalties. In traditional cultures, it is the parent's duty, and in modern cultures their right, to socialize their children into religious faith, as part of the parental role. Children then become a captive audience, whose religious and religiosity is a matter of destiny, not decision. [emphasis mine] And also "The Middle Passage: From Misery to Meaning in Midlife" by James Hollis page 63: Religious dictates play such a role [dictating behavior and proscribing feelings reflexively] and they [we] are infantilized by the lack of freedom to express [our] feelings without guilt. I have seen perhaps more damage than good done to people by authoritarian and unconscious clergy. Guilt and the threat of exclusion from the community serve as powerful deterrents to the development of the individual. (It was no accident that the ancients considered exile the worst punishment, which could be visited upon a person. The orthodox Jew chants the Kaddish, the prayer for the dead, for one who goes outside of community; the Amish 'shun' those who march to a different drummer.) Exile from group is the great threat to authority. No child can with- stand exclusion from parental approval and protection, and so it learns reflexively to curb natural impulses. The name for that defense against the angst of exclusion is guilt. So when you report of feelings of guilt and you report that you merely followed this custom or that because everyone else did I am far from surprised. I was raised Baptist (Christian without the intellectual basis of Catholicism - focusing primarily on the New Testament and typically fundamental with a literal interpretation of the words in the bible). When I quit and rejected the religion I suffered (and still get snide remarks from my mother and grandparents) significant exclusion and anger. (My parents are divorced and my father cares nothing for religion and never has.) Indeed, my mother considered it as tantamount of a rejection of her. So this is a personal thing for her even though it was my decision about me. Following my termination of this belief, I was felt months of lingering guilt and fear, which finally disappeared. My conclusion is that this was the only thing that was ever there and it was the buttress upon which everything else is built. (I suppose I could be wrong in concluding this too.) Although you say you are returning to Islam as part of a new investigation of its meaning rather than going through the motions (like how Nietzsche blasted Christians), I would say that you are turning within and looking for meaning. This is certainly the sign of a maturing person and was a pleasant aspect of your talk. Indeed the multi-faceted presentation and personal aspects of your talk gave you a deeper sense of dimension that one might normally expect from someone in the monotheistic tradition. Granted, first impressions are big and totally directionless (it's silly to think we can grasp a complex human being in one take) but I thought I would share this with you. Nonetheless, I would caution you and ask you to consider more carefully and more fully as to whether this is best. After all, behavior is goal-oriented so it's nice to review the goal and pay-off from time to time. Because this email is already much longer than I originally planned, I will omit the details of the following stories. I know of two women - raised Christian and practicing throughout their adult lives -who got divorced from particularly unsavory men. Aside from all the ins and outs of the personalities, it was very interesting to note how adamant, how childish, and how unconstructive their religious community was during this difficult time. In each case, the counsel was that Christian women must submit to their husbands (never mind this could spell endangerment). Moreover divorce is severely frowned on and all sorts of 'marriage advice' is given out which is wholly unfocused on the problem. Spouses are asked to refocus on their relationship with God etc.. This is because - I think - Christian's have perverse sense of reciprocity between their relationship in God and everything else. And this reciprocity is further muddied by the fact it must be good, in some larger sense. In each case, when the divorce went through, the women (far more so than the men) were outcast from the group. This means friends of 20, 30, or more years (and even family) did not see them; did not phone them; lend help or money. They were very mad: the atmosphere was one of gossip and petty payback. The second women was dealing with German Baptists which are particularly rigid. Had this woman not had the guts, wisdom, and fortitude to seek help and a support group outside of her community (her community of many, many years) she might remain in that environment today. These are current events in "modern America". As Peter Drucker so concisely noted, the corporate business institution is the only major social institution that is designed to change with the times. In contrast governments and churches are, in the main, resolute in enforcing and increasing their dogmatic, bureaucratic, and static worldview as far as into the future as possible. Moreover, as the above passages suggest, parent's actively imbue their religious beliefs into their children - before their age of choice and maturity and in the capacity of a captive and willing listener who is mainly concerned with securing their continued safety - so that it becomes part of their identity. This is an important observation that explains why religion is so divisive. To attack Islam or Christianity etc. can be regarded and felt as an attack of a believing person's identity because the parents (and their surrounding culture background) purposed to instill than identity within their kids. So if one challenges the standard by implication I have challenged the worth of the people attached to the goodness of that standard. The best way to get attached by assumption (as in envelope or absorb) it as a part of who you are. (Now it is true that unfair, inaccurate, accusatory, and overly general comments are made and a person may legitimately feel attacked. Perhaps the speaker means to attack. We dismiss those cases for now.) Is this a stretch? To attack the clubhouse is to attack the club members? To attack Christianity is to attack a Christian? Again, reactions are drawn from a sort of normal curve-distribution. For example, were I Islamic I would feel no requirement to defend Islam in lieu of 9/11 since only an idiot would actually entertain the thought that their actions had any relationship to the goals within that or any other religion. But I may choose to severely criticize the church in respects to Rushdie or their predilection for their intimate involvement in state. I am not so much concerned about an opinion here or there so much as people - particularly those heavily involved in religious life - do not and are not likely to correctly ascertain the most accurate picture of themselves relative to the larger world. I do not refer to the worldview of the religion or cosmogonies or cosmology of the religion. I am positing another relationship, which underlies all this. If this relationship is not secure in their minds, choice (and hence growth and responsibility) is removed or lessened as a possibility. The following is a sort of teaching aid along the lines I mean. It is most effective if you say this out-loud to your spouse or best friend: Operational definition of an individual I am me and you are you. I am here and you are there. No part of my body is inside your body. And no part of your body is inside my body. No part of my brain is inside your brain. And no part of your brain is inside my brain. You are a separate and discrete corpuscular body from me. And I am a separate and discrete corpuscular body from you. That's why you are an individual and I am an individual. And culture is allowed to make a home in the brain of an individual by that individual. Religion is one of the most important parts of human culture. And yet this makes it manifestly clear where the buck stops: it stops with me because it never originally got anywhere without my buy-in. To the degree I believe anything is to the degree I allow it in my brain and I grow it and make a home to it. So summing up thus far: „X The distinction between standards and goals looks promising in religion, but bears no fruit. Religion is by its very intent exclusionary, proscriptive, and tends to retard people from becoming full individuals. „X It is very focused on standards and who is in and who is out leaving the goal often times unkempt. „X Religion is purposely infused into kids before they can choose it and so becomes a part of their identity. This has many downside risks. But why stop there? There seems to be a continuum between religion and nationality. That's why theocracies are very dangerous. „X I do not think religion can loose these limitations because it is so focused on not changing because to do so would be to admit a flaw in the perception of and access (particularly and especially in the Christian belief: No one comes to God except through Jesus) to the absolute. „X The cost to overcome the downsides of religion is basically equal to changing many of the minds of its believers because their identity is caught up in its continued success. That's a lot of work. Although America leaves open a basically unfettered path into religious belief and association, I remain concerned that people regard modern problems as merely (i) the turn away from religion (ii) the merely misunderstanding of what other religions believe. Indeed if individuals are to grow beyond oneself and to exude living life - and that was the intended meaning of Nietzsche's superman, it is necessary to be encumbered by fewer strictures and to more ably invent standards and dispose of standards as required. By the way, to be an individual is to come to grips with the fact that we are alone and without the possibility of making meaning. As in J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion (the creation story before the Hobbit), man is unlike the elves who know their afterlife. But man was created without this key piece of information in this story. Therefore the task of every human is to make meaning - the middle passage. This is perceptive; that is, meaning is what literally what one makes. Again, what this looks like is for another email. I am not totally sure of all the ins and outs, however, the Hindu progression of (i) money/material (ii) responsibility (iii) turn-within (iv) some spiritual dimension looks fine to me. To the extent that religion is merely a social denominator, to the extent that the most moral people are also the most stupid people insofar as they blithely follow customs and blithely follow religion, is the extent to which these people will never make real meaning out of life. I know religion is supposed to supply meaning. But now you know the difference between eating the menu and eating the meal. Whether spiritual dimension means religion proper, faith, or means that light yet tight feeling when just the sight of a grand oak moves you is immaterial to me. What is important is not to become attached to it. I'd like to conclude by saying this: the far more penetrating indictment against humanity is not that we kill and murder in the name of religion - killing the hidden goodness in the religion - but that we do not change. Religion is part of this problem, however. What I would like to see is three changes: 1. A proscription against teaching religion until graduate level in college (I know: ha ha!), however, deep ending into it at any level whatsoever at that time. 2. The elimination of all theocracies. 3. More focus on choice and more attention to how the state and church play each other. Now changing gears and leading to questions for you! Dr. Smith made at least two general comments about Christianity that I am in general agreement with: „X For all it's focus on being saved and the afterlife, there is sure a lot of pressure to get things right in this life. Indeed there is a lot of focus on faith, witnessing, and so on and so forth. „X Christianity tends to exasperate a victim mentality - especially if the individual tended to opt out of responsibility for themselves that anyway. Christianity is such that all have fallen short of the glory of God; must be saved through Jesus; and where one ought to put his will and place one's faith in Jesus - so as not to show arrogance while admitting to one's sinful pride - above all else. I would add: „X Of all the monotheistic religions Christianity's predilection for witnessing is very annoying. Thank goodness that Islam and Judaism do not find it necessary I suppose Judaism and Islam share a lot. The more I learn about Judaism the more I find it such a pleasant breath of fresh air. Compared to what passes for normal in the Christian faith, there seems be a much stronger focus on intellect and debate. Jewish people place more focus on informed choice today and in this lifetime. And it seems to me, they harbor less admonition relative to Christians regarding other peoples and their beliefs. Smith says it's tough to describe a Jew but, like an elephant, you'll know one when you see it. That fits my experience too. They seem to have less encumbrances in getting to God: there is less church and fewer priests. They seem to be an "up" and positive people (relative to Christians which is my limited experience). So I wonder, given Islam's similar history to the Jewish faith, whether any of this fits for Islam? Also, I sort of felt a faith or connection part in your explanation of your re-investigation of Islam. What is your feeling of faith and how does it develop? This is why I retorted with the question (following your don't you wonder why life, the earth, and the universe is just so implying the existence of Allah statement) 'so who made Allah?" because a real and abiding faith is the best answer to why Allah. And nobody can make a reply to this! After all, any arguments relying on logic will ultimately fall short as my reply shows (by the way: I cannot take credit for that question. a classmate or professor of told Bertrand Russell who wrote it in a book). Another aspect of your presentation that especially caught my eye was the, for lack of better words, the preciousness of life and your immediate surroundings. Is this what you put into life? Or is this the meaning you derive from practicing Islam? It is curious, rare, and to be honored. Perhaps the simplest remark is that your presentation was that of a child insofar as there was little judgement in it. And this, oddly enough, is more of a moving force sometimes and correctness. So please explain more should you feel comfortable. To close this letter, I'd like to ask another question. Before Cambell died and completed those by now famous interviews with Moyers, he reported that with the marginalization of religion, there have been no new myths or stories or grand parables for man to fall on to bring meaning to life. Do we really need stories to organize our lives around? Perhaps it is just as Dr. Smith says: the urgent problem within religion is their predilection to argue nonsense and kiss up to the state thereby passing every opportunity to demonstrate real and substantial leadership. Does Islam provide this for you? To me this not imaginable. Regards, XXXXXXX [/quote] [wlm] |
| 10/31/02 at 15:08:31 |
| Maliha |
| Re: Dawah Opportunity...Please Help. |
|---|
| BrKhalid |
| 10/31/02 at 17:21:25 |
| Asalaamu Alaikuum ;-) I think you should get points for reading it!! ;-) Something which did cross my mind on first impressions was his concern of the 'individual'. [quote]And culture is allowed to make a home in the brain of an individual by that individual. [/quote] [quote]Religion is one of the most important parts of human culture[/quote] [quote]Religion is by its very intent exclusionary, proscriptive, and tends to retard people from becoming full individuals[/quote] The last quote is particularly interesting because if you put it another way he is saying: Religion is too prescriptive and stops people from following their desires. The above reminded me of something my brother once said to me, namely as Muslims we forget the type of relationship we have with Allah. He is the Master and we are the slave. It's as simple as that. Whatever He tells us to do, we do. That's submission....that's Islam. In that type of relationship there is no room for individuality and for fulfiling your own desires because you are too busy fulfiling your obligations to Allah. Why then do we do this? Why do we willingly take the role of a slave? Because Allah has made a bargain with us that if we sell our souls to Him in this world, we will gain Paradise in the eternal life to come. Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.[9:111] Okay may be I went a bit off topic but I hope that helps a bit Sr Maliha. |
| 10/31/02 at 17:24:24 |
| BrKhalid |
| Re: Dawah Opportunity...Please Help. |
|---|
| Kathy |
| 10/31/02 at 21:29:45 |
| [slm] Wow. Took me a couple times to read this! My impression is that a nerve has been hit and he needed to write this thesis paper to get his thoughts and your words out of his mind! -or he is just a pompus know it all who likes to hear himself talk. I think people who write in this style are selfish. They take too much time from their reader, need to use "uppity" words and try to confuse with endless jarrgon. You know the kind... they are at every seminar... they like to hear themselves talk! All they do is fail to communicate and make the recipient dread seeing their e-mail addy pop up in their mailbox! Just in case he is sincere in learning from you, I would just e-mail him back, thank him for his letter. Explain to him that you are very busy and can answer one question at a time. Just say...exactly what are you asking? I couldn't help but think of this: His: I am me and you are you. I am here and you are there. No part of my body is inside your body. And no part of your body is inside my body. No part of my brain is inside your brain. And no part of your brain is inside my brain. You are a separate and discrete corpuscular body from me. And I am a separate and discrete corpuscular body from you. That's why you are an individual and I am an individual. ours: Surah 109 - Al Kafirun THOSE WHO REJECT FAITH Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. By the way... I think we Muslimahs should address the Hijab issue as "because God swt told us to," It is too hard to get into a group discussion about modesty. As you can see it usually turns bad, not because the message is wrong, but because in discussions like this you do not have the time to go really deep into the human psych. |
| Re: Dawah Opportunity...Please Help. |
|---|
| UmmWafi |
| 11/01/02 at 08:52:11 |
| [slm] Good luck Rainbow ;) lol Ok....amidst the volcanic proportions of the e-mail, my response to this person would be like this. (PS Please note that I am not an intellectual so be prepared for a banal answer). Dear XXXX Thank you for your interest in my talk and this letter expressing your thoughts and ideas. You asked several thought provoking questions that could be the basis of several discussions in your REL3301 class and I hope that will materialise. However, faith and religion are very complex issues and I have always found that the e-mail is not an appropriate medium for discussions on them for various reasons, chief amongst which is the great possibility of misunderstanding and confusion. I would strongly recommend that you contact the nearest and most available Muslim intellectual to discuss the issues with. That said, I would like to add that it is not true that the end goal of all religion is the same. Each religion has very different end goal and I am moving towards mine. In addition, the much misunderstood issue of the head covering can be easily understood by the simple fact that Allah bade me to wear it and I do. I fail to comprehend why too many people struggle to grapple with that. However, to each his own. I would like to end this letter by wishing you the very best in your quest for answers and hope that your current interest in understanding various phenomena remains unchecked. Yours sincerely See I told you I am no intellectual. ;D |
| Re: Dawah Opportunity...Please Help. |
|---|
| sofia |
| 11/02/02 at 15:24:40 |
| As-salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullah, May Allah reward you for your da'wah efforts. I'm not the "intellectual" to help you out, nor should you use my approach, since I've tried and failed at a similar communication from someone who already had their mind made up. That's probably reason enough to shut my mouth, but there was just a bit too much rubbish to leave out there, for anyone else. Here was my take on this person: -he's an atheist, or least an agnostic trying to be an atheist (see br. Khalid's post on the relationship mankind has with God). -he already has the answers he needs to the questions he's posed for you (see his last sentence, in addition to many other comments like it throughout). That's why something like what UmmWafi wrote should be enough. -he's basically trying to suck you into the conversation he's having with himself, until you admit to what he wants to believe (ie, that religion is a man-made cultural phenomena that is now outdated), which is impossible. And Kathy's link to Surah Kafiroon is exactly what this situation is about, Allahu'Alim. The following are not really answers to any of his "questions," but rather, my own interpretations and some rather lame (I have no philosophic skills) refutations. What I found interesting: 1) first of all, he makes a lot of wild assumptions that I'm sure, even his atheist philosophy/logic professor would be offended by. 2) the emphasis on "individualism," esp in the beginning of his booklet. "The goal of individualism is wholeness." The goal of religion; ie, submission to and 'ubudiyyah/worshipping our Creator (and not creation), is "wholeness" to a Muslim. Some aspects of Islam are all about the "jam'aa"/congregation of society, whether it be our congregational prayers, taking care of the societies we live in, etc. And still other aspects are all about the individual: the person's relationship with God, his individual deeds, etc. In the end, we die alone and can only answer for ourselves, and we carry no one else's burden of sins (no concept of the "original sin"). But religion is in fact, worshipping the Creator, and serving humanity (his creation). In the earthly sense, religion promotes communal/societal goals and good over individual goals/good, although individual goals can be striven for, so long as they do not harm the society. That's one of the reasons Islam seems so foreign to many in secular societies born out of and striving for individualism, at almost any cost (ex/ the US). "Just do it," "You only live once," "The one who dies with the most toys wins," etc etc. Not to say every single person who is a product of this environment only has individual goals in mind, but let's face it. Corporations (here and elsewhere) have at times, anti-societal goals. For example, do we really believe that some corporate leaders, policy makers and/or scientists are too senseless to realize that what some corporations are doing is harmful for the environment and our children's futures in the long-run? Or is the creation of new luxury items (ex/ SUV) somehow more important/necessary to foster "freedom"? Are scientists really too uninventive to come up with a healthier alternative to petroleum as our major fuel source in the year 2002? Ok, that may have opened up a whole new can of worms, but point being, no, policy makers/scientists are not that stupid and yes, individualism can cause harm. [The belief that making money is only a "side affect" of "business" is about the most absurd thing I think I've come across, btw] 3) that religion is an exclusionary "clubhouse" and kids are just "conditioned" to believe what their parents want them to. While it's true that cultures can promote exclusive ideologies, Islam commands the seeking of knowledge, does not accept blind faith without true belief, and absolutely prohibits racism, sexism, ageism, classism, etc. There's the "fitrah" concept, that we're all born with the disposition to accept truth and goodness and worship of One, True God (as He has defined), which may get tainted by our environment/parents as we grow. But we all make our own choices that we have to answer for, and there is no compulsion in true belief. Were there not dozens of prophets and followers of prophets who were taught falsehood by their families/clans (whether they believed in it or not), then shown the truth and exiled from their homes and lands due to their abandonment of incorrect, yet longstanding "societal/cultural norms"? In a well known hadith, the Prophet (s) said: "Islam began as something strange and will revert to something strange, as it was in the beginning, so good tidings for the strangers." When it was asked who the strangers were, the Prophet (s) said: "The ones who break away from their people (ie, their tribes, clans, family) for the sake of Islam." (Muslim, Ibn Majah) "Norms" are not the actual goals/incentives of Islam or any religion, but can be the result of it, and many other ideologies. In its truest sense, Islam came to abolish "societal norms" (that were not beneficial to man's means or ends). 4) wearing the hijaab puts the onus on a woman for lewd behavior aimed at her. If protection from lewd behavior were the only intended outcome for hijaab and men were not held accountable for their actions, that could be a good point. But it's not. Each of us answers for our own deeds, and men (as well as women) are each commanded by God to lower the gaze of lust (in addition to avoiding environments that would promote zinaa), and are also commanded to observe modesty, male or female. It has to do with (watch out) logic. Personally, I'm sick of seeing/hearing of women (and men) who practice self-mutilation (ex/eating disorders, dressing provocatively) in order to fit into "societal norms." It all comes down to which is more beneficial for us, following God or following man? For once and for all, women don't wear the hijaab (in its truest sense) because of a man. 5) that it is religion that "limits personal freedom," implying that nothing else does. What is morality but the limitation of our lower desires, as a means to a better "end"? Can I really leave school in the middle of class with impunity? Can I just drive through a red light when I feel like it or when "no one's looking"? Aren't I socially conditioned to wait until the bell rings/light turns green to avoid punishment? Is the argument that we should define values based on our individual whims or whatever works best at that particular moment? What if my 'good' is not your 'good'? What if my 'good' is actually detrimental to everyone around me except myself? 6) that the "corporate business institution is the only major social institution that is designed to change with the times." This person's whole thesis revolves around one main argument: religion is not meant to apply to every time, every place, every people. In fact, the opposite is true if the divine teaching is based on an All-Knowing, Everlasting God's commands. If it's not, then I guess he "wins." Deficiency in creation's knowledge does not mean deficiency in the Creator's knowledge. And his whole construct is based on this "deficiency." 7) that religion promotes inflexibility. Seems he's a bit fixated with the Salman Rushdi incident and sees the judgement of man upon man as a reflection of religion's inflexibility. It's amazing how one can equate man with God, laa hawla wa laa quwatta illa billah. To this day, the Ayatollah' command to have Rushdi executed represents the be all, end all of "Islamic Shari'ah" to many non-Muslims. To know true flexibility, without compromising Truth is to know a bit about the actual teachings of God, His Prophet's and the last Messenger, the Mercy to mankind. And how does one explain the Merciful, the true Judge, God? Almost requires a different language. But to use the Rushdi case for anything having to do with Islam is somewhat insane. And to ignore the fact that even a perfect ideology is subject to imperfect adherents seems to ignore the very reason why the same message from God came to humanity at various times and places throughout history. 8) that religion, as he knows it, leaves out "key piece[s] of information" or that religion is just a bunch of parables/stories. In a way, I can't blame him, considering his background. Most converts to Islam argue that their former religion solicited a similar response. Who wants to believe in a religion that doesn't make sense? But I'm not sure if he's ever read the Qur'aan, as it probably contains more practical lessons than parables, compared to what he probably grew up with. I mean, who else supported the poor, slaves, orphans, women or female infants except those following God's injunctions at the time of the Prophet(s)? There were no other "support groups" back then. By following a strictly "business model," we probably would not have done away with slavery and gotten rid of excessive female children and the "parasitic" poor. 9) that the "who-created-God?" question is somehow creative and/or original. As we know, it's one of Shaytaan's oldest/most repeated tricks. Just goes to show how man's incapacity (ie, to reflect) and need to equate the Creator to the created is one of the biggest "limitations" he has. Say: He is God, the One. God, the as-Samad (the Self-Subsisting, the One who does not need anything, but who is needed by others) He begets not, nor was He begotten (ie, He has no lineage, like man). And there is none equal or comparable to Him. (translation of Surah Ikhlaas) Allahu'Alim. |
| NS |
| 11/02/02 at 15:47:50 |
| sofia |
| Re: Dawah Opportunity...Please Help. |
|---|
| Anonymous |
| 11/05/02 at 06:02:35 |
| Assalamu 'alaikum! I agree with UmmWafi -- there is a huge difference between religion and faith. Personally, I would not even trouble myself to respond (well -- perhaps, but only to send links to dawah websites). This Rels340 class sounds like a theory class. His e-mail was infused with Bergarian concepts -- he quotes from Campbell -- and Smith is either his Prof, or W.C. Smith. All phenomenologists, sociologists -- theorists on the interpretation of religion. I took a similar course this summer -- it was taught by a very respectible religious person, who suspended faith during the class, in order to show us just what kind of theories are "out there" -- and challenged us to critically evaluate the theories without relying on faith. Needless to say, many people in the class were under the impression that the Prof was discounting religion. Thoes who bought into the theories loved it. But not once did the Prof lay aside the opinion of the believer. In fact, this was his major criticism -- that none of the theorists were talking to believers -- so how can they even propose to have a theory on religion. You can reply back to him, and insha'Allah your words will open a space in his heart -- but until he truly cares about what a believer has to say, he won't hear you. I suspect that he's just trying to goad you...or as was mentioned: work out his thesis paper. In the end, both of you will be spending a lot of valuable time and energy discussing "religion" -- but how much deen will be explored? He's not coming to you asking about Islam and wanting to learn more -- he's challenging your belief system...forcing you into apologetics. How much time are you willing to spend on this endeavor, when Ramadhaan is just around the corner? Sorry :) I'm just concerned that he's going to be making you defend Islam, when you shouldn't have to! May God be with you. All good comes from Him, all mistakes are mine. wasalaam. |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |