I thought this was a great and a heart-felt speech. I am very happy with the way things turned out in Iowa. Obama is not exactly a Dennis Kucinich, but he's a lot more consistent on the issues than Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, and seems sincerely reform-minded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc&feature=user
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Monday, December 10, 2007
Z's Fountain of Needs
So I was hungry and started thinking about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a theory which I find facinating for its profound insight, and frustrating because I always it to be overly simplistic, not entirely true in real life, and not easily connectable to a moral or a social model. Maslow's pyramid shape, which places physiological needs at the very bottom, implies that humans almost always will give up everything else until their physiological needs are met. I find this assertion to be untrue for the most people. A simple example of where this theory doesn't work if a mother and a daughter are on a sinking ship, and only one of the two can survive, most mothers would choose their child's survival over their own. Every day, people sacrifice their lives and security to stand for causes in which they believe.
Everyday, you hear of someone taking his/her life because someone broke their heart. In other words, there are many people who would sacrifice a lower need in order to acheive a higher need. Even those who don't have the courage or ability to do so don't necessary stop looking for ways or longing for fulfilling higher needs even when their lower needs aren't being met. Alderfer voiced this criticism of Maslow's theory by introducing his ERG theory (Existence, Relevance, Growth). Alderfer combined Maslows physiological and survival needs into "existence" needs, combined Maslow's love and esteem needs into "relevence" needs, and renamed Maslow's self-actualization into “growth.” Alderfer also rejected the dependency of higher needs to those of the lower needs. Still both Alderfer and Maslow applied their theories to individual human behavior. Neither had a strong social component in his theory and neither used his theory to influence behavior but rather to influence it. Finally, with either theory, the buck stops at self-actualization, which I don’t believe is true. I believe that when we reach self actualization on an individual level, most of develop a need to give back in some way. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet come to mind.
Here’s Z’s fountain of needs followed by an explanation:
So how does the Fountain of Needs apply to morality? Simple. The fountain of needs is about one thing: Balance! It's about the balance of individual needs and collective needs... Not exactly a new idea, but perhaps a visual framework. The Balance of individual and collective in the fountain means that the society's ultimate moral responsibility, and highest goal is to propel its Individuals with as much focus (no side or downward pressure) as possible, in order for as many individuals as possible be able to achieve self-actualization.
3- Each individual is able to achieve self actualization as a result of the upward forces of the societal and global spheres.
Everyday, you hear of someone taking his/her life because someone broke their heart. In other words, there are many people who would sacrifice a lower need in order to acheive a higher need. Even those who don't have the courage or ability to do so don't necessary stop looking for ways or longing for fulfilling higher needs even when their lower needs aren't being met. Alderfer voiced this criticism of Maslow's theory by introducing his ERG theory (Existence, Relevance, Growth). Alderfer combined Maslows physiological and survival needs into "existence" needs, combined Maslow's love and esteem needs into "relevence" needs, and renamed Maslow's self-actualization into “growth.” Alderfer also rejected the dependency of higher needs to those of the lower needs. Still both Alderfer and Maslow applied their theories to individual human behavior. Neither had a strong social component in his theory and neither used his theory to influence behavior but rather to influence it. Finally, with either theory, the buck stops at self-actualization, which I don’t believe is true. I believe that when we reach self actualization on an individual level, most of develop a need to give back in some way. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet come to mind.
Both are extremely rich, and both probably accomplished what they wanted to accomplish in life. As a result, they now hove foundations to fight poverty, illiteracy, and AIDS around the world. Whether this type of behavior should be expected of people that have so much, or whether it is behavior that they have no obligation of doing and are worthy of thanks and praise is a discussion for later. I would, however, argue that regardless of why they do it, they are driven by a need to make a difference, or and impact need. It is the same need that drives people who donate to schools and universities. It is the same need that drives people to volunteer to go to visit people at the shelter. In my opinion, Impact is THE need that connects the individual back to the collective.
I started thinking about how to improve and apply Maslow's pyramid and I came up with my own model that takes Maslow's needs hierarchy and enhances it. I call it- Z's Fountain of Needs! My thought process is that needs aren't a static thing.. They are constantly moving and changing as we grow as individuals and as society changes around us. I also applied my own moral theory of social responsibility required for continuously fulfilling these needs, and I think it fits very nicely with the Fountain, thus bridging the applicability deficiency in Moslow’s model.
I started thinking about how to improve and apply Maslow's pyramid and I came up with my own model that takes Maslow's needs hierarchy and enhances it. I call it- Z's Fountain of Needs! My thought process is that needs aren't a static thing.. They are constantly moving and changing as we grow as individuals and as society changes around us. I also applied my own moral theory of social responsibility required for continuously fulfilling these needs, and I think it fits very nicely with the Fountain, thus bridging the applicability deficiency in Moslow’s model.
Here’s Z’s fountain of needs followed by an explanation:
The Fountain theory compares our sphere of influence and existence to water circulating through a fountain. It is a closed system in which every water drop is catapulted into the air by pressure from within a pool that is the collective sphere (Humanity and what is in its sphere of influence). Each drop lands back in the pool to help regenerate that process again. While the water drops are together in the pool, it is bound by the overall direction of the currents within that pool. Each drop wants to find its way to an upward pressure source and leverage the force of other water drops around it to move up into the air in order to meet higher needs such as love, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Therefore, in the is model, the Purpose for which every water drop moves in the collective is each individual drop’s longing for individual self actualization. It is the need we all have and for which don’t have a conclusive definition. It is the meaning of life that we all strive to define but cannot explain what it is to others. As the water rises through the fountain into higher and higher levels in the air, it transitions gradually from the collective sphere into the individual sphere. Each water drop starts to move in a different direction, increasingly free of the force that pushed upwards, and increasingly bound by its own motivations and gravitational pull of the pool. The more the water rises, the more it loses its collective nature, and the less collective force to propel it upward. And just like in a fountain, the drops cannot fall back directly into the center because of the upward pressure it will face. The water drops go into all the directions.. Some go to the left of the mainstream (become more liberal than the main stream), and some fall to the right of the stream, (becoming more conservative than the main stream). It is this constant movement of water in this fountain that prevents if from stagnation. Like a fountain, if the upward pressure is too strong for the body of water, or if it does not shoot straight up in the air, the pool loses its water because the water molecules become too small and evaporate, or they go too far to the left or right and fall outside the pool. An example of the water going too far up is when someone loses sight of his/her internal need to impact the collective. It is a state of detachment from the world, which is not healthy if done for extended periods of time.
In this closed system, a balance of needs has to exist in order to meet the need of each water drop (Individuals) and the source of water from which it comes (nature and the human community- I will refer to it as the collective sphere). Unlike a pyramid that is static, a fountain requires that there has to be an adequate upward pressure… a meaning… a morality… a collective and an individual responsibility to create a good upward flow, and that the molecules of water have enough density to gravitate back down to the pool and replenish it and feed it with new energy. The fountain is not just a stacking on needs, but it is about the overlapping of changing needs that move in the right balance between the individual and the world.
In this closed system, a balance of needs has to exist in order to meet the need of each water drop (Individuals) and the source of water from which it comes (nature and the human community- I will refer to it as the collective sphere). Unlike a pyramid that is static, a fountain requires that there has to be an adequate upward pressure… a meaning… a morality… a collective and an individual responsibility to create a good upward flow, and that the molecules of water have enough density to gravitate back down to the pool and replenish it and feed it with new energy. The fountain is not just a stacking on needs, but it is about the overlapping of changing needs that move in the right balance between the individual and the world.
So how does the Fountain of Needs apply to morality? Simple. The fountain of needs is about one thing: Balance! It's about the balance of individual needs and collective needs... Not exactly a new idea, but perhaps a visual framework. The Balance of individual and collective in the fountain means that the society's ultimate moral responsibility, and highest goal is to propel its Individuals with as much focus (no side or downward pressure) as possible, in order for as many individuals as possible be able to achieve self-actualization.
Conversely, the moral responsibility of each individual is to contribute back into the closed pool of the collective so that other individuals' journeys are facilitated into self actualization. is to continuously replenish the pool that makes up the fountain with whatever it managed to gain along its journey towards individualism and self actualization.
However, it is inevitable, and even desirable that as water drops become more elevated, and move into the social realm, water drops become to develop their own personalities within the upward stream, and eventually start to veer off slightly in different directions away from yet without braking with it completely. The water drops become more and more in uniformity with the immediate water drops that are around them, but they are now in slight dis uniformity with the the upward force that propelled them and gave them the ability to veer off in the first place. In this social context, individuals associate with people who they can understand better. They choose people who they love and who love them as friends, soul mates, and spouces. They are energized by this group of other individuals and are effected by their positive and negative energies. In the societal realm, we seek approval, acceptance, and support of friends and family, and develop habits and traditions that are too complex and unproductive to exist in the global forces that propelled us into societies.
In this sphere, the individual is still progressing forward, but his/her progression are based on they upward force of the immediate social circle. This social circle could be the people with which the individuals comes in contact with, be it face to face, and/or via an interest group that is connected over the web or some other means. These connections can be inter-cultural or intra-cultural, intra-lingual or multi-lingual. In this supportive environment, and at the height of this social sphere, each individual reaches begins to achieve their esteem needs and begin to form their unique individuals, and ultimately reaching self actualization, or their life purpose. I would like to think that all of us have a life purpose that doesn't just revolve around us, but is linked directly or indirectly to giving back to society in some fashion. for some, it is volunteer work. For some, it is a breakthrough idea or technology. For others, it is touching people through music or sculpture or literature.
I propose that if the an individual reaches self-actualization based on healthy upward forces from the global sphere and the societal sphere, this individual will develop the need to continue, improve, and inhance these global and societal sphere that helped him/her reach self-actualization. For this model to truly work, Four conditions have to occur:
1- Global, generic upward forces achieved through focused on the absolute value of every human and of the life sphere in which all living things exist.
2- Societal, transitional upward, but more defined forces that are still linked and motivated by the global sphere, but is more capable of delivering upward forces that takes into account the uniqueness of each individual in this sphere.
3- Each individual is able to achieve self actualization as a result of the upward forces of the societal and global spheres.
4- Individual, unique downward forces that help replenish and enrich the global and societal sphere to ensure the fountain cycle continues.
These forces are overlapping, in the sense that each individual simultaneously is part of a collective and unique from it. An individual water drop at the top of the fountain is one that is still part of a closed system that includes the pool and the upward, sideways, and downward forces within it. These forces are also hierarchical in the sense that needs/motivations have to exist first before other motivations can develop. For example, an individual has to be able to be able to breath, have adequate food and water, and an environment that is free of war in order for him/her and his/her society to survive and have the ability to develop. This individual has to have a collective circle of relevance that loves him/her, nurtures him/her, nurtures his/her uniqueness so that they he/she can go on and achieve self-actualization, discover their purpose of life, and fulfill that purpose, which in return enables that individual directly or indirectly to contribute back to the global and collective spheres. As such, when societal needs are in conflict with global needs, morality would dictate that global needs triumph.
For example, global need for oxygen supersedes the societal economic needs of equatorial nations to log the rain vorrest. Ultimately, these nations are part of the global sphere, and when the global sphere no longer has oxygen to breath, these nations also have no more air to breath. When two countries fight over land or over natural resources, the effects of war on both societies is more harmful to both societies in the long run than the short term gains in resources by one nation. As such the need to coordinate resources and avoid war is a higher moral than one nation securing the resources to itself and depriving other nations. The same type of logic can be applied when Societal needs and motivations are in conflict with individual needs and motivations. For example, preventing a woman from going to school in order to observe societal traditions and norms harms the woman because it prevents her from recognizing her full potential in life. It also harms as the society because it might deprive it of a brilliant doctor or scientist than can help elevate the quality of life for that society. It also help institutionalize the subordination of one half of society and restrict its potential to the weaknesses and limitations of the limiting/oppressing segment.
What this hierarchy of moral responsibilities and needs also mean is that what is moral behavior in one sphere is often not moral in a different sphere. Trying to apply societal norms and aspirations to the rest of the world falls into the category of imperialism and colonization. Conversely, trying to limit individuals to societal norms without recognizing the unique needs of those individuals weakens society and the individual in the long run which also disturbs the balance in fountain. Trying to apply societal and cultural favoritism, or individual convictions that conflict with global values is destructive and immoral behaviour because these sideways and downward forces deprives those who are in the global sphere from an opportunity to meat their needs and achieve their own meaning and self-actualization.
For example, trying to apply religious norms of one group to the entire world is harmful to the entire world if enforced. Christianity and Islam and both notorious for wanting to shape the world in their image and subjugate others to their beliefs. The result has been hundreds of years of brutal wars that claimed more human life and hindered human freedom and progress more than anything on the planet. Conversely, if society does not allow its own individual members the freedom to gravitate toward a specific believe that is rings true for them, then Religion is preventing the individuals from achieving self-actualization. This prevention is immoral because it goes against the ultimate responsibility of society, which is also the ultimate responsibility of the human community; and that is to allow each human to reach his/her self-actualization.
So to summarize my fountain model, it is a framework that links morality to needs, where the ultimate goal of the human collective to allow each individual to rise towards his/her own unique self-actualization, or personal development and satisfaction potential.
So to summarize my fountain model, it is a framework that links morality to needs, where the ultimate goal of the human collective to allow each individual to rise towards his/her own unique self-actualization, or personal development and satisfaction potential.
At the same time, the individual's ultimate moral responsibility and need is to give back to the human and societal collective that helped propel him/her in a way to help others achieve self-actualization as well. In this model, upward forces are always positive, and are the ultimate need to be fulfilled, and is the ultimate moral responsibility of every society. Good downward and side-to-side forces replenish the fountain and keep it alive and well. Bad downward and side to side forces are those forces that hinder upward forces in the global and social collective spheres.
I really like this fountain concept. This fountain framework is what I will be using going forward in applying my interpretation to global problems and in proposing solutions to fix them.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Arab Despiration in a Poem
This is my best attempt at translating a beautiful Arabic poem I came across on Alarabiya. The poem is By a modern and much celebrated in the Arab world, Nizar Qabani. Antar, the character in this poem, is a much revered pre-islamic poet and knight and icon of all things admirable in Arab character. making Nizar's mockery of him that much more powerful.
These countries are a furnished appartment
Owned by a person named Antar
He gets drunk every night by its door
And collects rent from its residents
And shoots bullets at trees
And Children
And Eyes
And Perfumed hair braids
These Countries
They are all a personal farm for Antar
Its skies
Its Air
Its Women
Its faint green fields
All the windows have a taped picture of Antar
All the city squares carry the name of Antar
Antar lives in our Clothes
And in the tie of our bread bags
And in the the Cola bottles
And in our dying dreams
On the lettuce and mellon carts
On the Buses and in the Train station
At Airport customs
On the postage stamps
On soccer fields
At the pizza parlor
And in the art on the fake currency
An abandoned, unwelcoming city
Not even a mouse is left in it
Nor an ant
Nor a stream
Nor a tree
Nothing about it amazes the tourists
Except the official, approved picture
Of General Antar
Hanging in his living room
On his happy birthday
In his towering, decadent, walled palace
Nothing new in the life of this colonized city
For our misery is repeated
And our death is repeated
And the flavor of coffee on our lips is repeated
For since our birth, we have been imprisoned in the bottle
of circular culture
And circular language
And since we entered school
We study nothing but a single bibliography
That tells us about the muscles of Antar
And the kindnesses of Antar
And the miracles of Antar
And we don't see anything at the cinema
Except one boring Arabic film
Starring Antar
And nothing on the morning radio to care about
For the first news report is about Antar
And the third and fifth and nine and tenth news reports
Are about Antar
Nothing in the second program
Except instumental music
From the Compositions of Antar
And the oil paintings
From the doodelings of Antar
And a recital of the most nausiating poetry
In the voice of Antar
These are countries in which writers give their votes
To the Lord of intellectuals, Antar
They beautify his ugliness
And write the history of his era
And spread his ideas
And beat the drums of his glorious wars
No star on TV except Antar
with his beautiful figure
And expressive smile
One day in the clothes of a duke and a prince
One day in the clothes of the struggling peasant
One day on a Russian tank
One day on an armored vehicle
One day on our broken bones
Every year,
The submissive, content, week, humble, drum-beating, cheering, life-and-blood giving people of this city
Sacrifice themselves to him who doesn't deserve it
Many, Many cheers to Antar.
These countries are a furnished appartment
Owned by a person named Antar
He gets drunk every night by its door
And collects rent from its residents
And shoots bullets at trees
And Children
And Eyes
And Perfumed hair braids
These Countries
They are all a personal farm for Antar
Its skies
Its Air
Its Women
Its faint green fields
All the windows have a taped picture of Antar
All the city squares carry the name of Antar
Antar lives in our Clothes
And in the tie of our bread bags
And in the the Cola bottles
And in our dying dreams
On the lettuce and mellon carts
On the Buses and in the Train station
At Airport customs
On the postage stamps
On soccer fields
At the pizza parlor
And in the art on the fake currency
An abandoned, unwelcoming city
Not even a mouse is left in it
Nor an ant
Nor a stream
Nor a tree
Nothing about it amazes the tourists
Except the official, approved picture
Of General Antar
Hanging in his living room
On his happy birthday
In his towering, decadent, walled palace
Nothing new in the life of this colonized city
For our misery is repeated
And our death is repeated
And the flavor of coffee on our lips is repeated
For since our birth, we have been imprisoned in the bottle
of circular culture
And circular language
And since we entered school
We study nothing but a single bibliography
That tells us about the muscles of Antar
And the kindnesses of Antar
And the miracles of Antar
And we don't see anything at the cinema
Except one boring Arabic film
Starring Antar
And nothing on the morning radio to care about
For the first news report is about Antar
And the third and fifth and nine and tenth news reports
Are about Antar
Nothing in the second program
Except instumental music
From the Compositions of Antar
And the oil paintings
From the doodelings of Antar
And a recital of the most nausiating poetry
In the voice of Antar
These are countries in which writers give their votes
To the Lord of intellectuals, Antar
They beautify his ugliness
And write the history of his era
And spread his ideas
And beat the drums of his glorious wars
No star on TV except Antar
with his beautiful figure
And expressive smile
One day in the clothes of a duke and a prince
One day in the clothes of the struggling peasant
One day on a Russian tank
One day on an armored vehicle
One day on our broken bones
Every year,
The submissive, content, week, humble, drum-beating, cheering, life-and-blood giving people of this city
Sacrifice themselves to him who doesn't deserve it
Many, Many cheers to Antar.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Outsourcing God- Child Slave Labor Making Crucifixes
I got this from Democracy Now. If Walmart can outsource toys to China, why can't churches outsource God there?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/21/1520248
But there is hope, thank God for Reverend Billy and Morgan Spurlock. Very interesting-- Check it out:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/21/1520253
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/21/1520248
But there is hope, thank God for Reverend Billy and Morgan Spurlock. Very interesting-- Check it out:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/21/1520253
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Abrahamic Religions and Conflict
I am deeply convinced that the institutions of the Abrahamic relligions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are THE single biggest reason for conflict in the Middle East and in the world. By institutions, I am incorporating the actual religious theological bodies and clergymen, as well as what Christians, Jews and Muslims have been led to believe by these institutions as indisputible mandates from God through the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran, and the historical accounts narrated by each religion.
All of the big three speak of a God that has created the universe. All three talk about the story of humans starting with Adam and Eve frolicking in Heaven. All three believe they hold the final and ultimate divine revelation and claim to be God's chosen people because they hold that revelation. Although it is Jews only that use the term "God's chosen people," Christians and Muslims have a different way of communicating what is essentially the same message.
First, Judaism: I would argue that Judaism did NOT start with Abraham altough it traces itself back to him. A close examination of Abraham in the Bible and in the Quran points to a person that reflected an ancient Greek thinker rather than a religious figure. Abraham never thought of himself as Jewish. The word "Jew" or "Judah" meant nothing to him. Abraham's legacy is monotheism, and it is a monotheism that is etched in meditation and reasoning. This is apparent even in the manipulated text of Bible and the Quran. Abraham did not claim to be a prophet, and he did not introduce any revealed scriptured in the same sense that Moses and Mohammad did. Abraham simply came to the conclusion that there has to be a Creator of the universe and, and that this universe did not happen by chance. He also came to the conclusion that God cannot reside in the pagan idols that were worshipped in his community. He came to the conclusion that all the things that we can sense are all subject to systems that they cannot break, and thus had to be created by a higher form of existence. Short of being a monotheist, he really does not have much in common with the Judaism that was established by Moses and his followers later. Abraham was not a founder of a religion. He did not introduce a highly complex religious order, or talk about religious conduct. He was a good man in the secular, scientific sense by questioning the superstitions of his time and advocating morality in its most generic sense. He was first and foremost a thinker with ideas not too different from those of Plato with regards the origins of the world.
Abraham's logical reasoning was a big hit with his decendants. Moses, whether instructed by God through revelation, through his imagination, or through events that we don't fully know because we don't have an adequate historical account; codified a moral code of conduct in order to keep the Jewish people from falling appart and to keep their society integrated in order to survive. Over time, the Jewish temple took the ten basic commendments that were "revealed" to Moses and made them into a extremely long and unweildy set of dos and don't that controlled to the nth degree every aspect of Jewish society in the name of what God wants, when indeed what Moses told us God wanted were 10 simple things according to Moses.
So here, we see the first creation of an Abrahamic club. This club deals specificially with Jews. We see that the leadership of Moses and his followers turns into established religious institutions that at once speak on behalf of God and give accounts of Jewish prophets in a way that enforces the authority of the temple in God's name. Simultaneously, Judaism classifies anything that is not Judaic, and thus non-monotheistic, as evil and anti-God. The first four commandments: 1- You shall have no other Gods but me. 2- You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it. 3- You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God. 4- You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy. establish exactly that, and although they don't specify punishments for stepping outside these commandments, it clearly sets the stage for Jewish religious institutions to persecute who it wants in in the name of God.
This is the first time where religion begins to turn into an instrument in the hands of an elite few in order for them to take a spiritual concept and turn it into a tool of domination and control. According to this first institution, Jews, as the receipients of God's message and holders of his testaments declare that they are God's chosen people, and refer to those who are not Jewish as "Gentiles" in order to justify abuses against them.
Then Christianity came, and the Church emerged, and it introduced a totally different paradigm. Early on, the Church realized that in order to survive, spread, and grow, it had to distinguish itself from its Judaism and figure out a way to recruit people that are not ethnically jewish while building on the monotheistic judaic idea. Christianity also sought to combine monotheism with polytheism in order to penetrate the polytheistic framework of the Roman empire that was dominating the civilized world of the time. As a result, Christianity produced a hybrid of monotheism and polytheism in the form of the trinity, where three forms of a God represented in the Father (the Jewish one God), the Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit (which means different things to different Christians).
In Christianity, you don't no longer have to be Jewish to be in the "in" crowd. You just have to accept Christ to be saved. In that sense, Christianity doesn't automatically doom people fom not being decendants of he twelve tribes of Israel. Christianity, as introduced to the world by St. Peter and St. Paul, does not descriminate based on ethnicity, but it does descriminate based on whether or not one believes that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of his followers. It suffices to say that this idea goes against the basic principles of Abraham and in accordance with the ideas he rejected. Christianity claims that one has to subscribe to this Son God idea in order to belong to this new Abrahamic club and thus be guarranteed salvation from eternal torture. In order to establish credibility and independence from Judaism, Christianity embraced four framework principles upon which the Christian "Chosanality" is created, althought Christianity does not use the fraze "God's choosen people" to refer to itself. The principles are : 1- Offer hope for those who are not Christian that they have a place in God's plan, 2- Offer a compelling reason to abandon Judaism and Pagan religion through an intense focus on the pains of hell in the afterlife if one has not accepted Jesus Christ, and 3-cast negative light on Judaism as a whole by portraying the Jews as the source of all evil and corruption. My frame of reference here is the early days of the Church and in the pre-Islamic era. The third notion is the beginning of anti-Judaism in Christianity. In order for Christianity to grow and gain traction, the Jews had to become the bad people the same way the pagans became the bad people of the Jews. Religious institutions understood early on that in order to keep people together and under control, an external enemy had to exist. A fear of an outside group has always been an effective way of uniting a group of people and keeping them from questioning the inconsistencies in their own authorities. I am not by any means suggesting that Christians and Jews didn't face oppression for their sincere beliefs. What I am saying is that their own religious institutions took advantage of their own peoples' persecution to further their own dominance in much the same way a dictator exploits and rallies the support of his people during times of war. By the way, I avoided using anti-semetism intentionally because Jews are not the only Semetic peoples, and I believe that the term is often misused intentionally and unintentionally. 4- Incorporating and validating previous elements of pagan practices and Judaic practices as well as new rituals of its own. The idea is to make the new religion unique enough to be different from Judaism and pagan practices, but familiar enough to make the transition into the new religion easier.
Islam pretty much copy-catted the same four chosenlity ideas from Christianity and reverted back to the non-trinitarian beliefs of Judaism in building its own following. Islam, as described in the Quran, is the completion and correction of both Judaism and Christianity, taking ideas from both, and rejecting ideas from both. Once again, this newest of the big three Arbahamic religions opens the Abrahamic club to include a broader audience, while at the same time adding conditions and disclosures that were were absent or ignored in Judaism and Christianity. The four notions that were the basis for establishing Christianity are also used in Islam: 1- Hope that it's not too late or hopeless for non-Muslims to become Muslim, 2- Offer Islam as the only ticket out of Hell and into Paradise, 3- Demonize pagan religions and the preceding abrahamic doctrines. In Islam, a Son God savior idea is rejected in the Quran as a paganistic practice (it is). According to Islam, God is perfect and eternal, and as such, his need to have a Son that speaks on his behalf is a misinterpretation by the Christians of the once-divine-but-humanly altered Bible. Instead, Islam re-introduces the idea of the Prophet humans, and Muhammad emerges as the final and greatest prophet. This introduction is merely a theatrical distinction from Jesus, as Muslims at once, speak of Muhammad's humanity while considering him infallible, unquestionable, and even one worthy of the prayer of God Himself. Muslims are required to say Sala'llahu Alayhi Wa Salam when mentioning Muhammad's name. The literal translation to it is "God Prayed to Muhammad and cast peace upon him." It is quite ironic that a religion who deplores idolotry, iconism, and the idea of shared diety also believes that God, the Creator of everything would pray to one of His creations. However, in order to open the door a bit further for for prior "people of the book," Islam adds to Christianity a shelter-from-hell clause for those who are truly monotheistic of the Christians and Jews who have not received God's message of Islam. Islam proclaims that good deeds are necessary to be admitted into heaven, and that being Muslim is not a garrantee to avoid hell. Islam essentially filled a couple of unreconcilable points in Christianity such as the fact that people who died before Jesus or never received his message. Islam also refuted the idea of the trinity as a pagan invention, and as a concept as illogical as square circules: One God cannot be three Gods, and three Gods cannot be one God. 4- As in Christianity, Islam introduced its own set of rituals such as praying five times a day, facing Mecca instead of Jerusalem, and establishing Friday as the Muslim Sabbath instead of the Jewish Saturday or the Christian Sunday.
I felt that it was necessary to state my prospective of the history of all three religions in order to highlight that the four principles that cause them to be at contention with one another and at the same time, have so much control over people's lives. Each religion had to establish itself as the axiomatic and realistic alternative for the corrupt predecessor(s) and put in place fear-based ideas to maintain control of people's minds (eternal suffering) if they do not join, or if they think about "unsubscribing". Each religion introduced its set of rituals and practices that give it its unique "look and feel" to distinguish it from the others and to keep people preoccupied with dos and don'ts dealing with every aspect of their existance: Who to Mary. What to Eat. What to teach your children. How to have sex. What to say, how to say it, and in what occasion. The three religions who were supposed to be based on the monotheistic examinations of Abraham became 1% monotheism and 99% superstitious practices. Instead of empowering people to look for the meaning of life and the origin of the universe, and come to their own conclusions as Abraham did, people were now being controlled by religious institutions that scares them into believing what is beneficial of the religious institution. The big three very successfully linked the questioning of their authority to the defiance of God's will, and convinced society that in order to avoid God's wrath, those trouble makers had to be dealt with in the most brutal of ways.
What makes these religions so powerful is their ability to scare their followers into defending the very institutions that oppress them and give them license to oppress others. And in the Middle East especially, these messages are spoon fed to Arabs and Israelis from the time they can speak and it grows and festers with them because they see the violence perpetrated by the other side as a proof to their religious teachings, not as an outcome of it.
This religious influence is pervasive even in the most secular and liberal of Western societies. Religion is so pervasive in everything that we see and experience that it has penetrated and shaped our sub-conscience. whether we believe in biblical teachings or reject biblical teachings, most of us take the position of a faithful spouse who stands by his partner out of love or fear of separation, or an ex-spouse who cannot see his/her ex-spouse except as a lying, crazy abuser who needs to be kept away with a restraining order at all times. The less liberal and more theocratic the country, the more religion seems to be like water is to fish. Religion is so entrenched in us (even if we aren't always good Muslims, or good Christians, or good Jews) that it is always a frame of reference to either follow or rebel against. The idea of being able to understand who we are, and understand our world ALWAYS, conscientiously or sub-consciously uses what we learned from the Institutions of Abrahamic Religions. To most Abrahamics, Religion is like Language. It is a way of thinking and a way to establish a framework for all else big questions can be answered.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is then easy to see how religion would be THE single biggest cause in the conflict. Some people would quickly point out that the problem is not of religion but one of lost security and lost land rights. Well, that's the truth... But it's not the whole truth. The fact of the matter is that if Israelis didn't see Palestinians as inferior gentiles living on their promised land, and if Palestinians didn't see Israelis as murderers of Christ and conspirators against Muhammad... If either side was not raised to hate the other in the name of God... If "God" didn't tell each side that they are good and the other side is evil finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have been infinitely easier. Abrahamic religions are not, and cannot be a source of peace, but a source of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflic. Abrahamic faiths pour gasoline on the fire that is the Middle East conflict, not water.
If Peace in the Middle East is to even have a chance, the first thing on which Israelis and Palestinians have to agree is to highlight Christianity, Islam, and Judaism as underlying issues in the conflict, and that they need to be locked outside any attempt for conflict resolution. By Israelis and Palestinians, I don't mean the governments. I mean the individual people and the masses. Movements on both sides need to organize to inform their own communities of the flaws of their religions and accept and declare these shortcomings to friends and foes alike. The negative role of religion has to be exposed in order to start acheiving progress towards peace at a grass roots level.
And yes, I do believe that peace between Israelis and Palestinians does not have to be based on "painful concessions on both sides" as Ehud Olmert said. I refuse to believe that the ultimate success that either side can hope for is one that neither side really wants. If each side can see the other as an equal, the need to create a purely jewish zionist promise land, a purely Christian land, or a purely Islamic land becomes obsolete and irrelevent. The idea of a South-Africa-like state that includes all groups and moves towards equal citizenship rights for all becomes far more appealing. The hills of Juda can once again be the the Jews just as the Lands captured by Israel in 1948, which is now "Israel Proper" can once again belong to the displaced palestinians. Eliminating religion as a frame of reference for Israelis and Jews makes a single nation with a melting pot of Palestinians and Israelis not only possible, but favorable to all sides.
==========================================
The Issue of Jerusalem:
As for Jerusalem, which is the crux of the conflict between all three religions, resolving the issue of religion is definitely the only way to figure out how to resolve the issue of Jerusalem, thus resolving the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I find it Ironic that Muslims and Jews claim to be monotheistic, and claim to have freed people from worshipping false Gods.. Yet here they are hundreds and thosands of years later incapable of resolving a dispute over a rock and a whaling wall. How do Muslims know that the Rock under the golden dome is indeed the one that Muhammad used to climb to the heavens, particularly when no one witnessed the event? And isn't the moral of the stories that the Prophet Muhammad spoke about more relevant than the rock upon which he stood? Ultimately I respect their rights to worship whatever they want as long as they do it peacefully, but if that rock is THE rock, and if that rock in and of itself has Holy value, then why not just move it a few hundred yards out of harms way? Besides, isn't treating a rock as a holy object in direct conflict with the Monotheistic message of Islam, and in contradiction to Muhammad's war against idolatry?
As for the whaling wall and the construction of the temple of Solomon, I say to the Jews that after the destruction of the temple and after being scattered all over the world, the Jews still managed to hold on to their faith and traditions. You don't need a specific temple in a specific place to pray to a God. You don't need a temple at all. The Jewish God does not live there! Get over it! Why can't one side scoot the rock a little and the other side build a smaller temple, or also scoot it out a little bit?
It seems like once again, monotheists are once again worshipping, and more importantly, fighting over a stones. If the Abrahamics where truely monotheistic, then moving a few rocks to the right or to the left is merely a logistical issue that is not worth a single drop of blood on either side.
But I have an even grander image than the logistical accomodation I suggested above. Wouldn't it be nice if Christians Muslims and Jews can come up with a joint place of worship that is dedicated to God where all three faiths worship Him together in peace? Wouldn't we all be closer to God if we didn't wish our neighors harm, or at least step on their toes while we pray to God? But even if we didn't want to pray together, let's at least take comfort in the fact that the three faiths' prayer days and times are different! Christians can bring their Crosses and worship on Sundays and put the crosses away when they are done. Muslims can bring their prayer rugs and Qurans on Fridays and put them away before Saturday morning for the Jews to put up ther Menoras who then take them down for the Christians to put up their Crosses. It would be absolutely beautiful. We can even have automated mechanisms similar to those in theaters that automatically change the look, feel, symbols and mood from Church to Mosque to Temple... We have the techology to do it. It's a little funny, but I am not kidding! The answer is a lot simpler if we slaughter the sacred cows (no punt intended) around the structures and rocks that we worship, and that at the heart of this conflict, and start worshipping God who is not confined to these highly undivine structures.
If all sides work collaboratively, the construction of Solomon's temple can encompass the Rock and can encompass the Church. If we can figure out how to put someone on the moon, building this monotheistic structure would be a breeze for Disney, or for whoever constructed the Luxor or the Taj Mahal in Las Vegas, or by the architechure firm of Ahmed, John, and Lipstein. It would be a true and unique marvel that would be the epitome of peace and reconciliation instead of conflict and segregation. I would even include a section for Hindus and Buddists, a religious bigotry meuseum, offices for peace-oriented organizations, metal detectors to keep the wackos out, and a falafel stand. The structure would invoke the image of a white dove carrying an olive branch and be powered by solar energy that is plentiful in that region. It would be accoustically optimized to deliver the maximum impact of Friday Sermons, Saturday Congregations, and Sunday masses. It would truly be divine. Peace can be acheived far more quickly in the Middle East if Palestinians and Israelis merge their religious identities into one harmoneous national religious identity that selects all of peaceful elements of the three religions, rejects all the violence elements of all three religions, and declares the interpretations of God in each religion a personal belief that does not have to fit any paticular mold. I would write this into the constitution of the joint country right after "we the people."
Polititians cannot do that and theologeans and zealots on both sides will fiercely resist it. These are the types of ideas that have to be explored by joint grassroots movements on both sides.
All of the big three speak of a God that has created the universe. All three talk about the story of humans starting with Adam and Eve frolicking in Heaven. All three believe they hold the final and ultimate divine revelation and claim to be God's chosen people because they hold that revelation. Although it is Jews only that use the term "God's chosen people," Christians and Muslims have a different way of communicating what is essentially the same message.
First, Judaism: I would argue that Judaism did NOT start with Abraham altough it traces itself back to him. A close examination of Abraham in the Bible and in the Quran points to a person that reflected an ancient Greek thinker rather than a religious figure. Abraham never thought of himself as Jewish. The word "Jew" or "Judah" meant nothing to him. Abraham's legacy is monotheism, and it is a monotheism that is etched in meditation and reasoning. This is apparent even in the manipulated text of Bible and the Quran. Abraham did not claim to be a prophet, and he did not introduce any revealed scriptured in the same sense that Moses and Mohammad did. Abraham simply came to the conclusion that there has to be a Creator of the universe and, and that this universe did not happen by chance. He also came to the conclusion that God cannot reside in the pagan idols that were worshipped in his community. He came to the conclusion that all the things that we can sense are all subject to systems that they cannot break, and thus had to be created by a higher form of existence. Short of being a monotheist, he really does not have much in common with the Judaism that was established by Moses and his followers later. Abraham was not a founder of a religion. He did not introduce a highly complex religious order, or talk about religious conduct. He was a good man in the secular, scientific sense by questioning the superstitions of his time and advocating morality in its most generic sense. He was first and foremost a thinker with ideas not too different from those of Plato with regards the origins of the world.
Abraham's logical reasoning was a big hit with his decendants. Moses, whether instructed by God through revelation, through his imagination, or through events that we don't fully know because we don't have an adequate historical account; codified a moral code of conduct in order to keep the Jewish people from falling appart and to keep their society integrated in order to survive. Over time, the Jewish temple took the ten basic commendments that were "revealed" to Moses and made them into a extremely long and unweildy set of dos and don't that controlled to the nth degree every aspect of Jewish society in the name of what God wants, when indeed what Moses told us God wanted were 10 simple things according to Moses.
So here, we see the first creation of an Abrahamic club. This club deals specificially with Jews. We see that the leadership of Moses and his followers turns into established religious institutions that at once speak on behalf of God and give accounts of Jewish prophets in a way that enforces the authority of the temple in God's name. Simultaneously, Judaism classifies anything that is not Judaic, and thus non-monotheistic, as evil and anti-God. The first four commandments: 1- You shall have no other Gods but me. 2- You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it. 3- You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God. 4- You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy. establish exactly that, and although they don't specify punishments for stepping outside these commandments, it clearly sets the stage for Jewish religious institutions to persecute who it wants in in the name of God.
This is the first time where religion begins to turn into an instrument in the hands of an elite few in order for them to take a spiritual concept and turn it into a tool of domination and control. According to this first institution, Jews, as the receipients of God's message and holders of his testaments declare that they are God's chosen people, and refer to those who are not Jewish as "Gentiles" in order to justify abuses against them.
Then Christianity came, and the Church emerged, and it introduced a totally different paradigm. Early on, the Church realized that in order to survive, spread, and grow, it had to distinguish itself from its Judaism and figure out a way to recruit people that are not ethnically jewish while building on the monotheistic judaic idea. Christianity also sought to combine monotheism with polytheism in order to penetrate the polytheistic framework of the Roman empire that was dominating the civilized world of the time. As a result, Christianity produced a hybrid of monotheism and polytheism in the form of the trinity, where three forms of a God represented in the Father (the Jewish one God), the Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit (which means different things to different Christians).
In Christianity, you don't no longer have to be Jewish to be in the "in" crowd. You just have to accept Christ to be saved. In that sense, Christianity doesn't automatically doom people fom not being decendants of he twelve tribes of Israel. Christianity, as introduced to the world by St. Peter and St. Paul, does not descriminate based on ethnicity, but it does descriminate based on whether or not one believes that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of his followers. It suffices to say that this idea goes against the basic principles of Abraham and in accordance with the ideas he rejected. Christianity claims that one has to subscribe to this Son God idea in order to belong to this new Abrahamic club and thus be guarranteed salvation from eternal torture. In order to establish credibility and independence from Judaism, Christianity embraced four framework principles upon which the Christian "Chosanality" is created, althought Christianity does not use the fraze "God's choosen people" to refer to itself. The principles are : 1- Offer hope for those who are not Christian that they have a place in God's plan, 2- Offer a compelling reason to abandon Judaism and Pagan religion through an intense focus on the pains of hell in the afterlife if one has not accepted Jesus Christ, and 3-cast negative light on Judaism as a whole by portraying the Jews as the source of all evil and corruption. My frame of reference here is the early days of the Church and in the pre-Islamic era. The third notion is the beginning of anti-Judaism in Christianity. In order for Christianity to grow and gain traction, the Jews had to become the bad people the same way the pagans became the bad people of the Jews. Religious institutions understood early on that in order to keep people together and under control, an external enemy had to exist. A fear of an outside group has always been an effective way of uniting a group of people and keeping them from questioning the inconsistencies in their own authorities. I am not by any means suggesting that Christians and Jews didn't face oppression for their sincere beliefs. What I am saying is that their own religious institutions took advantage of their own peoples' persecution to further their own dominance in much the same way a dictator exploits and rallies the support of his people during times of war. By the way, I avoided using anti-semetism intentionally because Jews are not the only Semetic peoples, and I believe that the term is often misused intentionally and unintentionally. 4- Incorporating and validating previous elements of pagan practices and Judaic practices as well as new rituals of its own. The idea is to make the new religion unique enough to be different from Judaism and pagan practices, but familiar enough to make the transition into the new religion easier.
Islam pretty much copy-catted the same four chosenlity ideas from Christianity and reverted back to the non-trinitarian beliefs of Judaism in building its own following. Islam, as described in the Quran, is the completion and correction of both Judaism and Christianity, taking ideas from both, and rejecting ideas from both. Once again, this newest of the big three Arbahamic religions opens the Abrahamic club to include a broader audience, while at the same time adding conditions and disclosures that were were absent or ignored in Judaism and Christianity. The four notions that were the basis for establishing Christianity are also used in Islam: 1- Hope that it's not too late or hopeless for non-Muslims to become Muslim, 2- Offer Islam as the only ticket out of Hell and into Paradise, 3- Demonize pagan religions and the preceding abrahamic doctrines. In Islam, a Son God savior idea is rejected in the Quran as a paganistic practice (it is). According to Islam, God is perfect and eternal, and as such, his need to have a Son that speaks on his behalf is a misinterpretation by the Christians of the once-divine-but-humanly altered Bible. Instead, Islam re-introduces the idea of the Prophet humans, and Muhammad emerges as the final and greatest prophet. This introduction is merely a theatrical distinction from Jesus, as Muslims at once, speak of Muhammad's humanity while considering him infallible, unquestionable, and even one worthy of the prayer of God Himself. Muslims are required to say Sala'llahu Alayhi Wa Salam when mentioning Muhammad's name. The literal translation to it is "God Prayed to Muhammad and cast peace upon him." It is quite ironic that a religion who deplores idolotry, iconism, and the idea of shared diety also believes that God, the Creator of everything would pray to one of His creations. However, in order to open the door a bit further for for prior "people of the book," Islam adds to Christianity a shelter-from-hell clause for those who are truly monotheistic of the Christians and Jews who have not received God's message of Islam. Islam proclaims that good deeds are necessary to be admitted into heaven, and that being Muslim is not a garrantee to avoid hell. Islam essentially filled a couple of unreconcilable points in Christianity such as the fact that people who died before Jesus or never received his message. Islam also refuted the idea of the trinity as a pagan invention, and as a concept as illogical as square circules: One God cannot be three Gods, and three Gods cannot be one God. 4- As in Christianity, Islam introduced its own set of rituals such as praying five times a day, facing Mecca instead of Jerusalem, and establishing Friday as the Muslim Sabbath instead of the Jewish Saturday or the Christian Sunday.
I felt that it was necessary to state my prospective of the history of all three religions in order to highlight that the four principles that cause them to be at contention with one another and at the same time, have so much control over people's lives. Each religion had to establish itself as the axiomatic and realistic alternative for the corrupt predecessor(s) and put in place fear-based ideas to maintain control of people's minds (eternal suffering) if they do not join, or if they think about "unsubscribing". Each religion introduced its set of rituals and practices that give it its unique "look and feel" to distinguish it from the others and to keep people preoccupied with dos and don'ts dealing with every aspect of their existance: Who to Mary. What to Eat. What to teach your children. How to have sex. What to say, how to say it, and in what occasion. The three religions who were supposed to be based on the monotheistic examinations of Abraham became 1% monotheism and 99% superstitious practices. Instead of empowering people to look for the meaning of life and the origin of the universe, and come to their own conclusions as Abraham did, people were now being controlled by religious institutions that scares them into believing what is beneficial of the religious institution. The big three very successfully linked the questioning of their authority to the defiance of God's will, and convinced society that in order to avoid God's wrath, those trouble makers had to be dealt with in the most brutal of ways.
What makes these religions so powerful is their ability to scare their followers into defending the very institutions that oppress them and give them license to oppress others. And in the Middle East especially, these messages are spoon fed to Arabs and Israelis from the time they can speak and it grows and festers with them because they see the violence perpetrated by the other side as a proof to their religious teachings, not as an outcome of it.
This religious influence is pervasive even in the most secular and liberal of Western societies. Religion is so pervasive in everything that we see and experience that it has penetrated and shaped our sub-conscience. whether we believe in biblical teachings or reject biblical teachings, most of us take the position of a faithful spouse who stands by his partner out of love or fear of separation, or an ex-spouse who cannot see his/her ex-spouse except as a lying, crazy abuser who needs to be kept away with a restraining order at all times. The less liberal and more theocratic the country, the more religion seems to be like water is to fish. Religion is so entrenched in us (even if we aren't always good Muslims, or good Christians, or good Jews) that it is always a frame of reference to either follow or rebel against. The idea of being able to understand who we are, and understand our world ALWAYS, conscientiously or sub-consciously uses what we learned from the Institutions of Abrahamic Religions. To most Abrahamics, Religion is like Language. It is a way of thinking and a way to establish a framework for all else big questions can be answered.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is then easy to see how religion would be THE single biggest cause in the conflict. Some people would quickly point out that the problem is not of religion but one of lost security and lost land rights. Well, that's the truth... But it's not the whole truth. The fact of the matter is that if Israelis didn't see Palestinians as inferior gentiles living on their promised land, and if Palestinians didn't see Israelis as murderers of Christ and conspirators against Muhammad... If either side was not raised to hate the other in the name of God... If "God" didn't tell each side that they are good and the other side is evil finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have been infinitely easier. Abrahamic religions are not, and cannot be a source of peace, but a source of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflic. Abrahamic faiths pour gasoline on the fire that is the Middle East conflict, not water.
If Peace in the Middle East is to even have a chance, the first thing on which Israelis and Palestinians have to agree is to highlight Christianity, Islam, and Judaism as underlying issues in the conflict, and that they need to be locked outside any attempt for conflict resolution. By Israelis and Palestinians, I don't mean the governments. I mean the individual people and the masses. Movements on both sides need to organize to inform their own communities of the flaws of their religions and accept and declare these shortcomings to friends and foes alike. The negative role of religion has to be exposed in order to start acheiving progress towards peace at a grass roots level.
And yes, I do believe that peace between Israelis and Palestinians does not have to be based on "painful concessions on both sides" as Ehud Olmert said. I refuse to believe that the ultimate success that either side can hope for is one that neither side really wants. If each side can see the other as an equal, the need to create a purely jewish zionist promise land, a purely Christian land, or a purely Islamic land becomes obsolete and irrelevent. The idea of a South-Africa-like state that includes all groups and moves towards equal citizenship rights for all becomes far more appealing. The hills of Juda can once again be the the Jews just as the Lands captured by Israel in 1948, which is now "Israel Proper" can once again belong to the displaced palestinians. Eliminating religion as a frame of reference for Israelis and Jews makes a single nation with a melting pot of Palestinians and Israelis not only possible, but favorable to all sides.
==========================================
The Issue of Jerusalem:
As for Jerusalem, which is the crux of the conflict between all three religions, resolving the issue of religion is definitely the only way to figure out how to resolve the issue of Jerusalem, thus resolving the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I find it Ironic that Muslims and Jews claim to be monotheistic, and claim to have freed people from worshipping false Gods.. Yet here they are hundreds and thosands of years later incapable of resolving a dispute over a rock and a whaling wall. How do Muslims know that the Rock under the golden dome is indeed the one that Muhammad used to climb to the heavens, particularly when no one witnessed the event? And isn't the moral of the stories that the Prophet Muhammad spoke about more relevant than the rock upon which he stood? Ultimately I respect their rights to worship whatever they want as long as they do it peacefully, but if that rock is THE rock, and if that rock in and of itself has Holy value, then why not just move it a few hundred yards out of harms way? Besides, isn't treating a rock as a holy object in direct conflict with the Monotheistic message of Islam, and in contradiction to Muhammad's war against idolatry?
As for the whaling wall and the construction of the temple of Solomon, I say to the Jews that after the destruction of the temple and after being scattered all over the world, the Jews still managed to hold on to their faith and traditions. You don't need a specific temple in a specific place to pray to a God. You don't need a temple at all. The Jewish God does not live there! Get over it! Why can't one side scoot the rock a little and the other side build a smaller temple, or also scoot it out a little bit?
It seems like once again, monotheists are once again worshipping, and more importantly, fighting over a stones. If the Abrahamics where truely monotheistic, then moving a few rocks to the right or to the left is merely a logistical issue that is not worth a single drop of blood on either side.
But I have an even grander image than the logistical accomodation I suggested above. Wouldn't it be nice if Christians Muslims and Jews can come up with a joint place of worship that is dedicated to God where all three faiths worship Him together in peace? Wouldn't we all be closer to God if we didn't wish our neighors harm, or at least step on their toes while we pray to God? But even if we didn't want to pray together, let's at least take comfort in the fact that the three faiths' prayer days and times are different! Christians can bring their Crosses and worship on Sundays and put the crosses away when they are done. Muslims can bring their prayer rugs and Qurans on Fridays and put them away before Saturday morning for the Jews to put up ther Menoras who then take them down for the Christians to put up their Crosses. It would be absolutely beautiful. We can even have automated mechanisms similar to those in theaters that automatically change the look, feel, symbols and mood from Church to Mosque to Temple... We have the techology to do it. It's a little funny, but I am not kidding! The answer is a lot simpler if we slaughter the sacred cows (no punt intended) around the structures and rocks that we worship, and that at the heart of this conflict, and start worshipping God who is not confined to these highly undivine structures.
If all sides work collaboratively, the construction of Solomon's temple can encompass the Rock and can encompass the Church. If we can figure out how to put someone on the moon, building this monotheistic structure would be a breeze for Disney, or for whoever constructed the Luxor or the Taj Mahal in Las Vegas, or by the architechure firm of Ahmed, John, and Lipstein. It would be a true and unique marvel that would be the epitome of peace and reconciliation instead of conflict and segregation. I would even include a section for Hindus and Buddists, a religious bigotry meuseum, offices for peace-oriented organizations, metal detectors to keep the wackos out, and a falafel stand. The structure would invoke the image of a white dove carrying an olive branch and be powered by solar energy that is plentiful in that region. It would be accoustically optimized to deliver the maximum impact of Friday Sermons, Saturday Congregations, and Sunday masses. It would truly be divine. Peace can be acheived far more quickly in the Middle East if Palestinians and Israelis merge their religious identities into one harmoneous national religious identity that selects all of peaceful elements of the three religions, rejects all the violence elements of all three religions, and declares the interpretations of God in each religion a personal belief that does not have to fit any paticular mold. I would write this into the constitution of the joint country right after "we the people."
Polititians cannot do that and theologeans and zealots on both sides will fiercely resist it. These are the types of ideas that have to be explored by joint grassroots movements on both sides.
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- and how to Solve it- Part I
The joke goes as follows:
A man lost on an Island comes across an enchanted lamp. He rubs it, and a Jeannie appears. "Oh Master," the Jeannie says "Command one thing from me, anything, and I will make it happen." The man thinks for a little while and says to the Jeannie: "well.. I am quite contempt living on this island. I bother no one and no one bothers me. I do whatever I want whenever I want.. But this is once in a life-time opportunity, so I am not going to pass it. Jeannie, I command you to bring peace to the Middle East. I want you to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The Gennea replies "well master, I expected you to ask me for gold or silver or things of that sort. These are a lot easier.. I mean the Arabs and the Israelis have been fighting for a long time and the routes of their conflict goes back thousands of years... Is there anything else I can do for you?"
The man thinks and replies "well, you have a point... How about you bring me a nice woman that understand me, and one that I can understand to make me happy and make my life more enjoyable"
To that, the Jeannie replies "tell me about the Middle East thing again."
While the joke is intended as a gender joke, it does highlight that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is indeed the gold standard in unresolvable conflict. In the minds of both groups, the rights and needs of one group means the annihilation and destruction of another.
Both groups, the Palestinians and the Jews lay historical, deep-rooted claim that goes back thousands of years to a small piece of land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Both groups have been heavily persecuted in exile and want their own sovereign state on a land where they feel deeply connected. Each group feels superior to the other, and feels have a more rightful claim than the other to that piece of land.
Both groups believe that they are ordained by God to defend this land that not only is their land and the land of their ancestors, but it is the Holy land that is gifted to them by God himself as confirmed by their religious texts and traditions. If there was ever a cause to die defending, they both feel this would be it. To complicate things even more that one group believes that one of the holyest sites in Islam is built on top of what is believed to be one of the holyest sites in by the Jews: The Haram El-Sharif/Temple Mount. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in an apocalyptic war that heralds the destruction of that religion's enemies to pave way for the coming (or return) of the Messiah. Of course, the stories, although similar, the conclusion of each religion puts its people as the victors and the rightful inheritants of God's land.
But is this problem impossible to solve in a way that is satisfactory and fair to all people? After all this conflict between Palestinians and Israelis have been going on for 60 years, with seeds for violence that date back to the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths and the history of both peoples from thousands of years ago. How can you peacefully resolve a problem where all fighting factions believe they have control over this land because this is what God Himself wants? How can one determine how to divide a land among two peoples who believe they have a right to the entirety of that land?
I don't believe that solving this problem is impossible. It is my view that the real issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been avoided or missed by both sides. We have not been looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the right angles. Everything that has been tried so far have attempted to deal with the symptoms of the problem, and not its root causes. You can give someone Tylenol to bring their fever down, but unless you give them the right anti-biotic, he will never be cured. It is time that we start giving the Israeli-Palestinian patient some antibiotics to go along with their Tylenol. My view is that the anti-biotic is a single, a joint, secular, liberal democratic Israeli-Palestinian country. This new country would meld Israel and Palestine into a new state of Israelis and Palestinians living side by side and enjoying the same rights under a joint constitution. This new state would merge its Israeli identity with its Arab identity to generate a joint semitic nation that is far greater than either one can be on its own. For the sake of explanation, let's call this land something both sides can agree on. I will refer to this new state as Holiland. I like it because it mentions neither palestine nor Israel. It has a certain Innuendo of a small tolerant, liberal, democratic country in Europe. Yes, I am referring to Holand. In my vision, Israelis and Palestinians are equal citizens of Holiland. They are free to live in Gaza or the Westbank or Telaviv whether they are Arab or Israeli. They have a legislative branch of government that has a senate, or house of lords with equal representation for both palestinians, and a House of Representatives that is based on the populations geographic districts. In Holiland, Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights to housing, education and employment that is enforced by a code a civil rights. All Holilanders have equal rights to practice their faith or practice no faith at all without fear or persecution.
My vision might seem distant and too rosi, but I think that is far more pleasant, and even far or realistic than Just Israel or just Palestine as either side initially wanted, and something more than this two-state cluge that leaves neither side satisfied. In my view is that having a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state, living peacefully side by side is as realistic as florescent pink elephants that lavitate and speak Flemmish. The two-state solution was not, cannot, and will never be the right answer to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It has been tried several times before, and every time it produced unsatisfactory results to all sides. Someone famous said that the definition of insanity is trying the same things over and over again and expecting different results each time. It certainly is true in this iteration of a series of iterations that tried to divide land between Israelis and Palestinians.
Holiland cannot start with politicians and treaties. Holiland does not take land from one and gives it to another and does not accept that one people has to be removed to make room for another. Holiland has to start with the shared belief of Palestinians and Israelis that their are history, culture, land, future of their children is intertwined. They have to want to create a peaceful and promising future for their children in place of the bloody and bleek present they inherited from their parents. The peace between Israelis and Palestinians in my opinion is not about borders and flags. It's not about UN resolutions, Peace Roadmaps, and Quartets. I believe that a lasting peace between the two sides can never be acheived through a a two-state solution that gives neither party what it wants. I don't believe that this peace can be driven by the Arab countries, the United States, the European Union, or Russia; and it certainly cannot be acheived through the current Israeli and Palestinian leadership. All of these groups are involved in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict out of an agenda that has neither groups' interest at heart. Only the will of the Israeli PEOPLE and the Palestinian PEOPLE can make Holiland possible.
Let us eliminate the possibilities of a new holocaust against the people of Israel and let us not repeat the Native American "experience" on the Palestinian people. Let us also keep in mind that You cannot convince a Jew that has worked so hard to get to the biblical promise land that he/she is only restricted to the seaside just west of it. By contrast, you cannot expect a Palestinian who was forced out of his/her seaside Village by Israeli settlers, to just accept his tragedy and forget about his home, his ancestors, and their resting grounds. If, After 4000 years of being in the Diaspora, the Jews didn't forget their homeland, what makes them think that Palestinians will forget theirs??
I think this single-state solution is hard but it is possible. It certainly is at least as acheivable as a two-state solution. This is not just some ideal in my head, but a model that was successfully implemented in South Africa between the Whites and the Blacks. Sure, South Africa today has its share of residual problems, but these problems are the scabs of a wound healing itself. Ever since the fall of Apartheid, the country has been making significant progress in every arena. With some changes in the way that both Palestinians and Israelis think, they can acheive an even greater success.
For Palestinians and Israelis to be able to achieve that kind of piece, both sides have to start thinking of this MUTUAL problem in a totally different way. Both groups have to examine what is at the root of why they cannot resolve their conflict. Surely there are smart people on both sides that can figure out how to coexist on a piece of land together, so why hasn't it happened? The Axiomatic answer to this question is that both groups are uncompromising and have a very deep-seeded hatred of each other... True, but why?? Why do Arabs hate Israelis more than they hate anyone other people in the world? Why do the Israelis disdain Arabs so much and don't place any importance on their lives, liberties, and aspirations? These are the types of questions that really need to be MUTUALLY answered by Palestininas and Israelis in order to acheive peace. Let us stop trying to figure out How to split an unsplittable land and start to figure out what keeps Israelis and Palestinians from becoming two ethnicities sharing a love for their common country. That's the shift I am referring to.
I believe that there are four influences in the Israeli and Palestinian Psyche that have to be shifted in order for each side to see a partner in the other as opposed an enemy, or an inconvenient neighbor. These influences are:
1- Religious indoctrination
2- Post Colonial World Order
3- Historical entitlement
4- Populous mis-engagement
I will explain what I mean with each one these areas, and how to not only see beyond these influences, but be able to use them in positive ways to give Israelis everything they want, give Palestinians everything they want, and begin the healing process between two deeply scarred peoples. Like South Africa, it might take many generations before everything gets sorted out, but I do believe that both sides will be contempt and will be in much better shape in the long run.
A man lost on an Island comes across an enchanted lamp. He rubs it, and a Jeannie appears. "Oh Master," the Jeannie says "Command one thing from me, anything, and I will make it happen." The man thinks for a little while and says to the Jeannie: "well.. I am quite contempt living on this island. I bother no one and no one bothers me. I do whatever I want whenever I want.. But this is once in a life-time opportunity, so I am not going to pass it. Jeannie, I command you to bring peace to the Middle East. I want you to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The Gennea replies "well master, I expected you to ask me for gold or silver or things of that sort. These are a lot easier.. I mean the Arabs and the Israelis have been fighting for a long time and the routes of their conflict goes back thousands of years... Is there anything else I can do for you?"
The man thinks and replies "well, you have a point... How about you bring me a nice woman that understand me, and one that I can understand to make me happy and make my life more enjoyable"
To that, the Jeannie replies "tell me about the Middle East thing again."
While the joke is intended as a gender joke, it does highlight that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is indeed the gold standard in unresolvable conflict. In the minds of both groups, the rights and needs of one group means the annihilation and destruction of another.
Both groups, the Palestinians and the Jews lay historical, deep-rooted claim that goes back thousands of years to a small piece of land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Both groups have been heavily persecuted in exile and want their own sovereign state on a land where they feel deeply connected. Each group feels superior to the other, and feels have a more rightful claim than the other to that piece of land.
Both groups believe that they are ordained by God to defend this land that not only is their land and the land of their ancestors, but it is the Holy land that is gifted to them by God himself as confirmed by their religious texts and traditions. If there was ever a cause to die defending, they both feel this would be it. To complicate things even more that one group believes that one of the holyest sites in Islam is built on top of what is believed to be one of the holyest sites in by the Jews: The Haram El-Sharif/Temple Mount. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in an apocalyptic war that heralds the destruction of that religion's enemies to pave way for the coming (or return) of the Messiah. Of course, the stories, although similar, the conclusion of each religion puts its people as the victors and the rightful inheritants of God's land.
But is this problem impossible to solve in a way that is satisfactory and fair to all people? After all this conflict between Palestinians and Israelis have been going on for 60 years, with seeds for violence that date back to the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths and the history of both peoples from thousands of years ago. How can you peacefully resolve a problem where all fighting factions believe they have control over this land because this is what God Himself wants? How can one determine how to divide a land among two peoples who believe they have a right to the entirety of that land?
I don't believe that solving this problem is impossible. It is my view that the real issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been avoided or missed by both sides. We have not been looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the right angles. Everything that has been tried so far have attempted to deal with the symptoms of the problem, and not its root causes. You can give someone Tylenol to bring their fever down, but unless you give them the right anti-biotic, he will never be cured. It is time that we start giving the Israeli-Palestinian patient some antibiotics to go along with their Tylenol. My view is that the anti-biotic is a single, a joint, secular, liberal democratic Israeli-Palestinian country. This new country would meld Israel and Palestine into a new state of Israelis and Palestinians living side by side and enjoying the same rights under a joint constitution. This new state would merge its Israeli identity with its Arab identity to generate a joint semitic nation that is far greater than either one can be on its own. For the sake of explanation, let's call this land something both sides can agree on. I will refer to this new state as Holiland. I like it because it mentions neither palestine nor Israel. It has a certain Innuendo of a small tolerant, liberal, democratic country in Europe. Yes, I am referring to Holand. In my vision, Israelis and Palestinians are equal citizens of Holiland. They are free to live in Gaza or the Westbank or Telaviv whether they are Arab or Israeli. They have a legislative branch of government that has a senate, or house of lords with equal representation for both palestinians, and a House of Representatives that is based on the populations geographic districts. In Holiland, Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights to housing, education and employment that is enforced by a code a civil rights. All Holilanders have equal rights to practice their faith or practice no faith at all without fear or persecution.
My vision might seem distant and too rosi, but I think that is far more pleasant, and even far or realistic than Just Israel or just Palestine as either side initially wanted, and something more than this two-state cluge that leaves neither side satisfied. In my view is that having a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state, living peacefully side by side is as realistic as florescent pink elephants that lavitate and speak Flemmish. The two-state solution was not, cannot, and will never be the right answer to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It has been tried several times before, and every time it produced unsatisfactory results to all sides. Someone famous said that the definition of insanity is trying the same things over and over again and expecting different results each time. It certainly is true in this iteration of a series of iterations that tried to divide land between Israelis and Palestinians.
Holiland cannot start with politicians and treaties. Holiland does not take land from one and gives it to another and does not accept that one people has to be removed to make room for another. Holiland has to start with the shared belief of Palestinians and Israelis that their are history, culture, land, future of their children is intertwined. They have to want to create a peaceful and promising future for their children in place of the bloody and bleek present they inherited from their parents. The peace between Israelis and Palestinians in my opinion is not about borders and flags. It's not about UN resolutions, Peace Roadmaps, and Quartets. I believe that a lasting peace between the two sides can never be acheived through a a two-state solution that gives neither party what it wants. I don't believe that this peace can be driven by the Arab countries, the United States, the European Union, or Russia; and it certainly cannot be acheived through the current Israeli and Palestinian leadership. All of these groups are involved in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict out of an agenda that has neither groups' interest at heart. Only the will of the Israeli PEOPLE and the Palestinian PEOPLE can make Holiland possible.
Let us eliminate the possibilities of a new holocaust against the people of Israel and let us not repeat the Native American "experience" on the Palestinian people. Let us also keep in mind that You cannot convince a Jew that has worked so hard to get to the biblical promise land that he/she is only restricted to the seaside just west of it. By contrast, you cannot expect a Palestinian who was forced out of his/her seaside Village by Israeli settlers, to just accept his tragedy and forget about his home, his ancestors, and their resting grounds. If, After 4000 years of being in the Diaspora, the Jews didn't forget their homeland, what makes them think that Palestinians will forget theirs??
I think this single-state solution is hard but it is possible. It certainly is at least as acheivable as a two-state solution. This is not just some ideal in my head, but a model that was successfully implemented in South Africa between the Whites and the Blacks. Sure, South Africa today has its share of residual problems, but these problems are the scabs of a wound healing itself. Ever since the fall of Apartheid, the country has been making significant progress in every arena. With some changes in the way that both Palestinians and Israelis think, they can acheive an even greater success.
For Palestinians and Israelis to be able to achieve that kind of piece, both sides have to start thinking of this MUTUAL problem in a totally different way. Both groups have to examine what is at the root of why they cannot resolve their conflict. Surely there are smart people on both sides that can figure out how to coexist on a piece of land together, so why hasn't it happened? The Axiomatic answer to this question is that both groups are uncompromising and have a very deep-seeded hatred of each other... True, but why?? Why do Arabs hate Israelis more than they hate anyone other people in the world? Why do the Israelis disdain Arabs so much and don't place any importance on their lives, liberties, and aspirations? These are the types of questions that really need to be MUTUALLY answered by Palestininas and Israelis in order to acheive peace. Let us stop trying to figure out How to split an unsplittable land and start to figure out what keeps Israelis and Palestinians from becoming two ethnicities sharing a love for their common country. That's the shift I am referring to.
I believe that there are four influences in the Israeli and Palestinian Psyche that have to be shifted in order for each side to see a partner in the other as opposed an enemy, or an inconvenient neighbor. These influences are:
1- Religious indoctrination
2- Post Colonial World Order
3- Historical entitlement
4- Populous mis-engagement
I will explain what I mean with each one these areas, and how to not only see beyond these influences, but be able to use them in positive ways to give Israelis everything they want, give Palestinians everything they want, and begin the healing process between two deeply scarred peoples. Like South Africa, it might take many generations before everything gets sorted out, but I do believe that both sides will be contempt and will be in much better shape in the long run.
Friday, November 16, 2007
CNN: Con News Network
I did not catch the entire Nevada Democratic Debate yesterday, but it was VERY clear to me how much of it was being manipulated by CNN. The corporate media usually does a better job of concealing the amount of rigging that is involved. Not so this time.
Let's start with the first and foremost obvious manipulation: Why was Gravel not there?? What right does MSNBC and CNN have to decide for the American public to shut a truly different voice up?
http://rl.tv/Community/Decision2008/tabid/791/Default.aspx
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4OGN4FpIG54&feature=user
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XsP-YdOLAu4&feature=user
Second, You can clearly see how much focus on covering Clinton before, during, and after the debate. It was never about what Clinton Said, what Obama Said, What Kucinich Said, What Biden Said. It was about what Clinton said and didn't say. How Edwards attacked Clinton because she is a woman and how she wasn't on top of her game. Just look at how much coverage she gets related to the other candidates.
Third, why don't people such as Kucinich and Biden ever get to speak?? Why are all the questions targeted to the top three candidates while the rest of them, again, ones that actually have a unique and a different prospective get to speak?
The reason is very simple. Hillary is a corporate mouth piece and her principles are on sale for whoever pays the highest price. She is a darling of the corporate world and of the corporate media because she'll go along with whatver they believe is popular. She is indeed the best candidate to take both sides of an issue and not blink while doing it. She is very much part of the old guard, and thus she will do everything stays business-as-usual in DC. Actually, what she will do is make some minor changes that will be highly applauded by her party, but nothing too drastic as to make any real change in this country.
The election has already been decided by the corporate Media, Big Business, and other powerful interests. No matter what the person who gets elected looks like and which side of the republocratic party he/she belongs, he/she will be the same person; one who puts corporate and rich peoples' interest aheard of those the remaining 98% of the american public, and one that will go on funding was.
Let's start with the first and foremost obvious manipulation: Why was Gravel not there?? What right does MSNBC and CNN have to decide for the American public to shut a truly different voice up?
http://rl.tv/Community/Decision2008/tabid/791/Default.aspx
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4OGN4FpIG54&feature=user
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XsP-YdOLAu4&feature=user
Second, You can clearly see how much focus on covering Clinton before, during, and after the debate. It was never about what Clinton Said, what Obama Said, What Kucinich Said, What Biden Said. It was about what Clinton said and didn't say. How Edwards attacked Clinton because she is a woman and how she wasn't on top of her game. Just look at how much coverage she gets related to the other candidates.
Third, why don't people such as Kucinich and Biden ever get to speak?? Why are all the questions targeted to the top three candidates while the rest of them, again, ones that actually have a unique and a different prospective get to speak?
The reason is very simple. Hillary is a corporate mouth piece and her principles are on sale for whoever pays the highest price. She is a darling of the corporate world and of the corporate media because she'll go along with whatver they believe is popular. She is indeed the best candidate to take both sides of an issue and not blink while doing it. She is very much part of the old guard, and thus she will do everything stays business-as-usual in DC. Actually, what she will do is make some minor changes that will be highly applauded by her party, but nothing too drastic as to make any real change in this country.
The election has already been decided by the corporate Media, Big Business, and other powerful interests. No matter what the person who gets elected looks like and which side of the republocratic party he/she belongs, he/she will be the same person; one who puts corporate and rich peoples' interest aheard of those the remaining 98% of the american public, and one that will go on funding was.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
On God and Religion- Part II
My friend, a devout Muslim, and a very nice man, sent the following article to a list of people of which I was one. I noticed all the names where Arabic, or they were family member and not the usual large list. This shortened list made sense. Afterall, the article was meant specifically for a Muslim audience. Including a wider might have provoked a whole new sets of debates like who the people of scripture are, where the non-Abrahamics fit in, etc. It might have even provoked more simplistic questions like "what is the point of the article?" All of us can read the verse and interpret it. Why do we need Shaykh Oadah's interpretation in the first place?
The article also demonstrates a good example of why it is so difficult to reason with some religious people. How can one reason with someone when his religion tells him to be a devout follower, you cannot be half-hearted in following this religion whether it makes sense or not. It also sets religious debates such as what is to be discussed is not the religion, but what the people need to do to adhere to it. It is a forgone conclusion in the mind of some religious people that their religious sources are beyond debate, but everyone one else's religion, and everyone else's view point is not of equal weight.
Anyway, I figured I would add the article to my blog, because I thought it would make a nice example of why religion is contra-spiritual and why it is counter productive. My comments are interjected into the article in CAPS:
Allah says: "Then We gave the Scripture as an inheritance to those We had chosen among Our worshippers: but some among them wrong their own souls; some are halfhearted; and some, by Allah's leave, are foremost in good deeds. That is the highest grace." [Sûrah Fâtir: 32]
WE KNOW THIS IS IN THE QURAN. WHETHER ALLAH (ARABIC FOR GOD) SAID THAT OR NOT IS SUBJECT FOR DEBATE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU ASK SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE QURAN AS A WORD OF GOD, SUCH AS A JEW OR A CHRISTIAN. NOTE THAT THE VERSE REFERS TO GIVING "THE SCRIPTURE TO THOSE WE HAD CHOSEN AMONG OUR WORSHIPPERS." WAIT!! I THOUGHT JEWS WERE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE.. OR IS IT THE CHRISTIANS WHO ACCEPTED JESUS CHRIST AS THEIR SAVIOUR?. OR IS IT THE ARABS IN WHOSE TONGUE THE QURAN HAS BEEN REVEALED? OR IS IT ALL OF THE ABOVE?? I AM CONFUSED.. I WILL ASSUME THAT THE VERSE REFERS TO ALL PEOPLE OF THE BOOK, OR THE ABRAHAMICS. THE SHAYKH SEEMS CONVINCED THAT IT IS MEANT FOR MUSLIMS BUT THAT IS THE SHAYKH'S INTERPRETATION, NOT WHAT'S IN THE VERSE.
Allah presents us (OH, YES SHAYKH! PLEASE TELL US WHAT ALLAH SAYS AND TELL US EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS.. NONE OTHER THAN YOU IS CAPABLE OF READING THE AYA AND INTERPRETING ITS MEANING) in this verse with three categories of people (HOW NICE! IT'S GOOD TO KNOW THAT WE NICELY FIT INTO THREE NEAT, CLEARLY DEFINED CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM ON THOSE CATEGORIES). Allah makes it clear that in all three cases, the people have been chosen by Him. They are worshippers, and they have inherited the Scripture (SORRY BUDDISTS, HINDUS, TOAISTS, BUSHMEN, ETC.. WE KNOW YOU REPRESENT MORE THAN HALF THE WORD, BUT YOU'RE SOL RIGHT OF THE BAT.. CONVERT NOW, OR STOP READING AND START CONTEMPLATING ETERNAL DAMNATION). Allah begins with mentioning those "who wrong their own souls". These are the people who succumb to sin and commit acts of disobedience to their Lord (WHEN JASHUA'S ARMY DESTROYED KANAAN AND KILLED ITS MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN, THEY OBEYED GOD.. WHEN MUSLIMS USED TO TAKE WOMEN INTO SEXUAL SLAVERY, THEY DIDN'T DISOBEY GOD.. WHEN CHRISTIANS SOLD PEOPLE TO BONDAGE, THEY DIDN'T DISOBEY GOD. HOWEVER, EAT PORK IF YOU ARE MUSLIM OR MIX FIBERS IN YOUR CLOTHES IF YOU ARE A JEW AND GOD GETS MAD!) The second group consists of those who are "halfhearted". These people neither fall into excessive sin nor devote themselves to worship (MAYBE THEY ONLY BELIEVE SOME OF THE STUFF SINCE THE OTHER HALF SEEMS--- UH-- UNREASONABLE.. THEY COULD BE EMPLOYING A TECHNIQUE CALLED THINKING... SOME PEOPLE ARE INCOMPLETE LIKE THAT). The third group consists of those who are "foremost in good deeds" (THEY CLEARLY DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD WITHOUT ANY UNDERSTANDING OR QUESTIONING. THAT'S FAITH! I AM NOT BEING SARCASTIC HERE.. TALK TO ANY DEVOUT MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN OR JEW AND THEY WILL TELL YOU JUST THAT: YOU JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE OR NOT. WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION "GOD?" OF COURSE, WHEN THEY SAY THAT, THEY ARE OFTEN SAYING WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES AND THE TEXTS MANIPULATED BY THEM?).
To all three categories of people Allah makes the following promise: "Gardens of Eternity will they enter: therein will they be adorned with bracelets of gold and pearls; and their garments there will be of silk (THAT WOULD GET OLD AFTER THE FIRST THREE THOUSAND YEARS OR SO, WOULDN'T IT? AND IS ALLAH HERE TELLING US THAT GOLD AND SILK ARE THE ALTIMATE FORM OF BLISS? I KNOW THE QURAN TALKS ABOUT NON-INTOXICATING WINES, VIRGINS, AND REALLY BIG PALACES AS WELL, BUT IS ALLAH ALTIMATELY BRIBING US TO DO WHAT HE SAYS WITH DECADENT STUFF IN THE AFTERLIFE?). And they will say: Praise be to Allah, who has removed from us (all) sorrow (WHAT ABOUT BOREDOM AND DEPRESSION DUE HAVING NOTHING TO DO, NO FRIENDS TO HANG OUT WITH, NO RISKS, AND NO PROSPECT FOR ANYTHING GOING WRONG FOR ALL ETERNITY--- ISN'T THAT TORTURE OF SORTS? DOESN'T IT SEEM LIKE HEAVEN IS JUST A MILDER VERSION OF HELL WITHOUT THE HEAT, THE CHAINS, AND THE BAD FOOD?): for our Lord is indeed oft-forgiving, gracious." [Sûrah Fâtir: 33-34] These verses are one of the places in the Qur'ân where Allah promises good to His servants (YEP.. INDEED, WE'RE TALKING BEST CASE SCENARIO HERE).
This passage is among the most specific in the sense of generosity that it conveys, especially where it says: "Praise be to Allah, who has removed from us (all) sorrow." This is because all people – no matter what they experience in this world of fame, fortune, health, success, or power – they are never spared sorrow. Their sorrows might very well stem form the very prosperity that they enjoy. A person might grieve due to the loss of some of these blessings, or the demands that they pace on that person's shoulders, or because of the envy, treachery, and rivalry that those blessings incite in others. In the hadîth where the angel Gabriel approaches Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and inquires about Islam, faith, and excellence in worship (ACCORDING TO OTHER QURAN AND HADITH, GABRIEL SUPPOSEDLY REVEALED THE ENTIRETY OF THE QURAN TO THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD INCLUDING THE VERSE SITED IN THIS ARTICLE.. WHY WOULD GABRIEL BE ASKING THE PROPHET TO TELL HIM SOMETHING HE SUPPOSEDLY KNOWS ALREADY?--- I GUESS THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE "UNCONFIRMED" HADITHS THAT DON'T SEEM TO JIVE WITH THE MAINSTREAM STORY IN THE QURAN), we again see three levels for people who believe. There are parallels between this hadîth and the verse of the Qur'ân that we are discussing (THAT'S GOOD! IT'S ALWAYS NICE WHEN THE HADITH AND THE QURAN DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. AGAIN, I AM NOT BEING SARCASTIC.. THERE ARE MANY PLACES WHERE THEY DO BECAUSE HADITHS WERE NOT WRITTEN DURING THE TIME OF THE PROPHET. THE HADITH WAS GATHERED AND RECALLED SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE GATHERING OF THE QURAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF HELPING TO BRIDGE GAPS IN THE QURAN'S MEANING AND UNDERSTANDING ITS INTENT. THE QURAN ITSELF WAS GATHERED SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF MUHAMMAD DURING OTHMAN'S KHALIPHATE AFTER SEVERAL OF THE MEMORIZERS OF THE QURAN HAD PERISHED IN THE WARS DECLARED BY ABU BAKR, OMAR, AND OTHMAN EVEN BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE PROPHET MOHAMMAD).
Here, the first level – Islam – refers to outward acts, implying that those acts of devotion are accompanied by sinful behavior or a lack of deep devotion. The second level – faith – refers to the deeds of the heart. (SHOULD'T ONE HAVE FAITH FIRST BEFORE PERFORMING "OUTWARD ACTS?" ISN'T FAITH THE DRIVER TO ACCEPT A RELIGION OR REJECT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? IF I AM CHRISTIAN, DOES IT MAKE SENSE THAT I WOULD READ THE QURAN AND PRAY FIVE TIMES A DAY BEFORE I UNDERSTAND WHY TO GIVE UP MY RELIGIOUS PRACTICES AND ADOPT NEW ONES?" These are the deeds that prevent a person from falling into sin in the first place (UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM AND A FALACY OF FALSE CONCLUSION. I PERSONALLY KNOW OF MANY PEOPLE THAT PRAY AND HAVE UNMARRIED SEX. I KNOW PEOPLE THAT FAST RAMADAN AND DRINK THE REMAINING PART OF THE YEAR. THERE IS NO LOGICAL LINK BETWEEN ADHERING TO RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND PERFORMING ACTS FORBIDDEN BY IT). This is what the Prophet (peace be upon him) meant when he said: "A person does not commit adultery while he is a believer (BUT HE IS A BELIEVER WHEN HE RAPES A SLAVE, OR MILK-AL-YAMEEN?)." [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim] Finally there is the level of excellence (ihsân). This is the highest, most illustrious level that a believer can attain. This is the level of those the verse refers to as being the "foremost in good deeds." One of us might be at times on the level of "Islam" and at other times on the level of "faith". Sometimes, we might even attain the level of "excellence" in our faith and worship. The state of the human heart is always in flux. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The human heart is more swift to commotion that a pot of water when it is set to boil." [Musnad Ahmad] It is a mistake to assume that all people are on the same level in their faith, piety, and religious commitment (IT IS A BIGGER MISTAKE TO ASSUME THAT THERE IS AN AGREED UPON BASELINE FOR FAITH, PIETY, AND RELIGIOUS COMMITTMENT OVERWHICH EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT, OR THAT THERE IS EVEN AGREEMENT THAT ANY OF THESE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY GOOD IN AND OF THEMSELVES. IN CHRISTIANITY, DIVORCE IS BAD. IN ISLAM POLYGAMY AND DIVORCE ARE OKAY.. EATING PORK IS NOT OKAY IN ISLAM AND JEWDAISM. IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE IN CHRISTIANITY. THEREFORE, PIETY, FAITH, AND RELIGIOUS COMMITTMENT ARE ALL RELATIVE TERMS AND THEY MAY BE MORAL OR IMMORAL DEPENDING ON THE PROSPECTIVE OF THE RELIGION TO WHICH ONE HAPPENS TO BE BORN. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT IS EVEN A BIGGER MISTAKE TO ASSUME THAT RELIGIOUS COMMITTMENT AND FAITH GO HAND IN HAND. I BELIEVE IN GOD. I BELIEVE IN MORALITY. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT RELIGION TOO FREQUENTLY GOES AGAINST GOD AND MORALITY AND REFLECT NEITHER THE WORD OF GOD (THE QURAN AND THE BIBLE HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED) NOR THE A VERIFIABLE HISTORY OF ITS MESSENGERS). it creates a problem if we expect that of people and hold them to expectations they are unable to fulfill ((WE CAN HOLD EACH OTHER TO CERTAIN SOCIAL STANDARDS THAT LINK US AS A SOCIETY, WHO IS ANYONE TO HOLD ANYONE ELSE TO EXPECTATIONS ON PERSONAL BELIEF? . TO THINK THAT SOME OF US CAN HOLD OTHERS TO RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL EXPECTATIONS IS BOTH LUDECROUS AND ARROGANT IN MY OPINION. THAT SHOULD BE BETWEEN THEM AND GOD).
When people are not given easier options, they often simply give up or look for alternatives that are often wrong. This is a mistake that some Islamic preachers make. When a preacher finds himself before a group of Muslims at a public venue or at a school, it is merely a trial for them when the person discussing Islam with them discriminates between them according to their appearances and their statements or passes judgment over them (YES! VERY BAD FOR BUSINESS.. ALL JUDGEMENTS OF THESE SPIRIRITUAL INFERIORS SHOULD BE DONE SILENTLY) This is not the Day of Judgment. It is not time to sort people into the righteous and the unrighteous We must leave them to their Creator (REALLY??!! SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE THEN? THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS NOTHING BUT A BIG CLASSIFICATION AND RANKING EXCERCISE. WHAT DOES THE SHAYKH WANT? I AM REALLY CONFUSED NOW). .
We should strive for their betterment by exercising patience and by working hard. We need to look towards gradual improvement over a long stretch of time. We need to learn from them what we need to know. None of us are the judges of the people (I AGREE! BUT JUDGING PEOPLE IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS DOING). We must be humble before our Lord (UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE AN IMAM OR SHEIKH OR A RABBI OR A PRIEST.. THEN YOU CAN JUST SPEAK ON GOD'S BEHALF). Whoever shows humility before Allah will be ennobled by Allah. It is not necessary for a person to be a student of knowledge in order to be a Muslim, or memorize the Qur'ân, or engage in Islamic missionary work. The more we impose conditions on the people and pile expectations on their shoulders, the fewer people we will have listening to us (BAD FOR BUSINESS AS WELL..)
People have different temperaments. They come from different backgrounds. Some are more mature than others, more educated. Some are new Muslims or are new to religiousness. (THE SHAYKH FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROBLEM DOESN'T LIE WITH THE RECIPIENTS OF THE MESSAGE, BUT WITH THE MESSAGE ITSELF! THERE IS A CREDIBILITY PROBLEM WITH ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS IN GENERAL WHICH HAVE LEADING PEOPLE FROM ALL ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS TO REJECT GOD ALONG WITH REJECT SPIRITUALITY BECAUSE RELIGION HAS GIVEN GOD SUCH A DWARFED AND SKITZOPHRINIC IMAGE.. THE FASTEST GROWING FAITH IS NOT ISLAM OR CHRISTIANITY, BUT ATHIESM, AND AGNOSTICISM. THIS ISN'T SOMETHING NEW. ARTICLES SUCH AS THIS ONE, WHICH APPEAL TO FEAR INSTEAD OF REASON AND TO PREJUDICE INSTEAD OF COLLECTIVISM ADD TO THE DISTORTION OF GOD'S IMAGE.. IT FAR MORE PRODUCTIVE TO LOOK FOR MORALITY OUTSIDE OF RELIGION THAN TO TRY TO WADE THROUGH WHAT PARTS OF RELIGION ARE DIVINE AND WHAT PARTS OF IT ARE MIND CONTROL, AND I CAN COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE WHO REJECT RELIGION ALSO REJECT GOD. PEOPLE CONSTANTLY TARNISH HIS NAME IN THE WORST POSSIBLE WAYS AND PEOPLE ASSOCIATE THE RACIST, INTOLERANT MESSAGES THEY GET FROM RELIGION WITH THE BEING WHO IS CONSTANTLY INVOKED IN THOSE MESSAGES, I.E. GOD) There will be among them "some who wrong their own souls; some who are halfhearted; and some who are, by Allah's leave, foremost in good deeds." It is always a mistake to assume that all of them are going to be the same in their devotion or conduct or even in their manner of expressing themselves. This was not even the case during the earliest days of Islam . In those pristine days (HOW FAR DOES HE WANT TO GO BACK AND HOW LONG IS THAT PERIOD? WHOSE KHALIPHATES ARE INCLUDED IN THESE "PRESTINE" DAYS?? THIS IS A NOSTALGIC NOTION OF A TIME THAT DIED LONG BEFORE THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD HIMSELF DIED.) great care was taken to accommodate people's natural aptitudes and temperaments. Practical expressions of faith were cultivated that were far removed from impositions, affected airs, and obstinacy (WOW! IT WAS EVER LIKE THAT IN ISLAM?? WHAT HAPPENED??). No doubt, we should strive for progress, growth, and improvement.
However, this needs to be accomplished without being pushy or insistent, without offending people or causing resentment, and without causing division in society (WHEN THE SHAYKH INVOKES RELIGION, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING). The enmity and discord that result from a misguided attempt at reform are often far worse than the evil tendency whose removal is being sought. No doubt, we should strive for progress, growth, and improvement. However, it is wrong to wage a perpetual campaign for particular aspects of outward behavior – which may or may not be relevant – to the neglect of deeper, more subtle, but vital aspects of faith and life. No doubt, we should strive for progress, growth, and improvement (YEAH YOU SAID WE SHOULD STRIVE FOR PROGRESS, GROWTH, AND IMPROVEMENT SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY, WITHOUT EXPLAINING ONCE WHAT YOU MEAN BY IT. IT IS VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND PROGRESS, GROWTH, AND IMPROVEMENT AS STAND-ALONE CONCEPTS.. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN WHEN YOU HAVE STARTED BY LUMPING PEOPLE INTO CATEGORIES AND RANKING THEM BASED ON BOGUS AND SIMPLISTIC STANDARDS). However, we must take care not to judge people and discriminate between them on the strength of standards that are as superficial as they are conspicuous (SO LET'S NOT CATEGORIZE THEM AND RANK THEM).
True preference is on the basis of piety. Allah says: "Indeed, the best of you with Allah are the most pious among you." Piety is – first and foremost – in the heart, though it influences our actions and behavior. It does no service to Islam to relate everything to certain social patterns or behavioral practices as if all is lost otherwise. Allah's mercy is greater than the limited perceptions of people.
Someone may attain Paradise in the Hereafter due to a small good deed, or a single shed tear, or a feeling in the heart. Maybe that person helped someone in need, or showed kindness to an animal, or engaged in the smallest act of kindness with the right heartfelt intention or with the right degree of humility. Someone else may lag behind in the Hereafter whose piety in life was far more evident and conspicuous. Maybe that person was neglectful in taking account of the heart. Maybe that person was too self-satisfied or felt superior to others (I FIND THIS STATEMENT HUMOROUS COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO SPENT THE BULK OF THIS ARTICLE RANKING PEOPLE) Maybe that person exhibited some pretentious behavior or imposed hardships on others that Allah did not intend. Maybe that person spoke ill of people or acted unjustly towards them. The mercy and favor that Allah shows us all is far greater than the works that we do. The prophet (peace be upon him) said: "If Allah were to punish all of His creatures in the heavens and on Earth, He would not be unjust in doing so. If He were to show them mercy, than His mercy is far greater than their deeds merit." [Sunan Abî Dâwûd]
OH YES!!! GOOD OL' ABU DAWUD!! HIS BOOK IS SO FULL OF ERRONEOUS HADITHS AND ATTROCIOUS DEPICTIONS OF GOD AND OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD THAT HE HIMSELF HAS ACKNOWLEDGED ITS LACK OF AUTHENTICITY. THERE ARE HADITHS THAT ABU DAWUD DOCUMENTED INCLUDING HOW THE PROPHET TORTURED AND KILLED INNOCENT PEOPLE, TO CONDONING THE MURDER OF A PREGNANT WOMAN WHO INSULTED HIM. THESE STORIES ARE COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS KNOWN OF THE EASY-GOING AND FORGIVING PERSONALITY OF THE PROPHET WHO LIVED A POOR MAN AND DIED A POOR MAN; AND WHO WAS A FRIEND AND AND ALLY OF THE WEAK AND PERSECUTED. THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM USED HIM TO BUILD AN EMPIRE IN MUCH THE SAME WAY CHRISTIANITY USED JESUS TO BUILD AN EMPIRE OF LAND, WEALTH, AND POWER.
Here's one Hadith from the time of Bukhari. Unlike the lackluster reputation of Abu Dawud's hadith, Bukhari is accepted as THE authority on authentic hadiths. Note again that they are saying these things were done by one of the greatest religious founders of all time.. Also notice how the female is highlighted as the source of evil in this particular story :
Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:"During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I SAW A SHE-MONKEY SURROUNDED BY A NUMBER OF MONKEYS. THEY WERE ALL STONING IT, BECAUSE IT HAD COMMITTED ILLEGAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE (THAT BITCH!! IT'S OBVIOUSLY A NON-MUSLIM MONKEY.. FEMALES ARE EVIL IN EVERY SPECIES). I TOO, STONED IT ALONG WITH THEM."
My intent from publishing this article and from adding the commentary is not to insult the Prophet Muhammad or speak against God. I do believe in God.. I love Him and deeply believe in his love for the world. My intent is to demonstrate that what we know of the Quran, which was gathered from the memories of people during Othman's Khaliphate and after endless wars have already claimed many of the Quran's memorizers cannot be entirely the word of God.. My proof? Parts of the Quran itself as I hope I was able to highlighted. In light of all the wars among the Khaliphs themselves throughout the history of Islam, there is very little that we can conclusively say about the Quran or about the Prophet Muhammad. I can go on and on about the bible as well, which has even less consistency and more historical wear-and-tear and human intervention than even the Quran.
Therefore, in order for there to be reconciliation between the Abrahamic religions, we, the Abrahamics, have to FIRST ignore our texts and surrender to the idea that they are manipulated and flawed. Not doing so is a sure way to keep us running in circles as we have been since Moses got lost in the dessert. Second, we have to reclaim morality in its most absolute, and most generic definition to be able to resolve the conflicts and wars we have had for mellinea, and continue to have to day.
It is time for us to put start deferrentiating between morality and religion.. between God and those who falsely and arrogantly speak on his behalf. Only then will this world make sense and will we able to acheive peace.
The article also demonstrates a good example of why it is so difficult to reason with some religious people. How can one reason with someone when his religion tells him to be a devout follower, you cannot be half-hearted in following this religion whether it makes sense or not. It also sets religious debates such as what is to be discussed is not the religion, but what the people need to do to adhere to it. It is a forgone conclusion in the mind of some religious people that their religious sources are beyond debate, but everyone one else's religion, and everyone else's view point is not of equal weight.
Anyway, I figured I would add the article to my blog, because I thought it would make a nice example of why religion is contra-spiritual and why it is counter productive. My comments are interjected into the article in CAPS:
Allah says: "Then We gave the Scripture as an inheritance to those We had chosen among Our worshippers: but some among them wrong their own souls; some are halfhearted; and some, by Allah's leave, are foremost in good deeds. That is the highest grace." [Sûrah Fâtir: 32]
WE KNOW THIS IS IN THE QURAN. WHETHER ALLAH (ARABIC FOR GOD) SAID THAT OR NOT IS SUBJECT FOR DEBATE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU ASK SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE QURAN AS A WORD OF GOD, SUCH AS A JEW OR A CHRISTIAN. NOTE THAT THE VERSE REFERS TO GIVING "THE SCRIPTURE TO THOSE WE HAD CHOSEN AMONG OUR WORSHIPPERS." WAIT!! I THOUGHT JEWS WERE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE.. OR IS IT THE CHRISTIANS WHO ACCEPTED JESUS CHRIST AS THEIR SAVIOUR?. OR IS IT THE ARABS IN WHOSE TONGUE THE QURAN HAS BEEN REVEALED? OR IS IT ALL OF THE ABOVE?? I AM CONFUSED.. I WILL ASSUME THAT THE VERSE REFERS TO ALL PEOPLE OF THE BOOK, OR THE ABRAHAMICS. THE SHAYKH SEEMS CONVINCED THAT IT IS MEANT FOR MUSLIMS BUT THAT IS THE SHAYKH'S INTERPRETATION, NOT WHAT'S IN THE VERSE.
Allah presents us (OH, YES SHAYKH! PLEASE TELL US WHAT ALLAH SAYS AND TELL US EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS.. NONE OTHER THAN YOU IS CAPABLE OF READING THE AYA AND INTERPRETING ITS MEANING) in this verse with three categories of people (HOW NICE! IT'S GOOD TO KNOW THAT WE NICELY FIT INTO THREE NEAT, CLEARLY DEFINED CATEGORIES AND RANK THEM ON THOSE CATEGORIES). Allah makes it clear that in all three cases, the people have been chosen by Him. They are worshippers, and they have inherited the Scripture (SORRY BUDDISTS, HINDUS, TOAISTS, BUSHMEN, ETC.. WE KNOW YOU REPRESENT MORE THAN HALF THE WORD, BUT YOU'RE SOL RIGHT OF THE BAT.. CONVERT NOW, OR STOP READING AND START CONTEMPLATING ETERNAL DAMNATION). Allah begins with mentioning those "who wrong their own souls". These are the people who succumb to sin and commit acts of disobedience to their Lord (WHEN JASHUA'S ARMY DESTROYED KANAAN AND KILLED ITS MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN, THEY OBEYED GOD.. WHEN MUSLIMS USED TO TAKE WOMEN INTO SEXUAL SLAVERY, THEY DIDN'T DISOBEY GOD.. WHEN CHRISTIANS SOLD PEOPLE TO BONDAGE, THEY DIDN'T DISOBEY GOD. HOWEVER, EAT PORK IF YOU ARE MUSLIM OR MIX FIBERS IN YOUR CLOTHES IF YOU ARE A JEW AND GOD GETS MAD!) The second group consists of those who are "halfhearted". These people neither fall into excessive sin nor devote themselves to worship (MAYBE THEY ONLY BELIEVE SOME OF THE STUFF SINCE THE OTHER HALF SEEMS--- UH-- UNREASONABLE.. THEY COULD BE EMPLOYING A TECHNIQUE CALLED THINKING... SOME PEOPLE ARE INCOMPLETE LIKE THAT). The third group consists of those who are "foremost in good deeds" (THEY CLEARLY DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD WITHOUT ANY UNDERSTANDING OR QUESTIONING. THAT'S FAITH! I AM NOT BEING SARCASTIC HERE.. TALK TO ANY DEVOUT MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN OR JEW AND THEY WILL TELL YOU JUST THAT: YOU JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE OR NOT. WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION "GOD?" OF COURSE, WHEN THEY SAY THAT, THEY ARE OFTEN SAYING WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES AND THE TEXTS MANIPULATED BY THEM?).
To all three categories of people Allah makes the following promise: "Gardens of Eternity will they enter: therein will they be adorned with bracelets of gold and pearls; and their garments there will be of silk (THAT WOULD GET OLD AFTER THE FIRST THREE THOUSAND YEARS OR SO, WOULDN'T IT? AND IS ALLAH HERE TELLING US THAT GOLD AND SILK ARE THE ALTIMATE FORM OF BLISS? I KNOW THE QURAN TALKS ABOUT NON-INTOXICATING WINES, VIRGINS, AND REALLY BIG PALACES AS WELL, BUT IS ALLAH ALTIMATELY BRIBING US TO DO WHAT HE SAYS WITH DECADENT STUFF IN THE AFTERLIFE?). And they will say: Praise be to Allah, who has removed from us (all) sorrow (WHAT ABOUT BOREDOM AND DEPRESSION DUE HAVING NOTHING TO DO, NO FRIENDS TO HANG OUT WITH, NO RISKS, AND NO PROSPECT FOR ANYTHING GOING WRONG FOR ALL ETERNITY--- ISN'T THAT TORTURE OF SORTS? DOESN'T IT SEEM LIKE HEAVEN IS JUST A MILDER VERSION OF HELL WITHOUT THE HEAT, THE CHAINS, AND THE BAD FOOD?): for our Lord is indeed oft-forgiving, gracious." [Sûrah Fâtir: 33-34] These verses are one of the places in the Qur'ân where Allah promises good to His servants (YEP.. INDEED, WE'RE TALKING BEST CASE SCENARIO HERE).
This passage is among the most specific in the sense of generosity that it conveys, especially where it says: "Praise be to Allah, who has removed from us (all) sorrow." This is because all people – no matter what they experience in this world of fame, fortune, health, success, or power – they are never spared sorrow. Their sorrows might very well stem form the very prosperity that they enjoy. A person might grieve due to the loss of some of these blessings, or the demands that they pace on that person's shoulders, or because of the envy, treachery, and rivalry that those blessings incite in others. In the hadîth where the angel Gabriel approaches Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and inquires about Islam, faith, and excellence in worship (ACCORDING TO OTHER QURAN AND HADITH, GABRIEL SUPPOSEDLY REVEALED THE ENTIRETY OF THE QURAN TO THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD INCLUDING THE VERSE SITED IN THIS ARTICLE.. WHY WOULD GABRIEL BE ASKING THE PROPHET TO TELL HIM SOMETHING HE SUPPOSEDLY KNOWS ALREADY?--- I GUESS THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE "UNCONFIRMED" HADITHS THAT DON'T SEEM TO JIVE WITH THE MAINSTREAM STORY IN THE QURAN), we again see three levels for people who believe. There are parallels between this hadîth and the verse of the Qur'ân that we are discussing (THAT'S GOOD! IT'S ALWAYS NICE WHEN THE HADITH AND THE QURAN DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. AGAIN, I AM NOT BEING SARCASTIC.. THERE ARE MANY PLACES WHERE THEY DO BECAUSE HADITHS WERE NOT WRITTEN DURING THE TIME OF THE PROPHET. THE HADITH WAS GATHERED AND RECALLED SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE GATHERING OF THE QURAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF HELPING TO BRIDGE GAPS IN THE QURAN'S MEANING AND UNDERSTANDING ITS INTENT. THE QURAN ITSELF WAS GATHERED SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF MUHAMMAD DURING OTHMAN'S KHALIPHATE AFTER SEVERAL OF THE MEMORIZERS OF THE QURAN HAD PERISHED IN THE WARS DECLARED BY ABU BAKR, OMAR, AND OTHMAN EVEN BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE PROPHET MOHAMMAD).
Here, the first level – Islam – refers to outward acts, implying that those acts of devotion are accompanied by sinful behavior or a lack of deep devotion. The second level – faith – refers to the deeds of the heart. (SHOULD'T ONE HAVE FAITH FIRST BEFORE PERFORMING "OUTWARD ACTS?" ISN'T FAITH THE DRIVER TO ACCEPT A RELIGION OR REJECT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? IF I AM CHRISTIAN, DOES IT MAKE SENSE THAT I WOULD READ THE QURAN AND PRAY FIVE TIMES A DAY BEFORE I UNDERSTAND WHY TO GIVE UP MY RELIGIOUS PRACTICES AND ADOPT NEW ONES?" These are the deeds that prevent a person from falling into sin in the first place (UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM AND A FALACY OF FALSE CONCLUSION. I PERSONALLY KNOW OF MANY PEOPLE THAT PRAY AND HAVE UNMARRIED SEX. I KNOW PEOPLE THAT FAST RAMADAN AND DRINK THE REMAINING PART OF THE YEAR. THERE IS NO LOGICAL LINK BETWEEN ADHERING TO RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND PERFORMING ACTS FORBIDDEN BY IT). This is what the Prophet (peace be upon him) meant when he said: "A person does not commit adultery while he is a believer (BUT HE IS A BELIEVER WHEN HE RAPES A SLAVE, OR MILK-AL-YAMEEN?)." [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim] Finally there is the level of excellence (ihsân). This is the highest, most illustrious level that a believer can attain. This is the level of those the verse refers to as being the "foremost in good deeds." One of us might be at times on the level of "Islam" and at other times on the level of "faith". Sometimes, we might even attain the level of "excellence" in our faith and worship. The state of the human heart is always in flux. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The human heart is more swift to commotion that a pot of water when it is set to boil." [Musnad Ahmad] It is a mistake to assume that all people are on the same level in their faith, piety, and religious commitment (IT IS A BIGGER MISTAKE TO ASSUME THAT THERE IS AN AGREED UPON BASELINE FOR FAITH, PIETY, AND RELIGIOUS COMMITTMENT OVERWHICH EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT, OR THAT THERE IS EVEN AGREEMENT THAT ANY OF THESE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY GOOD IN AND OF THEMSELVES. IN CHRISTIANITY, DIVORCE IS BAD. IN ISLAM POLYGAMY AND DIVORCE ARE OKAY.. EATING PORK IS NOT OKAY IN ISLAM AND JEWDAISM. IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE IN CHRISTIANITY. THEREFORE, PIETY, FAITH, AND RELIGIOUS COMMITTMENT ARE ALL RELATIVE TERMS AND THEY MAY BE MORAL OR IMMORAL DEPENDING ON THE PROSPECTIVE OF THE RELIGION TO WHICH ONE HAPPENS TO BE BORN. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT IS EVEN A BIGGER MISTAKE TO ASSUME THAT RELIGIOUS COMMITTMENT AND FAITH GO HAND IN HAND. I BELIEVE IN GOD. I BELIEVE IN MORALITY. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT RELIGION TOO FREQUENTLY GOES AGAINST GOD AND MORALITY AND REFLECT NEITHER THE WORD OF GOD (THE QURAN AND THE BIBLE HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED) NOR THE A VERIFIABLE HISTORY OF ITS MESSENGERS). it creates a problem if we expect that of people and hold them to expectations they are unable to fulfill ((WE CAN HOLD EACH OTHER TO CERTAIN SOCIAL STANDARDS THAT LINK US AS A SOCIETY, WHO IS ANYONE TO HOLD ANYONE ELSE TO EXPECTATIONS ON PERSONAL BELIEF? . TO THINK THAT SOME OF US CAN HOLD OTHERS TO RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL EXPECTATIONS IS BOTH LUDECROUS AND ARROGANT IN MY OPINION. THAT SHOULD BE BETWEEN THEM AND GOD).
When people are not given easier options, they often simply give up or look for alternatives that are often wrong. This is a mistake that some Islamic preachers make. When a preacher finds himself before a group of Muslims at a public venue or at a school, it is merely a trial for them when the person discussing Islam with them discriminates between them according to their appearances and their statements or passes judgment over them (YES! VERY BAD FOR BUSINESS.. ALL JUDGEMENTS OF THESE SPIRIRITUAL INFERIORS SHOULD BE DONE SILENTLY) This is not the Day of Judgment. It is not time to sort people into the righteous and the unrighteous We must leave them to their Creator (REALLY??!! SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE THEN? THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS NOTHING BUT A BIG CLASSIFICATION AND RANKING EXCERCISE. WHAT DOES THE SHAYKH WANT? I AM REALLY CONFUSED NOW). .
We should strive for their betterment by exercising patience and by working hard. We need to look towards gradual improvement over a long stretch of time. We need to learn from them what we need to know. None of us are the judges of the people (I AGREE! BUT JUDGING PEOPLE IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS DOING). We must be humble before our Lord (UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE AN IMAM OR SHEIKH OR A RABBI OR A PRIEST.. THEN YOU CAN JUST SPEAK ON GOD'S BEHALF). Whoever shows humility before Allah will be ennobled by Allah. It is not necessary for a person to be a student of knowledge in order to be a Muslim, or memorize the Qur'ân, or engage in Islamic missionary work. The more we impose conditions on the people and pile expectations on their shoulders, the fewer people we will have listening to us (BAD FOR BUSINESS AS WELL..)
People have different temperaments. They come from different backgrounds. Some are more mature than others, more educated. Some are new Muslims or are new to religiousness. (THE SHAYKH FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROBLEM DOESN'T LIE WITH THE RECIPIENTS OF THE MESSAGE, BUT WITH THE MESSAGE ITSELF! THERE IS A CREDIBILITY PROBLEM WITH ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS IN GENERAL WHICH HAVE LEADING PEOPLE FROM ALL ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS TO REJECT GOD ALONG WITH REJECT SPIRITUALITY BECAUSE RELIGION HAS GIVEN GOD SUCH A DWARFED AND SKITZOPHRINIC IMAGE.. THE FASTEST GROWING FAITH IS NOT ISLAM OR CHRISTIANITY, BUT ATHIESM, AND AGNOSTICISM. THIS ISN'T SOMETHING NEW. ARTICLES SUCH AS THIS ONE, WHICH APPEAL TO FEAR INSTEAD OF REASON AND TO PREJUDICE INSTEAD OF COLLECTIVISM ADD TO THE DISTORTION OF GOD'S IMAGE.. IT FAR MORE PRODUCTIVE TO LOOK FOR MORALITY OUTSIDE OF RELIGION THAN TO TRY TO WADE THROUGH WHAT PARTS OF RELIGION ARE DIVINE AND WHAT PARTS OF IT ARE MIND CONTROL, AND I CAN COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE WHO REJECT RELIGION ALSO REJECT GOD. PEOPLE CONSTANTLY TARNISH HIS NAME IN THE WORST POSSIBLE WAYS AND PEOPLE ASSOCIATE THE RACIST, INTOLERANT MESSAGES THEY GET FROM RELIGION WITH THE BEING WHO IS CONSTANTLY INVOKED IN THOSE MESSAGES, I.E. GOD) There will be among them "some who wrong their own souls; some who are halfhearted; and some who are, by Allah's leave, foremost in good deeds." It is always a mistake to assume that all of them are going to be the same in their devotion or conduct or even in their manner of expressing themselves. This was not even the case during the earliest days of Islam . In those pristine days (HOW FAR DOES HE WANT TO GO BACK AND HOW LONG IS THAT PERIOD? WHOSE KHALIPHATES ARE INCLUDED IN THESE "PRESTINE" DAYS?? THIS IS A NOSTALGIC NOTION OF A TIME THAT DIED LONG BEFORE THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD HIMSELF DIED.) great care was taken to accommodate people's natural aptitudes and temperaments. Practical expressions of faith were cultivated that were far removed from impositions, affected airs, and obstinacy (WOW! IT WAS EVER LIKE THAT IN ISLAM?? WHAT HAPPENED??). No doubt, we should strive for progress, growth, and improvement.
However, this needs to be accomplished without being pushy or insistent, without offending people or causing resentment, and without causing division in society (WHEN THE SHAYKH INVOKES RELIGION, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING). The enmity and discord that result from a misguided attempt at reform are often far worse than the evil tendency whose removal is being sought. No doubt, we should strive for progress, growth, and improvement. However, it is wrong to wage a perpetual campaign for particular aspects of outward behavior – which may or may not be relevant – to the neglect of deeper, more subtle, but vital aspects of faith and life. No doubt, we should strive for progress, growth, and improvement (YEAH YOU SAID WE SHOULD STRIVE FOR PROGRESS, GROWTH, AND IMPROVEMENT SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY, WITHOUT EXPLAINING ONCE WHAT YOU MEAN BY IT. IT IS VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND PROGRESS, GROWTH, AND IMPROVEMENT AS STAND-ALONE CONCEPTS.. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN WHEN YOU HAVE STARTED BY LUMPING PEOPLE INTO CATEGORIES AND RANKING THEM BASED ON BOGUS AND SIMPLISTIC STANDARDS). However, we must take care not to judge people and discriminate between them on the strength of standards that are as superficial as they are conspicuous (SO LET'S NOT CATEGORIZE THEM AND RANK THEM).
True preference is on the basis of piety. Allah says: "Indeed, the best of you with Allah are the most pious among you." Piety is – first and foremost – in the heart, though it influences our actions and behavior. It does no service to Islam to relate everything to certain social patterns or behavioral practices as if all is lost otherwise. Allah's mercy is greater than the limited perceptions of people.
Someone may attain Paradise in the Hereafter due to a small good deed, or a single shed tear, or a feeling in the heart. Maybe that person helped someone in need, or showed kindness to an animal, or engaged in the smallest act of kindness with the right heartfelt intention or with the right degree of humility. Someone else may lag behind in the Hereafter whose piety in life was far more evident and conspicuous. Maybe that person was neglectful in taking account of the heart. Maybe that person was too self-satisfied or felt superior to others (I FIND THIS STATEMENT HUMOROUS COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO SPENT THE BULK OF THIS ARTICLE RANKING PEOPLE) Maybe that person exhibited some pretentious behavior or imposed hardships on others that Allah did not intend. Maybe that person spoke ill of people or acted unjustly towards them. The mercy and favor that Allah shows us all is far greater than the works that we do. The prophet (peace be upon him) said: "If Allah were to punish all of His creatures in the heavens and on Earth, He would not be unjust in doing so. If He were to show them mercy, than His mercy is far greater than their deeds merit." [Sunan Abî Dâwûd]
OH YES!!! GOOD OL' ABU DAWUD!! HIS BOOK IS SO FULL OF ERRONEOUS HADITHS AND ATTROCIOUS DEPICTIONS OF GOD AND OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD THAT HE HIMSELF HAS ACKNOWLEDGED ITS LACK OF AUTHENTICITY. THERE ARE HADITHS THAT ABU DAWUD DOCUMENTED INCLUDING HOW THE PROPHET TORTURED AND KILLED INNOCENT PEOPLE, TO CONDONING THE MURDER OF A PREGNANT WOMAN WHO INSULTED HIM. THESE STORIES ARE COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS KNOWN OF THE EASY-GOING AND FORGIVING PERSONALITY OF THE PROPHET WHO LIVED A POOR MAN AND DIED A POOR MAN; AND WHO WAS A FRIEND AND AND ALLY OF THE WEAK AND PERSECUTED. THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM USED HIM TO BUILD AN EMPIRE IN MUCH THE SAME WAY CHRISTIANITY USED JESUS TO BUILD AN EMPIRE OF LAND, WEALTH, AND POWER.
Here's one Hadith from the time of Bukhari. Unlike the lackluster reputation of Abu Dawud's hadith, Bukhari is accepted as THE authority on authentic hadiths. Note again that they are saying these things were done by one of the greatest religious founders of all time.. Also notice how the female is highlighted as the source of evil in this particular story :
Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:"During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I SAW A SHE-MONKEY SURROUNDED BY A NUMBER OF MONKEYS. THEY WERE ALL STONING IT, BECAUSE IT HAD COMMITTED ILLEGAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE (THAT BITCH!! IT'S OBVIOUSLY A NON-MUSLIM MONKEY.. FEMALES ARE EVIL IN EVERY SPECIES). I TOO, STONED IT ALONG WITH THEM."
My intent from publishing this article and from adding the commentary is not to insult the Prophet Muhammad or speak against God. I do believe in God.. I love Him and deeply believe in his love for the world. My intent is to demonstrate that what we know of the Quran, which was gathered from the memories of people during Othman's Khaliphate and after endless wars have already claimed many of the Quran's memorizers cannot be entirely the word of God.. My proof? Parts of the Quran itself as I hope I was able to highlighted. In light of all the wars among the Khaliphs themselves throughout the history of Islam, there is very little that we can conclusively say about the Quran or about the Prophet Muhammad. I can go on and on about the bible as well, which has even less consistency and more historical wear-and-tear and human intervention than even the Quran.
Therefore, in order for there to be reconciliation between the Abrahamic religions, we, the Abrahamics, have to FIRST ignore our texts and surrender to the idea that they are manipulated and flawed. Not doing so is a sure way to keep us running in circles as we have been since Moses got lost in the dessert. Second, we have to reclaim morality in its most absolute, and most generic definition to be able to resolve the conflicts and wars we have had for mellinea, and continue to have to day.
It is time for us to put start deferrentiating between morality and religion.. between God and those who falsely and arrogantly speak on his behalf. Only then will this world make sense and will we able to acheive peace.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Different Religious Logos, Same Violent Message
The last few posts I created seemed to single out Islam specifically, but it was not my intention. I think that the Abrahamic faiths are all flawed equally. Below are a couple of clips from YouTube that speak to some of the violence in the bible, and some of the same vendictive God characteristics found in the Quran.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EikskgKKeqg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MjAoxrLR9WM
It is clear to me from the Bible how and why Israelis are considered to be more valuable than Palestinians, and that they are justified in getting people out of their land because the bible says it is okay to do so. Here again, we have a God who has given us to make moral exceptions to subjicate, dominate, exterminate, and terrorize those who don't submitt to the will of God.. A God who has chosen us because we're special... We're God's chosen people... We're the ones carrying God's word and His true message.
I have heard some Christian fundamentalists claim that while there has been attrocities committed under the banner of Christianity, it was never authorized by the Bible... Really?! So do they believe that Joshua is not part of the word of God? Should the old testament be separated out of the Christian Bible? And what about the council Nicea where the Roman Empire decided what is God's revelation and what is not to fit its needs? Is that a testament that is free of human manipulation?
I think that any time you have institutions in the making, there are groups of people who will add their spin to it to make sure their interests are served. What makes this particularly a malignant and destructive element in religion is because those groups appeal to the fear of eternal punishment, and invoke God's divine to enforce human systems. Ibrahamic religeous figures claim, and believe, that they are only enforcing what has been so clearly mandated in God's revealed Word. It's not the will of the state or the religious institution. It's the will of God. If not followed, these individuals will suffer enternally in horrible ways in the after life. In addition, God's wrath will decend upon all of society if society did not fight and prevent ideas that are contrary to those of the Church.
Of course, every Abrahamic religion simultaneously claims corruption and misunderstanding occured in the earlier revelation thus requiring a new revelation, claims to be the final word of God, and threatens damnation for those who don't convert to it, or convert away from it. In other words, no matter what you do, your chances of going to hell are pretty darn good no matter what you believe; unless of course you are Hindu or Budist, then you are going to the Abrahamic hell for Sure.
Hope you like warm climate!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EikskgKKeqg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MjAoxrLR9WM
It is clear to me from the Bible how and why Israelis are considered to be more valuable than Palestinians, and that they are justified in getting people out of their land because the bible says it is okay to do so. Here again, we have a God who has given us to make moral exceptions to subjicate, dominate, exterminate, and terrorize those who don't submitt to the will of God.. A God who has chosen us because we're special... We're God's chosen people... We're the ones carrying God's word and His true message.
I have heard some Christian fundamentalists claim that while there has been attrocities committed under the banner of Christianity, it was never authorized by the Bible... Really?! So do they believe that Joshua is not part of the word of God? Should the old testament be separated out of the Christian Bible? And what about the council Nicea where the Roman Empire decided what is God's revelation and what is not to fit its needs? Is that a testament that is free of human manipulation?
I think that any time you have institutions in the making, there are groups of people who will add their spin to it to make sure their interests are served. What makes this particularly a malignant and destructive element in religion is because those groups appeal to the fear of eternal punishment, and invoke God's divine to enforce human systems. Ibrahamic religeous figures claim, and believe, that they are only enforcing what has been so clearly mandated in God's revealed Word. It's not the will of the state or the religious institution. It's the will of God. If not followed, these individuals will suffer enternally in horrible ways in the after life. In addition, God's wrath will decend upon all of society if society did not fight and prevent ideas that are contrary to those of the Church.
Of course, every Abrahamic religion simultaneously claims corruption and misunderstanding occured in the earlier revelation thus requiring a new revelation, claims to be the final word of God, and threatens damnation for those who don't convert to it, or convert away from it. In other words, no matter what you do, your chances of going to hell are pretty darn good no matter what you believe; unless of course you are Hindu or Budist, then you are going to the Abrahamic hell for Sure.
Hope you like warm climate!
Muslims Rejoice! You Now Have The Right to Know Your Child's Sex!
Okay, Here's another example of why religion should be confined to religious institutions, and possibly museums:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2007/11/07/41366.html
Once again, we have a religious institution interfering with things of which they have no knowledge and of which they are speaking on behalf of God without any right. There is is absolutely no reason for this to even be a subject of debate. The technology has been used for years now long before this guy even knew about it. There is no harm to the fetus. There is no life vs. choice debate. There isn't even a religious text or precedence on the issue, yet Moses here has the audacity to tell parents that they can only find out the sex of their child under conditions.
Islam claims that the biggest crime against God is the Arabic word of "Shiirk." The word means literally "partnering," and its intended meaning is treating anyone or anything as an equivalent of God. It is a premise which was used throughout Muslim history to fight anyone who doesn't believe in God as the only creator and whose will trumps everyone else's. Of course, the idea of fighting anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of God has caused the bloodiest wars in history. If Shiirk is the highest crime than anyone can commit against God, and for which endless wars can be faught (an appauling and insane idea in its own right), why are these nutcase Imams doing it?
And yes, that is what they are doing... When one dictates certain things to be for, or against the will of God when there is no evidence of it even in the sacred text allegedely revealed by God, this is Shiirk. Of course, I still defend their right to say whatever they want, and do or not do anything that doesn't impose on anyone else's liberty. However in Saudi Arabia, there is no distinction between legislature and religious ruling (Fatwas), and there are many ignorant people that blindly listen to what they are told, and thus this indeed an imposition on the most basic of human freedoms.
As with regards to the Fatwa giving me the "right" to participate in elections, can someone tell this guy that the constitutions of liberal democracies is what give their citizens the right to vote, not the religious rulings of theocratic and ignorant characters in foreign countries with appauling human rights records who cannot even perceive democracy, much less pass fatwas on it?
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2007/11/07/41366.html
Once again, we have a religious institution interfering with things of which they have no knowledge and of which they are speaking on behalf of God without any right. There is is absolutely no reason for this to even be a subject of debate. The technology has been used for years now long before this guy even knew about it. There is no harm to the fetus. There is no life vs. choice debate. There isn't even a religious text or precedence on the issue, yet Moses here has the audacity to tell parents that they can only find out the sex of their child under conditions.
Islam claims that the biggest crime against God is the Arabic word of "Shiirk." The word means literally "partnering," and its intended meaning is treating anyone or anything as an equivalent of God. It is a premise which was used throughout Muslim history to fight anyone who doesn't believe in God as the only creator and whose will trumps everyone else's. Of course, the idea of fighting anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of God has caused the bloodiest wars in history. If Shiirk is the highest crime than anyone can commit against God, and for which endless wars can be faught (an appauling and insane idea in its own right), why are these nutcase Imams doing it?
And yes, that is what they are doing... When one dictates certain things to be for, or against the will of God when there is no evidence of it even in the sacred text allegedely revealed by God, this is Shiirk. Of course, I still defend their right to say whatever they want, and do or not do anything that doesn't impose on anyone else's liberty. However in Saudi Arabia, there is no distinction between legislature and religious ruling (Fatwas), and there are many ignorant people that blindly listen to what they are told, and thus this indeed an imposition on the most basic of human freedoms.
As with regards to the Fatwa giving me the "right" to participate in elections, can someone tell this guy that the constitutions of liberal democracies is what give their citizens the right to vote, not the religious rulings of theocratic and ignorant characters in foreign countries with appauling human rights records who cannot even perceive democracy, much less pass fatwas on it?
Monday, November 5, 2007
On God and Religion
I have always believed, and continue to believe in a Creator of the world. As a kid, I thought of God in the traditional sense that I have been taught to believe, and as a kid I didn't like him. I didn't like His erratic behaviour and anger spurts. I didn't like his constant need to want my prayer in a certain way, using certain words at certain times of the day. I didn't like the idea that we are all in this less-than-perfect world because Adam and Eve ate from a forbidden tree. Billions of people were deprived of heaven, and forced to live in a world of limited resources, desease, famine, war, and constant struggle because Adam and Eve were duped by Satan to eat out of some stupid tree.
Humanity paying such a hefty price for something they didn't do never struck me as an act of a fair and wise creator. And then you look at what is being done in God's name on this earth, and you see further signs of this rather unjust and unkind behaviour. I didn't like all the death and destruction in the world, particularly that done in His name, as if He was deriving some preverted pleasure from seeing us kill and subjicate one another.
I never rejected God because I have always believed that nothing comes from nothing, and therefore something had kick things off in such an immaculate and well calculated way that lead to the creation of this vast and undeniable intricate universe which we still know very little about with our limited capacities. The laws of probability dictate that all of This could not have happened by accident. And thus I lived most of my life not being able to reject God, and yet not being able to like Him.
What the big three Ibrahamic faiths teach about pre-life, why are we here in this life, and what will happen to us in the afterlife did not seem to be the work of an all-knowing divine being. The Quran says "I did not create the Ins(Humans) and the Gin(angels) except to worship me."
Wow! Is this some sort of an divine inferiority or superiority complex of some sort?
Maybe I couldn't deal with the fact that this being had the emotional maturity of a dessert tribal leader with severly unfulfilled emotional needs. I couldn't reconcile the science of evolution with the fairy tale of Adam and Eve that seemed flawed and irrelevant. I couldn't reconcile the perfection of the universe with the erratic, vengeful, and even psychotic behavior of the God in the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran.
I owe a great deal of gratitude to the Bahai faith for offering a more realistic and compelling explanation of life and of God that at once put the love of God in my heart, and made me feel betrayed by all of those who speak in His name. In the Bahai faith, you don't have to belong to any particular religion to be admitted into heaven or saved from hell. Indeed, the Baha'is don't view heaven and hell as physical places, but rathers as spiritual states of closeness and distance from our originator. The closer we strive to fill our lives with His light, the more we experience a state of heaven, and the reverse is true.
The Baha'is believe that God created the world out of love for it, and that he loves us all equally. It is up to us to love him back by striving to be better people and helping make the world a better place. We don't have to accept anyone to be saved. There is no standardized test that we have to pass, or certain admission requirements... In the Bahai faith, no murder in the name of God is ever justified. No war is ever acceptable. No domination is ever permissible. No disrespect for others can be in the name of their creator.. No one better than someone else because of their faith.. Life is about unity with God and the universe and it creatures.. It's about peace and harmony.. It's all about all love!
While I am not Bahai (I came extremely close to becoming one), I couldn't do it. The reason being is that the more I closely investigated the faith, the more I realized that they have their share of dogmas, superstitions, and limitations. At the end of the day, I couldn't believe in an institution that believes in the infallibility of any human or any institution, and one that proclaims the elimination of all prejudice while prohibiting women from serving in their highest institutions. It seemed that if there was any religion that can operate beyond the confines of dogma and blind obedience, the Baha'i faith would be it. My experience is that this is not the case. Nevertheless, the explanation Bahaism offered of the world and its Creator truly quenched the image of God that Islam, Christianity, and Jewdaism have distorted in my head. the idea of a God who loves us unconditionally like a father, is something I deeply believe in for the following reasons:
1- It gives me peace of mind that when our time is up in this life, we all will have a caring "parent" to take care of us on the other side, much like a new-born is scared when born but is surrounded by loving and caring parents when he/she arrives into this world. It's an entry into the loving arms of God and a re-unification with those who we love that preceeded us, instead of an entry into the court room of a vindictive, arbitrary tyrant judge, judging all of humanity at the same time, and looking for some excuse to eternally torture as many of them as necessary to fill the hell He constructed.
2- It makes it clear for me that my disdain is not for God, but for the institution of religion. I reject all Abrahamic faiths' explanation of God. I believe all of their books, even if they were divine at "revelation," were manipulated and distorted to the benefit the powerful, not to communicate the will of God. It is the institutions of religion that take away the reason and free will that God gave us and molds into ways that serve the few by scaring and coersing the many in His name the identity they created for Him as an insatiable torturer.
When I was able to openly reject religion, I felt closer to God. Because now, I see him as a loving parent figure of whom we are essentially the same spiritual, yet watered down and distributed essence. Therefore, all of us can and do know him by instinct and by experience, but only in a limited capacity. He probably wanted it that way so that we can all combine our collective spirits so that we can all better understand Him, and realize his love by loving one another. Some of us may see Him in science. Others see him in art. Some call him Allah.. Others call him Evolution or cosmic chance... You can think of him as the Eternal or the None.. the One or the infinite... It doesn't really matter, and we probably will find it all reconcilable and true when we transition into a different realm. I don't think that anyone can know God fully because we are limited by our short span of life, limited knowledge, biology and physical needs, phsycological baggage, fears, and biases. At the end of the day, None of us will pass the God exam, and there will either be a big curve for everyone, some sort of a remediation process, or something that none of us can understand now that is far more important than the exam itself. One thing that I am certain about is to love God, not fear Him.
The world is very complicated (at least some times), and there are too many distractions and too many messages all claiming to be the truth. I think that as a loving God, who knows our limitations, He will let us revise our answers and resubmitt them for extra credit. We will get a letter that says: "congratulations. Here's what you have gotten right, and here's where you were so close but missed the mark. As a person who has transformed out of your earthly form, you are now ready for the next journey. Enjoy it."
Finally, I want to share two funny skids (yet full of truth) by George Carlin about God and Religion. I can completely understand and respect why he is an atheist, and I agree with his sentiments on organized religion.
Enjoy!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SyWEBbFwU1o
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Humanity paying such a hefty price for something they didn't do never struck me as an act of a fair and wise creator. And then you look at what is being done in God's name on this earth, and you see further signs of this rather unjust and unkind behaviour. I didn't like all the death and destruction in the world, particularly that done in His name, as if He was deriving some preverted pleasure from seeing us kill and subjicate one another.
I never rejected God because I have always believed that nothing comes from nothing, and therefore something had kick things off in such an immaculate and well calculated way that lead to the creation of this vast and undeniable intricate universe which we still know very little about with our limited capacities. The laws of probability dictate that all of This could not have happened by accident. And thus I lived most of my life not being able to reject God, and yet not being able to like Him.
What the big three Ibrahamic faiths teach about pre-life, why are we here in this life, and what will happen to us in the afterlife did not seem to be the work of an all-knowing divine being. The Quran says "I did not create the Ins(Humans) and the Gin(angels) except to worship me."
Wow! Is this some sort of an divine inferiority or superiority complex of some sort?
Maybe I couldn't deal with the fact that this being had the emotional maturity of a dessert tribal leader with severly unfulfilled emotional needs. I couldn't reconcile the science of evolution with the fairy tale of Adam and Eve that seemed flawed and irrelevant. I couldn't reconcile the perfection of the universe with the erratic, vengeful, and even psychotic behavior of the God in the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran.
I owe a great deal of gratitude to the Bahai faith for offering a more realistic and compelling explanation of life and of God that at once put the love of God in my heart, and made me feel betrayed by all of those who speak in His name. In the Bahai faith, you don't have to belong to any particular religion to be admitted into heaven or saved from hell. Indeed, the Baha'is don't view heaven and hell as physical places, but rathers as spiritual states of closeness and distance from our originator. The closer we strive to fill our lives with His light, the more we experience a state of heaven, and the reverse is true.
The Baha'is believe that God created the world out of love for it, and that he loves us all equally. It is up to us to love him back by striving to be better people and helping make the world a better place. We don't have to accept anyone to be saved. There is no standardized test that we have to pass, or certain admission requirements... In the Bahai faith, no murder in the name of God is ever justified. No war is ever acceptable. No domination is ever permissible. No disrespect for others can be in the name of their creator.. No one better than someone else because of their faith.. Life is about unity with God and the universe and it creatures.. It's about peace and harmony.. It's all about all love!
While I am not Bahai (I came extremely close to becoming one), I couldn't do it. The reason being is that the more I closely investigated the faith, the more I realized that they have their share of dogmas, superstitions, and limitations. At the end of the day, I couldn't believe in an institution that believes in the infallibility of any human or any institution, and one that proclaims the elimination of all prejudice while prohibiting women from serving in their highest institutions. It seemed that if there was any religion that can operate beyond the confines of dogma and blind obedience, the Baha'i faith would be it. My experience is that this is not the case. Nevertheless, the explanation Bahaism offered of the world and its Creator truly quenched the image of God that Islam, Christianity, and Jewdaism have distorted in my head. the idea of a God who loves us unconditionally like a father, is something I deeply believe in for the following reasons:
1- It gives me peace of mind that when our time is up in this life, we all will have a caring "parent" to take care of us on the other side, much like a new-born is scared when born but is surrounded by loving and caring parents when he/she arrives into this world. It's an entry into the loving arms of God and a re-unification with those who we love that preceeded us, instead of an entry into the court room of a vindictive, arbitrary tyrant judge, judging all of humanity at the same time, and looking for some excuse to eternally torture as many of them as necessary to fill the hell He constructed.
2- It makes it clear for me that my disdain is not for God, but for the institution of religion. I reject all Abrahamic faiths' explanation of God. I believe all of their books, even if they were divine at "revelation," were manipulated and distorted to the benefit the powerful, not to communicate the will of God. It is the institutions of religion that take away the reason and free will that God gave us and molds into ways that serve the few by scaring and coersing the many in His name the identity they created for Him as an insatiable torturer.
When I was able to openly reject religion, I felt closer to God. Because now, I see him as a loving parent figure of whom we are essentially the same spiritual, yet watered down and distributed essence. Therefore, all of us can and do know him by instinct and by experience, but only in a limited capacity. He probably wanted it that way so that we can all combine our collective spirits so that we can all better understand Him, and realize his love by loving one another. Some of us may see Him in science. Others see him in art. Some call him Allah.. Others call him Evolution or cosmic chance... You can think of him as the Eternal or the None.. the One or the infinite... It doesn't really matter, and we probably will find it all reconcilable and true when we transition into a different realm. I don't think that anyone can know God fully because we are limited by our short span of life, limited knowledge, biology and physical needs, phsycological baggage, fears, and biases. At the end of the day, None of us will pass the God exam, and there will either be a big curve for everyone, some sort of a remediation process, or something that none of us can understand now that is far more important than the exam itself. One thing that I am certain about is to love God, not fear Him.
The world is very complicated (at least some times), and there are too many distractions and too many messages all claiming to be the truth. I think that as a loving God, who knows our limitations, He will let us revise our answers and resubmitt them for extra credit. We will get a letter that says: "congratulations. Here's what you have gotten right, and here's where you were so close but missed the mark. As a person who has transformed out of your earthly form, you are now ready for the next journey. Enjoy it."
Finally, I want to share two funny skids (yet full of truth) by George Carlin about God and Religion. I can completely understand and respect why he is an atheist, and I agree with his sentiments on organized religion.
Enjoy!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SyWEBbFwU1o
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Is Islam an Arabic or Global Religion?
The following was an article posted on ALARABIYA.NET, and Dubai-based channel that I really like because it seems to cover social and religious issues that are taboos in the Arab and Islamic world.
The attached is an example of such coverage. The story touches on a debate that is not exactly a recent one, but one that has always raged. Is Islam an Arabic religion, or is it a religion intended by God for all of humanity?
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2007/11/04/41210.html
The motivation behind the question is that the Quran has Ayas (verses) that have claimed both ideas:
The attached is an example of such coverage. The story touches on a debate that is not exactly a recent one, but one that has always raged. Is Islam an Arabic religion, or is it a religion intended by God for all of humanity?
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2007/11/04/41210.html
The motivation behind the question is that the Quran has Ayas (verses) that have claimed both ideas:
- Islam is revealed to be a mercy for all people, and
- The Quran has been revealed in Arabic for Arabs.
Is this a contradiction in what Muslims believe is a God-revealed book that is free of human manipulation and error? At a first glance, this conclusion does not seem unreasonable. Yet, the mere suggestion that the Quran might have contradictions is one that is completely rejected and deplored in the Islamic world. Muslims are convinced that the old and the new testaments have been manipulated (A notion with which I agree, by the way), but they are more convinced the Quran is exactly in the same form in which it was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. I guess we all have blind spots when it comes to our belief systems, but we can easily spot the inconsistencies in someone else's beliefs.
Anyway, the Islamic world has attempted to reconcile these two competing ideas in order to make sense out of an Abrahamic book revealed by God, considered to be free of human additions and omissions, and is infallible due to its source.
Clearly not everyone comes to the conclusion that Islam is an Arab-only club. After all, the majority of the Muslim world is NOT Arab. Islam has stressed in many places the equality of races (e.g. "no difference between an Arab and an Ajam (people of Persion and Asian descent), or a white and black except in piety"and "We created you tribes and people so that you can understand each other.") Yet the Aya "we revealed it an Arabic Quran to those who can reason" is unambiguous the inseparability of Islam and Arabism. At a subconscious level, Arab and non-Arab muslims alike struggle with this dual identity of Islam, and the results have been disastrous since the day Islam started spreading outside of the Arabian Peninsula.
In order to reconcile the Aya "We revealed it an Arabic Quran to people of reason" with the many Ayas that claims the universality of Islam, one has to conclude the need to make the Arabic Language, and the Arabic culture the main language of the world so that all humans can interpret the Arabic Quran; OR non-Arabs have to be submissive to Arabs as the only ones capable of interpreting the Quran and telling others how they should live their lives. This way, Islam can meet the criteria of being a final religion meant for all people, and one that was intended specifically for Arabs, a people of superior language and superior reason worthy of God's revelation of His final book.
The imperialistic and racist implication of combining Arabist Islam and International Islam is obvious and far more damaging to the psyche of Arab and non-Arab Muslims alike: Either Arabs or Arab culture must dominate the world in order for God's Will to be understood. It is the height of racism and imperialism, and it is done in the name of a God that according to most religions including Islam, created us equal. It is also easy for Arab Muslims to miss since the source of this prejudice is supposed to be coming from a divine source.
Why not just acknowledge the contradiction and move on? By simply acknowledging the contradiction in the Quran, and choosing which line of thought in the Quran to accept and which ones to reject is logical and far less negative. Accepting that Islam in an Arab-only club can free the majority of the non-Arab muslim world to find its own ways to God without fear of eternal damnation, but that would mean rejecting the Ayas that Islam is meant for the whole world. Conversly, Accepting that Islam is for all people shall lead Arabs and Non-Arabs alike to believe in the equality of races so often preached in Islam, but that means we have to reject Arab-centric Ayas. Combining the two sets, however cannot, and has not had a positive impact on the world. The Answer to why Muslims cannot choose between the two is the Quran itself. The Quran considers those who accept parts of the Quran but not all of it as heretics and threatens them with all kinds of bad juju.
And thus, the Muslim world is trapped in this circular reference: The Quran does not have contradictions despite its contradictions because it is all from an infallible God, and we know this is true because the Quran says so. Nevertheless, Muslims must be able to break through this reference if they are to find peace anywhere in their lives. I don't see how it would be possible to acknowledge this contradiction without suspending my disbelief OR subscribing to the imperialistic and racist idea that reconciles them. I cannot do either.
In this Arabist-yet-for-all thinking, everyone that is trying to understand the Quran in his/her native tongue is viewed as conspirator trying to undermine Islam, or one of inferior intellect incapable of understanding it. It is very much a "God's chosen people" mentality that builds prejudices between people instead of tearing them down so that we can solve inter-religious, inter-racial problems, and problems that we all have to fix together as a species.
To be fair to Muslims, the Quran has been translated to most languages as more and more Muslims have recognized that making everyone else learn Arabic is not going to work. The Quran itself has NOT explicitly forbidden its own translation. Islam, no doubt, has an undeniable appeal to Arabs and non-Arabs alike, but Muslims must recognize the shortcomings of their religion if they are to be able to solve their many problems. My intention is not to berate Islam or offend anyone, but I feel that as Muslims, we have reached a boiling point in human history, and we can either be a positive catalyst in it, one that makes it boil over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)