|
progress: n.
a. movement, as toward a goal; advance.
b. development or growth.
c. steady improvement, as of a society or civilization.
progress: intr.v.
pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing,
pro·gress·es
a. to advance toward a higher or better stage.
|
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Roger Abdul Wahhab Boase: Muslims must return to pluralism
From a speech by the author and academic to the Muslims of Europe Conference, in London
The Independent: 29 January 2003
Islam is generally regarded as a religion that is hardly compatible with a pluralistic vision of society. Muslims themselves are partly to blame for this. It is not simply because they rightly reject the idea that there should be a separation between public and private domains, or that they are rightly reluctant to adopt some of the cultural habits of the host community.
It is also because most of them have little knowledge of, or respect for, religions other than their own, believing that Islam has superseded all earlier revelations and is the only religion acceptable to God. Worse still, they tend to take pride in their ignorance and respond to a growing sense of social alienation by subscribing to a belligerent version of Islam that closely conforms to the Islamophobic image of Islam so dear to the media pundits.
Early Muslim society was more pluralistic in a religious sense than some Muslim societies today. Yet this is a vision that many of them have lost.
Suicidal terrorism wherever it occurs is obviously a symptom of anger and despair, and these emotions are surely only aggravated by the use of military force. We cannot begin to tackle the root causes of terrorism and religious fanaticism until we address the needs and grievances of the poor, the oppressed and the politically dispossessed.
Those who see religious, cultural and ethnic diversity as a blessing must find a middle way between religious fanaticism and fanatical secularism. It is not simply a matter of respecting religious differences; we have to recover the practical spiritual wisdom that unites us and makes us human. This vision of a just, peaceful, multi-religious society can never be achieved without the active co-operation of the mass media.
:: this was posted by thabet at 21:14
Sunday, January 26, 2003
It's all in my mind... but I don't believe it!
Ever wondered why the PC crashes when you have that assignment or coursework to hand in next day? Or why your car refuses to start, just when you need to be somewhere urgently? Well, an interesting article appeared in the December 2002 (Volume 15, No. 32) issue of Professional Engineering, which claims to have solved the problem.
Engineers and scientists at Princeton University have claimed that the human mind has the ability to influence the behaviour of basic machines. This claim, which has startled the scientific community, was made by the researchers on the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (Pear) programme.
The Pear benchmark experiment uses a reverse-biased solid-state noise diode. This is in effect a very quick electronic coin flipper. The output is completely random and consists of binary digits. The researchers say the results, spanning 25 years, have shown that the machine can be influenced by the operator, simply by concentrating on what results they would like the device to produce. So, if someone paid enough attention, they could significantly affect the machine to produce more heads than tails.
Further, the distance a person is from the device seems to have no effect. Somebody thousands of kilometers away can affect the output of the machine.
The director of the programme, Robert Jahn, has warned that the results which they have gathered could prove disastorous. "These anomolies could be functionally devestating to many types of contemporary information processing systems, especially those relyig in random reference signals."
The ramifications could indeed be disastorous. What if equipment in an operating theatre coild be affected by the stress and emotions which the doctors and nurses go under affect the life-support machines?
This fear isn't new, however. James McDonnell, the former head of McDonnell Douglas Corporation, feared that the stresses and emotions of young pilots could have disastorous affect on the sensitive electronic equipment of a fighter jet. McDonnell has been one of the most generous sponsers of this project from the off.
The results would suggest that we are indeed in a world which is pure consciousness, that ultimately we form part of the observed. Is this where science discovers the 'Spirit' which religion talks of? The general scientific, technological and cultural implications are too numerous to mention.
As with all research that claims to bring a new understanding to our world, there have been some harsh criticisms and detractors haven't stopped at ravaging the results. Experimenter fraud, unconciosu cheating, self-deception, errors in calculation, software errors have all been forwarded as the only possible explanations for the results. But Jahn is adament. "There has been some quite illegitimate criticism, spurious arguments have been conconted that really do not distinguish their author or the scientific community." Jahn has made his experiment open to all, sceptic or not. So far no one has put forward a credible refutation. One critic even told Jahn that he wouldn't believe "this sort of stuf, even if it were true."
Statisticians have argued that selective reporting, no matter how small, can skew the results. But Jahn rebutts this. "[W]e have retained every data point... positive stuff keeps coming back at us pretty much in the same form... We're long past convincing ourselves that there's an effect here; we're trying to find out what it is. And you don't do that by throwing stuff away."
So why has there been a hush-up about these results? Why haven't we seen these results before? Jahn's words are illuminating. "This topic remains, to this day, rather indigestible to the established scientific fraternities... There's been substantial recalcitrance that has slowed the dissemination of information."
These words of Jahn highlight the hypocrisy among the "established" scientific communities. It has long been claimed that science (as understood in the West) was "objective" and free from the bias, that say a philosophy or religion had. Science was concerned with fact, and not values or meaning, thus freeing it from obligation to any philosophy/religion/ideology. Yet what was forgotten was that the experimenters themselves were part of the world they were observing. A false dichotomy was created between the mind and matter.
But, as with all endevaours by mankind, the traditional mentality set in the scientific circles. Anything deemed to challange the "established" norms of science, and preached and practiced today, was deemed unfit for consumption, almost "heretical". Jahn is not alone in feeling this wave of rejection. Jacuqes Benveniste, a French scientist suffered worse in the late Eighties.
According to work conducted by Benveniste, water had the capacity to store biological information. Benveniste showed this by diluting solutions of antibodies in water repeatedly until they no longer contained a single molecule of antibody, however, they were still able to produce a response from the immune cells. Water had, apparently, exhibited 'memory'.
Yet it was not the experiement which made the headlines. The "established" scientific community, especially in his native country France, led a vicuous attack on him. Nature, in which his results were published, sent a team to investigate the claims of Benveniste. The team reported that Benveniste's results were "delusional". The editor of the Nature at the time, John Maddox, called Benveniste's results "nonexistent" in the New York Times. And then one of the investigative team told the Lisbon Expressor that Benveniste's work was "fraudulent". This prompted the French scientific authority to close down his laboratory.
What was demonstrated by the Benveniste case was not so much the merit of his work. Indeed he may have been wrong. But it was the "established" scientific communitites efforts to malign the person of Benveniste. This was simply because his work went against the "established" tradition of science, and the 'beliefs' held by them.
This is not to suggest that all scientists are liars, or that they are deliberately attacking the work and reputation of others. Only last year I was a research student, so I was part of this world. But what these cases do demonstrate is the reaction of the "establishment" when their understanding is challanged. Some might take it further and use it as proof to suggest that todays men in white coats, are yesterdays men of the cloth: beware the Inquisition!
:: this was posted by thabet at 08:36
Friday, January 24, 2003
The the case of the 'Kaafir' law and the Muslim 'cleric'
The trial of Abdullah el-Faisal, a Muslim cleric [1], has recently begun at the Old Bailey.
El-Faisal, a Jamaican by birth who converted at the age of 16, and who studied Islam in Riyadh, has been accussed of "inciting racial hatred", by asking believers (Muslims) to kill Jews, Hindus and Americans. Formally he has been charged with "soliciting to murder". The maxium punishment is life imprisonment.
Is Mr. el-Faisal being brought on trumped up charges? Or is there a case against him? The reality is that it is probably six-of-one, and half-a-dozen of the other.
There is reason to believe that el-Faisal does indeed stoke up hatred of the "Kaafir"; I've heard some of his rhetoric for myself, and though on that occasion he did not ask to kill non-believers specifically, he did urge Muslims to make Jihaad and remove the "Kufr" in the Muslim lands. No doubt, he has used stronger language. His defence? That he was only quoting the Qur'an. This has suggested to some that it is the Qur'an, and so the entire Muslim faith and tradition, which is being put on trial.
I do find it funny that a man who spends his time attacking and maligning the "Kuffar", and its entire society, should be pleading not-guilty in a "Kufr" court of law. Why not stick to his principles and simply renounce the court? The prospect of jail for life has, perhaps, awoken Mr. el-Faisal. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see his full defence unfold in the coming days.
On the other hand, the authorities have been under increasing pressure to round up known "Islamists", who make certain people on the right of British society feel uneasy. Not forgetting that the word "Islamist" does not confine itself to bin Ladenesque characters, nor should anyone be arrested unless there exists some sort of justification. To do otherwise is not befitting a country which claims to have "civilised" half the world by introducing the concept of law (one wonders what happened before the British turned up in, say, India?!).
However, it is pure nonsense to suggest that the Qur'an and the Muslim faith is going on trial; for one, it is highly unlikely that a single lawyer in that court would even know Arabic, and especially Classical Arabic to understand the language of the Qur'an. Nor, I would hasten to add, a single of them have a full grasp of the history of the Revelation. (I hope I said that without sounding too arrogant - but they probably don't.)
However, Muslims must not make the usual apologetic claims that the Qur'an is a book of "peace". The Qur'an does exhort Muslims to fight, and not just the apologetic 'defensive' wars. Offensive warfare is allowed too; but there must be good moral reasons why. Fighting oppression and injustice is morally incumbent upon, not just Muslims, but anyone who has the capacity to do so (though there is the question of the logistics of fighting a war).
The Qur'an does ask Muslims to fight the Jews and the Christians and to subdue them, and it does ask Muslims to make Islam victorious. Yet this seems contradictory by other parts of the Qur'an, and claims by Muslims today, increasingly under pressure to give up their "medieval" mindset, that Islam is a religion of 'peace'.
So what is to be done? The truth of the matter is that the Qur'an has been misused and abused by Muslims themselves. The dictionary approach to the Qur'an is our own doing. We can complain all we want when Daniel Pipes, or Malise Ruthven, or a whole host of other hostile writers, take snipets from the Qur'an, the source for a Muslims faith, and teach Westeners that this is what Muhammad and Abdullah down the street what to do to them. But it is Muslims themselves, who pick this verse or that, ignore the context, and use it to promote their own sect, ideology, group, motives etc. A case of stones and glass houses.
Notes
[1] Though the majority of Islam has no official clergy, like some churches in Christianity, we do have a de facto clergy. The Ulema have overtime assumed the role of custodians of the religous tradition. The Shi'ia tradition, in contradistinction, does accept the concept of a clergy.
:: this was posted by thabet at 21:58
Pious criminality
The past few weeks have seen the biggest escalation in the "War on Terror" on British soil. The major events have unfolded as follows:
January 7: Ricin is found in a North London flat. Six men are still being questioned.
January 14: A policeman was stabbed to death, as police made a raid on a Manchester property, in connection wth the discover of ricin a week earlier.
January 20: A North London mosque was raided by police, also in connection with the ricin found in Wood Green. Several men were taken away for questioning.
That all the incidents were connected with Muslims, has fuelled fears that al-Qa'ida is operating, or at least some patchy connection of operatives associated with al-Qa'ida, in the United Kingdom.
Though there have already been a couple of retaliations from self-proclaimed leaders of the Muslim community over here in the UK, I should like to add a few words, which I hope are free of the usual apologia.
Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the raid. If criminals were found on the premises, and artefacts which are illegal, then why the fuss? I thought Muslims were commanded thus:
"O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (them ye are). So follow not passion lest ye lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do." Qur'an 4: 135
Clearly, some form of criminal activity was taking place. Clearly then, the only action left was to remove these criminal acts. One might ask that why are Muslims so upset that the police had gone into a mosque, when (seemingly) criminal activites were taking place? Do not the self-professed believers have any fear of God, that they conduct acts which break the law inside a House of God? This whining has no place in Islam for me.
The answer is because those breaking the law were under the delusion that they were acting out of piety, and a fear of God. They were 'pious criminals'. The kind of people that can rarely be convinced that they are in the wrong, and in contradcition of basic moral values (which they do not accept anyway), especially when it comes to matters of religion. Though they might have a case to plead before the Almighty, Who will surely provide Perfect Mercy and Justice, in this temporal abode they should be shown the iron fist. It is the very least that is demanded. It is the very least to protect ordinary law-abiding citizens of a land, which though far from perfect, at least provides some form of shelter and protection, and gives us the right to practice our faith.
Further, the police even showed due care when entering the mosque, by restricting themselves to entering the offices and corridors. They shwoed due respect by not enternig the prayer hall. So why are we complaining? I would not hesitate to add that most Muslim police forces would probably not bat an eyelid when entering a non-Muslim place of worship. Would they have respected a church, a synagogue or a temple?
The main problem is that Muslims today wish for Justice to take place when they are the victims (and it is true to say that we have been on the receiving end of many injustices), but that we show little to no concern for Justice to prevail when in our own midst injustice occurs and we sit and show moral ambivalence. And moral ambivalence is something which is the antithesis of general meaning of Qur'an 3: 104.
:: this was posted by thabet at 18:32
Friday, January 17, 2003
Disgusting, horrific, but what is to be done?
Since I've been busy at work, I haven't had time to update anywhere near how much I'd like to. I have also not had time to comment on this, disgusting and saddening news story.
Sahda Bibi, 21, dressed in a gold wedding gown and adorned with jewellery, was found dead moments after she had suffered 14 stab wounds to her neck and body at her family home in Birmingham.
Thankfully, since this news story was broken, the police have arrested a man in connection with this horrific murder, though the prime suspect remains at large.
This highlights a major problem with the Pakistani community in Britain. I will not, for even an instance, suggest that this is the practiced norm. Yet, living amongst the Pakistani community in the U.K. as I do, and classified as a "second generation" Pakistani Muslim as I am, I have to admit that this kind of incident is usually brushed aside. No one bats an eyelid. In fact you might even find some sort of "approval": 'Well, she should've known better'. This is a truely shocking state of affairs.
Why is it that these kind of crimes are often met with such apathy among Pakistani Muslims? Why is that Pakistani culture seems so geared towards, if not the hatred, but the belittlement, of women?
Perhaps it is part of the "Islamic culture", ingrained into Pakistanis? For someone standing on the outside making a passing glance inwards to our society, that might, sadly, seem the case. I am not, rather apologetically, about to repeat the well worn phrase that "Islam brings justice for women". If people are really interested they can ask Muslim women, Pakistani Muslim women, themselves. I do not feel Muslim women need yet another man speaking on their behalf.
Nevertheless, judging by my experience, it is not neccessarily a question of "religion", but tradition. Within all major religions (if not all spheres of human activity), there has always been a tension between tradition and reason. Reason usually brings into question the power that tradition has built up for itself, especially in religions, where the ossified thoughts of yesteryear become the traditions which must be observed today. Tradition must always be respected, since it is tradition which can create the correct environment to let reason flourish. Yet, there is always the tendancy for traditionalism to react, often to it's own detriment, when challanged. This case is no different for Muslims, in general, and Pakistanis in particular.
It is time to let Muslim women determine their own future. Afterall God did give them a brain, and the same basic faculties as men, yes? (I hear the loud male voice of disapproval in some mosques across Britain...)
Further, those Pakistani Muslim families who live in the West, ought to realise the consequences of bringing up their children here. If they want their following generations to become arch-Pakistanis, and take on board the feudalism, patriarchy and other excess baggage, then I am afraid they should have brought them up in Pakistan. The second generation Pakistanis who are growing up here, will not take on board such ideas, and this is a fact, verifiable empirically. They will create for themselves a "British Muslim", or a "British Pakistani" identity, where they recognise their roots, pay respect to it, yet will live in a different country, where other ideas exist, and live with this. This in turn, may revitalise thought (primarily in the form of the education system) back in Pakistan, not neccessarily to turn out a Westernised liberal class (though one might argue this is happening anyway), but a class of people who hold to principles of Justice for all, regardless of the title one might wear on ones head.
:: this was posted by thabet at 22:50
A short history of Muslim Philosophy (II)
Part II: The foundations: The Qur'an and Muhammad
a. Muhammad
We begin our journey, then, by looking at what forms the broad basis for Muslim philosophies, regardless of their respective flavours.
According to all most all Muslim sects, groups and interpretations, the basis for the Muslim Weltanschauung is the Qur'an and the very person of Muhammad (p) (CE 570 - 632), as all know by now, considered a Prophet of God to Muslims. So Muslim philosophical thought can said to have started with the first religious experience of the Prophet, whe he was aged 40 (CE 610). The Revelation itself was sent to the heart of Muhammad (p). [1]
It was during his life time that all the foundations and principles were laid down, in the form of the Divine Revelation, the Qur'an, and a body of extra-Qur'anic teachings, practical for the most part [2], known in Islamic parlance as the Sunnah. While he was alive, the Muslims were guided only by him. There seems to be no deliberate systemisation and institutionalisation of the teachings, and indeed Revelation would often occur in response to some situation the Prophet (p) found himself in. However, all the teachings are considered self-consistent, because they are all from the same source: God.
The primary aim of the Prophet (p), seen "externally", seems to have been the removal of idolatory and the recognition of the worship of the One Abrahamic God. His dealings with the Arabs goes through several phases, whereby he preaches, at first, only to those close to him. Later, he is ordered to preach to the his people. This is when the hardships started. The Quraysh, the leading clan of Makkah, feared the message of the Prophet (p), because he challanged their tradition directy. Not only did he oppose their religion, but he opposed what was seen as social injustice. [3] The constant call to give in charity, especially the compulsory Zakaat ("charity tax"), forms the basis for his teachings. He faced ridicule, and then found his life, and that of his followers, under threat. Indeed some suffered horrendously.
In addition to the monotheism and social justice, constant remembrance of the Final Judgment was made by the Prophet (p), where man would be held accountable for his deeds in this world. Humanity's rebelliousness means that he would face a "moral reckoning where dire punishment would be meted out to the disbelivers and evil-doers while immense recompense will be bestowed upon the righteous". [4]
Also emphasised was the qui-daily congregational prayer, which not only provided the individual with spiritual benefits, but enforced the solidatory of the fledgling Muslim community.
After a time, Muhammad (p) made the Hijrah, or migration. [5] This seems like the last stage of the early Makkan phase.
The migration marks the beginning of a new phase. Here the Prophet (p) is thrust into a new confrontation, head on in some cases, with people who already hold a Scripture, primarily the Jewish tribes of Medina. He must also confront the ranks of Munafiqoon ("Hypocrites") who claim Islam as their religion, but in their dealings seem to subvert the mission of Muhammad (p). According to the Qur'an, the Hijrah also marks the beginnig of the end of immunity for the Rejectors, who by know have refused to accept the message, through sheer arrogance. God would know deliver His punishment to the Rejectors.
Here too, the Prophet (p) laid down the social laws; he formed a collective who lived under his rule (a 'State'), and the laws pertaining to an Islamic state are revealed. The Mednitie Surahs are, generally, considered to contain more legal injunctions, unlike their Makkan counterparts, usually thought of as being those which talk more of faith in God, Paradise, Hell etc. A charter [6] formed the basis for relations between the Muslim state and the Jewish tribes, where freedom of worship is granted. In fact the charter even allows for disputes to be resolved without turning to Muhammad (p); but where there is difficulty, they are to turn to "God and His Messenger". [7] He was, ultimately, the de facto leader of Medina. It must also be noted that it was only in Medina, where he was the head of the 'State', that "permission was granted" to fight. Before this there is no mention of physical fighting.
However, antagonism arose between the Prophet (p) and the Jews, and the "Hypocrites" - the section of the Medinite Community who professed Islam, but were often opposed to the Prophet (p).
The Jewish tribes, in whom the Prophet (p) thought he could find favour (since, in his mind, he was reviving a religion to which they adhered), were unhappy with the new faith. They often derided his claim to be a prophet. They eventually found themselves on the end of severe retribution, for violating the legal document which they had agreed to with the Prophet (p), which they did by siding with the Makkans in the latters war with the Muslim state. The tribes were eventually expelled from Medina, and one tribe had it's male members slayed, under a law which their own arbiter had chosen (see Numbers and Deutronomy). Further, they were also punished because they were rejecting a Messenger, which their own Scripture told them was liable to punishment from God.
His time in Medinah saw the culmination of his Messengership, and the culmnination of the Divine retribution. The Jews and Christians were punished by paying the Jizyah, while the idolators were fought against.
First came the Battle of Badr. Here, the Qur'an itself tells us that it was God who was culminating His punishment to the Rejectors, via the hands of the Believers. The battle of Uhad is presented as a 'loss' for the Muslims, because of the rebelliousness of some of the Muslim archers who fled their posts, which led to chaos among the Muslim ranks. Indeed, at one point during the battle, it was feared that Muhammad (p) had lost his life. Nonetheless, they roused themselves and fought off the Makkans. The battles were not only deemed as the Divine retribution, but were designed to clear the ranks of the Hypocrites, who would often find a way of avoiding fighting.
With people converting to the Prophet's (p) religion in droves, the final battle was drawn for his home town, of Makkah. The Qur'an had solaced him years earlier that he would return vctorious. And indeed this was the case, as by and large, Makkah fell, and its people pledged their alleigance to "God and His Messenger".
Upon his death, all of the Arab peninsula was under the banner of Islam. He had already, by this stage, sent invitations to the adjacent nations, calling them to Islam. He had laid the foudnations of one of the most important religious movements in World History.
Further reading
This post was intended to be a 'flavour' of the background with which the development of Islamic philosophy should be read. Muhammad (p), by his very claim, is the centre of the religion, since it is he who told us what is, and isn't, the Qur'an. A Prophet, in Islam, is the embodiment of God's Law on earth. I have, for brevity, left out large chunks of the biography of the Prophet (p). I list a few books, in English, which are a better representation of his life.
Zakaria Bashier, The Makkan Crucible, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1978.
Zakaria Bashier, Sunshine at Medinah, The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1990.
Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: Biography of the Prophet, San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1993.
Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, The Islamic Texts Society, 1983.
Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, London: Oxford University Press, 1998.
These are just a few books. I will endeavour to produce more works at the end of this series (whenever that finishes!).
Notes
[1] Qur'an 26: 193- 195. Further, I have used the abbreviation of "p" to denote the blessings (generally translaed as "peace be upon him") Muslims are obliged to send upon Muhammad (p), or any other personality considered a Prophet by Muslims.
[2] The Sunnah, as best as I understand it, is only a body of practical teachings parted by the Prophet. However, most of the Classical Islamic schools understand the Sunnah to incorporate metaphysical and eschatological beliefs as well. Further, the entire life of the Prophet (p) is considered a "Sunnah", whereas, I understand the term to mean defnite practical teachings imparted from him to his followers (who in turn imparted them to the next generation; and so on).
[3] It has to be remembered that though the Arabs had a concept of charity, and indeed helping the poor was a virtuous act among the Arabs, general socioeconomic conditions were harsh.
[4] Fazlur Rahman, Islam, 2nd Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979, p.15.
[5] Most Muslims hold the view is that the Hijrah was made by Muhammad, for a "worldly" benefit, i.e. Muhammad (p) decided to preach to the Yathribites (Yathrib was the name of the city eventually named Medina) because the Makkans as a whole had turned from his message. However, the Qur'an informs us that a Hijrah is the end of immunity for the Rejectors of the Message (it is the "Sunnah of Allah"), and that it signals the begining of the Divine punishment. See Qur'an 8: 33; 21: 87; 68: 48. The Hijrah also marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. It should be clear that the Hijrah I am talking of is the one made by the Prophet (p) to Medinah, not an earlier one, made by some Muslims to Abyssinia (to seek refuge from persecution).
[6] For more on the Charter see Zakaria Bashier, Sunshine at Medinah, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1990, pp. 93-120.
[7] Qur'an 4: 59.
:: this was posted by thabet at 21:18
|
|
