Monday, March 07, 2011
PLURALISM is a bad word:
SO begins the first in a series of congressional hearing on Islamic radicalisation in the United States this week. How's it going so far? As usual, not well. Read here.
Whether justified or not, it seems Muslims and talking about Islam with those who are, for one, not Muslims, is always a contentious issue, regardless of the channel or context. There's just something about talking about it that fills Muslims in the public eye with a sense of an allusion to (mind the pun), submission. There's an almost an arrogance when it comes to the aversion of conversing about the religion out loud, because doing so would be seen as flawed, a concession that Islam could actually be subject to debate.
Who said it wasn't?
"Verily, the vilest of all creatures in the sight of God are those deaf, those dumb ones who do not use their reason." [8:22]
"And most certainly have We destined for hell many of the invisible beings and human being who have hearts with which they fail to grasp the truth, and eyes with which they fail to see, and ears with which they fail to hear. They are like cattle -nay, they are even less conscious of the right way it is they, they who are the [truly] heedless!" [7:179]
"Verily, in the creation of the heavens and of the earth, and the succession of night and day: and in the ships that speed through the sea with what is useful to man: and in the waters which God sends down from the sky, giving life thereby to the earth after it had been lifeless, and causing all manner of living creatures to multiply thereon: and in the change of the winds, and the clouds that run their appointed courses between sky and earth: [in all this] there are messages/signs indeed for people who use their reason." [2:164]
"Do they not travel through the land, so that their hearts (and minds) may thus use reason and their ears may thus learn to hear? Truly it is not their eyes that are blind, but their hearts which are in their breasts." [22:46]
These are but a few examples in the Qur'an that exemplifies the need and encouragement from Allah for all to use the capacity for reasoning he has bestowed upon us.
Yet, many fail to.
Yesterday, in New York City, 300 protestors gathered in Times Square to speak out against the hearing, criticising it as xenophobic and saying that singling out Muslims, rather than extremists, is unfair. Fair enough. So, should the hearings focus instead on extremists? Sure, because they'll be listening right?
No, the history of inter-faith dialogues with Muslim parties has been a littered mess, not just in the US, but here as well. So how goes our stab at it? Repressed to the point of being stamped out to death by then Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who stated inter-faith forums be stopped as “they are deemed to cause tension in our multi-religious society” (Habib and Shari, 2006), it has since come a short way since.
While the (cautiously) optimistic saw the glimmer of hope in current PM Najib Tun Razak's proposed rebirth of the "trend" last year with the formation of the (initially) "Special Committee to Promote Inter-Religious Harmony and Understanding", (where even the mere name was a point of argument, with the council of mufti's claiming the word 'Inter-Religious' would cause 'confusion' among Malaysian Muslims. How interestingly, and quite predictably, low the perceived level of common sense and reason they prescribe to us Malaysian Muslims. It has since been changed to Committee for the Understanding and Harmony among Religious Adherents.) the glow, dim though it was when it started, sure hasn't made any real headway. For a more thorough look at the sad, sad road of pluralism in Malaysia, take a gander here.
Of course, it would be naive to believe that personal religious belief is not a contentious issue. It is a matter close to the heart, and with all such things, tied inextricably with our feelings of personal worth, of acceptance, of community, of love. To rouse our feelings about any of these things is to stoke a fireball of emotions. And emotions, when they feel so right, can kill any amount of reason.
Talking about one's faith, in the context of other faiths, is, dear readers, not blasphemy, in my humble (and non-State appointed) reason. It does not toe the line of apostasy, or run counter to Islamic teaching. Talking, sharing, guiding, listening, conversing, discussing, debating, deliberating, consulting, examining, reviewing, analysing and exchanging views - these are things encouraged in Islam. These should be things encouraged by everybody, to everybody. Inter-faith dialogue is not a competition to test which religious adherents are the most convincing, or which religion is right or wrong, better or worse.
So, many will ask, what is the point then? What would it solve?
Nothing.
There's is nothing to be solved in the question of religious pluralism. Except for one thing: how to achieve what little sense of peace is possible while we still have the ability to.
posted by fuzzkill 10:59 am
Whether justified or not, it seems Muslims and talking about Islam with those who are, for one, not Muslims, is always a contentious issue, regardless of the channel or context. There's just something about talking about it that fills Muslims in the public eye with a sense of an allusion to (mind the pun), submission. There's an almost an arrogance when it comes to the aversion of conversing about the religion out loud, because doing so would be seen as flawed, a concession that Islam could actually be subject to debate.
Who said it wasn't?
"Verily, the vilest of all creatures in the sight of God are those deaf, those dumb ones who do not use their reason." [8:22]
"And most certainly have We destined for hell many of the invisible beings and human being who have hearts with which they fail to grasp the truth, and eyes with which they fail to see, and ears with which they fail to hear. They are like cattle -nay, they are even less conscious of the right way it is they, they who are the [truly] heedless!" [7:179]
"Verily, in the creation of the heavens and of the earth, and the succession of night and day: and in the ships that speed through the sea with what is useful to man: and in the waters which God sends down from the sky, giving life thereby to the earth after it had been lifeless, and causing all manner of living creatures to multiply thereon: and in the change of the winds, and the clouds that run their appointed courses between sky and earth: [in all this] there are messages/signs indeed for people who use their reason." [2:164]
"Do they not travel through the land, so that their hearts (and minds) may thus use reason and their ears may thus learn to hear? Truly it is not their eyes that are blind, but their hearts which are in their breasts." [22:46]
These are but a few examples in the Qur'an that exemplifies the need and encouragement from Allah for all to use the capacity for reasoning he has bestowed upon us.
Yet, many fail to.
Yesterday, in New York City, 300 protestors gathered in Times Square to speak out against the hearing, criticising it as xenophobic and saying that singling out Muslims, rather than extremists, is unfair. Fair enough. So, should the hearings focus instead on extremists? Sure, because they'll be listening right?
No, the history of inter-faith dialogues with Muslim parties has been a littered mess, not just in the US, but here as well. So how goes our stab at it? Repressed to the point of being stamped out to death by then Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who stated inter-faith forums be stopped as “they are deemed to cause tension in our multi-religious society” (Habib and Shari, 2006), it has since come a short way since.
While the (cautiously) optimistic saw the glimmer of hope in current PM Najib Tun Razak's proposed rebirth of the "trend" last year with the formation of the (initially) "Special Committee to Promote Inter-Religious Harmony and Understanding", (where even the mere name was a point of argument, with the council of mufti's claiming the word 'Inter-Religious' would cause 'confusion' among Malaysian Muslims. How interestingly, and quite predictably, low the perceived level of common sense and reason they prescribe to us Malaysian Muslims. It has since been changed to Committee for the Understanding and Harmony among Religious Adherents.) the glow, dim though it was when it started, sure hasn't made any real headway. For a more thorough look at the sad, sad road of pluralism in Malaysia, take a gander here.
Of course, it would be naive to believe that personal religious belief is not a contentious issue. It is a matter close to the heart, and with all such things, tied inextricably with our feelings of personal worth, of acceptance, of community, of love. To rouse our feelings about any of these things is to stoke a fireball of emotions. And emotions, when they feel so right, can kill any amount of reason.
Talking about one's faith, in the context of other faiths, is, dear readers, not blasphemy, in my humble (and non-State appointed) reason. It does not toe the line of apostasy, or run counter to Islamic teaching. Talking, sharing, guiding, listening, conversing, discussing, debating, deliberating, consulting, examining, reviewing, analysing and exchanging views - these are things encouraged in Islam. These should be things encouraged by everybody, to everybody. Inter-faith dialogue is not a competition to test which religious adherents are the most convincing, or which religion is right or wrong, better or worse.
So, many will ask, what is the point then? What would it solve?
Nothing.
There's is nothing to be solved in the question of religious pluralism. Except for one thing: how to achieve what little sense of peace is possible while we still have the ability to.
posted by fuzzkill 10:59 am
