There is undoubtedly a fine line
between noble liberals who stand up for the disenfranchised Muslims, taking a
stand against Islamophobes, and those who speak up for the many, particularly
women, who feel completely oppressed by the religion of their birth.
As one
who abhors religious fundamentalism of any form, and cannot
honestly take any religion seriously,
other than for its therapeutic and cathartic side effects,
I have always attempted to be as true to my conscience as I possibly can when
it comes to taking a stance of this nature.
Yet when it comes to arguing for or against much of the Islamic response
to Western ideology I find myself somewhat betwixt and between.
Why? Well simply because I can see the argument
from just about all three dimensional sides (the naïve and narrow-minded West,
the naïve though well intentioned liberal Islamic supporters and the downtrodden
women and gays born into Islam). I do
not however see the argument for persecution and murder in the name of any
religion; Christian, Jewish, Islamic or any other. After all they have been the main perpetrators
throughout history and continue to be to this day, neither one better than the
other. Of course, always with the argument
of, “but when it’s in the name of ‘my’
god, then it’s sanctioned by the Holy one and therefore justified”. Interesting how ‘god’ appears to be the instigator
of so much murder and mayhem from all sides throughout history, because ‘he’ is
the justification for it after-all. And
all in the name of ‘peace’! Rather, I am
conflicted because I detest religious fundamentalism and their ‘black and white’
tinted spectacled view on the world around them, indoctrinated by parents,
teachers and preachers during their most vulnerable years, as much as I’m
appalled by the xenophobic blanket approach by many around me when it comes to
Islam as a whole.
The truth as I see it is complex
and yet very simple. Islam is not that dissimilar
to Judaism and much of Christianity, particularly Catholicism (Ooh, I know some
will be angry with that statement..). After
all, they all have one ‘god’ (call ‘it’ what you will), dress has evolved from
similar garb, traditions of bowing down, going on one’s knees, chanting, hypnotising,
food restrictions at particular times, palatial places of worship, passing
judgement, and of course passing the collection basket. These are all common traits and yet certainly
not an exhaustive list by any means. But
within each of those, moral guides and generally well intentioned religious
books (not forgetting the major parts eliminated or bastardised to suit ‘the
cause’ over time), there is too much room for human interpretation and
misinterpretation. Assuming of course
that these ‘books’ were in fact written, or even inspired by ‘the holy one’ ‘himself’,
‘he’ did ‘himself’ no favours by allowing space for misinterpretation and prognostication
to creep in. As a result the sects that
now exist, having felt disenfranchised or side-lined by the mainstream for
whatever reason (as Jesus did 2000 odd years ago), have felt compelled to start
their own version of the religion to suit their own means. Of course, believe what you will, but man passed down these stories for centuries
via word-of-mouth before others wrote the ‘books’ in the first place, and
therefore much of the translation has been lost, and much has been misconstrued
to suit the preachers of the day.
I would argue that much like
Workers Unions, all Religious Foundations are for the enrichment of the top
dogs, who fleece the flock in the name of what is apparently all in the flock’s
best interests. The more naïve and
downtrodden they are the better. Let the Vatican’s billions be a great example
of that. But it must be highlighted that
it was ‘men’ who wrote these books (unless some of the bits left out were also
penned by women), and therefore rather sexist and demeaning of women in
general. After-all, they were apparently
the ‘temptresses of all things evil’
according to some interpretations. I should
know, my wife often temps me into partaking of yet another glass of wine.. Perhaps it could therefore be argued that ‘god’
was rather clumsy in his manufacturing prowess after creating ‘perfect man in his own image’, having also
created the window of opportunity for ‘evil’ to creep in, in the first
place. Of course ‘he’ created everything,
so there’s no room for being selective here to suit our cause is there? But I digress..
On the other hand however, there
are many women, particularly Muslim women and gay Muslims, who have absolutely
no voice. Many are oppressed, mostly out
of ignorance and ‘tradition’, and ridiculous interpretations of Islamic laws
and beliefs originally penned by men
in the very first place. Men on the
whole have always preferred their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen,
or else if they must go out, under
wraps for fear of losing them to temptation.
Just because we are physically stronger (usually), doesn’t make us keepers and controllers of women, surely.
There has to be a place in society for Muslim women and others to openly
and freely speak out for themselves and debate interpretations of their own
faith. Surely they should be able to sit
beside men in the same section of their Mosque and wear whatever they wish to? Why are Muslim men and many women so afraid
of this? Is it because their religion is
so insecure it is perhaps treading on broken glass?
Nevertheless, there is a strong
argument for the fact that people like me, with our so-called liberal, well
intentioned defence of Islam on the whole, that we are in the process in fact
silencing the oppressed within that very religion. The oppressed who are then muzzled by liberal
sympathy for their religion as a whole, warts and all, and therefore left with
no room to raise their voices of discontent.
Some may argue that it is a form of reverse racism that encourages ‘liberals’
to defend the downtrodden, even if some of the criticisms resulting in the 'putting down' are well founded. That may be true.
That said, of course it is up to
those oppressed within any religion to take a stance for themselves, given the
right environment in which to do so. But
with Islam it is no easy feat, as one stands to lose one’s head in the process,
or at best be condemned to stoning. As barbaric
as it may sound, and it is, don’t forget the Jewish stonings which took place
not so long ago, or the pro-choice abortion doctors murdered by Christian
fundamentalists with a ‘directive from God’ to sort out the ‘Devil’ on ‘his’
behalf. None of those religions are in
any place to throw stones within their own glass houses.
So my quandary remains. Do I err on the side of supporting the rights
of good Muslims so that they may continue to take pride of place in society amongst
all of us without prejudice, and their understandable anger at many Western paradoxes
and ambiguous ignorance? Or do I err on
the side of those very ideologies I find abhorrent and demeaning of the very
people they profess to represent, by standing back in silence in order to allow
the voiceless to use the now wide open debate forum to state their case from within?
As with most things in life, I
suspect the answer lies somewhere betwixt and between..
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/10/25/comment/an-open-letter-to-ben-affleck/
No comments:
Post a Comment