Why are we always under attack? No, I’m not talking about terrorism; I’m talking about our culture’s religion stigma. It is often said that religion is the root cause of most of the problems in the world today. It is easy to understand why one would think that. If we examine all the world conflicts going on, many of them (or at least the ones that make the headlines) have something to do with religious conflict. Several secularists tell me that religious fundamentalism is to blame for the plight of our world today. I take great issue with this mentality and would like to explain why.
When we talk about fundamental religious groups we often discuss groups like Al-Qaida, or those kids from “Bible Camp”, but no one ever seems to mention my favorite group of religious fundamentalists; the Quakers. That’s right; Quakers, or rather the Society of Friends, by all means should be considered fundamentalists. These crazy extremists adhere to the fundamentals of their religion so strongly that they won’t even fight in wars! I know what some of you are thinking, ‘what’s the point of religion if not to start wars?’ and that is just my point.
It has become all too comfortable in our society to assume that religion is the primary cause of war and suffering. Religious fundamentalists are just that; people who practice the fundamentals of a religion, and as a professor of mine once said, “what’s the point of having a religion if you aren’t going to practice it?” It’s okay though; I don’t blame everyone for thinking like this. We are products of our time, and often lack the bigger picture that could help us shake off this stigma of religion, so prevalent in our culture.
First let me point out the fact that there are many ideologies that influence the behavior of societies that have nothing to do with religion. Just an examination of 20th century history would explain my point. Nationalism, for quite sometime, has been the key subject of confrontation in Europe, and recently the Middle East. World War one is a perfect example. Slavic nationalism led to the perpetual unfolding of events that caused the war, and Arab nationalism sprung up in the Ottoman Empire. During World War 2, Hitler’s idea of a supreme Arian race was not a religiously inspired idea, but a nationalist one that envisioned a greater Germany.
I would argue that even conflicts that seem religious on the service are really nationalist. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a perfect example. Israel is certainly a Jewish state, ethnically. Israel is not Jewish in the sense that national law is derived from religious law. There are many secular groups in Israel, and this does not make them less Israeli. Palestinians on the other hand are not monolithically Muslim. There were (although the numbers are rapidly decreasing) a significant number of Christian Palestinians. As a matter of fact there are Christian and Muslim citizens of Israel. This conflict, which many feel the need to describe in apocalyptic terms, is really one about the emergence of two national movements in the same territory that is if you acknowledge both sides as legitimate national movements, which I do.
Also, we cannot ignore the drive of economics. Economic factors always have a role in global affairs. Most often, nations are driven by their particular interest. Economics and economic philosophies have been they cause of many conflicts involving our own nation, more so than religion, even though the United States has the highest church attendance in the western world.
Hermeneutics has grown in popularity, and with it the idea that meaning is not inherent in a text, but is negotiated between the text’s author and the reader or observer. I bring this up because this is vital to breaking this religion-stigma. The religion itself, and by that I mean the text and fundamentals of the religion, are usually not the cause of conflict. However, it cannot be denied that religion plays a large role in many of the world conflicts today. This is where hermeneutics is important. The meaning of a text is negotiated. We bring something to the text, which influence how we interpret it. Therefore, before you blame the Bible or Qur’an think to yourself, can these words really be causing us all this pain? No, it’s the other half, the interpreter that derives a message from this text, that free will on the other side of the page.
This is the key. Faith is a powerful thing, but faith cannot be handed to you in a book, and neither can hate. Whether it is religion, nationalism, or economics, we ultimately decide how we will act. So do not be afraid of religion, after all other intangible ideas such as Freedom and Liberty can inspire conflict or reconciliation just as much as religion. We need to learn how to embrace religion and find ways to help it unite us in a humanizing manner, not divide us. After all, we don’t need religion to divide us; we can do that all on our own.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A Better Question for Fundamentalism: By James Kim, QC Student
What if the floorboard in my house spoke? Well, in the way actions speak, so does my floorboard. Surprisingly, this board remembers where it’s from, how it was shaped, where it is (sort of), and it has an idea where it’s going after its purpose under my feet is exhausted. It’s a chore now because I need to be extra careful about where I’m stepping and how I do so. Cleaning is worlds more unnerving – I mean, it speaks; it has a history of its own and may even outlive me. It’s practically human.
Floorboard refers to its own history simply as ‘reverse engineering.’ Through reverse engineering I get to learn how ‘he’ or ‘she’ came about. Before he came to Bayside, New York he lived an enclosed existence wedged between brother and sister boards for months.
Being a White Oak, he was born in a forest of Quebec, Canada before lumberjacks felled him. He was eminent, but his many limbs were cut nonetheless. As he explains how they cut him to pieces, I realize this one board is only a smaller part of him. He’s lucky he wasn’t chipped, though parts of his larger self may have been. Afterward, the jacks, as other trees called them, took Floorboard and others to the mill for more resizing.
Telling this story reminds Floorboard that he isn’t merely a floorboard, but essentially, a White Oak tree. It reminds me that even though the jacks cut down, resized, and reshaped him, he is still wood of the species quercus alba. It is natural for him to do this – to dwell on what he is fundamentally: Wood. Like I said, it’s a good thing he wasn’t chipped.
Not everyone interested in religion is ready to talk about ‘Fundamentalism.’ For one, it’s uncouth to discuss it openly in a pluralistic society like ours. And most Americans associate the word to images of smoke, fire, or just good old-fashioned fear. However, if we learned anything from my floorboard it’s that all or most of our values derive from fundamentals planted in us during our sponge-like period of childhood. Therefore, you and I are fundamentalists in varying degrees; maybe not ‘Fundamentalist’, but definitely ‘fundamentalist’ in the lower case. We all bring to the door what we think is right. The problem in society lies not in whether or not a group is termed fundamental, but in the fundamental itself.
In the essay, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis writes that it’s the fundamental that “will condition him [the student] to take one side of a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.” Have you ever just believed in something without knowing why or how you do?
I think it’s right to infer that what we believe at the core of us makes us. Moreover, it’s what we are that will have the greatest impact in our society. With that said, what are we? And what is it that’s making us what we are?
All ideologies produce something. If you think of people merely as a faceless mass, it’s probably because somewhere in your thinking you added that a communitarian life is the best kind of life, and that the individual is insignificant. This, in turn, may lead you to crassly treat or view people like cattle. In another instance, one might feel that the individual is quintessential while the community is a dilution of personality. If so, that person may have predilections to extremely selfish, self-destructive behavior, which tends to precipitate wars, social injustices, and deep bereavements.
Religion’s purpose is important, but more important than this for us is religion’s results. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, "Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial." The results of religion and philosophy depend on the core fundamental of that religion and philosophy.
Observing some case-studies we are reminded of Mr. Floorboard’s principle of real value in fundamentals. One case involves a desegregationist and the ideologies at work within him. Clearly it’s the ideological edifice built on the teachings of Jesus Christ (concurrent with the non-violent teachings of Mohandas Gandhi) that led Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to help integrate African Americans when racism in America was reaching fever-pitch. King chooses to use those fundamentals inside him to induce change, but he could have easily chosen the path of passive, moral stagnation. This attitude he possesses does not come from nowhere.
Taking a closer look, that which fueled King’s particular fundamentals was the fundamental of Jesus Christ. His being that he didn’t kowtow to the time’s fundamental of violence; but instead, he instituted real moral advancements – rather than hate, forgive; do more than forgive, love; don’t just love, sacrifice yourself so that person can live. This is far from violent, and far from moribund.
These fundamentals are different. One belief is found on the premise that the strong eat the weak; another one is built on the premise that, like the ancient Greeks, the many gods compete and are indifferent toward humans – violence is amoral. Others feel that their honor-based culture defines them – if you pain me, I am obligated to pain you. Still, others value the almighty dollar that buys power and comfort. For some, it entails an innocent man hanging on a cross forgiving the very people who hung him there. The crux of the matter is not that some fundamentals are viable and others are not. But it’s that there is a set of fundamentals that lead people into loving, forgiving, peace-seeking, self-sacrificing behavior.
Let’s take time and look introspectively into our own lives, see where all our ideas come from, and either do something about it or take a seat behind the monolithic wall of obscurity erected by the likes of hypocrites and critics. The world, humanity, and possibly even your soul depend on it. So what’s your fundamental and what is it making you, you fundamentalist?
Floorboard refers to its own history simply as ‘reverse engineering.’ Through reverse engineering I get to learn how ‘he’ or ‘she’ came about. Before he came to Bayside, New York he lived an enclosed existence wedged between brother and sister boards for months.
Being a White Oak, he was born in a forest of Quebec, Canada before lumberjacks felled him. He was eminent, but his many limbs were cut nonetheless. As he explains how they cut him to pieces, I realize this one board is only a smaller part of him. He’s lucky he wasn’t chipped, though parts of his larger self may have been. Afterward, the jacks, as other trees called them, took Floorboard and others to the mill for more resizing.
Telling this story reminds Floorboard that he isn’t merely a floorboard, but essentially, a White Oak tree. It reminds me that even though the jacks cut down, resized, and reshaped him, he is still wood of the species quercus alba. It is natural for him to do this – to dwell on what he is fundamentally: Wood. Like I said, it’s a good thing he wasn’t chipped.
Not everyone interested in religion is ready to talk about ‘Fundamentalism.’ For one, it’s uncouth to discuss it openly in a pluralistic society like ours. And most Americans associate the word to images of smoke, fire, or just good old-fashioned fear. However, if we learned anything from my floorboard it’s that all or most of our values derive from fundamentals planted in us during our sponge-like period of childhood. Therefore, you and I are fundamentalists in varying degrees; maybe not ‘Fundamentalist’, but definitely ‘fundamentalist’ in the lower case. We all bring to the door what we think is right. The problem in society lies not in whether or not a group is termed fundamental, but in the fundamental itself.
In the essay, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis writes that it’s the fundamental that “will condition him [the student] to take one side of a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.” Have you ever just believed in something without knowing why or how you do?
I think it’s right to infer that what we believe at the core of us makes us. Moreover, it’s what we are that will have the greatest impact in our society. With that said, what are we? And what is it that’s making us what we are?
All ideologies produce something. If you think of people merely as a faceless mass, it’s probably because somewhere in your thinking you added that a communitarian life is the best kind of life, and that the individual is insignificant. This, in turn, may lead you to crassly treat or view people like cattle. In another instance, one might feel that the individual is quintessential while the community is a dilution of personality. If so, that person may have predilections to extremely selfish, self-destructive behavior, which tends to precipitate wars, social injustices, and deep bereavements.
Religion’s purpose is important, but more important than this for us is religion’s results. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, "Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial." The results of religion and philosophy depend on the core fundamental of that religion and philosophy.
Observing some case-studies we are reminded of Mr. Floorboard’s principle of real value in fundamentals. One case involves a desegregationist and the ideologies at work within him. Clearly it’s the ideological edifice built on the teachings of Jesus Christ (concurrent with the non-violent teachings of Mohandas Gandhi) that led Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to help integrate African Americans when racism in America was reaching fever-pitch. King chooses to use those fundamentals inside him to induce change, but he could have easily chosen the path of passive, moral stagnation. This attitude he possesses does not come from nowhere.
Taking a closer look, that which fueled King’s particular fundamentals was the fundamental of Jesus Christ. His being that he didn’t kowtow to the time’s fundamental of violence; but instead, he instituted real moral advancements – rather than hate, forgive; do more than forgive, love; don’t just love, sacrifice yourself so that person can live. This is far from violent, and far from moribund.
These fundamentals are different. One belief is found on the premise that the strong eat the weak; another one is built on the premise that, like the ancient Greeks, the many gods compete and are indifferent toward humans – violence is amoral. Others feel that their honor-based culture defines them – if you pain me, I am obligated to pain you. Still, others value the almighty dollar that buys power and comfort. For some, it entails an innocent man hanging on a cross forgiving the very people who hung him there. The crux of the matter is not that some fundamentals are viable and others are not. But it’s that there is a set of fundamentals that lead people into loving, forgiving, peace-seeking, self-sacrificing behavior.
Let’s take time and look introspectively into our own lives, see where all our ideas come from, and either do something about it or take a seat behind the monolithic wall of obscurity erected by the likes of hypocrites and critics. The world, humanity, and possibly even your soul depend on it. So what’s your fundamental and what is it making you, you fundamentalist?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Are all Muslims Terrorists?: By Sanjida Alam, QC Student
Presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo, a Representative for Colorado, told 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, that the best way he can think of to deter a nuclear attack on U.S soil by terrorists is to threaten to retaliate with attacking Islamic holy sites such as Mecca and Medina. When the media juggernaut CNN ran this article on their website, they were met with an overwhelming response. While the majority of the respondents opposed his plan, there were many people who congratulated him for his bold statement and finally taking a stand for this country. "I totally agree with him"; "We should have hit Mecca and Medina on Sept 12, 2001, just for a warm up" and "Tancredo’s comments are spot on! The best time to hit these sites would be when they are full of worshippers" are among the dozens of responses from people who supported Congressman Tancredo. As I read through the hundreds of responses one thing became blatantly clear, in America there is a stigma that goes with being a Muslim. Over the last few years, the ways Americans perceive Muslims have changed dramatically. The word "Muslim" has become synonymous with terrorism. People living in America have a pre-conceived notion that all Muslims hate Americans and other Non-Muslims. I grew up in the Middle Eastern country known as United Arab Emirate. This is predominantly a Muslim country but growing up I saw Santa Clause and beautifully decorated Christmas Trees peeking through people’s windows and in store fronts. My family and I attended many Christmas parties, so the concept that all Muslim hates Non-Muslims was not only unheard of, it was unfathomable.
Islam is a 7th century monotheistic religion introduced by Muhammad (SAW). It is the second largest religion in the world following Christianity. Muslim people come from all corners of the earth, such as, Asia, Africa, China, Western Europe and the Middle East. There are two major sects that make up the demographics of Islam, Sunni group and Shi’a group. There are 30-40 countries around the world with Muslim majority population. Middle East accounts for only 20% of all the Muslims worldwide while South Asia and Southeast Asia contain the most populous Muslim countries, with Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India having more than 100 million Muslims in each country. It is also one of the fastest growing religion today. Around 1.4 billion people follow the teachings of Islam. Muslims believe that God revealed his final message to humanity through prophet Muhammad (SAW) via the angel Gabriel. For them, Muhammad was God’s final prophet and the Quran is the book of divine guidance for mankind. According to the Quran there are five duties that every Muslims must follow in the course of their life. They must fast during Ramadan, make a pilgrimage to Mecca, pay taxes to charity, pray five times a day and belief in the oneness of God. Minority of the Muslims also considers Jihad to be the sixth pillar.
The word Jihad has become increasingly controversial around the world since 9/11. Jihad means struggle to improve oneself and or society in the way of god. The true meaning of jihad is not conversion of non-muslims using force but rather expanding the Islamic state. After Muhammad’s death on 632 A.D, tribal war and fight for dominance broke out througout Middle East. Somewhere along the making of history the word "Jihad" lost it’s origianl defination and today it is known as holy warfare. After some intense research it was clear that Jihad is more political than it ever was religious.
After 9/11 are Tom Tancredo’s supporters justified for their anger? The terrorists destroyed two landmarks that was the heart and soul of New York City. New Yorkers use to look at the twin Tower with pride. It showed wealth and power. It not only made the New York skyline look beautiful but that very image has persuaded millions of tourists to visit New York City. Destroying the building took away a part of history that New Yorker’s were extremely proud of. After this retaliation seems to be the logical thing to do. However, as Americans and being the most powerful country in the world, should we answer violence with violence? Should we also play the same game the terrorists are playing? Should we also be tear apart families and destroy innocent lives? These terrorists are using Islam for their own incentives. They have taken Islam hostage and it is up to us and most importantly is it up to the Muslims to raise up and claim back what’s rightfully theirs.
Islam is a 7th century monotheistic religion introduced by Muhammad (SAW). It is the second largest religion in the world following Christianity. Muslim people come from all corners of the earth, such as, Asia, Africa, China, Western Europe and the Middle East. There are two major sects that make up the demographics of Islam, Sunni group and Shi’a group. There are 30-40 countries around the world with Muslim majority population. Middle East accounts for only 20% of all the Muslims worldwide while South Asia and Southeast Asia contain the most populous Muslim countries, with Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India having more than 100 million Muslims in each country. It is also one of the fastest growing religion today. Around 1.4 billion people follow the teachings of Islam. Muslims believe that God revealed his final message to humanity through prophet Muhammad (SAW) via the angel Gabriel. For them, Muhammad was God’s final prophet and the Quran is the book of divine guidance for mankind. According to the Quran there are five duties that every Muslims must follow in the course of their life. They must fast during Ramadan, make a pilgrimage to Mecca, pay taxes to charity, pray five times a day and belief in the oneness of God. Minority of the Muslims also considers Jihad to be the sixth pillar.
The word Jihad has become increasingly controversial around the world since 9/11. Jihad means struggle to improve oneself and or society in the way of god. The true meaning of jihad is not conversion of non-muslims using force but rather expanding the Islamic state. After Muhammad’s death on 632 A.D, tribal war and fight for dominance broke out througout Middle East. Somewhere along the making of history the word "Jihad" lost it’s origianl defination and today it is known as holy warfare. After some intense research it was clear that Jihad is more political than it ever was religious.
After 9/11 are Tom Tancredo’s supporters justified for their anger? The terrorists destroyed two landmarks that was the heart and soul of New York City. New Yorkers use to look at the twin Tower with pride. It showed wealth and power. It not only made the New York skyline look beautiful but that very image has persuaded millions of tourists to visit New York City. Destroying the building took away a part of history that New Yorker’s were extremely proud of. After this retaliation seems to be the logical thing to do. However, as Americans and being the most powerful country in the world, should we answer violence with violence? Should we also play the same game the terrorists are playing? Should we also be tear apart families and destroy innocent lives? These terrorists are using Islam for their own incentives. They have taken Islam hostage and it is up to us and most importantly is it up to the Muslims to raise up and claim back what’s rightfully theirs.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
A Middle East Marshall Plan: Overcoming Obstacles
Will's comment to the previous post entitled "Stemming Extremism: An Economic Solution" pointed out that a Marshall Plan for the Middle East would be difficult to achieve in light of government corruption. Moreover, he stated that countries such as Saudi Arabia have vast wealth that is hoarded by a few elites, utilized to finance personalized Boeing jets, yet unavailable for the development of the economy and the creation of jobs for the hoi polloi.
Like anything else, big plans must start small and branch out. The best place to start with a serious Marshall Plan that would also bolster US standing in the Middle East, would be the West Bank. Years of negotiations have failed to produce a Palestinian state and it is thus time to flip the Rubik's Cube over and try to solve the I/P conflict in a different way. Solving the I/P conflict would do wonders for US/Arab relations in the Middle East, removing an oft-repeated reason for Western hatred and demonstrating that peace is possible between Jews and Muslims.
Vast economic aid to the Palestinians aimed at building a veritable infrastructure in the West Bank would do wonders for the Palestinians. Vast building projects would keep people occupied for years and provide much needed jobs and cash as Palestinians create great cities in the West Bank, similar to Jerusalem. While such a program should be concomitantly pursued in Gaza, Hamas' takeover of the area may obviate such a possibility for the foreseeable future; however, with serious economic growth in the West Bank, Palestinians in Gaza may force Hamas to alter its views and pursue a model similar to the West Bank, or overthrow the government and call for the reinstatement of Fatah.
The type of Marshall Plan I am proposing is outside of traditional theoretical paradigms of how to deal with the I/P conflict. Traditional thinking has said that we must negotiate a solution to the I/P conflict and then work to build an economically viable Palestinian state, thus perpetuating the conflict as repeated failed negotiations have led to despair and poor economic conditions, providing new recruits to extremist organizations. Why not simply assume that today is the day after a solution and the Palestinians must frenetically commence to build up their infrastructure? And once a viable economy is established, Palestinian leaders will have the support of their people to make compromises for peace that will, hopefully, pave the way for full economic cooperation among the Arab States and Israel. One of the biggest obstacles to peace has been the lack of strong Palestinian leaders like Anwar Sadat who had the courage to make peace with Menachem Begin at Camp David.
If successful, such an economic rejuvenation model can be transplanted to other regions of the Middle East, where poor economic conditions have created varying pathologies, among which is the willingness of youth to join extremist groups such as Al Qaeda.
Dealing with Saudi Arabia and her people is a very complex issue; however, I do believe once a Marshall Plan paradigm is created in the West Bank, the Saudi royal family will have to react positively, especially if Saudi Arabians demand the same for their country. The Saudi royal family may also jump on board if a vast economic plan for the Middle East means that the country on a whole will benefit dramatically, providing the mullahs with additional, heretofore unforeseen cash possibilities.
From a historical point of view, it is interesting to re-examine the Muslim Golden Age where Muslims made vast contributions to the betterment of mankind and were an integral part of a Mediterranean/European trade nexus. The point to think about is how can we bring back those days of old. What can be done to jump start a true renaissance in the Middle East? The key, I believe, is a Marshall Plan that starts with the West Bank.
Like anything else, big plans must start small and branch out. The best place to start with a serious Marshall Plan that would also bolster US standing in the Middle East, would be the West Bank. Years of negotiations have failed to produce a Palestinian state and it is thus time to flip the Rubik's Cube over and try to solve the I/P conflict in a different way. Solving the I/P conflict would do wonders for US/Arab relations in the Middle East, removing an oft-repeated reason for Western hatred and demonstrating that peace is possible between Jews and Muslims.
Vast economic aid to the Palestinians aimed at building a veritable infrastructure in the West Bank would do wonders for the Palestinians. Vast building projects would keep people occupied for years and provide much needed jobs and cash as Palestinians create great cities in the West Bank, similar to Jerusalem. While such a program should be concomitantly pursued in Gaza, Hamas' takeover of the area may obviate such a possibility for the foreseeable future; however, with serious economic growth in the West Bank, Palestinians in Gaza may force Hamas to alter its views and pursue a model similar to the West Bank, or overthrow the government and call for the reinstatement of Fatah.
The type of Marshall Plan I am proposing is outside of traditional theoretical paradigms of how to deal with the I/P conflict. Traditional thinking has said that we must negotiate a solution to the I/P conflict and then work to build an economically viable Palestinian state, thus perpetuating the conflict as repeated failed negotiations have led to despair and poor economic conditions, providing new recruits to extremist organizations. Why not simply assume that today is the day after a solution and the Palestinians must frenetically commence to build up their infrastructure? And once a viable economy is established, Palestinian leaders will have the support of their people to make compromises for peace that will, hopefully, pave the way for full economic cooperation among the Arab States and Israel. One of the biggest obstacles to peace has been the lack of strong Palestinian leaders like Anwar Sadat who had the courage to make peace with Menachem Begin at Camp David.
If successful, such an economic rejuvenation model can be transplanted to other regions of the Middle East, where poor economic conditions have created varying pathologies, among which is the willingness of youth to join extremist groups such as Al Qaeda.
Dealing with Saudi Arabia and her people is a very complex issue; however, I do believe once a Marshall Plan paradigm is created in the West Bank, the Saudi royal family will have to react positively, especially if Saudi Arabians demand the same for their country. The Saudi royal family may also jump on board if a vast economic plan for the Middle East means that the country on a whole will benefit dramatically, providing the mullahs with additional, heretofore unforeseen cash possibilities.
From a historical point of view, it is interesting to re-examine the Muslim Golden Age where Muslims made vast contributions to the betterment of mankind and were an integral part of a Mediterranean/European trade nexus. The point to think about is how can we bring back those days of old. What can be done to jump start a true renaissance in the Middle East? The key, I believe, is a Marshall Plan that starts with the West Bank.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Stemming Radicalism: An Economic Solution?
Will's comments are right on. We need increased religious education in the U.S. so that students are better prepared to deal with disparate peoples they encounter in our increasingly globalized, hyper-interconnected world. Will's ideas can be implemented through educational legislation passed by the House, Senate and local government to increase the time spent on teaching about other religions. Such change can be achieved by lobbying politicians and creating grassroots movements focused specifically on education.
One question it would be interesting to address, however, is what fuels radicalism? The reason the question is so fascinating is because many believe that if we can understand the root reason people become radicalized we can work to prevent such radicalization in the future, even if we might not be able to affect change in those who have taken the path of extremism.
Scholars, of course, have written extensively on this very question and the answers provided range from discontent with encroachment of Western, materialistic ideals into Muslim countries, to frustration centering around the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, to desperation in light of living in societies where jobs are scarce and living conditions poor, to extreme religious indoctrination from a young age.
One of the great questions which fascinates me is whether true economic investment in the Middle East could prevent individuals from joining the likes of organizations like Al-Qaeda, or whether such a proposal is merely wishful thinking and other solutions must be pursued. I do believe, as do many others, that economic prosperity is often the catalyst for moderation and avoiding violence.
The idea would be to provide vast aid to Muslim countries--a Marshall plan of sorts--to help them build up extensive infrastructure, thus providing jobs to the people on the ground, leaving less time for radicalism. This would not be money provided with democratic strings attached. We would not attempt to tell these countries how they should be run, but rather provide detailed plans on how infrastructure and jobs could be created, hopefully creating an economic incentive to eschew terrorism and extremism, as people would be more involved with working in building up their own countries.
Do you think such a plan could work or is even necessary? Why do you believe people join extremist organizations like Al-Qaeda and how do you think we can work to prevent such affiliations in the future? What do you believe it would take for people in the Muslim world to change their perceptions of the United States?
One question it would be interesting to address, however, is what fuels radicalism? The reason the question is so fascinating is because many believe that if we can understand the root reason people become radicalized we can work to prevent such radicalization in the future, even if we might not be able to affect change in those who have taken the path of extremism.
Scholars, of course, have written extensively on this very question and the answers provided range from discontent with encroachment of Western, materialistic ideals into Muslim countries, to frustration centering around the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, to desperation in light of living in societies where jobs are scarce and living conditions poor, to extreme religious indoctrination from a young age.
One of the great questions which fascinates me is whether true economic investment in the Middle East could prevent individuals from joining the likes of organizations like Al-Qaeda, or whether such a proposal is merely wishful thinking and other solutions must be pursued. I do believe, as do many others, that economic prosperity is often the catalyst for moderation and avoiding violence.
The idea would be to provide vast aid to Muslim countries--a Marshall plan of sorts--to help them build up extensive infrastructure, thus providing jobs to the people on the ground, leaving less time for radicalism. This would not be money provided with democratic strings attached. We would not attempt to tell these countries how they should be run, but rather provide detailed plans on how infrastructure and jobs could be created, hopefully creating an economic incentive to eschew terrorism and extremism, as people would be more involved with working in building up their own countries.
Do you think such a plan could work or is even necessary? Why do you believe people join extremist organizations like Al-Qaeda and how do you think we can work to prevent such affiliations in the future? What do you believe it would take for people in the Muslim world to change their perceptions of the United States?
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
We need talk
I work a regular blue collar job at a local paint store during the week. Just from dealing with the public on a regular basis, I can tell that we are in dire need of some dialogue. The lack of understanding that I encounter everyday is frightening. Muslim, terrorist, and Taliban are terms used interchangeably without a flinch. Our culture has to be revised and reevaluated if any progress is going to be made.
I think a good place to start is real religious education. Not just education of one's own theology, but having a true understanding of the theology and historic roots of all religions, especially our three Abrahamic faiths. One conservative talk radio show host commented "...we shouldn't call them Muslims, we should call them Jesus-impaired..." This convinced me that there is a wide audience of listeners who are not aware of the fact that Jesus is a prophet of Islam, and the Islamic mystics have a collection of saying and stories about Jesus that rivals the size of the Hadith. It is almost impossible, in my opinion, for a Christian who understands the roots of his/her religion to be so judgemental and lack any sense of compassion. Christianity was once a renegade religion before the fourth century. Christianity was created as a counter-culture movement, and I am afraid that the religion has been so removed from that concept, and so established, that we no longer have compassion for minority religions in our country. Also, let us not forget that early Christians considered themselves "spiritually Jewish." According to the letters of Paul, baptism into the Christian faith is a spiritual circumcision, so Christians, although not ethnically Jewish, have entered into the same covenant with God that the Jewish people have. According to the Vatican II Council, the Jewish people remain the chosen people of God and followers of the faith are guaranteed paradise just as Christians are. Therefore it seems ridiculous, on a theological basis, that Christians should have any animosity towards Jews.
The relationship between Muslims and Jews, from a theological perspective, should also have no grounds for confrontation. As a matter of fact Islam and Judaism are so close in their theology and practices, it makes Christianity look like the outsider. From the concept of Tawheed to dietary laws, Muhammad's religion is really strikingly close to that of Abraham. According to the Qur'an Jews and Christians are promised paradise as well, as long as the recognize tawheed and so on. Sura 2.62 reads "...Indeed, those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians (the religion of John the Baptist)- Any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with the their Lord; On them there shall be no fear, and they shall not grieve." In Judaism as well there is a concept of the righteous gentile, after all Ruth was a Moabite.
So from a theological perspective, is there any basis to hate each other? I would argue that our religion's have been hijacked by people who do not understand the purpose of faith. I believe religion is meant to provide us on earth a means of making society cohesive, not hostile. The best way to come to this conclusion is to study the faiths of other, and put that in context with yours, and I think many of us in this country, and world over, will be surprised with what we find.
I think a good place to start is real religious education. Not just education of one's own theology, but having a true understanding of the theology and historic roots of all religions, especially our three Abrahamic faiths. One conservative talk radio show host commented "...we shouldn't call them Muslims, we should call them Jesus-impaired..." This convinced me that there is a wide audience of listeners who are not aware of the fact that Jesus is a prophet of Islam, and the Islamic mystics have a collection of saying and stories about Jesus that rivals the size of the Hadith. It is almost impossible, in my opinion, for a Christian who understands the roots of his/her religion to be so judgemental and lack any sense of compassion. Christianity was once a renegade religion before the fourth century. Christianity was created as a counter-culture movement, and I am afraid that the religion has been so removed from that concept, and so established, that we no longer have compassion for minority religions in our country. Also, let us not forget that early Christians considered themselves "spiritually Jewish." According to the letters of Paul, baptism into the Christian faith is a spiritual circumcision, so Christians, although not ethnically Jewish, have entered into the same covenant with God that the Jewish people have. According to the Vatican II Council, the Jewish people remain the chosen people of God and followers of the faith are guaranteed paradise just as Christians are. Therefore it seems ridiculous, on a theological basis, that Christians should have any animosity towards Jews.
The relationship between Muslims and Jews, from a theological perspective, should also have no grounds for confrontation. As a matter of fact Islam and Judaism are so close in their theology and practices, it makes Christianity look like the outsider. From the concept of Tawheed to dietary laws, Muhammad's religion is really strikingly close to that of Abraham. According to the Qur'an Jews and Christians are promised paradise as well, as long as the recognize tawheed and so on. Sura 2.62 reads "...Indeed, those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians (the religion of John the Baptist)- Any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with the their Lord; On them there shall be no fear, and they shall not grieve." In Judaism as well there is a concept of the righteous gentile, after all Ruth was a Moabite.
So from a theological perspective, is there any basis to hate each other? I would argue that our religion's have been hijacked by people who do not understand the purpose of faith. I believe religion is meant to provide us on earth a means of making society cohesive, not hostile. The best way to come to this conclusion is to study the faiths of other, and put that in context with yours, and I think many of us in this country, and world over, will be surprised with what we find.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Moving Forward...
The conversation up until now appears to reflect a profound lack of understanding for the "other"-- a term Edward Said has used to categorize those in the Eastern regions of the world whom the West does not truly understand, but rather paints in wide strokes of ignorance aimed at propping up Western notions of ethnocentrism. Whether you agree with someone or not, the most important aspect of dialogue is to learn about his/her culture and ethos, and then attempt to put yourself in that individual’s shoes. Only then will you begin to understand that individual and why he or she acts and thinks the way he or she does. The thinking process of every person on this globe is highly complex and simply dismissing another person's point of view before genuine reflection is disingenuous. Moving forward, this blog is going to focus on presenting aspects of different religions in an effort to accentuate the oft-forgotten commonalities that exist. The greatest gift you can give someone is to be there for them and genuinely listen to what they have to say in a way that reflects true empathy. This blog will hopefully serve as a forum for people to discuss their beliefs and hopes and dreams for that meeting of the minds that is so crucial to the future of our planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)