Ramadaniyat (IIIV)

My grandmother raised me almost as soon as I was born since my mom was too young when she had me, and my next in line sibling came right after, and naturally my mom could not handle both of us. And, although my grandmother was an illiterate person, she was a very intelligent person due to the fact that she was raised in an intellectual environment, where her father was a doctor of medicine as well as a poet with several published books; yet, all his poems were about love in the context of religion. And that was the main reason for her to be a devout person practicing her belief with love and not fear.
My first encounter with religion was through her; she used to recite a verse or tow from her father’s poems, which she knew by heart, whenever I asked about any issue concerning my belief. Yet; they did not divert from the original line of thought.
My mother, on the other hand, although literate, was less religious at the time, and perceived her believes through “good” and “bad”, “permitted” and “taboo”, “heaven” and “hell” and so on.
Being exposed to the different approaches of preaching created in me a natural debating mentality, which started with me rather early, and was mostly palpable in later years of schooling. This got me into a lot of troubles with others. And slowly I withdrew from questioning and took whatever suited me to form my belief within the context of Islam, and discarded what didn’t.
But, as I grew older, and was exposed to different beliefs and religions, I started looking into these beliefs with open mentality but secretively questioning my belief.

The above introduction was only an entrance to the subject of this post; Debate.
Why is debate considered a taboo in one’s belief? And why does the society detest these debates?

A belief, in my opinion, is not just a set of recitations that one acquires under the umbrella of his religion. No, it should not be public. A belief should be a private matter concerning each person alone. And to get a belief; one should question, research, debate; one should also research alternatives with open mind.

Most religious debaters though engulf themselves within the boundaries of their religion, that’s if they permit debate in the first place. And as a result; their answers to questions become repetitive and lengthy, dealing with words more that the issue itself, outlining other people’s thoughts instead of their own. This creates a mentality of which I dub here as being Static. Static mentalities do not allow any divergence from the dogma and the mere divergence from it causes tension that might lead to accusing others of being infidels. Moreover, static mentalities get frustrated when there are no set answers to certain questions, so they fight the debate itself for the fear that it could lead to infidelity.
Yet; debate should not be taken as just a show off of one’s religion, debate should be taken as a tool to reach a belief. Like a puzzle, one works around it, and then says; aha… this must be the most logical answer.
Many philosophers used debate to reach answers, and except for very few; religious philosophers, especially Moslems, used the debate to ornate points that are already existent in the context of their religion, instead of questioning the validity of these points. And the result is not the answer to these questions, rather; a glorification of these points for the intellectual Muslims who seek ready-made answers. That’s why most Moslem philosophers who took a different approach, got either killed or expelled from their societies.
An example of that is women’s basic rights according to Islam; if one already takes his beliefs as dogma, then one does not have to think much about it, there are many ready-made answers to that. Yet, if he wants to prove it, at least to himself, he would run into difficulties, since what he would reach at the end is a mystery if not disbelief. And to lighten this annoying issue from his chest; he’d probably blame it on the clerics who interpreted his religion instead of admitting that it’s a weakness within his religion.

Yeah… go ahead… blame it on the moon

Advertisements

12 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. bosale7
    Sep 29, 2006 @ 17:26:03

    hahahahahah …blame it on the moon
    i like that 🙂

    well…. as for me …. my faith is between god and me …no need to spread it or inforce it
    live and let other live

    Reply

  2. AyyA
    Sep 29, 2006 @ 22:45:00

    Reply

  3. ummel3yal
    Sep 30, 2006 @ 00:32:12

    The answer, I think, can be found in two areas: psychology and sociology 😉

    From a psychological perspective, humans, in general, prefer routines and patterns. This is an evolutionary behavior that help species survive. So it’s not always a bad thing. But, as you hinted, sometimes the pattern is not practical or applicable anymore. So we need to realize that and RISK getting out of our comfort zone and search for other options and maybe create better patterns. Unfortunately not everybody is capable of realizing a disfunctional pattern. And when this is clear, not everyone is willing to take a risk. Or they find that the cost of change is much higher that the benifits. Something like “who moved my cheese” story 😉

    Socially, the reliogious institution is well established. Parenting, education, media and legistlations are all developed to maintain this institution. Questioning means at best being an outcast and at worst being killed. Somewhere in between is being prosecuted and jailed.

    So, in religion, and any other social construct, only few with the right psychological profile (mainly personality) and within the right social context are revolutionary. And those, according to evolution theory, are the most propable to survive on the long run.

    Reply

  4. AyyA
    Sep 30, 2006 @ 01:44:05

    Ummel3yal
    Yes that is true, yet someone has to take this risk, and others have to follow, or otherwise, the dogma will override and slowly the society becomes closed on itself. When issues are not debated and just taken as they are, people start getting used to them, even if they did not believe in them. And as an institution it would eventually get into the smallest details of one’s life and deprive him from his basic rights.

    7ilwa hal “who moved my cheese” story LOL

    Reply

  5. ummel3yal
    Sep 30, 2006 @ 01:56:42

    I don’t know about the “have to” part. I know many, like you for example, will take the risk. Those are typically the social and political leaders. I know some will follow or find their own paths. But I don’t think that history or evolution support the notion that ALL will evolve or survive 🙂 Some will remain where they are till they perish.

    Reply

  6. kila_ma6goog
    Sep 30, 2006 @ 12:38:19

    همم

    بالنسبة للموضوع السابق , فسالفة اللي يقرأ على الماي و هالسوالف لها ناسها

    يعني لازم تكونين واقعية و تعرفين ان الناس ماهم سواسية في مستوى تعليمهم و ثقافتهم و اطلاعهم, في ناس بسطاء يصدقون بهالشي و يرتاحون منه لكن هذه ليست حجة على الاسلام

    و بالنسبة للنقاشات او النمناظرات و الديبايتس فهي حرية شخصية لك

    و ذكرنا بأن اكثر من نبي و رسول و صحابي ناقش رغبات الرب أو تناقش فيها و هذا ايضا شي طبيعي و كون المسلمين اليوم يرفضون فكرة النقاش فهذا من ضعفهم و لكنه ايضا ليس حجة على الاسلام كدين

    انا شخصيا لدي الكثير من الأسئلة و علامات الاستفهام و بكثير من المواضيع و لم و لن اذهب الى رجل دين للسؤال عن هذه المواضيع

    افضل اجدها بنفسي من خلال القراءة, لذلك فقد قرأت القرآن اول مرة بحياتي اختمه كان في شهر يناير 2006

    و الآن أيضا اقرأه في رمضان و احاول افهم كلامه و اجد الحقائق من خلاله, هذا غير قراآتي الأخرى و اللي بالنهاية راح تشكل معتقداتي النهائية

    يعني محد مانعك من البحث و القراءة و تقدرين تسوينها بعيدا عن اي تشويش من رجال الدين او المتدينين او اي احد يعكر مزاجك

    Reply

  7. AyyA
    Oct 01, 2006 @ 01:18:43

    Ummel3yal
    Civilizations come after revolts, without revolutions on the old systems that does not fit the world of today would cause the society to remain years behind, and the problems would eventually mount. Take for example the primitive societies in Africa; because there is no revolution on the traditions of these societies, they stay primitive and years behind. That’s why it’s healthy to have revolutionary, civilized debates.

    KM
    In the last post, I was not trying to blame Islam or degrade Quran, all what I was trying to say is that it is a common belief among Moslems that Quran has miracles. And one of its miracles is being able to heal the sick by recitation. And I showed that a research in laboratory showed that reciting positive words, or one’s positive reaction in a glass of water may have a healing effect, yet, it’s not the Quran which has the miracle, it’s the positive attitude that works with nature to perform such healing effect.
    And about your research in Quran; there is a difference to read Quran and try to prove a point, where you would be naturally biased, than to read it for the purpose of finding faults, otherwise a critical reading.
    If you read it and you have a blind belief in it, all what you’d see is magic and wonderment, but if you read it with a critical eye, then you are questioning it’s authentic nature, and this is the right path for research if you are looking for truth.
    But the question is; do you dare read it with critical eye?

    Reply

  8. neelaah
    Oct 01, 2006 @ 10:31:14

    ايه

    اعتقد انه الله يحب الناس اللي تقربوا اليه بعد ان بحثوا عنه ووجدوه
    اكثر من الناس اللي ورثوا الدين
    واللي اختاروه لانهم لم يتعلموا
    او يقروأ او خلينا نقول حرموا من معرفه ماهية الديانات الاخرى
    من مصادرها الرسميه
    وليس فقط من وجهه نظر الاسلام

    السؤال اثاره بو صالح

    ليش نجادل في الدين
    هل لأننا نريد ان نكون دعاه
    اذا في هذه الحاله جاهري بفكرك
    و جادلي اصطدمي مع الناس

    اما اذا كان الجدل في الدين
    للوصول الى الحقييقه في ذاتنا
    اذا لا تتعبي نفسك
    لان الكثير الكثير
    سيستخدمون سلطة النص لإسكاتك

    الموضوع جدا حميل

    Reply

  9. Tariq Khonji
    Oct 01, 2006 @ 12:21:18

    Hey,
    Like your new site, but one suggestion…would you please make it so that we could cut and paste? It makes it easier to quote you or other posters.
    Tariq

    Reply

  10. AyyA
    Oct 01, 2006 @ 17:13:57

    Neelah
    Thanks for the insight sweetie
    As for debating; in general; I feel that it’s healthy whatever is the reason behind it. After all; there is no absolute truth, or else no one would disagree. Yet the search for truth, or more accurately; one’s own truth is a human propensity although may be dormant with certain individuals due to the personality shaped by his environment. But debating should not be taken as a tool to impose one’s ideas, but to open the horizons to more possibilities.

    Hey Tariq
    Glad you made it here, as for your suggestion, I did not know that you couldn’t do that. I looked through wordpress options and could not find directions. But I will look more into it, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

    Reply

  11. kila_ma6goog
    Oct 01, 2006 @ 22:40:39

    بالفعل و من الحين اقولج لا اجرؤ على قراءة القرآن قراءة ناقدة

    نعم عندما اقرأ معاني لا استوعبها او استجوبها في القرآن افضل ان ارمي عقلي بتهمة القصور في الفهم او التبصر على ان انتقد الآية أو السورة

    شسوي , انا خواف

    Reply

  12. AyyA
    Oct 01, 2006 @ 23:29:59

    KM
    LOL, I love your spontaneous character

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: