It seems that Western civilization requires an other; an outside enemy which is then identified to be implacably evil. Nowadays, that role is served by Muslims. Not only are Muslims and Islam in general under attack in a lot of circles, various aspects of a Muslim lifestyle are also under attack. For example, what exactly is so terrible about the niqab that the French (and other European countries) tremble in fear for their civilization? Or take the whole issue of building mosques. What is so terrible about a mosque that people are up in arms against their construction? Are they afraid that these mosques will serve as bastions of terrorism?
The current flavour of the month as far as fear of Islam goes seems to be the Sharia. Many people and organizations in Western countries see a sinister agenda that Muslims have of imposing Sharia law over their countries through force and deception. For many Westerners, Sharia is the proverbial big bad wolf out to impose harsh, punitive punishments for the slightest transgression. Most people in the West react in a visceral fashion regarding Sharia. The fact of the matter is that by definition, Sharia law is only applicable to Muslims. It is not, indeed cannot be applied to non-Muslims. In this respect, Sharia law is perhaps more liberal than secular law. The latter insists on its universal applicability; everyone must perforce submit to it. Sharia law on the other hand affects only Muslims. Other religious groups are governed by their own set of laws. So perhaps instead of non-Muslims being afraid of Sharia, it should be the other way round. Perhaps Muslims should be afraid of arbitrary imposition of secular law.
It is a great irony that secularism which rests on a foundation of tolerance is itself very intolerant. Secularism is defined as the ability by adults to make decisions regarding themselves free from overt religious compulsion. The key over here is the ability to make decisions in an environment free from coercion. Most people have religion in mind when they think about coercion but what about cases where someone willingly adopts religious rules and practices and is prevented from doing so by secular authorities? Is this not a case where secularism is being intolerant?
The case in point is the burka ban in France. A tiny minority of French Muslim women wear this garment and yet from the hysteria that it has generated in France, one would get the impression that every single French woman is under imminent threat of being forced to wear the garment. Grand principles were invoked in the debate leading upto and beyond the ban. Yet is not the cardinal principle of secularism mentioned above on which France sets such store being violated? A woman who freely (and this is a key point) wants to wear the burka is forcibly being prevented from doing so. Should not secularism also include the ability of adults to make personal choices free from secular coercion? How can you have one and not the other?
It should be kept in mind that any dispensation, secular or religious, will impose certain restrictions on society. These restrictions are necessary for the smooth functioning of society. Without them, anarchy would reign fairly quickly. Most of these restrictions are common across societies. Certain restrictions are imposed based on particular social circumstances of the societies involved. The real issue is the ability of adults to make informed personal choices on all other matters free from all types of coercion.
People have long had a strong fascination with the end of timesmeme. The imminent destruction of the world, typically in a fiery manner, has been a staple of predictions across cultures. While most people have focused on the mechanics of the end of times, the more interesting question is why is there such fascination with such gloomy predictions? Instead of asking how the world will end, it is perhaps more pertinent to explore why people find the end of the world so fascinating.
Since the start of agriculture, humans have had a strong interest in trying to predict the future. There are excellent reasons for doing so. If you are a farmer planning to plant next year's crop, then you want to know whether the rainfalls will come on time or whether the river will flood as it should. You want some predictability in an inherently unpredictable world in order to be able to plan ahead with some degree of confidence. These and other similar reasons were probably the origin of most oracles and seers. Later on as civilization developed and people started congregating in towns and then cities, the importance of future predictions increased. Rulers would want to know what kind of surplus would be generated for use. What the result of battles with the enemy will be like. Will the people be happy or at the very least content. The ruled would want to be able to plan out their lives with some degree of precision. Over time, these arts started becoming more formalized and today we have astrologers who claim to be able to predict personal and national futures.
Along the way, another interesting development took place in the art of predictions. Regular claims of the end times started appearing with increasing frequency. These claims typically increase in frequency during times of national stress. Thus changes in dynasties were usually accompanied by such predictions. They also tend to increase in frequency during significant calendar years. When a millennium change occurs, such predictions surface with greater rapidity. Sometimes they occur due to religious reasons. For example, the early Christians were convinced of the imminent arrival of Jesus in their lifetimes. When the second millennium started, again they were convinced that Jesus was about to come. In recent times, there have been two main drivers of the end time meme. One was the change of the millennium in both the Christian and the Islamic calendars. The other was the Mayan Long Count calendar. The latter is the most accurate calendar devised by humans until the modern era. Its accuracy rivals that of the modern calendar that we use today. This calendar can be used to project dates both backwards and forwards literally thousands of years without any loss of accuracy. Yet the Maya ended their calendar at a date that corresponds to the winter solstice, 2012. Nobody knows why. This mystery has set the stage for a large degree of speculation regarding the significance of this end date.
These two strands taken together have created a buzz that has grown over time as the calendar moves forward into 2012. A variety of predictions and speculation float around the internet. Some predict the coming Age of Aquarius which will bring peace and prosperity while others predict death and destruction on a massive scale from which only a few will be saved. On the face of it, this obsession with the end times is strange. The standard of living that a large number of people enjoy would have been unimaginable to even the richest person just a few generations ago. Over time, more and more people have attained this standard. A large number enjoy amenities that their parents could only dream about. The pace of technological advance has meant that people can now live and work anywhere in the world and not be cut off from their family members left behind. There has been an increase in the variety and quality of food available. The average age of individuals has steadily increased over the last 100 years and shows no sign of slowing down. The average intelligence of the world's population has been increasing over time as a result of better nutrition and greater security.
With all of these positives, why are people attracted towards end world scenarios? Could it be related to the rapid pace of change in society that has occurred in recent times? We are constantly and increasingly rapidly being bombarded with new technologies and ideas that constantly change the way we behave and think. The old certainties of yesterday are gone. They have not been replaced with new ones. In their place, we are left groping in the dark trying to make sense of the new world around us. The older we get, the faster the changes arrive and the more problem we have in adjusting to new realities. Perhaps the attraction of the end time predictions is that they have an aura of certainty around them.
Religion is a powerful organizing force in the world despite massive efforts to belittle its importance and utility. This has been a problem for most governments since religious passions are difficult to predict and control. Authorities interfere with religion at their own peril. We have many examples in history where religion inspired wars and revolutions. The events of 1857 in India, the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, the Mormon migration of 1847 and the many pogroms in Europe throughout the Middle Ages were inspired to a lesser or greater extent by religious passions. As a result, throughout history, authorities in charge have either tried to clamp down on religion usually unsuccessfully or they have tried to co-opt it and make it subservient to the state.
Demagogues and people seeking an issue they can champion find it very easy to raise the cry "[xyz religion] is in danger!" This almost invariably causes large numbers of people to come out in support of their religion. Once a large enough group assembles, mob behavior quickly takes over. The problem for demagogues and society in general is that once this happens, it is almost impossible to control events. Religious passions are easy to ignite but difficult to tamp down. In the heat of the moment, individuals will engage in actions that they would under normal circumstances never consider doing. What such people do not stop to consider this that the religion whose name they have come out to defend is actually being manipulated to serve nefarious interests. This is one aspect of managing religion.
Because of the relative ease with which religious passions can be inspired, rulers have always had a strong interest in making it subservient to the perceived needs of the state. A basic motivation is to prevent religiously inspired riots and insurrections and preserve law and order or at the very least control. A deeper motivation is that religion can be used to make people quiescent. No matter how repressive the regime or social order, religion can be used as a tool to make people quietly accept the existing order. For this purpose, the state often co-opts religious authorities essentially by making them part of the existing establishment so that they have a strong interest in maintaining the existing order. This is another aspect of managing religion.
Sometimes religion is used to stratify societies. Hinduism has used this to great effect. It has divided its adherents into castes and sub-castes. If you are born into a particular caste, you cannot aspire to things and activities reserved for other castes. Castes themselves have a strong hierarchy so that some are superior than others. The beauty of this system is that it is self perpetuating and virtually immune to pressure from within. How can someone challenge the divine order? Doing so means damnation of the soul. In this way, religion is used to perpetuate a class system. This is yet another aspect of managing religion.
In modern times and specially in advanced economies, traditional religion is belittled and mocked for its supposed superstition and backwardness. The irony is that the people who do so have in essence elevated science to the status of religion. This is still another aspect of managing religion.
The pawns in all of this are people's belief systems. Many politicians, religious leaders, dictators, demagogues or people seeking to make themselves famous use religion as a tool to advance their personal, narrow interests. Often the harm that they cause is enormous. All the blame for this harm is laid on the door of the religion concerned when in actual fact, the real blame lies elsewhere.
Karl Marx got it wrong. His famous dictum is typically rendered as "religion is the opiate of the people". The quote is taken from a lengthy paragraph which appeared in (and this is a real mouthful of a title) in a work titled "Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of right" in which Marx is positively lyrical in his anti-religion diatribe.
So why do I think he got it wrong? The (very) short answer is modern society. Let me explain. The whole emphasis of modern society is on the masses doing a limited number of things. We are supposed to work, eat, shop and sleep. There are a few other activities that can also be engaged in but these are the major ones. Oh yes. One other activity. Engage in sex. Lots of it. And not for reproductive purposes either. Think about it. What was the one thing that Americans were encouraged to do after 9/11? Pray? Focus on family? Reflect on their life? reflect on mortality? How about asking why these terrible events took place? Infact it was none of these. The one thing above all else that Americans were encouraged to do was to (drum-roll please) ..... shop!
This my friends is the true opiate of the people. Our true worth is considered in terms of our shopping abilities. Feeling down? Shop for new clothes or shoes or something else. Don't feel like shopping for material goods? No problem. Go to your nearest cineplex. Enjoy a good movie. Oh and don't forget to buy the popcorn and drinks to enjoy while watching the movie and on your way out buy a few movie mementos as a reminder of the good time you have just had. What are the temples of modern life? What are the social spaces where we can go and meet people. What are the events that serve to bind us as a community? The answer to these questions is linked ultimately to shopping. Instead of a traditional market which typically had small shops and was pedestrian friendly, we are expected to go to huge malls which are designed to take us from one outlet to another and discourage us from lingering in the interim. Dubai is a prime example of this. The city is filled with shopping malls - each bigger and more elaborate than the previous one. Each mall is filled with designer shops and each shop is filled with an enticing array of goods. Each mall also has a very similar architecture despite superficial differences in appearance. The shops are all connected by corridors which do not have much seating space. More significantly, there are no areas where people can pause and reflect. In other words, we are being subconsciously encouraged to go into the next outlet as fast as we can. The one space in each mall which does have seating space is the food court. So if we don't shop, then we can eat Mcdonalds or Burger King or Pizza Hut or whatever.
When we are not shopping or going to a movie, we can watch TV in the comfort of our homes where we have access to hundreds of channels. And what choice! American Idol! Desperate housewives! Big Brother! Wimbledon! Golf! The choice is endless and nearly all of it is designed to stop us from thinking. Just think about it. Does watching the latest football (or cricket or rugby or soccer or indeed any sport) match, make you any better off? Are you any better off because you saw the latest episode of your favorite TV show? What will happen if you don't see these? Will your life take a turn for the worse? Will a disaster befall you? Will your wife (or husband or significant other) leave you? All that will have happened is that you will have spent a certain portion of your life in an activity that is essentially meaningless. And remember that this is time gone forever. You are never going to get it back. So are these things not true opiate for the people? We tend to think of ourselves as being so much better than people of old. We are much more sophisticated. Far less susceptible to external manipulations. But are we really? Are we not being manipulated all the time? We are being constantly manipulated to do things that the Government deems to be in our best interest and a major component of that is shopping. Even watching TV is geared towards ultimately getting us into the shops. The average time of a typical TV show has gone down by almost 10 minutes since the 60s. An episode of the original Star Trek is about 50 minutes (the rest of the time is taken by advertisements) whereas an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation is only about 42 minutes. What has replaced the lost minutes? Ads of course. Ads designed to get us into a shopping mode. This has happened gradually. The result is manipulation without us being aware of it. We constantly bemoan the rat race and yet we feel obliged to participate in it. Why? why don't we exit? Because we feel that we cannot? But why do we feel that way?
So this is what modern society does to us. we are worth what we buy. Everything is geared towards getting us into the shops and buy. Another objective is also served by this. People who are mentally geared towards acquiring the latest trappings, the latest greatest thing and who are constantly striving to acquire the material things that they have been convinced constitute "the good life" are people who are not thinking too deeply about what is going on in the world and what is affecting them personally. We have been drugged into a mental slumber through a combination of shopping and entertainment (which includes all forms of sports activities). And always these things are being put just out of our reach so that we have to run harder and harder to remain in essentially the same place.
Mention the word sharia in any conversation in virtually any Muslim country (especially Pakistan) and there are generally two fairly typical reactions. One reaction is that this is an excellent step and should be implemented immediately. What is the delay? The other reaction is that this would be an unmitigated disaster that will take us back centuries and cause ruin and havoc not to mention that all the "fun" would be taken out of life. Reactions in a non-muslim (typically Western) country are generally even more violent to the very thought of Sharia. Why do people have reactions like this?
There is a lot of confusion over exactly what is Sharia. The average Muslim living in a Muslim country is generally unaware of what Sharia is. At this point, let me add a disclosure note. I am not a religious scholar and will not attempt even the beginnings of an answer to the question of what Sharia is. The point of this post in any case is not to try and define Sharia but to try and explore why people have such polarized views to this subject. This confusion has not stopped people - both Muslim and non-Muslim from weighing in on the subject. Interestingly enough, a Google search on what is sharia returns sites that seem to be written primarily by non-Muslims. The main aspect of Sharia that seems to arouse ire one camp and draw explanations from the other is the alleged treatment of women under the law.
The biggest confusion regarding Sharia in the minds of Muslims concerns its status. Is it sacred and therefore fixed for all eternity or can it be adapted to circumstances while staying within certain parameters. There is a good article by Dr. Riffat Hussain which seeks to address this issue. Personally I feel that religious scholars, who are the best authorities on Sharia, have shirked a major responsibility in disseminating information regarding Sharia in a readily understandable format. This has resulted in major misunderstandings and confusion amongst the general population in Muslim countries. These misunderstandings are then seized upon by many in non-Muslim countries who use them for essentially propaganda purposes.
I recently read The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs. This is an account of a personal experiment carried out by Mr. Jacobs in which he attempts to live a year by adhering as strictly as possible in accordance with the various rules and regulations specified in the Bible. An often funny account, it also illustrates how disconnected the average Western person has become from their religious roots.
One thing caught my eye in the book. At one point the author starts adding the words "God willing" to every future tense sentence. This was apparently in accordance with Proverbs 27:1 which states "Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth." As a Muslim I found this most interesting because most Muslims as a matter of routine add "God willing" (actually its Arabic equivalent InshaAllah) whenever they have to commit to an action in the future. For most Muslims, this is a routine and natural statement said without any hesitation or embarrassment but it was obvious from reading the book that the author and his family were uncomfortable with his saying it.
This got me to thinking why this could be so. Can it be that people in the West are uncomfortable with the idea that they are not completely in control of their lives? Why is it easier to say f--k for example than to say God willing? Anyone got any idea?
Most people would answer the above question very forcefully as conservative. Throughout the world, religion - and here I am not talking of any particular religion - is considered to be a strongly conservative force. A large number of people who think of themselves as liberal would insist that religion is not only conservative, it is reactionary. This is an assessment that I would disagree with. I believe that contrary to general opinion, religion is actually a liberating force. Let me add that here I am not talking about cults; I am talking religion in the traditional sense of the word.
Why do I make this claim? It is important to distinguish between what a religion teaches and the actions of the adherents of that religion. Consider Christianity. It is considered to be a religion of love. Yet throughout history, the most violent and intolerant actions have been those of people who considered themselves devout and pious Christians. Again consider Islam. A religion of peace. The very name means submission and is a root for peace in Arabic. Yet today, many non-muslims regard it as a violent religion. So the actions of a religion's adherents can be at a disconnect with the teachings of that religion. Again, take Islam. The religion gave women rights to property and inheritance at a time when they were universally considered to be the property of males with no rights of their own. This is an astonishingly liberal act done in a strikingly conservative milieu.
It has been said before that anyone can read whatever they like in the holy texts of their religion. That is undoubtedly true and generally speaking, a strongly conservative interpretation has been done on these texts. Yet the fact remains that many of the positions taken in these texts are unambiguously liberal.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t6HdqCLH0xsFAUX36tRfCGGrdh4TTPY-KB4bE3ur_p556xvzWDZKaXa6m6Fq3M5VDibsVucq-sWAX82F1MVSG8Xb2P2X07MzHLLjy3yRGnxYWYvPWNj2uJeTFr0mNLtUXj5IP6bmo4egLNCvRdbGew=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v7lRlQ1SZE1Il8_iQgKOGj50mdwQsiIKc8IROIyS-Zf7Ni22L1nERDLrnNGsXyTSAjkWWfe0_00uzjKtp_UFKVHOkWTWVXHBb-gYPFmNFeIDz7uf1SiByJ1JrHQqQituCw0lCBupBFRbiqc--MJhI=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uzZBmEY_B4rYw-bTjJ7mclOE4f8aCE2i11ecFy3UZYNr1dflNPQtot48cwIT5m14W0wj1gpEzd-ekXo9YkXfjB2yE5EWAXUmEQZR71cO7-ahj0Rq7OlBo32-faALAO7SroqpXx_ob7oQe7n7yEeVIg=s0-d)
