Chidakasha

This is the nature of being a soldier in any conflict. If they were to empathise with the ‘enemy’ they would be incapable of following orders. To join a military is to outsource your conscience. Cruelty is permitted because it is authorised.

But this does not just apply to soldiers. When we, civilians, permit any authority, military, political, religious or the social consensus to determine how we understand and respond to a situation that is presented to us, that authority stands in place of our conscience and overrides empathy. And in the absence of conscience – empathy plus ethics – the person we are harming is no longer a fully sentient person and neither are we.

I am reminded of the MIlgram Experiment. It’s well known but its implications should, I think, be more fully explored if we want to understand this moment in human history.

A reminder that the US has been planning a war against Iran for decades. Israel and Trump have a lot to answer for but the American animus towards Iran has deeper roots as Gen. Wesley Clark famously revealed in 2007.

If anyone would like to comment .. I’d welcome that. There is a context to this. People were stabbed and the assailant was a mentally disturbed person. But just looking at the video I wonder if people would judge the behaviour of the police ‘necessary violence’ – I would call it extreme and I think that kicking a man who is on the ground repeatedly in the head is disturbing. Zack Polansky was right to question this degree of violence. I don’t think that he or anyone should apologise for questioning violence whether our conclusion is justified or not.

Chidakasha, the space of the mind, is one of my oldest websites .. and I haven’t written on it this whole year. The thing is I have too many websites – and I post a lot on Facebook. But this is the personal website and I’m going to start writing here too.

Let this be my remembrance on this day of remembrance. Let me remember all the lives wasted in human wars, let me remember the courage of those who fought against injustice and of those who retained their love of humanity in the face of the worst of human cruelty. But above all let me remember the children of Gaza, of Sudan, of Ukraine and of all the other slaughters of innocence present and past. Gaza where a crime unprecedented in this century is being perpetrated before our eyes where children aged 5 to 9 years old are the group that has suffered the most deaths. Gaza, may it live forever in our shared consciousness and conscience. Gaza, may it be the atrocitie to end atrocities. Let us remember Gaza because in the words of James Baldwin, “The children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe; and I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality.”

The Islamophobe argued that it is permissible to castigate Muslims for being Muslims in the same way that it would be permissible to castigate Nazis for being Nazis but not Jews for being Jews because Muslims are not a racial group while Jews are:

“First of all, everything I have said against Islam is directed against a CULTURE which has to be LEARNED, and not against any group of PEOPLE who have features that they are BORN WITH and cannot change.” ~ Islamophobe.

I answered:

Neither being a Muslim nor being a Jew, is based on particularities of appearance – thus if we associate ‘race’ with physical appearance then neither being Jewish nor being Muslim can be considered belonging to a ‘racial’ group. The term ethnicity is wider than ‘race’ in its sense of physical appearance, wide enough to be applied to both Muslims and Jews. Just as there are Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews there are Arab, Bengali and Punjabi Muslims – these being the largest heritage groups confessing to, respectively, Judaism and Islam. Too, there are denominational or sectarian distinctions within the confessions that cut across the cultural differences.

While a white person qua white or a black person qua black cannot change the physical features that define them as such, they are, absent the prejudices of others, free to be whatever they choose to be. Counterintuitively, perhaps, it is much harder (psychologically not necessarily societally) to break away from the determinations of our religio-cultural affiliations, ethnicities if you like, than from those of appearance. The philosopher and educator Ninian Smart identified what he called the ‘seven dimensions of religion’ and what I suggest might be better called the ‘seven dimensions of religio-cultural ethnicity’.

The Seven Dimensions:

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human’s place in it.

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private)

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public)

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm)

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural

I would say that these dimensions are common to both the Muslim and Judaic faiths and equally distinguish both from political movements such as Nazism. Further, despite present and historical atrociousness and absurdities in their doctrines and practice, both of these religions alongside all religions have inspired much compassion, consciousness, conscience and creativity in many of their adherents throughout history.

In addition to this religio-cultural aspect there is also the fact that the great religions are what we can consider, following Samuel Huntington’s suggestion, civilisational cultures. I’ve seen varying graphical representation of Huntington’s thesis and attach one of these to illustrate that thesis. There are comments I could make about it but I don’t want to distract from the central point, that we can draw from both Smart and Huntington, that Islam, Judaism and the other great religions represent memetic heritages at least as integral to the sense of being of individuals as their genetics. Islamophobia must be understood to be as harmful to a person’s sense of being as would be any denigration (I use the word consciously) founded on genetically determined variations in appearance. For these reasons while it is within the bounds of respect to criticise certain aspects of Islam or Judaism it is not within the bounds of respect or reason to attack wholesale either or any of the major religions. Similarly while we may properly, and must properly, condemn bad actors and believers regardless of their religion, we must not paint those who are innocent as bad actors and belivers simply because they have in common an ethno-cultural-civilisational heritage shared with millions and billions of other human beings. That’s not respectful, reasonable or right.

The following was written in response to a post on my https://www.facebook.com/groups/ConsciousCompassionateCreativeConversation group suggesting that Muslims were not a race but brainwashed members of a violent cult and therefore it is not racist to castigate them as a group whereas Jews are a race of people and therefore it would be racist to speak of them in a similar way.

Dear Paul,

With regard to your view that Jews are a ‘race’ whereas Muslims are not with its consequent implication that castigation of Muslims as Muslims (Islamophobia) is not racist while castigation of Jews as Jews (Antisemitism) is racist, I offer the following clarifications and observations.

I consider ‘race’ to be a construct—an abstraction based on appearance. Certain types have been abstracted based on colour and, largely, facial distinctions. I understand that these ‘types’ have been identified as ‘Negroid,’ ‘Caucasoid,’ ‘Mongoloid,’ and others. I also understand that these terms have fallen out of general use because it is now, rightly, considered distasteful to categorise people according to appearance. In any case, such categorisation has little biological significance since we are one species, as defined by our ability to successfully interbreed. Having done so, there is a spectrum or continuum between racial identifications abstracted from appearance. It is a choice—and, I believe, a disastrous one—to elevate these fluid abstractions to the status of naturally or divinely determined absolutes.

History and geography also play a part in what some people consider race, allowing Shakespeare to speak of an ‘English breed’ in his famed paean to nationalism and identity:

“This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by Nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands,

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,”

I quote this not only to name-drop but because of its unparalleled eloquence in evoking the attraction of racial and national identification—the belief that, because of appearance, history, or geography, one is somehow a member of a ‘happier breed of men’.

To return to the question of whether Jews are a ‘race,’ I do not consider them such. First (and foremost) because I regard the whole concept of race as confusing and unhelpful. Second, those who identify as Jews are highly diverse in appearance, with a majority seeming European, a minority of Middle Eastern appearance, and a smaller minority of African appearance. Whatever the claimed genetic evidence or mythos, it is appearance that counts. Finally, it is possible to stop being a Jew because one can stop identifying as a Jew and others can stop identifying one as a Jew. As a ‘Black’ man, I can stop identifying as ‘Black’ as much as I like, but it won’t prevent you or anyone else from seeing me as a Black man.

And that’s the crux of the matter, returning us to your characterisation of Muslims. You identify a Muslim as a Muslim, giving that identity more significance than the person’s identity as a human being and moral agent. This is why I believe you are truly Islamophobic. I do not identify anyone as a Jew unless they make a point of it; I see them as human beings and moral agents, capable of moral choice regardless of heritage. This is why, despite finding aspects of both Muslim and Jewish doctrine disagreeable, I do not consider myself either Islamophobic or antisemitic. To drive the point home, let me quote another great English poet, Kipling:

“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgement Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!”

Finally, Paul, I must say that although I find your views erroneous and often distasteful, I nevertheless thank you for expressing them. They serve me by allowing me to review and reaffirm my own values. This service is best expressed in the words of John Stuart Mill, with whom I entirely agree and on which I think we might both concur:

Mill gives four reasons why we should not deter the expression of divergent ideas:

“First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”

Tum Mere Pass Raho… Faiz Ahmed Faiz. Nayyara Noor.

You do not understand the language but the sound of her voice is haunting, evocative. You read the translated words and and don’t understand their references but the images are haunting, evocative.

you stay with me – (2)
You, stay near me
,
My killer, my lover, stay with me
My assassin, My beloved, Stay near me,
,
The moment night falls, – (2)
The moment when night goes on,
,
Drink the blood of the sky and walk in the dark night.
Drinking the blood of sky the dark night goes on,
,
For Marham-Mushk Liye Nashtra-Almas Liye
Carrying medicinal-musk,carrying dimond-blades,
,
Banning, laughing, singing
Lamenting, Laughing, Singing it goes,
,
The chicane of pain came out ringing the anklets
Playing the lilac anklets of pain, it goes
,
The moment when hearts sink in the chest
The moment when the hearts sank inside bosom
,
With my hands in my sleeves, I started yearning for something. , for hope, – (2)
Gaze at the hands withdrawn in their sleeves, Hoping,
,
And like crying children
Like bawling children, Gargaling,
,
If the deaf and dumb are crazy, then you can persuade or not.
The ocean of discomfort becomes restless, unappeasable,
,
when something doesn’t work out
When nothing can be said
,
when nothing works
When nothing works
,
the moment night falls – (2)
The moment when night goes on,
,
The moment when the mourners are desolate, the dark night goes on
The moment when mournful, desolate, dark night goes on,
,
you stay with me – (2)
You stay near me
,
My killer, my lover, stay with me
My assassin, My beloved, Stay near me
,
you stay with me – (2)
You stay near me

Faiz Ahmed Faiz

A more accessible translation is given here: https://omershafee.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/tum-mere-paas-raho-faiz-ahmed-faiz/

‘Tum mere paas raho’- Faiz Ahmed Faiz

My dearest, you who slay me
Abide with me

When the night rules the world
When it reigns, ebon and slaked on the vigor of the skies
Carrying in turn a scented balm and a glittering sword
Lamenting, laughing, singing
Chiming anklets strung with pain

And when hearts sunk deep in bosoms
Pine for hands withdrawn in their sleeves
When the wine pours like tears of a sobbing child
Flowing torrent-like, inconsolable
When everything is astray
When nothing works
When the mournful, desolate, ebon night reigns

Abide with me
My dearest, my bane

Gilad Atzmon posted the first image on his Facebook page. I responded with the second because of the similarity. A conversation ensued as AE wrote:

Asides from the impossibility of stripping people of their identities. It really disappoints me to see the abuse of diversity blind us from seeing the beauty of the deferences. I don’t want to travel to another country to find the same tradition, the same food, the same clothes, the same language, the same culture.

We are created (if you believe in creation)in deferent tribes and nations just like varieties of colours, fruits vegetables, animals, every one add and enhance part or body, our soles, our understanding of life.

Making the differences into a negative thing is the problem of those who are deprived from having the right lens on their eyes.

There is a verse in the Quran I loved so much and I’m not trying to preach religion it says “ People, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might know one another. The noblest of you before Allah is the most righteous of you. Allah is the Knower, the Aware.”

I replied:

What strips people of their unique identities is the reduction of their human richness into a particular and dominating identification – some particular ethnicity, tradition, clothing, language or cultural way of being. If we are going to relate to each other as human beings we must understand each other beyond the symbols or markers of tick-boxes that we use to denote who we are. Of course you are Muslim, Hindu, Socialist or whatever .. you are also short or fat thin or tall, you play cricket or chess and so on. Why should I care about your religion or ethnicity more than I care about any other aspect of your appearance or behaviour?

Those who make the differences into a negative thing are the racists who divide humanity into classes and categories according to those categories.

The Prophet said “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action..”

There are many that use differences to posit superiority. That’s simply a fact and their attachment to ethnicity is a form of idolatory. As a Muslim you should understand this.

The Prophet continued, “..Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly.”

But following from the first part it should be clear that the better interpretation of Muslim is one who is pious and does good. And the ‘one brotherhood’ is the brotherhood of those who are pious and do good.

IB wrote:

The meaning of chosen is wrong. In Judaism, to be chosen means to be expected to live by a higher standard of religious morality. Here, Gilad seems to be pointing to chosen as a superior being.

In my own opinion, Israel is not the Jewish state or even a Jewish state. It’s policies and practices regarding non-jews have nothing to do with the morality of Judaism.

Furthermore, zionists have at times acted in the worst possible interest of Jews who are not zionists for the purpose of expanding the settler Colonial project. For example see the Zionist Transfer Agreement with the Nazi regime in the early 30s or the false flag attacks conducted by the Israelis after the state’s formation, such as the Lavon affair.

I replied:

The concept of a ‘chosen people’ is intrinsically immoral and self-serving whether conceived of as a particular privilege or a particular responsibility. The fundamental premise of mortality is that of the intrinsic and equal worth and dignity of all human beings. I don’t know when or how the notion of choseness became attached to the Jewish people, perhaps it is a function of an ethnicity being so closely associated with a faith but it becomes a mythologising and deification of ethnicity. To associate one’s ethics with one’s ethnicity violates the principle of the universal applicability of moral law whether one is the most cruel or compassionate of people.

IB asked:

to expect a more moral life is immoral?

I responded:

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘expect a more moral life’ but I will read it as ‘intend or commit to a more moral life’. There is nothing wrong with this if the individual is intending a more moral life as an individual choice .. If I commit to serving the interests of humanity because I see that is the right thing to do then I have made a moral choice but if I commit to serving the interests of humanity because I am a Jew or Muslim or Christian then my commitment is not first and foremost a moral choice, it is a choice to follow the teachings of my religion and a follower is not a free moral agent.

The Abrahamic religions laud Abraham for his choice to follow Yahwe’s command to sacrifice his son and the thinking of people committed to the teaching of any religious, ethnic or political tribe is similar to Abraham’s commitment to Yahwe, the right thing for them is what is commanded, if they are commanded to kill they will kill, if they are commanded to be discriminatory they will be discriminatory. Their service to humanity is not an unconditional commitment to universal law but is conditional on their membership of their tribe and whatever beliefs their tribe holds.

Some suggest that I shouldn’t comment on other people’s religious beliefs. Maybe they’re right and maybe it will cause trouble for me. But conversation is my religion, I think it can save us, and I’m an evangelist for it even if it means being a martyr for it.