Blogging confessions and other issues

Writing a blog is tricky. Writing is tricky period. I am not a native English speaker, and though I try to be expressive with my words, I am not the best writer out there. Not even one of the better ones. Bloggers write much more eloquently then I, so forgive me if my writing seems otherwise very confrontational and at times even cynical.

I think there are people who have visited my blog in the past, and found my ways of using words to be blunt or offensive.

You see, I do try to paint a master piece but instead end up with a substandard literary caricature.

Therefore, you must assume that the caricature was not intentional, and I am sorry if I have offended anyone personally.

In the end we are all human beings, we have past histories and perspectives that shape our subjective perceptions of the world we live in, and sometimes our subjectivity gets in the way of our ability to see greater (objective) truths. That is perhaps what happened to me.

I try to put forth discussions on topics we (as a society) consistently push on the back burner – topics I am usually very passionate about – and I am not at all sorry about that. What I am sorry about is that some people misunderstand that passion for hate.

It is probably harder to understand where I am coming from, provided I do not share much about my life, past and present, on this blog. But that is only because I believe the world is more important than I, and there are more valuable things to discuss then my boring life. Though, I do manage to squeeze in something about myself from time to time.

I’d like to admit my shortcomings, and I’d like to be more self-critical. In the course of time, I’d like to say that I ‘used to be’ ignorant, but that would make me a believer in ‘progress’; so instead, I say that the more I learn the less I really know. Sounds like an oxymoron, and perhaps it is, but it makes sense to me at this point. Like Socrates used to say, ‘all I know is that I know nothing'. I suppose there is great truth and wisdom in that statement.

Communication is the key to understanding. As our world becomes increasingly one-dimensional, as the dialectic paradigm shifts toward a monocultural iconoclastic reality, we have to understand and remember that humans are inherently multi-dimensional and extremely complex beings.

I am not one-dimensional.

I am Muslim, but I stand for and advocate many diverse social causes. And I don’t like to constrict my views nor my ability to learn by ascribing to specific labels. I usually fit in between many different labels. Because each label carries with it a set of meanings, a particular framework, I do not feel that I fit into any of those neatly manufactured boxes.

You see, there are people who still function within the old dialectic, who polarize people into two camps, the ‘us’ and ‘them’ camps. The infamous “you’re with us or against us” mentality is paralyzing our discourse, and destroying any chance of reconciliation. I may have strong opinions, but it doesn’t mean I will not consider alternative views. I do listen to people with different ideas and positions to my own, it doesn’t mean I’ll embrace their argument, but I will certainly take it into consideration. I mean that is how we used to learn. But today, people are not ready for this discourse. If you don’t agree with them one hundred percent, they will not bother talking to you, or they will call you a bigot. Why is that?

There is this video I came across that illustrates my point exactly. Gloria Allred, a self-described ‘progressive feminist’, says “if you’re not a feminist, then you’re a bigot". She describes this scenario as ‘being pregnant’ – you either are pregnant or you are not pregnant. Muslims make the same mistake. I made the same mistake. If you’re not a believer, you’re a kafir. It’s our greatest tragedy as human beings, not being able to see inside our own little windows of reference, and realize how small our window really is.   Now, I like to reference multiple windows, to get a clearer view of the ocean of truth that lies out there.

What Allred doesn’t realize is that while a woman is either pregnant or isn’t, each pregnancy is unique and different. Every woman perceives and experiences pregnancy in her own way. And although I don’t call myself a feminist, I advocate for women’s rights, I advocate against human trafficking, I advocate for girls’ education and equal opportunity in society. Yet Allred’s view of feminism is extremely essentialized. Simplified.

Feminism, in theory, is extremely broad, and encompasses a variety of issues. Certain issues I simply cannot identify with – like homosexuality. There are many variations of feminism I often find myself nodding to, and others rejecting. Therefore, choosing not to label myself feminist, is not out of hate for the feminist herself, or my ignorance of the term, but because I do not identify with its liberal framework.

It is true, however, that we can never escape from our own subjectivity. That no matter how many windows we reference, we still perceive reality from our own vision of truth. I call myself Muslim after all. But that is not the problem. Realizing our own subjectivity is what allows us to look for the objective; yet people who believe they are being objective are denying themselves the right to see what is really outside of their window.

Dawkins, for example, seems to imply that macro-evolution is fact, that science is the only objective way of understanding our world, and that religion is simply a primitive trait humans have made up to deal with the messy world around them. This way of thinking creates another bipolar paradigm. Religious people are less intelligent, and (macro) Evolutionists are more intelligent. Religious people rely on blind faith, and Evolutionists don’t – so they are right, and religious people are wrong. Science is certainly one way of perceiving the world, but it is not the only one.

I find most religious people to be much more open-minded then some evolutionists claim to be. Being religious doesn’t make you deficient in intellect; it is how you choose to interpret your religiosity which can restrict your ability to ask questions. But the same goes for atheistic views. This new atheism that Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins proselytize around the world restricts people’s understanding of the world to what can be measured and put under the microscope. But how does one measure concepts like ‘love’, ‘justice’, and ‘truth’?

Economics used to be a social science. Today it has been turned into a scientific machine, measuring ‘progress’ in profit and GDP. But the wealthiest and most industrialized countries are also among the least happy, as some quantitative studies show. But how can we measure happiness?

In Islam, happiness is not a state of being, it is a feeling. One can feel happy, but one can never ‘be’ happy. Coming back to feminism though. Feminist scholars in development studies, like Amartya Sen, have criticized this limited and artificial approach to doing economics. GDP doesn’t give us an accurate measure of well-being. And here I can strongly agree with the feminists. But perhaps this doesn’t come through as often in my writing since I am quite critical of the feminist manifestation of Islam. And I am not anti-science; I simply don’t see it as a superior world view in relation to religion.

Coming back full circle. Being objective in my views is impossible. Each author carries her or his own bias, and you must understand that although we like to believe in the ‘one world’ mantra, we have our differences. Communication and understanding is not built upon our things in common, but our things in dispute and in disagreement. That is where we build effective skills and effective wisdom.

So forgive me, if I have been ‘ignorant’ in the past, and forgive me for continuing to be ‘ignorant’ of most things I haven’t yet discovered. Please continue to share your reactions and opinions with me so that we can all learn together.

With Peace,