islamic liberation theology

This puts together and edits writings by Kaloi Abdu-Rahman and Sohaib Sultan. Both are about religion as a duty of the powerful to protect the powerless, and as a duty of the individual to stand with the powerless against the powerful, where the role of religion is a guiding light toward building a society that takes care of its most marginalized.

Related posts: Religion as revolutionary social justice, Radical empathy and a relationship with God, Religious law and human fallibility

 

Islamic Liberation Theology – Kaloi Abdu-Rahman

Liberation theology requires practicing Islam with the knowledge that all we receive in this world is because of the grace of God, not our own action and will. It understands that all humans are equal and that some are facing trials and misfortunes that aren’t of their own making.

With that knowledge, we know that the wealthy and the middle-class are not better than the poor, men are not better than women, no race is better than the other, no one group of people are harder-working or more intelligent: we were created all equal under God, with our lots in life determined by circumstance.

The Prophet (PBUH) understood that the privileges allowed to people of Mecca before Islam were determined by the relative value that their tribe or gender or class or status gave them, much like in our societies today, and sought to dismantle this system for one of equality.

Liberation theology sees the social power of religion as a tool that religious institutions have a responsibility to use. The power and respect of religious institutions must be used to advance the status of the marginalized. Those with power within religious institutions that do not use their power for the advancement of the marginalized and fighting for equality are breaching their religious duties by doing so.

 

Background of Liberation Theology

The term “liberation theology,” according to the Oxford Dictionary of Religions, means “an understanding of the role of theology in moving from abstraction to action, in which the actual condition of the poor is the starting point.” The Encyclopedia of Religion defines liberation theology “as critical reflection on the historical praxis of liberation in a concrete situation of oppression and discrimination.” It is also known as a social movement within the Christian Church and a school of thought, both of which react against human suffering due to poverty and various forms of oppression.

Liberation theology, in fact, was a religious movement that sought to liberate people from poor social conditions and injustice. It emphasizes the mission of bringing justice to the poor and oppressed. The actual message of liberation theology is to the plight of the oppressed, hungry, poor and marginalized. God exhorts us to struggle for human well-being, to strive for human rights and to liberate humanity from social and economic injustice. In other words, it is a way, a discipline, an exercise that must be practically carried out. Liberation theology stresses that institutions of religion must advocate and help the poor and try to save them from affliction and marginalization due to social and political injustice, in a spiritual way and with regard to the scriptural message.

In a broader sense, liberation theology includes an interpretation of scripture that is rooted in the everyday experience of poverty. It is an effort to improve human welfare in very basic ways. Liberation theology is a system and structure, like an organization that works for the betterment of every individual in society; everyone has a right to benefit from its sources and means; no one should be deprived of its benefits. It sees Islam as a set of responsibilities for institutions with power.

Islamic liberation theology emerged when the Qur’an started to be revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an seeks to liberate people from all kinds of sufferings and in different ways (socioeconomic and theological). The Qur’anic commandments were an open challenge to the tribal lords of Mecca, who would oppress and dehumanize the poor. Islam, since its beginning, through the teachings and commandments of the Qur’an, denounced injustice and oppression, and condemned the prevailing social system of Mecca. With the message of the Qur’an, Islam proclaimed liberation, freedom, justice and equality, it was stated that all people are equal before God and there is no entity who deserves to be worshiped but He (God) (Qur’an, 2:255).

Qur’anic liberation theology accords with social and economic balance, an equal social structure and assigns a high position to human dignity. In the modern age, injustice and discrimination against oppressed and marginalized people is taking place in almost every part of the world, especially in underdeveloped countries. So, how to address the issues of injustice and oppression? What are God’s commandments in relation to abuses in the contemporary age? How to mitigate these pressures upon the weaker parts of society? How do scriptures and theology admonish the authorities to help the poor and ease their suffering?

The Prophet Muhammad liberated people from the oppression of the Meccan upper classes. He conveyed the message of God to the people, with warnings and glad tidings, for the construction of a just society that should be based on equality, fraternity and justice. Islamic liberation theology started when the Prophet Muhammad received inspiration in the first message of revelation, which instructed him to “Read”. This was a message that sought to liberate humanity from darkness, ignorance and illiteracy. It also taught awareness that God is the One who created humanity. From this verse, it is inferred that man should not hold any misconceptions about his creation. Such indications and instructions were also mentioned in previous divine scriptures and messages.

When Muhammad received revelation, it came in the form of a reformative and revolutionary message to all the people of the world, as he was given the title of mercy for all the worlds (al-Qur’an, 21:107). He delivered the message of the Qur’an, the message which was revealed to him for the reformation of society. The Qur’an affirms that God sent him to deliver glad-tidings to people (al-Qur’an, 2:119). The Prophet Muhammad worked for the liberation of the oppressed, the poor, the needy and the ignorant. In his project of liberation, he was not just a prophet, teacher and philosopher, but also an activist who sacrificed his life for justice and equality. Under his inspiration, the Arabs not only liberated themselves but in turn liberated others from oppression and subjugation.

 

The Socio-Economic and Religious Background of Arabia before Muhammad (PBUH)

The Prophet Muhammad was born at a time when people were engaged in arrogant displays of tribal superiority. Privileges were based on unjust conditions and prejudices. In such circumstances, he stood up and challenged unjustified privilege and established social and moral values based upon the revealed message. In this environment, Muhammad was inspired by God to deliver the revealed message. It was a call to worship God in gratitude for His goodness both to each individual and to the Meccans as a whole. But the people of Mecca refused to accept the message, except for a few. Due to the opposition and rejection of the Meccans, the first ten years of Muhammad’s preaching were hard. He was persecuted and threatened.

Muhammad’s message and aim were to bring reform to society and condemn the socioeconomic inequalities of Meccan life. He therefore presented a direct threat not just to traditional polytheistic religion, but also to the power and status of the establishment, threatening its economic, social and political interests. He condemned false contracts, usury, as well as the negligence and exploitation of orphans and widows. He defended the rights of the poor and the oppressed, declaring that the rich had a responsibility to the poor to use a portion of their wealth for their benefit.

A truly liberating theology grew from this tradition. Islamic theology is grounded within this historical tradition, which in turn is derived from the primary foundations of the Islamic tradition—the Qur’an and the Sunnah and, more importantly, in how the core message affects the daily lives of the people in need of this theology. The importance of Islamic liberation theology is not just its relation to historical, religious, and cultural contexts; it provides the grounds on which the liberating elements must be developed for the welfare of the people in general.

Progressive Muslim scholars have criticized and opposed classical Islamic theology and Muslim theologians. In fact, theology in its received form, according to progressive Muslims, does not support human liberation. It only supports the status quo; moreover, theologians who support this form of theology are partners to the status quo. The actual purpose of liberation theology is liberation from suffering.

 

The Qur’anic Paradigms of Liberation Theology

The first objective of Islamic liberation theology, as has been shown by the verses of revelation, is to liberate people from ignorance, illiteracy, superstitions and polytheism. The Qur’an also liberates humanity from racism. Racism is the worst type of evil, in which people think that a particular race is superior to others. It exists in almost every society, creates social problems and hatred between social classes. The Qur’an condemns notions of racial superiority or inferiority. Instead, it teaches that all people are the children of Adam and Eve and equal before God (49:13).

The main goal of liberation theology, according to the Qur’an, is to provide financial help to the poor and liberate them from poverty (4:95). The Qur’an teaches that a Muslim must always take the side of the weak regardless of their religion and race, and asks the question, “Who among those in need would require more attention than the poor and the destitute?” (4:95).

The Qur’an also protects man from subjugation. It liberates man from the tyranny of governments and rulers. The Qur’an gives rights to every individual equally so that all will be treated and judged on an equal basis, irrespective of race, colour and faith (49:130). It also admonishes believers to establish justice in all spheres of life (4: 135). Qur’anic liberation focuses on justice, freedom and equality on the one hand, and the condemnation of exploitation of man by man, oppression, and persecution on the other.

The idea of Islamic liberation theology is retrieved from the Qur’anic teachings. Its core values in “key terms of the Qur’an” comprising tawhid, (oneness of God), din (religion), adal (justice), rahmah (compassion), ihsan (benevolence), and hikmah (wisdom). These key terms are the main tools for constructing the platform of Islamic liberation theology.

 

The Prophet Muhammad as a Liberator

The Prophet Muhammad liberated people from all sorts of sufferings. Through the Qur’an, he liberated people from ignorance and superstition, from polytheism and racism, from poverty, inequality, subjugation and injustice. This means that Islamic liberation theology is an all rounded affair.

The Prophet Muhammad struggled on behalf of promoting Islamic injunctions against the tribal cruelties without engaging in violence. He and his companions bore the brutalities of the Meccans and continued to propagate and practice a way of life that was based upon revealed teachings.

The paradigm of struggle and resistance to injustice, established by the Prophet Muhammad and his early followers, was a movement of liberation. Many Muslim movements that developed in later centuries attempted to follow this prophetic paradigm, and together these have become important sources of inspiration for many contemporary Muslim liberation struggles.

The Prophet Muhammad was the beacon of light who announced through the Qur’an a charter of rights for women. The Qur’an, for the first time, gave them various rights: the right to be a witness, the right to marry a husband of her own choice, the right to divorce her husband without any pre-condition, the right to inherit her father’s property, the right of mothers and relatives to have property, the right to have custody of children, and the right to make decisions freely. Thus, due to Muhammad’s prophethood, women gained social dignity and respect.

The Prophet aimed to establish justice within the social and economic environment of Mecca; he was deeply disturbed by the conditions of women. Islam teaches the values of equality, justice and freedom. Women’s rights and gender equality are emphasized greatly in the Qur’an.

Though the idea of modern liberation theology has been derived from Christian hermeneutics, we can say that all religious scriptures have a solution for liberating people from suffering. The Qur’an not only supports the oppressed and weak sections of society, but teaches lessons of equality, dignity, freedom and respect for each other. It also calls on its believers to respect and recognize the truth of other religions.

The Qur’an provides the guidelines and ways to liberate people from all kinds of sufferings. God has sent the prophets to each and every community for their guidance. A universal theology of liberation is found among all religions. It is a method by which the implementation of God’s rule on earth, the establishment of justice, equal rights and uplifting peoples’ standard of living may be achieved. Liberation theology prioritizes actions over theory. It advocates the protection of the oppressed from the oppressors. It provides socio-political resistance against oppressors. It is a theology in real sense that aims to implement a world reality based upon respect for human dignity and the realization justice.

 

The Quranic framework for liberation

Esack claims that the Qur’an’s stress on helping preferentially the mustad’af refers to someone who is oppressed or deemed weak. The mustad’afun are people of inferior social status, people who are vulnerable, marginalised and oppressed. The Qur’an also uses other terms to describe the lower and impoverished classes of society, such as aradhil, marginalised (al-Qur’an, 11: 27), the poor (2: 271) and the indigent (2: 83).

The Qur’an also denounces the powerful and their accumulation of wealth, and exhorts the believers to treat women with equality and to free slaves. According to Esack, the most significant and relevant Qur’anic text in the South African situation encompasses verses 28: 4-8. In particular, Esack quotes this verse frequently: “And it is Our will to bestow Our grace upon the mustad’afun on the Earth”. This verse shows the Qur’an’s socially engaged message of liberation and empathy for the oppressed.

 

The road to liberation

Liberation generally signifies redemption, salvation and freedom. Liberation theology seeks salvation and deliverance from all forms of oppression, especially socio-political and economic injustice, under the instructions of the scriptures that were interpreted by the prophets and theologians, and in order to help marginalized people.

Thus, scriptures exhort us to struggle for the welfare of human beings, to help them against all sorts of injustice and inequality. Islamic liberation theology addresses all aspects of existence. These include not only the socio-political, economic and theological, but also the historical, religious, and cultural.

The best sources of Islamic liberation theology are the Qur’an and the traditions of Muhammad. Both provide guidance to those who suffer in the world. They condemn ignorance, illiteracy, and injustice.

Many human beings still face the distress of unemployment, poverty, starvation, malnourishment and homelessness. On the other, the world has also been suffering from inter and intra-religious extremism and ethno-religious nationalism. People want to be liberated from both torments.

Liberation theology suggests the following:

  • To obtain liberation from poverty, injustice and inequality. Human liberation lies in helping out the poor from a sociological and not only a metaphysical perspective.
  • The Monarchical practices of Muslim rulers and religious leaders should not include nationalism, tribal and communal favor. They are supposed to be free from the intoxication of power. Their role should be like that of the model caliphs, who gave rights and dignity to every individual, irrespective of color, race, gender and religion; to help and serve the people, and to bring peace and justice to society.
  • Guidance derived from the teachings of the Quran, must play a central and critical role not only in creating harmony and religious coexistence but also in explaining that human and religious diversity is normal.

 

The Social Qur’an – Sohaib Sultan

Faith is incomplete without a radical commitment to social justice.

In the late 19th to early 20th century there emerged an influential intellectual Christian movement that preached, what became known as, the “Social Gospel.” In summary, the movement sought to apply Christian ethics, taken from the Gospel, to social problems such as poverty and war. It was and remains a progressive movement essentially rooted in the Gospel’s radical social justice message.

Interestingly, around the same period, there also emerged movements within Islam that sought to do something very similar – apply Islamic ethics, taken from the Qur’an, to the myriad of social problems Muslim societies were facing. This movement attempted to advocate and argue for human freedom from tyrannical governments, economic fairness, and so on.

Unfortunately, when some of these movements went from standing up against unjust political authority to wanting to become the political authority itself, the movements were quickly and brutally suppressed and fractured – sometimes leading to the formation of radical political organizations that responded to the suppression with calls to militancy.

Today, this much maligned and far too easily discredited movement is known in the West as “Islamism” and their followers are called “Islamists.” It has become a bad word from the halls of government to the world of academia. If you want to malign or discredit a Muslim public intellectual or activist, all you have to do is call them an Islamist. Sadly, many radical proponents of the Christian Social Gospel message have met a similar end.

In the Muslim World, the movement is received with much more nuance. There are, of course, the violent extremists who have the loudest bullhorn on the block because of their tactics – “what bleeds leads” as they say in journalism. Every major study has shown that these violent groups are largely rejected by the vast majority of Muslims.

But, some of the most effective grassroots movements in the Muslim World today are informed and inspired, at least to some degree, by the social justice message of the Qur’an as articulated by the likes of Hassan al-Banna (d.1949) in Egypt and Abul Ala Mawdudi (d.1979) in Pakistan. The attraction is not so much in the wholesale revolutionary message, necessarily, but simply in the positive concern for addressing social injustices with something that sounds and feels authentic to the Muslim imagination – as opposed to something that sounds and feels like a Western colonialist import or plot.

While there was something certainly brewing in the waters in the late 19th – early 20th century in terms of socio-political movements rooted in the Qur’anic social justice message, these movements were largely revivalist movements that were inspired by much earlier periods in Muslim history including many Sufi Orders that were committed to serving the most marginalized in society and affecting grassroots change. Indeed, it would be hard not to read the Prophet Muhammad’s biography and the story of his mission as a radical movement for social justice. The intellectuals behind the Social Gospel would see the life and mission of Jesus in a similar way.

So, in brief, what is the Social Qur’an – if we can borrow terminology from the Social Gospel movement? It is a message that calls on believers to stand up for justice and bear witness to the truth “even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or your close relatives” (4:135) and warns believers to never allow “hatred of others to lead you away from justice” (5:8).

It is a teaching that commands believers throughout the Qur’an to “be a community that calls for what is good, urges what is right, and forbids what is wrong” (3:104).

It is an urging to follow a higher ethical plane that “Is to free the slave, to feed at a time of hunger an orphaned relative or a poor person in distress, and to be one of those believe and urge one another to steadfastness [in doing good] and compassion” (90:13—17).

It is prescribing as a pillar of Islam the institutionalization of almsgiving for the poor and needy (9:60) and an ethic of charity that affirms and restores the dignity of socially neglected people (2:261—274).

It is encouraging the “fair and kind” treatment of women (4:19—21). And, it is pushing people to defend the oppressed even if it means putting their own lives at risk (4:74—76).

This is just a brief glimpse into the social justice message of the Qur’an.

The Social Qur’an is also a message that prohibits usurious loans that enslave people and entire communities to a lifetime of debt (2:275—281). It strongly condemns people “who give short measure” in their business dealings (83:1—6); exploit the orphans (4:10); “act like tyrants” (26:130); set out to “spread corruption” in the world (2:203), to give just a few examples. Social crimes such as sex slavery (24:33), female infanticide (81:8—9), and so on are spoken against in the strongest language.

So, this is a summary of what the Social Qur’an looks like. It is a message and teaching for the socially conscientious people to root their social justice work in a God-centric and spiritually focused way. And, it is a lesson to those who strive to be mindful of God that faith is incomplete without a radical commitment to social justice.

words misunderstood

This is an excerpt from The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera and I’ve always found it a really fascinating and insightful framework through which to see the world and how we relate to others– the realization that given associations and implications we don’t all share a common set of meanings for the words and phrases that we use or for the metaphors we invoke, that it means that to some extent none of us really speak the exact same language, that being able to understand someone means working with the knowledge that the same words can create unique instinctive or emotional responses shaped by their experiences and personality. This excerpt lists instances where the same word had different meanings and associations to the characters and how that shapes their relationship.

 

Let us return to Sabina’s bowler hat. First, it was a vague reminder of a forgotten grandfather, the mayor of a small Bohemian town during the nineteenth century.

Second, it was a memento of her father. After the funeral her brother appropriated all their parents’ property, and she, refusing out of sovereign contempt to fight for her rights, announced sarcastically that she was taking the bowler hat as her sole inheritance.

Third, it was a prop for her love games with Tomas.

Fourth, it was a sign of her originality, which she consciously cultivated. She could not take much with her when she emigrated, and taking this bulky, impractical thing meant giving UP other, more practical ones.

Fifth, now that she was abroad, the hat was a sentimental object. When she went to visit Tomas in Zurich, she took it along and had it on her head when he opened the hotel-room door. But then something she had not reckoned with happened: the hat, no longer jaunty or sexy, turned into a monument to time past. They were both touched. They made love as they never had before. This was no occasion for obscene games. For this meeting was not a continuation of their erotic rendezvous, each of which had been an opportunity to think up some new little vice; it was a recapitulation of time, a hymn to their common past, a sentimental summary of an unsentimental story that was disappearing in the distance.

The bowler hat was a motif in the musical composition that was Sabina’s life. It returned again and again, each time with a different meaning, and all the meanings flowed through the bowler hat like water through a riverbed. I might call it Heraclitus’ (“You can’t step twice into the same river”) riverbed: the bowler hat was a bed through which each time Sabina saw another river flow, another semantic river: each time the same object would give rise to a new meaning, though all former meanings would resonate (like an echo, like a parade of echoes) together with the new one. Each new experience would resound, each time enriching the harmony. The reason why Tomas and Sabina were touched by the sight of the bowler hat in a Zurich hotel and made love almost in tears was that its black presence was not merely a reminder of their love games but also a memento of Sabina’s father and of her grandfather, who lived in a century without airplanes and cars.

Now, perhaps, we are in a better position to understand the abyss separating Sabina and Franz: he listened eagerly to the story of her life and she was equally eager to hear the story of his, but although they had a clear understanding of the logical meaning of the words they exchanged, they failed to hear the semantic susurrus of the river flowing through them

And so when she put on the bowler hat in his presence, Franz felt uncomfortable, as if someone had spoken to him in a language he did not know. It was neither obscene nor sentimental, merely an incomprehensible gesture. What made him feel uncomfortable was its very lack of meaning.

While people are fairly young and the musical composition of their lives is still in its opening bars, they can go about writing it together and exchange motifs (the way Tomas and Sabina exchanged the motif of the bowler hat), but if they meet when they are older, like Franz and Sabina, their musical compositions are more or less complete, and every motif, every object, every word means something different to each of them If I were to make a record of all Sabina and Franz’s conversations, I could compile a long lexicon of their misunderstandings. Let us be content, instead, with a short dictionary.

 

A Short Dictionary of Misunderstood Words

 

WOMAN

Being a woman is a fate Sabina did not choose. What we have not chosen we cannot consider either our merit or our failure. Sabina believed that she had to assume the correct attitude to her unchosen fate. To rebel against being born a woman seemed as foolish to her as to take pride in it.

During one of their first times together, Franz announced to her, in an oddly emphatic way, “Sabina, you are a woman. ” She could not understand why he accentuated the obvious with the solemnity of a Columbus who has just sighted land. Not until later did she understand that the word “woman,” on which he had placed such uncommon emphasis, did not, in his eyes, signify one of the two human sexes; it represented a value. Not every woman was worthy of being called a woman.

But if Sabina was, in Franz’s eyes, a woman, then what was his wife, Marie-Claude? More than twenty years earlier, several months after Franz met Marie-Claude, she had threatened to take her life if he abandoned her. Franz was bewitched by the threat. He was not particularly fond of Marie-Claude, but he was very much taken with her love. He felt himself unworthy of so great a love, and felt he owed her a low bow.

He bowed so low that he married her. And even though Marie-Claude never recaptured the emotional intensity that accompanied her suicide threat, in his heart he kept its memory alive with the thought that he must never hurt her and always respect the woman in her.

It is an interesting formulation. Not “respect Marie-Claude,” but “respect the woman in Marie-Claude.” But if Marie-Claude is herself a woman, then who is that other woman hiding in her, the one he must always respect? The Platonic ideal of a woman, perhaps?

No. His mother. It never would have occurred to him to say he respected the woman in his mother. He worshiped his mother and not some woman inside her. His mother and the Platonic ideal of womanhood were one and the same.

When he was twelve, she suddenly found herself alone, abandoned by Franz’s father. The boy suspected something serious had happened, but his mother muted the drama with mild, insipid words so as not to upset him. The day his father left, Franz and his mother went into town together, and as they left home Franz noticed that her shoes did not match. He was in a quandary: he wanted to point out her mistake, but was afraid he would hurt her. So during the two hours they spent walking through the city together he kept his eyes fixed on her feet. It was then he had his first inkling of what it means to suffer.

 

FIDELITY AND BETRAYAL

He loved her from the time he was a child until the time he accompanied her to the cemetery; he loved her in his memories as well. That is what made him feel that fidelity deserved pride of place among the virtues: fidelity gave a unity to lives that would otherwise splinter into thousands of split-second impressions.

Franz often spoke about his mother to Sabina, perhaps even with a certain unconscious ulterior motive: he assumed that Sabina would be charmed by his ability to be faithful, that it would win her over.

What he did not know was that Sabina was charmed more by betrayal than by fidelity. The word “fidelity” reminded her of her father, a small-town puritan, who spent his Sundays painting away at canvases of woodland sunsets and roses in vases. Thanks to him, she started drawing as a child. When she was fourteen, she fell in love with a boy her age. Her father was so frightened that he would not let her out of the house by herself for a year. One day, he showed her some Picasso reproductions and made fun of them. If she couldn’t love her fourteen-year-old schoolboy, she could at least love cubism. After completing school, she went off to Prague with the euphoric feeling that now at last she could betray her home.

Betrayal. From tender youth we are told by father and teacher that betrayal is the most heinous offense imaginable. But what is betrayal? Betrayal means breaking ranks. Betrayal means breaking ranks and going off into the unknown. Sabina knew of nothing more magnificent than going off into the unknown.

Though a student at the Academy of Fine Arts, she was not allowed to paint like Picasso. It was the period when so-called socialist realism was prescribed and the school manufactured Portraits of Communist statesmen. Her longing to betray her rather remained unsatisfied: Communism was merely another rather, a father equally strict and limited, a father who forbade her love (the times were puritanical) and Picasso, too. And if she married a second-rate actor, it was only because he had a reputation for being eccentric and was unacceptable to both fathers.

Then her mother died. The day following her return to Prague from the funeral, she received a telegram saying that her father had taken his life out of grief.

Suddenly she felt pangs of conscience: Was it really so terrible that her father had painted vases filled with roses and hated Picasso? Was it really so reprehensible that he was afraid of his fourteen- year-old daughter’s coming home pregnant? Was it really so laughable that he could not go on living without his wife?

And again she felt a longing to betray: betray her own betrayal. She announced to her husband (whom she now considered a difficult drunk rather than an eccentric) that she was leaving him.

But if we betray B., for whom we betrayed A., it does not necessarily follow that we have placated A. The life of a divorcee-painter did not in the least resemble the life of the parents she had betrayed. The first betrayal is irreparable. It calls forth a chain reaction of further betrayals, each of which takes us farther and farther away from the point of our original betrayal.

 

MUSIC

For Franz music was the art that comes closest to Dionysian beauty in the sense of intoxication. No one can get really drunk on a novel or a painting, but who can help getting drunk on Beethoven’s Ninth, Bartok’s Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion, or the Beatles’ White Album? Franz made no distinction between “classical” music and “pop.” He found the distinction old-fashioned and hypocritical. He loved rock as much as Mozart.

He considered music a liberating force: it liberated him from loneliness, introversion, the dust of the library; it opened the door of his body and allowed his soul to step out into the world to make friends. He loved to dance and regretted that Sabina did not share his passion.

They were sitting together at a restaurant, and loud music with a heavy beat poured out of a nearby speaker as they ate.

“It’s a vicious circle,” Sabina said. “People are going deaf because music is played louder and louder. But because they’re going deaf, it has to be played louder still.”

“Don’t you like music?” Franz asked.

“No,” said Sabina, and then added, “though in a different era…” She was thinking of the days of Johann Sebastian Bach, when music was like a rose blooming on a boundless snow-covered plain of silence.

Noise masked as music had pursued her since early childhood. During her years at the Academy of Fine Arts, students had been required to spend whole summer vacations at a youth camp. They lived in common quarters and worked together on a steelworks construction site. Music roared out of loudspeakers on the site from five in the morning to nine at night. She felt like crying, but the music was cheerful, and there was nowhere to hide, not in the latrine or under the bedclothes: everything was in range of the speakers. The music was like a pack of hounds that had been sicked on her.

At the time, she had thought that only in the Communist world could such musical barbarism reign supreme. Abroad, she discovered that the transformation of music into noise was a planetary process by which mankind was entering the historical phase of total ugliness. The total ugliness to come had made itself felt first as omnipresent acoustical ugliness: cars, motorcycles, electric guitars, drills, loudspeakers, sirens. The omnipresence of visual ugliness would soon follow.

After dinner, they went upstairs to their room and made love, and as Franz fell asleep his thoughts began to lose coherence. He recalled the noisy music at dinner and said to himself, “Noise has one advantage. It drowns out words.” And suddenly he realized that all his life he had done nothing but talk, write, lecture, concoct sentences, search for formulations and amend them, so in the end no words were precise, their meanings were obliterated, their content lost, they turned into trash, chaff, dust, sand; prowling through his brain, tearing at his head, they were his insomnia, his illness. And what he yearned for at that moment, vaguely but with all his might, was unbounded music, absolute sound, a pleasant and happy all-encompassing, overpowering, window-rattling din to engulf, once and for all, the pain, the futility, the vanity of words. Music was the negation of sentences, music was the anti-word! He yearned for one long embrace with Sabina, yearned never to say another sentence, another word, to let his orgasm fuse with the orgiastic thunder of music. And lulled by that blissful imaginary uproar, he fell asleep.

 

LIGHT AND DARKNESS

Living for Sabina meant seeing. Seeing is limited by two borders: strong light, which blinds, and total darkness. Perhaps that was what motivated Sabina’s distaste for all extremism Extremes mean borders beyond which life ends, and a passion for extremism, in art and in politics, is a veiled longing for death.

In Franz the word “light” did not evoke the picture of a landscape basking in the soft glow of day; it evoked the source of light itself: the sun, a light bulb, a spotlight. Franz’s associations were familiar metaphors: the sun of righteousness, the lambent flame of the intellect, and so on.

Darkness attracted him as much as light. He knew that these days turning out the light before making love was considered laughable, and so he always left a small lamp burning over the bed. At the moment he penetrated Sabina, however, he closed his eyes. The pleasure suffusing his body called for darkness. That darkness was pure, perfect, thoughtless, visionless; that darkness was without end, without borders; that darkness was the infinite we each carry within us. (Yes, if you’re looking for infinity, just close your eyes!)

And at the moment he felt pleasure suffusing his body, Franz himself disintegrated and dissolved into the infinity of his darkness, himself becoming infinite. But the larger a man grows in his own inner darkness, the more his outer form diminishes. A man with closed eyes is a wreck of a man. Then, Sabina found the sight of Franz distasteful, and to avoid looking at him she too closed her eyes. But for her, darkness did not mean infinity; for her, it meant a disagreement with what she saw, the negation of what was seen, the refusal to see.

 

Sabina once allowed herself to be taken along to a gathering of fellow emigres. As usual, they were hashing over whether they should or should not have taken up arms against the Russians. In the safety of emigration, they all naturally came out in favor of fighting. Sabina said: “Then why don’t you go back and fight?”

That was not the thing to say. A man with artificially waved gray hair pointed a long index finger at her. “That’s no way to talk. You’re all responsible for what happened. You, too. How did you oppose the Communist regime? All you did was paint pictures. …”

Assessing the populace, checking up on it, is a principal and never-ending social activity in Communist countries. If a painter is to have an exhibition, an ordinary citizen to receive a visa to a country with a sea coast, a soccer player to join the national team, then a vast array of recommendations and reports must be garnered (from the concierge, colleagues, the police, the local Party organization, the pertinent trade union) and added up, weighed, and summarized by special officials. These reports have nothing to do with artistic talent, kicking ability, or maladies that respond well to salt sea air; they deal with one thing only: the “citizen’s political profile” (in other words, what the citizen says, what he thinks, how he behaves, how he acquits himself at meetings or May Day parades). Because everything (day-to-day existence, promotion at work, vacations) depends on the outcome of the assessment process, everyone (whether he wants to play soccer for the national team, have an exhibition, or spend his holidays at the seaside) must behave in such a way as to deserve a favorable assessment.

That was what ran through Sabina’s mind as she listened to the gray-haired man speak. He didn’t care whether his fellow-countrymen were good kickers or painters (none of the Czechs at the emigre gathering ever showed any interest in what Sabina painted); he cared whether they had opposed Communism actively or just passively, really and truly or just for appearances’ sake, from the very beginning or just since emigration.

Because she was a painter, she had an eye for detail and a memory for the physical characteristics of the people in Prague who had a passion for assessing others. All of them had index fingers slightly longer than their middle fingers and pointed them at whomever they happened to be talking to. In fact, President Novotny, who had ruled the country for the fourteen years preceding 1968, sported the very same barber-induced gray waves and had the longest index finger of all the inhabitants of Central Europe.

When the distinguished emigre heard from the lips of a painter whose pictures he had never seen that he resembled Communist President Novotny, he turned scarlet, then white, then scarlet again, then white once more; he tried to say something, did not succeed, and fell silent. Everyone else kept silent until Sabina stood up and left.

It made her unhappy, and down in the street she asked herself why she should bother to maintain contact with Czechs. What bound her to them? The landscape? If each of them were asked to say what the name of his native country evoked in him, the images that came to mind would be so different as to rule out all possibility of unity.

Or the culture? But what was that? Music? Dvorak and Janacek? Yes. But what if a Czech had no feeling for music? Then the essence of being Czech vanished into thin air.

Or great men? Jan Hus? None of the people in that room had ever read a line of his works. The only thing they were all able to understand was the flames, the glory of the flames when he was burned at the stake, the glory of the ashes, so for them the essence of being Czech came down to ashes and nothing more. The only things that held them together were their defeats and the reproaches they addressed to one another.

She was walking fast. She was more disturbed by her own thoughts than by her break with the emigres. She knew she was being unfair. There were other Czechs, after all, people quite different from the man with the long index finger. The embarrassed silence that followed her little speech did not by any means indicate they were all against her. No, they were probably bewildered by the sudden hatred, the lack of understanding they were all subjected to in emigration. Then why wasn’t she sorry for them? Why didn’t she see them for the woeful and abandoned creatures they were?

We know why. After she betrayed her father, life opened up before her, a long road of betrayals, each one attracting her as vice and victory. She would not keep ranks! She refused to keep ranks — always with the same people, with the same speeches! That was why she was so stirred by her own injustice. But it was not an unpleasant feeling; quite the contrary, Sabina had the impression she had just scored a victory and someone invisible was applauding her for it.

Then suddenly the intoxication gave way to anguish: The road had to end somewhere! Sooner or later she would have to put an end to her betrayals! Sooner or later she would have to stop herself!

It was evening and she was hurrying through the railway station. The train to Amsterdam was in. She found her coach. Guided by a friendly guard, she opened the door to her compartment and found Franz sitting on a couchette. He rose to greet her; she threw her arms around him and smothered him with kisses.

She had an overwhelming desire to tell him, like the most banal of women. Don’t let me go, hold me tight, make me your plaything, your slave, be strong! But they were words she could not say.

The only thing she said when he released her from his embrace was, “You don’t know how happy I am to be with you.” That was the most her reserved nature allowed her to express.

 

PARADES

People in Italy or France have it easy. When their parents force them to go to church, they get back at them by joining the Party (Communist, Maoist, Trotskyist, etc.). Sabina, however, was first sent to church by her father, then forced by him to attend meetings of the Communist Youth League. He was afraid of what would happen if she stayed away.

When she marched in the obligatory May Day parades, she could never keep in step, and the girl behind her would shout at her and purposely tread on her heels. When the time came to sing, she never knew the words of the songs and would merely open and close her mouth. But the other girls would notice and report her. From her youth on, she hated parades.

Franz had studied in Paris, and because he was extraordinarily gifted his scholarly career was assured from the time he was twenty. At twenty, he knew he would live out his life within the confines of his university office, one or two libraries, and two or three lecture halls. The idea of such a life made him feel suffocated. He yearned to step out of his life the way one steps out of a house into the street.

And so as long as he lived in Paris, he took part in every possible demonstration. How nice it was to celebrate something, demand something, protest against something; to be out in the open, to be with others. The parades filing down the Boulevard Saint-Germain or from the Place de la Republique to the Bastille fascinated him He saw the marching, shouting crowd as the image of Europe and its history. Europe was the Grand March. The march from revolution to revolution, from struggle to struggle, ever onward.

I might put it another way: Franz felt his book life to be unreal. He yearned for real life, for the touch of people walking side by side with him, for their shouts. It never occurred to him that what he considered unreal (the work he did in the solitude of the office or library) was in fact his real life, whereas the parades he imagined to be reality were nothing but theater, dance, carnival — in other words, a dream During her studies, Sabina lived in a dormitory. On May Day all the students had to report early in the morning for the parade. Student officials would comb the building to ensure that no one was missing.

Sabina hid in the lavatory. Not until long after the building was empty would she go back to her room. It was quieter than anywhere she could remember. The only sound was the parade music echoing in the distance. It was as though she had found refuge inside a shell and the only sound she could hear was the sea of an inimical world.

A year or two after emigrating, she happened to be in Paris on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of her country. A protest march had been scheduled, and she felt driven to take part. Fists raised high, the young Frenchmen shouted out slogans condemning Soviet imperialism. She liked the slogans, but to her surprise she found herself unable to shout along with them. She lasted no more than a few minutes in the parade.

When she told her French friends about it, they were amazed. “You mean you don’t want to fight the occupation of your country?” She would have liked to tell them that behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil and that the image of that evil was a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unison. But she knew she would never be able to make them understand. Embarrassed, she changed the subject.

 

THE BEAUTY OF NEW YORK

Franz and Sabina would walk the streets of New York for hours at a time. The view changed with each step, as if they were following a winding mountain path surrounded by breathtaking scenery: a young man kneeling in the middle of the sidewalk praying; a few steps away, a beautiful black woman leaning against a tree; a man in a black suit directing an invisible orchestra while crossing the street; a fountain spurting water and a group of construction workers sitting on the rim eating lunch; strange iron ladders running up and down buildings with ugly red facades, so ugly that they were beautiful; and next door, a huge glass skyscraper backed by another, itself topped by a small Arabian pleasure-dome with turrets, galleries, and gilded columns.

She was reminded of her paintings. There, too, incongruous things came together: a steelworks construction site superimposed on a kerosene lamp; an old-fashioned lamp with a painted-glass shade shattered into tiny splinters and rising up over a desolate landscape of marshland.

Franz said, “Beauty in the European sense has always had a premeditated quality to it. We’ve always had an aesthetic intention and a long-range plan. That’s what enabled Western man to spend decades building a Gothic cathedral or a Renaissance piazza. The beauty of New York rests on a completely different base. It’s unintentional. It arose independent of human design, like a stalagmitic cavern. Forms which are in themselves quite ugly turn up fortuitously, without design, in such incredible surroundings that they sparkle with a sudden wondrous poetry.”

Sabina said, “Unintentional beauty. Yes. Another way of putting it might be ‘beauty by mistake.’ Before beauty disappears entirely from the earth, it will go on existing for a while by mistake. ‘Beauty by mistake’ — the final phase in the history of beauty.”

And she recalled her first mature painting, which came into being because some red paint had dripped on it by mistake. Yes, her paintings were based on “beauty by mistake,” and New York was the secret but authentic homeland of her painting.

Franz said, “Perhaps New York’s unintentional beauty is much richer and more varied than the excessively strict and composed beauty of human design. But it’s not our European beauty. It’s an alien world.”

Didn’t they then at last agree on something?

No. There is a difference. Sabina was very much attracted by the alien quality of New York’s beauty. Franz found it intriguing but frightening; it made him feel homesick for Europe.

 

SABINA’S COUNTRY

Sabina understood Franz’s distaste for America. He was the embodiment of Europe: his mother was Viennese, his father French, and he himself was Swiss.

Franz greatly admired Sabina’s country. Whenever she told him about herself and her friends from home, Franz heard the words “prison,” “persecution,” “enemy tanks,” “emigration,” “pamphlets,” “banned books,” “banned exhibitions,” and he felt a curious mixture of envy and nostalgia.

He made a confession to Sabina. “A philosopher once wrote that everything in my work is unverifiable speculation and called me a ‘pseudo-Socrates.’ 1 felt terribly humiliated and made a furious response. And just think, that laughable episode was the greatest conflict I’ve ever experienced! The pinnacle of the dramatic possibilities available to my life! We live in two different dimensions, you and I. You came into my life like Gulliver entering the land of the Lilliputians.”

Sabina protested. She said that conflict, drama, and tragedy didn’t mean a thing; there was nothing inherently valuable in them, nothing deserving of respect or admiration. What was truly enviable was Franz’s work and the fact that he had the peace and quiet to devote himself to it.

Franz shook his head. “When a society is rich, its people don’t need to work with their hands; they can devote themselves to activities of the spirit. We have more and more universities and more and more students. If students are going to earn degrees, they’ve got to come up with dissertation topics. And since dissertations can be written about everything under the sun, the number of topics is infinite. Sheets of paper covered with words pile up in archives sadder than cemeteries, because no one ever visits them, not even on All Souls’ Day. Culture is perishing in overproduction, in an avalanche of words, in the madness of quantity. That’s why one banned book in your former country means infinitely more than the billions of words spewed out by our universities.”

It is in this spirit that we may understand Franz’s weakness for revolution. First he sympathized with Cuba, then with China, and when the cruelty of their regimes began to appall him, he resigned himself with a sigh to a sea of words with no weight and no resemblance to life. He became a professor in Geneva (where there are no demonstrations), and in a burst of abnegation (in womanless, paradeless solitude) he published several scholarly books, all of which received considerable acclaim Then one day along came Sabina. She was a revelation. She came from a land where revolutionary illusion had long since faded but where the thing he admired most in revolution remained: life on a large scale; a life of risk, daring, and the danger of death. Sabina had renewed his faith in the grandeur of human endeavor. Superimposing the painful drama of her country on her person, he found her even more beautiful.

The trouble was that Sabina had no love for that drama. The words “prison,” “persecution,” “banned books,” “occupation,” “tanks” were ugly, without the slightest trace of romance. The only word that evoked in her a sweet, nostalgic memory of her homeland was the word “cemetery.”

 

CEMETERY

Cemeteries in Bohemia are like gardens. The graves are covered with grass and colorful flowers. Modest tombstones are lost in the greenery. When the sun goes down, the cemetery sparkles with tiny candles. It looks as though the dead are dancing at a children’s ball. Yes, a children’s ball, because the dead are as innocent as children. No matter how brutal life becomes, peace always reigns in the cemetery. Even in wartime, in Hitler’s time, in Stalin’s time, through all occupations. When she felt low, she would get into the car, leave Prague far behind, and walk through one or another of the country cemeteries she loved so well. Against a backdrop of blue Mils, they were as beautiful as a lullaby.

For Franz a cemetery was an ugly dump of stones and bones.

how did we go so long without writing about saudi arabia?

see also: islamic liberation theology, religion as revolutionary social justice, radical empathy and a relationship with god, the necessity of doubt, religious law and human fallibility

we have no idea, but let’s rectify that asap.

let’s start with the topical stuff. the saudi ruling family has put a blockade in place, dropped more bombs than have been used in most wars in history, and created the worst man-made famine in decades that is starving the entire country of yemen. they use slave labor for construction, deny women citizens rights, execute activists, and, as they’ve admitted now, murder and dismember foreign journalists on foreign soil. that’s all been covered at length elsewhere and that’s not what we’re gonna cover in this post, which is the fact that the saudi establishment funds massive campaigns of religious colonialism using restricted aid/sponsorship to change entire countries’ practice of islam to a wahhabism that benefits saudi state interests (we’ll get to that in a bit) and the obscene greed of the saudi ruling family:

$1 trillion dollars! that’s an obscene, incomprehensible amount. that’s enough to give all 800 million people on earth living in extreme poverty (under $2 a day) $1200 each, or MVR 20,000. all 800 million people in extreme poverty on this planet, most doing back-breaking work every day, even if they somehow didn’t spend a cent of their income, would take two years to save up that much wealth.

$1 trillion dollars generates about $60-100 billion every year in just interest alone even if it all just sits there in a fund untouched (without compounding, so if you spent all $60-100 billion of that interest every year. that’s roughly the total wealth of mark zuckerburg, EVERY YEAR. it’s such an unbelievable number i want to emphasize it: if the saudi royal family spent SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, they would still have a trillion, that’s one thousand billion, dollars left). that said, it doesn’t stay untouched:

who the fuck needs a gold escalator to move 20 feet? and these are the folks claiming to have some kind of unique religious authority? i don’t remember stories of the sahabah getting custom-made gold caravans shipped over to cross the street.

for context– and remember that the whole conceit of wahhabism is a return to the ways of the prophet and the sahabah– that sounds very different from this:

hmm. everything we know about the lifestyles of saudi royalty (used interchangeably with saudi state, or saudi establishment, as is the case in an absolute monarchy), doesn’t really seem to vibe with those principles. anyway.

and prepare to be even more blown away by obscene wealth and obscene greed, this time even on the doorstep of the kaaba:

what the fuck, man.

it’s also important to note here that these hundreds of billions of dollars spent on extravagant displays of wealth could easily have been a smidge less extravagant and actually paid and treated the workers building all of this well. most human trafficking offenses are legal in saudi arabia, and the state has barely bothered to do anything about it. domestic workers are denied protections under saudi labor law. the government resolves most complaints of foreign worker abuse through mediation, setting up a largely powerless non-citizen worker with no provided legal aid thousands of miles from home to receive any justice in name only, and for the most part just sends victims back to their home countries without investigating or prosecuting crimes against them. that said, we as a country are implicit in doing kinda the same things ourselves and it’s horrific in both cases.

but anyway. now for how they’ve affected us as a country. it’s not a unique path that the saudi establishment has taken with the maldives: it’s right out of a playbook that’s applied around the world.

But Saudi Arabia has, for decades, been making investments of a different sort—those aimed at influencing Indonesian culture and religion. The king’s current visit is the apex of that methodical campaign, and “has the potential to accelerate the expansion of Saudi Arabia’s cultural resources in Indonesia,” according to Chris Chaplin, a researcher at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asia. “In fact, given the size of his entourage, I wouldn’t be surprised if there will be a flurry of networking activity amongst Indonesian alumni of Saudi universities.”

Since 1980, Saudi Arabia has devoted millions of dollars to exporting its strict brand of Islam, Salafism, to historically tolerant and diverse Indonesia. It has built more than 150 mosques (albeit in a country that has about 800,000), a huge free university in Jakarta, and several Arabic language institutes; supplied more than 100 boarding schools with books and teachers (albeit in a country estimated to have between 13,000 and 30,000 boarding schools); brought in preachers and teachers; and disbursed thousands of scholarships for graduate study in Saudi Arabia. All this adds up to a deep network of Saudi influence.

“The advent of Salafism in Indonesia is part of Saudi Arabia’s global project to spread its brand of Islam throughout the Muslim world,” said Din Wahid, an expert on Indonesian Salafism at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN) in Jakarta.

Indonesia may be the largest stage for Saudi Arabia’s cultural diplomacy, but it’s hardly the only one. Saudi Arabia built satellite campuses for Egypt’s Al-Azhar university in the 1980s, funded Bosnian rebels and later built them schools in the 1990s, bankrolled numerous madrassas in pre-Taliban Pakistan and Afghanistan, and sent 25,000 clerics to India between 2011 and 2013. Al-Hattem, of LIPIA Jakarta, was previously stationed at Saudi outfits in Bosnia and Djibouti. [x]

for a little backstory, i’m gonna let the same atlantic article summarize it for me:

It arose in reaction to 18th-century European colonialism in the Middle East, but it took particular root in Saudi Arabia in the hands of the influential preacher Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Al-Wahhab’s alliance with the House of Saud in 1744 cemented Wahhabism as the spiritual backbone of the Saudi Arabian state. And in the 20th century, Saudi Arabia, which had become fabulously oil-rich, started to invest its considerable resources in propagating its ideology abroad.

the pattern starts to become familiar:

“Theology, which is a mandatory subject there, is only taught by committed Wahhabis, and I really think their ideology is antithetical to traditional Indonesian Islam, which is usually syncretic and relaxed,” he explained.

Hundreds of Indonesians receive scholarships to study at Saudi universities every year. A few decades in, alumni of these programs are becoming nationally influential in their home country. Habib Rizieq, the founder of the Islamic Defenders Front, a hardline organization associated with religion-related violence, attended both LIPIA and King Saud University in Riyadh. Jafar Umar Thalib, who founded the militant Salafi group Laskar Jihad, also graduated from LIPIA. Right-wing Islamist leaders like Hidayat Nur Wahid, a member of parliament who earned three degrees on scholarship from the University of Medina, are prominent in mainstream politics.

LIPIA alumni have also set up pesantren, or Islamic boarding schools, across Indonesia. Many of the country’s 100-odd Salafi pesantren are supplied by Saudi Arabia with teachers, especially of Arabic language, and textbooks, according to Din Wahid. For many poor families, these pesantren are the only feasible option for their kids’ schooling, despite ideological quibbles, Wahid said.

Enterprising Saudi envoys have even made inroads in places like Aceh, the westernmost Indonesian province that’s been wracked by natural disasters like the 2004 tsunami. “We have built mosques, hospitals, and schools there,” the Saudi ambassador to Indonesia, Mohammad Abdullah Alshuaibi, told me. “And an Arabic language institute.”

that timeline is important, by the way. the devastation of the 2004 tsunami on many primarily muslim regions around the indian ocean brought in an influx of rebuilding funds from saudi arabia. of course, that money comes with strings attached, and some of that rebuilding occurred in its own image. think about it. think about the timeline, before 2004 and after 2004.

and why is this important? because controlling access to knowledge is a staggering form of power. it allows you to shape the very fabric of reality that exists because, in many ways, “reality” as we see it is a sort of consensus, where we all agree on hearing and seeing and learning about the same things. but when you shape what we know of reality, what we’re told is the way that we actually live. i’m gonna be lazy and quote from something we’d written before:

the material history of islam wasn’t just a matter of interest for the history books, but a cornerstone of the way people practiced their entire faith, and either a potential source of or threat to the legitimacy of the current ruling establishment. control over that history was, and remains, extremely powerful. i am aware of my own fallibility. i don’t know if the history i know is the right history. i don’t know which details might have been shifted by conservative leaders to justify establishment power, or which details may have been added by ideologues in academia.

i don’t know which translations of arabic, a famously subtle and complex language with more ambiguity and possibilities of interpretation than any other major world language, back up my positions, or even whether verbal and oral histories would have captured those subtleties in their exact form instead of as the listener heard and understood it. i don’t know which philosophical and judicial scholarship over the centuries was brought into this history, and which were left out, and what selection bias might have shaped my knowledge of islamic history, thought, and practice…

here is something we do know, that i think illustrates everything above about the multitude of interpretations, histories, traditions, practices, identities that shift and evolve but, at each point during that evolution, insists that the way things are now is in fact how they always were.. let’s take a zoomed-out view and try to describe the maldives as an observer. confirm this with your own memories: think about dragonfly season from your childhood and try to visualize how you saw faith practiced then. think about old men reading salawat, or about amulets or pieces of paper with written dua that your grandparents told you to keep. dhivehi islamic identity from our first conversion, through to as recently as my childhood, was a form of indigenous-traditional sufi-inspired sunnism. abu barakat al-barbari was a somalian with sufi inspirations. religious leaders’ tombs, zikr, mawlud, barakai kiyevun, all sufism inspired. the idea that it was always wahhabi-inspired sunnism, and the idea that modern political religious figures are upholding our traditional identity is revisionism. half our traditional islam, as practiced by generations and generations before us, would be considered bid’a now.

who decided that, anyway? how did that happen, and how did i not even notice? why was there no real public interrogation of such a drastic shift in how institutions defined what religion was and how we should practice it? how does a country that literally defines itself by its faith switch completely from one interpretation to the other? i mean, the maldives considers its muslim identity such a crucial part of national identity that it’s a condition for citizenship. a huge change in what constitutes muslim identity is a crucial question. and i think it’s an important one.

the answer to “who decided, anyway?” is simple. this is who decides what reality is, and how they do it:

people will protest that what they learn and preach is directly from the texts, that they know arabic and know what’s said, but religious scripture is almost by definition incredibly complex and any study of scripture is influenced by the exegesis. nobody becomes a scholar of anything by just knowing the primary texts without a framework built by hundreds of scholars over decades, even centuries.

this applies even more for a text in arabic, a language that (to directly quote myself from earlier) is known for being more subtle and complex, with more room for ambiguity and possibilities of interpretation than almost any other major world language. any understanding of texts in historical dialects of a language that was literally known for a level of ambiguity and complexity that made it a perfect language for poetry, even in the time of the prophet (pbuh), is based on exegesis. the control of exegesis in any religion is, in a sense, exerting control over how people understand the scripture of that religion, and in this case the extreme wealth of the saudi state and its control over the kaaba means that they’re the ones controlling the realities and knowledge of what we consider religion to begin with, and they shape our entire body of knowledge in ways that bolster their objectives. here’s one example:

there’s other forms of control, aside from the massive funding and the control of access to religious knowledge:

One reason Indonesia has been reluctant to push back on Saudi cultural advances is the all-important hajj quota, the number of citizens who can make pilgrimage to Mecca in a given year. Indonesia gets the largest allowance in the world: 221,000 this year. But decade-long hajj waiting lists are common in many provinces, and jeopardizing the national allowance could provoke a huge backlash, said Dadi Darmadi, a UIN researcher and hajj expert.

“That being said, the Indonesian government has to be more wise and stop considering the hajj quota as a political gambit to attract more populist support in this country,” Darmadi said.

and that’s not good for us. having what we believe to be real about our religion and our own history and memory of how we practiced religion be shaped by parties with clear self-interest. this is particularly clear when we look at extremism here, which, again, is part of a pattern around the world:

Some of Indonesia’s leading jihadists have passed through Saudi institutions. Although Salafism is [officially] largely “quietist,” or discouraging of political activity, there is a growing faction of Salafi jihadists in Indonesia, according to Din Wahid.

In 1972, Saudi money helped to found the “ivy league” of jihadist pesantren, the Al-Mukmin school in Ngruki, Central Java. The Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah received funding from Saudi charities in the early 2000s. Salafi TV, YouTube channels, Facebook groups, and Telegram channels have become a fertile ground for female extremists and ISIS sympathizers in Indonesia in the last few years, according to a 2017 report from the Institute of Policy Analysis and Conflict (IPAC).

“We’ve been seeing some evidence of the transition from Salafism to extremism among female extremists of the ISIS generation,” said Nava Nuraniyah, an IPAC researcher.

“We need King Salman to make a clear and bold statement denouncing radicalism,” said Yahya Cholil Staquf of the moderate Muslim organization Nahdlatul Ulama. Otherwise, he said, “His visit will be easily perceived as more support to radical Islamic movements in Indonesia, as it is already a common public understanding that those radical movements take theological reference from Saudi Wahhabism and have been enjoying various kinds of support from Saudi Arabia.”

“Salafi pesantren, and Saudi-inspired religious education in general, no longer necessarily rely on Saudi donations, as followers have become incredibly adept at raising money locally,” Chaplin said.

As the rise of hardliners, the Arabic language, and Salafi jihadist cells in Indonesia show, Salafism has some undeniable, durable appeal here. In Indonesia, at least, Saudi Arabia is already seeing the fruits of its labor. This new religious ecosystem may be self-sustaining.

“this new religious ecosystem may be self-sustaining.” in other words, we’re now stuck with this shit, just like dozens of countries around the world. i sure hope not, but we may be screwed in ways that will be really hard to repair.

and i’ll leave you on that haunting note: the way things are now may be self-sustaining.

stop telling people they look fat when you meet them

is one from a list of some basic pieces of advice that I wish I could give to every Maldivian, every brown family member, everyone in general:

Don’t comment on weight, period. Don’t compliment people for losing weight when you first see them: it could be an eating disorder, they might be ill or stressed, you don’t know their life. The same for the other way around: it could be many things & none your business regardless.

Don’t jump in with unsolicited health advice. You’ve seen the feedback by strangers on photos a fat person posts talking about how they’re unhealthy and giving them advice on how to lose weight or chastising them. This applies particularly if you don’t say the same things to any skinny person having a cigarette with their burger and coke, or don’t judge a thinner person by immediately writing them off as lacking willpower or being lazy, without knowing anything about them, if you see them having an unhealthy snack. Not only do you not know context, and not only is it none of your business, but people aren’t dumb. They know their own bodies and well-being better than someone else.

You can guarantee that anything insulting or condescending or dismissive you say, or any “health advice” or diet suggestion or attempt at shaming? They’ve heard it a hundred times before, because again, society treats fat people like shit. The inner voice probably says it constantly. So if you find this impulse coming to you, stfu is my advice.

If you feel compelled, if you’re one of those people who get hit with a sudden burst of Social Responsibility whenever you see anything online or off that is remotely respectful or complimentary toward any fat person, and insist that you need to state the importance of health, that it’s some kind of duty to remind or nudge or shame them into losing weight before that sense of duty immediately goes into hibernation until the next body positivity post enters your feed: first of all, that’s so weird, dude. But also, health criticism doesn’t have to be an ever-present 24/7 aspect of any discussion about any fat person’s life or experiences; we don’t pair everything else we ever talk about, every time we talk about it, with common knowledge the listener already knows. It’s dehumanizing to not be able to separate someone from their body. its insulting to think of any fat person as some kind of mindless agency-lacking child who needs to be constantly informed on things they hear and see everyday and aren’t aware of their own body and health.

Society treats fat people like shit. In a superficial society obsessed with monitoring and controlling people for maximum desirability for consumption, pretty much everything except unattainable perfection gets you treated poorly, yeah. But there’s levels. You don’t need to put fat folks down because society is shitty to you too.

While you’re at it, don’t do the #WhatAboutMen or #WhatAboutWhitePeople and derail people talking about the specific ways in which society treats fat people awfully by talking about the ways other bodies (probably every kind of body, in aforementioned superficial society obsessed with control) are also treated poorly. You don’t need to crowd out someone’s discussion. There’s lots of real estate to be carved out for more conversations about body image that don’t need to crowd into the same space and derail another one. And while carving out that new real estate, you need to have some consideration.

Fat shouldn’t be an insult. Don’t tell people “no, you’re not fat”, like being fat is some horrible curse. It’s just a body type, and so many body types look so good, and if you open your mind the world is full of so many more people whose hotness you can appreciate to be honest. There’s studies that suggest many people, especially men, find many overweight people attractive but don’t admit it and limit themselves to only dating thinner people because they’re afraid of their friends looking down on them for going out with a fat person, because people do that, because society treats people like shit.

But that gets to an interesting point, which is that that says is we’ve got kind of a herd mentality about controlling body image that we all keep up even though we’d all be happier if we dismissed all of it. Beauty standards for bodies have differed throughout history with current archetypes arising (at least in the West) after the cultural revolutions of the late 60s. It’s not biological but social: without the openly disciplinary nature of the much more traditional previous eras and in a dysfunctional and alienating society, something needed to fill the role, and one of the earliest of them was diet culture. Having an ideal, being constantly focused on achieving it, restricting yourself from worldly pleasures in pursuit of that ideal goal, monitoring each other constantly to ensure we all conformed because if we all didn’t keep up that illusion we’d have spent so much time and energy denying ourselves pleasures and putting ourselves through hunger and exhaustion for nothing, punishing ourselves for not achieving that ideal. Diet culture and all the ways it makes us treat people like shit for being fat plays a social role that doesn’t do us any good. Of course, as with most theories about social phenomena, that’s a theory where different schools of theorists differ, but I think it’s pretty compelling.

So I understand the psychology behind those reactions: all of us are constantly subjected to the notion of fat as a horror to avoid, and people who do so often feel like its hard work or willpower they had which others didn’t have, and that not getting treated like shit for being fat is some kind of earned reward. And that’s so dysfunctional when you think about it. Sticking to how things are in established society is the lazy option (just like getting defensive before reading all of this and thinking it over is lazy as fuck, and I expect people to do that instead of just reacting reflexively, which a lot of people seem to do on this topic, viscerally, and with venom).

Finally, don’t just listen to me. There are dozens of great articles about all this out there. This is a good one.

on the pickup/redpill propaganda of human desire

this will be repetitive because i’m trying to drum home a basic point some people seem to struggle to understand

tl;dr: different people are into different things to the point where the idea of a universal scale of sexual value where you luck into a high or low value is completely detached from reality. you can look around you and see all kinds of women horny for all kinds of men and vice versa, instead of all following a universal biological imperative

you ask people around you what they’re into and get a lot of different answers, or even just see what people have written or said online. to believe otherwise would be making the pretty dehumanizing assumption that all these other people attracted to different things instead of all the same thing are either a) lying about what they’re attracted to and just settling, b) so self-deluded that they don’t actually know what they’re attracted to even as they go about it

that is much less sensible than this: people really are horny for what they’re horny for. believing in lucking out into a decided position on a sexual value hierarchy is a fatalistic belief that you’re screwed because of nature or society, instead of being a grown-up surrounded by grown-ups just like you and taking responsibility for doing something about it.

even shorter tl;dr: everyone around you is a fully complex human being who values different things, and women everywhere around you aren’t lying or idiots about what they’re attracted to

Continue reading

men have no reason to be committed to the way things are

when colonists took over populations, they faced a major problem. how would you keep a massive population of men, who feel increasingly powerless as power was transferred to colonists, from rioting and maintain some kind of peace? they came upon something people have referred to as the patriarchal bargain: easing the sense of powerlessness of the men by enshrining, in the details of legal and cultural practice and in how they governed, by effectively giving men complete control over women and children. women and children wouldn’t be protected. women and children would be the domain of men, who could take out their sense of powerlessness by tyrannically controlling the units of their families that were made subservient to them.

the colonists had stumbled upon an interesting sociological insight: the ability to exercise power is at the core of societal views of masculinity, and society allows men to displace their humiliation at feelings of lack of power in their lives by wantonly exercising the power they can exercise over others. you can see this in rates of domestic violence by unemployed men, or in controlling behavior by jealous and threatened men. a lot of the research on societal dynamics describes it. it’s something you might have experienced. growing up, boys have the entire framework of their lives based, very subtly but very completely, around power. social status is about jostling for dominance and in every social setting, every year of school, you’re squeezed into a spot in the pecking order. you prove yourself by demonstrating physical ability or sexual exploits. you avoid the tiniest implication of femininity or non-heterosexuality because they will be ruthlessly used to push you lower on the ladder of power. you act in ways to try dispel even the possibility. even in its healthier aspects, masculinity is still framed in terms of power: the power to provide for your family, the power to protect those you love, even the power to keep your girlfriends or wives satisfied. and to round it all off, boys are told the absolute worst possible thing that can happen to them is humiliation- not hurt, not sorrow, not loss, not isolation, not fear, but humiliation.

power and humiliation. power, meaning that from boyhood onward we constantly scrutinize each other, even subconsciously, for either the smallest threat or the smallest sign of weakness, and if any are spotted- any kind of difference, any softness, any emotions expressed outside of a particular way, any misgivings- the result is ruthless. sociologists call it “policing masculinity”, and the term seems about right. it’s not about cruelty, or about the innate nature of boys. it’s that so much underlying everything we absorb about society growing up is about power. it’s about the threat of humiliation for not having the power to protect yourself from it, and then the humiliation of not having had the power to have protected yourself.

i know some of you are getting defensive right now, but that’s part of it, isn’t it? we’re taught to take this kind of thing really badly. power and humiliation are the governing forces of the male psyche, often in ways that can be incredibly harmful not just to ourselves but to people around us. the place humiliation holds for men is why, in a world where most of the women you know probably have faced and definitely have to worry everyday about facing horrific violence, men say with a straight face that we’re terrified to talk to women because we worry about being laughed at or humiliated. i think that statement is as absurd as it sounds in the context of that sentence, but i understand what drives it.

but i mean harmful. as in, men often bottle up their feelings because they don’t want to seem vulnerable. and i mean harmful, as in, intense misogyny both as a way to assert power over women and a way to tell the men around you that you’re repulsed by qualities associated with femininity or sensitivity and that you don’t think of women confidants where you can escape the policing. i mean harmful, as in, showing your friends sexts you’ve received without the permission of the sender because you’re asserting your power over someone’s body. i mean harmful, as in, cussing out or attacking a woman for rejecting you. i mean harmful, as in, turning on women who speak out about sexism or assault or violence and trying to tear down their claims or credibility on social media.

not all of us do that, sure, but power and the threat of humiliation being dominant in our collective psyches fuels some of us to do all that, and it definitely has a toxic and poisonous hold on all of us that warps our ability to exist as ourselves and compels us to keep sustaining this thing that does none of us any good.

this state of things feels normal, yeah. it feels like it’s perfectly fine, and a perfectly reasonable way for things to be. but look at any child, someone still completely innocent and learning about the world: would you wish all your views of yourself, all your neuroses and fears and insecurities, everything you were made to experience growing up, upon that child? would you want them to have to deal with all the things that made you the way you are now? that’s what we do today, to thousands and thousands of children. i think we owe it to them to try start with thinking deeply about ourselves.

bell hooks discusses this:

As a daughter I was taught that it was my role to serve, to be weak, to be free from the burden of thinking, to caretake and nurture others. My brother was taught that it was his role to be served; to provide; to be strong; to think, strategize, and plan; and to refuse to caretake or nurture others. I was taught that it was not proper for a female to be violent, that it was “unnatural.” My brother was taught hat his value would be determined by his will to do violence (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that for a boy, enjoying violence was a good thing (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that a boy should not express feelings. I was taught that girls could and should express feelings, or at least some of them.

Family therapist Terrence Real tells how his sons were initiated into patriarchal thinking even as their parents worked to create a loving home in which anti-patriarchal values prevailed. He tells of how his young son Alexander enjoyed dressing as Barbie until boys playing with his older brother witnessed his Barbie persona and let him know by their gaze and their shocked, disapproving silence that his behavior was unacceptable:

“Without a shred of malevolence, the stare my son received transmitted a message. You are not to do this. And the medium that message was broadcast in was a potent emotion: shame. At three, Alexander was learning the rules. A ten second wordless transaction was powerful enough to dissuade my son from that instant forward from what had been a favorite activity. I call such moments of induction the “normal traumatization” of boys.”

To indoctrinate boys into the rules of patriarchy, we force them to feel pain and to deny their feelings. Patriarchy demands of men that they become and remain emotional cripples.

Until we can collectively acknowledge the damage patriarchy causes and the suffering it creates, we cannot address male pain. We cannot demand for men the right to be whole, to be givers and sustainers of life. Obviously some patriarchal men are reliable and even benevolent caretakers and providers, but still they are imprisoned by a system that undermines their mental health.

Patriarchy as a system has denied males access to full emotional well-being, which is not the same as feeling rewarded, successful, or powerful because of one’s capacity to assert control over others. To truly address male pain and male crisis we must as a nation be willing to expose the harsh reality that patriarchy has damaged men in the past and continues to damage them in the present. If patriarchy were truly rewarding to men, the violence and addiction in family life that is so all-pervasive would not exist. This violence was not created by feminism.

The crisis facing men is not the crisis of masculinity, it is the crisis of patriarchal masculinity. Until we make this distinction clear, men will continue to fear that any critique of patriarchy represents a threat. Terrence Real makes clear that the patriarchy damaging us all is embedded in our psyches:

“Psychological patriarchy is the dynamic between those qualities deemed “masculine” and “feminine” in which half of our human traits are exalted while the other half is devalued. Both men and women participate in this tortured value system. Psychological patriarchy is a “dance of contempt,” a perverse form of connection that replaces true intimacy with complex, covert layers of dominance and submission, collusion and manipulation. It is the unacknowledged paradigm of relationships that has suffused Western civilization generation after generation, deforming both sexes, and destroying the passionate bond between them.”

To end male pain, to respond effectively to male crisis, we have to name the problem. We have to both acknowledge that the problem is patriarchy and work to end patriarchy. Terrence Real offers this valuable insight: “The reclamation of wholeness is a process even more fraught for men than it has been for women, more difficult and more profoundly threatening to the culture at large.” If men are to reclaim the essential goodness of male being, if they are to regain the space of openheartedness and emotional expressiveness that is the foundation of well-being, we must envision alternatives to patriarchal masculinity. We must all change.

what’s one of a thousand ways this can play out? when male unemployment rates rise and the lack of jobs makes men feel powerless and unable to provide, we see sexual harassment claims rise [1, 2]. i’m not suggesting that the onus on preventing harassment and violence is on the job market, but that maybe, as men, we need to spend a good amount of time being real introspective about what really deep down drives us, what the root under the root is that we usually never think about, how the ways we were shaped by society might warp us in ways that might be harmful, about whether we’re a forgiving and free environment for our friends to express their feelings and whether we push them towards healthier behavior while holding them accountable, whether we will perpetuate this onto our children or we’ll end the cycle here.

what do you owe your country?

do you owe your country loyalty?

do you owe the state your time, your money?

do you feel a need to repay the state, somehow?

to give back? to stay?

ok, now. what does your country owe you?

does it owe you freedom?

does it owe you safety? does it offer you protection from violence?

does it value what you have to give?

would it accept you if it saw you for all you were?

would it cause you harm?

should you honor a social contract that your country won’t?

should it be demanded? should it be expected?

is being, giving, staying anyway an act of duty or an act of love?

will your country return your love?

is it okay to love yourself if it won’t?

foucault’s panopticon and understanding power

Michel Foucault’s concept of the Panopticon as a theory of society and power was inspired by a plan for a highly efficient model for a prison originally designed by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. This system, for Bentham, allows for a highly efficient prison in which only one guard can supervise many prisoner, and in fact even no guard since the prisoners act on their own as if they are being watched. Here’s how Wikipedia describes a panopticon prison:

Residing within cells flooded with light, occupants would be readily distinguishable and visible to an official invisibly positioned in the central tower. Conversely, occupants would be invisible to each other, with concrete walls dividing their cells. Due to the bright lighting emitted from the watch tower, occupants would not be able to tell if and when they are being watched at any given, making discipline a passive rather than an active action. Strangely, the cell-mates act in matters as if they are being watched, though they cannot be certain eyes are actually on them. There is a type of invisible discipline that reigns through the prison, for each prisoner self-regulates, in fear that someone is watching their every move.

Image result for panopticon

Foucault wrote about the Panopticon as an analogy in a theory of power. Discipline works to produce individuals who act “on their own” within the interest of power. Society is structured in ways that constantly polices and disciplines your individual expression of the self whenever it deviates too much from what is considered acceptable by authority, or those that hold power. This isn’t just legal consequences, but personal. The fear of punishment means people monitor each other for deviations that might draw the wrath of the Panopticon, from challenging the established social order such as the patriarchy, to challenging wealth and power through means like union recruiting, to challenging the legitimacy of a ruling regime. The Panopticon applies in many of what we consider the organizing units of society. Schools, the workplace, out in public, around family, on social media, around your friends, all contain a set of implicit rules about how you must behave and the sense that the guards are always watching, ready to discipline you for any transgression from those rules.

The power of the Panopticon lies in the constant monitoring of ourselves. Prisoners in the Panopticon jail can’t see each other or the guard, but the guard can see everybody and in fact does not even have to be there in order to discipline the prisoners. The prisoner, not knowing if he is being watched or not, must at all times act as if he is being watched by the guard, and in time he himself becomes his own guard.

This type of power is long-lasting, anonymous and highly disciplinary. The Panopticon is an instrument for the transformation of individuals. It allows the system to observe, document and study them, and the knowledge of being documented and classified means individuals conform to categories and boundaries of what each institution of power can and cannot accept. With enough self-policing and conformance, practices become habits and habit becomes character, and the individual exists completely shaped by whichever Panopticon has had him in its gaze.

understanding patriarchy – bell hooks

Below is a great essay by bell hooks, and if you’re going to argue with me about patriarchy or feminism or male privilege and you want to be doing that in actual good faith instead of just being contrarian, prove it by reading this essay and engaging with it first:

Patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation. Yet most men do not use the word “patriarchy” in everyday life. Most men never think about patriarchy—what it means, how it is created and sustained. Many men in our nation would not be able to spell the word or pronounce it correctly. The word “patriarchy” just is not a part of their normal everyday thought or speech. Men who have heard and know the word usually associate it with women’s liberation, with feminism, and therefore dismiss it as irrelevant to their own experiences. I have been standing at podiums talking about patriarchy for more than thirty years. It is a word I use daily, and men who hear me use it often ask me what I mean by it. Nothing discounts the old antifeminist projection of men as all-powerful more than their basic ignorance of a major facet of the political system that shapes and informs male identity and sense of self from birth until death. I often use the phrase “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe the interlocking political systems that are the foundation of our nation’s politics. Of these systems the one that we all learn the most about growing up is the system of patriarchy, even if we never know the word, because patriarchal gender roles are assigned to us as children and we are given continual guidance about the ways we can best fulfill these roles.

Continue reading