Occident/Orient - And Shall Never the Twain Meet?
"But he saw with the eyes of the Far East; and the ways of his judgements were not as our ways. For even as the Occident regards the Far East, so does the Far East regard the Occident, - only with this difference: that what each most esteems in itself is least likely to be esteemed by the other. And both are partly right and partly wrong; and there never has been, and never can be, perfect mutual comprehension.?Those words, and the thoughtful observations behind them, written and published in 1890 by Lafcadio Hearn in his book "Kokoro", while living and thriving in the Far East could conceivably be repeated and borne in mind by Westerners attempting to understand the "eyes" of the Middle East. We substitute Islam for Buddhism, and the above quote legitimizes our current state of lack of comprehension, one of the other.
Not, However, that it seems particularly helpful to do so, merely apt. The fact is we do not truly understand one another, nor do we seem to make very great efforts to do so. One of the reasons being that in dealing with a truly intractible mind-set, one dealing with the zealotry of the true believer, the ardent fundamentalist, no amount of analysis and attempts at comprehension by someone whose values are so completely at odds with that of the fundamentalist is even remotely possible.
Reason over passion is a Western construct. Where feelings, emotions, and passion reside in the human brain is at the most elemental level of existence, long before the reasoning portion of the brain was fully developed. We are closer, by nature, to the expression of our emotions than to the functioning of our cerebrum to reason, and to respond with reason.
Our intellect is subject to the whims of our passionate nature. In some societies it becomes obvious that a balance has been reached over generations and people are capable of reason overriding passion. Unfortunately, when a collective, generational mindset has been so immersed in matters of emotional attachment to the concept of a God whose purpose is to rule relentlessly, manipulatively over every aspect of mankind's journey through life the ability to think, reason and make independent judgements and decisions is lost.
A case in point, one that sets out the dilemma faced by Western thinkers (themselves religious or secular), is that of the faithful believer whose culture, traditions, ancestral home and the traditions and allegiances evolving from that combination, melded with the passion of a tribal, historical, demanding religion defining a way of life beyond the understanding of a rational mind accustomed to weighing issues and judging their values independently of religion's demands and culture's imperatives.
In The Daily Telegraph two correspondents, Isambard Wilkinson and Ashraf Ali reported on a singular event that is illustrative of a general attitude and comprehensive response of devoutly religious Muslims in the Middle East, where to wage jihad is seen as a holy quest, a demand by Muhammad upon Allah's fervent followers, and set down for posterity and observation in the Holy Koran.
They write of an elderly man in Pakistan, by name of Bahadur Ali, who upon being informed that his son had killed himself and a Canadian , Corporal Andrew James Eykelenboom who was driving in a NATO convoy, appeared beside himself with shock. The young man, Bahar Ali, 23 years of age, had rammed a car laden with explosives against a military vehicle in Kandahar two weeks earlier.
After listening to the exlanation of the occurrence, Mr. Ali, a Pashtun Pakistani Muslim, announced: "I am proud of my son. He has done a great job. Had I been his age, I would have spared no time in joining the jihadis who are at war agains the infidels." Mr. Ali evidently had little idea what his son was up to, that he had joined the ranks of radicalized Pakistanis agreeable to sacrificing their lives for Islam.
Mr. Ali's reaction of shock was not that he had lost his son, that his young son had died, that he was in grief over the fact that his son preceded him unnaturally in the order of nature's generations, in death - and a horribly violent death at that and in the process killing another human being. His shock appears to be related to the fact that he had no idea his son was preparing to be a religious hero, in the process bringing the glory of martyrdom to his family.
"The people of the village are happy that God has blessed them with a martyr", Bahadur Ali stated. This was the second "martyr" (shaheed), that the village had produced; the previous one killing ten people, including two Canadian soldiers. "With his martyrdom my son has enrolled me on the list of those 20 persons to take with him to paradise", said his father, in reference to an Islamic code that indicates a martyr can select a score of people to accompany him to heaven. "So why should I not be proud of him?"
Can one reason with people who celebrate death, while denying the sanctity of life - for themselves as well as for others? Who will lend themselves willingly, eagerly to delivering death to other human beings whom they consider to be infidels, and as such unworthy of life? Can one reason with people so immersed in their religion that when passages in their holy book convince them that to go to war is a religious imperative, to kill other people is a religious requirement, to sacrifice one's own life in the process is worthy of great celebration?
And because of that willing sacrifice to the Divine, rewards will be their portion in death as it was denied them in life. The young martyr, Bahar Ali, was a disaffected young man, disappointed in the opportunities that seemed to elude him in life, a soft target for radical activists, religious terrorists singling out such unhappy people for recruitment as suicide-killers.
Can Western minds grapple with that kind of logic, that kind of religious doctrine, that kind of embrace of death, for self, for others for the purpose of obeying Divine orders?
posted by Pieface @ Saturday, September 02, 2006
<< Home