The Islamic Embrace
Societies whose mainstay is based upon a single, overpowering allure of theism and whose every action of every day is informed by a code of behaviour and strict allegiance to a Deity who demands utter conformation to a sacred code; complete submission of self and ego to that completely life-instructing, deliberately complex mode of self-sacrifice by and large remain wedded to the familiar comfort of their belief and the immutable tenets of their religion.All the more so when those societies have never known any other demands upon their allegiance in living memory. And when, in addition, the multifarious minutiae of those theistic compulsions inform each and every act comprised of day-to-day life, a way of life enshrined in the culture, totally accepted by the society at large, the formula for continuance and complete submission does not yield easily to change.
Certainly not a change that is seen to be attempted to be imposed by an outside source. Any minor differences or major, between the adherents of the religion and way of life are dissolved and the culture acts as one to deny the intruder entry, standing together as a single entity in defiance of interference from the world outside the historical culture.
This kind of rejection of outside influence demanding change to a religion, a culture not completely understood by the outsider is a normal component of human relations. As frangibly connected as any family can be, they pull together as a deeply homogeneous group to deny any type of assault upon one of their community, in complete harmony expressing a common purpose - of defense.
My father may have been a brute, but he was good to us; my brother may have committed atrocities but he is my brother; my mother may have looked the other way, but she is, above all else, my mother. It takes a tremblingly-enlightened mind heavily burdened by a sense of right and wrong irrespective of religious indoctrination to distinguish between personal alliances and group responsibility.
In the ordinary course of human experience why would a close social group bound together by religion, history and culture lend itself to the re-structuring and re-evaluation of all they have ever held dear at the behest of an arrogant outsider? And in the ordinary course of human experience religious belief has been encouraged as a means by which an elite has been able to control a populace. It is only when education and experience conspire to prod people to question the status quo that change occurs; not outside intervention.
Fear of the Almighty and a wish to conform to expectations by the society at large speaks to the human condition where, as gregarious creatures, we seek acceptance and 'belonging' to specific groups shape our identify and give us comfort. When we're conditioned to accept a way of life as normal, and respect the prohibitions that ensure the society acts as one, we don't take kindly to outside sources imposing re-structuring.
When everyone in a society, an ethnic group, a traditional culture, accepts the basic tenets of an ethology, an ideology, a religion, the community itself is pacified from within, and the individual obligations to the society as a whole are guaranteed. No one likes being different, odd man out, the square nail that won't fit into the round peg. There is comfort in conforming, in being a respected part of a cultural whole.
Without the guidance of a religion-imposed group of instructions to ensure that people behave well, anarchy may result in some societies. It's no different in societies whose ethology is based on secularism, and the political system lays out specific laws and civil entitlements. While it's true that people as individuals do, by and large, have an inbred sense of right and wrong, it helps when the boundaries are set and writ in stone.
Societies that have been long accustomed to living with a theology that defines their every act, their very perceptions, their reactions and their mode of living, from the pedestrian acts of everyday life, to the sublime surrender of their spirits to the vision of a God, are more inclined to accept strictures on their personal freedoms; indeed won't even recognize them as such. They are willing, obligatory, silk-threaded trammels.
There are those who claim that in secularly-administered countries a higher incidence of graft and corruption, nepotism and self-serving betrayals of the society at large occur, and they may be right. That belief seems certainly to have led to the rise of a stricter adherence to the Islamic code of reference in some societies. In Western countries where religion has taken a decided back stage to secular social life, there is a breakdown in civility, values and morals.
On the other hand, there are definite Islamic countries ruled by authoritarian militias, corrupt politicians, and monarchical dynasties some of whom impose a strictly religious rule, others not, whose rule may emulate that of a democracy, but yet whose administrations leave their populations ill-served through indifference, incompetence or outright corruption.
Strictly formulaic Islamic states like Iran (and Afghanistan under the Taliban) demonstrate themselves to be equally self-serving, corrupt, brutal and given to the practise of the irrelevance of human rights. Their fundamentalist interpretation of the religion they practise leaves their populations in thrall to an illusion and a promise, while denying them the opportunity to attain basic civil rights.
When people become completely dissatisfied with the lives they are forced by such circumstances to lead, when they are so restive and resentful that they look elsewhere for hope, they will grasp at alternatives that promise hope for their futures. Which has helped to bring Islamist groups to the fore, as an alternative to the failures which have administered poorly.
Hezbollah and Hamas, both devoutly jihadist Islamist groups, owe their popularity to their discerning eye in realizing that their populations were horribly underserved, and their promise to serve their people and bring them out of their social-economic dudgeon brought them popular support, giving them the opportunity to re-shape politics.
Conversely, in Afghanistan, the populace had its brief flirtation with fundamentalist Islam which brought them only abuse, stagnation, ignorance and grief, and rejected it in favour of a new and 'clean' administration (which yet burdened itself with human-rights-abusing warlords for whom the Taliban were the purported solution).
If Muslim populations look to modernize themselves to create a society where women are completely emancipated, where economic opportunities, scientific and social advancement are recognized and practised, while still remaining observant Muslims, they've really got to reach out toward moderation, elusive enough for any group at any time.
As long as Muslims fear to take the initiative, to take steps to blend their beliefs with secular modernism, honouring their religion, while joining the political-economic, educational, philosophical, scientific, social ideals and values that will connect them with other societies, and bring them to a state of acceptance of other religions, suspicion, fear and resentment will always rule.
Big order. As it is, too few moderate voices are heard in the wilderness of dissent and protest against the burgeoning Islamist agenda.
Labels: Political Realities, Religion
posted by Pieface @ Wednesday, August 29, 2007
<< Home