It’s about how Muslim preachers remind people of their impending death in order to jolt them towards morality. The basis of the argument is that you will soon be held accountable by God, and you should, therefore, make sure you are prepared for judgment, and make use of your time on earth to improve the outcome of the life you’ll live beyond the grave.

How Morality is Understood

Muslims, in general, see morality as a list of actions that we must perform, and others that we must avoid, in order to be graded on the Day of Judgment. The value of morality is seen in the rewards we expect to receive in heaven, and the torments we wish to avoid in hell.

Many preachers usually counsel their fellow believers when facing difficulties to uphold Islamic ethics by pointing out that non-Muslims seek the pleasure of this world, whereas Muslims should seek the pleasure of the akhirah (the after-life, i.e. life after death). This argument is bizarrely used to explain the rationale behind Islamic practices: “Practice X doesn’t make sense in this world, but it makes sense from the point of view of the akhirah.”

This approach can be and is being used to justify any practice, since the criteria of the “akhirah” is very vague. If you think you can blow yourself up in a crowded market and enter heaven, then you can easily justify burying young girls (the practice of pre-Islamic Arabia, which the Holy Koran vehemently condemns) and enter heaven as well. Both practices don’t make sense on earth, but they can equally be justified if you can assume that God has sanctioned them.

The idea that morality is only for the after-life is based on the following assumptions:

- That morality is something noble, and this world isn’t. Therefore, morality cannot be seen to serve a purpose on earth

- Morality isn’t a tangible subject. Therefore, it shouldn’t be measured by “worldly” instruments, such as reason, knowledge, science, philosophy, etc.

- Morals aren’t based on principles, but commandments. Therefore, the basis of morality is obedience in order to secure a better life after death..

The Collapse of Morality

The ethics of death separates morality from principles and principles from understanding. If you subscribe to the ethics of death, then you do not know why you observe the moral instructions that you observe, apart from the rewards or punishments you expect after you die. In other words, you cannot determine the consequences of your actions, or evaluate the consequences you experience on earth.

This understanding of morality doesn’t promote morality, but death. It asks you to shun this life and to work for the day you die. And if we wish to blame anyone for the collapse of morality, then we should turn our attention to these preachers, and the idea of morality they are promoting.

]]> http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/blog/2008/08/28/the-ethics-of-death/feed/ 8 http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/blog/2008/04/22/taming-our-emotions/ http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/blog/2008/04/22/taming-our-emotions/#comments Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:15:38 +0000 Haider http://www.afilsforyourthoughts.com/?p=15 Muslims in general, and Arabs in particular, have a reputation for being too emotional when it comes to debates. A simple comparison between a debate on an Arab channel and one on an English channel will show how emotionally-charged Arabs can be. In fact, Arabs usually refer to Westerners as being “cold” because they do not readily express their emotions. But a sensationalist attitude does not encourage dialogue, and rather than promote understanding of different points of view, it distances people from one another, and undermines the view, or belief, we seek to defend.

A friend of mine noted that when the Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel first started, the set for the show “The Opposing Direction” had a small table between the guests. However, because the guests couldn’t keep to their side of the table when having a discussion, that small table was replaced with a larger table. Guests sometimes appear on the show via satellite link-up, so that the guests are separated by continents, since the table can’t seem to do the job!

Even then, most guests are easily frustrated, and most episodes end up as shouting matches, without any fruitful outcomes from the discussions. Many people enjoy the show, probably because they can associate with one side, and feel relieved that they could vent their emotions during the show. For them, expressing emotion is more important than conveying their ideas, which reinforces the emotional attitude towards debates.

In this article, we will look at some of the reasons behind our emotional outbursts, and what the solution to each reason is. By being able to control our emotions, we can promote a more fruitful discussion every time we participate in one.

The Causes of Emotional Eruptions:

Not all emotional outbursts are for the same reason. And in order to have control over our emotions, we must first know why they arise in each situation. The default reason (i.e. excuse) we say to ourselves when we have an emotional outburst is that others have triggered our reactions. However, the focus should not be on what others do, but on how we respond to what they do, and why we respond the way we do.

We can become emotional when others express an opinion we disagree with, or when they do things we don’t approve of. However, the root cause behind these incidents is deeper than what we perceive. Below are some of the reasons behind the emotional eruptions we can experience during a discussion:

 1) An Attack on Our Values: Opinions express values, and values arouse emotions. When we consider something of value to us, we do not like to see it undermined or attacked. An opinion contradictory to our own expresses values that clash with ours, which incite negative emotions from us. And since dialogue involves the exchange of opposing beliefs, it’s natural that we can become emotional.

Solution: The solution for this can either be simple, or complicated, depending on how we arrived at our values to begin with. If we do not know why we value what we value, then we cannot offer others a reason. And since we lack an explanation that will convince us, we cannot expect others to be convinced of why we are right (and they are wrong). Therefore, the first step to take is to identify the basis for our values. Ask yourself this question: what is the reason why you value what you value?

What are the reasons? And how convincing are they?

If the best you can come up with is: “because I feel it’s true”, “I’ve always been brought up to believe X, Y, Z”, “How can it not be true?” and anything else besides a tangible reason, then the problem is slightly complicated. On the bright side, you would have discovered why you get emotional during debates (i.e. the basis of your values are your emotions, when it should have been rational reasons that define your values, which you should feel emotional about).

You will need to dig deeper to find out whether your values are worth keeping, and whether you need to do more thinking and researching to understand the reasons behind your values. This is especially true if you subscribe to a religion, where you may not be aware of the reasons behind its beliefs, and have always taken your religion for granted.

If you know the reasons why you have adopted your values, and can clearly express the rationale behind them, then the solution is simple (in principle, but not always in practice). What you need to realise is that others may not know your reasoning, or have attached different meanings to the words you use. For example, someone can fanatically oppose religion because he equates religion to irrationality. If you believe that your religion promotes rationality, then you need to identify where the misunderstanding has occurred and offer your own understanding of the term.

The point behind debates is not to oppose other people’s values, but to discuss their underlying reasons. You can’t discuss emotions directly, because you’ll only get emotions as a result. If people have emotions as the base to their values, then you can either try and convince them that emotions cannot be the basis of values, or you can leave the discussion (never forget that that’s an option!!).

2) Difficulty Communicating: A common reason for why we can lose our tempers during a discussion has nothing to do with our “opponents” but our ability to express our beliefs. This difficulty in getting the message from point A to point B usually leads us to blame point B for not getting the message!

Solution: Identify where the misunderstanding is taking place, and seek to correct it. You can either use simpler words, or different words to help bring the message across. It is also crucial that you get used to writing down your beliefs, so you can familiarise yourself with them, and make it easier for you to recall structured sentences in a debate, as opposed to saying: “Well, it’s like… it’s quite complicated really… the thing is, you know… it’s like…”

Many discussions arise without prior notice, and they usually involve questions we may not have asked ourselves before. There are some questions you should prepare yourself for, especially if they are raised in the media (or related to news items), you have heard others asked the question before, you would ask “you” if you were in other people’s shoes, etc. For example, Muslims - especially those living in the West – should know how to explain the link between Islam and terrorism, etc.

 You should also pay attention to using a strategy when answering questions. For example, if somebody is not familiar with Islam and is not involved in politics, but doesn’t like seeing crimes committed in the name of Islam, he may be curious to know what the connection is between Islam and violence: Does Islam promote violence, or do the terrorists derive their inspiration from something else?

It’s not very wise to say: “Why you say we are terrorist?! Islam is not terrorism! You! America bomb Muslims everywhere and you call us terrorists!? You terrorist! Islam is about peace! And Muslims must protect themselves from America!” (the bad English is to complement the disorganized thinking)

For one thing, this answer seems to justify terrorism in the name of defending ourselves. It is also extremely difficult to swallow: how can Islam be considered “about peace” when it sanctions terrorism (which can be assumed, based on the answer)? The one asking the question may not even support US foreign policy, but the example answer is very confrontational, and pits the blame on the person asking the question.

Such an answer is very common, and lacks strategy and structure. While I won’t be dealing with this issue in this post, it’s important to note that the absence of strategy and structure hinders communication (especially because it opens the floodgates to all kinds of assumptions).

If you are not prepared for a discussion, and think you need more time to think about the topic, you can say that! You can easily say: “I haven’t thought about that before”, “I’m not sure about that”, or anything along these lines.

3) Expectations and Experiences: Frustration often arises from the gap between our expectations and our experiences. If we expect people to understand our point of view, and to immediately accept it, we will become frustrated when they either fail to understand us, or choose not to accept what we say.

Solution: Don’t expect people to be moral, let alone perfect. There are tons of reasons why people may not accept your opinions, especially on the spot. People usually need time to change their beliefs, and this often occurs when they are left to continue the discussion in their head. Give people space to make up their own minds.

It is vital that you use every discussion you have as an opportunity to identify what went wrong in the discussion, and how you can fix it in the future. And even if a discussion goes perfectly, people will exercise their free will, which never guarantees the correct action to take. So don’t expect people to do the right thing, no matter how obvious it is to you.

4) Irrational Beliefs: Not every person you have a discussion with will make sense to you. There are beliefs that are irrational to their core, and there’s no way around the irrationality. If somebody says to you: “I’m a communist” then good luck having a rational discussion! (only kidding… well, at least I wouldn’t put it this bluntly if I wasn’t kidding ). A more serious example would be: “How do we know we even exist?”

It’s extremely difficult to answer such a question, because you wouldn’t know where to begin. Also, you can gauge the “thinking” behind the question from the question itself, and it’s very difficult to identify common grounds with such thinking when it doesn’t seem to have any basis for it.

Solution: Never rationalise the irrational! The worst mistake you can ever do is to think that you can somehow understand irrationality. By definition, irrationality is in conflict with rational thought. Your mind wouldn’t know what to do with irrational opinions, so don’t strain yourself trying to understand them. What you can do is identify what’s absent from an irrational belief (what makes it false), or why it was adopted by the person professing it (the psychology behind the adoption of the belief), but you can never directly understand an irrational belief.

If somebody says to you: “Rationality is for matters of this world, and faith is for matters of the spirit,” you can tell that the person professing this belief has no evidence to support this opinion, and does not place any importance on evidence when it comes to “matters of the spirit.” You can identify the consequences of such a belief, and what sort of beliefs it justifies (every belief under the sun!). You can even say that such a person evades thinking, and has not clearly defined what “matters of the spirit” means, but you cannot begin to understand the irrationality behind this idea. Don’t bother understanding it, otherwise you’ll end up frustrated.

Irrational people are hard to have a discussion with, unless they are willing to question their premises. In most cases, they will not be, because their own lack of understanding leads them to resort to emotions, and emotions cannot be directly discussed. Don’t forget that a viable answer is a smile and a nod, then leaving the debate.

(Some people usually get excited when they are offered an excuse to “let people be”, and are happy to think of others as “irrational”, “stupid”, “ignorant”, etc, so that they don’t feel responsible trying to affect a change, when it’s not possible to “get through to them.” Not all people are lost cases, and there is a lot one can do to promote rational thoughts. I don’t intend to discourage you from having discussions when I say you can always leave a discussion. But you must judge each case and be honest with yourself to find out whether the person you are having a discussion with is worth your effort or not.)

5) Provocative Attitude: The form of a discussion is as important as its content. The vast majority of debates collapse because they are not approached with the right attitude. Sadly, many people assume that just because (they think) they’re right, they can put their message across in any form possible. They usually resort to sarcasm, name calling, intimidation, and a string of other behaviours that amplify emotions and blur out the content.

Solution: You’d be surprised by the amount of sense you can instill in people just by setting an example of how they should behave. People often judge their actions by the actions of others. This works both ways: they can either realise that they are being rude because their opponent isn’t, or can justify rudeness because their opponent is. Therefore, behave in the way you’d like others to behave, and you’ll soon realise that their behaviour will gravitate towards yours.

Even if this strategy doesn’t influence the behaviour of those around you, their actions don’t justify you taking their lead. If they want to be rude, don’t be rude in return. If they try to be intimidating, don’t try to intimidate. Abandoning the retaliatory mentality (if they do it, then I must do it in return) can help you focus on your message, and not be influenced by their attitude. It also helps you act on your beliefs, rather than simply state them. I can’t begin to count the times I’ve seen Muslims behave in the rudest of ways, while trying to defend the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him and his family). If the Prophet taught us to control our tempers, then us losing our tempers in a debate will do greater damage than what our opponents can ever say.

As Imam Ja’far Al-Sadiq (peace be on him) said: “Become preachers without using your tongues.”

While I have not identified all the reasons for why we can become emotional in debates, it’s important to find out what the reason is, and to adopt a mindset that helps you to abandon the emotional reaction (rather than struggle to suppress it).

The NBK Walkathon offered cash prizes for the first 10 participants to finish the race from each category (every age group of both genders). The cash prize is given as a reward, and in recognition of the achievement of these participants. It is not simply a gift, but represents an exchange between NBK and the winners: win the race, according to the prescribed rules of the race, and earn the cash prize. How can you win the race? By putting in the effort and dedication to practice, changing your eating habits, caring for your health and having the psychological mindset to perform your best.

A cheat, however, may win the cash prize, but without offering anything in exchange. He assumes that by receiving the cash prize, he has achieved something. The same principle is true in any walk of life. Academic exams are set to determine the abilities of the students. They are set only as indicators of a student’s intelligence, his analytical skills, focus, communication skills, etc. If a student achieves good results, they are only meant to be a recognition of these abilities. A cheat, on the other hand, hopes to earn recognition by getting high scores, without possessing the qualities required to perform well in the exam. But the exam results do not produce qualities, they are only a means (and not a perfect one) to indicate them.

Cheating, in many cases, robs those who are worthy of recognition from the recognition they deserve, and offers it to those who lack the qualities being recognized.

I have heard of a case in one company (and this is something quite common in the corporate world) where an employee worked really hard to produce a report, and having submitted it to her superior, had her name replaced by her superior’s name, in order to gain recognition for the report. What has her superior contributed? What does this recognition grant the superior?

At the end of the day, a cheat cannot offer any value. He can only pretend to offer value, by exploiting the metrics and the symbols we use to recognize the qualities we admire. A cheat lives an empty life, trying to nourish an empty soul with empty praise. He can never fulfill his desire for recognition, or appreciate the rewards he has stolen, when his soul and life are not worthy of them.

It is not simply a matter of being rewarded, but knowing that we are worthy of the rewards we receive. We should always seek to develop ourselves, and seek to be rewarded for what we deserve.

The first critic you always encounter is yourself. You are the one who judges your work as you are doing it and the first one to judge it after you complete it. You get to decide whether to share it with others and who to share it with. Your opinion about your work is of prime importance. It cannot be ignored or undermined.

However, we are usually taught that arrogance and pride are sins, and that they are the worst forms of evil. Satan was arrogant, so don’t follow in his footsteps. We are, therefore, afraid to acknowledge or even look for value in our work, for fear that we may feel a sense of pride in what we have accomplished. We immediately search for faults and force ourselves to admit that what we have done isn’t worthy of acknowledgement. We are often afraid to share our work with others because of how terrible we think it is, and don’t wish to be told that it’s worse than we think.

Some people, fearing that they might be struck by the evil of arrogance, dismiss their own opinion, but search for others who might grace them with compliments, which they will humbly deny. “Thank you, but it really isn’t great. It contains so many mistakes. How do you think I should improve it?” They denounce their own opinions, but willingly accept the opinions of others, not because they are more observant, but because they are others. For one to value his own work is a sin, as we’ve been told.

Unfinished Work

Many aspiring artists give up on their work because they are too critical of what they produce. They cannot complete a sentence out of fear that it will not be perfect, and when they complete it, they cross it out because it didn’t turn out perfect. They only search for faults, and kick themselves whenever they find them. They think their first piece of work should be a masterpiece, and if it isn’t there’s no use in moving on. A fault should be overcome. Anything short of perfection is not worth completing or publishing.

Accepting Imperfection 

I wanted to start this blog over two years ago, but I wanted to get the introduction to the blog perfect that I spent over a year trying to get it right, and wasted most of that time not wanting to think about the blog or working on it, out of fear that I will encounter more obstacles, and add to my string of failures.

The fact that I’ve been posting a lot on my blog lately isn’t a sign that I think my work is perfect, but that I acknowledge it isn’t. However, this will not stop me from writing. The only way I can improve my writing is to practice. As Mike Litman would say: “Don’t get it perfect, get it going.”

I could go on and on about the faults in my own writings. For one thing, my poems usually rhyme, but don’t have a meter. You would have to read each line differently (stressing on different syllables) in order to get the poem to scan properly. I admit this, but it doesn’t mean that I won’t write poetry unless I overcome my shortcomings. I will work on them as I write.

For any creative work, you must accept that you need to learn new things and acquire new skills. This will not happen if you expect every work you do to be perfect, regardless of your experience. The less you know and do the more mistakes you can excuse.

Judging Fairly

When you come to judge your work, you should do so fairly. This means that you acknowledge the negatives, as well as the positives. If you wish to produce something, it should be of value to yourself, and those you share it with. If you only see it as something negative, and this is the only thing you look for, then why do you even try producing it? Why would you want to share it with others?

Although many writers and speakers will accept compliments with humility, and will be quick to turn your attention to the negatives in their work (often before you even look at the work yourself!), their humility is fake. They either know their work is of some value, but want someone else to say that it is, or they have no way of determining whether their work is of any value or not, in which case their humility is out of ignorance. If somebody sees no value in his work, he should reconsider sharing it with others, rather than pretend to be humble.

Taking pride in one’s work isn’t a vice. One should be proud for having accomplished a piece of work, and should be proud of the merits it contains. Pride becomes a vice when it blinds someone from seeing his work objectively. When someone likes his work because he did it, then his pride is a sin. He is attaching to his work more value than it deserves.

Of course, he should be proud for accomplishing his work, but he should not assess it based on who did it. “It’s my work, therefore, it’s great.”

I don’t value my work because I did it, but value it because of the value I see in it, for me and for others.

The Writer and the Reader

Some people think that a writer is only a writer, and his readers are only readers. However, a writer is also a reader. He doesn’t simply write for others to read, but he writes to produce something he would enjoy reading as well. Writers don’t usually write to suit the tastes of others, but to suit their own taste, and their readership consists of those who share their taste.

I don’t simply enjoy writing. I enjoy reading. I look for writings that either express the values that I cherish, or reason in a way that I admire or write in a style that I enjoy reading. I look for writers who have these qualities. But nobody can have the exact same values that I do, or reason in the same way that I do apart from myself. There are other writers who can express themselves better, or who can introduce me to new ways of reasoning or values that I haven’t considered. Their writings may be more rewarding to read for me than my own writings. But this doesn’t ignore the fact that my writings are written according to what I would enjoy reading.

It’s possible that I may write in a way that suits my audience. After all, if I’m communicating with others, I should know the best way to communicate with them. If people don’t have the patience to read a long article, I should try to condense my writings in shorter articles. If people don’t share my values, I should present them in a way they will be understood, and deal with the misconceptions they might hold about my own opinions. To change the way in which I present my ideas, or address my views according to the thinking of my audience, doesn’t mean that I will not be enjoying my work. I would enjoy it because I’ve invested in knowing more about my audience, rather than publishing the ideas I should only share with myself. My writings, given my audience, would reveal what I know about my audience, and how I was able to change the style so that it fits the right audience. In terms of communication, this is how writing should be approached. As a creative form of expression, I am considering my audience a factor in my work. Just as a painter would choose different colours to create different moods, a writer must choose the right words to convey his ideas. This selection takes into account the audience that will receive his work. He doesn’t compromise his ideas or his values, but changes the presentation to match the audience.

My Writings and I

Apart from what I already said about writers in general, I take particular interest in my own writings because the vast majority of Muslim writers don’t share my values or my reasoning or my style. Their priorities are different to mine and their understanding of Islam is different to mine. They jump to conclusions or base their opinions on assumptions. They often speak down to others, or mock other opinions rather than analyse them.

For this reason I usually find relief in my own writings. I want to read about Islam and other issues the way I see them. I want to be able to read my thoughts rather than have them floating in my head.

This isn’t to say that I wouldn’t read anything I disagree with, but if a writer expresses values you disagree with, you would at least expect him to present his reasoning in a rational manner. If the writing lacks reasoning and expresses values you disagree with, then you’re not enjoying what you read as much as trying to learn something new. You wouldn’t say you loved what you read. You can only love something that you share a common value with.

Finally..

I would suggest to any aspiring writer or artist to recognize what he values in the works of others and in his own work, and to continue improving his skills so that they reveal more of the qualities they value. You shouldn’t be disheartened simply because your work isn’t perfect. Don’t expect it to be, especially if you are still learning.

Enjoy producing your work and appreciate what you produce..

Part of self-honesty is to examine whether you are evading some issues that you would not like to think about, out of fear of acting on the conclusions you will reach. A person who is honest with himself will not avoid any issue, because he doesn’t want to hide anything from himself. However, what if our thinking about this issue will lead us to accept wrong conclusions, and make us feel guilty for not treading the wrong path?

Let me give an example: many people brought up by religious parents are taught to believe that we must dedicate every breathing moment in performing Islamic rituals, or gaining Islamic knowledge. Activities such as walking, swimming and archery are tolerated, if not encouraged, only because they are encouraged in Islam. But sports, such as football or basketball, are frowned upon because they have not been recommended by Islam, and are pastimes that distract us from our worship and making the most use of one’s time. Therefore, watching TV (other than Islamic programs or the news), or watching movies, or spending time with friends, etc are all discouraged, if not banned.

When someone associates religion to such an outlook, or when he believes that the “right thing to do” would be to dedicate one’s life to rituals and reading, he will naturally feel guilty for doing anything else. Therefore, if he is not personally convinced that this is what he wants to do, and to ease this guilt, he must evade the ideas that he was brought up to accept. He would play football, or watch movies, but ignores the instructions that he has been given. His sense of guilt can only be numbed if he does not address the issue lurking in his head: “Why aren’t you doing what you believe is right?”

The reason why he avoids the question is because he doesn’t want to accept the answer. He doesn’t want to admit that what he’s doing is wrong, and so he chooses to avoid thinking about the whole issue. His life can go on as long as he doesn’t open the subject up. But by abandoning the issue, he compromises his self-honesty. He’s not discovering for himself why he’s not dealing with the issue, and what he can do to resolve the conflict between his actions and the conclusions that he would reach if he thought about the issue.

The result of self-honesty in this case, is that it would lead him to admit that he should be doing what he thinks is right, and to abandon all the activities which he believes are a waste of his time. He may not question his parents’ teachings, because he’s not aware of an alternative. The danger, here, is in accepting what his parents have taught him, even when it’s wrong and will lead to unhappiness. We are obliged to follow any moral principle we accept to be true, not because others say so, but because we cannot accept to do what we are certain to be wrong. Otherwise, we would be damaging our souls by living a contradiction. A human being cannot tolerate a contradiction for too long, but we always have the option of looking away. This “looking away” can be healthy when the contradiction is between sensible actions and a corrupt “moral” principle.

There are many cases in which the ideas about morality and theology that we have come to accept are wrong, but we do not properly understand both fields, and so take these ideas for granted. We avoid thinking about morality because our personality and the life we would enjoy leading are in conflict with our understanding of morality. We assume that what we are doing is wrong, but don’t want to admit it to ourselves, even when what we are doing is right, and what we are taught is wrong.

This is when self-honesty becomes damaging.

I wouldn’t totally dismiss the importance of self-honesty, but cannot encourage it in examining the issues that one lacks understanding in. Otherwise, he will feel compelled to accept wrong conclusions. I have come across many Muslims who think that their Islamic responsibility is to travel to some distant land and engage in jihad, but feel guilty that they are leading “normal” lives. Some Muslims feel guilty for having a profession, when they think they should isolate themselves in an Islamic seminary to study Islam. I can’t possibly enumerate the different ideas that people have blindly accepted to be true, but are false and damaging, yet they choose to ignore thinking about them because they want to lead their lives according to how they “feel” they should lead it.

Their “feeling” is not whim or sinful desire to do wrong things, but their human nature, which the false ideas they have accepted to be true are in conflict with. Their “feelings” are more accurate in determining what is right and wrong than their beliefs, and by considering their ideas with all honesty, they may label their “feelings” as sinful, and adopt the ideas that will deform their nature and take them on a path of misery.

The solution isn’t to abandon self-honesty, but to be aware of our feelings towards our ideas, and to broaden our understanding of the issues that we have been avoiding, so we can discover the interpretations that we were not aware of, and to reach the correct ideas that we should embrace.

Rather than present the exercise for now, I think I should deal with some of the fundamental issues that form our understanding of morality and religion, so that I can offer a perspective of these topics that is not in conflict with our human nature, and which we can consider with all honesty.