The most effective way to satisfy the human mind and to manipulate its sense of self is to instill some form of dogma. A dogma will always vehemently defend itself from other information and repel any alternative opinion which contradicts its narrow, solidified view. Dogmas become a person's sense of security and means of retaining power, and humanity tends to cling to both until its knuckles turn white. Dogmas take endless forms, and when you persuade people to hold opposing dogmas, the manipulation of conflict and control through "divide and rule" becomes easy.
This is my first post in which I've been motivated by a strong sense of anger and frustration. This will be my most controversial post and I'm concerned with my safety from the outrage it might cause if it does become viral. This post will touch upon the sensitive topic of religion, not just any typical religion, but an extremist and sensitive religion which has stirred headlines, causing public angst, anger, frustration and fear.
The turning point for me to express my views was when I came across an article on Jihad Watch covering the Islamic jihadist attack on a Red Cross compound, murdering a guard. Seven Red Cross staffers were rescued, however this was the crossing point which highlighted the important issue of understanding dogmas within religions and their effects on our society.
In all seriousness, let's take a moment to reflect on ourselves.
Do you follow a religion?
Do you follow the religion as the truth?
Do you accept the testimony of others but find the inner kernel of the religion, its luminous essence as elusive?
Think over that line again... do you personally find the inner kernel of the religion, its luminous essence as elusive...?
Now think to yourself, do you believe this is faith or do you believe that your beliefs are bordering the essence of pure ignorance?
This is when we become trapped in the dogmas of religion.
If you denied that your beliefs are bordering the essence of pure ignorance refer back to the opening quote from this blog. A dogma will always vehemently defend itself from other information and repel any alternative opinion which contracts its narrow, solidified view.
Do you believe that you fall into this category? I know that I once did. It's a form of stubbornness. That to me, is no form of rational, critical or reasonable thinking. If you aren't open to reasoning then you are blindly holding onto forms of beliefs which become your personal sense of security, your identity and means of retaining power. My view has gone from a biased solidified view to a more flexible, reasonable, rational, curious and introspective view in order to comprehend what there is.
Reasoning is critical thought. The decision of which car to buy, or which melon to take from the stack at the grocery, is metaphysically influenced, but it is our epistemology which 'does' the deed. Reasoning is what humans shares with nature itself, linking an apparently immortal part of the human mind with the divine order of the cosmos itself. When discussing matters of philosophical matter, there are certain 'laws of logic' or 'rules of reason', so to speak, that must be attained. If we are to be engaged in rational discussion, we must adhere to the ground rules of reason, lest our discussion be guilty of making no sense at all.
It may be argued by some, that "truth" is only "relative" and not "absolute" in accounting for what is. Those who are persuaded in the "relative" position regarding truth, would argue that there is no "absolute truth". In other words, they would argue that the truth can be different for one person than for another. It's a philosophical system of belief that nothing is or can be absolute and that everything is only relative to one's perspective.
If you were to ask someone, who prescribes to the view that there is no absolute truth, if this can be absolute true, then they would have to respond by either saying no (contradicting themselves about no absolute truth) demonstrated that their own argument cannot be a valid one based on their own definition of truth that lacks any absoluteness, or they would have to answer yes (contradicting themselves) by declaring the non existence of absolute truth is absolute.
I think I can think, I think.
Reckless thought or self-seeking logic can be devastating to anyone honestly seeking truth or eliminating error in the quest to discover "what is and what is not". We are all philosophers capable of some degree of independent thought, but this does not mean that we are all good philosophers uncovering absolute truth necessary for getting answers to our heart's yearnings for comfort founded in the truth.
It is therefore important to examine politics and religion in the past - these attributes were not nearly partitioned into two distinct compartments or categories but were one and the same as they both deal with the structure of human cultural social systems.
The culture of a fellowship of men, a social unit, will continually change over time regardless of attempts to the contrary and even without an intent to change, there is still corruption of original conceptualizations.
Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths all originally believed in a single entity named God. They also believe that those adhere to the popular and common held ideology of their particular brand of religion are the 'chosen ones' and that individuals through their 'leap of faith' and adherence to the popular and commonly held ideology or dogmas of their cult will attain an afterlife.
Conceptual thinking of afterlife defers from cult to cult. One expectation never differs and that is the idea one must make a 'leap of faith' or in other words, abandon all reason, to be brought into the 'chosen ones' fellowship or 'circle'.
All religious dogmas require believers to suspend belief in their sense, their experience and their understanding of natural reality. People expect natural reality to conform to their current understanding of natural reality. Yet people must constantly reevaluate their understanding of natural reality as experience and knowledge are gained, both consciously and subconsciously.
I have presented logical and rational knowledge hoping that those who are religiously sensitive know where I am coming from. I'm merely presenting my view through philosophical thought and reasoning. We can now examine the motivation behind writing this blog and that is addressing the issue of those trapped within the dogma of the religion, in particular, the Islamic religion and culture.
After reading the article of the Jihad attack on the Red Cross I became enraged over why one would cause harm to those who are there to help, those who have good intentions and good hearts. I have been ignorant of the Islamic religion and avoided learning about it but lines have been crossed and here we are. Let's examine what is Jihad?
The world Jihad stems from the Arabic root word which means "strive" Other words derived from this root includes "effort", "labor" and "fatigue". Essentially Jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. The effort may come in fighting evil in your own heart, or standing up to a dictator. The Qur'an describes Jihad as a system of checks and balances, as a way Allah set up to "check one people by means of another". When one person or group transgressed their limits and violates the rights of others, Muslims have the right and duty to "check" them and bring them back into line.
Islam never tolerates unprovoked aggression from it's own side; Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an not to begin hostilities, embark on any act of aggression, violate the rights of others, or harm the innocent. Even hurting or destroying animals or trees is forbidden. War is waged only to defend the religious community against oppression and persecution, because the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Qu'ran 2:190-193).
The Qur'an also says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Forcing someone at the point of sword to choose death or Islam is an idea that is foreign to Island in spirit and in historical practice. There is absolutely no question of waging a "holy war" to "spread the faith" and comply people to embrace Islam, that would be an unholy war and the people's forced conversions would not be sincere.
This is rather interesting excerpt I found from about.com on Jihad and Islam. I imagined that these extremists labelled as 'terrorists' by westerners were fighting a "holy war" to do these deeds under the name of Allah. A rather ignorant and shallow-minded view I might say, but shared with many.
There has to be some reasoning as to why these Muslims are seeking aggressive and extremist actions to achieve political ends in the name of religion. Why are these Islamic 'terrorist organisations' engaging in tactics including suicide attacks, hijackings and kidnapping. I draw upon an unreliable but quick to understand source of Wikipedia which identifies the motivations behind Islamic terrorism.
Robert Pape, has argued that at least terrorists utilizing suicide attacks - a particularly effective form of terrorist attack are driven not by Islamism but by a "clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland". However, Martin Kramer, countered Pape's position that the motivation for suicide attacks is not just strategic logical but an interpretation of Islam to provide moral logic.
According to U.S Army Colonel Dale C. Eikmeier, "ideology", rather than individual or group, is the "center of gravity" of al-Qaeda and related groups, and that ideology is a "collection of violent Islamic through called Qutbism. He summaries the tenets of Qutbism as being:
- A belief that Muslims have deviated from true Islam and must return to "pure Islam" as originally practiced during the time of the Prophet
- The path of "pure Islam" is only through a literal and strict interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith, along with implementation of the Prophet's commands
- Muslims should interpret the original sources individually without being bound to follow the interpretation of Islamic scholars
- That any interpretation of the Quran from a historical, contextual perspective is a corruption, and that the majority of Islamic history and the classical jurisprudential tradition is mere sophistry
We can deduct the fact that there is relativism and individual interpretation of the Qu'ran could be leading to the anti-social behaviour and aggressive acts of violence. In addition Islamic militants, scholars and leaders heavily oppose Western society for what they see as immoral secularism. What we see as moral and just may be the opposite to what Islamic people see; our ideologies conflict with ideas Islamist often oppose such as the proliferation of pornography, immorality, secularism, homosexuality, feminism.
We come back to the ideas of ideology, dogmas and beliefs. I see the whole world as a complex and intricate network of ideas. What I'm saying is that we should not deny our identity and our attachment to these dogmas, but to keep an open mind, to be enlightened to the knowledge that what we hold onto are just ideas. It is important to not treat them as the absolute truth but as a relative one. What I'm concerned about are the extreme, violent and aggressive dogmas which embark on acts of aggression, violate the rights of others and harm the innocent. If we were to enlighten ourselves of our reality and the way ideologies shape that identity of ourselves and the world around us, we'd be more open-minded and less trapped within the dogma of religions.
I'm not in all way denying your beliefs in religion; what I'm trying to say is for one to be more aware and enlightened to the reality and to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of following religious doctrines as a strict moral code and absolute truth. In the end it is your personal choice and I'm not here to change your views. I for one, treat all dogmas as a general guideline, as much of my moral codes comes from religions such as Christianity, Buddhism and classical philosophy. It is important to acknowledge them but to keep in mind, that most religions are relative and not absolute.
The moral of this post is not to give up our religions and our dogmas, for without them we have limited sense of identity but to keep in mind that we do not become trapped within the doctrines and ideologies of religions, especially if it involves extremism, aggressive acts of violence, violation of the rights of others and harm to the innocent.
We come back to the ideas of ideology, dogmas and beliefs. I see the whole world as a complex and intricate network of ideas. What I'm saying is that we should not deny our identity and our attachment to these dogmas, but to keep an open mind, to be enlightened to the knowledge that what we hold onto are just ideas. It is important to not treat them as the absolute truth but as a relative one. What I'm concerned about are the extreme, violent and aggressive dogmas which embark on acts of aggression, violate the rights of others and harm the innocent. If we were to enlighten ourselves of our reality and the way ideologies shape that identity of ourselves and the world around us, we'd be more open-minded and less trapped within the dogma of religions.
I'm not in all way denying your beliefs in religion; what I'm trying to say is for one to be more aware and enlightened to the reality and to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of following religious doctrines as a strict moral code and absolute truth. In the end it is your personal choice and I'm not here to change your views. I for one, treat all dogmas as a general guideline, as much of my moral codes comes from religions such as Christianity, Buddhism and classical philosophy. It is important to acknowledge them but to keep in mind, that most religions are relative and not absolute.
The moral of this post is not to give up our religions and our dogmas, for without them we have limited sense of identity but to keep in mind that we do not become trapped within the doctrines and ideologies of religions, especially if it involves extremism, aggressive acts of violence, violation of the rights of others and harm to the innocent.