Apologetics in Religious Dialogue and Development

This post is a follow-up to my previous post, Dreaming of Potato Chips During Ramadan. A reader pointed out that my explanation of what Ramadan means to me was somewhat of an exercise in apologetics.  First of all, I am thankful to have this pointed out because I have never examined or really acknowledged that it's something I do. Next, we were agreed on our primary motivations behind religious action, that being "the admission that you do it primarily because you were required to, and you submit to that requirement." However, I do think there is a place for apologetics in religious dialogue.

Looking back, I grew up in a culture of Islamic apologetics. I was okay with that when I was a teenager. Back then, I did need to rationalize/defend my religion. This was for two reasons, both of which go back to my immigrant experience. First, I was constantly surrounded by people who thought I was a complete weirdo with my brown skin and head scarf and the second is, because people thought my way of life was weird, I was all too aware that mine was not the only way of life and that the religion I practiced was not something I had chosen but, like my skin color, something I had inherited. I was taught, via the American dream, that being American means you are not tied to the inheritance you receive from you parents. In fact, even if that inheritance is great, you are expected to make your own name. So, to convince the people around me (and myself, because it's hard to live in America and never find yourself believing in the American dream) that I hadn't just inherited my religion, I took up an apologetic stance .

I admire my reader's irritation with having to defend a religious choice. However, I am still defensive. Yes, 9/11 and the Arab Spring have happened but the vast majority of people I interact with on a daily basis know very little about being a Muslim and/or a minority. In my post, I acknowledge that I am trying to address both Muslims and non-Muslims and I think the second group still brings out my self-justification. I am also trying to address Muslims who are, like me, defensive. I think that religious rationalization has a place in society and in the religious development of a person. After all, in the Quran God provides rationale, too, and also urges people to seek knowledge. Not everyone can easily concede to doing something simply because they are told to, perhaps especially not anyone raised in America on a steady diet of questioning authority. For many people, rationalization serves the purpose of relating the lives they live with the abstract idea of God and pulls them toward faith.

For the record, I got sick of apologetics pretty early on in college. A lot of the time, an argument is only as good as its argumentation. Anyway, I have always been Muslim by default, which I tried not to take for granted, but I needed to experience unconditional love before feeling like I chose Islam. Having experienced it, I bear witness that it's not easy to find. Other people probably have other things that pull them toward God and/or religion. I don't think that's wrong. I think there is also a guiding sense besides whatever brings you to religion. Those times when you just know something is the good thing to do in a situation and submit to it without thought or hesitation. Just like there's nothing wrong with starting with a rational, social, political, etc reason to act on a religious command and working your way up to this guiding sense with practice, there's nothing wrong having this guiding sense already and then gaining knowledge about how/why God's creation works the way it does.

For the love of God!

Have you heard of PeaceTV? It's 24 hour Islamic TV station broadcasting in India and Saudi Arabia and also available to U.S. and U.K. audiences. If you're Islamically and politically aware, I can understand your reservations. Though I knew it would probably air fairly conservative Islamic interpretations since it airs in Saudi, I actually liked the idea enough that I gave it a chance. There are definitely some very informative programs, though not very entertaining. It would seem that its lack of entertainment value conveys either a lack of commercial motive or a lack of flair for entertainment. I can look past that. Though there are shows featuring speakers openly claiming to be "fundamentalists," I was glad to hear the phrase " Islamic fundamentalism" reclaimed from the context of violence into one of edification. What's wrong with fundamentals?

But, from a seed of distaste for the network founder and star, Dr. Zakir Naek's pretentious recitation of chapter, verse, and line number with every Quranic reference, I began to wonder if something bothered me about his version of Islam and I had, for the sake of giving the network a chance, channeled my distaste into this triviality.

Dr. Zakir Naek has been accused by feminist Muslims of misogyny. This is to be expected since literal/orthodox interpretations of the Quran have, not to be repetitive here, a long historical tradition of refusing the reformist tradition suggested in contextual readings. In fact, misogyny is practically a prerequisite for ultra-conservative Muslims (and of every other ultra-conservative, it seems). That it can be found in Naek's interpretations and is present in his programming (in which grown women are only ever members of the audience) is just reflective of Naek's target audience. Of course, it simultaneously proliferates misogyny but I think it's more of a side effect. I like that people are speaking out against this misogyny because feminist Islam needs proliferation, and more of it, in my opinion. Still, to a certain extent, I can look past the misogyny, too. Questioning your religion is one of the scariest things a person can do to themselves psychologically and I understand the desire, especially of a religious person, to rely on what appears to be authority.

There is a show featuring, surprise!, Dr. Naek that has so far invited Christian and Hindu religious leaders to debate with audience questions. Not answer questions, but debate the answers. Rhetoric and logic are very big with Naek but, these being Socratic in age, it is not surprising that a network steeped in highly orthodox Islam favors them. Excuse me if I sound impatient here but if you're surprised that Muslims are into logic at all, your brain may be a subject of highly European conditioning. Or, you may be unaware that the Quran commands people ask questions, which are usually formed using logic, and learn. However, the debates in which religious leaders of other faiths are engaged, especially those initiated by Naek fanatics, never have the aim to learn. They only aim to prove themselves correct and those in disagreement incorrect.

When a Hindu guru, Sri Sri Ravishankar, asked the audience not to replace love with logic in their dealing with others, specifically others from differing faiths, a woman from the audience asked how a Muslim, then, is to talk someone known to be plotting terrorism out of it without using logic. To this, the audience clapped. However, the Hindu leader's reply, that people who are at risk of becoming terrorists need a serious amount of love, fell completely flat. This, I refuse to look past.

In, "In A Different Voice," by Carol Gilligan, and in various other essays by feminist writers, the argument that misogyny can be a symptom of a preference for logic and vice versa is compellingly made. The overarching argument questions the surprisingly prevalent idea that unlike logic, compassion is not considered manly. But even logically, it doesn't stand that an effort to distance Islam from terrorists reveals a demonstrated lack of compassion. I have to agree with Sri Sri Ravishankar wholeheartedly on this one, PeaceTV.

Bengali Lessons

I is ami, rhyming with yummy.
You is thumi, rhyming with Rumi.

In Bengali, there are object pronouns.
As tu turns into te in Spanish,
thumi turns into thomakay,
which kind of sounds like stomachache.

Bhalo, in Bengali, means good.
It means satisfactory, proper, right,
well, nice.

Basha, in Bengali, means house or home
or where you're from.
My father uses the variation bari, when he speaks Bengali,
because up north in Rajshahi they speak Proper Bengali.
Rajshahi is officially
amar bari.
My ammu uses basha
because it's easier
on her southern dialect.
And by south, I mean Bhola,
which is a place
where I was born.

When we put the words together
for good
and
for home
we get the word for love: bhalobasha.

Bhalobasha is the noun and the root
that, when conjugated for ami,
is bhalobashi.

When we put the words together
(for good
and
for home)
Ami thomakay bhalobashi.

Reasons for disliking people:

There are two reasons for disliking people:

1. Because they are too busy loving or hating themselves to care about you.
2. Because you are too busying loving or hating yourself to care about them.

I rather choose liking people because the logical variety is more interesting. 

In either reason, the cases of loving are less damaging than those of hating.

Depression is when you are forced to hate someone and the better reason is the first but you mistakenly choose the second. Luckily, this mistake only effects you internally, a realm over which you can have complete control. If you can learn to trust yourself, again.