AmosWrites

eyes wide open for possibilities. nerd. bookworm. wishes she would exercise more. working towards a tudor bonnet.

[blogology]

Moral Relativism .. (and the Slippery Nature of Reality)

Moral relativism means never having to say you’re right. Okay .. just kidding.

Actually it’s a notion that’s been kicking around at least since the first flowering of philosophical chitter-chatter in ancient Greece. It suggests that ethical standards and morality are relative to a particular standpoint, for example a period in history or a culture, and therefore there are no objective standards of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ that can be applied for all time, in all places, to all people. Nietzsche summed up the relativist moral philosophy when he wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.”

Which may seem fine in theory to a teutonic philosopher but in practice can be quite problematic when radically different cultures rub up against each other and struggle to co-exist. Multiculturalism has been the mantra of progressive politicians for a long time and it’s made high demands on moral-relativism. For example, increased immigration from the middle-east into western countries, as well as the west’s continuing presence in the middle-east through wars-of-choice and political skullduggery, has highlighted differences in what the diverse cultures regard as ‘moral’ or even acceptable and moral-relativism hasn’t always been easy to reconcile with disparate and strongly held beliefs.

Understandably so, because it can appear to require toleration of things you find not just different but morally repugnant. Not harmless little cultural quirks but behaviors you see as having real and damaging effects on human beings. It happens all the time. America is still arguing internally over abortion and a woman’s right to it, a debate involving religious belief and opposing views of what is ‘right’. Some people feel a deep moral revulsion over religious or ritual circumcision of infants and want its non-medical use outlawed. Others think grown men taking child brides in some cultures is morally wrong. The death penalty a few countries still cling to is regarded as morally unacceptable by others.

Moral relativism is sorely tested by things that we may strongly believe are fundamentally wrong and harmful to humanity but others don’t. You could probably make a long list of everything you personally believe is morally wrong, cruel, repressive, racist, sexist, or generally inhumane in our culture and elsewhere. Whatever is on your list, though, others are likely to disagree with you. All of which begs the question of whether there are any universal standards that should supersede culture and religion and, if so, what are they and who gets to decide ? Contrary to what anyone may want to believe, there really are no easy answers.

So after grappling with questions of right and wrong and morality over my cup of tea and Kit-Kat, and failing to convincingly resolve any of them, I mentioned my confusion to a friend who said well yes, but isn’t the notion of any universal morality rather at odds with the illusory nature of reality anyway ? After all, what we think of as ‘reality’ is simply a construct created from raw data processed through unique personal filters of experience, expectation, and belief to make up a coherent story. In other words your reality may very well not be mine. In fact, it’s highly unlikely that it is. So when reality itself may be fluid, in a world made up of hundreds of millions of slightly different ‘realities’, what chance is there for any genuine universal agreement on notions as vague and personal as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ? The most you’re likely to get is those with the power to do so imposing their own ideas of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ on others.

All of which makes my head spin and hasn’t really led me to any conclusion (sorry if you were expecting one) other than the very obvious one that anything involving human beings interacting with one another always has the potential to become complicated and divisive. And certainty ? Probably the only thing I would swear to with any certainty at this moment is that nothing is certain. Which isn’t desperately helpful, is it ?

I’m not sure where all of this pondering of the imponderables leaves us, to be honest, but it’s probably time for another cup of tea. Care to join me ?

Internet Writer

(cartoon ‘Daring Rescue’ by Tuffix)

[blogology]

A Toxic Relationship

Co-dependent relationships are rarely healthy, but it’s usually the two parties involved that suffer most. In the case of America and Israel it’s everyone else.

Admittedly, there is a kind of self-serving logic to it. Having a heavily-armed, warlike state such as Israel as its proxy in the middle-east supports the USA’s influence over oil-rich countries there and helps it to threaten Iran. Having the biggest gorilla in the jungle standing menacingly behind you, right or wrong, guarantees Israel complete freedom to impose its will through military force and grants it immunity from the consequences of its actions.

It comes at a huge cost, though, and not just in money. Vast amounts of American taxpayers dollars are squandered in maintaining this relationship. Successive American governments have armed Israel with $21 billion worth of cutting-edge killing machines in recent years. The F16s, the Apache gunships, the hellfire missiles, the flesh-searing white phosphorous shells and cancer-causing d.i.m.e. munitions that slaughtered and maimed thousands of Palestinians when Israel attacked Gaza in late 2008 and again in 2012 were largely supplied by the US.

If the USA stopped arming Israel and blocking the attempts of the world community to bring it into line through the UN, then Israel might be forced to seek peaceful solutions with its neighbors on a basis of equality and through diplomacy rather than just crushing them with its military superiority. One of the biggest roadblocks to any meaningful progress towards peace in the middle-east is America’s unconditional support of Israel. Anyone who condemns what Israel does must logically condemn America just as strongly.

With America and Israel its hard to know if its the tail wagging the dog or the other way around. It could be either at times. National interests have become hopelessly confused and a new clarity is desperately needed. What is good for Israel is not always good for America (and vice versa). Until America stops using Israel as its proxy for middle-east meddling, and until the disproportionate influence of Israel over American politics and foreign policy is broken, nothing will change.

Its difficult to see how that change can occur, though. Israel is determined that it won’t and any American politician foolhardy enough to challenge the status quo is committing electoral suicide. The wealthy Israel lobby in the USA, fronted aggressively by groups like AIPAC, has politicians from the President down running scared. To even question the wisdom or morality of the present relationship, however mildly, is treated as unspeakable heresy and invites hysterical attacks on the grounds of ‘anti-semitism’, which of course it’s clearly not.

So it goes on and the suffering it causes continues. America and Israel are increasingly isolated in world opinion but seemingly indivisible. Where is the discussion in American politics and its media fundamentally questioning this relationship ? It simply doesn’t exist. This toxic relationship is the elephant in the living room that nobody wants, or dares, to talk about.  Its time we did.

Internet Writer

(cartoon by Dave Granlund)

[cartoonpolitics]

“Not everything needs to be run for profit. .. some things are far too important to society to be left to the market. Some things matter too much to the welfare of all of us to have their outcomes dictated by nothing but a profit motive.”  .. (read more here)

[angelhijabi]

A group of Muslim women and the Dalai Lama #Hijab “ Respect and love - that’s what the world needs now !!

[cartoonpolitics]

[islamicrays]

You know how everyone felt like they were the favorite person of Rasulallah salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? We need to bring that sunnah into our homes. When we speak to our mother, she should feel that she’s the most loved person in our life. When we speak to our wife, she should also get the same feeling. Before we try to change the world, let’s bring balance in our homes.

Nouman Ali khan (via islamicrays)

[tmihijabi-deactivated20150520]

Just saw a post “correcting” hijabis whose scarf or al amira doesn’t extend over their breasts.

The thing is, some scholars have stated that if the breasts are adequately covered by a different garment, such as an abaya, it isn’t necessary to cover them a second time.

And I agree with them because 33:59 orders Muslim women to cover themselves with a “jilbab”, which is linguistically known as a head covering which extends all the way past the feet and drags the ground. Yet for a while now, scholars have stated that Muslim women can wear an outer garment, such as an abaya, along with a headscarf and that gets the same job done.

Following literal interpretations without understanding the principle behind the rulings only creates fitnah. I for one do not think we need more articles explaining the “right” way to hijab. We need articles that bring the heart into the equation of fiqh and tawheed so that we reach ihsan inshaa Allah.

[amosintransition]

Word

[thegreaterjihad]

Salam Lena I hope you're well iA :) can you please clarify about the post you made a couple days ago in regards to the Angels cursing a women if she refuses to be intimate with her husband. I remember you saying that people don't understand that Hadith. Thank you Lema jAk :)

Waalaykom assalaam.

Here’s the hadith in Arabic and English just for reference:

“‏إذا دعا الرجل امرأته إلى فراشه فأبت، فبات غضبان عليها، لعنتها الملائكة حتى تصبح‏”

“The Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses [and does not come], and he spends the night angry with her, the angels will curse her until morning.”

So, the understanding of this hadith is generally that if a woman withholds intimate relations with her husband, then she’s cursed all night by the Angels. But the hadith isn’t understood within its context, which is why it sounds so strange when we read it. 

The word for home in Arabic is دار. Multiple families used to live in the same space or home, and certain facilities were shared. For example, there were common gates, bathrooms, kitchens, and courtyards within the “دار”. It wasn’t just a home for one family like we think of it today. Think of it like a dormitory with families instead of drunk college kids. 

There was only one private area for each family, and it was referred to as a “فراش.” So. The classical translation of this word was this private room. But in modern times, the word refers to a bed. The problem is that we apply the modern translation of the word to its classical meaning, and we’re faced with this irregularity.

Using the actual word فراش to mean “private space,” it’s much easier to understand the context of the hadith. So when a husband asks his wife to come to a private space together, it’s to reconcile an issue. It’s about marital discord —when there’s an issue, and a husband wants to talk to his wife and is willing to reconcile with her. It’s his obligation and his job to reconcile with his wife, but if she is unwilling, then it’s on her. If he goes to sleep upset, then the angles will curse her for her stubbornness in breaking ties. Ibn Hajar actually says that this applies to both men and women; though, again, it is on the husband to initiate the reconciliation.

Somehow the leap was made to mean that the man is asking for sexual intercourse, and his wife is refusing him, but that’s not the case at all. And to use this hadith to justify marital rape is both disgusting and a perversion of the religion and hadith.

Allah (swt) says إني حرمت الظلم على نفسي - This roughly translates to, “I have made injustice haraam among myself.” He is saying that he has made it impermissible to oppress, and we know that Allah is capable of all things. There are no exceptions here. 

Insha Allah this clarifies.

[amosintransition]

"somehow the leap was made to mean that the man is asking for sexual interiors, and his wife is refusing him, but that's not the case at all. And to use this Hadith to justify marital rape is both disgusting and a perversion of the religion and Hadith" well said

[khaledcantfly]

Giving dawah is not a debate, it’s not some kind of confrontation, it’s simply passing on a message, in fact The message, and since a good part of our communication is non verbal, our demeanor, how we stand, the looks we give people, the tone in hitch we speak, that is all apart of giving dawah, all a part of spreading The message. Make sure to do it with excellence to the best of our ability, and in the way that our Prophet peace be upon him, showed us how; with honor, dignity, kindness and respect, even in the face of rudeness, anger, condescension and disrespect.

[amosintransition]

Word

[amosintransition]

You know it's spring when the daffodils are out :) #100happydays #daffodils #springatwarwick

[amosintransition]

:) #100happydays

[amosintransition]

You can take the child out of the bookshop, but... Ooh you know the rest :) #waterstones #aimisdayout

[amosintransition]

Used books stall at #coventrymarket #100happydays #books

[amosintransition]

Malmquist production index, I shall understand you eventually. Bring it on. #aimithesis #100happydays

[amosintransition]

To make up for #100happydays #days13to15, lets hope I can get this paper out by tomorrow and let the weekend be full of fun and frolick. #aimisthesis

[amosintransition]

My short term goals sent in the post by myself 3months ago. That nerd. Still loving getting the mail tho :) #100happydays #day12

[amosintransition]

I love food #100happydays #day11 #cinnamonroll #foodie