Most of these relate to gender and sexuality, things I’ve been struggling with for a while. They’re very personal so I don’t feel comfortable sharing them on here right now, although I might in the future.

One of my main conclusions is that religion has seriously been defined in a way that puts a lot of people off. When I listen to my dad talk about Islam, it sounds amazing & beautiful: it’s all about general principles, loving each other and being a good person. When I hear young people talk about religion, it’s all about tiny details and going to hell. Oh, and judging each other.

I do feel a generational difference in terms of religion: many young people are more concerned with the details than their parents, who may have seen religion as providing the broad strokes, not the tiny details. But I’m sure this isn’t the only factor. We are also living in the world that is becoming more and more fragmented, and where identity politics are increasingly the main currency of communication. I see more and more people relating to each other through constructed identities such as religion, race, nation, gender and sexuality. And not in a good way.

Maybe my main issue is seeing religion as an identity. Should it be that way? It doesn’t work that way for me. I realized the only way I can relate to Islam is spiritually – not as a way of life that dictates every single decision I make. Of course most Muslims are going to disagree with this, but hey, who cares?

Anyway, the struggle continues and it’ll probably never end. On the one hand, I feel it is better to always question and criticize. Everything. On the other hand – it’s just exhausting.

Bishop Desmond Tutu, one of South Africa’s most famous anti-apertheid fighters, makes this point in his new book God is not Christian, and other provocations.

They tell the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a pedestrian, asking him, “I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?” The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, “That side, of course!” The drunk said, “Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish shide.” Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences, helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we operate in our own specific context.

Tutu goes on to say:

My first point seems overwhelmingly simple: that the accidents of birth and geography determine to a very large extent to what faith we belong.

I don’t know what significant fact can be drawn from this — perhaps that we should not succumb too easily to the temptation to exclusiveness and dogmatic claims to a monopoly of the truth of our particular faith. You could so easily have been an adherent of the faith that you are now denigrating, but for the fact that you were born here rather than there.

This has always been my problem with religions. They too often exclude certain people and include others. This has bothered me because you could easily have been a member of the group that is being excluded. In fact, the circle of who is included seems to be getting smaller and smaller for the major monotheistic religions. Now, to be a Muslim, I apparently have to cover my hair and refrain from mixing with men. Whatever happened to saying the shahada and then being a Muslim on your own terms? Anyway, I digress.

We should in humility and joyfulness acknowledge that the supernatural and divine reality we all worship in some form or other transcends all our particular categories of thought and imagining, and that because the divine — however named, however apprehended or conceived — is infinite and we are forever finite, we shall never comprehend the divine completely.

When we read the classics of the various religions in matters of prayer, meditation, and mysticism, we find substantial convergence, and that is something to rejoice at. We have enough that conspires to separate us; let us celebrate that which unites us, that which we share in common.

What I have always wondered about is the declining spirituality in a number of countries, including the Netherlands, where religion is sometimes seen as old-fashioned. But that is reducing spirituality to religion, which it certainly is not. Spirituality is accepting that life is not solely about reason, logic, rationality, hard science, objectivity, and capitalism. That life also has other facets: emotional, spiritual, and all other types of knowledges that have been discredited by the Euro-American modernity project. I recently watched a video by Bertrand Russell on why he does not believe in God, and he replied that he had no reason to, since there is no hard proof.

Is that what life is now? We only believe in things we have “hard proof” in? When I feel God on a sunny day in the park, I should dismiss it because I can’t prove it? When I fall in love with someone and decide I want to spend the rest of my life with them, I should ignore it because I can’t prove it? When I tear up watching a baby try and stand up, I should control myself because emotion is bad and reason is good?

No thank you.

Our God would be too small if he was not also the God of Gandhi: if God is one, as we believe, then he is the only God of all his people, whether they acknowledge him as such or not. God does not need us to protect him. Many of us perhaps need to have our notion of God deepened and expanded. It is often said, half in jest, that God created man in his own image and man has returned the compliment, saddling God with his own narrow prejudices and exclusivity, foibles and temperamental quirks. God remains God, whether God has worshippers or not.

Do I believe God is out there? Yes.

Do I have bar charts, lab test results and fancy equations to prove it? No.

But I won’t reduce God to that, and I won’t give in to this ridiculous modernity project idea that your emotions are useless and you should only live your life rationally.

Ha. What kind of life would that be?

Since it’s a very personal experience I don’t know if I feel comfortable putting up on this blog. What I will say is that yesterday I found a quote that explains exactly how I feel right now:

“I tried to find Him on the Christian cross, but He was not there; I went to the Temple of the Hindus and to the old pagoda, but I could not find a trace of Him anywhere. I searched the mountains and the valleys but neither in the heights nor in the depths was I able to find Him. I went to the Kaaba in Mecca, but He was not there either. I questioned the scholars and philosophers, but He was beyond their understanding. I then looked into my heart and it was there where He dwelled that I saw him; He was nowhere else to be found.”

Jalaluddin Rumi

I wonder if this will get publicized in western media:

It’s a letter from a group of imams about teaching evolution/creationism in US schools. (Link here.)

Those who believe in a literal interpretation of scriptural account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools.  To teach it in the public schools would be indoctrinating a particular religious point of view in an environment that is supposed to be free of such indoctrination.

We believe that the timeless truths of the Qur’an may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science.

We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Probably not, since it’s not about Muslims bombing/killing/insulting or generally doing something bad.

http://neocolonialthoughts.wordpress.com/

I promise I’ll be back soon!

I’m also looking for new blogs to read. I’d love it if you guys could post links to the blog you really enjoy/find interesting Thanks and much love!!

Link here.

During the class I kept thinking of Islam. In a sense this is what has happened with Islam as well: it has come to be used as a term indicating a singular, monolithic religion. I would argue, however, that there are different Islams and the “Islam” that has become dominant is not the best or the most natural version. It has become dominant precisely because the people advocating for it are more powerful, and have been powerful for hundreds of years. It is often patriarchal and against diversity in terms of sexuality; it is static and closed to interpretation; it is conservative; it is reliant on age-old customs.

The west has also strengthened this type of Islam by constantly validating it. Here in Holland, for example, many Dutch people believe Islam is against homosexuality. This ignores the fact that there are Muslims who do not believe this. It ignores the fact that there is diversity of opinion. It ignores the fact that the idea that Islam is against homosexuality is a construction (like all interpretations are) that was made by specific people for specific reasons.

Perhaps most importantly is the fact that it sees Islam as monolithic. “Islam” is against homosexuality. What exactly is Islam? The Qur’an? The hadith? Muslims? But they don’t all agree. Who is interpreting and acting? Do all Muslims act the same way?

It is only by asking these questions that we can begin to deconstruct the categories of “culture” and “Islam.” These are complex, shifting, constructed categories, not fixed, homogenous ones. To assume they are fixed is to do violence to those discourses and groups in a society who do not believe in the dominant discourse. It is to give power to those who already have the power to define what “our culture” or “our Islam” is.

I think that being brought up that way has been one of the best things that could have happened to me. It gave me much-needed clarity with regards to religion, and it also gave me the space to define religion/God/life the way I wanted to. Many of my friends were told to pray, fast, etc and thus it became a habit for them. Later it was difficult for them to stop because they felt guilty. For me that was never the case: when I began thinking about God and religion, I really felt like I was making a conscious choice (although of course we don’t make choices that are ever 100% “free”).  Because I felt like it was a choice, I never feel like I’m being constrained/controlled or that I’m giving up something.

I definitely think I would bring up my kids the same way. Of course it is impossible to not discuss religion at all, but I also don’t think I would tell them they should pray, or fast, or anything else. I really think rituals can only be meaningful when they’re coming from a place of freedom and choice.

I just started a new blog! I feel like right now I am much more focused on political/economic/social current events and that’s what I constantly feel like posting about, but I know this blog is meant to be more about religion. So I thought starting a separate one would be a good idea. I hope you guys find that one interesting too, and I would love to get some feedback!

Find it here: Neo-colonialism and its Discontents.

But there are so many problems with intervention.

1. Why the fuck did it take the UN/West so long to make a decision? Were they just trying to look like they were doing something, hoping that in the end they wouldn’t have to?
2. OR did certain countries want to intervene all along (read: France, US) but were being held back by the mega-bureaucracy that is the UN, as well as countries who did not want to intervene (Germany)?
3. No surprise at the Arab countries not doing anything and then agreeing to Western intervention right away. Then again they have a lot of issues to deal with right now.
4. Why isn’t the “international community” (read: West) bombing Ivory Coast, Yemen, Syria, etc? Are they not worth the $20 million missiles? Or are they friends of the West? Why Libya, why ONLY Libya?
5. Oil? But Libya accounts for 2% of oil production. Then again, the chaos so far has caused oil prices to rise, so they do have influence.
6. Problems with the UN resolution: allows for “all necessary measures” – uhm, what? So basically the West can do what it wants? Uh-oh. That never ends well.
7. “Ask yourself why the countries that are rushing to “save” Libyans manoeuvered to give Israel maximum time to slaughter Lebanese in 2006.”

A friend of mine put this on facebook:

I want the assault on the Libyan people to end but I can’t trust this violent intervention. The long history of Western interference andhegemony in the region, makes the British, French and American political and strategic motivation for attacking Libya dubious at best.

This sums up perfectly how I feel. Western intervention will ALWAYS be questionable. Why aren’t they intervening in Ivory Coast? Yemen? Bahrain? WHY? Why didn’t they intervene in Rwanda? WHY LIBYA?

Supporting a war just because you can’t think what else to do, doesn’t make the war right, or wise to rush into (avinunu, twitter).

We were all so desperate to make sure Gaddafi didn’t slaughter Benghazi that we literally begged the West/UN (what’s the difference really) to intervene, without thinking of the possible disastrous consequences. Think about it guys: we have just ASKED the West to BOMB a fellow African/Arab country and to take ALL necessary measures to ensure that the leader is ousted.

Why exactly are we trusting the West?

There’s a mortal danger in allowing “The West” to reinforce its arbitrary power to make laws and enforce selectively for the whole world (avinunu, twitter).

Thoughts?

Also, I’d recommend this video: Jon Stewart.