The modern era is one of confusion and insecurity. The globalization of
communications has globalized attitudes that were once mostly encountered at the
local or national level. Simplistic and monolithic representations of the ‘other’ or the
‘foreigner’, who may well be a neighbour, once sustained certainties and a more or
less conscious racism towards ‘him’ and ‘them’ that were reassuring to oneself (‘me’,
‘we’) and one’s own doubt. The phenomenon has spread and become more
pronounced, and the twin phenomena of globalization and migration have, by
increasing insecurity and fears proportionally, helped to foster attitudes that are often
irrational, or at least unreasonable. Conversely, the circles to which we belong have
become proportionally smaller and increasingly exclusivist: we must have an identity,
belong to a community or group, and our loyalty to it must be absolute.
Contemporary obsession with the question of ‘identity’ appears to be a neutral
way of asking questions about our affiliations and loyalties. Just as we should have
‘an identity’, our loyalties should be absolute: if that loyalty is not our prime
consideration, or if it is critical of the group to which we belong, doubts begin to arise
as to our intentions, loyalties and, ultimately, the nature of loyalty itself. The
constructive and positive approaches to diversity outlined by philosophers and
thinkers like the Canadian Charles Taylor, the Lebanese Amin Maalouf, the Indian
Amartya Sen and the British sociologist Tariq Modood are both welcome and of
fundamental importance. It is important to recall that our identities are multiple and
fluid, and that our societies will not survive unless they can find positive ways of
managing the wealth of their religious and cultural pluralism, and of celebrating it as
it should be celebrated. These philosophical and sociological contributions are
decisive, but we have to add a political dimension, and that dimension is, ultimatly,
tied up with the question of loyalty. The spectre of the identity we display masks, I
repeat, the lingering, and important, question of which loyalty we are defending, and
of which power we are defending it from.
It is not a question of denying our identities or betraying our loyalties. That
would be strictly impossible, and probably dangerous. The important thing is knowing
how to manage them, and how to situate ourselves in relation to ourselves and to the
groups that are constituted, or which we constitute, around us. By using ‘I’ to refer to
his identity and ‘we’ to identify his affiliations, the individual establishes spheres of
judgement and power, and each person must imperatively ask himself about his
relationship and the nature of our loyalty to this power and this judgement. What we
have just said about the independence of ethics and the ethics of independence shows
that only critical loyalty respects the principle of consistency that no individual and no
society can escape. Being loyal to ourselves and loyal to our community requires us,
at the ethical level, to be self-critical and to criticize our communities in the name of
the values we – we and our community – have determined both individually and
collectively. This approach is philosophical, but it is also eminently political:
individuals, groups and societies determine the field of power, and the ethical and
critical approach clearly consists in judging the exercise of that power reasonably and
limiting its potential abuses.
We must be able to at once respect individuals and criticize their behaviours
within our families and in the face of the power of our parents, siblings or clan.
Critical respect has to be combined with respectful criticism. This is never very easy
in traditional families or in the cultures of the South. The same attitude should prevail
in our spiritual and religious communities: we should be able to trust in a
community’s ideals and ability to remain true to them, and at the same time be
objectively critical of the behaviour of certain individuals and of comprises with
communitarianism. More broadly still, critical loyalty is an imperative in any human
society: whilst we must recognize the need for identity and belonging, all the resulting
powers must be subject to the ‘arms of criticism’, to use the language of Marx, who,
quite rightly, wanted men to be under no illusions as to the nature of relations of
power and domination (both economic and political). We should, however, be aware
of their existence, even within our clans and amongst our own people. Under a
dictatorship, the logic of resistance is inescapable, but the same principle should apply
to the consciousness of the citizens of democracies: we must be able to challenge the
decisions made by elected politicians, the injustices we accept, the instrumentalization
of populism, dubious international alliances, support for dictatorships, inconsistencies
with respect to human rights, structural discrimination and racism, abuses of police
power in the name of security, the acceptance of torture, and so on. The list is long,
very long, but if loyalty to one’s country and to the principles of democracy means
anything, it begins with the use of our critical faculties and respect for the principle of
consistency. That is the role of civil society in general and of intellectuals in
particular. Whilst it is natural for peoples and nations to have an identity, their need
for a conscience is an imperative. If the appeal to identity and to the sense of
belonging leads to a loss of lucidity and consciousness, men lose both their ethics and
their independence . . . and part of their humanity. Bergson intuitively sensed this
when he was writing his last book, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion. He
recognized the existence of stages, and wanted things to evolve. The distinction he
makes between the two types of morality and religion contains the idea that the
primary function of religions is to allow the constitution of the group or society, and
then to guarantee its protection. ‘Closed societies’ such as this determine ‘belonging’
in terms of security and protection. And yet we have to go beyond these dispositions,
open ourselves up to universal values and turn our societies into ‘open societies’. It is,
therefore, our awareness of universal values (which transcend our affiliations) that
allows us to transcend ourselves because it encourages an openness that is at once
rational and critical. Bergson thought that it was exceptional men like Christ who
showed us the path that leads to transcendence. The final stage of this path is love,
beyond oneself and one’s own, which combines confidence at the origin, ethical and
critical conscience along the way and the recognition of similarity with the other
beyond differences at the end of the quest. Spiritualities, philosophies and religions
assert this, Wang Yangming exemplifies it, and Bergson repeats it: ethics is a matter
of the conscience as well as the heart.
Beautiful content, if we remained loyal to the original brotherhood ie humanity man would be much better off
when Muslims want to complain (variously) we latch on to universal principle that assert ‘our rights’. When we want to discriminate and denigrate we claim the superiority of Islam. We are in the state/s we find ourselves in (collectively) because we have done appalling things in the name of Allah and Muhammad to each other and those we call ‘non-Muslims’.
I dont think those who call themselves Muslims can have their cake and eat it too. If we want to be treated well and fairly we must BE that change we want to see meted out to us by those we seek it from.
Let everyone walk their talk … and ultimately we all reap what we sow.
I salute you, Tariq
Peace!
I am loyal to my Ummah that loves Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). Nothing else matters, even if my state of being is extremely critical being “treated”. I remain mostly drowning in the grave serving society, without my active will by Allah (S.B.T.) & happy existence with happy thinking.
What are your thoughts on Isis?
yes critical loyalty, in it’s heart has this deeply embedded concept of avoiding blind loyalty. we are first individuals, then we are a collective team, within various ecosystems. Our first loyalties should be to our universal values within each individual, deeply grounded in humanity, respect, tolerance, freedom and celebration of every aspect of life, living or thing or process. We are taught this from our formative, developmental years in childhood through adulthood. a simple example would be avoiding peer pressure in schools and community, if everyone jumps into the well, doesn’t mean an individual has to as well. however, as the child grows up, somewhere these lessons (if taught at all) get blurred and dissapear) and thus these lost individuals in their adulthood, form alliances of oppressive cronyism that show a lack abominable disdain to independence of mind, heart and spirit, and a refusal for collaboration on positive and beneficial new & different perspectives. This mentality then causes large scape destruction in the political, social and economic fabric of a nation. It always starts at the grass roots level, drops deep roots and spread it’s tentacles of abuse, disrespect, indignities, isolation, groupism, confused identities, militant identifies, through years of unchecked prolification, accelerated tremendously by the fuel of ignorance caused due to lack of critical loyalty, lack of critical faculties of the heart and mind. Thus it’s a vicious circle.
Most of the people lack a moral, ethical, and independent backbone to stand alone supporting their individual correct values. It’s due to this insecurity that most are very quick to pledge allegiance to any party that provides them with coverage, security and a sense of belonging. Ofcourse realistically, there is a high risk to life, livelihood, social and mental well being with ostrasization from the major masses, based just on challenging the injustices, unjust status quo and the various evils in our worlds. However, the most important, gratifying and rewarding sense of belonging and accomplishment is to belong to ourselves, our values which are stand with or without any support from anyone, grounded firmly in our belief that we stand the truth. This is the liberation which a horridly massive majority lacks, due to which our societies and nations are in shackles of a pseudo democracy run by cliques. In my more simpler terms, this has been an evolutionary assessment of how the train of independence of individuals with allegiance to truth, dignity and freedom, was grossly derailed in the formative years with a massive degeneration and deterioration in adulthood. Thus a two prong approach is called for – schooling and developing our kids in the right manner, and using effectivemethodologies to influence the acrimonious, treacherous self-centered adults with blind loyalty only for the sake of self-survival. For tomorrow if there could be a mutiny in the ranks of these blind followers, only to serve their own selfish interests and again lead to forming of another “group” or “thought giant”.
In a more closer space, I completely agree with your assessment of, “We must be able to at once respect individuals and criticize their behaviours within our families and in the face of the power of our parents, siblings or clan. Critical respect has to be combined with respectful criticism. “ We are all humans, however, our bromance will continue to journey on and evolve with time as we get to know each other, experience with each other, thereby eliciting the type of interaction that recognizes each other in the best manner, in the perfect manner that God ordained.
And on point of Critical Loyalty, for the life of me, I cannot understand God’s wisdom in giving women the short end of the stick, by creating a dangerously perilous clause in the Holy Quran, that a husband is allowed to “Twig Attack” his wife if she doesn’t listen. It just boggles my mind that Islam leaves no room for error and blocks every path to self or community destruction by allowing zero tolerance for evils, example: wearing silk by men is haram, alcohol is haram, sex outside marriage is haram, gambling is haram, pigs are haram. However, the action of raising a hand, just raising a hand is allowed, and touching her to discipline her is allowed. This injunction or allowance for men, absolutely crushes the dignity, equality, respect and freedom of women to express themselves as human beings with opinions. When God says there is no compulsion in religion, then how can there be compulsion to comply with a husbands opinion? And this too lacks stipulations such as, this injunction only valid if husband is correct in the eyes of God with his opinion. May God forgive me, but this allowance by God, in His words, has created such a massive problem for women across the world, especially in the muslim world, with domestic violence at an all time high. Why did not God allow women to take up Twigs? The Twig Attack should have been allowed for both men or women, or just not allowed for either of them. The very fact this it exists in the Quran, gives men the excuse to violence, and makes women second class citizens within the Muslim structure. Why would God, all knowing, all seeing, all just and wise, allow for one of his creation to hit, even softly another of the creation, thereby violating it’s dignity? I cringe to hit a child, I cringe to hit an animal, to make them comply, that’s because I am humane, then why would the most humane God, most loving, most merciful allow for this inhumane methodology for a husband to make his wife comply with him? I don’t understand the distance in communication, not speaking or the rest of the stuff mentioned, but the act of raising the hand is a small opening to allow violence. Why God didn’t make it haram? Our HR policies, or the civilized policies, which are all rooted in Islam, if folks realize it or not, don’t allow for this inhumane practice. Then why does God allow for men to take up Twigs? And trust me! I know many women who are devil incarnation, but hitting them is not an option. Could this be another root of misogyny? And since God is the most wise, what is the wisdom in this allowance nearly 1500 years ago? And still valid in today’s times? Can you justify or explain the inclusion of this allowance by God in Quran? Let’s institute a moratorium on this too, just as recommended for stoning.
And on another note, wondering why your FB Official page has boycotted English language?
The answer to your questions is simple, Noorie. All religions are man made.