And yet, is this enough? Have not religious institutions and spiritual authorities, in the course of history, advocated a message in direct contradiction with the above? In the name of the Truth they possessed, women, children and men have been persecuted, tortured and killed: no tradition can boast that it has never experienced excess on the part of its established authorities or on the part of some of its faithful followers. Beside the necessary mastery of emotions in oneself, what is also required is a solid rational framework for managing diversity. This is all the more important when power relations are established and institutionalized. When, in 1689, John Locke wrote his Letter Concerning Toleration, it took the form of advice and recommendations to a Church that possessed an almost exclusive political and religious authority. He argued against Hobbes (who, in Leviathan, took the view that civil peace was possible only when there was only one religion in society) and defended the idea of the need to accept religious plurality (he made an exception of atheism, which he regarded as both unacceptable and dangerous). He was trying to make a distinction between the authority of the State and that of the Church: the temporal power of the State established laws and managed the social contract and civil peace between citizens who had to be free to choose their religion and dogmas. Locke was addressing both powers and developing an argument based on the need to separate them: the State must manage the diversity of its citizens by protecting their freedom (both individual and civil), whilst the Church must ‘tolerate’ other religions within civil society and recognize their individual freedoms. Toleration is, therefore, seen here as a way of distinguishing between and limiting powers that sometimes merged and became exclusive and potentially prone to excess.
One hundred years later, Voltaire was inspired by the same concerns: written after the death of Calas and in order to denounce a miscarriage of justice, the Treatise on Tolerance also calls upon us to resist abuses of power and appeals to the conscience of men. It calls upon the State, the Church and God to ensure that all agencies of power promote the acceptance of differences and tolerance as a humanitarian principle. Its reflections and arguments are based upon the contention that man and human relations must be conceptualized and defended on the basis of a demanding rationality. It is once more a question of resisting abuses of power and of sending the authorities a strong and well-argued message based upon the power of reason and common sense, and that urges them to reject intolerance and the wars, deaths and injustices it brings in its wake. An autonomous and critical reason rebels against absolute authority, imposed dogmas, blind certainties and human pretensions to the absolute. It reminds human beings who are quite capable of seeing themselves as gods – or of acting in the name of God – that they are mere human beings, and that the claim to be in possession of the only truth leads to horrors and unacceptable miscarriages of justice that contradict the messages of goodness that they claim to be defending. Like Locke, Voltaire (and all the philosophers of the Enlightenment) lay siege to the citadel of a politico-religious authority that has to . they were ‘suffered or endured’. But when it is no longer a question of resisting and limiting power, the positive dimension of tolerance is inverted: it becomes a disinterested generosity on the part of those who dominate and hold political, religious and/or symbolic authority, the authority of the majority or of wealth. Tolerance is intellectual charity on the part of the powerful. Locke, Voltaire and all the philosophers of the Enlightenment laid the first landmarks of resistance and called upon Church and State to be tolerant. They used their critical reason to undermine certainties and challenged dogmatic justifications for the dogmatic and autocratic management of difference. The critical, rational and reasonable appeal for tolerance from resistance thinkers, victims and the dominated is understandable, but it cannot be anything more than a stage in a process, and we must get beyond it. When standing on equal footing, one does not expect to be merely tolerated or grudgingly accepted: that others endure and ‘suffer’ one’s presence is inadequate for oneself and detrimental to them.choose tolerance at the very point where it takes decisions and resolves how to act. Power must learn to tolerate – in the primary, rational, social, religious and political sense of the word – the existence of others, to ‘suffer their presence’ in the literal sense and to come to terms with plurality.
What was once an act of resistance in the face of powers (which can also be represented by the majority, the elite, the rich, and so on), and a brave, determined call inviting them to be tolerant, changes its meaning and import when we are dealing with equal relationships between free human beings, relations between the citizens of civil society, or even relations between different cultures and civilizations. Calling upon powers to be tolerant once meant asking them to moderate their strength and to limit their ability to do harm: this actually implied an acceptance of a power relationship, of a potential relationship of authority, such as the relationship that might exist between the State and individuals, the police and citizens, or between colonizers and the colonized. Deviations, infractions and a few differences could be ‘tolerated’ . .
Love this quote – “Tolerance is intellectual charity on the part of the powerful.” And absolutely enjoyed this article, quite an apt window into my thoughts too. I think we must meet on a footing of positive celebration of our uniqueness in terms of similarities and differences, that binds us, as intriguing pieces of a puzzle, such that we make more sense when we come together rather than on our own! Some pieces bind from all sides, and some are edge pieces with some sides making the whole! Thus, it’s not the differences that should pull us apart, but rather positioned appropriately to build something bigger than ourselves. The “how” is the aspect so deeply, comprehensibly and tactically elucidated in this article.
Let love, affection and respect be the only bonds, ties that allow us to be governed in a dignified way. These hierarchies of love, respect and seniority are the only ‘power’ relationships to acquiesce to in our social settings.
And from a realistic linear perspective rather than circular, we know that one of us has already set the direction, while affectionately nurturing the “cans” as a tease in these mature and responsible relationship, while softly nudging us towards realizable, fulfilling and gratifying milestones to make headway in atleast one direction as a good beginning…This cognizant and transparent stroll enables us to scale tangible heights with our mature understanding of structure, possibilities and the intriguing, spell-bounding, important mission on hand…Such is the approach within the umbrella of Islam and our civil, educated, cultured society for both genders fostering a positive, beneficial, symbiotic coexistence.
To such an experienced, cognizant and learned mind & heart, I’m curious to know if any signs or favorable premonitions or intuition were encountered for such a colossal happening of incredible magnitude? Have your years, life experiences prepared you in anyway to anticipate this? Has the purported-pseudo-caretaker of the supposed-heart seen or experienced any such anticipations? Are there any anticipations sprinkled around the world for this? curious…
Which brings me to the next point, we work to forge our own destiny with all the guidance that He provides us with, with all the emotions and humanness that He equips us with, and with all the skills that He blesses us with. However, I don’t think we should seal destiny in vacuum by accepting the cruel, dogmatic and insulting approaches of dictators, while they vulgarly display where they are invested. They are free to do whatever it is they want to, never laid a claim to anything, there are no emotions associated with such revelry which any civil member is certainly entitled too. However, it is unacceptable to be associated to such individuals in any manner accept professionalism, especially when they launch an in-your-face program with specific intents. There is evidently no heart, no soul, no nothing in that, just hogwash. Moving on…
Whichever route we take, where ever we meet destiny, however we work to shape our destiny, what matters is how we respond to the call when destiny arrives.
Recent dreams have been interesting. The same super tall bright shining face male (Jibreel AS ?) was seen running very fast back and forth on a track, I thought perhaps it’s an allegorical representation of being a hamster on a stationary wheel, but now I think it has to do with Hajj and the walk between Al-Safa and Al-Marwa. He was again seen carrying boxes for me, walking sturdily on a ground that was convulsing, i.e. he walked deftly, confidently with a purposeful look on his face, across an earthquake, into sunlight with some kids… He seemed as if he was following orders, while I looked on.
And back to the point of the male child, if it’s about the delivery of this child, then again women have been locked into just a biological role to just endure and deliver. What’s the mission of this male child? the responsible maternal spirit will do what is required, above and beyond, to nurture the future. Evidently the male child can benefit from another advanced gene pool too… AllahuAlim…
i believe obviously in everything you said, and have shared my excitement too for the journey ahead, its just not easy. and lets have a check point in 5 years, if nothing happens by then, i get some exclusive classes for a month! another 5 years, it’s 2 months of classes, and another 5 years, a whole summer! 🙂 so…tick tock!
In contemporary society the word “tolerance” brings to mind intolerable behaviours of young individuals at school. The whole of society is a school in which we can learn about each other’s truthful natures. There should be a great curiousness about knowing about other minds. Judging, dominating or merely “tolerating” (which can be the same as ignoring) someone’s state of mind is unacceptable. “Tolerance” in the sense of the word, as described in the article above, is the lowest level of approach one can have in today’s society.
Self-respecting citizens with different functioning minds, who don’t use chemical abuse to feel different, but rather feel and accept the natural life given by Allah (S.B.T.), should all be “tolerated” in society. It is not a matter of people with differing traditions, cultures and different paths to God(s)/no God who should be “tolerated” today. A renewed code of moral conduct in contemporary communal/societal affairs, without rubbing in chemicals in the form of medicine or drugs into the minds, should be in the making by now. (Imposed medicinal prisons to bring down the nature and alter the mind of an individual, or drugs that unnaturally uplift the mind should become intolerable.). That is there should have to be a great deal of patience and compassion amongst individuals. There should be a greater appreciation for different functioning minds, no matter how “defective” some minds seem to be. By teaching and not preaching, by checking and not imposing, by lightly punishing when offences are committed. The questions as to why someone is the way he/she is should be asked: Why do you behave the way you do? What is the reason for mistakes? Why do you have an obstruction? What can be done to alleviate stresses on the mind? … and so on. Merely “tolerating” or “not tolerating” someone else’s mind is a matter of not having the time and patience to find out root causes/truths, and perhaps help if necessary, with healthy communication. Seeing someone really be in their true and natural value is a key to going beyond “tolerance”.
Suggest the book – Susila Budhi Dharma – by Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo.
Best regards – Lawrence
disappointing, how one can so easily think that something so naturally, carefully built, a gift from God, can be so easily broken or taunted? not in this individuals books. when one is just teasing about a time-out, showing amicable affection, a dirty destructive shot is launched without any patience, any understanding, any space, any dignity. must be all that experience from all those sessions from around the world that leads to such easy swagger and confidence for application of derogatory approach and vulgar display of hypocrisy, without any consequences. the females around the world make take it, or the women of the house may take it in the house and outside by multiple sources, but not the ones working hard in a society to reform it. looking forward to the next enlightening and intriguing article on tolerance, respect, dignity for all and deep spiritual sentiments.
regarding tolerance of women – viciousness and vindictiveness run deep, these intolerant men must be used to abusing their women in the house, and perhaps allowing outside abuse into the house too. and thus the unflinching confidence in the demoralization attempts in the world. May God help us all.