Ahmed
Soon enough I found an internet cafe and settled down. Yet again I was infuriated by the lethargy and near insanity of Syria's connection. One person I've spoken to blames this on the Government not wanting its people to download too much stuff, etc. Another said people do not install virus protection software and so the computers are all filled with spyware and other vermin.
Remarkably, my visibly animated bearing towards the screen did not discourage the attentions of a rather tall, thin, graciously spoken young man called Ahmed. After exchanging pleasantries and asking me where I was from, he suggested we could go for a chat after we'd finished. Ok, I thought, that would nice. I hadn't spoken to anyone comfortabe with English since Qamishle and was additionally motivated by the fact that Ahmed was unequivocably an Arab, though to begin with I wasn't sure. I wanted to speak with an Arab, and now I could.
After we found a cafe by the river I decided to order a Nargila, a full one for myself along with my tea. Originally I'd suggested we go for a beer but Ahmend said that would mean either buying a can and drinking it while walking somewhere, or going to a bar outside the centre where beer can be drunk.
Ahmed wanted to know what British people think about Syria. This I find is a fairly common question. As I told him, I don't think most British people have an opinion or care much about Syria one way or another, either its Government or its people. To do so would distract valuable attention-energy from the far more vital preoccupation with general dissipation through the services of reality TV, celebrity and footballing idol-worship and from the general simulated razmatazz of an advertising- media matrix that infantilises the soul. No doubt, if most would be asked specifically about Syria they'd think 'terrorist' and 'oh shit' in some diffuse way accompanying a fear of explosions and planes falling from the sky.
I think the ability of most British people to distinguish between Muslims in general and Arabs in particular is limited enough, let alone their ability to hold specifically Syria-focused opinions as opposed to ones directed towards the Arabic world in general. Our media, God please don't bless them, are not conscientious in educating the passive masses in the many finer or not so fine distinctions prevailing between the peoples of the Muslim faith. By way of mediaman's irresponsibilty, therefore - for which he gets paid! - I am inclined to forgive my fellow countrymen for not knowing, for example, if they don't know, that both the Syrian Government and the Syrian people in general have no time and respect for Al-Qaeda.
I also told Ahmed that I think the British Government, which as you'd expect is more interested in Syria than is the British people, has no specific argument with the Syrian people but only with its Government - because of its alleged involvement in, or at least toleration of, an alleged smuggling of weapons into Iraq; and its less allegedly warm relations with Iran (the currently unflavourable country) and the anti-Israeli organisation Hezbollah, headed up by the ever smiling Nasrallah. I grant, though, that it is unfortunate and unjust that the Syrian people should be punished through the great difficulties they face in getting UK visas because of our beef with the Syrian Government over its attitude towards its neighbours.
This, as my nervous system had suspected, was a trigger for Ahmed to launch, albeit gently, into a justification of Syria's stance towards Israel on the basis of what I suspected to be a presumption that by trying to elucidate my Government's attitude to Syria I was therefore a defender of it and, by extension, a defender of Israel. Feeling somewhat embarrassed to be supposed to be defending a country, Israel, just because I wasn't sharing in his denunciation of it, I listened calmly to what he had to say - mainly about how many Palestinians Israel keeps killing, something which I felt I didn't need to be told was awful since I don't like Palestinians being killed, just as I don't like any killing (even of animals, despite my hypocritical proclivity for meat).
Ahmed, an English language teacher and about 23, told me when I asked him if he wanted to go to Britain that he didn't. Why did he need to go there, he said, since all that he needed was here? Fair enough, I thought, glad he was so patriotic. Still, I should say this attitude is pretty rare. While most Syrians would share his patriotism and pride in his culture, most do want to go to the west, sometimes very much.
The dialogue morphed into a discussion about Islam. It's interesting the way Muslims like Ahmed seem to conclude that just because I come from a country in historical Christendom that therefore I am a Christian. Actually, as it happens, I sort of am a Christian by belief as well as by culture, though it depends what you mean by 'Christian'. He would refer to me as if I was a part of a generalised 'you' which he took to be 'Christians' in a way that felt like we'd leapt back in time to a period when, yes, the vast majority of people in Europe were, at least by what they attested, Christian, be that voluntarily or else under the impress of fear and coercion. Still I went with it, somewhat charmed by his quaint, generalisng mind that seemed unaware that most people in Britain are Pagans, embracing a vague, yet resolutely ego-affirming, belief in some undefined greater otherness.
What he wanted to say was that Islam is a religion of peace. I'd heard this before. Indeed, the meaning of 'Islam', as well as denoting 'submission to God' is also said to mean 'peace'. I suppose I can see, to be fair, how if everyone in a group or society 'submits' to some overarching hierarchical force, be that divine or otherwise, peace would be a natural consequence. But this still begs the question whether the peace conveyed by this submission, this surrendering of the disputatious ego - that naughty inflammatory upstart in the mind - would justify the loss of independence of mind that the unsubmitted diplay, for all their faults. I mean, to be frank, there was peace in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia But was the peace worthwhile? Most would think not. While I'm not implying that Islam, except in its basest manifestations, comes anywhere close to being evil and hideous as was Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, I just wanted to say that peace in-itself, when bought about by submission, is not necessarily a good thing. So I question the logical connection between peace through submission and goodness.
Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent. His point, more specifically, was that Islam doesn't invade and conquer other cultures and oppress them, as mine does. So what, I asked, about the astonishing explosion of the Islamic sphere in the 7th and 8th centuries when Islam stretched from southern France to India? He said, interestingly, that well, it was ok for Islam to conquer other Arab countries. Hmmmm, I thought, but ok, for argument's sake. So what about the Spaniards and the Persians and the Indians? He answered that in Spain there were 'alot of probems' and Islam helped them out. Is that what the Spaniards thought I wondered, but didn't ask. I mentioned Indonesia too, a more recent addition to the Islamic world. I could have mentioned the Ottoman drive into the Balkans too, but it didn't come to mind, oddly. He said that Islam is for everyone and that Muslims have a duty to help non-Muslims learn and benefit from Islam. A clever riposte, undoubtedly.
Please note that I know that if Islam has been guilty of imperialistic expansion, so too has Christendom. But two wrongs do not make a right. I don't see how you can argue the virtue of something questionable just becasue it has also been committed by the other side.
I agreed with him, though, that Islam, within its already established spheres, has been noticeably tolerant towards Jews and Christians (and Sabians, one might add). In this I accept that Islam has been more tolerant of the differently religious than has post-Constantinian Christendom. Yet though this may be applauded the tolerance still implied a consignment of such 'people of the book' to second class citizenry. And one doesn't need to be a genius to know that not everyone everywhere in the Islamic world was, or is, a Jew, a Christian or a Sabian? What about the Pagans, the Buddhists and the Hindus, the witches, the atheists...to what degree were they tolerated, are they tolerated?. My ignorance as yet asssails me, alas. May the historians and knowers of these matters accurately speak.
Again, the equal or worse culpability of Christendom does not exonerate the opposition. The problem with coercion is universal and seems to collect around every unambiguous system of conceptual belief when allied to the engines of secular power. And let us not have the 'God is the tyrant of history' line wheeled out again. Secular tyrranies have been even worse, even though, luckily, not as long-lasting.
Actually, I didn't say all that to him, partly because of the language issue but also because I dislike diputations, especially if they are liable to ruin my enjoyment of tea, or possibly upset someone. I felt, wrongly or rightly, that I was in a position to upset him if I wanted to. He seemed emotionally identified, if not somewhat in love with, his religious system and I didn't want to rattle him.
Please note, additionally, that I have no special argument with Islam and in many ways quite like it. My argument is with this sub-lunar world as a whole, with people's widespread unwillingness, more than inability, to feel an instinctive love for all people, regardless of who they are or what they believe, as well as their stubborn tendency to want to exile infinity from their hearts and bow down to merely external, exoteric, unchanging representations of the gloriousness of existence - and so, by a process sparked by this lack of inner integration of that gloriousness to store up dark energies in their unconscious that can explode into anger when they encounter people who do not share the same exoteric understanding.
Remarkably, my visibly animated bearing towards the screen did not discourage the attentions of a rather tall, thin, graciously spoken young man called Ahmed. After exchanging pleasantries and asking me where I was from, he suggested we could go for a chat after we'd finished. Ok, I thought, that would nice. I hadn't spoken to anyone comfortabe with English since Qamishle and was additionally motivated by the fact that Ahmed was unequivocably an Arab, though to begin with I wasn't sure. I wanted to speak with an Arab, and now I could.
After we found a cafe by the river I decided to order a Nargila, a full one for myself along with my tea. Originally I'd suggested we go for a beer but Ahmend said that would mean either buying a can and drinking it while walking somewhere, or going to a bar outside the centre where beer can be drunk.
Ahmed wanted to know what British people think about Syria. This I find is a fairly common question. As I told him, I don't think most British people have an opinion or care much about Syria one way or another, either its Government or its people. To do so would distract valuable attention-energy from the far more vital preoccupation with general dissipation through the services of reality TV, celebrity and footballing idol-worship and from the general simulated razmatazz of an advertising- media matrix that infantilises the soul. No doubt, if most would be asked specifically about Syria they'd think 'terrorist' and 'oh shit' in some diffuse way accompanying a fear of explosions and planes falling from the sky.
I think the ability of most British people to distinguish between Muslims in general and Arabs in particular is limited enough, let alone their ability to hold specifically Syria-focused opinions as opposed to ones directed towards the Arabic world in general. Our media, God please don't bless them, are not conscientious in educating the passive masses in the many finer or not so fine distinctions prevailing between the peoples of the Muslim faith. By way of mediaman's irresponsibilty, therefore - for which he gets paid! - I am inclined to forgive my fellow countrymen for not knowing, for example, if they don't know, that both the Syrian Government and the Syrian people in general have no time and respect for Al-Qaeda.
I also told Ahmed that I think the British Government, which as you'd expect is more interested in Syria than is the British people, has no specific argument with the Syrian people but only with its Government - because of its alleged involvement in, or at least toleration of, an alleged smuggling of weapons into Iraq; and its less allegedly warm relations with Iran (the currently unflavourable country) and the anti-Israeli organisation Hezbollah, headed up by the ever smiling Nasrallah. I grant, though, that it is unfortunate and unjust that the Syrian people should be punished through the great difficulties they face in getting UK visas because of our beef with the Syrian Government over its attitude towards its neighbours.
This, as my nervous system had suspected, was a trigger for Ahmed to launch, albeit gently, into a justification of Syria's stance towards Israel on the basis of what I suspected to be a presumption that by trying to elucidate my Government's attitude to Syria I was therefore a defender of it and, by extension, a defender of Israel. Feeling somewhat embarrassed to be supposed to be defending a country, Israel, just because I wasn't sharing in his denunciation of it, I listened calmly to what he had to say - mainly about how many Palestinians Israel keeps killing, something which I felt I didn't need to be told was awful since I don't like Palestinians being killed, just as I don't like any killing (even of animals, despite my hypocritical proclivity for meat).
Ahmed, an English language teacher and about 23, told me when I asked him if he wanted to go to Britain that he didn't. Why did he need to go there, he said, since all that he needed was here? Fair enough, I thought, glad he was so patriotic. Still, I should say this attitude is pretty rare. While most Syrians would share his patriotism and pride in his culture, most do want to go to the west, sometimes very much.
The dialogue morphed into a discussion about Islam. It's interesting the way Muslims like Ahmed seem to conclude that just because I come from a country in historical Christendom that therefore I am a Christian. Actually, as it happens, I sort of am a Christian by belief as well as by culture, though it depends what you mean by 'Christian'. He would refer to me as if I was a part of a generalised 'you' which he took to be 'Christians' in a way that felt like we'd leapt back in time to a period when, yes, the vast majority of people in Europe were, at least by what they attested, Christian, be that voluntarily or else under the impress of fear and coercion. Still I went with it, somewhat charmed by his quaint, generalisng mind that seemed unaware that most people in Britain are Pagans, embracing a vague, yet resolutely ego-affirming, belief in some undefined greater otherness.
What he wanted to say was that Islam is a religion of peace. I'd heard this before. Indeed, the meaning of 'Islam', as well as denoting 'submission to God' is also said to mean 'peace'. I suppose I can see, to be fair, how if everyone in a group or society 'submits' to some overarching hierarchical force, be that divine or otherwise, peace would be a natural consequence. But this still begs the question whether the peace conveyed by this submission, this surrendering of the disputatious ego - that naughty inflammatory upstart in the mind - would justify the loss of independence of mind that the unsubmitted diplay, for all their faults. I mean, to be frank, there was peace in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia But was the peace worthwhile? Most would think not. While I'm not implying that Islam, except in its basest manifestations, comes anywhere close to being evil and hideous as was Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, I just wanted to say that peace in-itself, when bought about by submission, is not necessarily a good thing. So I question the logical connection between peace through submission and goodness.
Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent. His point, more specifically, was that Islam doesn't invade and conquer other cultures and oppress them, as mine does. So what, I asked, about the astonishing explosion of the Islamic sphere in the 7th and 8th centuries when Islam stretched from southern France to India? He said, interestingly, that well, it was ok for Islam to conquer other Arab countries. Hmmmm, I thought, but ok, for argument's sake. So what about the Spaniards and the Persians and the Indians? He answered that in Spain there were 'alot of probems' and Islam helped them out. Is that what the Spaniards thought I wondered, but didn't ask. I mentioned Indonesia too, a more recent addition to the Islamic world. I could have mentioned the Ottoman drive into the Balkans too, but it didn't come to mind, oddly. He said that Islam is for everyone and that Muslims have a duty to help non-Muslims learn and benefit from Islam. A clever riposte, undoubtedly.
Please note that I know that if Islam has been guilty of imperialistic expansion, so too has Christendom. But two wrongs do not make a right. I don't see how you can argue the virtue of something questionable just becasue it has also been committed by the other side.
I agreed with him, though, that Islam, within its already established spheres, has been noticeably tolerant towards Jews and Christians (and Sabians, one might add). In this I accept that Islam has been more tolerant of the differently religious than has post-Constantinian Christendom. Yet though this may be applauded the tolerance still implied a consignment of such 'people of the book' to second class citizenry. And one doesn't need to be a genius to know that not everyone everywhere in the Islamic world was, or is, a Jew, a Christian or a Sabian? What about the Pagans, the Buddhists and the Hindus, the witches, the atheists...to what degree were they tolerated, are they tolerated?. My ignorance as yet asssails me, alas. May the historians and knowers of these matters accurately speak.
Again, the equal or worse culpability of Christendom does not exonerate the opposition. The problem with coercion is universal and seems to collect around every unambiguous system of conceptual belief when allied to the engines of secular power. And let us not have the 'God is the tyrant of history' line wheeled out again. Secular tyrranies have been even worse, even though, luckily, not as long-lasting.
Actually, I didn't say all that to him, partly because of the language issue but also because I dislike diputations, especially if they are liable to ruin my enjoyment of tea, or possibly upset someone. I felt, wrongly or rightly, that I was in a position to upset him if I wanted to. He seemed emotionally identified, if not somewhat in love with, his religious system and I didn't want to rattle him.
Please note, additionally, that I have no special argument with Islam and in many ways quite like it. My argument is with this sub-lunar world as a whole, with people's widespread unwillingness, more than inability, to feel an instinctive love for all people, regardless of who they are or what they believe, as well as their stubborn tendency to want to exile infinity from their hearts and bow down to merely external, exoteric, unchanging representations of the gloriousness of existence - and so, by a process sparked by this lack of inner integration of that gloriousness to store up dark energies in their unconscious that can explode into anger when they encounter people who do not share the same exoteric understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment