|
RE: just a thought
|
Beyan Negash
|
Mar 20, 2009 12:43 PST
|
Ahlan to All:
Brother Kamal, we can go on back and forth and in the end it may become the egg and chicken question - the classically cyclical question of which came first? And I will not entertain such dialogue.
However I will respond to your second question of "a conceptual link implying one is meaningless without the other? In which case, is it equally true in both directions?
The only conceptual - or concrete - link that I choose to interwinte religion is with one's tradition and culture. Allow me to elaborate.
Can someone, anyone, of any faith, purely live on religious grounds alone? I would say zero to none. The analogy of geographical proximity we talked about earlier fits the bill here. Just like lack of geographical proximity prevents people from associating with each other, culture too, serves as a barrier from allowing people to interact on their faith alone. Reason why we see people of different cultures buidling mosques for their own. Although Islam allows - conceptually - a universal apporach to its religion, its adherents are not immune from cultural and traditional baggages that they bring with them from their respective countires preventing them to universally embracing one another.
Therefore, on a conceptual level we may try to state that Islam knows no cultural barriers, on practical level, however, we remain glued to our own culture and tradition. The very reason you, I, and EMC in this group are congregating, for there is more than faith that ties us together - our heritage, our culture, and, yes, our country. It is only fair to state, otherwise, we would've joined other sites that do not adhere to such exlusive notion of virtual congregations.
Let me be unequivocally cleare here: I am not saying I value my country more than my religion. All what I am saying is that we humans, be it Muslims, Hindus, Budhists, Christians, are helplessly bound by our tradition as much as we are by our religion.
It is on that premise that I attempt to inject the nationalistic fervor into our discussion - for us to keep one eye on our religion and the other on our country - as simple as that.
If that's still a cart before the horse, then, maybe, we will put a human being to pull the cart and the horse and lead them both to the realities of human nature - one that needs both to nurture his/her spiritual needs as much as his/her cultural and traditional ones.
Brotherly,
Beyan
Allow me to express my perspective on whether it is the "conceptual link
--- On Fri, 3/20/09, Kamal Ibrahim <kmibr-@msn.com> wrote:
| | From: Kamal Ibrahim <kmibr-@msn.com>
Subject: RE: [EMC] just a thought
To: eri-@topica.com
Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 11:30 AM
Visit http://www.erimc.org/ for latest EMC
news.
WAA brother Beyan
I wouldn't go as far as describing it as non-sequitur but I
do believe
that there is an element of
putting-the-cart-before-the-donkey in your
argument.
Let us take it one step at a time.
As a premise for your question to Berhan and myslef, you
stated "the
reason I placed our religion with our nation is because
they are
inseperable in my mind".
What exactly does this mean and how is it so?
Is this a link along the lines of: if you can't defend your
religion you
can't defend your nation (or vice versa)?
Or is this simply a conceptual link implying one is
meaningless without
the other? In which case, is it equally true in both
directions?
Best wishes
Kamal
Discussion Archive: http://lists.topica.com/lists/erimc/read
EMC Matrimonial: http://www.erimc.org/matrimonials/
|
|
|
 |
|
