Cause and Effect

I've always had this obsession with everything World War II (and World War I too, to a lesser extent). It's right up there along with my passion for sharks, cetaceans (that's dolphins, porpoises and whales), dinosaurs, fruits and women, though not necessarily in that order. There's something of another era, when men were noble and women wore long frocks, about World War II. Yes, yes, I know Wilfred Owen said that the great lie is 'Dulce et Decorum est pro Patria Mori' (It is sweet and honorable to die for one's country) and that war is cruel etc. He was probably right too, but remember, I am part of a generation that was raised on movies like Saving Private Ryan, TV serials like Band of Brothers and video games like Call of Duty, so for me, World War II is a time in history of American Thompson-toting GIs screaming, 'Panzer! 9 o'clock!', 'Berlin, here we come!' and 'Damn Jerries/Limeys/Japs!', or square-jawed trenchcoat clad Russian snipers whispering, 'Da, Comrade Commissar'. It is a time of Kamikaze, Stukas, and glorious battles fought in the forests of Europe, the deserts of Africa and the jungles of Rangoon. I think you get the picture. Now THAT is how wars should be fought; brave men charging a bridge while Edith Piaf or L'Internazionale plays in the background. Quite pathetic I know. What's even more pathetic is the fact that I've always hoped I have an ancestor who fought in the war. After all, we were a British colony, and the British Indian army did fight in the war. Of course, an ancestor at Normandy, the Bulge or Market Garden would have really been the bee's knees, but a great grand uncle twice removed in Mesopotamia or Rangoon would do just fine as well. However, alhamdulillah, I descend from a family of businessmen (Memons) and  rich men of science and royalty (Hyderabadis), so the killing business isn't really our thing. Once my cousin, knowing what a sucker I was for all things World War II, told me her great grand uncle fought against the Japs. Hey, I thought, even a great grand uncle by virtue of marriage is good enough. On further grilling, however, she admitted she was only pulling my chain. The only relation they had to World War II was when they fled the part of India near Rangoon when it was thought the Japs were going to break through. So I supposed I had to accept the fact that my ancestors lived a pretty unexciting life during the period 1939-1945 (Alhamdulillah, of course). Until today.
I went over for Iftari to my maternal grandmother's house. It was about half an hour before Iftar time, so I thought I'd hang out in the garden, play with my kid cousin and talk with nani (that's my grandma). Since it is Ashura for the Shiaas these days, she told me about what Ashura was like in 1939 India. During her narrative, she mentioned in passing that her whole family had to leave Bombay (where they lived) and move to Surat, because it was feared the Japanese would attack Bombay, as opposed to the smaller and less economically vital Surat (which makes no sense as Bombay and Surat are on the west coast of India, far away from the warring Japs). My nani was only a few years old at the time. It was here that her uncle met the father of my grandfather, and they became great friends. When my nani grew older, the two families thought that a great way to cement ties between them would be the marriage of her and nana. What followed were 4 children and 9 grandchildren, I being the eldest.
Now, why all this rambling? Simply put, the Japanese are indirectly responsible for my nana meeting my nani, and ultimately, my existence. The Lord really does work in mysterious ways. If Allah SWT had not made the Japanese join World War II, my nani's uncle would not have met my great grand-dad, my nana and nani would not have tied the knot, and I would not have been born. Now think about it. I exist because of World War II. Forget a great grand daddy fighting the Germans, I EXIST because the Japs said, 'Hey, India? Nice place- We'll take it.' Cause and effect. They really can take you to the weirdest of places.
Now let's apply 'the bigger picture' model to my future. Thanks to World War II, a lucky super model is the mother of my children, the cure for cancer exists and Mount Everest has been climbed in a ridiculously short 2 hours, inshaAllah.
Well, now I don't feel like as insignificant and generic as a Chinaman in China. I am the product of a major world event. What I read awe-struck in books is not just something abstract about a bygone era, it is an integral part of who I am. I feel like I am part of the grand scheme of things. SubhanAllah, Allah SWT really is the best of Planners.

Extremism in our Homes

I recently got my first cell phone (an old black and white screen Nokia phone with a torch). Yes, I know, I know. 18 years old and my first cell phone. Addicted though I already am to texting, I'd still ditch it for the good old days when I wasn't a slave to technology (think of my situation like that of a drug addict who really wants to quit). Anyway, Alhamdulillah a few weeks after my first cell, by a stroke of some good luck, I traded my cell for a Nokia E50 with my uncle (moving upstate aren't we? Somebody play the Fresh Prince theme!) Now, my older simpler cell's big keypad was in stark contrast to my current E50 with its greater emphasis on screen size over keypad size. Now, texting has become a pain, which is good, considering I save a lot of time (On the other hand, my replies to texts have become curt, almost rude). On my old cell, I would always reply to 'thank you's' with 'np's' etc. As in, I would pretty much always have the last text, so to speak. With my new cell, this avid replying became difficult. Now I faced a dilemma. Stop replying to thank yous and be considered rude but save a lot of time, or continue with it, and spend a lot more time than I already was on the cell. In the end, I decided to reply to those people whom I felt would get offended if I didn't always reply to thank yous, and hit the delete button immediately the people I thought wouldn't really give a crap if I replied or not.


This is basically what my article is about: The only 2 conceivable options in my mind were extreme and diametrically opposed-either reply to everyone, or reply to no one. Only after some thought did an alternate solution emerge-reply some and don't reply rest. This is a form of extremism that pervades our lives without us realizing it, whilst we continue to decry religious etc. extremism in our world. We think in terms of yes and no, black and white. We choose not to take the middle ground. While the above example is harmless enough, and just required a bit of lateral thinking, other larger problems are not simply solved by some creative thinking and have much more serious repercussions if not dealt with correctly. They require us to completely change our way of thinking and require a complete paradigm shift. Let me elucidate:

The other day, I was listening to the tafseer (explanation) of the Quran when I came across the following verse:

"Those who live on usury will not rise up before Allah except like those who are driven to madness by the touch of Shaitan. That is because they claim: "Trading is no different than usury, but Allah has made trading lawful and usury unlawful…" (2:275)

This ayat highlights the type of argument many of us use to try to justify our actions, not just to others, but to ourselves as well. Yes, we all lie to ourselves. We become like that group of Bani Israel (the Jews) mentioned in the Quran who were not allowed to work on the Sabbath. Allah (SWT) tested them by making the biggest fish swim in the nearby sea on this day. So the Jews cast nets and left them all day to net fish, while they observed Sabbath. So technically they weren't working, but they were breaking the commandment. But they were convinced themselves that they weren't. Similarly, we look for common elements between usury and simple business transactions, and then use these to convince ourselves that usury is legal in Islam.

A similar story is seen in Verse 49 of the 9th Chapter of the Quran, Surah Tauba, where a companion, Jad-bin-Qais wanted exemption from the battle of Tabuk at the Prophet (PBUH)'s time, because he did not want to expose himself to the beauty of Roman women, for fear he would yield to the temptation and fornicate with them. Allah (SWT) aptly replies in the same verse, "…Have they not fallen into temptation (of telling lies, double dealings and hypocrisy) already?..." Look, we're not saying jump into a strip club, but don't shirk on your other obligatory duties just to avoid being exposed to a sin. Have some self-control for God's sake. Which reminds me of something else I hear a lot from fellow Muslims: "Let's go to parties and expose ourselves to drugs, sex and rock & roll, just so we can get our curiosity about them out of our system, and then avoiding these will become much easier.' A) Avoiding these things is a test from Allah (SWT). B) We're not supposed to do them. Ever. Period. Doing things to avoid doing them? I'm confused. C) And what if you don't get it out of your system? What then? You've injected yourself with the flu virus to get immune to it. What if you don't? Why the heck did you risk it in the first place? If you ever encounter the flu virus for the first time, take it from there. Don't be an idiot and leap into the disease's outstretched arms (or encapsulated DNA material) instead.

I encounter extremist arguments frequently when I debate with people over various religious and moral issues. For example, Islam does not permit free mixing of members of the opposite sex. Therefore, I try to avoid parties where there is mingling of the sexes (a palindrome easter egg  ). Yet, I study in a co-educational school. People wonder aloud at this seeming hypocrisy. Yet again, this is a case of extremist thinking. Parties are social events. School is not. There's the difference. To treat them as one and the same would mean I would have to stay shut up in my house forever, as going outside would possibly expose me to contact with a member of the opposite sex (that really makes girls sound like they're a disease. Ah yes, cooties).

Another completely illogical spin-off of this type of thinking is the 'If you sin in this, you might as well sin in that' philosophy. I have come across this very frequently, when people say, yet again about the above example, 'Faysal, you don't mind chatting with girls; you might as well come to XYZ's party with us.' While I recognize that chatting freely with unrelated women is a no-no, and it will count as a sin in the eyes of Allah (SWT), this does not give me license to go to parties. Just because I smoke pot, does not mean I should go the 10 yards and do heroin. Taking this extremist thinking a step further: 'I borrowed my friend's pencil without asking; I therefore have permission to commit murder.' Ridiculous isn't it? Well, I've seen it a lot, and as a debater who has to use this tactic a lot in debates, I out of habit, unfortunately bring it into my 'real-world' arguments as well.

On a not completely unrelated note, this same habit of humans manifests itself in the field of science- 'Correlation does not necessarily imply causation', i.e. just because 2 things are correlated, that does not necessarily mean that one is the cause of the other. For example, at a certain point in time in a nation's history, crime rates may be going up. Simultaneously, poverty is also increasing. Human beings, in a rush to reach conclusions, tend to say that the cause of crime increase is due to poverty increase, ignoring the possibility that instead of poverty, the cause may actually be a decrease in the police budget. This is again a form of extremist thinking.

One final example: recently there was a hullaballoo raised in the US about something talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger said on air. I'm not going to narrate the whole event here because I'm too lazy to do so. Just Google it please. The point is, the caller was a Black woman and Dr. Laura used the word 'nigger' 11 times. She wasn't calling the woman 'nigger', but was using the word to put across her point more effectively (People are more receptive to expletives). Anyway, the political correctness Nazis were galvanized into action. Unfortunately, the world, and especially the US is grinding towards an excessive and unnecessary level of keeping everything Bowdlerized and sanitary. Sure, don't insult people by calling them names or hurting their feelings by drawing caricatures of their religious figures, but don't turn it into a 'Voldemort/He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' farce either. Don't believe me? Google some interesting cases litigation and laws in the States and around the world.

I understand that perhaps humans tend to pick extreme sides because that makes life much easier. A world neatly sorted out into black and white components is a much simpler and easier to understand world than one filled with shades of grey. But that doesn't make it right, and the desire for simplicity should not be an excuse for not trying to see the world for what it is: a complex thing.