Lovefoolosophy
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Introspection of a Societal Newbie
Lovefoolosopher
¶ 2:05 AM 1 Comments
About a month ago, I was a fresh graduate - a bachelor's degree in Mass Comms in my hand and youthful hopes in my heart.
As I am typing this entry, it is 2:05 am, March 30th, 2005. I am still a fresh graduate. My bachelor's degree is still crisp in my hand, but my youthful anticipations have begun to wane under the soul-crushing clutches of utter boredom.
Before you assume that this is just another one of those sorry-ass lamentations of a societal newbie, who is just coming to terms with reality, I assure you that I do not intend to make it as such. For I am fully aware that this is just an ephemeral phase that almost every child of the metropolitan goes through. And I am fine with that. It's super. I feel, notwithstanding, that it is important that I cherish this stint of insecurity and inadequacy, so that when I have made my mark in the future, I can look back and sneer at my heart-rending bout of professional drought.
As I am typing this entry, it is 2:05 am, March 30th, 2005. I am still a fresh graduate. My bachelor's degree is still crisp in my hand, but my youthful anticipations have begun to wane under the soul-crushing clutches of utter boredom.
Before you assume that this is just another one of those sorry-ass lamentations of a societal newbie, who is just coming to terms with reality, I assure you that I do not intend to make it as such. For I am fully aware that this is just an ephemeral phase that almost every child of the metropolitan goes through. And I am fine with that. It's super. I feel, notwithstanding, that it is important that I cherish this stint of insecurity and inadequacy, so that when I have made my mark in the future, I can look back and sneer at my heart-rending bout of professional drought.
************************
It's April 8th now. 2.21 am. I am re-inspired to continue with my previously shortlived entry by my unbroken jobless state of mind. Maybe not exactly jobless. I got a temp job with The Necessary Stage, the theatre company. I am a transcriber. If you're groping for that dictionary right now then it's good. The obscurity of the word romantacizes the importance of my newly held title. The fundamentals of my job are to pen down, verbatim, the interviews with the victims of the tsunami disaster. Interviews in Malay and Bahasa Indonesia are to be translated to English.
I almost kissed myself silly when they decided to pay me $100 per day instead of the initially agreed $12 per hour. I mean, it was easy-friggin'-money, or so I thought. I called up several friends to jump on the bandwagon. Easy money were the magic words. And as brief as the glory was, I was hailed the Messiah of Bummers Inc, at least till 13 hours later, when we learnt that nothing comes easy, especially not money. It could take us about five hours to transcribe a 15-minute long interview, exlcuding the translations. Seven hours later, one of my friends ran for his life. He decided that $100 worth of reasons were not enough to justify the back-breaking ordeal. If it had been war, he might have been shot down for desertion. At least I think he ought to be.
But I got over the self-pity and although it was unimaginably tedious work, like arranged marriages, I soon learnt to love it. Ok, maybe love is pushing it - I got used to it, perhaps even liking it. And that is the story of the Transcriber.
I went down to a couple of job agencies several days ago, more to console my perpetual ennui than anything else. Nowadays, anything that kills time is godsend. Staying home can be depressing.
Right now I'm down with a cold. I've just realized that colds add a tinge of glow to your skin, for mine at least. I just feel that I look better when I'm having a cold. So colds are good.
If you haven't noticed, this is the first entry where I am the apex of the issue. I try not to make this blog into a narcissistic personal diary, like most mainstream blogs. But I'm in the mood for introspection, so bite me.
I almost kissed myself silly when they decided to pay me $100 per day instead of the initially agreed $12 per hour. I mean, it was easy-friggin'-money, or so I thought. I called up several friends to jump on the bandwagon. Easy money were the magic words. And as brief as the glory was, I was hailed the Messiah of Bummers Inc, at least till 13 hours later, when we learnt that nothing comes easy, especially not money. It could take us about five hours to transcribe a 15-minute long interview, exlcuding the translations. Seven hours later, one of my friends ran for his life. He decided that $100 worth of reasons were not enough to justify the back-breaking ordeal. If it had been war, he might have been shot down for desertion. At least I think he ought to be.
But I got over the self-pity and although it was unimaginably tedious work, like arranged marriages, I soon learnt to love it. Ok, maybe love is pushing it - I got used to it, perhaps even liking it. And that is the story of the Transcriber.
I went down to a couple of job agencies several days ago, more to console my perpetual ennui than anything else. Nowadays, anything that kills time is godsend. Staying home can be depressing.
Right now I'm down with a cold. I've just realized that colds add a tinge of glow to your skin, for mine at least. I just feel that I look better when I'm having a cold. So colds are good.
If you haven't noticed, this is the first entry where I am the apex of the issue. I try not to make this blog into a narcissistic personal diary, like most mainstream blogs. But I'm in the mood for introspection, so bite me.
Lovefoolosopher
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Opportunitism - My Very Own Political Philosophy
Here is my humble attempt at engineering a philosophy in governing a country. Well, maybe not just any country, but more specifically, Singapore. I believe that there is no one “perfect” political philosophy that can be applied to all the nations in the world, because we are different in so many aspects, be it physical, mental or spiritual. I am not trying to change the world with my philosophy because I am far from qualified to do so. I do not know much about the other nations in the world, but I know a little bit more about Singapore.
My idea is quite simple and straightforward, actually. Firstly, I did not misspell the word “Opportunitism”. It is deliberately not meant to be “opportunism” because then it may suggest using unfair means to achieve one’s goals. I meant it as it is – “Opportunitism”. Opportunitism is a concept that advocates the individual’s entitlement to a fair provision of opportunity that will bring about self-actualization. I am not talking about equal opportunity, but rather, a “fair” provision of opportunity given to an individual to realize his true potentials. To illustrate this point, consider the case of a person who has just been released from prison. He only possesses a secondary level qualification. Now, if I am applying “equal” opportunity, he should be given the same opportunity as a degree holder to apply for a managerial position in a company, which is unrealistic. However if the management were to apply the concept of “Opportunitism”, the man will not simply be turned down, but he will be given a “fair” opportunity to apply for a position in the company, but in the production department of the organization, despite his criminal record. This concept can be applied to the working environment in general because in many countries, many repentant ex-criminals face unemployment because they are not given the fair opportunity to work.
In fact, the concept of Opportunitism can be applied in almost any aspect of human life – be it political, social or economic. Let us bring the concept of Opportunitism to the context of Singapore. As I have mentioned earlier, the minorities like the Malays and Indians lag behind the Chinese in terms of social status largely because they are not given the fair amount of opportunity in military, working environment and in education. I refute the notion that it is the intrinsic nature of a particular race that causes them to not be as capable or as intelligent as another race. How can that be? They have all been brought up in the same country, under the same government, sharing the same values and culture. I believe it is due to the subtle discrimination and the lack of opportunity in society that the minorities have to face that has caused them to lag behind. Thus, applying the concept of Opportunitism, the government should provide a fair opportunity for the brightest Indian and Malay students by establishing SAP schools for them too. Include the Malays in the elite forces of the military because they too should be given the fair opportunity to serve their country. Provide the fair opportunity to the media to provide constructive criticism on the government. These are some of the steps the government can take to create a more wholesome society where everyone is given the fair opportunity to participate in the country’s decision making.
Opportunitism, as with John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” concept, can be applied to just about any aspect of our lives. It depends on how constructively we apply it to everyday situations. The key point to note is that Opportunitism is not about providing “equal” opportunity, but rather, a “fair” opportunity to an individual. I believe that only if a person is given the opportunity to prove his worth, can he really discover his utmost potential and in turn, give his best to society.
Lovefoolosopher
¶ 12:51 PM 1 Comments
My idea is quite simple and straightforward, actually. Firstly, I did not misspell the word “Opportunitism”. It is deliberately not meant to be “opportunism” because then it may suggest using unfair means to achieve one’s goals. I meant it as it is – “Opportunitism”. Opportunitism is a concept that advocates the individual’s entitlement to a fair provision of opportunity that will bring about self-actualization. I am not talking about equal opportunity, but rather, a “fair” provision of opportunity given to an individual to realize his true potentials. To illustrate this point, consider the case of a person who has just been released from prison. He only possesses a secondary level qualification. Now, if I am applying “equal” opportunity, he should be given the same opportunity as a degree holder to apply for a managerial position in a company, which is unrealistic. However if the management were to apply the concept of “Opportunitism”, the man will not simply be turned down, but he will be given a “fair” opportunity to apply for a position in the company, but in the production department of the organization, despite his criminal record. This concept can be applied to the working environment in general because in many countries, many repentant ex-criminals face unemployment because they are not given the fair opportunity to work.
In fact, the concept of Opportunitism can be applied in almost any aspect of human life – be it political, social or economic. Let us bring the concept of Opportunitism to the context of Singapore. As I have mentioned earlier, the minorities like the Malays and Indians lag behind the Chinese in terms of social status largely because they are not given the fair amount of opportunity in military, working environment and in education. I refute the notion that it is the intrinsic nature of a particular race that causes them to not be as capable or as intelligent as another race. How can that be? They have all been brought up in the same country, under the same government, sharing the same values and culture. I believe it is due to the subtle discrimination and the lack of opportunity in society that the minorities have to face that has caused them to lag behind. Thus, applying the concept of Opportunitism, the government should provide a fair opportunity for the brightest Indian and Malay students by establishing SAP schools for them too. Include the Malays in the elite forces of the military because they too should be given the fair opportunity to serve their country. Provide the fair opportunity to the media to provide constructive criticism on the government. These are some of the steps the government can take to create a more wholesome society where everyone is given the fair opportunity to participate in the country’s decision making.
Opportunitism, as with John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” concept, can be applied to just about any aspect of our lives. It depends on how constructively we apply it to everyday situations. The key point to note is that Opportunitism is not about providing “equal” opportunity, but rather, a “fair” opportunity to an individual. I believe that only if a person is given the opportunity to prove his worth, can he really discover his utmost potential and in turn, give his best to society.
Lovefoolosopher
Islam Misunderstood: The Stigma of Terrorism on Islam
The terrorist attacks of September 11 have placed the teachings, goals and ideology of Islam in the spotlight. Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network had claimed responsibility for the heinous act of terrorism, casting an instant stigma on Islam. The horrific images of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre were all over American news broadcast and newspapers. I remember watching the live transmission on the television, witnessing the sheer distress and utter devastation of the firefighters, police officers, survivors and the bystanders. As I watched the last victims of the collapsing towers jumped off the buildings in desperation, like many people around the world who were watching at that point of time, my heart sank to the lowest depth.
The terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. had catapulted Islam into the western dictionary’s definition of “violence” and “terror”. American-Muslims who resemble Osama Bin Laden in one way or another (the beard and head-dress in particular) suddenly found themselves unable to walk on the streets without drawing undesirable attention. Even American-Sikhs wearing head-dresses that resemble that of Osama’s became fearful of being attacked by Americans angered by the appalling attacks of September 11. Islam suddenly became synonymous with terrorism.
The reason why I decided to write on this issue is because I feel that a clear distinction has to be made between Islam and Terrorism. Although the American government and media may have tainted the image of the religion when they label terrorism as being largely Islamic in nature, we cannot ignore the fact that the real root of the problem is how Islamic fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden has manipulated the various interpretations of verses from the Quran to serve their own political agendas. In this piece of writing, I hope to provide a brief background of Islam and its position in the contemporary political world, explain how the religion has been misunderstood throughout the globe, especially in the West, and how Islamic extremists have abused the interpretations of Islamic teachings for their own political gains. I would also provide a brief background of the two most notorious Islamic-extremist organizations, the Al-Qaeda and the Jemaah Islamiah and their developments.
Before anything else, it is important for us to look at the brief history of Islam. The most prominent character in Islam is the Prophet Muhammad. He was born in the city of Mecca in Arabia in A.D. 570. He married a wealthy widow when he was 25 years old. Prophet Muhammad spent most of his time in solitary meditation and he began being engulfed by disturbing visions. The Angel Gabriel dictated the contents of the Quran to him in the early 7th Century A.D. For 22 years, Prophet Muhammad reported many revelations and began sermonizing on the streets and marketplace of Mecca. He faced great opposition because he stood against the immoral behaviors of the Arabs in Mecca and in A.D. 620, there were plots to assassinate him and his followers. Prophet Muhammad had to seek refuge to the north, in the city of Medina. The flight which occurred on July 16, 622 A.D., was called “hegira”, and it marks the beginning of Islam. Prophet Muhammad later became the religious and political leader of Medina.
Prophet Muhammad’s enemies from Mecca soon launched a war against the new faith. Islam triumphed when the war ended in 630 A.D. This war was known as “Jihad”, which meant “armed struggle against the enemies of the Islam who were launching war against it” (it is important for us to note here that Jihad is an act of self defense, as opposed to the horrific attacks of September 11). After Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 A.D. his followers carried the faith across Asia, Africa and Europe and Islam is still growing until today.
So rapid is the growth of Islam in the world that James A. Bill (professor of government and director of the Reves Center for International Studies at the College of William and Mary in Virginia) believes that the number of Muslims (followers of Islam) will be greater than that of Christians in the world by the turn of the century. Currently, Islam is practiced by 1.1 billion people. The rapid growth of Islam is not only restricted to the Middle East. For instance, there are more Muslims in Indonesia than the in middle-eastern countries like Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia put together. In Malaysia alone there are more Muslims than in Kuwait, Lebanon and Jordan combined. There are 20 million Muslims in China. There are more Muslims in America today than all the Presbyterians and Episcopalians combined. In fact, there are over 1,200 mosques in the United States and 1000 mosques in England and the Muslim communities in these two regions have established their own national parliament, evidence of the penetration of Islam into the western political arena. The growth of Islam can be contributed to the increasing desire of people caught in the midst of political corruption, broken homes, violence, and discrimination, who seek refuge in the ideology of the religion.
However, although moderate Muslims pursue improved qualities of life, status in society and recognition in politics through peaceful means, some extremist groups have smeared the good name of Islam by resorting to violence to attain political ends. The Al-Qaeda network, led by Osama Bin Laden, holds the limelight in this issue, especially after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on September 11.
In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, many western opinion leaders harshly labeled Muslims in general with words like “aggressive”, “militant”, and uncivilized. The word “terrorists” becomes synonymous with all Muslim activists. All Muslim nations that oppose some of the foreign policies of the Western states are termed as “outlaw states”, and we know that some of the foreign policies of the United States in particular, have been unfair to the Muslim world. I believe that one of the reasons why Islam is being misunderstood throughout the world with regards to the “war on terrorism” is that many of us, whether we are watching the news on television or reading the newspaper, are more exposed to the terrorists acts of Islamic extremists of the Al-Qaeda network and the Jemaah Islamiah, but we know very little about the great plight of Muslims around the world, due to some of the policies practiced not only by the western governments, but Asian and Islamic governments as well. In fact, Muslims see themselves as the afflicted and not the afflictors. I would like to cast some light on this issue.
One of the examples I would like to highlight to reflect the oppression that Muslims in some parts of the world are facing is the double standard practiced by the United States government towards the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is undeniable that Osama Bin Laden and members of the Al-Qaeda network, who have claimed responsibility for the attacks on United States embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as well as on United States’ military bases and a warship in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region, does indeed deserve the label “terrorists”. The attacks of September 11 cleared all doubts about that. However, the White House abused the concept of “terrorism” when it also categorized the Muslims fighting in self defense against the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and in southern Lebanon as “terrorists”. The U.S. administration should stop for a while and re-analyze its definition of the word “terrorists”. Not only has the Israeli government occupied Arab territories in Palestine, the Golan Heights and the Sheb’a farms in southern Lebanon, it has also defied several United Nations resolutions (the very same resolutions supported by the U.S.) by establishing settlements in those territories. The Israeli government has also broken its promise of negotiations to end the occupation by renouncing the Oslo treaty and has closed Palestinian towns, blocking the economy of the region, and also assassinated Palestinian leaders. This is indeed the epitome of terrorism. One wonders why the United States has not labeled the Israelis as “terrorists”. This selective use of the word “terrorists” is one of the major reasons for the misunderstanding of Islam throughout the world.
Other forms of oppression faced by Muslims around the world include the nearly 200,000 Muslims killed by Serbian Christians in Bosnia. 22,000 Muslim women, aged between nine to 82 years old, have been raped by Serbian Christian soldiers.
Indian forces occupying Kashmir had violently killed thousands of Muslims. In December 1992 and January 1993, Hindu mobs in Bombay, killed over 800 Muslims, ruined 5000 Muslim homes and forcing 200,000 Muslims to flee the city. Muslim mosques were bombed and young Muslim men were burned alive. Communists in Tajikistan and other regions in Central Asia, assisted by Russian troops, had killed over 20,000 Muslim and forced another 350,000 to flee.
Muslims in Middle Eastern regions are not spared the cruelties of tyranny from their secular Muslim leaders. In Iraq, the Shi’ites in the south has been facing Saddam Hussein’s war of genocide. In Egypt, the Muslim opposition towards Hosni Mubarak’s regime has been met with torture and execution of its members. Hosni Mubarak’s troops opened fire against 500 unarmed Muslims at a prayer in the Rahman Mosque in Aswan in 1993. Nine people were killed and 50 injured. A year later at a mosque in Hebron, a Jewish settler killed 30 Muslims who were praying, before survivors beat him to death.
Despite the sufferings the moderate Muslims had to go through, Western governments has labeled them as terrorists and had supported the use of force by their Middle Eastern allies against these moderate Muslims, allowing the extremists and real “terrorists” on the fringes running loose. In light of these examples, it is absolutely erroneous to associate Islam with terrorism and violence, putting 1.1 billion Muslims to blame just because certain fringe groups of Islamists extremists have lately misinterpreted the teachings of Islam in the name of their so called “holy war”, when Muslims all over the world has seen more violence and sufferings cast upon themselves throughout history than any other religion in the world. In fact, Islam is in no way different from other cultures and religions when it comes to the presence of fringe terrorists organizations within their societies. Terrorists groups can be found in Spain, Northern Ireland and Latin America. For instance, one of the Christian militant priests in Latin America, Colombia’s Camillo Torres, justified armed struggle in the name of freedom. Thus, terrorism is not exclusively Islamic and should never be thought to be.
However, to put the blame for the misunderstanding of Islam solely on the shoulders of the West would be absolutely unfair because Muslims themselves do not fully understand the true concepts of Islam, namely, the concept of “Jihad”. Due to this form of ignorance, many have fallen prey to the manipulative persuasion of Islamic extremist groups such as the Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, that have abused the meaning of “Jihad” to justify their acts of terrorism and also to gain support from Muslims who are ignorant of the real concept of “Jihad”, but nonetheless, full of spirit, and are thirsty for “martyrdom”.
It is important for us to note that although “Jihad” was used to describe the armed struggle of self defense of Prophet Muhammad against the opposition trying to topple Islam; it should not be translated as “holy war”, like what Muslim extremists claimed. The real meaning of “Jihad” in contemporary context would be “an inner struggle to suppress one’s evil desires and elevate one’s soul.” The Arabic term for “holy war” is not “Jihad”, but rather, “al-harb muhadassa”. In fact, there is no mention of “holy war” in the Quran – there is no combination of words in the holy book that means “holy war”. Thus, for the Islamic extremists to use the Quran as their guiding tool to justify their acts of a “holy war” would be absolutely misleading.
The problem with Islamic extremists like the members of Al-Qaeda is that they merely paid selective attention to verses in the Quran that serve their vindictive intentions (even then, they always fail to understand the true meanings of those verses), and armed with these verses and their own interpretations of them, start to recruit other martyrdom-enthusiasts, who, are often ignorant of the true teachings of Islam and therefore are easily manipulated. For instance, I quote to you one of the verses that Islamic extremists have taken down from the Quran to somehow justify their evil actions:
Those who believe, and who have forsaken the domain of evil and have striven (jihad) hard in God’s cause with their possessions and their lives have the highest rank in the sight of God; and it is they, they who shall triumph in the end! Their Sustainer gives them glad tidings of the grace that flows from Him, and of His goodly acceptance, and of the gardens which await them, full of lasting bliss, therein to abide beyond the count of time. Verily, with God is a mighty reward! – Quran 9:20-22
Verses as such, where fighting and struggle are mentioned, refer to war of self defense, when Islam’s peace and security is jeopardized by its opposition, like the war that Prophet Muhammad and his followers had to go through to defend their religion from opposition army. However, these verses do not give Muslims the right to use violence against those who hold different beliefs in terms of politics and religion from the Muslims.
In fact, the real problem lie not so much in which passages of the Muslim Holy Book (Quran) they read, but which passages they choose to ignore.
A Muslim lecturer, Ihsan Bagby, who teaches international relations at Shaw University in Raleigh, N.C., is perplexed as to why suicide bombers choose to ignore verses from the Quran that appreciate mercy, self control, peace and forgiveness. One such verse in the Quran would be this:
“Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: Thus doth he command you, that ye may learn wisdom. – Quran 6:151
Bagby believes that the Muslim extremists have the inclination that just because certain American policies have been unfair to Muslims, especially those in the Middle East, it gives them the right to attack any American interest and innocent lives are just “collateral damage” to them. On the contrary, Islam prohibits the notion of forced conversion (a Muslim cannot use violent means to force a person of another religion to embrace Islam) and every life is held sacred – opposed to the actions of Islamic extremists who claimed to be representatives of Islam. They definitely are not.
Some writings called “hadith”, are used to interpret the Quran. These writings include sayings of Prophet Muhammad and his biography. Prophet Muhammad declared hadith that war or battle is a “lesser jihad” while spiritual refinement is the “greater jihad”. However, Islamic extremists, driven by their quest for violence to attain their own political ends, claim that hadith’s restriction of acts of violence are not the true sayings of Prophet Muhammad. One problem that arises is that in Islam, there is an absence of an official body that interprets the Quran with reference to hadith. The result is the blind following the blind – Muslims who do not fully understand the teachings of the Quran or who do not take the effort to apply their intellect to try to understand the Quran, may turn to leaders who interpret the holy book to serve their own political agenda – leaders like Osama Bin Laden.
To have a better understanding of how the name of Islam has been smeared by violence of terrorism by fringe extremist groups, we have to look at the Al-Qaeda network, led by Osama Bin Laden. It dates back to the time when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan. Thousands of Mujahideen warriors came from Middle East to help their fellow Muslims. Osama Bin Laden provided the financial support to the organization that drafted Muslims all over the world to be Mujahideen fighters to defeat the Soviet forces. Osama returned to Saudi Arabia after the defeat of the Soviet Union. He formed the basis of the Al-Qaeda with the Afghan war veterans, who fought in other war torn areas like Bosnia. He opposed the idea of having U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Osama was debarred from Saudi Arabia for his involvement in anti-government movements. He seeks refuge in Khartoum in Sudan where he set up headquarters for Al-Qaeda. The attacks on U.S. soldiers in Somalia mark the first acts of violence against U.S. interests. Under pressure from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, Sudan expelled Osama in 1994, and he fled to Afghanistan, finding refuge with the ruling Taliban regime.
Osama Bin Laden’s ultimate goal is to create an Islamic state. He had been an understudy of many Islamic radical scholars and he is determined to abide by the teachings of the first Caliphs (Islamic political and religious leaders in the past). To achieve an independent Islamic state, he aims to rid Muslim nations (especially Saudi Arabia) of Americans and their interests; wipe out the Israelis and bring down governments in the Middle East that are pro-Western.
To understand Al-Qaeda’s violent nature, we have to acknowledge the theories of two contemporary Sunni Islamic philosophers - Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb. Much of Al-Qaeda’s ideology is influenced by the works of these two radical Islamic thinkers. Their teachings are opposing to the practices of moderate Muslims.
In the 18th Century, Al-Wahab, a reformer, believed that all religions or civilization established one generation or so after the death of the Prophet Muhammad are null and void. This includes more than 1000 years of religious developments.
Sayyid Qutb, who was an Egyptian Islamic-extremist philosopher in the mid-20th Century, opposed the West, claiming that they are the enemy of Islam. He condemned the Muslim governments for not following the teachings of the first Caliphs meticulously and that he declared that the “holy war” should not be undertaken by Muslims as an act of self defense, but rather to create a world of a single religion, that is, Islam.
With the works of these two Islamic radicals as its driving principle, it is not hard to explain why the Al-Qaeda resorts to violent means to achieve their political goals. In their pursuit of a “pure” Islamic world, the Al-Qaeda network abides faithfully by the radical teachings of the two extremist thinkers, while ignoring the fact that the old rule of the Caliphs do not apply to the contemporary context of Islam.
Some of the acts of terrorism by the Al-Qaeda network in recent years include the bombing of U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia (1995-1996) where 22 soldiers were killed; bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 where 224 people were killed, of whom 12 were Americans; bombing of the USS Cole in a port in Yemen in 2000, where 17 U.S. sailors were killed; attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11 2001 and the bombing of an ancient synagogue in Tunisia 0n April 11 2002, leaving 17 people killed, including 11 German tourists.
The dissection of the world into the realm of war (dar al-harb) and the realm of Islam (dar al-islam) may be applicable during Prophet Muhammad’s struggle against armies trying to topple Islam, but not in the modern world. This is because Islam recognizes the importance of diplomatic relations between nations in the world today and by establishing close diplomatic ties with Muslim nations, the other nations will be considered part of the realm of commitment (dar al-ahd). Thus, waging war and unnecessary violence against other religions, customs or countries without proper justification is strictly prohibited by Islam.
As the world focuses its attention on the Al-Qaeda network, another terrorist network closer to home has been creating havoc in Southeast Asia. Jemaah Islamiah, a terrorist network led by an Islamic fundamentalist leader, Abu Bakar Bashir and another holy-war-enthusiast, Riduan Ismuddin, better known as Hambali. Hambali had spent time in the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan (birth place of Al-Qaeda), where he studied the ways of the Mujahideen warriors. Hambali was obsessed with the establishment of an Islamic “super-state”, which would include countries in Southeast Asia, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines, Cambodia and Thailand. According to the CIA, should Hambali succeed in his quest for an Islamic “super-state”, it will hold a population of 420 million people (compared to the 280 million people in the U.S. population) and it will have a military force of over 75 million soldiers, much greater than that of the U.S. It would also have great control over the commercial sea and air routes towards Africa, India and Australia. The reason for this is because the super-state would have control over the shipping routes in the South China Sea that connects Asia to the Indian Ocean.
The first major attacks by Jemaah Islamiah were the bombings of churches, in Indonesia in 2000. It took center stage for the Bali bombings on 12 October 2002, which killed nearly 200 and wounded 300 others. In December 2001, Singapore authorities foiled a Jemaah Islamiah plot to attack the US and Israeli Embassies and British and Australian diplomatic buildings in Singapore. Singapore officials have estimated that the Jemaah Islamiah is 5000 members strong. Investigations have shown that the Jemaah Islamiah has been financed and logistic support from Middle Eastern and South Asian contacts, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other groups, including the Al-Qaeda network. Jemaah Islamiah’s latest target was the luxury JB Marriott Hotel in Jakarta on August 5 2003, killing at least 14 people and injuring almost 150. The attack was a threat by the network of what could become should Bali bomber Amrozi, who was to face to trial just a few days after the Jakarta attack, receive the death sentence.
To clear the misunderstanding that Islam is a religion of violence, the global “war on terrorism” first have to acknowledge the fact that terrorism is not exclusively Islamic in nature. There are other breeds of terrorism in other cultures and religions as well. The western world, especially the United States, have to also understand why Islamic extremists resort to terrorism. Although Islam does in no way condone the acts of terrorism, acknowledging this fact will not solve the real problem – WHY DOES TERRORISM BY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS EXIST?
Organizations like the Al-Qaeda and the Jemaah Islamiah are the products of years of frustration by the Muslim regions against the unfair nature of the foreign policies of Western governments, especially the U.S., towards their communities. The establishments of fringe Islamic-extremist groups have been fueled by the failure of some of the Middle Eastern governments to stand up against the monopolization of Western military and economic influences over their oil and land. Of course, this does not justify the acts of terrorism, but the issue remains that if the Western governments do not ensure that their foreign policies are not exploitive of Muslim nations, fringe extremist groups will have all the more reasons to wage their so called “holy war” against the West. Although most Middle Eastern nations have been determined participants in the global coalition against terrorism, recent developments on terrorism has proven even that is not enough.
Lovefoolosopher
¶ 12:24 PM 0 Comments
The terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. had catapulted Islam into the western dictionary’s definition of “violence” and “terror”. American-Muslims who resemble Osama Bin Laden in one way or another (the beard and head-dress in particular) suddenly found themselves unable to walk on the streets without drawing undesirable attention. Even American-Sikhs wearing head-dresses that resemble that of Osama’s became fearful of being attacked by Americans angered by the appalling attacks of September 11. Islam suddenly became synonymous with terrorism.
The reason why I decided to write on this issue is because I feel that a clear distinction has to be made between Islam and Terrorism. Although the American government and media may have tainted the image of the religion when they label terrorism as being largely Islamic in nature, we cannot ignore the fact that the real root of the problem is how Islamic fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden has manipulated the various interpretations of verses from the Quran to serve their own political agendas. In this piece of writing, I hope to provide a brief background of Islam and its position in the contemporary political world, explain how the religion has been misunderstood throughout the globe, especially in the West, and how Islamic extremists have abused the interpretations of Islamic teachings for their own political gains. I would also provide a brief background of the two most notorious Islamic-extremist organizations, the Al-Qaeda and the Jemaah Islamiah and their developments.
Before anything else, it is important for us to look at the brief history of Islam. The most prominent character in Islam is the Prophet Muhammad. He was born in the city of Mecca in Arabia in A.D. 570. He married a wealthy widow when he was 25 years old. Prophet Muhammad spent most of his time in solitary meditation and he began being engulfed by disturbing visions. The Angel Gabriel dictated the contents of the Quran to him in the early 7th Century A.D. For 22 years, Prophet Muhammad reported many revelations and began sermonizing on the streets and marketplace of Mecca. He faced great opposition because he stood against the immoral behaviors of the Arabs in Mecca and in A.D. 620, there were plots to assassinate him and his followers. Prophet Muhammad had to seek refuge to the north, in the city of Medina. The flight which occurred on July 16, 622 A.D., was called “hegira”, and it marks the beginning of Islam. Prophet Muhammad later became the religious and political leader of Medina.
Prophet Muhammad’s enemies from Mecca soon launched a war against the new faith. Islam triumphed when the war ended in 630 A.D. This war was known as “Jihad”, which meant “armed struggle against the enemies of the Islam who were launching war against it” (it is important for us to note here that Jihad is an act of self defense, as opposed to the horrific attacks of September 11). After Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 A.D. his followers carried the faith across Asia, Africa and Europe and Islam is still growing until today.
So rapid is the growth of Islam in the world that James A. Bill (professor of government and director of the Reves Center for International Studies at the College of William and Mary in Virginia) believes that the number of Muslims (followers of Islam) will be greater than that of Christians in the world by the turn of the century. Currently, Islam is practiced by 1.1 billion people. The rapid growth of Islam is not only restricted to the Middle East. For instance, there are more Muslims in Indonesia than the in middle-eastern countries like Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia put together. In Malaysia alone there are more Muslims than in Kuwait, Lebanon and Jordan combined. There are 20 million Muslims in China. There are more Muslims in America today than all the Presbyterians and Episcopalians combined. In fact, there are over 1,200 mosques in the United States and 1000 mosques in England and the Muslim communities in these two regions have established their own national parliament, evidence of the penetration of Islam into the western political arena. The growth of Islam can be contributed to the increasing desire of people caught in the midst of political corruption, broken homes, violence, and discrimination, who seek refuge in the ideology of the religion.
However, although moderate Muslims pursue improved qualities of life, status in society and recognition in politics through peaceful means, some extremist groups have smeared the good name of Islam by resorting to violence to attain political ends. The Al-Qaeda network, led by Osama Bin Laden, holds the limelight in this issue, especially after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on September 11.
In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, many western opinion leaders harshly labeled Muslims in general with words like “aggressive”, “militant”, and uncivilized. The word “terrorists” becomes synonymous with all Muslim activists. All Muslim nations that oppose some of the foreign policies of the Western states are termed as “outlaw states”, and we know that some of the foreign policies of the United States in particular, have been unfair to the Muslim world. I believe that one of the reasons why Islam is being misunderstood throughout the world with regards to the “war on terrorism” is that many of us, whether we are watching the news on television or reading the newspaper, are more exposed to the terrorists acts of Islamic extremists of the Al-Qaeda network and the Jemaah Islamiah, but we know very little about the great plight of Muslims around the world, due to some of the policies practiced not only by the western governments, but Asian and Islamic governments as well. In fact, Muslims see themselves as the afflicted and not the afflictors. I would like to cast some light on this issue.
One of the examples I would like to highlight to reflect the oppression that Muslims in some parts of the world are facing is the double standard practiced by the United States government towards the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is undeniable that Osama Bin Laden and members of the Al-Qaeda network, who have claimed responsibility for the attacks on United States embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as well as on United States’ military bases and a warship in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region, does indeed deserve the label “terrorists”. The attacks of September 11 cleared all doubts about that. However, the White House abused the concept of “terrorism” when it also categorized the Muslims fighting in self defense against the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and in southern Lebanon as “terrorists”. The U.S. administration should stop for a while and re-analyze its definition of the word “terrorists”. Not only has the Israeli government occupied Arab territories in Palestine, the Golan Heights and the Sheb’a farms in southern Lebanon, it has also defied several United Nations resolutions (the very same resolutions supported by the U.S.) by establishing settlements in those territories. The Israeli government has also broken its promise of negotiations to end the occupation by renouncing the Oslo treaty and has closed Palestinian towns, blocking the economy of the region, and also assassinated Palestinian leaders. This is indeed the epitome of terrorism. One wonders why the United States has not labeled the Israelis as “terrorists”. This selective use of the word “terrorists” is one of the major reasons for the misunderstanding of Islam throughout the world.
Other forms of oppression faced by Muslims around the world include the nearly 200,000 Muslims killed by Serbian Christians in Bosnia. 22,000 Muslim women, aged between nine to 82 years old, have been raped by Serbian Christian soldiers.
Indian forces occupying Kashmir had violently killed thousands of Muslims. In December 1992 and January 1993, Hindu mobs in Bombay, killed over 800 Muslims, ruined 5000 Muslim homes and forcing 200,000 Muslims to flee the city. Muslim mosques were bombed and young Muslim men were burned alive. Communists in Tajikistan and other regions in Central Asia, assisted by Russian troops, had killed over 20,000 Muslim and forced another 350,000 to flee.
Muslims in Middle Eastern regions are not spared the cruelties of tyranny from their secular Muslim leaders. In Iraq, the Shi’ites in the south has been facing Saddam Hussein’s war of genocide. In Egypt, the Muslim opposition towards Hosni Mubarak’s regime has been met with torture and execution of its members. Hosni Mubarak’s troops opened fire against 500 unarmed Muslims at a prayer in the Rahman Mosque in Aswan in 1993. Nine people were killed and 50 injured. A year later at a mosque in Hebron, a Jewish settler killed 30 Muslims who were praying, before survivors beat him to death.
Despite the sufferings the moderate Muslims had to go through, Western governments has labeled them as terrorists and had supported the use of force by their Middle Eastern allies against these moderate Muslims, allowing the extremists and real “terrorists” on the fringes running loose. In light of these examples, it is absolutely erroneous to associate Islam with terrorism and violence, putting 1.1 billion Muslims to blame just because certain fringe groups of Islamists extremists have lately misinterpreted the teachings of Islam in the name of their so called “holy war”, when Muslims all over the world has seen more violence and sufferings cast upon themselves throughout history than any other religion in the world. In fact, Islam is in no way different from other cultures and religions when it comes to the presence of fringe terrorists organizations within their societies. Terrorists groups can be found in Spain, Northern Ireland and Latin America. For instance, one of the Christian militant priests in Latin America, Colombia’s Camillo Torres, justified armed struggle in the name of freedom. Thus, terrorism is not exclusively Islamic and should never be thought to be.
However, to put the blame for the misunderstanding of Islam solely on the shoulders of the West would be absolutely unfair because Muslims themselves do not fully understand the true concepts of Islam, namely, the concept of “Jihad”. Due to this form of ignorance, many have fallen prey to the manipulative persuasion of Islamic extremist groups such as the Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, that have abused the meaning of “Jihad” to justify their acts of terrorism and also to gain support from Muslims who are ignorant of the real concept of “Jihad”, but nonetheless, full of spirit, and are thirsty for “martyrdom”.
It is important for us to note that although “Jihad” was used to describe the armed struggle of self defense of Prophet Muhammad against the opposition trying to topple Islam; it should not be translated as “holy war”, like what Muslim extremists claimed. The real meaning of “Jihad” in contemporary context would be “an inner struggle to suppress one’s evil desires and elevate one’s soul.” The Arabic term for “holy war” is not “Jihad”, but rather, “al-harb muhadassa”. In fact, there is no mention of “holy war” in the Quran – there is no combination of words in the holy book that means “holy war”. Thus, for the Islamic extremists to use the Quran as their guiding tool to justify their acts of a “holy war” would be absolutely misleading.
The problem with Islamic extremists like the members of Al-Qaeda is that they merely paid selective attention to verses in the Quran that serve their vindictive intentions (even then, they always fail to understand the true meanings of those verses), and armed with these verses and their own interpretations of them, start to recruit other martyrdom-enthusiasts, who, are often ignorant of the true teachings of Islam and therefore are easily manipulated. For instance, I quote to you one of the verses that Islamic extremists have taken down from the Quran to somehow justify their evil actions:
Those who believe, and who have forsaken the domain of evil and have striven (jihad) hard in God’s cause with their possessions and their lives have the highest rank in the sight of God; and it is they, they who shall triumph in the end! Their Sustainer gives them glad tidings of the grace that flows from Him, and of His goodly acceptance, and of the gardens which await them, full of lasting bliss, therein to abide beyond the count of time. Verily, with God is a mighty reward! – Quran 9:20-22
Verses as such, where fighting and struggle are mentioned, refer to war of self defense, when Islam’s peace and security is jeopardized by its opposition, like the war that Prophet Muhammad and his followers had to go through to defend their religion from opposition army. However, these verses do not give Muslims the right to use violence against those who hold different beliefs in terms of politics and religion from the Muslims.
In fact, the real problem lie not so much in which passages of the Muslim Holy Book (Quran) they read, but which passages they choose to ignore.
A Muslim lecturer, Ihsan Bagby, who teaches international relations at Shaw University in Raleigh, N.C., is perplexed as to why suicide bombers choose to ignore verses from the Quran that appreciate mercy, self control, peace and forgiveness. One such verse in the Quran would be this:
“Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: Thus doth he command you, that ye may learn wisdom. – Quran 6:151
Bagby believes that the Muslim extremists have the inclination that just because certain American policies have been unfair to Muslims, especially those in the Middle East, it gives them the right to attack any American interest and innocent lives are just “collateral damage” to them. On the contrary, Islam prohibits the notion of forced conversion (a Muslim cannot use violent means to force a person of another religion to embrace Islam) and every life is held sacred – opposed to the actions of Islamic extremists who claimed to be representatives of Islam. They definitely are not.
Some writings called “hadith”, are used to interpret the Quran. These writings include sayings of Prophet Muhammad and his biography. Prophet Muhammad declared hadith that war or battle is a “lesser jihad” while spiritual refinement is the “greater jihad”. However, Islamic extremists, driven by their quest for violence to attain their own political ends, claim that hadith’s restriction of acts of violence are not the true sayings of Prophet Muhammad. One problem that arises is that in Islam, there is an absence of an official body that interprets the Quran with reference to hadith. The result is the blind following the blind – Muslims who do not fully understand the teachings of the Quran or who do not take the effort to apply their intellect to try to understand the Quran, may turn to leaders who interpret the holy book to serve their own political agenda – leaders like Osama Bin Laden.
To have a better understanding of how the name of Islam has been smeared by violence of terrorism by fringe extremist groups, we have to look at the Al-Qaeda network, led by Osama Bin Laden. It dates back to the time when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan. Thousands of Mujahideen warriors came from Middle East to help their fellow Muslims. Osama Bin Laden provided the financial support to the organization that drafted Muslims all over the world to be Mujahideen fighters to defeat the Soviet forces. Osama returned to Saudi Arabia after the defeat of the Soviet Union. He formed the basis of the Al-Qaeda with the Afghan war veterans, who fought in other war torn areas like Bosnia. He opposed the idea of having U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Osama was debarred from Saudi Arabia for his involvement in anti-government movements. He seeks refuge in Khartoum in Sudan where he set up headquarters for Al-Qaeda. The attacks on U.S. soldiers in Somalia mark the first acts of violence against U.S. interests. Under pressure from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, Sudan expelled Osama in 1994, and he fled to Afghanistan, finding refuge with the ruling Taliban regime.
Osama Bin Laden’s ultimate goal is to create an Islamic state. He had been an understudy of many Islamic radical scholars and he is determined to abide by the teachings of the first Caliphs (Islamic political and religious leaders in the past). To achieve an independent Islamic state, he aims to rid Muslim nations (especially Saudi Arabia) of Americans and their interests; wipe out the Israelis and bring down governments in the Middle East that are pro-Western.
To understand Al-Qaeda’s violent nature, we have to acknowledge the theories of two contemporary Sunni Islamic philosophers - Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb. Much of Al-Qaeda’s ideology is influenced by the works of these two radical Islamic thinkers. Their teachings are opposing to the practices of moderate Muslims.
In the 18th Century, Al-Wahab, a reformer, believed that all religions or civilization established one generation or so after the death of the Prophet Muhammad are null and void. This includes more than 1000 years of religious developments.
Sayyid Qutb, who was an Egyptian Islamic-extremist philosopher in the mid-20th Century, opposed the West, claiming that they are the enemy of Islam. He condemned the Muslim governments for not following the teachings of the first Caliphs meticulously and that he declared that the “holy war” should not be undertaken by Muslims as an act of self defense, but rather to create a world of a single religion, that is, Islam.
With the works of these two Islamic radicals as its driving principle, it is not hard to explain why the Al-Qaeda resorts to violent means to achieve their political goals. In their pursuit of a “pure” Islamic world, the Al-Qaeda network abides faithfully by the radical teachings of the two extremist thinkers, while ignoring the fact that the old rule of the Caliphs do not apply to the contemporary context of Islam.
Some of the acts of terrorism by the Al-Qaeda network in recent years include the bombing of U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia (1995-1996) where 22 soldiers were killed; bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 where 224 people were killed, of whom 12 were Americans; bombing of the USS Cole in a port in Yemen in 2000, where 17 U.S. sailors were killed; attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11 2001 and the bombing of an ancient synagogue in Tunisia 0n April 11 2002, leaving 17 people killed, including 11 German tourists.
The dissection of the world into the realm of war (dar al-harb) and the realm of Islam (dar al-islam) may be applicable during Prophet Muhammad’s struggle against armies trying to topple Islam, but not in the modern world. This is because Islam recognizes the importance of diplomatic relations between nations in the world today and by establishing close diplomatic ties with Muslim nations, the other nations will be considered part of the realm of commitment (dar al-ahd). Thus, waging war and unnecessary violence against other religions, customs or countries without proper justification is strictly prohibited by Islam.
As the world focuses its attention on the Al-Qaeda network, another terrorist network closer to home has been creating havoc in Southeast Asia. Jemaah Islamiah, a terrorist network led by an Islamic fundamentalist leader, Abu Bakar Bashir and another holy-war-enthusiast, Riduan Ismuddin, better known as Hambali. Hambali had spent time in the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan (birth place of Al-Qaeda), where he studied the ways of the Mujahideen warriors. Hambali was obsessed with the establishment of an Islamic “super-state”, which would include countries in Southeast Asia, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines, Cambodia and Thailand. According to the CIA, should Hambali succeed in his quest for an Islamic “super-state”, it will hold a population of 420 million people (compared to the 280 million people in the U.S. population) and it will have a military force of over 75 million soldiers, much greater than that of the U.S. It would also have great control over the commercial sea and air routes towards Africa, India and Australia. The reason for this is because the super-state would have control over the shipping routes in the South China Sea that connects Asia to the Indian Ocean.
The first major attacks by Jemaah Islamiah were the bombings of churches, in Indonesia in 2000. It took center stage for the Bali bombings on 12 October 2002, which killed nearly 200 and wounded 300 others. In December 2001, Singapore authorities foiled a Jemaah Islamiah plot to attack the US and Israeli Embassies and British and Australian diplomatic buildings in Singapore. Singapore officials have estimated that the Jemaah Islamiah is 5000 members strong. Investigations have shown that the Jemaah Islamiah has been financed and logistic support from Middle Eastern and South Asian contacts, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other groups, including the Al-Qaeda network. Jemaah Islamiah’s latest target was the luxury JB Marriott Hotel in Jakarta on August 5 2003, killing at least 14 people and injuring almost 150. The attack was a threat by the network of what could become should Bali bomber Amrozi, who was to face to trial just a few days after the Jakarta attack, receive the death sentence.
To clear the misunderstanding that Islam is a religion of violence, the global “war on terrorism” first have to acknowledge the fact that terrorism is not exclusively Islamic in nature. There are other breeds of terrorism in other cultures and religions as well. The western world, especially the United States, have to also understand why Islamic extremists resort to terrorism. Although Islam does in no way condone the acts of terrorism, acknowledging this fact will not solve the real problem – WHY DOES TERRORISM BY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS EXIST?
Organizations like the Al-Qaeda and the Jemaah Islamiah are the products of years of frustration by the Muslim regions against the unfair nature of the foreign policies of Western governments, especially the U.S., towards their communities. The establishments of fringe Islamic-extremist groups have been fueled by the failure of some of the Middle Eastern governments to stand up against the monopolization of Western military and economic influences over their oil and land. Of course, this does not justify the acts of terrorism, but the issue remains that if the Western governments do not ensure that their foreign policies are not exploitive of Muslim nations, fringe extremist groups will have all the more reasons to wage their so called “holy war” against the West. Although most Middle Eastern nations have been determined participants in the global coalition against terrorism, recent developments on terrorism has proven even that is not enough.
Lovefoolosopher
Physical Attractiveness: A Stereotype?
Textbook Definition: The belief that physically attractive individuals possess socially desirable personality traits and lead happier, more fulfilling lives than less attractive persons.
In other words, when establishing our impressions of people, especially people we do not really know, we tend to focus more on their physical attributes like ethnicity, age, and in this case, physical attractiveness rather than their intrinsic traits like kindness and honesty. We judge people based on what we readily see about them. We have the tendency to hold the misperception that beautiful people live their lives without being stigmatized by any flaw.
The evolutionary aspect suggests that physical attractiveness is influenced by a partner’s perceived fertility, that is, physical attributes like weight and facial appearance that reflect high fertility would render an individual as being attractive. However, in a more modern context, physical attractiveness stereotype is largely influenced by our sociocultural beliefs.
The media is a primary key in influencing physical attractiveness stereotype. Our general idea of a villain is most probably a person with a mean grin on his face, a huge potbelly of a tummy, a gold-studded tooth, and yes, an ugly scar on one of his cheeks. A huge contrast to this repelling image is our hero, characterized by a flawless face, nice jaw-line and cheekbones, great, dark hair, and a terrific body. Now, we all know that many successful “bad guys” possess good looks, which is a tool used to manipulate people. However, nobody wants to see an ugly hero, thus, in their pursuit of high viewership, we are brought up with the misconception that physically attractive people have more desired qualities than less attractive ones. Due to this, we form attitudes of people according to their physical attractiveness, and trying to stay consistent with that attitude, we develop a physical attractiveness stereotype.
The power of a culture in society also largely determines the degree of physical attractiveness stereotype. Since World War I and World War II right until this very day, the western culture has been perceived as being the powerhouse of the world. That explains the general definition of beauty to be that of light-skinned people of countries like the United States and those in Europe.
The plastic surgery industry has also benefited from people’s obsession with looking good. To label these people as being ridiculously vain and shallow would be a fundamental attribution error. This is because external factors play a vital role when looking for an explanation for people’s obsession with physical beauty.
Many industries today have marked physical attractiveness as one of their main criteria, for example, the media industry, the airline industry, the modeling industry and even the sales industry. This is because of the fact that beauty sells.
Physical attractiveness stereotype is a hard habit to break, considering the social power it holds in the world today. One way to control it is to perhaps look beyond the physical facade of a person and unveil the beauty within.
Lovefoolosopher ¶ 12:03 PM 0 Comments
In other words, when establishing our impressions of people, especially people we do not really know, we tend to focus more on their physical attributes like ethnicity, age, and in this case, physical attractiveness rather than their intrinsic traits like kindness and honesty. We judge people based on what we readily see about them. We have the tendency to hold the misperception that beautiful people live their lives without being stigmatized by any flaw.
The evolutionary aspect suggests that physical attractiveness is influenced by a partner’s perceived fertility, that is, physical attributes like weight and facial appearance that reflect high fertility would render an individual as being attractive. However, in a more modern context, physical attractiveness stereotype is largely influenced by our sociocultural beliefs.
The media is a primary key in influencing physical attractiveness stereotype. Our general idea of a villain is most probably a person with a mean grin on his face, a huge potbelly of a tummy, a gold-studded tooth, and yes, an ugly scar on one of his cheeks. A huge contrast to this repelling image is our hero, characterized by a flawless face, nice jaw-line and cheekbones, great, dark hair, and a terrific body. Now, we all know that many successful “bad guys” possess good looks, which is a tool used to manipulate people. However, nobody wants to see an ugly hero, thus, in their pursuit of high viewership, we are brought up with the misconception that physically attractive people have more desired qualities than less attractive ones. Due to this, we form attitudes of people according to their physical attractiveness, and trying to stay consistent with that attitude, we develop a physical attractiveness stereotype.
The power of a culture in society also largely determines the degree of physical attractiveness stereotype. Since World War I and World War II right until this very day, the western culture has been perceived as being the powerhouse of the world. That explains the general definition of beauty to be that of light-skinned people of countries like the United States and those in Europe.
The plastic surgery industry has also benefited from people’s obsession with looking good. To label these people as being ridiculously vain and shallow would be a fundamental attribution error. This is because external factors play a vital role when looking for an explanation for people’s obsession with physical beauty.
Many industries today have marked physical attractiveness as one of their main criteria, for example, the media industry, the airline industry, the modeling industry and even the sales industry. This is because of the fact that beauty sells.
Physical attractiveness stereotype is a hard habit to break, considering the social power it holds in the world today. One way to control it is to perhaps look beyond the physical facade of a person and unveil the beauty within.
Lovefoolosopher ¶ 12:03 PM 0 Comments
Those Who Can Teach, Teach...Those Who Can't, Please Pay Up!
I stumbled upon a rather bizarre article in Berita Harian today. Siti Suhana, an ex-NIE undergraduate, was dismissed by the institution after failing her practical evaluation for the second time. And now she owes MOE $76, 700, because technically, she has breached the bond with the ministry to teach at primary school level after her supposed graduation from NIE.
How is this possible? Alright, so she is not a very good teacher...but how could MOE have allowed this to happen? It is not as if she had breached the contract on purpose...she was failed. I mean, dismiss her...ban her from ever becoming a teacher again, for God's sake...but asking her to pay that amount of money is totally ludicrous! A new reality show hits town, honestly - You Better Pray You Don't Have To Pay; or Gambling For Your Career; or Teach or Breach.
What is next, then? Imprisonment for NS personnel discharged for mental disability?
Lovefoolosopher
¶ 12:57 AM 0 Comments
How is this possible? Alright, so she is not a very good teacher...but how could MOE have allowed this to happen? It is not as if she had breached the contract on purpose...she was failed. I mean, dismiss her...ban her from ever becoming a teacher again, for God's sake...but asking her to pay that amount of money is totally ludicrous! A new reality show hits town, honestly - You Better Pray You Don't Have To Pay; or Gambling For Your Career; or Teach or Breach.
What is next, then? Imprisonment for NS personnel discharged for mental disability?
Lovefoolosopher
¶ 12:57 AM 0 Comments
Monday, March 21, 2005
Quasi-affability and its advocates disgust me
Lately I have been questioning the artlessness of people's sugarcoated sociability. Some people are nice...while some are just, well...too nice. They are too nice to the point of utter repugnance. And as if that is not enough to make you retch your guts out, these caramel-varnished tongues always turn out to be cheap counterfeits of the reliable souls we call friends. So how do you sieve the bona fide angels from the two-faced demons who collectively make up our unpredictable social circles? This is anything but an easy task, but here's my two cents' worth.
I have always believed that honest friends are often not afraid to be monsters at first sight, relatively speaking, of course. Some are just too darn beautiful to be anything remotely close to monsters, even if they try. When people do not hide behind the veil of pseudo-perfection and readily admit to you that they do watch pornography, or that they do fantasize about Richard Simmons, you know that they are most likely for real, because these are people who want you to know them for what they are and who are not afraid of being judged by a lesser you. And as you gradually become comfortable with their shortcomings, you will realize that those shortcomings are the very essence of their idiosyncratic appeal...for our imperfections lend us the right to call ourselves human beings, unblemished by the plastic and metallic beauty of the un-alive.
When we are able to accept people for the devils that they are first, and are unbiased by the intrinsic goodness in them, we tend to subconsciously downplay our unreasonable expectations of them. The cards are laid out on the table...there is nothing to hide. We can say, "Hey, he's a sonafabitch, but I love him nonetheless..." And when the opportunity arises for them to show us their occasional virtues, we do not have to be apprehensive about its legitimacy because we know that we have seen everything, so there is no reason for them to put on a freakshow.
Personally, I have, over the years, developed a deep-rooted inclination to distrust acquaintances who are simply too glossy when it comes to the sociability arena. Even some of the friends we have, they are like Superman - incapable of being bad or getting mad, and all they do is say nice things to you and smile at your silliest antics, even those worthy of a bitch-slap. Sure, our insatiable desire to feed our ego will make us appoint them our latest deputies...but when we are over-fed with their sweet adorations and become intoxicated by an excessive sugar level in the blood, we start to ask ourselves if these guys are for real. And often, we realize that they are not.
Lovefoolosopher ¶ 7:45 PM 4 Comments
I have always believed that honest friends are often not afraid to be monsters at first sight, relatively speaking, of course. Some are just too darn beautiful to be anything remotely close to monsters, even if they try. When people do not hide behind the veil of pseudo-perfection and readily admit to you that they do watch pornography, or that they do fantasize about Richard Simmons, you know that they are most likely for real, because these are people who want you to know them for what they are and who are not afraid of being judged by a lesser you. And as you gradually become comfortable with their shortcomings, you will realize that those shortcomings are the very essence of their idiosyncratic appeal...for our imperfections lend us the right to call ourselves human beings, unblemished by the plastic and metallic beauty of the un-alive.
When we are able to accept people for the devils that they are first, and are unbiased by the intrinsic goodness in them, we tend to subconsciously downplay our unreasonable expectations of them. The cards are laid out on the table...there is nothing to hide. We can say, "Hey, he's a sonafabitch, but I love him nonetheless..." And when the opportunity arises for them to show us their occasional virtues, we do not have to be apprehensive about its legitimacy because we know that we have seen everything, so there is no reason for them to put on a freakshow.
Personally, I have, over the years, developed a deep-rooted inclination to distrust acquaintances who are simply too glossy when it comes to the sociability arena. Even some of the friends we have, they are like Superman - incapable of being bad or getting mad, and all they do is say nice things to you and smile at your silliest antics, even those worthy of a bitch-slap. Sure, our insatiable desire to feed our ego will make us appoint them our latest deputies...but when we are over-fed with their sweet adorations and become intoxicated by an excessive sugar level in the blood, we start to ask ourselves if these guys are for real. And often, we realize that they are not.
Lovefoolosopher ¶ 7:45 PM 4 Comments
