| 08 December 2009
Sister Salma
Bismillah
"modus" = way, way of
"vivendi" = life, living
(You can take the Muslimah out of the Latin Church, but you can't take the Latin out of the Muslimah.)
The longer I go on in learning about this deen, the more I persist, the more amazed I become at how incredibly well Islam knows human nature. Even when I bump into something that REALLY rubs me the wrong way at first, if I keep on knocking my head against it, arguing with people, discussing it, thinking about it, studying it, praying about it, even blogging about it.....eventually I come to an understanding and an acceptance of it. Eventually I come to see the wisdom of the thing, even if I didn't see it before.
"modus" = way, way of
"vivendi" = life, living
(You can take the Muslimah out of the Latin Church, but you can't take the Latin out of the Muslimah.)
The longer I go on in learning about this deen, the more I persist, the more amazed I become at how incredibly well Islam knows human nature. Even when I bump into something that REALLY rubs me the wrong way at first, if I keep on knocking my head against it, arguing with people, discussing it, thinking about it, studying it, praying about it, even blogging about it.....eventually I come to an understanding and an acceptance of it. Eventually I come to see the wisdom of the thing, even if I didn't see it before.
I managed to blog my way into understanding male leadership (see previous posts) as an ultimate "tiebreaker" for familial decisions at stalemate (he's the one who's got to give an account of how he led his familiy, so ........)
But banging my head against brick walls is nothing new. There were always a lot of things that confused me as a child.
"How could an infant need baptism to 'wash away original sin'? What did the baby do?"
"What do you MEAN, Eve's fault? Huh??"
"Why do I and the rest of the whole human race have to pay for what ADAM did? That just doesn't make sense, Father!"
"Father, why are there so many contradictions in the bible??"
"Why is God a MALE???? All three of them!"
"How can we say we are monotheists when we say 'three'?"
"Why do my parents insist that I not wear short shorts but never fail to watch the Miss America pageant every year, where the women parade around in swimsuits?"
"Why is it 'ok' to dance to THIS kind of music in THIS particular way, but not THAT kind in this OTHER way??"
"Why is it 'ok' to have a boyfriend, but we're not supposed to have sex till we're married?"
"Why......"
And so on.
I once tried to convince a parent that, from the Catholic perspective (technically divorce and remarriage are not allowed....*technically*.. .), encouraging teenagers to date and "have relationships" was just a training ground for divorce and remarriage. Islam allows for that necessity, but Roman Catholicism (officially) does NOT. Different deen, different rules.
So if parents say they are trying to raise their kids as good Catholics, why in heaven or earth are they being allowed to date? To "have relationships"?
You allow, even encourage, young people to engage in a sort of muta, or temporary marriage, and nobody is at all surprised or concerned when the "relationship" comes to an end.
It's considered quite normal for this time and place.
When I was a sophomore in Catholic high school, we had a certain textbook for "Religion and Family Life" that had a chapter in it that made a group of us highly upset. This particular chapter went into the most excrutiating detail about "how far one can go" and still remain within church parameters (it was SO explicit that the chapter actually taught us a lot of things we'd never THOUGHT of yet). It was verging on the prurient, in fact, it was so detailed.
The idea behind the chapter, as I recall, was to give Catholic teenagers some sort of "line that must not be crossed." But the odd thing was where they placed the line. It was PRETTY CLOSE to the line that must not be crossed.
To this day, I cannot imagine what the author was thinking.
The word "normal" is defined as "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual" by good old www.dictionary.com.
Note that the definition does not say "correct" or "true," it just says "conforming to the common type." In other words, go with the flow; do what others around you are doing, and you'll be considered "normal."
I wondered for years about the Miss America pageant. Just could NOT puzzle that one out. Why was it ok for my parents to watch it, look forward to guessing who would win. Why was it "okay" for the dancers on Lawrence Welk to twirl and show their (matching) tights beneath their frilly dresses, but it was NOT okay for me to show my thighs in shorts? ("hotpants" had just come out around this time...really short shorts).
Fora while I thought, "So I guess it's ok for us to dance, as long as it's Big Band and not rock & roll, and I guess it's ok to show your bod as long as you're a contestant on Miss America, or a dancer on Lawrence Welk. But not if you're just walking down the street. Or Miss America."
None of it made any sense, let's face it. The logic just wasn't there.
Cognitive Dissonance
From the perspective of where I am today, the whole project of my culture seems to me to be one grand enticement and encouragement to skate on thin ice. "Go ahead, go THIS far, but no farther. Here, take the candy; but now, you KNOW sugar makes you sick, so hold it in your hand, just don't eat it."
"It's okay to date, and go **THIS FAR** but don't go any farther." (Do people even REMEMBER what it was like being a teenager?? Or have they lost ALL memory of those times completely??)
"It's okay to show your clevage...that's fine, little more... that's fine too, little more...just a bit more...and .... STOP RIGHT THERE!
Don't show any more. One look means "dressy" and if that neckline is just an inch lower, it means "slut."
Anybody remember the big Janet Jackson/Superbowl brouhaha a few years ago? THE BREAST THAT ROARED. Irag and Afghanistan were bumped off the headlines; people died of illness and starvation, the poor continued to go without a living wage or health care, global warming continued to rampage the planet, but the WHOLE WORLD WAS FOCUSED ON JANET JACKSON'S NIPPLE.
Come on, people!!!
See, the game is: "Go THIS far, but no farther. Tease, but don't give. Lure right to the edge of the line, then jump back very fast so you don't fall off the cliff. I really didn't understand what substantive difference there could possibly be between showing 99% of her chest rather than 100%. That discussion seemed the height of hypocrisy.
It just doesn't work.. What my culture trained me to do, or not do, just doesn't WORK.
The whole thing seems to be an invitation to skate on thin ice. And it's not just about sexuality, either. The same bizarre, schizophrenic rubrics apply to just about anything: business dealings. Cheating on finances. "Going along with things" that just aren't right.
Because it's "normal."
"Normal" simply means "like everyone else around you."
To continue my odd blend of Islamitude and Latin phraseology, we're being called to live "contra mundi." "Against the world." If being "normal" means being like everyone else in a decadent society, then we CAN'T be "normal." Just can't. We have a better way to live. We just need the courage to live it.
That's our calling and our challenge. To live "contra mundi."
And enough with the ice skating, already. You KNOW that ice is going to crack sooner or later.
O Lord, help us to hold tight to the rope of Islam and the Straight Path, because without it, we are sure to fall off the mountain into the abyss. Ameen.
But banging my head against brick walls is nothing new. There were always a lot of things that confused me as a child.
"How could an infant need baptism to 'wash away original sin'? What did the baby do?"
"What do you MEAN, Eve's fault? Huh??"
"Why do I and the rest of the whole human race have to pay for what ADAM did? That just doesn't make sense, Father!"
"Father, why are there so many contradictions in the bible??"
"Why is God a MALE???? All three of them!"
"How can we say we are monotheists when we say 'three'?"
"Why do my parents insist that I not wear short shorts but never fail to watch the Miss America pageant every year, where the women parade around in swimsuits?"
"Why is it 'ok' to dance to THIS kind of music in THIS particular way, but not THAT kind in this OTHER way??"
"Why is it 'ok' to have a boyfriend, but we're not supposed to have sex till we're married?"
"Why......"
And so on.
I once tried to convince a parent that, from the Catholic perspective (technically divorce and remarriage are not allowed....*technically*..
So if parents say they are trying to raise their kids as good Catholics, why in heaven or earth are they being allowed to date? To "have relationships"?
You allow, even encourage, young people to engage in a sort of muta, or temporary marriage, and nobody is at all surprised or concerned when the "relationship" comes to an end.
It's considered quite normal for this time and place.
When I was a sophomore in Catholic high school, we had a certain textbook for "Religion and Family Life" that had a chapter in it that made a group of us highly upset. This particular chapter went into the most excrutiating detail about "how far one can go" and still remain within church parameters (it was SO explicit that the chapter actually taught us a lot of things we'd never THOUGHT of yet). It was verging on the prurient, in fact, it was so detailed.
The idea behind the chapter, as I recall, was to give Catholic teenagers some sort of "line that must not be crossed." But the odd thing was where they placed the line. It was PRETTY CLOSE to the line that must not be crossed.
To this day, I cannot imagine what the author was thinking.
The word "normal" is defined as "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual" by good old www.dictionary.com.
Note that the definition does not say "correct" or "true," it just says "conforming to the common type." In other words, go with the flow; do what others around you are doing, and you'll be considered "normal."
I wondered for years about the Miss America pageant. Just could NOT puzzle that one out. Why was it ok for my parents to watch it, look forward to guessing who would win. Why was it "okay" for the dancers on Lawrence Welk to twirl and show their (matching) tights beneath their frilly dresses, but it was NOT okay for me to show my thighs in shorts? ("hotpants" had just come out around this time...really short shorts).
Fora while I thought, "So I guess it's ok for us to dance, as long as it's Big Band and not rock & roll, and I guess it's ok to show your bod as long as you're a contestant on Miss America, or a dancer on Lawrence Welk. But not if you're just walking down the street. Or Miss America."
None of it made any sense, let's face it. The logic just wasn't there.
Cognitive Dissonance
From the perspective of where I am today, the whole project of my culture seems to me to be one grand enticement and encouragement to skate on thin ice. "Go ahead, go THIS far, but no farther. Here, take the candy; but now, you KNOW sugar makes you sick, so hold it in your hand, just don't eat it."
"It's okay to date, and go **THIS FAR** but don't go any farther." (Do people even REMEMBER what it was like being a teenager?? Or have they lost ALL memory of those times completely??)
"It's okay to show your clevage...that's fine, little more... that's fine too, little more...just a bit more...and .... STOP RIGHT THERE!
Don't show any more. One look means "dressy" and if that neckline is just an inch lower, it means "slut."
Anybody remember the big Janet Jackson/Superbowl brouhaha a few years ago? THE BREAST THAT ROARED. Irag and Afghanistan were bumped off the headlines; people died of illness and starvation, the poor continued to go without a living wage or health care, global warming continued to rampage the planet, but the WHOLE WORLD WAS FOCUSED ON JANET JACKSON'S NIPPLE.
Come on, people!!!
See, the game is: "Go THIS far, but no farther. Tease, but don't give. Lure right to the edge of the line, then jump back very fast so you don't fall off the cliff. I really didn't understand what substantive difference there could possibly be between showing 99% of her chest rather than 100%. That discussion seemed the height of hypocrisy.
It just doesn't work.. What my culture trained me to do, or not do, just doesn't WORK.
The whole thing seems to be an invitation to skate on thin ice. And it's not just about sexuality, either. The same bizarre, schizophrenic rubrics apply to just about anything: business dealings. Cheating on finances. "Going along with things" that just aren't right.
Because it's "normal."
"Normal" simply means "like everyone else around you."
To continue my odd blend of Islamitude and Latin phraseology, we're being called to live "contra mundi." "Against the world." If being "normal" means being like everyone else in a decadent society, then we CAN'T be "normal." Just can't. We have a better way to live. We just need the courage to live it.
That's our calling and our challenge. To live "contra mundi."
And enough with the ice skating, already. You KNOW that ice is going to crack sooner or later.
O Lord, help us to hold tight to the rope of Islam and the Straight Path, because without it, we are sure to fall off the mountain into the abyss. Ameen.