Ramadan Reflections 2: Harnessing the desire to consume

From the translation of Amin Ahsan Islahi’s Tazkiya-e-Nafs:

[...] people tend to make Ramadan a month of festivities and fun time. They think that they are not answerable for the extravagance made in this month. They relish everything they eat. The result is that instead of trying to discipline themselves they end up pampering themselves. Throughout their fasts they keep dreaming about the delicious things they will eat once the fast is over. The result is that they end up learning nothing from their fasts.

To prevent such a thing from happening, it is necessary that a person should eat just enough to keep him working and not make eating the sole object of his life. Whatever is obtainable without too much of an effort should be eaten with thankfulness to the Almighty. Whatever is presented by the family should be consumed without fuss even if it is not tempting. The rich instead of overindulging themselves should give more to the needy and the poor. This is something which increases the blessings of fasting and has been commended by the Prophet (sws).

More about philosophy of fasting can be read here.

Sustained culture of consumption has brought about an unleashed spending boosterism which is one of the primary culprits responsible for recent price hike and hoarding of necessary commodities (like wheat and rice) in the month of Ramadan.

One truly wonders how religion miserably fails each year in the land of the ‘pure’.

Filed under: Land of the 'Pure', Reflections, Sociology of Religion , Fasting, Islahi, Pakistan, Ramadan, Reflections

Ramadan Reflections 1: Empty Stomach

An empty stomach is necessary to satiate the appetite of rest of the body. Contrastingly, a full stomach makes the limbs, eyes, tongue and heart hungry.

Just praying this Ramadan to experience the strength of abstinence; from food, television, internet, aimless drift of tongue and all the books except one.

Filed under: Reflections , Fasting, Ramadan, Reflections

Ghamidi’s interpretation post – some afterthoughts about hermeneutics

Don’t have much time these days to write at length. Still mulling over some really thought-provoking comments on my Ghamidi’s interpretation post.

Is it a plausible conclusion that this fairly recent originalist attempt of fixing the ‘original intent’ of the revealed word can be seen as another tragedy to reduce Quran to the level of computer language, which is perhaps the only monosemous language in the world.

Can it be justifiably shown that historical context of each and every Divine verse is preserved and the ‘original intended meaning’ can be deduced from it without a tinge of doubt?

Contention that understanding the textual coherence (nazm) is mandatory to bring out the intended message almost leads one to assume that coherence is somehow a result of an exhaustive and unified process of textual criticism which is not apt to undergo revisions in times to come. Isn’t it against a seemingly more plausible contention that Quran is strictly an on-going and perpetual inter-communicative project between God and humanity; one that is naturally open to plural socio-ethical and legal interpretations?

To assert, as one brother seemingly does, that nihilistic delusion is a natural corollary to the claim that some degree of equivocalness is an inherent part of language, is a strange kind of interpretive extremism; an argument, which is itself an indicator how words are (mis) understood. Indeed, statements like ‘Philosophy tends to depart from from reality‘ reflect how unconcerned are engrossed interpreters of the text about the modern discourse that surrounds its nature.

As much as I contemplate with all my prejudices and extremely limited knowledge, I fail to see how a text like Quran can be merely viewed as a document with a strictly singular intent frozen in the past. Hasn’t it been shown with enough strength by many philosophical developments of last century that texts carry the burden of historical interpretation with them and its kind of impossible, if not futile, to go behind one ‘historical understanding’ and view them once again.

Texts are authors and readers – and not just authors and their utterances.

In my humble view, the present discourse goes well beyond the historical debates of logic, language and grammar and there are many bridges that have been built by modern philosophy between Abu Bishr Mattas and Abu Said al-Sirafis of our times.

Filed under: Islam & Modernity, Philosophy, Quran , Ghamidi, Language, Philosophy, Quran