Emotions Felt By The Quran
In the Quran, I once read a verse, in which Allaah states, "Verily, man is but ungrateful." This verse captured my heart. My senses awoke and my eyes opened up. This verse stays with me throughout my days.
The emotions I feel from this verse are of reality, guilt, and truth. As a human, I naturally became ungrateful, because of my extreme difficult times. I felt depressed, alone and helpless. I disregarded all of Allaah's bounty and blessings. Instead I indulged all my thoughts in my bad experiences and I questioned, "Why me?"
I began to listen to sad songs that depicted my past, and fueled the anger and pain inside me. This made me become a horrible person to myself. I started engaging in any bad activity and I lived as a useless person. At times, I even refused to cry to Allaah or even make an attempt to ask Him for help.
However, in my heart I always wanted to make amends, and I couldn't accomplish this without Allaah's guidance. After a long time, through deep thinking and inner struggle, I recalled this verse and I pondered upon it. It helped me realize my mistake of not appreciating Allaah, and all that He has done for me. Unlike songs and poetry, I didn't feel anger or pain. Instead, the Quran made me feel peace.
In conclusion, I hope this verse is as dear to the reader as it is to me. No one should shun the light that Allaah offers. The light shown to me by Allaah will always be bright in my eyes.
By:
Javeria Moughal
DEATH
In the Quran, 3:185, Allaah revealed, Ң€ŖEveryone shall taste death. And only on the day of resurrection shall you be paid your wages in full. And whoever is removed away from the Fire and admitted to Paradise, he indeed is successful. The life of this world is only the enjoyment of deception (a deceiving thing.)Ң€ This powerful verse makes me realize that death is an inevitable destiny for all creatures, including mankind. The uncertainty of death is extreme; it can strike at anytime, without any consultations. This verse also makes me agonize about the aftermath of death, because of my actions in this world.
Upon reading this verse, I understood that death is an important issue, which canҢ€™t be taken lightly. It makes me wonder if I am ready. Unfortunately, I donҢ€™t think I am prepared. I committed too many sins, and not many good deeds. I am anxious of the consequences that I will be faced by after death.
All humans have duties to fulfill before death. We are AllaahҢ€™s slaves, and we must worship Him alone and obey His terms and conditions. This life is a test for us, and we will be held accountable for our actions and beliefs in this world.
After death, everyone will be asked three questions from AllaahҢ€™s angels. One- who is your lord? (Allaah.) Two- what is your religion? (Islaam.) Three- who is your Prophet? (Muhammad.) Those who practiced the correct beliefs in this world will answer these questions correctly and be saved from AllaahҢ€™s retribution of the grave and of the hellfire. The reprehensible ones will be punished callously in the grave and in the hellfire.
In conclusion, death is inexorable. As a believer it is necessary for one to take this matter seriously, because of the ambiguity of the hereafter. One shouldnҢ€™t worry about how large they can live in this world, since this life is an enjoyment for the disbelievers and a hardship for the believers, and the hereafter is an enjoyment for the believers and a hardship for the disbelievers.
Promise of literacy and its obstacles
The vision of literacy concerns the promise of joining those who struggle to read with the educated masses in the full rights of citizenship and self-gratification; however, the reality of the outcome of literacy is that the newly literate person faces many uphill battles such as racial and gender discrimination. Being educated and literate does not guarantee admission into mainstream society, as promised. This can be seen in Fredrick Douglass’s excerpt- “From Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass, an American slave,†James Baldwin’s essay- The American Dream and the American Negro, and Virginia Woolf’s chapter- Shakespeare’s Sister from her book A Room of Ones Own. Douglass’s excerpt illustrates his desire to read, and how he was able to educate himself, with difficulty of course - but it also shows that knowledge eventually made him resent himself. Baldwin reflects on how he was falsely taught in American History books that he and Africans were simply savages. Lastly, Woolf stresses how history books did not offer much information about the role of women, and she states that these books also didn’t give a completely accurate account of women before the eighteenth century.
Howard Gardner, co-director of Harvard’s Project Zero, defines intelligence as a set of abilities, talents or mental skills. In his theory of Multiple Intelligence, Gardner proposes seven distinct intelligences: musical, bodily-kinesthetic, logical mathematical, linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. In his excerpt, “A Rounded Version, The Theory of Multiple Intelligences,†he states, “All individuals possess each of these skill to a extent (Howard Gardner pg. 378).†Even though, for example mathematicians, writers, and teachers may innately possess these qualities, Gardner does not reflect on the obstacles many individuals may face when attempting to achieve the promise of literacy, such as racial and gender discrimination.
Racism is one obstacle that must be overcome in order to realize the promise made by the literate to the ones seeking literacy. Fredrick Douglass, a former black slave, faced extreme discrimination from the law, the Aulds’ (his mistress and master), and society, because of his race. Despite all this, Douglass still learned to read and write through diligence and personal qualities such as will and confidence.
According to his excerpt, Douglass asserts that his mistress, Mrs. Auld, was very kind and humane to him in the beginning, she even taught him the alphabet and how to spell words. However, her kindness towards him did not last long, since her husband forced her to stop teaching Douglass. Douglass recalled Mr. Auld telling his wife, “If you teach that nigger how to read, there would be no keeping him… As to himself, it could do him no good… It would make him disconnected and unhappy (cite me).†These words had a momentous effect on Douglass. From this he recognized the value of education; he says, in response to Mr. Auld’s words, “It gave me the best assurance that I might rely with the utmost confidence on the results which, he said, would flow from teaching me to read (page XX).†Eventually, despite various difficulties, Douglass educated himself.
Since Douglass’s skin color prevented him from attending any institutions, he became friends with all the little white boys he met on the street and “converted them into teachers (page??).†Resources also limited Douglass, but he began to read any book he could get his hands on, like The Columbian Orator, which enlightened him about pitfalls within the concept of slavery. From this book he learned a “bold denunciation of slavery, and a powerful vindication of human rights (page??).†Thus, Douglass achieved exactly what his master despised the most; nonetheless, Douglass also admits that his master was correct, because he began to resent his existence since this new knowledge began to torment him. He testifies, “I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing (P??).†The more he read, the more he abhorred slavery and slaveholders. Sometimes he hoped he never discovered the true nature of slavery, because it forced him to digest the fact that he was a slave for life. Thus, racism, and subsequently slavery, was one major obstacle that Fredrick Douglass had to confront.
Similarly, racism was also a major obstacle in James Baldwin’s struggle toward literacy. Even though Baldwin did attend educational institutions, he was taught absolute lies, and didn’t have any option but to believe them. Baldwin asserts that he was “taught in American History that Africa had no history and that neither had I. I was a savage… who had been saved by Europe and who had been brought to America. Of course, I believed it (pg ?).†He further asserts, “…black people are just like everybody else. Unless we can establish some kind of dialogue between those people who enjoy the American dream and those people who have not achieved it, we will be in terrible trouble (pg?).†Baldwin realized that literacy didn’t give him promise, due to the prevailing system of racial inequity. It only evoked poignant feelings inside him because he wasn’t included in the educated masses and their freedom.
Unfortunately, James Baldwin is not the only person, who was deceived by history books; Virginia Woolf also didn’t enjoy the alleged benefits of literacy, due to gender discrimination. Woolf dedicated her chapter to the role of women in history and society. She questioned “why no woman wrote a word of that extraordinary literature when every other man, it seemed, was capable of song or sonnet (pg?).†She thus turned to history books and found that none of those texts mentioned the facts or details about women; “History barely mentions her.†She didn’t find anything meaningful except that women were locked, beaten and flung across the room, since it was the norm of that time. Woolf also writes that works of fiction portray women as important, but history scarcely mentions them. “She pervades poetry from cover to cover; she is all but absent from history.†Her assertion suggests that history books are clearly false when they mention that women lacked personality, because the female characters the authors invented in books say the opposite. Thus, there must have been some truth to the imagination of the fiction writers.
Since Woolf’s resources were limited, she was forced to use her imagination and what the life of women before the eighteen-century was like. As a consequence she fabricated a story of Williams Shakespeare’s extraordinary sister, Judith Shakespeare. From this story Woolf concludes why women didn’t earn fame. She states while Shakespeare lived and accomplished his goals, his sister “remained home,†even though she was eager just like her brother, “she was not sent to school,†and thus never learned. She was in fact forced to remain home, and perform chores. Out of love and respect of honor for her parents, Judith would have never disobeyed them. Than, Woolf predicts how Judith rebelled and concludes she still failed, because men ran the society, and “Men laughed in her face.†Thus, in the past, women didn’t obtain the promise of literacy, because they were never given the opportunity to be educated. Also, Woolf as a literate female didn’t achieve the promise of literacy, because history books, which she learned from, didn’t pay tribute to women.
Literacy promises individuals self-satisfaction, and equality with the educated masses. However, realistically the consequence of literacy to the one seeking it is that he/she stumbles upon many obstacles in light of his/her quest for acceptance into the mainstream. Such was the scenario with Fredrick Douglass, James Baldwin and Virginia Woolf. Douglass, an ex-slave struggled for his education, so he can be accepted into the mainstream, but upon seeking that goal, he encountered a major obstacle, racial discrimination. As a slave, it was forbidden for him to become literate. James Baldwin, an American of the African descent, also faced racial discrimination. While growing up before and during the civil rights movement, Baldwin was basically taught that he and his ancestors are despicable. Lastly, Virginia Woolf was eager to learn about the role of women in history but, due to gender discrimination, history books narrowly mention women, forcing her to fabricate a story of Shakespeare’s sister, Judith Shakespeare. Thus, the promise of literacy is not met.
FRENCH REVOLUTION &TERROR JUSTIFIED IN ROBESPIERRE SPEECHES
In his speeches, Maximilien Robespierre justifies the use of terror in pursuit of a new social and political order in France by asserting the importance of having the Republic and joining virtue with terror. He considered anyone who threatened the French Revolution as a counter-revolutionary. He delivered speeches urging the masses to identify these traitors and to terrorize and jail them. Among the people who he labeled as traitors were the King, émigrés, and the National Legislative Assembly. Robespierre hence justified the use of terror under the ideology of the ends justifying the means; to him the end was the Republic and the means was the terror he promoted.
From his speeches, it can be seen that Robespierre proclaims and justifies terror against the King by labeling him as a traitor. In his speech on ‘The Flight of the King’, Robespierre asserts that the King will return with the émigrés for ‘the kings’ cause,’ and the Parisians must be ready to do battle. He incites the fuel of terror when he say’s “Even if all of Europe should unite against us, all Europe will be defeated.” In this speech, Robespierre gets the people of France to loathe the King and his supporters so much that using terror seems imperative. In a latter speech he even declares that “we must know how to hate our enemies.” Robespierre further attacks the king in his speech of December 3, 1792 concerning the death penalty of Louis XVI. He asserts that Louis is guilty and should be given the death penalty without a trial. He contends that “Louis must die in order that the nation may live.” He asks the nation to be merciless for the sake of seeking vengeance.
In other speeches, Robespierre justifies and plans terror for political and social stability of France by asserting to fight the counter revolutionaries who attack them (the revolutionaries.) This is evident in his speech of May 8, 1793, where Robespierre declares that “All the friends of the Republic must rise in order to annihilate all the aristocrats in La Vendee.” He further announces to jail any suspects of counter revolutionaries and to have an internal army of workingmen to “inspire all enemies with terror.” To terrorize the enemies and “save freedom by the severest measures,” Robespierre also asked for weapons and arms. He declared that the rich must pay.
In addition, Robespierre spoke of the purposes and the goals of the revolutionary government. He declared that the government is at war, and so it must attack its foes and put them to death. He claim’s that this government “requires destruction of anarchy and disorder” (Oct. 10, 1973.) He saw the terror he promoted as a way of “defeating treason.”
He claimed that the revolution is powerful through virtue and terror and terror according to him was justice indeed.
Robespierre justified and promoted the use of terror in pursuit of a new social and political order in France. This is evident from his eloquent speeches. In his speeches he stressed the importance of attaining a Republic for France; this meant eliminating anyone who would try to stop this from happening. He openly labeled and declared who he suspected of treason and tortured them. Among the prominent people who he targeted were the King, the Legislative Assembly and internal and external counterrevolutionaries.
Robespierre sought a constitutional democracy in France, even if it was attained by undemocratic means.
SPECULATIVE PHILOSPHIES OF HEGEL AND MARX AND THE GRAND NARRATIVE AND THE BROKE DOWN OF THE GRAND NARRATIVE ACCORDING TO DORTHY ROSS
The speculative philosophies of Hegel and Marx have the notion of unfolding progress in common with the grand narrative of American history as it unfolded until the 1950s. According to Dorthy Ross, the grand narrative of American history broke down in the 1950s and 1960s because of the realizations and outcomes historians encountered from the cold war and post World War II era. The speculative philosophies of Hegel and Marx emphasized the progress in history through dialectics. The grand narrative emphasized American progress and exceptionalism. Ross however states that the grand narrative broke down in the 1950s and 1960s because of the “soft totalitarianism” being practiced in the American society.
Both, the speculative philosophies of Hegel and Marx and the grand narrative of American history until it unfolded in the 1950s have one theme common: the notion of unfolding progress. On the one hand, Hegel’s and Marx’s speculative philosophies speak of progress through revolution. Hegel for example argued that progress throughout history moved from East to West, “in a dialectic fashion” (Gilderhus, Page 54.) He believed that human conscience improved throughout history. Moreover, Marx envisioned a better future through change and revolution. He adopted the dialectic notion, the history of class struggle, “as the means of change.” (Gilderhus, Page 57) He believed that progress would come through the proletariat uprising. On the other hand, the grand narrative spoke of American progress through democracy and capitalism. It was written in a romantic fashion stressing American achievements of American independence from Europe and the country’s establishment of a democracy and capitalism. Ross nevertheless maintains that this romantic mythical narrative didn’t flourish.
Ross asserts that the grand narrative of American history broke down because ‘American exceptionalism’ led to conformity. She asserts that post World War II was a good time for the narrative to thrive, since the US emerged as a superpower. Yet, in the context of the Cold War it didn’t. Ironically, the very success of American exceptionalism led to a certain conformity. Historians and intellectuals saw the enforcement of conformity as “soft totalitarianism.” For example, McCarthyism at home gave many the chills. In addition, in late 1960s a new history was born, which focused on the particular rather than the universal principles. Neglected groups such as feminists, African Americans, immigrants, students and protesters were brought into American history. Hence, the attention given to American flaws countered the grand narrative.
The notion of unfolding progress is evident in Marx’s and Hegel’s speculative philosophies and in the grand narrative of American history as it unfolded in the 1950s. In reference to Dorthy Ross, the grand narrative of American history broke down in the 1950s and 1960s due to the coerced conformity in American society. Marx and Hegel spoke of history as a history of progress from East to West dialectically. The grand narrative of American history (concentrating on universal principles) romanticized American achievements of democracy, liberal values and capitalism. According to Ross however, the grand narrative which had many reasons to flourish post World War II, broke down in the 1950s and 1960s. Some reasons for this phenomenon derive from the Cold War context: McCarthyism and antiwar (Vietnam War) protests. Other reasons included telling history through the analytical mode. Writers of the new history focusing on the particular brought neglected groups (feminists, African Americans, and students etc) into American history, thus bringing the grand narrative to its demise.
What do the passages in Andrei Arzhilovsky’s diaries highlighted by the NKVD (Soviet secret police) suggest about what Soviet authorities considered to be evidence of “counter-revolutionary” activities?
The passage in Andrei Arzhilovsky’s diaries highlighted by the NKVD (Soviet secret police) suggests that the Soviet authorities considered any healthy criticism to the revolutionary aims and ways to be evidence of “counter-revolutionary” activities. These included reminiscing about the past, questioning the revolutionary aims of a classless society and iterating the economics of the state. Some of the things highlighted by the anonymous NKVD seem trivial while others might actually be credible. Regardless, the paranoia of “counter-revolutionary” activities is real.
One of the criticisms suggested by the highlighted diary that the Soviet authorities considered being evidence of “counter revolutionary” activitieswas praising the past. Throughout Arzhilovsky’s diary any mention of the past either by reference to the dieing mother or by Arzhilovsky himself was highlighted by the NKVD. Arzhilovsky spoke of preserving his mother, because she used to tell stories of the good Russian life before the revolution. In other places in the diary, Arzhilovsky refers to the past as a fairy tale, and how he needs to “salvage something from the recent past.” (Arzhilovsky, Page 115) Towards the end of the passage Arzhilovsky even asserts that he longs for the past, since the present is false. In my opinion, this suggests that the NKVD wanted the people to forget the past and support them in building a new different future. They saw the very idea that the old ways were good days as a threat to the revolution.
A second criticism that the Soviet authorities considered to be a “counter revolutionary” activity was questioning the idea of a classless society. Towards the end of the passage, Arzhilovsky asserts that social class isn’t an issue. In another place, he criticizes the revolutionaries by saying that “they are not building a classless society,” instead, they’re convincing the people to think they are (Arzhilovsky, p.158.) Obviously, the Soviet authorities wanted the masses to think exactly this and if anyone questioned the truth behind their motive of a classless society was a likely antirevolutionary to them.
Another criticism considered to be evidence of an “antirevolutionary activity” was making sense of the economics in Russia at the time. Arzhilovsky wrote a lot about money issues and how the state went about them. He spoke of the pilots earning good wages, the state increasing its expenses for technology and how he and others were starving because of lack of money. He also suggested that the state take the responsibility of the poor economical situations and free the people “of the bondage of collective system.” According to this, the NKVD simply wanted the people to accept their poor financial situations under the new system they were propagating.
The passages in Andrei Arzhilovsky’s diaries highlighted by the NKVD (Soviet secret police) suggest a lot about what Soviet authorities considered to be evidence of “counter-revolutionary” activities. These were: (1) devouring the past, (2) questioning a classless society, and (3) disapproving of the economics of the country. To me, this all suggests that the NKVD wanted the masses to accept and praise the revolution, by rejecting the past, accepting and wanting a classless society, and by disregarding the financial instability. Anyone who did the contrary was considered an antirevolutionary.
|
|
