A father's hug

I've been blessed to know what a hug from a mother is. I've been blessed to give my mother a hug. I've been blessed to have had those so many times that I can remember what they're like. I try to be very grateful for that, because it's not a thing to be taken for granted. I don't know what it's like from our to a father, or can't remember it at least. I think it'd be nice if I could remember what a hug from my dad would be like, but I can't. I think it'd be nice if I could remember what a hug to my dad would be like, but I can't. I I don't think it felt like there was a love there for it to happen either way. But maybe there was, and I just never gave him a chance. I hope one of us, his children, at least did. I'm sorry that I didn't.

Should We Be Using "They" When Referring to Allah in English Translations of the Qur'an?

UPDATE: Just to clarify this is something I'm still researching and not a conclusive post or anything, so please don't use it as the basis for any arguments or opinions on the topics at hand.

Just a relatively quick one here (so could probably do with more refining and double-checking before publishing than usual), but something I’ve been wondering about since I was a kid: why do we refer to Allah as “He” in English, especially since one of the earliest things I was taught about Allah, as a child, is that “He” is singular and not like humans, including having no gender? Would it not be more accurate to use “They”?

The first and earliest explanation given to me was what I, with the blessing of learning and hindsight, believe to be an innocent yet misguided one - that “He” is masculine and indicates the might and grandeur of Allah (I’m paraphrasing here as I can’t remember word for word what was said about three decades ago, admittedly). In any case, it seemed odd to me that the Qur’an apparently uses the singular “He” for third-person referrals but the plural and ‘royal’ “We” for first-person referrals. Why isn’t/wasn’t “They” an option?

Fast-forward to recent years and to cut a long blog-post short: this is an apparent issue of translating Arabic into English as well as conflating grammatical gender with biological gender. Classical/”Qur’anic” Arabic doesn’t have gender-neutral pronouns, and so neutral terms default to “masculine” articles (like they do in Spanish, for example). That is to say that it’s not necessarily an ‘active’ or ‘conscious’ decision to use “He” in these cases and apply masculinity to them, whereas applying “She” often (but not always!) seems to be since it often seems to be done as a conscious reaction to the default.

This leads to questions and discussions about the default itself being masculine with the resultant “He”, and one of the conclusions of those is that, since English is a genderless language (i.e. we use the same articles for all nouns), gendered pronouns are regarded as an indication of biological gender and nothing to do with grammatical gender or artifacts of them from translation. This all may sound obvious to those used to ‘just’ English but it’s really important to consider when referring to translated texts that use grammatical gender (additionally, this may sound obvious to those used to translating between languages). This conflation - of grammatical gender with biological gender - can have massive implications and consequences in a social context, of course e.g. people may start incorrectly thinking of Allah as masculine in the biological human sense and then base incredibly incorrect opinions and arguments off of that, whether it’s “Allah is masculine therefore males are superior”, “How comes God in Islam is also masculine?”, or anything of the sort. And this conflation and consequences predominantly seem to come from issues in dealing with translations of the Qur’an and treating them - incorrectly - as comprehensive and complete reflections of the original language of the Qur’an. They very much aren’t and are subject to all the usual biases, errors, and misinterpretations found in translation, so we need to account for those before basing any strongly-held beliefs based on those translations alone (there’s always more learning to do, and that’s not a bad thing!).

Having said all of this, in today’s social climate where, especially in “the West”, switching to gender-neutral pronouns is a very sensitive, loaded, and seemingly trending topic, so any changes made around pronouns and articles used for Allah in English translations are likely to be perceived as reactionary to such social trends and consequently dismissed and rejected. Those changes need to be genuine, sincere, and ultimately clear, in there purpose and motivation so they can be regarded as such i.e. they need to be about presenting more authentic and accurate translations, rather than as a reaction to appease.

My point being, I think referring to Allah as “They” would be more accurate (and consistent with the royal “We”) to use rather than “He”, as it doesn’t suggest any biological gender associated with Allah to the audience, yet this also needs to be regarded and recognised as being independent from gender-identity and discussions surrounding that.

"Done" is better than "Perfect"

Hello there! Going to try a couple of new approaches going forward with my blogging:

1. Markdown/Notebook style - no idea how feasible this'll be in Squarespace where my blog (and site in general) is currently hosted, but let's see.
2. "Done is better than Perfect." - I get way too fixated on trying to complete things, blog posts included, to my idea of "perfect" for those things, which is rarely achievable, and then things don't get finished (and blog posts just live in 'draft hell'). So I'm trying to do things to some objective definition of 'done' and then do follow up posts if needs be.

One of the things with Markdown that I'm hoping to do here is use the collapsible sections, so here's some dummy text to see if it works or not:

Dummy [supposedly] collapsible text, click me to expand.

This is the detailed text, which isn't that detailed. EDIT: Aha, it seems to work, woo, but the little dropdown arrow that indicates a collapsible/expandable block doesn't seem to render (at least in my current environment).

Anywho, that's me "done" with this post!

Double-life

One half-life ago today was meant to be when I 'offed' myself (read: suicide). Not sure how I feel about being here still :/ Ups and downs. For whoever's reading this, I hope you're okay at least, and things improve for you and continue to do so.

Time For An Update? Implementing the "Personal Boundaries" Feature

I haven’t really written here in quite a while (though that’s not exactly new…), but also haven’t felt up for it in some ways for various reasons. As in, there’s still so much I want to ‘get out’ (be it through writing on here or even possibly trying out just recording myself as that seems quicker in some ways…), so that drive hasn’t gone, but it’s more that I feel both burnt out as well as overwhelmed at the prospect of trying to express myself in a way that I’d consider “comprehensive” and “complete” - it feels like it’ll never be possible to get it all done the first time around. Regarding the “burnt out” feeling - I’m pretty sure the main component of that came from quitting my PhD, and all that went/happened with it, as the PhD was/is a big deal to me…maybe I’ll write up more about what happened during the PhD as well as why it impacts/impacted me so much at some point, but not now. Anywho, I’ve set myself a target to post at least once a month, and with about an hour to go (at the time of writing) before the end of the calendar month, here we are :D

I’m deliberately trying to keep this one short and with possibly too little detail (as opposed to too much) as that’s something else I think/feel I need to improve on, but we’ll see. What I wanted to talk about, briefly, is that I’ve been wondering - for quite a few years, actually - about whether a ‘version update’ is due. What I mean by this is (and I may or may not have talked about this previously) that I think the notion of looking at the universe as a software simulation is a fairly apt analogy at the very least, and that includes ourselves as individuals. We may be like software programs that go through various breaks, patches, and updates.

And so I’d say I’ve been sitting on “Ridwan 2.x.x” since I was about fourteen years old, updating it here and there, and I’d say that version’s doing fairly well to be fair, in terms of getting me through various events and circumstances in Life, even now to be frank. However, 2.x.x was largely built on the notion of me being worth less than everybody else and ‘excessively expendable’ (which soon led to the notion that suicide is the best course of action for me and is something that has stayed with me ever since, pretty much), and this is something I tell myself is no longer the case, but is still very much a part of me that I feel, frankly speaking. As such, I’m umm-ing and ahh-ing over whether it’s time for “Ridwan 3.x.x”, as I can’t help but feel this’d be done more for the sake of releasing an update rather than there actually being some ‘major software update’ =/ Though, on the flip-side, it may be that I’m deliberately holding myself back from an update I’ve been denying myself for some time: personal boundaries - specifically having mine acknowledged and adhered to. I think I’ve let my boundaries be crossed a lot because I’ve regarded myself as less than is fair/reasonable, and consequently in many cases with many people I’ve either enabled them to take advantage of me, or I’ve not stood my ground/fought back within what is arguably right/just even if I do object. And the thing with implementing this ‘feature’ is that, whilst it doesn’t change that much of my ‘inner software content’, I imagine it significantly changes a lot of the ‘endpoints’ - how I interact with others and allow myself to be interacted with, which in turn may have huge impacts (or not, of course) on both my existing and future relationships, be they of a personal/social or professional nature.

In any case, whether this is a further update to “Ridwan 2.x.x” or the release of “Ridwan 3.x.x”, I think it’s time I implement a stricter sense of having my boundaries acknowledged/respected and adhered to.

My So-Called Triple-Life

Something I’ve been meaning to write about for a few days - but kept putting off because the subject matter feels particularly heavy for me to think about, let alone write about - is about my ‘triple-life’. Also, this is mostly a thought-stream, so may involve lots of waffling and jump around, but hopefully it’s consistent at least…

Now many people, including myself, seem to have many personas in terms of who they are with themselves, with family, with significant others, with friends, with colleagues, with strangers, etc., though I often hear these personas being categorised into a binary distinction of personal and professional lives, as if living a double-life, if you will. Whilst I can understand this, it personally always seemed like a hassle to me that I imagine I’d find exhausting to indulge in - pretending to be somebody other than myself at work or wherever seemed like not only extra effort (kind of implying who I’d be personally would either be at least ‘good enough’ for a professional setting or conversely not suitable and therefore not ‘have to’ consider a professional setting in the first place =/ I’d like to think I strive for the former…) but also a compromise on who I am.

The thing is, though, I kinda felt that way about having a double-life because I find being ‘me’ exhausting enough as it is already, in that who I am in front of others is typically a very filtered and relatively refined version of myself that’s constantly trying to consider what everybody’s thinking and how they’re feeling as well as how certain things being said or done may make them feel, and not just by myself but by others, too (which is why I find one-on-one interactions much easier in general because as soon as another person is present I have a hard time trying to juggle and anticipate it all just as we currently do with the three-body problem in physics). I’d like to point out (perhaps to convince myself, too…who knows?), this isn’t to say this is not me, or a a dishonest/false version of me, but rather I see it like the difference between “I’ll be honest.” and “I’ll be honest and frank.” (which I imagine still won’t sit well with some and am open to feedback on this of course). This is a bit of a tangent and one I intend to write about properly/elaborately in a separate post, but for now I will say that there are three quantities in mathematics of particular significance to me (though no disrespect meant to Euler’s Equation!) that I in turn try to ‘mirror’ in reality (given how the analogies I tend to try to understand Life/Existence/the Universe with are pretty much all centred around maths, physics, and computer simulations…): Zero, One, and Infinity. I generally think/feel as if I (as well as possibly most, if not all, others) typically have a version of themselves for Zero others i.e. who they are when by themselves, for One other i.e. who they are when with some individual they hold in a particularly significant regard, and for Infinite others, i.e. who they are when with everybody else in general. This isn’t to say it’s a strict ‘law’ or anything, especially between One and Infinity, plus I guess there is somewhat of a goal for Zero and One to be the same, but it’s a framework that’s there in my mind.

Aaaaaaannyway, that tangent aside, the thing I actually intended to get down in writing is my so-called triple-life, which, in short, is basically me trying to live in a way that keeps the three possible outcomes I see for my Life (and the respective paths to each of those outcomes)…possible. What I mean by that is that the three outcomes that I see, I also regard as mutually exclusive, and because I can’t figure out which one to commit to, I try to ensure all three outcomes are simultaneously possible at any given moment. This is, as you can expect (if I haven’t confused you with my scatty narrative, sorry!), very difficult to do and, again, incredibly exhausting. Yet I feel it is necessary =/ This is a very brief take on my triple-life:

1. Suicide - outcome seems most fitting and feels most right, as in the thing I’m ‘meant to do’, for various reasons, but I think is wrong - likelihood: varies depending on how I’m feeling;

2. Conceding that most of the problems in both my family and in society probably won't change and cycles will repeat, and that the rest of my days will most likely be spent just fighting those problems and battles where I can and looking after my family/others and teaching them to cope with things as best as I can - outcome feels like defeat and too much of a compromise, that the needs will always come above my wants, and will probably end up with me losing my battle against cynicism and becoming a husk - likelihood: seemingly very high as this seems the most realistic and seems to match my current trajectory; and

3. That things will actually work out and improve, and those problems in my family and society will be resolved, or at least improved/resolved enough that I can have that life I used to imagine when I was a child where I am a good husband and a great father - outcome is the one I actually want, but also seems naive and idealistic of me, yet maybe it is possible to change the world… - likelihood: seemingly very low.

(I was going to make a mini, rather clichéd, three-panel comic summarising these with a filled black panel, a mundane/bleak grayscale outlook on life for the second, and a happy outlook third panel filled with colour, but I’m terrible at drawing as it is that without my tablet there’s even less chance of it looking like how it does in my mind.)

Originally it was only #3. Then on my 15th birthday #1 came into play and was meant to take effect on my 16th birthday, though #3 would still twinkle from time to time. Evidently, this did not happen, and I initially thought #1 would take a little longer than expected (in my mind the hold-up was because I still hadn’t worked out a way to morally justify it, but it’s very possible I was in denial about it - who knows?) so still it was predominantly #1 with a few appearances by #3 here and there. I didn’t consciously realise but during my late teens and early twenties is when #2 started popping up more and more, and so, for pretty much the last decade of my life, I’ve been constantly trying to juggle these three outcomes. And like I said, they’re fairly mutually exclusive so it makes me hold back on a lot of things, particularly the idea of a relationship. As in, #3 is the outcome I’d actually like, but given the likelihoods of #1 and #2, and even the fact that I think about them as ‘viable’ outcomes, I don’t think it’s exactly moral/fair for me to have a relationship with somebody whilst keeping those possibilities in mind =/ Incidentally, this has put me in an odd situation for many years in that I feel whatever love, affection, compassion, kindness, etc. I have, I feel I should share or even ‘give away’ to others in general rather than ‘reserving’ for that ‘special someone’ (because if you have something good, you want to share it, or at least I hope that’s the case), which people can often somewhat understandably misinterpret (though still I wish they’d ask and try to understand rather than generalise and assume). Even though this is arguably not what the following scene was about, I often think of this rather climactic moment - kinda a spoiler if you haven’t seen it though! - from the film Gattaca when dwelling on this predicament - of not saving anything for the swim back, because there is no swim back.)

The apparently obvious solution to my dilemma of course would be to commit to one of the three outcomes, i.e. #3, and disregard the other two, though of course how that plays out is how the three outcomes came to be in the first place. So I don’t know. It’s hard. And emotions are hard. And people don’t often make sense. So I don’t know how to do this and I still wish I could just commit to #1 and be done with it, but Hope seems to glimmer on, even though I now consider Hope a double-edged sword =/ I think I’ll stop there. Thanks if you read this.

"Your Hands Will Never Be Clean"

Context [for posterity?]: There’s a global pandemic situation at the moment from a virus referred to as COVID-19 and one of the strong recommendations in tackling the spread of it is to wash your hands - a message endorsed by various governments around the world, including the current Tory government in the UK, regarded by some (or many, depending on your sample) as immoral and the cause behind many of the current problems being faced by British society, especially with regards to the response to and handling of the current situation, hence the comic below.

---

Introduction

I’ve seen a comic seemingly expressing a certain divisive sentiment come up in my social media feeds several times over the last week or so (in specific reference to the current Tory government in the UK) and frankly find the fact that it’s being shared so much - particularly by people I generally consider as open-minded, fair, and kind - a little alarming, especially when the current quarantine/’lockdown’ situation has arguably seen a rise in altruism. So, I’m going to try to write about [my interpretation of] the comic and the apparent problems/contradictions I notice - not with the comic itself, but rather the sentiment it seems to express - and, as ever, would appreciate constructive [and polite, please!] feedback on it, please, particularly from those who agree with the sentiment, whether it’s to say if I’ve completely misinterpreted it, am missing some vital information, something else, or even if you agree (and why).

The narrative here seems to imply two things:

1. That if you voted this government i.e. voted Tory, then it doesn’t matter who you are or what your reason/s for doing so are or anything else about you - you are all tarnished with the same brush. I consider this reduction a form of Prejudice.

2. That it also doesn’t matter how much you may have changed or could change since then and what you do with your life, even if you do a complete U-turn - you are guilty and beyond redemption. I consider this judgement a form of Discrimination.

Prejudice

Regarding the first point, what is meant by “[voting] for this government”? Rarely (if ever?) has any entity/party/government remained as it was at the time of voting nor acted exactly in the way those who voted for it envisioned. By sweeping all who voted Tory under one label, it reduces any and every other aspect about that individual into a single characteristic and paints a very “Us vs. Them”-picture, much like in anti-immigrant/xenophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic, sexist, etc. propaganda. Such propaganda, often attributed to and employed by the “Right”/“Far-Right”, is usually (and rightfully, in my opinion) heavily criticised, particularly by those on the “Left”. Except in this case, this sentiment is coming/echoing from some of those on the Left themselves and, sadly, this apparent hypocrisy isn’t new either.

There are numerous reasons and circumstances that can lead to somebody voting Tory, just as there are for Labour or any other party (or even not voting at all) - which certainly doesn’t mean they’re all justified, but that itself doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to understand those reasons and circumstances ourselves. What would lead some people - such as those who work in the NHS, who identify as Muslim, who are working-class, etc. - to vote for the Conservative Party, a party portrayed/considered to actively work/be against and despise such groups? Or, for a basic counter-example, what would lead to some Jewish people voting for Labour, a party portrayed/considered to actively be anti-Semitic? Or even if we don’t necessarily identify as any of the aforementioned groups/labels, but actively sympathise with and support them, how could any of us still vote for a party mired with such problems and apparent immorality? Are there any parties that we’d consider completely free of immorality, where we’re not compromising some of our values in favour of upholding some of our other values?

As it stands, there aren’t, and so other things start factoring into our decision, and it’s not so black-and-white a situation as some would paint. Maybe there are legitimate reasons to vote Tory, maybe there aren’t and it’s a case of misinformation and manipulation, maybe it’s a mix of both. Although, having said that, there are sadly those who actually are effectively facing life-or-death situations, arguably as a direct result of the current government and its policies (though also arguably not just because of that, but ourselves as a society - another discussion for another time). And there are also those for whom it’s a different type of black-and-white situation, because they actually have relatively privileged lives where they are unaffected by all the other factors and so they really do see it as a simple decision between two things without having to weigh up the consequences of the rest. In any case, the point is that there’s more to a person’s identity than who they voted, especially when trying to conform them to some simplified political model that typically has only one or two dimensions as a proxy for “Good” and “Bad” (and who’s to say we can fit people into those two boxes in the first place?). Again, the situation is not so black-and-white, and trying to make it into “Us vs. Them” and lump the problems on “Them” doesn’t really achieve anything other than trying to wash our own hands clean of any blame and accountability, to be blunt.

Discrimination

As for the second point, that “[your hands] will never be clean” - this raises a whole bunch of questions. Does this mean we’re saying certain things, like voting Tory (or equivalent), are beyond redemption, or even ‘rehabilitation’ given the tone of criminalisation in both the comic as well as accompanying text in some instances of it being shared? That even if you were to completely renounce whatever affinity for the Tories/political-right you may have and instead sincerely identify with the political-left, it doesn’t matter who you are or what genuine convictions you have now, you will always carry that mark with you? If it is indeed an unforgivable moral crime to vote Tory, does that make somebody who voted them permanently morally corrupt, and what would that mean? That we’re better than them for not doing so? Superior to them? That they’re second-class citizens, subject to a different set of standards to what we hold for ourselves i.e. the notions of equality and “basic human rights” typically espoused and revered by the Left go out the window? That it’s okay to permanently guilt them and demonise them? Surely we shouldn’t discriminate against them because they hold a different opinion to us, because that would be something only the Far-Right do, and they’re “Evil”*, right? Who’s even calling the shots on morality?

What about compared to statutory crimes? Where would voting Tory rank compared to other crimes, in terms of how you perceive somebody “guilty” of it? Would you rather find out a close friend voted Tory, or that they instead stole something, or assaulted someone, or murdered someone? Does that mean that those who commit crimes ‘greater’ than it are also beyond redemption and rehabilitation, i.e. if somebody is found guilty of murder, regardless of their reason or circumstance (again, not a justification for murder), does that mean there’s no chance for them, according to this narrative, and so we shouldn’t bother with rehabilitation programmes for them? Would that then lead to a growing prison population if certain sentences are to never be granted parole or come to an end, because the prisoner in question would always be regarded a murderer, and therefore a danger to society? Would they be forever considered a second-class citizen? And if not, if they can’t be reintegrated into society, but are forever left in prison instead with no hope of being accepted by society, then what? I’m not trying to say one way or the other is right, I’m just trying to find some consistency, because those sharing the comic in agreement with its narrative have also been those to typically express views that are pro-rehabilitation and understanding/sympathetic towards those found guilty of various “serious crimes”, rather than passing permanent/absolute judgement on others, so it seems like a contradiction to me.

Summary

Now, I’m not trying to justify voting or not voting Tory, or say that I think every vote is right in its own way, since I don’t think that plus that’s a whole other set of discussions, but the point I’m trying to make is two-fold:

1. To encourage and call for us to genuinely, fairly, and reasonably try to understand a situation before judging it (again, as a reminder to myself first and foremost); and

2. To bring light to what seems to be the recurring hypocrisy within (but not exclusive to) some/a lot of the [vocal] Left in the hopes that the situation is addressed/resolved, learnt from, and improved upon.

This latter point doesn’t mean entire causes on the Left itself, where this particular hypocrisy seems to live, are at fault themselves (“the Fallacy fallacy”), but that we should try to improve our own faults first before calling out “others” on those same faults (as ever, this goes for myself), and certainly not let it get to the current stage where the moral high ground is assumed and demonisation of “others” is considered as acceptable. Otherwise we’ll probably just carry on with the same ongoing political ‘reasoning’ of the divisive “Vote Us because We are not Them”, which isn’t really progressive at all, rather than something unifying like “Vote Us because We are X, Y, Z, etc.” instead.

---

Also, a few closing ‘meta’ remarks:

1. I can understand the sentiment, as well as the frustration, sadness, and anger (as well as many other feelings) behind the comic and in many ways sympathise with it, but that doesn’t mean I can necessarily justify it. And I’m certainly not having a go at the author of the comic, especially as I don’t personally know them. Rather, as I said in the introduction, I’m asking the above to try to understand the underlying sentiment expressed within it better, and if my interpretation and apparent observations regarding it hold or not. I’m particularly asking this to those who hold this view that I personally know, given how it seems to contradict views they’ve previously expressed and apparently not changed on (unless they have, of course, and if so, would be curious as to why).

2. I get that me pointing this apparent flaw out will almost inevitably lead to some painting me as the “Them” in whatever false dichotomy they hold (in this case I “must be” a Tory-supporter or something), since this has happened many times before whenever I’ve tried to address problems in the various circles/communities I seem to have a foot in, especially so with those who identify on the Left as “open-minded and liberal”. As in, the very fact that I am questioning something within a certain [political] ideology apparently means I am challenging it (rather than trying to understand it first), and if I’m challenging something rather than blindly accepting it, it must mean I’m against it and therefore from ‘the other side’…If anything, this happening seems to further confirm the aforementioned “Us vs. Them”-mentality and hypocrisy problems, but gotta try to keep an open (yet reasonable!) mind about it all. I will allude back to something I said above though, which is that I’ll try to fix the problems caused by me and my ‘own’ first before calling out the same problems being caused by ‘others’.

3. Of course, my whole approach here is based on the premise that it’s worth having at least some faith in humanity itself, even though I have a ton of evidence (both personal and historical) that says not to, so who knows, maybe me trying to improve society is a pointless endeavour…=/

*Bit of a personal tangent here, but I feel it necessary to point out the recurring irony and blatant hypocrisy of some people - who hold and express the sentiment that voting Tory, Republican, and so on is equivalent with being “Evil” - also being the ones who previously/continuously complain about “all religious people” apparently being very judgemental about others, especially if they consider anybody who doesn’t agree with their views as “Evil”…This is something I’ve had to put up with a lot over the years, especially at university, by virtue of identifying as a Muslim, even though I’ve long held and expressed the belief that it’s not for us - as people - to judge whether people are “good” or “bad”…but hey-ho there we go. Also, I get this is a very direct and blunt approach to trying to address this particular problem, so apologies for that, but numerous attempts - starting off as subtle/gentle questions to increasingly direct comments (yet still maintaining diplomacy) - have evidently failed, so I don’t know what else I can do at this point.