I've been a bit busy these days, but I had some time today and realized I never got around to writing a post that I'd been mulling over.
I mentioned that I had been reading a biography on Stalin. What I hadn't mentioned is that I was also reading a book on Muhammad.
As usual, the contrast between two different topics provoked a bit of thought. The biography of Stalin, after all, was fairly typical of powerful political people. (More or less. It's a thick tome and I haven't finished reading it, but for the most part it's in keeping with what I'd consider 'normal'.)
Mohammad, unsurprisingly, was not. I could go probably talk a lot about that. About how hard it is to expect such a proud culture to change, to bend the knee to a higher power (Muslim, after all, aim to live a life of complete submission to God).
About what a strange story it was, this movement that had to work within the 'real' world, and deal with conflict and power issues, while at the same time calling for a complete change in how people acted.
But the part I wanted to focus in on was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. I unfortunately don't have the book in front of me right now (I'm currently traveling), and it's been hard to find anything online focusing on the details in the book that I wanted to focus on. I'll just write what I recall, and hope any readers will forgive me if I misremember.
The pilgrimage to Mecca was important to Arab culture, even before Islam began, and Mohammed was living in exile in Medina. Relations were tense, occasionally violent, when he had a premonition that he participated in the pilgrimage, and decided to go.
Pilgrimage is not supposed to be violent, so Mohammed essentially put his opponents in a tough position - allow their enemy entrance as a pilgrim, or prevent it. Through force, if need be.
Mohammed's followers seemed to expect some sort of great victory, or a miracle, or something, but nothing of the sort really happened. Or rather, nothing obvious...
Mohammed met with his opponents, and they negotiated a treaty. Mohammed actually gave in on Every. Single. Point.
Submitted. Was defeated.
And yet, through that action, was able to return a year later and complete the pilgrimage... and eventually, ultimately, was the victor.
Sound familiar?
Isn't that the 'deep magic' I talked about in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? Isn't that the underlying mystery of Jesus's death on the cross?
The wikipedia link I gave above was rather sparse on the details, but iirc Mohammed even told his people that this was what was required of them. That they should accept conditions that were considered blatantly wrong, or unfair.
And he did, in the long run, win by doing so.
And yet, somehow, everyone seems to forget how to do that. I mean... I've never heard of a single Muslim nation say that following Mohammed means making treaties like that. Did they forget? Decide it doesn't really apply? Argue that he couldn't possibly have meant that for anyone other than their fellow Arabs?
I don't know... I will freely admit I'm not an expert, am only passingly familiar with any of it, and that you would probably want to consult a real scholar on the topic.
I brought that up because the quest to help a proud nation learn how to submit... is something that all of us struggle with. It's not an Arab or Muslim thing.
It's a human thing.
Well, I wanted to make that point, as well as add emphasis for my earlier points about 'deep magic', and actions that go against 'normal' human behavior.
There's more to it than that, too. Would Mohammed's actions have been as effective if he'd given in right away? Or did it only have an impact after he proved that he and his supporters were willing to fight in the first place?
I also don't want to gloss over how challenging this is. In one of my previous posts I'd talked about how you transform a society, and the thing of it is that people who choose to follow that path can and do 'lose'. By conventional standards. As individuals.
The early Christian martyrs, though, ultimately won. They still died, ofc, but the courage of their convictions and the example they set inspired more converts... and more people who tried living like they did.
It's sort of like that clip from the movie Gandhi, too:
It can hurt, it will hurt. It's hard to take it and not strike back, or lash out. But if enough people engage like this. If enough people take a stand, while at the same time not outright attacking, it can change everything.
One last thing. In my earlier post I mentioned the allegory of the long spoons. It is fairly easy to get those cooperating in 'heaven' to start acting like those in 'hell'. Heck, it may not even require deliberate effort. Someone's hand shakes while trying to feed someone else, and the food slides off. Pure accident, but the other person thinks its deliberate. They're friends with someone else, and so the next time their friend is feeding the initial offender, they deliberately let the food slide off. A bystander sees it and blames the friend...
Next thing you know, trust is destroyed and everyone's trying to feed themselves with spoons that are too long to do so.
Going the other way, though? Getting the ones in 'hell' to start cooperating?
That brings up all the questions I'm fascinated by. Like - how do you build trust? How do you convince people it really is in their best interests to work together? More importantly, how do you get them to believe it can really happen?
All that stuff I talked about earlier in my post? It touches on one singular answer... one we all know, already, but find really hard to put into practice:
Be the change you want to see. Trust that it will lead to something better, even though you might 'lose'. Even though you might get hurt, or suffer.
Perhaps especially so.
Despite all that, persist.
Be kind. Be cooperative. Don't react with more hate, or violence.
Stand up for your beliefs, but do so in a way that doesn't threaten those who disagree.
Turn the other cheek.
Give in.
Be open. Be vulnerable.
It can and will most likely hurt.
But you can't control anyone else, you can't make anyone else do the right thing. The only thing you control is yourself, and the choices you make, the choices we all make, create the world we live in.
If enough people choose the same, we can live in 'heaven'. If nobody else does, we'll all be living in hell.
Choose.
What world do you want to live in?
I mentioned that I had been reading a biography on Stalin. What I hadn't mentioned is that I was also reading a book on Muhammad.
As usual, the contrast between two different topics provoked a bit of thought. The biography of Stalin, after all, was fairly typical of powerful political people. (More or less. It's a thick tome and I haven't finished reading it, but for the most part it's in keeping with what I'd consider 'normal'.)
Mohammad, unsurprisingly, was not. I could go probably talk a lot about that. About how hard it is to expect such a proud culture to change, to bend the knee to a higher power (Muslim, after all, aim to live a life of complete submission to God).
About what a strange story it was, this movement that had to work within the 'real' world, and deal with conflict and power issues, while at the same time calling for a complete change in how people acted.
But the part I wanted to focus in on was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. I unfortunately don't have the book in front of me right now (I'm currently traveling), and it's been hard to find anything online focusing on the details in the book that I wanted to focus on. I'll just write what I recall, and hope any readers will forgive me if I misremember.
The pilgrimage to Mecca was important to Arab culture, even before Islam began, and Mohammed was living in exile in Medina. Relations were tense, occasionally violent, when he had a premonition that he participated in the pilgrimage, and decided to go.
Pilgrimage is not supposed to be violent, so Mohammed essentially put his opponents in a tough position - allow their enemy entrance as a pilgrim, or prevent it. Through force, if need be.
Mohammed's followers seemed to expect some sort of great victory, or a miracle, or something, but nothing of the sort really happened. Or rather, nothing obvious...
Mohammed met with his opponents, and they negotiated a treaty. Mohammed actually gave in on Every. Single. Point.
Submitted. Was defeated.
And yet, through that action, was able to return a year later and complete the pilgrimage... and eventually, ultimately, was the victor.
Sound familiar?
Isn't that the 'deep magic' I talked about in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? Isn't that the underlying mystery of Jesus's death on the cross?
The wikipedia link I gave above was rather sparse on the details, but iirc Mohammed even told his people that this was what was required of them. That they should accept conditions that were considered blatantly wrong, or unfair.
And he did, in the long run, win by doing so.
And yet, somehow, everyone seems to forget how to do that. I mean... I've never heard of a single Muslim nation say that following Mohammed means making treaties like that. Did they forget? Decide it doesn't really apply? Argue that he couldn't possibly have meant that for anyone other than their fellow Arabs?
I don't know... I will freely admit I'm not an expert, am only passingly familiar with any of it, and that you would probably want to consult a real scholar on the topic.
I brought that up because the quest to help a proud nation learn how to submit... is something that all of us struggle with. It's not an Arab or Muslim thing.
It's a human thing.
Well, I wanted to make that point, as well as add emphasis for my earlier points about 'deep magic', and actions that go against 'normal' human behavior.
There's more to it than that, too. Would Mohammed's actions have been as effective if he'd given in right away? Or did it only have an impact after he proved that he and his supporters were willing to fight in the first place?
I also don't want to gloss over how challenging this is. In one of my previous posts I'd talked about how you transform a society, and the thing of it is that people who choose to follow that path can and do 'lose'. By conventional standards. As individuals.
The early Christian martyrs, though, ultimately won. They still died, ofc, but the courage of their convictions and the example they set inspired more converts... and more people who tried living like they did.
It's sort of like that clip from the movie Gandhi, too:
It can hurt, it will hurt. It's hard to take it and not strike back, or lash out. But if enough people engage like this. If enough people take a stand, while at the same time not outright attacking, it can change everything.
One last thing. In my earlier post I mentioned the allegory of the long spoons. It is fairly easy to get those cooperating in 'heaven' to start acting like those in 'hell'. Heck, it may not even require deliberate effort. Someone's hand shakes while trying to feed someone else, and the food slides off. Pure accident, but the other person thinks its deliberate. They're friends with someone else, and so the next time their friend is feeding the initial offender, they deliberately let the food slide off. A bystander sees it and blames the friend...
Next thing you know, trust is destroyed and everyone's trying to feed themselves with spoons that are too long to do so.
Going the other way, though? Getting the ones in 'hell' to start cooperating?
That brings up all the questions I'm fascinated by. Like - how do you build trust? How do you convince people it really is in their best interests to work together? More importantly, how do you get them to believe it can really happen?
All that stuff I talked about earlier in my post? It touches on one singular answer... one we all know, already, but find really hard to put into practice:
Be the change you want to see. Trust that it will lead to something better, even though you might 'lose'. Even though you might get hurt, or suffer.
Perhaps especially so.
Despite all that, persist.
Be kind. Be cooperative. Don't react with more hate, or violence.
Stand up for your beliefs, but do so in a way that doesn't threaten those who disagree.
Turn the other cheek.
Give in.
Be open. Be vulnerable.
It can and will most likely hurt.
But you can't control anyone else, you can't make anyone else do the right thing. The only thing you control is yourself, and the choices you make, the choices we all make, create the world we live in.
If enough people choose the same, we can live in 'heaven'. If nobody else does, we'll all be living in hell.
Choose.
What world do you want to live in?
No comments:
Post a Comment