One thing that bothers me about the way we sometimes think, is that we often assign motives to other people without much evidence to support our assertions. The response to Dr Navid Zaidi’s letter is a case in point. Zulfi’s piece regarding the somali dutch woman parlimantarian is another…
Recently Nauphyll wrote this about my previous blog entry:
One thing that bothers me about the way we sometimes think, is that we often assign motives to other people without much evidence to support our assertions. The response to Dr Navid Zaidi’s letter is a case in point. Zulfi’s piece regarding the somali dutch woman parlimantarian is another. The assumption in these two cases is that this is an effort on the part of the protagonist ( if you will ) to curry favor with the west. Why don’t we assume that this is an honest position taken by the said person. We may disagree with their viewpoint but to attribute sinister motives ( ie making it an agenda to serve the west) may not be fair. The extreme example ( though on the same spectrum) is Musharaf talking about women getting raped in order to get US visas…..
However, my piece was not so much about “assigning motives to another person” (in this case Ayan Ali) as it was about “assigning motives to the Western media.” This publication bias on their part is by no means peculiar to them we are guiltier of that perhaps. If you read my blog entry it starts out like this…
“Western media loves the idea of down trodden Muslim women who break away from their abject past and culture and find solace in the arms of Western culture and ideologies…”
And this is the main theme and not Ayan Ali’s motives.
For me, writing blogs especially about politics is a pastime and not a serious undertaking. There are a lot of people who are blogging in their pajamas these days without seeing, touching and feeling reality. I am not talking about people on the fringe here, I am talking about syndicated columnists who are actually doing this. Am I guilty of the same thing? Perhaps. Politics has never been a serious vocation for me and never will be. To be quite frank I consider this as a waste of time. It is the ethical implications of certain political moves that I am concerned with. In this case it was the publication bias on a collective level that I was commenting on.
Finally, I need to say that writing political (or ethical) blogs and commenting on the Quran is a different level of discourse altogether. It is comparing apples to oranges. I have never commented on the Quran like Dr. Zaidi did. I understand the importance of authenticity, clarity and care in interpreting religious texts. The analogy between what I wrote and what Dr. Zaidi is trying to say is tenuous at best. I have great reservations about using analogies as a logical device and I rest my case.
You are perhaps (correct me if I am wrong) more concerned about how to bring disparate opinions like mine, Asims’s, Tahir’s and yours (and others as well) under a common canopy and reach a consensus – a process called Justification. (1) Justification in pluralistic societies is a lofty ideal but the process is horribly complicated. There are instances where it can get a little raucous as well.
Zulfiqar
_________________________________
Notes:
(1) For more info on the process of Justification read Beauchamp and Childress’ book <em>The Princilpes of Biomedical Ethics and also Christian List’s article “Discursive Dilemma and Public Reason” in Ethics magazine Jan 2006.
