Tweet
The Qur'an Sharif says;
"And (remember) when Shaytan made their (evil) deeds seem fair to them and said, "No one of mankind can overcome you today and verily, I am your neighbor.'' [Qur'an 8:48]
The problem is that people assume that condemning/speaking disparagingly is the only thing that should be done or is being done when there is a bad situation or circumstance that arises. We all know the emphasis and necessity of educating people on the immoral and impure, how it degrades us and violates our self preservation. But what do we do when those measures breakdown? Just leave it alone and pretend it doesn't exist? say "It's their life not yours? Or as Roshina suggests "keep blindly and ignorantly supporting them regardless of what they do".
This is simply a very lazy and dishonest way of dealing with morality issues and moral decline of a community. If one believes that harsh denigration of immoral behavior is tantamount to "whining" and "doesn't help" then this negligent attitude about immiorality and playing passive and coddling towards it is what leads societies to their destruction. This is precisely what happened to the Yahud according to the Qur'an Sharif; they used to take a laxed attitude about things and they went astray. If there's anything we need to re-evaluate here it's the role of morality and how it must be emphasizd on all levels, and not merely shrugged off when kind preaching doesn't work.
when you have an environment which portrays something corrupt as good, you begin to believe that it is good. Over time this get's conditioned out of habit. In other cases something maybe taught to you as bad, but suddenly being introduced to an Environment or concepts which portray corruption as a means of prosperity, contentment or satisfaction, while the things you believed were right are portrayed or associated with misery, pain and distress, as what happened to be growing up, create cognitive dissonance and thus a paradigm shift.
just because we are all blessed with the "same amount of brain" doesn't mean our brains are all dealt with the same amount of stimuli. This is not an issue of shifting responsibility, it's simply addressing how human psychology works. And that is how the brain works.
The difference here is; whether disparaging, condemning or as some may put it "pointing fingers" is done merely to badmouth or to bring proper concern to address the problem.
The fact we're here right now debating the issue is proof that this technique does in fact work. If words like beghairat, didn't have a "sting" attached with it. What would be the point of even saying a word in reaction? The fact that such a word has such an impact in the psyche of someone is evidence of it's potential to rectify behavior. No Morality shouldn't be about whether others "see" you as beghairat; morality is about what is right and what is wrong, but there can be no doubt that being in an environment portrays something as evil, it reinforces those moral precepts and the psychology of perceiving evil as evil and good as good.
I recall DZJ and myself addressed a certain forum member for idealizing Hollywood personfications and fawning over men's pictures in a thread, not that it proves the merits of my approach; but it demonstrates exactly how social psychology works. Notions like Ghairat, Morality and Justice exist in society to reinforce the psychology of what's right and what's wrong, and thus condemning and disparaging the engagement of wrong behavior becomes an imperative. It might be valid to consider it whining if the basis for it was trivial; but it's not, morality is a crucial issue. Just as condemning the evil of the Taliban or domestic abuse against women is not whining, neither is condemning the evil of drinking alcohol, of dressing like an indecent disgrace. These must all be addressed in their appropriate context and level of priority though. Clearly physical abuse of innocent people is a greater worry of mine than whether a woman is exposing her hair. But sometimes when all other measures, including trying to educate people kindly and gently do not work; making the societal portrayal of their behaviors as inferior, flawed, lowly, does.
The strange parardox is, the people against harsh reactions against immoral behavior, who mayshallowly refer to such a thing as whining, are in fact whining about morally compromised people being deemed immoral (beghairat). It's not surprisingly to see that the advocates of a more pliant approach towards immoral behaviors, are not even good examples of their approach. I wonder if they realize how frivilous and simply an intellectually dishonest act of desperation their contentions really are.
"And (remember) when Shaytan made their (evil) deeds seem fair to them and said, "No one of mankind can overcome you today and verily, I am your neighbor.'' [Qur'an 8:48]
The problem is that people assume that condemning/speaking disparagingly is the only thing that should be done or is being done when there is a bad situation or circumstance that arises. We all know the emphasis and necessity of educating people on the immoral and impure, how it degrades us and violates our self preservation. But what do we do when those measures breakdown? Just leave it alone and pretend it doesn't exist? say "It's their life not yours? Or as Roshina suggests "keep blindly and ignorantly supporting them regardless of what they do".
This is simply a very lazy and dishonest way of dealing with morality issues and moral decline of a community. If one believes that harsh denigration of immoral behavior is tantamount to "whining" and "doesn't help" then this negligent attitude about immiorality and playing passive and coddling towards it is what leads societies to their destruction. This is precisely what happened to the Yahud according to the Qur'an Sharif; they used to take a laxed attitude about things and they went astray. If there's anything we need to re-evaluate here it's the role of morality and how it must be emphasizd on all levels, and not merely shrugged off when kind preaching doesn't work.
when you have an environment which portrays something corrupt as good, you begin to believe that it is good. Over time this get's conditioned out of habit. In other cases something maybe taught to you as bad, but suddenly being introduced to an Environment or concepts which portray corruption as a means of prosperity, contentment or satisfaction, while the things you believed were right are portrayed or associated with misery, pain and distress, as what happened to be growing up, create cognitive dissonance and thus a paradigm shift.
just because we are all blessed with the "same amount of brain" doesn't mean our brains are all dealt with the same amount of stimuli. This is not an issue of shifting responsibility, it's simply addressing how human psychology works. And that is how the brain works.
The difference here is; whether disparaging, condemning or as some may put it "pointing fingers" is done merely to badmouth or to bring proper concern to address the problem.
The fact we're here right now debating the issue is proof that this technique does in fact work. If words like beghairat, didn't have a "sting" attached with it. What would be the point of even saying a word in reaction? The fact that such a word has such an impact in the psyche of someone is evidence of it's potential to rectify behavior. No Morality shouldn't be about whether others "see" you as beghairat; morality is about what is right and what is wrong, but there can be no doubt that being in an environment portrays something as evil, it reinforces those moral precepts and the psychology of perceiving evil as evil and good as good.
I recall DZJ and myself addressed a certain forum member for idealizing Hollywood personfications and fawning over men's pictures in a thread, not that it proves the merits of my approach; but it demonstrates exactly how social psychology works. Notions like Ghairat, Morality and Justice exist in society to reinforce the psychology of what's right and what's wrong, and thus condemning and disparaging the engagement of wrong behavior becomes an imperative. It might be valid to consider it whining if the basis for it was trivial; but it's not, morality is a crucial issue. Just as condemning the evil of the Taliban or domestic abuse against women is not whining, neither is condemning the evil of drinking alcohol, of dressing like an indecent disgrace. These must all be addressed in their appropriate context and level of priority though. Clearly physical abuse of innocent people is a greater worry of mine than whether a woman is exposing her hair. But sometimes when all other measures, including trying to educate people kindly and gently do not work; making the societal portrayal of their behaviors as inferior, flawed, lowly, does.
The strange parardox is, the people against harsh reactions against immoral behavior, who mayshallowly refer to such a thing as whining, are in fact whining about morally compromised people being deemed immoral (beghairat). It's not surprisingly to see that the advocates of a more pliant approach towards immoral behaviors, are not even good examples of their approach. I wonder if they realize how frivilous and simply an intellectually dishonest act of desperation their contentions really are.
Comment