Views About Religion In The Media

Notes about some views on Religion in the Media:

( 1) A Movie about Religion
( 2) Freedom of Expression
( 3) Local Traditions and the International Community
( 4) Ideas are Universal
( 5) The Two Mathematicians
( 6) The Filled Part of the Glass
( 7) Approaches
( 8) Understanding
( 9) Knowing God and Appropriate Approaches
(10) Clarity of the Spiritual Aspect of Existence
(11) Religious Guidance: "Threats" or Mercy
(12) To Know And To Implement
(13) Views about Religious Struggle
(14) Balanced View
(15) Where Are The Saints?
(16) "Flawed Creation?"
(17) Conspiracy Theories
(18) End of Time
(19) Measures To Maintain Order And Keep A Group Safe and Secure
(20) Spectrums and Shades
(21) Polarization
(22) Making Fun of Religion
(23) Scientists and Religious Scholars

 

 

(1) A Movie about Religion
In a recent movie I felt that there was a strange looking mixture of questions about religion and examples of behavior attributed to some religious people and presented as representing religion.

There is no doubt that there are legitimate questions about religion and that there are examples of "Hijacking Religion" that can be found. There are many forms of that. But I don't think it is fair to concentrate on such examples, depicting them as representing Religion, and at the same time showing no seriousness to understand what a huge number of people already feel and some even realize about what Religion is all about.

Yes, there are legitimate questions, to which by the way there are already lengthy answers, carefully laid out for anyone seriously interested to read them. And, since the ultimate problems are the same, regarding the same universal ideas, I wouldn't be surprised to find similarities in such answers within the literature of different religions.

I don't think it is fair to mix legitimate questions (with no apparent interest in looking for answers) with examples of behavior that do not represent religion's true essence , which is knowing God (a journey that requires purity of heart), and present a foggy view about religion. Maybe such a presentation only reflects the background of the writers. The impression I have, as an average religious person, is that they were not prepared to write about religious issues.

Another thing, the phrase "Hijacking Religion" is often seen, but is it really only Religion that is susceptible to "Hijacking"?

Early scientific endeavors were often obviously linked to different metaphysical views regarding the nature of existence. Studying phenomena is an exploration of a subject with information that will never be fully and precisely collected or absolutely understood. With any set of collected raw data, the same set can be interpreted by different theories (this is more obvious these days in Social Sciences). So, more generally, should the Nature of Existence be confined only to a certain type of view about it? Do interpretations of raw data about existing things need only be within a certain orientation concentrating on the materiality of existence? The questions might be relevant because there appear to be views trying to narrow the viewpoint of science and claim that science represents only a certain type of view about the Nature of Existence? I wonder if in such claims there are hints about a sort of "Hijacking Science". Fortunately, modesty is normally a distinguishing trait of great scientists.

There is basically nothing wrong about a "material view" of existence, but religious views say there is more to existence than just that.

What I understand about Religion is that modesty, inner peace and Wisdom are important for a deeper, clearer and a balanced view of things as they are.

 

(2) Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is not foreign to any people in the world. Some might probably be apprehensive if that concept is not given a prominent place in any discussion on issues like religion.

However, I think that there is also a general understanding that that freedom cannot be absolute, at least practically speaking. It is notable for instance that freedom of expression does not mean that one can express a racist remark. I don't think that is acceptable in any community.

Many factors can intervene in drawing limits on the freedom of expression, including religion, politics, the law, basic civility, and of course,  purity of heart.

There will always be controversial issues, and I think it is always possible to express views without having to resort to force or insults.

 

(3) Local Traditions and the International Community
The argument that local traditions have nothing to do with the rest of the world is increasingly getting under scrutiny. The reason is that we do not live in isolated geographical areas any longer, so much so that sometimes the line between what is local and what is international can be rather blurred these days. I don't think it is realistic anymore to act as if nobody outside our borders can hear us or know what we are saying, or assume that outsiders can never understand us. For better or worse, those days are over. Frankly, I think the time is fast coming when it would not be considered a good excuse to claim that one, especially an official or an intellectual person, does not know anything about other cultures.

It is natural to be proud of one's national identity and local traditions. The instinctive tendency for a group (this can be noticed in far more than just human groups) to protect its members as well as its culture's distinctive qualities is understandable. But, since we do not live in total isolation, and more than any previous age there is the need to communicate with the whole world, I think taking other people's interests and feelings into consideration, listening to others and being cordial, are simply part of being a good citizen of this world that we all share.

I think approaching sensitive issues, and especially when it is about other cultures, should not be considered, as something that can be taken lightly, and of course that is a two way street.

With openness to other cultures being the norm, I do not think it is realistic to view any certain community as being one with a "purely traditional" culture. Exposure to different cultures (through media, travel, internet) widens awareness and knowledge, and basically makes modern communities "Multicultural". Yes, main features of a culture should be visible, but to have an audience, including from one's own community, with a multicultural background should not be unexpected.

 

(4) Ideas are Universal
The argument that "if there is an idea in my culture that is also noticeable in another culture, then that culture must have taken it from my culture" is questionable. No people of any particular culture taught people of any other culture how to have children, people of every culture know that, thank you :) The mere fact that there is already an existing group of people shows how strange it can look.

We share the same historical human origin and similar elements of human consciousness. One understands something when he/she is able to "relate to it", or in other words, as mystics say "when the root of the idea is revealed in one's own being". Maybe it is innate, the surface only needs to be scratched. Maybe in a similar manner, peace and serenity is an inner state, no need to spend money or travel to find it.

Purity of Heart is the same everywhere, and so also are any clutters that might be described as a veil hindering one's ability to "relate to some idea". 

 

(5)  The Two Mathematicians
Let's suppose there were two persons living in an isolated village. Both were smart and both successfully finished the primary education that was available in the village, and mastered basic math. However, one of them remained in the village and the other went to continue his education until he received a PhD in Mathematics and became a professor.

When the professor returned to the village, he found that his old friend was the one everyone depended on for calculating different things that required only the basic four mathematical operations. His friend believed he knew everything there is to know about math.

Any discussion about math between them would frustrate the villager and make him feel that he is being looked down upon by someone whose claimed knowledge does not have any apparent use in the village, and his books do not make any sense.

The professor cannot deny the correctness of the villager's "solid" knowledge about basic math and is unable to convince him that there is something more out there. Priorities must have changed substantially, that's probably why his knowledge does not have any apparent use in the village. He is the only one in the village with an education level far higher than primary, so, his books do not make sense. Many fine personalities in different cultures in human history have been through this; being judged by people who are unable to relate to some ideas.

What I understand about the religious view of existence is that the materialistic view of the universe is not wrong, but there is more to existence than just that.

Nothing is new about this point. It is as ancient as man.

 

(6)  The Filled Part of the Glass
I think that most people (religious or non-religious alike) understand that one's knowledge has always been and will always be limited about Existence, the Universe, about Nature, and even about one's own being.

But this idea represents the filled part of a glass. The other part simply represents an area of knowledge that is beyond one's reach, no matter how educated and intelligent one can get.

It is possible to ignore that there is an area of knowledge out of my reach. It is possible to pretend that that area, beyond my established area of knowledge, actually does not exist. But I don't think that would be fair or exactly scientific or consistent with an open mind, ready and capable of going where ever information based on real exploration leads to. If something is beyond my reach, does that have to mean it is beyond everyone's reach?

Saying that landing a man on the Moon was a myth just because I did not experience what that can be like and I do not personally know anyone who has landed on the Moon, is unfair.

The filled part of the glass is not the same for everyone.

 

(7)  Approaches
Depth of knowledge need not be the same for everyone, even in a certain field of knowledge. No problems here.

However, do criteria and methods used in approaching concepts need be exactly the same at all levels of awareness? Another controversial issue. In many places on this site I have tried to present a view that there is room for appropriate approaches for appropriate areas of knowledge and levels of awareness in a given area. I do not see why there needs to be just one approach that fits all needs.

Again, as far as I understand, nothing new here. Just old issues reappearing in different cultures and different ages.

 

(8)  Understanding
Understanding something might be considered a simple matter, or not. There might be factors that can affect the understanding. Here is what I think I understand.

- There are the thing in itself (the final truth about it), observed information about it, and interpretation of the that information.
- Observed information is always a subset of the full set of information about something.
- The observation and interpretation stages are directly affected by the selected basic assumptions about the nature of existence first, then by the particular assumptions considered good enough to interpret the observed information.
- There are the quality of both the observation process and the observed information.
- There is the quality of the interpretation process
- and finally, there is the reached interpretation.

It is obvious that there are limitations. It appears that no matter how anyone tries, it might never be possible to have a purely objective view, or to cleanly isolate subjectivity from an ideal notion about an "objective view".

Maybe it is a one bundle, regardless of how much time and effort spent on sorting out the bundle's aspects. The purer or more transparent the bundle the clearer the view? Can it be that simple a matter?  But, even in that case, no need to cancel one approach and keep the other, maybe they are different levels of looking at things that are actually complementary. Maybe a better and more beneficial view is gained that way. (More on this point: here and here ).

 

(9)  Knowing God and Appropriate Approaches
Religion is about Knowing God ( العارف بالله is one of the common traditional titles of advanced Sufis, and it literally means : He who knows God).

From basic theology, God is the creator of all things = Creation. Dimensions are just aspects of Creation. God is beyond dimensions. God is not in anything within creation and nothing in creation is within Him. God is not like anything in creation.

So, trying to talk about God and His Qualities with a view that limits such talk to dimensions and aspects of creation simply contradicts the essential religious understanding of God and misses the point about the essence of religion which is knowing God. That's at least what I understand about the Islamic view.

Hence,

Researching material aspects of existence using material measures based on a materialistic view, is understandable. But, would it be appropriate to use the same measures and view angle to try to understand the essence of religion and to attempt to figure out its origins? Can such efforts lead to a proper understanding of religion? Within the limits of what I understand about religion and the modern scientific research methods, the two areas are different enough that such efforts might lead to a superficial or a limited understanding, at best. Each area has its appropriate approach and view of existence. Ultimately there might evolve a unified view one day, but for the time being, I guess care and patience are needed when trying to talk about religion and modern science.

 

(10) Clarity of the Spiritual Aspect of Existence
A point that might bother some nonbelievers is the certainty with which some religious people express themselves about their faith, when the nonbeliever is totally oblivious to what is being talked about.

Out of total certainty of what he or she understands, a believer might think about a nonbeliever: "For some reason, he is just pretending that he doesn't see it", and a nonbeliever might think about a believer: "Why is that person acting like a know-it-all?" :)

Here is an attempt to explain:

Why the spiritual aspect is clear to some people and unclear to others?

 

(11) Religious Guidance: "Threats" or Mercy
There are deeds about which there are religious warnings or recommendations. Some people take religious warnings as threats.

However, it is normal to see experts in different fields, like for instance physicians or physicists seriously warning about something or recommending something, and most people believe the experts and trust their knowledge, and would not consider such warnings as threats. An expert person's warning cannot be perceived as "out of hate" for anyone, rather it might indeed be seen as out of wishing well for everyone. Obviously, an expert cannot force anyone to listen to his advice, and if someone went against an expert person's advice, he has only himself to blame for any negative consequences.

The Quran and previous revelations are often described in the Quran as books of "Guidance and Mercy" ( this expression appears 13 times in the Quran). The "warnings" are part of a deep and comprehensive view about a path to a deeper understanding of one's existence and to a better experience of life, both here and in the hereafter. That is why people who believe the Messengers and trust in God do not view the warnings as threats rather as part of Guidance and Mercy.

Religion has always had and always will have a powerful role in the lives of numerous people. While it is possible to use or abuse that role for earthly gains, I think it is important to separate that from a clear view of the essence of religion and what religion is really all about.

What Messengers of God did was to inform and point to the Path, their messages were never about forcing anyone to believe. Their teachings were about guidance and mercy, and not about suppressing people.

 

(12) To Know And To Implement

An engineer first draws a blueprint reflecting an abstract image of what a building should be like, and only after that he would start building. A scientist needs theories to guide applications. It appears that in any system of thought (regardless of how educated or articulate or elaborate one can be) there are always those two complementary but distinct parts.

Obviously, the better understanding of a system's principles or philosophy the better it might mean regarding how to understand any seen implementation, or how to deal with someone who adopts a certain system of thought.

However, on an individual basis, how well the theoretical part is understood, and how well the implementation on the ground is, are things that need to be noted.

In religion there are 'Ilm علم (knowledge about something, the principles and how things should ideally be) and 'Amal عمل (work on, or actual implementation based on 'Ilm). Shortcomings are not unexpected in an individual's 'Ilm or 'Amal.

 

(13) Views about Religious Struggle
The view that the history of Islamic struggle was that of unjust use of force, as far as I understand, might be partially true, but it is definitely not consistent with how the principles are clearly laid out in Islam.

At the time of the Prophet, Arabs were fearless and very proud people. There was a complex structure of tribal rankings and alliances, but no form of government or unity. There were several empires around Arabia, but it seems that Arabia was not considered governable by any of them. The vast desert was a harsh place, where usually the one who can stand up for a showdown can earn respect, and be heard. Delivering a Heavenly Message of Mercy and Guidance to know God in such an environment required an extraordinary balance of firmness and ability to reach the hearts. And, by the Grace of God, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, had what it took to achieve that.

For the first thirteen years of Islam in Mecca, it was strictly prohibited for Muslims to be armed. During that period they were subjected to all kinds of harassments, even torture and cold blooded murders. It was when all attempts to live peacefully and be left alone did not succeed, that taking arms was allowed for Muslims (after having left Mecca to Madina), to defend themselves and the right to uphold the original Abrahamic Message of Oneness of God. (More details here).

Nine years after the Prophet's migration to Madina, the Prophet would come back to Mecca leading an army the sight of which overwhelmed the Meccans. He entered the town with no sign of seeking revenge, rather with modesty, with his face looking down as he was reciting verses from the Quran, forgiving those who tortured and killed many of his relatives and companions and did all they could to end the Message of Islam. Because the goal then, was as it was when the Prophet peace be upon him started: To Deliver a Heavenly Message of Mercy and clear Guidance to know God. The goal was never to force the Message on anyone, or to oppress people. The Prophet won everyone's heart, and the whole town became Muslim, and soon afterwards all of Arabia. Idols were removed from and around the Ka'ba, and the Ka'ba returned as it was when Prophet Ibrahim erected it, free from Idols, and as a simple and pure symbol to a spiritually important location, a unified point to which every Muslim would later turn to for prayer, and the focus of worship returned from being on transitory elements within creation to be fixed on God the Creator of all things, Who is beyond directions and locations (since directions and locations need dimensions that came into existence with creation).

That was the origin of taking arms in Islam. The concept of a Just cause was very clear. There were strict rules and many preconditions before an engagement is considered, and the limits of any such effort were clear, and there were strict orders never to touch houses of worship or civilians or even plants, and the most basic principle was never to aggress.

A religious subject has implementation details, and principles in light of which the implementation is seen and carried out. Not distinguishing between the two or quoting a verse out of context can lead to a misunderstanding. Regarding religious struggle, the verse about the principles is (2:190): "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors." Yusuf Ali's comment: "War is only permissible in self-defense, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed with vigor, but not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms."

These are points worth studying. A close examination of the subject as a whole, especially as it was during the life of the Prophet and the first Caliphs (when the prophet's close companions were in charge), will reveal the exemplary discipline and the exceptional moral values that were adhered to. Objectives were always clear, actions were not without solid reasons, and the implementation was always short and to the point. Dignity, Integrity and Honor were real words. The explanation is simple: Purity of heart has an unusual positive effect on the behavior of a human being, whether he was an ordinary man or a warrior. (By the way, I read about warrior monks or priests in several other cultures, who appeared to be having notable qualities like exceptional discipline and high moral values. Not unexpected. Noble aspects are universal, unmarked by any cultural marks and available to all of humanity.)

However, while the original principles were understood and never lost, intentionally ignoring some principles can lead to diversions and errors, which might happen when wealth and power are concerned. Like elsewhere in human history, that did happen in Islamic history.

During the long history of humanity, there were Just battles, but there were also battles that do not appear to be either Just or had anything to do with the essence of religion. Territorial disputes, plain looting and capturing innocent people to be sold as slaves, sectarian differences and ethnic differences are examples of mundane contexts for confrontations that were falsely labeled as religious struggle. Untold numbers of common people were dragged into such battles.

It does not appear to be just religious struggles by the way. Trying to give a "religious cover" to some social habits (some of which might be negative) that have nothing to do with the essence of religion, in different human communities, can and did happen.

Misunderstanding Religion because of errors of some followers is possible. Hopefully, an honest and fair view would try to isolate such errors from the essence of religion.

In science, there are theories and applications. And it is understood that a theory should not be evaluated by a fault in an application.

Understanding principles and ignoring some of them can be a problem. But, improper understanding based on losing touch with the deeper spiritual aspect of the principles can be a bigger problem.

 

 

(14) Balanced View
I think every field of knowledge has its outer appearance and a sort of essence or spirit about it. It appears that, from a spiritual point of view, everything has a sort of a form and an essence about it.

Losing touch with the spirit of any certain field of knowledge, and limiting interpretation of information to superficial aspects within a world view that is heavily affected by what might be perceived as "the solid" or "the material" aspects of existence, and implementing that knowledge robotically, can lead to negative results (maybe that goes for religious as well as non-religious fields of knowledge).

Theoretically, such a trend has the potential to exist in any community at any time, and it was there since the early centuries of Islam, but weak and negligible, until recent times. All the factors that might be contributing to make it stronger, especially after the the spread of modern education based on the modern scientific view, might not be totally clear. Concentrating only on some factors, in an attempt to understand the reasons behind the spread of such a trend, might not provide the best view of the whole situation.

An important point here is that concentrating on knowing the essence alone and dismissing outer aspects is not a better approach. It might be like watching a documentary on modern physics and saying 'well, I think I know about physics just like any professional physicist'. Discarding the serious effort it takes to become a professional physicist is inappropriate. Not knowing how it began and how it developed cannot help in advancing the field of knowledge or properly explain it to students and to the general public.

The original sources in Islam are the Quran and Sunnah. From them the following three areas of knowledge take all the principles. The religion of Islam begins with (a) the five pillars of Islam and (b) properly understanding elements of faith. And (c) Sufism is considered the natural outcome (or the natural eventual fruit as it has sometimes been described) that is properly realized only when the foundation (a & b) is properly covered (understanding the basics might be enough for most people). What I understand is that Sufism is an integral part of a whole path and not something that can be considered alone. (By the way, the three points were famously presented in the Hadith about Archangel Gabriel asking the Prophet three questions about a) Islam b) Iman and c) Ihsan. The companions were a bit curious because after each answer, the Angel would say "You are right". But they did not know then that it was an Angel appearing in shape of a human being.)

Al-Ghazali said that concentrating on the outer aspect (of religion) alone is as wrong as concentrating on the inner aspect alone. The proper way is to keep a balanced view (this phrase is better presented in the article on Oneness of Being).

Knowledge is a journey that requires proper study under the supervision of accredited teachers. With regards to advanced topics, going it alone and reading books or internet pages like this one or any other page on any field of knowledge is never enough for more than general information, and definitely not the best way to acquire proper understanding on any subject.

The Ash'ari/Maturidi Sufi view was dominant throughout the Islamic history, but recently, it has lost some ground. The balance in that view between the material and the deeply spiritual aspects of existence, is the rule.

 

(15) Where Are The Saints?

I have read about this in several cultures. There used to be a time when the same wise person would teach, offer cures as well as spiritual guidance. It was understood that such a person would never demand something in exchange for what, in essence, is a noble duty offered without discrimination, by someone with a pure heart.

Hearing so much about such people, some might try their best to find them. But not everyone would be successful. It is understandable how disappointing it can be for a person sincerely and earnestly looking for proper guidance regarding spiritual issues, to find that his or her trust was taken advantage of by someone who is interested in worldly gains. Such a happening cannot be described as something positive. Unfortunately, that continued to happen throughout history and in different communities.

This appears to be another example of fine principles being either ignored or not properly understood in the first place.

Finding a perfect Saint with Angel like Noble qualities might be difficult. At the same time, there is an immense amount of literature looking at anyone trying to suggest that such people were not real. However, there is a need to consider keeping a leveled head about these matters and concentrate on principles and to be careful as one explores the real world.

Maybe reality does not always conform to some ideal notions one may have about it, it is "reality" after all. It is beyond anyone's ability to perfectly know. So, attempts to determine what perfection is, might need to be coupled with awareness of one's shortcomings, and open-mindedness. Not having prior judgments and total Silence are often mentioned as important preconditions for a successful advancement on the Sufi Path.

Anyway, regarding education, health and spiritual guidance (I am not sure why I have a feeling they somehow always go together), a Sufi poet once said:

فتشبهوا إن لم تكونوامثلهم
إن التشبه بالكرام فلاح

"If you were not like them (Saints), try to look/behave like them. Verily, trying to look/behave like the Honored Ones is a success in itself."

Maybe everyone who understands little bits about the essence of these matters can contribute in some positive and constructive way to make the world safer, healthier and educated.

 

(16) "Flawed Creation" ?
The view that Creation is flawed and that there does not appear to be any wisdom behind it, because there are negative events, is one way to look at existence.

- However, looking at the history of modern science, generation after generation of a huge number of people with the sharpest minds (something without equivalent in the history of man), have been basically earnestly looking for signs of Order underlying various phenomena (It is interesting to note the instinctive need to look for Order). For a portion of them, the belief in Perfect Order behind it all, is very strong. But, they are sort of unable to have it in a firm grip or even touch it, at least rationally speaking. So, rules that probably point to some Order behind appearances are there (we know some of them and we use them), even if we cannot claim having full knowledge of them all. Not knowing every thing completely is a sign of a shortcoming, but is it in the full set of information (that we know it exists, even if out of reach) and final knowledge of rules, or in us? (more details in the comment on Hekam #3 here).

- A company run "orderly" might be described as having better chances of success. But, anyone charged with running an organization understands it is not a blind mechanical process. As important as Order is, there is far more than that to run a company. Maybe there is a need for some kind of Wisdom to setup, guide and explain Order. And Order and Wisdom would probably be meaningless without some final reason or goal to reach. Regardless of the size of the company or organization or how successful it might be, there seems to be integral aspects in every single organization: Goal, Wisdom/Vision, and Order. How clear these might be is another thing. Even Ants and Bees, among many other creatures, recognize the need for Order and they always have goals to reach. It seems to be instinctive and in the nature of things.

A realistic view of Order in our lives and everything around us does suggest that it cannot be separated from some Vision/Plan/Wisdom preceding it and some final Goal that explains why the Order exists. For instance, the bigger a project the more care there has to be in the planning stage, and the more discipline and effort are needed in implementing the plan in an orderly manner, to reach the final Goal.

So, if Order is noticed somewhere, it seems to be natural and expected to look for wisdom and a final goal, somehow linked to Order.

There are views that an organization is more like a living organism. I wonder if there are any views that there might be some spirit about it too.

- Negative events are real and cannot be ignored. But there are good and positive events too. If negative events are to be wondered about, why not wonder also about positive events? In the "full picture", all shades are depicted. Maybe the potential existence of the full breadth of options is not a sign of a shortcoming but of natural perfection. (better presentation here).

 

(17) Conspiracy Theories

Some such theories caught my attention for the first time when I was a teenager. I entered college, and I felt there were inconsistencies about them. I graduated, and they were not of any interest any more. So, were those stages linked somehow to modern education?

The following is only a theoretical understanding of how a religious background might contribute in developing and maintaining a balanced view regarding aspects of existence. It is about some basic principles and not about what is right or wrong with different conspiracy theories.

- There are differences between created beings, in awareness levels and information about existence.

However,

Shortage of information and being composed of aspects totally out of any created being's control (within a universe with all its limits and constraints), are natural and inherent characteristics that All created beings share.

This has nothing to do with underestimating or overestimating any created being or aspects of creation. If I understand the religious and especially the Sufi view correctly, it is about the importance of a balanced view: While noticing created aspects and giving them proportionate attention (believe it or not, even that can be optional for some religious people), never losing focus of attention on the Creator of all things (with full information and beyond the limits of creation), before Whom all created beings, equally and without exception, are absolutely subject to His Will and Wisdom. "Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtle, the Aware." (67:14)

As I understand the Ash'ari/Sufi view, one is to (a) deal with appearances and causes and effects, as they are, in the best (ordinary/competent) way to deal with them, (b) without relying on them (causes and effects) or letting them (appearances) obscure what is beyond, (c) at the same time. The kind and level of balance required to achieve that might not be simple to realize at the beginning.

- I saw a view once about how a scientifically minded person might be less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. As I understand, from the brief background presented above (which reflects some basic elements of faith such as presented here: Al-Ghazali's Aqeedah), it seems that a religious person might have a similar position, but maybe based on a different point of view of existence.

A religious person need not be seen as someone who accepts information without examination.

Verifying the source and scrutinizing the path, the quality and the consistency of any information that is received is part of the traditional methodology used in Islamic fields of knowledge like Hadith and Jurisprudence. It is an aspect of Islam that some people might not be aware of, and I think is worth exploring.

 

(18) End of Time

This is an area of information that has been known and documented in traditional sources in different cultures. However, these days the subject might be linked to some conspiracy theories or not, it depends on who one listens to. 

There is a Hadith that means "If one of you was holding a palm shoot (preparing to plant it) and the Final Hour came, plant the shoot".

As I understand, it is about the balanced view of existence and the positive and constructive attitude that a religious person is supposed to develop and maintain. It is normal and natural for everything to have a beginning and an end. Yet, there is a need to keep things within a proper perspective.

What took the scholars' best efforts in traditional books on religion  were subjects of Jurisprudence (how to follow guidelines of religion) and Theology (About the belief and elements of faith) and Sufism (basically about inner development and purifying the heart, eventually leading to knowing God). The subject of end of time was not ignored, it was known and considered, but in a relatively limited manner.

A man once asked the Prophet "When will the Final Hour come?" and the Prophet asked in return "What did you prepare for it?". The man said "Not much of [Nawafil: non-obligatory] prayers or fasting or charity, but I love God and His apostle." The Prophet replied, "Then you are with whom you love." Probably indicating that keeping focus on God the Creator of all things, is far more important for a religious person, whether it is the end of time or any time. As (2:112) says: "Nay, whoever submits his whole self to God and is a doer of good, he will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (this particular verse is explained in note #3 here.) Getting closer to God, improving knowledge of God, and reaching the stage of "friends of God" represent a religious person's main concern and might be the best thing to try to reach, in any time or place (10:62-64) "Behold! verily on the friends of God there is no fear, nor shall they grieve; Those who believe and (constantly) guard against evil; For them are Glad Tidings, in the life of the Present and in the Hereafter: No change can there be in the Words of God. This is indeed the supreme Felicity."

I think it is a matter of priorities. Having a clear understanding of the basics in jurisprudence (Fiqh) is important. As for subjects like the end of time, it is enough to have a general idea. Kalam and Sufism need further attention and more time. I think having a suitable background in these two subjects helps in understanding the world better, and also maybe hopefully helps in wisely dealing with different situations and events, regardless of what age or time one might find himself in. But, this remains just a personal view.

 

(19) Measures To Maintain Order And Keep A Group Safe and Secure

- Such measures do differ between different groups in the same community (for instance between a school, a workplace and society in general) or between the same kind of group in different communities at the same time. They might even change for the same group at different times.

While the goal remains the same: trying to maintain social stability, order and keep everyone safe, there are many factors involved in determining what are the suitable measures for a certain group at a certain time in certain circumstances, and it might not always be a simple matter to understand why certain measures are/were used.

I think taking this into consideration might help when trying to understand one's culture or other cultures, whether in our time or in any other time.

- In Islam every resident (this applies to non-Muslims too) in a Muslim society is granted protection of his faith, his life, his honor and dignity, and his possessions.

As for the right to seek Justice in case of an offense, it is granted but an interesting side is that the offended party is urged to forgive too. It is something that appears to be not always mentioned or noticed (see details here: The Importance of Forgiveness).

In Islamic Law, even an awful crime like murder does not have one and only possible reaction from the society or the state. Also in jurisprudence, historically, different positions across Mazhabs (or sometimes different areas of people adopting the same Mazhab, can be found regarding the same issue. (A Mazhab is a consistent selection of views and rulings according to a certain lineage of scholars. There are four major Sunni Mazhabs). That is not an indication of contradictions. In fact there is some allowance for differences. The Prophet peace be upon him once said: "Differences [in views and interpretations of religious guidelines] in my Ummah [nation or people] is a Mercy [or a source of Mercy]". Another Hadith says (addressing rulers, judges and scholars issuing fatwas) "Make it easier [as much as possible, for people], do not make it harder." Another one by a companion describing the Prophet's selection between available options says "Every time there were two options [with regards to a certain point], he would select what is easier for people."

 A point that might be worth noting about Islamic legal aspects, is that a setup can be arranged by which rules and fatwas can be stiff if required, but an environment for a forgivable, more lenient and an uplifting path (which is always the ultimate goal of religious guidelines) is also available, and indeed recommended. Time changes and views and people change with the overall circumstances of the time. It depends on circumstances, social stability level, discipline and law-abidance leve, education and public awareness level, and of course the depth of spiritual awareness at the individual and the society levels, and general readiness to select the best path for a certain society at a certain time.

 

(20) Spectrums and Shades

Most people, regardless of thought orientation, might be upset to see what they might consider a negative event. For instance, many religious people, regardless of faith, would rather not see what they might consider acts of blasphemy, according to their faith. However, in both cases, such events are indeed part of the set of possible events. They reflect the fullness of available options or potential events in existence.

It appears that Sufis and mystics, more than any other group, see the overwhelming creative power of God in every event and every scene. They seem to be at an awareness level where they do not lose that comprehensive view of existence, while practically and normally dealing with continuous everyday events. And because they react "practically and normally", maybe it is normal for their reactions to be interpreted as either emotional or rational. The point is that their awareness of the comprehensive view of existence might never be detected.

It seems to be natural that there are always different shades of any attribute or characteristic, including perception or understanding a certain matter. Such shades are probably more like the infinite colors in a rainbow, they express the fullness of all possible shades regarding a certain matter. And of course all the colors of the rainbow come together, it is not possible to have it show only desired colors, the other colors will always exist.

Preference of colors is a different thing, however. At this awareness level appear aspects like good and bad, right and wrong, negative and positive, etc. Just because all shades exist does not mean that they are all good or all bad. A careful decision is needed to distinguish which from which. The religious context of specifying what is "good" or "bad" is simple: What is "good" helps in advancing on the path to know God, and what is "bad" does not (more details: here). (Such points are like pointers on a map helping one treading the Path.) A point to note is that "Knowing God" can be at numerous levels from beginning to advanced, but the guidelines are the same and principles do not change, it is awareness and depth of understanding of the same guidelines and principles that improves with advancement. 

There is one Sun in our solar system, but while there is absolute certainty about the Sun's existence, there are as many perceptions of "the Sun" and reactions and ways to deal with its rays as there are living beings on the surface of the Earth. The Sun is not affected by any perception of it, its rays are always indiscriminately spread on all. Hence, (a) The better one understands the Sun, the better one's benefits can be. (b) The worse understanding does not affect the Sun at all, and it does not affect either the better understanding or its consequent better benefits ( [5:105] "He who errs cannot injure you if you are rightly guided"). 

By the way, in theology, the final Truth (or the Essence), about something, as it is in existence, is one and does not change (regardless of assumptions or theories about it, which will always give a certain view that cannot be described as complete and final, according to modern science. I think this aspect is consistent with a religious view of existence). Views of that Truth however can have shortcomings and awareness can be at different levels of closeness to realizing the same Truth, which is not affected by shortcomings in views or by levels of awareness.

Back to the rainbow: even though all shades have the same right to exist, it seems to be natural that some shades would be more popular than others, or put differently, observed statistically, there is always a certain 'gathering' point out of all possible points on a given scale (descriptively speaking, and without addressing the reasoning or the justifications behind the preferences).

So, even if all possible understandings regarding a certain issue are there, one would find himself preferring a certain understanding and it could be popular or not. What I would like to say is that one should be careful to present his view in a manner that is informative yet should not be interpreted as forcing that view on anyone.

 

(21) Polarization

"Being right and being wrong", "us and them", "sticking to principles and straying away". Polarization can be expressed in many ways, with different levels of intensity, in different subjects, including religion.

The worst display of intense polarization appears in forms of discrimination based on race or religion, regardless of what religion or what race toward what other race. As I understand, the problem is about a human weakness: that of a narrow view of existence and surrounding appearances, a narrow view that is tightly linked to an intense focus on "I". This basic weakness has many levels of intensity and many ways to show up, racial discrimination is only an extreme case. As far as I understand, big lower egos, like in cases of discrimination, do not go with the essence of religion which requires purity of heart. In Islam Nafs which is man's Essence when mired in personal glorification and personal gains, and when material and sensuous aspects are dominant in one's mind, is a big obstacle when it comes to knowing God.  Discrimination indicates that there is an abnormality, a problem, a thicker veil, regardless of ethnicity or what group anyone belongs to. Viewing discrimination as something normal (regardless of party) or responding to it in kind is not being in a better situation. It does not have to be a negative circle, sometimes claimed to be natural.

The ability to see and be calmly and peacefully aware of the whole spectrum is the first step. In the Full Scene , all shades naturally exist, there is bound to be positive aspects, finer ideals, somewhere, somehow. The ability to lovingly and peacefully select a positive and a constructive position can be a natural second step. Wisdom is the way.

- Prophets throughout the ages were basically delivering the essence of the same heavenly Message of Mercy and Guidance. In such guidance, purifying one's heart from negative traits is required. And there is no personalization or any room for nurturing personal egos in religion; if an act or a saying is "Bad" or "undesirable", it is so as it is related to the central focus of religion: Knowing God, or getting closer to God.

Purity of Heart has some basic signs, like not having a sense of superiority toward something or someone. A religious person should never call himself righteous: (53:32) "justify not yourselves". Traditionally, the custom when praising someone is to end with a phrase like "أحسبه كذلك ولا أزكي على الله أحدا", which means "That's what I think but I cannot justify anyone before God".

Delivering a Message is one thing, and judging someone's faith is another. One is not a judge on others' beliefs and persuasions: [5:105] "O ye who believe! guard your own souls: if you follow (right) guidance, no hurt can come to you from those who stray. The goal of you all is to God: it is He that will show you the truth of all that ye do." In other words, one is to concentrate on one's understanding of the faith and how best to go on with the earthly life. Yusuf Ali's comment on the verse: "There the unity of God will reconcile different views. The unity of the one Judge will do perfect justice to each one's conduct, however different in form it may have appeared in this world."

The only judge of how good one's faith is, is God. And the only time to finally know how good one's faith really is and that one has really "crossed the bridge", is in the hereafter. Until then, and as exemplified be the lives of numerous pious people, regarding issues like how good one's faith and behavior are, modesty is all one can really afford.

I can understand that understanding the essence of religion is a religious person's concern. But it does not appear to me that judging others is a religious person's personal business.

- In books on Elements of Faith, "Faith" is often described as possible to increase or decrease (see verses 21 and 22 here). There are levels or intensities of disbelief as well as faith.

For instance, (3:167): "They were that day nearer to Unbelief than to Faith". And (9:97): "The wandering Arabs are more severe in disbelief" (by the way, "the wandering Arabs" stands for the word 'Araab أعراب in the verse, which is different from the word Arab عرب . It is literally translated here. However, it can be found in books of tafseer that the meaning includes any uncultured or uncivilized person, or someone without access to proper sources of knowledge, whether Arab or non-Arab). And (48:4) "It is He Who sent down Tranquility into the hearts of the Believers, that they may add Faith to their Faith".

In Islam, no Muslim, scholar or ordinary person, can consider oneself infallible, or without shortcomings.

- Being aware of this background and being realistic and modest, it is reported that even distinguished religious scholars would call themselves "Believers In Sha' Allah". In other words "Our Belief (or the depth of faith) is contingent on God's Will".

Probably based on that, it is notable in writings of major scholars like Imam Al-Ghazali how careful one should be regarding judging others' faith. He said that if a person never cursed anyone all his life, that person will not be questioned in the hereafter about why did not he ever cursed anyone, but he will be questioned if he ever cursed. He also said "Hastening in calling someone a disbeliever can only be out of ignorance." (in Faisal Al-Tafriqah).

What I have understood is that calling anyone a disbeliever is a serious matter. I think it is better to avoid that and concentrate instead on one's faith and improvement of oneself.

However, in a Muslim community, and for some legal issues (like inheritance and marriage), there might be a need (particularly if there is doubt, for some reason, that a person is a Muslim) to determine if a person is a Muslim or not. So there are guidelines in Shari'a for reaching a legal decision on that, but it is only the Islamic authority's right to perform this task.

 

- Levels of Intensity of Polarization

A story that can be found in different versions, goes something like this. There were two religious guys "X" and "Y", sitting in one lovely afternoon, drinking coffee and talking.

So, "X" said "There is so much goodness in humanity and in this world."

"Y" said "Yes indeed."

"X": "However, our part of the world is the best, I don't know about the rest, they got all sort of problems."

"Y": "Yes indeed."

"X": "But you know, our country is in the best of situations, as for the rest, I don't know, they got shortcomings."

"Y": "Yes indeed."

"X": "Come to think of it, we in our part of the country are the lucky ones, the rest I don't know, something is funny about them."

"Y": "Yes indeed."

"X": "My dear friend, truth must be said, our town is the one and only that deserves any credit in this country."

"Y": "Yes indeed."

"X": "But let appearances not fool you, people in our particular neighborhood are the best, and they are the only ones worth living next to."

"Y": "Yes indeed."

"X": "To tell you a secret, you and I are the saved ones, as for the rest, I don't know, I keep wondering about their fate."

"Y": "Aha, my thoughts exactly."

"X": "Hey, I saw you praying yesterday, and I have to say that I am not totally pleased with the way you pray."

"Y": "Excuse me!! Come again!!"

:)

 

- Sectarian Differences

There are four major Sunni sects: Hanafi, Maliki, Shaf'ee, and Hanbali. They share a lot, yet it may sound strange to some readers (but it can easily be proven) to say that even some major scholars from every sect did have some strong words disparaging, belittling or making fun of someone or something from other sects.  There were arguments about mundane minor issue between Sunnis from different sects, but on occasions sectarian differences fueled the arguments and turned them into bitter confrontations. There were Fatwas where a Sunni scholar would order burning books of some other Sunni scholar from another sect. One can only imagine what kind of Fatwas to find on issues when someone does not deserve someone else's brotherly love.

The confrontations were real and recorded. And, personally, I think they were very unfortunate incidents and they had nothing to do with the Essence of Religion.

But that was not always the case, and can never always be the case. In every sect there were fine personalities.

Sometimes some people outside a religion's boundary might be offended or even disturbed when they know about how some people from a religion talk about outsiders. But, a closer look inside the boundaries, of any community regardless of religion, to notice how well they treat each other, might explain a lot of things.

Fine principles and ideals do exist, but so do degrees of thickness of the ego too. And it might not always be easy to see clearly when it is about the principles and when it is about lower egos. In Statistics they talk about curves that describe how possibilities of different shades to exist look like. Narrow-mindedness can be found in any given community, but so can Open-mindedness, and there are many shades between them.

 

However,

- Imam Al-Ghazali was a very smart person. When he was young it was known about him that he used to show off and belittle his own fellow students and, later scholars. But after his famous Sufi journey, one of his friends who knew him for a long time was not sure that Al-Ghazali has changed. So, He sat with him many times, and found him different. He found him gentle and modest. He said that he realized that the change in Al-Ghazali was real.

Before the journey , arrogance and sharp remarks about some other Sunni sects, after the journey, modesty, gentleness, calm, respect for differences between sects, etc. A big difference.

- In Marketing, maintaining and improving the value of a Brand in the eyes of the public is very important. But needless to say, that won't go too far if the Quality of the service or product is lacking. It is obvious that a company has to show and prove that it has a worthy product or service. Being attached to the Brand and defending it with vigor without really understanding much about the services and the products is not acceptable. Knowing and understanding the services and products without being able to present them in an accessible language to people at a given space and time coordinates, won't benefit many people.

- In Islamic history there were Fatwas forbidding learning and teaching Logic. As I understand, the reason was that there were Greek books about Logic and Greek books about Theology that used Logic. That Theology was not acceptable from an Islamic view, so the conclusion was probably that it was Logic that led to such theology. Such a Fatwa is clearly a mistake. And fortunately the majority of Islamic scholars simply distinguished between Logic and its potential uses, and how successful any usage can be.

- A programming Language is very useful when used in a constructive manner. But it can be harmful when used intentionally in a destructive manner, or when there is an unintentional error in programming. But the fact that it can be harmful does not mean to throw it out of the window and live happily. It is obviously about the programmer and not the programming language.

- It would be a huge mistake to lump a needed profession in a society with malpractices that appear to be associated with such a profession and then judge the profession or worse ban it altogether, based on malpractices.

 

I know I am repeating obvious points, I apologize, but it appears that at times there might be a need to state the obvious.

 

 

(22) Making Fun of Religion

I think making fun of Prophets, Religions and religious people, regardless of what particular faith, is not a good idea.

As Muslims we believe that Prophets are revealers of Messages from the Creator of all things. Different religions and different cultures call the Creator different names. We Muslims call the Creator, Allah. Messengers did not choose to be so, they were chosen to be Messengers. Belittling Messengers means belittling the Messages and ignoring the ultimate source of the Messages. It also shows an unawareness or a misunderstanding of the religious view on why an inappropriate behavior can be a serious hindrance in advancement on the spiritual path for believers in general, and why any such behavior is incompatible with the character of a prophet.

There are views of man as basically being an animal with a better brain. Sufis say that man can be more like animals (mere flesh and blood) or more like angels (beings of Light). The Path to know God requires selecting to be as less like animals as possible and as much like angels as possible. It seems to be a very important decision for someone serious about treading the Path (details: Hekam #47).

To Muslims in general, Prophet Muhammad is a very dear personality. To say that devoted Muslims love and respect him, would probably be an understatement.

To talk about who is a prophet and who is Prophet Muhammad in particular, needs covering some deep spiritual aspects, even when the audience consists of believers alone. To try to explain spiritual matters to someone who does not have spiritual background could be quite a task, I think.

So, how to deal with such situations? Here is what I know and understand:

First, it might not be fruitful to argue with an emotional and angry person, totally unaware of what the subject is all about. So, avoiding arguments in such circumstances is better. That clearly means that responding with negative emotions is not a good idea, so, definitely do not respond in kind:

(8:199) "Hold to forgiveness, command what is right, but turn away from the ignorant"

Yusuf Ali's comment: "God comforts the Apostle and directs his mind to three precepts: (1) to forgive injuries, insults, and persecution; (2) to continue to declare the faith that was in him, and not only to declare it, but to act up to it in all dealings with friends and foes; (3) to pay no attention to ignorant fools, who raised doubts or difficulties, hurled taunts or reproaches, or devised plots to defeat the truth: they were to be ignored and passed by, not to be engaged in fights and fruitless controversies".

 The same idea recurs several times in the Quran.

(23:1-3) "Successful indeed are the believers who are humble in their prayers, and who shun vain conversation."

(25:72) "Those who witness no falsehood, and, if they pass by futility, they pass by it with honorable (avoidance);"

(26:60) "And the servants of (God) most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say 'peace!'".

(28:55) "And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: 'To us our deeds, and to you yours; Peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant."

(6:108) "Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance".

One can be informed about certain subjects and "ignorant" (or in other words lacking proper information) about other subjects. It might be useful and mind opening if one is interested in having at least a basic understanding about different areas of knowledge even if they are not of immediate interest.

Second, avoiding socializing or contacting anyone with negative behavior and sayings is only a temporary response, until he changes the subject: (4:140) "Already has He sent you word in the Book, that when ye hear the Signs of God held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme".

There are many areas that need communicating and cooperation between communities, and the door is always open when connecting with the world, it is just that one does not have to sit and listen to statements that are incorrect or unfair about his community. (Highly educated and well trained diplomats do that all the time in the UN :) ).

A civil dialogue is a totally different thing. The general recommended policy (16:125): "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receives guidance".

The simple message is to deal with controversial issues with dignity, calmness and wisdom (2:269) "and he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing", always bearing in mind basic principles:

- Humanity is regarded highly: (17:70) "We have honored the sons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favors, above a great part of Our Creation".

- The human life is precious: (5:32) "whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all humankind, and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all humankind"

- The door of communication is always open: (49:13): "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other."

Time, space and situations do change, but principles remain the same.

 

*
There will always be people who are able to express their thoughts loudly, but there will also always be people who might consider certain issues untouchable and avoid discussing them altogether. That could be a mistake, because it might lead to another unexpected controversial situation. I do not think we have to avoid talking about any subject, one probably just needs to be conscious of any sensitivities that might underlie discussed subjects.

I believe something positive and constructive can always come out of exchanging ideas.
 

(23) Scientists and Religious Scholars
Within the limits of what I have noticed and understood so far, the impression I have about the general relationship between many strictly scientifically minded people and strictly religious minded scholars is that of misunderstanding based on which there is a sort of mistrust or poor opinion, each party has toward the other. I noticed this to be the case within different societies in different parts of the world and within different religions. If that is as widespread as it appears to me, I think the situation is unfortunate.

In many cases I have noticed weaknesses in many religious people's understanding of modern science, its language and vocabulary, its methods and reasoning as well as its findings and interpretations of observed information about reality as it is.

On the other hand, there are weaknesses in many strictly scientifically minded people's understanding of the essence of religion and what religion is really all about, its language and vocabulary, its interpretation of observed information.

It is normal to see people who appear very wise when they talk within their area of expertise (religion or science), but some times, some such people once out of their area seem like relying on incorrect assumptions and creating an imaginary picture about the other party or its views. Wouldn't the validity of a judgment based on an incorrect or incomplete understanding of a subject be questionable? This is not about forcing anyone to adopt a certain view, it is simply regarding the need to show at least a basic level of understanding about an area especially if one is interested to give an opinion about it. I sincerely wish I am totally wrong about the situation.

Needless to say, it is the same existence, maybe it needs a more relaxed and more open-minded attitude to begin to see the vastness of what to know about it.

It is just a personal feeling, that if two approaches of viewing existence seem to work fine on their own, yet, unable to communicate with each other, then an interesting possibility can be that those approaches are actually not contradicting each other, but maybe there is a wider view that can explain the two approaches, as they are, then go beyond. And it might even open the door for yet to be discovered links between the two approaches.

It is my feeling that there are Religious and Scientific views representing working approaches that are unable to exactly see eye to eye at the moment. I also feel that Sufism (the mystical view), more than any other approach, might help shed light on the relationship between them.

I think there is a gap that I am not sure how big it is or how to bridge it. We are in this day and age and I think it is still an exception to see people who have a deep understanding of both religion and modern science.

I have positive views of both religion and modern science, but I don't know the best way to bring them together. I see misunderstanding and impatience toward the other side from some people on both sides. Maybe if there are attempts to seriously consider the other view, someday we will see a better situation.

I have respect for religious scholars and scientists, especially when I notice mild manners and open-mindedness. I think it would be hard to accept even a valid argument if it is associated with arrogance, any sense of superiority, anger or hate. Quran (3:159) "It is part of the Mercy of God that thou dost deal gently with them. Wert thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee."

I believe it is important for people from different backgrounds to try to understand each other, and to highlight aspects that possibly can bring communities closer to each other, genuinely. Total agreement on issues should not be the goal and it might never be possible. But to recognize the need to keep arguments and dialogues within appropriate contexts and avoid attempts of any kind of hijacking, is important.

I think there will always be differences as well as similarities between human beings. Maybe differences can be found between any two no matter how close to each other they think they are, and similarities can be found between any two no matter how further apart from each other they think they are. There are undesirable aspects, but there are always finer and excellent aspects. It is everyone's choice and responsibility to decide what to emphasize. We can have differences in views and also be civil, intelligent and wise.

 

*
Please note that I am not a professional scientist or a religious scholar or a sufi. There is nothing really new about the above points, and I can only express myself as an average person, and definitely not as someone worth considering his opinion on these matters. There are qualified people who understand the subjects much better and they are the ones worth considering their explanations.  

"Abduh" is a common name (also a common nickname), usually for a common guy. And, just like common people everywhere, I wish to see a peaceful and a better world.