The Audacity of Hope v the Audacity of Thought

The notion of change can be a powerful force - the hope for change even more so. But a drastically bad status quo can make change, any change, for the sake of change itself, look like a very attractive prospect. The downside is that rational thought can give way to emotion.

The status quo in America after eight years of George W. Bush can be justly said to be quite bad: an economy on the brink of a deep recession, a bungled war in the Middle East, another in Asia which after seven years shows no signs of either achieving its objective or ending. This is on top of the increasing wealth inequality and social and moral degradation faced by the American populace. Thus it is little wonder that the American people have jumped on the ‘change’ bandwagon driven by Barack Obama, and in doing so have given him the mandate to drive toward the Whitehouse.

The extent of euphoria being displayed in America and around the world at the election of Barack Obama seems to have gotten the better of peoples' good judgment. Commentators, media, the blogosphere, even the common man openly express assent at the election - the majority anyway. Unfortunately, emotions seem to be the order of the day, with reason having taken a back seat.

In assisting those who have lost their thinking caps in the mass hysteria to find them and put them on, the following points are offered for consideration and to the end of arguing that all this talk of hope and change is no more than hot air - another bubble (only this time not economic) waiting to burst.

1. All we have heard from Obama throughout the campaign is rhetoric (admittedly eloquent rhetoric) about change and hope, with neither being defined nor specified. Change of what and to what? Hope for what? A better America? Better in what ways? There is plenty of talk, but little detail. Typical secular democratic election campaign you may be thinking.

2. America is not one man, and one man cannot change America. America is its institutions built on core values and beliefs which have not changed. The capitalist economic system whose weakness lays bare before us is the same in essence. The foreign policy has been the same in essence since the Second World War. Presidents come and go, the underlying ideology and practice remains the same.

3. Obama has not declared any fundamental changes to the economic system. As for foreign policy he only offers cosmetic change (like Kevin Rudd of Australia) of getting out of Iraq (the puppet regime having being installed and the oil pipelines secured!) and focusing on Afghanistan. He supports the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine as much as any president before him. We have only to wait and see how much the 10 billion US dollars that finds its way Israel every year increases in 2009 as value of dollar falls.

4. The fact that a black man has been elected as president has been made a huge point about some great underlying change in America that beckons great new times ahead. If anything it is an indication of how racist the underlying ideology was, and indeed still is. People forget that blacks have occupied prominent positions in the administration already. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powel have occupied some of the most powerful positions in American politics. But these are individual positions, which have never changed the underlying systemic racism that has permeated America since independence. Instead of having false hope, people should realise the inherent weakness and tendency toward failure that man-made ideologies come with.

5. But let’s assume for a moment that Obama will wave his magic wand and remove racism from America. Where does that leave us? At the not so endearing conclusion that it has taken 2 centuries after independence for America to have reached level par! Surely taking over 200 years to get to where one should have started off is nothing to celebrate.

More importantly, removing the institutionalised racism that exists in America will alter the fundamental make up of America itself. Racism could never be removed in America unless it's core ideological underpinnings were similarly removed. But if that were to occur, then America and it's underlying values would also cease to exist!

These points, and many others can be made, should indicate clearly that instead of giving some false hope, the situation of America today, more than two centuries after independence gives a devastatingly critical judgment of the underlying ideology and values upon which she was built and has progressed.

Since 1776 not of one period in American history can be said that all the fundamental elements of a civilised society were realised. And we talk not of utopia here, but of things like people being treated equally regardless of race, colour or creed, the absence of ridiculous levels of wealth inequality and droves living in poverty, the absence of high levels of crime and whole communities living in fear, economic stability and progress but without excesses of materialism and consumerism and the consequential social ills, equitable health care provision, and so forth.

These are things not of the requisites heaven, but the requisites of any progressive and civilised – in the true sense of the words – human society in the 21st century. The fact that America is far from, and in fact has never in her history achieved, this should indicate squarely at the deficiency of the ideology which underpins America: the ideals of secularism, liberalism, capitalism and materialism.

Failure since independence is a categorical judgment that the 'values' of the founding fathers are deficient and have failed. They only other logical possibility is that they have been constantly and always misapplied, a conclusion which would raise the question of the whether they can be correctly applied in the first instance.

As Barack Obama prepares to takes the reins of the world’s superpower, a position it will not hold for long now, the way forward for humanity requires a return to sound thought and the natural human disposition. It is the audacity of thought we need, not the audacity of hope.

Source

I think this highlights well the crux of the issue. The 'hope' story seems to come off the back of a short-term memory: as if as the ills of America were the reuslt of Bush and Obama will come and fix things.

In reality the US, with all its material progress, has never achieved all the basic objectives that a human society should have. It has not even come close. So the problem is not which individuals sits in the White House, but the ideals and values which form the backbone of the society.

^ Massive logical hole in that quote. In fact calling it logic is an offense to logic itself and by extension god.

That's an interesting piece.

It accurately highlights some of the many systemic problems that the US faces, and has always faced.

My 10c worth?

As an Australian who has spent a lot of time in the US, I find it helps to think of that country as a place where the people happen to speak English, but where the culture is actually quite foreign.

The question for readers of this forum should perhaps be, to what extent does any judgement about America also apply to other secular liberal democracies?

Can one make similar judgments about the failings of the civil societies of New Zealand or the UK or Holland or Sweden?

Interesting article.

However, what are the consequences for a society which lives without hope?

Isn't that what all religions are ultimately meant to give us?

So is it not beneficial for a society if citizens are motivated by a sense of hope, rather than a sense of despair or dis-enfranchisement?

and where exactly are these ideals achieved elsewhere? i assume your answer will be nowhere & that's why we need the khilafa

come on Othman .bring it

The hope of the Khilafah solving all the world's problems...

The hope of a coloured man bringing the much needed change...

Othaman brother with all due respect you just feel the need to rain on everyones parade.
Lets not pretend that this isnt an attempt to make an nissue out of the hope people are debating about in The Barak Obama new pres of America thread.
Smile Othman and the world will smile right back I promise it doesnt hurt to be hopefull or opetmistic!

Can you please articulate the logical hole.


Each society should be judged on its own. I don't think Europe has done any better than America though.


No one is saying we should live without hope, but that any hope should be built on rational thought, not emotions.


Those who want to parade can parade all they like. They can have all the hope the want. But I will call it as I see it. Hope for the sake of hope and change for its sake are worthless. We need to do the right thing and then have hope.

But if a simple argument makes those parading feel insecure, they can always look the other way and continuing parading.

The article you posted from HT states:
"all this talk of hope and change is no more than hot air..."

plus;

you yourself state earlier:
"The 'hope' story seems to come off the back of a short-term memory..."

I would argue that the hope people have felt in the election of Obama has been a result of a combination of both rational thought and emotion.

You are basically implying that those who have displayed hope are somehow lacking in rational thought - ie: they are being irrational - thereby arguing that displaying emotion is irrational. I always thought that displaying emotion is simply part of what makes us human!

Now, being overly emotional and getting carried away I would agree can lead to the neglect of rational thought, however I truly believe you are mis-reading a lot of people and perhaps being quite condescending to the millions of African-Americans who are well-educated in the 200 year-old struggle for civil rights in America. This is their time in the sun, and who are we to deny them their right to be happy, joyful and ultimately hopeful at this time?

The hope felt by those around the world and those in the USA that have felt negelected or dis-enfranchised by their country I believe is NOT irrational. It is a purely human reaction to a situation that is the reality for them.

Without hope, what become the catalyst for change? Is it war? Anger? Apathy?

If any emotion could be chosen as the catalyst for change, then surely hope is one of the best. Why is thinking along those lines irrational?

No ... he is basically implying that those who have displayed hope are lacking in "The Only True Rational Thought" - ie: "Hizb ut-Tahrir Thought".

Sure graw, but the article goes on to show why the hope is not built on rational thought. It is these points that should be addressed if you want to argue that it is built on thought.

And the discussion or topic was never specific to the African Americans.

chill guys the debate is always fun especialy when you know where it is going

I have to say one of my best friends since I was 4 is a strong supporter of Hizb Ut-Tahrir and she has never come across in such a way as you Othman my whole point toward you is that sometimes its better to catch flies with honey not vinegar if you get my drift...if not ill spell it out for you...its easier to get your point across if you try and talk to people in a nice manner instead of being condesending and over the top.
I would have all the time in the world for you if you didnt adress me and other people in the manner that you do.And frankly I respect that your point of view is differnt to my but right now I dont care to understand why because of the way you conducted yourself.
Sad isnt it?

Shenaye

So what do you believe are the best catalysts for change? Does hope have a significant place.... or do you have something else in mind you could elaborate on?

I'll take that as a yes for Kihilafa

I don't think I spoke in a condesending manner or in a bad manner. I welcome being shown where I have.


Yes hope has a significant place but at a complimentary level not a foundational one.

Change requires assessing where one has failed such that change is required.

It requires pinpointing that failure and ascertaining the root causes, as well as identifying the symptons.

It requires determining policies and strategies to remove the root causes and build on from there.

Hope is required in the objective being reached, as hard as it may seem.

The way that you spoke to people in a condesending manner and in what I feel is wrong manner is that you insulted people by calling them insecure in themselves in their faith and by saying that if we have hope we are some how irrational as compared to you who has decided that there really isnt cause for hope at all.
I do appologise for what I wrote above but in defence of myself that was late last night after I had been subjected to insults all day from people that had a differing opinion to mine and really I am happy that we all have diffrent opinions I just dont like the way I was attacked.I did not call anyone names and with the exeption of what I wrote above which I have now appolgised for I really didnt say anything to be insulting or for the sake of being in the right.

Again I appologise for the manner in which I wrote please see fit to forgive me that aspect of these discussions.
But as I have said I had nothing but hope and faith in a god (any god at the time) to get me through the first 19 years of my life so for people that cannot accept that no matter how "irrational" hope is it is something I will never appolgise for holding onto.

Shenaye

Sister, no need to apologise, but I don't feel that you should read comments in context.

Consider the progression in this thread:

First, people were expressing their hope in the election of Obama. Fine, no problems.

Then, others and I made our case about what we thought of such hope. There were no insults to anyone.

Then, we were accused of raining down on the hope parade, having some ulterior motive in doing so, 'intellectual dishonesty', among other things.

Then, I responded with what I said.

If you ignore this context and just pull out a comment that is unfair.

Now I don't hold you accountable at all for what other said, but for what you said. I did not address you first, you addressed me. You said the following, before I had said anything to you or about:



So accused me of:

- raining down on everyone's parade
- 'making an issue' out of the hope people have

Yet all I had done up till this stage is made my case (in the second post of this thread), without insults to anyone.

Interesting article. I think the most problematic thing about Obama's election is that now the people who once said "I'm not racist, I have black friends!" will start saying "America's not racist, we have a black president!" and in fact already have. At the end of the day, Obama can only do so much to affect progressive change in America in his role as president, and it's kind of silly to expect anything more. Real change never comes from above - if elections actually challenged the status quo in any significant way, they would be made illegal.

Salam Othman
I am unsure if you were online when what happened with Ecks did but that was where all this started if you were unable to read the posts that they first put up I am sorry and then yes of course what I have said can be taken out of context.

I did not call you intellectually dishonets and as far as saying you were raining on the hope prade thats a bit differnt to you telling myelf and other members we are Insecure in ourselves and in some way irrational...I may have gotten my threads mixed up because I have been following everything you have written in all three threads that we have been discussing in so my appologies if that happened.
But if you still truly feel that you in no way at all contributed to what happened i'll leave it at that.
I have accepted my part in what has been going on and appologised which is more then you or any of the other people that DIRECTLY insulted my charector or brain levels have done...you guys have all run around pining the blame on the people that have hope which actually should read ME.

Again I appologise for anything that wasnt called for.

Shenaye

I read what Ecks wrote. But that was Ecks not me. Why is what he wrote relevant to what you said to me or I said to you? I don't think it is.

Either way, my point was only that you should not take things personally, and should read things in the context in which they were said.

I apologise if I came across as condesending or rude.

Enough said about this. Let's move on.

The article was a good read.. I’ve never really been a fan of Obama, although I do admit that he is better choice then McCain. And Compared to the last eight years of Bush, any change will be seen as a good thing. Obama's modest reforms will most likely earn him a honeymoon for a longer or shorter period of time. But the modest changes Obama has promised fall far short of what is needed. Ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and economic crisis will form the backdrop to Obama's first term. This calls for far more radical measures than Obama has contemplated, even in the most generous reading of his intentions.
‘Change’ and ‘hope’ are just words.. Its nice to dream about the future but you shouldn’t be in denial about the lack of a bridges connecting it to the present.

^ well said mashAllah .

Change comes from us , the people, the muslims . Allah swt doesn't change our condition until we change ourselves. So you have people

calling for Khilafa when the bulk of muslims are struggling to even meet the daily basic requirements of prayer etc. or are commiting major

obscenities and are immersed in sin. How could victory come when this is the reality of our condition. Its very sad.

Also, you basically get the leaders you deserve. So the leaders reflect the society itself . We are foolish if we think

any US president (or their policies ) will be the answer to the Palestinian crisis or the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. May Allah help them

and us , and make us such muslims whose duas are answered inshAllah.

Obama: New President, Same Values, No Change

With cries and chants of “Change we can believe in!” Obama made history in becoming the ‘first black president of the United States of America’. This line will be repeated across the world in every newspaper and on the lips of every politician. However, why the emphasis on ‘black’?

For me the issue of colour is a diversion. America already has powerful black political leaders and role models,

Colin Powell, former Chief of Staff
Condoleezza Rice, current Secretary of State
African-American politicians in the US Congress date back to 1870
Today there are numerous black city mayors – most notably one for New Orleans
Black religious figures, sportsmen and women are everyday household names.
With Hurricane Katrina vividly exposing the acute racial and income divide in today’s America, the rise of Obama is being hailed as victory for western liberalism – a young black man, leader of the free world – the American dream personified. However, being young and black is not going to solve any of the issues facing western liberal society.

Liberalism, as a political theory and ideology, has undoubtedly caused a huge mess for humanity:

Economic liberalism - the maximisation and guarantee for the individuals right to buy and sell including laissez faire markets - has brought near collapse in Western economies. Hundreds of billions are spent in an instant to safeguard the interests of a few thousand wealthy bankers while a protracted political debate lasting years holds up vital and necessary minimum healthcare services for tens of million in poverty in rich America.

Social liberalism – the exhortation and over emphasis of freedom and individualism - above all else has created a selfish, egotistical and cruel society. These propogated non-cohesive values have resulted in facilitating social breakdown and family meltdown. This social disaster is widespread with the massive harmful effects on women, families and the young conveniently disregarded. The wellbeing of the old and treatment of the weak and vulnerable is shameful being conditional on economic growth or maximising the returns of the rich.

The exportation of liberalism to the Middle East and the Muslim world has brought a brutal foreign policy with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, tens of millions displaced and made refugees and the military resistance to American occupation continues 5 years on in Iraq and 7 years on in Afghanistan. Enough said on the so-called desire for democracy in the Muslim world.
European states share America’s economic and social ills, as evidenced by the current financial crisis and the increasing social malaise. This shows the underlying problems are the values underpinning western societies. Politicians on the left and right vigorously fight over subtle policy differences to divert attention from the failing liberal values which go unaddressed. This will not change now Obama is the new president.

Two hundred years after the abolishment of slavery western liberal societies continue to debate whether a black man can lead the most powerful nation in the world. Yet for Muslims this issue was resolved over 1400 years ago. The Prophet Muhammad (p) said,

"You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave..."

Racism and prejudice has no place in Islam even when it comes to leadership and ruling. In this case colour is not the real issue as it has been used as a diversion. The real issues underlying the economic, social and foreign policy problems will not be addressed, because that would mean a change in values and a change in system. If Obama were to suggest such as thing, I am sure he would be impeached!

Just because it’s a new face representing a new found hope – it doesn’t mean that the system will change. You can dress the devil as an angel, but you will still get burnt when you shake his hand!

Source

As Malcolm X once said, "You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches, and then pull it out six inches, and say you're making progress."

Thanks Othman for responding. Hope, you say, has a "significant place" for society and for individuals. I wonder what would happen to hope in your ideal HT world for the many people who have rationally concluded that God does not exist for them? A society whose decisions are based on rulings handed down to a man by what many believe is a non-existant God? Does this hope turn into anger, despair, frustration? What sort of society would that create?

No, it should not create anger or despair. If they don't believe in God, and they are truely rational, than for them the laws governing that society come from men, those claiming that they are from God. And so it is no different to the opposite situation (secular society) where many people want the laws of God to apply must instead get laws from men.

In effect the source is of little consequence to the question you ask. Point is that different people carry different worldviews and most would want their worldview to be manifested in society (by its being fashioned around that worldview), yet there is room for only one worldview to be given effect.

a real analysis of the election

Sorry Othman - that sentence doesn't make sense to me - not sure what you're stating.




The source of what? Please clarify.



And what of a worldview that embraces all religions, cultures, genders and colours? Its 'one' worldview, giving power to many seperate world views... ironically, even yours!

I'm saying that if an Islamic state is governed by laws x,y,z (for example) which the Muslim rulers hold are from God, but the non-Muslim citizens hold are not from God (because God does not exist according to them), than the non-Muslims must believe that those laws are from men. Since they can't be from aliens or something like that.


The source of the laws, whether is it God or man himself.


That is impossible. Mutaully exclusive worldviews cannot be given manifestation in real life.

E.g.: I believe that the Islamic Law should govern society. Person A believes it should be man-made law but with the general ethos of the Bible (no abortion etc). Person B believes the Law should be whatever the majority of people want on every issue. And so on...

How can all these be implemented at the same time?

Now we're missing out all those people that hold a belief that humans can't rationally conclude whether god exists or not. For these type of people, laws that are made may sometimes almost look they come from aliens!



If you hold that humans time on Earth is part of the one epoch, then you can maintain the belief that separate worldviews are being implemented during this one time-span. Look at humans time on Earth compared to the existence of the universe... the human comprehension of time is so distorted... its been like a blink of an eye since Mohammed walked the Earth in comparison to when the universe was created. If you believe in God, then I would suggest that if his view of time was taken into account, then human's experiments with different ways of governing society is all part of the same big process. So your worldview on society has/is being implemented at this moment in time... just we might find it difficult to comprehend it.