THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: tariqas@world.std.com
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (haramullah)
Subject: Confronting Fundies (was fundamentalists/fanatics etc...)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:54:19 -0800 (PST)

49990208 IIIom 

assalam alaykum, my kin.

altaf@people-link.com:
#> I read a few mail here 'bout trying to look for some beauty, 
#> in that whatever they are doing is from a love for Allah. I 
#> guess I havent reached such a stage as yet where I can do 
#> that... 

I suggest that you have the ability to LOOK for beauty, even if
you can't see it yet. if you can't see it, this doesn't mean
that it isn't there, just that your eyes may be clouded by your
attachment to your own role and perspective.

#> I seem to have a well developed ability at getting 
#> into it with these people... it makes me angry that they
#> should think they have the right to pass judgments on other 
#> people, kill them, and do other things such as Afghanistan 
#> etc.

it is here that I like to oppose others publicly, not so much 
on the intellectual or abstract points. the conservative and
fanatics run on at the mouth about their ideas, but when it
comes to to DO something about them, I question the wisdom of
violence in the name of the Most Compassionate, siding with
the prophets Issa and Gotama in nonviolent resistence and yet
understanding the value of Jihad as PURELY self-defensive
after all other avenues have been explored. 

the saint Gandhi was not a pacifist, as is sometimes presumed, 
but instead was a warrior who would not accept violence as a 
solution to any problem, being willing to die as a warrior of 
satyagraha (i.e. 'soul force'), struck down by the unjust, 
rather than to capitulate to the most blatant ignorance of the 
herd.

#> I suppose I need to work towards distancing myself somewhat 
#> from them... but that would also mean distancing my self 
#> from the Muslim community where  these people tend to reside... 
#> being quiet at their audaucity is something one can do, but 
#> that means that they always have the floor, and another 
#> viewpoint is never heard... especially since even the more 
#> liberal mullahs will remain quiet to not face their wrath.
#>
#> What to do?

one tactic is to assault their arrogance with comparative
humility by requesting how it is that they come to know the
mind and heart of the Almighty that they can make such
judgements about others, how they can take up arms when it
seems so obviously not a matter of self-defense, compared to
negotiation and patient discussion amongst respectful kin.

"Scott L. Pearson" :
# ...try asking them questions that calmly and rationally 
# expose what is underneath or behind their words and actions, 
# and then ask what other options they have explored to 
# accomplish these ends so that others can make a more honest 
# appraisal of them.  

a very wonderful suggestion which I first did not like but I
see your wisdom. make plain what are the underlying motivations
and values which lie behind the words, very wonderful.  the
danger of this is the arrogance of oneself presuming to know
The Answer, but making all matters plain is honorable.

# And above all, sink not to their level emotionally, physically, 
# spiritually, as if you start asking questions designed to
# calmly expose these people, you will become for those watching 
# a standard which they will start measuring these others by.

I would also suggest responding to their answer with your own
thoughts and ideas in comparison, being respectful but humorously
amazed at the differences that make up the world. in this way one
can demonstrate the ability to be ACCEPTING of others, and this
will be flagrantly contrasted by those who condemn you for your
expressions in return. thus if the whole audience comes from a
different background at LEAST they will see that you are more
accepting of their ways than they are of yours. 

for example, after years and years of interacting with Christian
religious (fundamentalist and liberals), I had occasion due to
my job as a security guard to work with individuals who were of
quite different religious backgrounds. during one evening I was
training a man for my site who was a devout and fundamentalist
Muslim. 

at the time I had just constructed a set of flashcards of the
99 names of God according to the Islamic Sufi tradition (from
a book compiled by Sheikh Tosun Bayrak al-Jerrahi al-Halveti
called _The Most Beautiful Names_). I told the man that I was
very fond of Islam, had been to mosque and to a Naqshbandi
center or two in my area, and admired those whom I'd met as 
quite sincere and devoted to the divine, that I considered 
myself muslim but did not practice the 5 Pillars as they are
conventionally described. 

he responded with a long and complicated explanation of how 
one must be devout, that those who are part of "cults" are 
dangerous but that he'd heard very good things about Sufis, 
and that he'd considered a variety of religious paths but 
decided that Islam was the only one which really answered 
all his questions logically (he prided himself on his 
scientific approach).

we then embarked on a philosophic discussion which I found
quite interesting, though somewhat of a review -- one which I
have had with many Muslims -- about how things came to be,
whether all things have a beginning, whether all things have 
a designer and maker, etc.  essentially they boil down to
what is called in my philosophic studies 'the First Cause
Fallacy' and 'Argument from Design Fallacy' in theology.

he was somewhat disconcerted by my questions (such as 'if
God could be around forever, why couldn't the cosmos?') and
disgruntled in our interaction. I felt his discomfort and
wished to set things aright during our eight hours together
by sharing my food and my art with him. I asked him if he,
knowing Arabic and English, would do me the favor of reviewing 
my flashcards and seeing if he thought the translations
on the backs were valuably phrased. I'd tried to boil
the sometimes proseic descriptions in the book upon which
they were based down to a few sentences and words.  he agreed 
and set about doing reviewing them.

we also continued our philosophic conversation, though in a
more relaxed atmosphere. I think he surmised that if I was
doing this kind of art then I couldn't be completely lost,
seeing hope for my future. he then asked me the occasional
question (how I was raised -- agnostic/atheist; how I saw
God -- I told him I was dedicated to Kali, whom I understood
to be a face of the One; what other things I was studying --
I honestly told him I found the subjects of occultism and
Satanism to be compelling and very important in my life). 

needless to say he once again became concerned for me and
advised me that if I didn't change my ways, then I was surely
headed for the Pit of Everlasting Torment, that Hell which
he said was the endpoint for the wicked. I listened patiently
while he described the horrors of my fate (another logical
fallacy which I have learned to described as 'Pascal's Wager')
and then told him that I would rather oppose such a "God" that
would construct such a place of torment for those whom he had
so wrongfully placed in this predicament, going there myself
and ministering to those who may be lost, than to change my
ways based merely on the threat of pain.

he understood this *completely* and had never conceived of
such an approach to life.  I had informed him that I didn't
believe such a Hell existed, that I thought of God as the
Most Compassionate, that we were ALL destined for either
extinction or some heaven of our own preferences which 
these days I enjoy calling the 'Garden of Roses' (I hadn't
and still haven't decided between these, enjoying them both).
yet this didn't change his mind (nor was I really trying to
change his mind about anything, just share with him who and
what I really was while listening patiently to his sharing).

I bring this up as an example because I have found this
approach to interacting with fundamentalists to be the most
conducive to peaceful resolution and a greater understanding
of one ANOTHER having passed between us. that is, I neither
submitted to condemnation and an urge to be different, to
change my ways, nor did I try to change the person with whom
I was talking even when they described ideas and cosmologies
which I found repulsive and had no evidence for believing.

through this method I was able to meet some of the most
kind and beautiful people whose ideas about the world were
very conservative in comparison to my own. they were open-
hearted enough even to admit ME into their presence (and I
have often been very controversial in appearance, with
black robes, pentagramatic jewelry, radical political
shirts, and a quietly respectful but iconoclastic expression
which sometimes yields explosive responses) and we have
learned a great deal from one another about people whom we
might have otherwise avoided or condemned.

I found that the value of these individuals for ME was that
they dwelt within a world of solid tradition (as compared to
myself, walking a rather solitary and variably constituted
path which one might alternatively call serendipitous or
intuitively-driven), and that many of them were wonderful 
references for the scriptures of their study, providing me
with storytelling and traditional interpretations which they
favored or of which they were aware. I learn alot from people
who tell stories, as compared to dead and dry books. 

I try never to underestimate the value of their efforts to 
be rigorous in their adherence to their cultural standards. 
more often than not what they have taken literally I can 
look at metaphorically and comprehend a supreme wisdom for 
which I cannot repay them, despite their unknowing role in 
my education.

# Remember that you will not change these people, it is their 
# audience that you wish to preserved from fanaticism, and if 
# you take away their audience, they have no power.  

that's one way to approach them (competition). I find that I
prefer instead to demonstrate the principles I have learned
WITHIN the interaction itself (intellect is only one sphere
of the conversation, as you have intimated above) -- generally
I am quiet and patient until I feel that they have spoken to
extremity; at which point I point this out and politely 
request that I have some time to respond to them. then I show
them my heart (sometimes very pained or angry, and I try to
connect this with specific events in my life or incidents
that I feel are directly related) and explain to them in as
few words as possible how I feel differently (if I do, there
are times when I merely say that I agree but that I 
understand what they are saying to be metaphors rather 
than literal truths).  

I try to approach the interaction in manner I have learned
that Freemasons call 'on the level' -- as equals, from a
place of equivalent authority with respect to our discussion.
over time those who know me understand this about me and
respect me for it, shifting away from those who monopolize
conversations and "know all over them" as my brother says.

one of the benefits of cyberspace is that we have the
ability to INTERLACE conversation so much, since there is 
no sonic medium which can admit only a single speaker. ;>

# If you sink to their level and become involved emotionally 
# intheir arguments, they will win the audience.  By listening 
# to the answers from the fanatic to questions you have asked 
# him (if they are the proper squestions), the audience will 
# feels that they are making up their own minds, and this will 
# have more staying powerAsk within what questions the audience 
# needs to hear from you, and keep yourself pure of the lower 
# emotions when doing this.

surely valuable advice. I try (though do not always succeed)
to avoid seeing discussions as debates which must have only a
single "winner". instead I love contests which have well-matched
participants so that it will be a "good game". this sometimes
consternated my kin who wanted me to choose sides in spectator
sports -- more often than not I would choose the side that was
LOSING AT THE TIME to support, since I just wanted a close and 
exciting game. ;>

in conversations I like to take this perspective also when I'm
able. having whoever is present make up their OWN minds is what 
I really do enjoy, and I like to hear all the sides of the 
discussion so that a fair assessment can be made. for this 
reason I will often provide expression for unpopular and/or 
unusual points of view (and am therefore confounded with the 
'sophist' or the 'gadfly' in their deprecatory senses).

I don't think there are such things as 'lower emotions', but I
do understand that you mean things like anger. I think that
anger and sorrow are very important emotions to feel when
expressing specific points of view (especially those about
justice and historical oppression). unemotional expressions
are less convincing to me these days. what I feel is more
important to avoid are blame, condemnation and aggression
toward person or group. this is important in negotiation
and we all can learn to discipline ourselves from them 
when attempting to resolve conflict of any sort.

# The questions should be something like, "If (whatever speaker said)
# happens, what would you personally get out of it?" or "And what would
# (whatever speaker said) do for you personally?" or perhaps something 
# like, "And if that (whatever speaker said) came to pass, how would 
# that benefit you personally?" or perhaps "How long have you been 
# doing (what speaker said) and it still hasn't worked for you?") and 
# for each answer the speaker gave, ask another question similar to 
# the above, always phrasing it in terms of finding out what the 
# speaker personally gains from what he is advocating.  

interesting, this is similar to what Anton LaVey (a popular Satanist)
says in his writings -- identify WHO GAINS.  I wonder how valuable 
this is as compared to asking for examples of when this person has
placed the things she is advocating into personal practice and asking
hir to describe the results. the issue of what 'works' for someone
is a complicated one and is often ambiguous enough that focus upon
it may yield equivocation ("it hasn't worked yet, but it will 
eventually", etc.).

# The goal is to get to the real motivation behind the speakers 
# rhetoric.  If you spot a victory point or weak spot in what he or
# she says, Do not go for the victory point or stab the weak spot.  
# Just let their weak spot shine out in the open.  The idea is to 
# do this with the same innocence that the child did when he or 
# she said, "The emperor has no clothes."  However, being that 
# blunt usually does not work, and one has to lead the audience 
# to the realization that the emporer has no clothes by 
# questioning the emporer as to his goals (what he gets out of 
# wearing these) and by asking him about side effects ("Emperor, 
# don't you get a little cold in those brand new clothes?"  or 
# "Isn't that shirt a little too thin to stop sun-burn?" or 
# "Given the emperial modesty that you are famously known for 
# throughout the land, having set the very standard of modesty 
# that has justly led to your fame, are you sure you should be
# wearing just such an incredible garment out in public?").

again, very valuable advice. it goes somewhat beyond what I
find comfortable when you advise trying to "lead" the audience
(it can easily become pedantic or didactic if one is unskilled)
and I do think that there are circumspect ways that one may
indicate the divestment of the king: "Wow, that cloth is so
fine that it appears I can see your skin right through it!"
or better: "My eyes must be failing me, for I cannot see your 
clothing! Please show it to me!" admitting my failure, lack,
or inferiority in a domain is one of the most important and
humble things I can do -- sometimes it results in the kind of
event described by that story to which you refer. ;>
 
# ...speak at the same speed as the speaker you are addressing.  If
# he speaks quickly, speak as quickly as him.  If he speaks slowly, 
# speak as slowly as him.  It will help establish a little better 
# unconscious rapport, and he may answer more honestly.

very interesting. I don't think I've learned this one yet and it
may be why I have problems when in groups of people. I often will
be quiet because everyone so dearly wants the group attention and
leaves no space for quietness (my quandrant). so when I do speak
I tend to speak more quietly (though loud enough to be heard),
more slowly, and more densely, so as not to occupy too much time).

of course in cyberspace I can see less reason to do this because
I have all this quietness within which to type. :> here you go.
 
# This will not work for everyone.  There are some who are very 
# good at oratory and audience manipulation, and will realize when 
# they are losing the audience and will do there utmost to ignore 
# you and work to get the audience back.

playing for an audience is less valuable to me than expressing
what is in my heart, however unpopular. manipulation is something
I have always detested, and when I see someone doing it to me
or to a group of people I either oppose it or avoid it. it just
isn't as important to me who is 'winning the audience over' if
the audience is comprised of sheep who can so easily be led by
their noses. let them be hauled off to the slaughter.  I will do
what I can to warn them, but they eventually get what they deserve 
and will be disillusioned by some slip-up of the manipulators if
they have eyes to see.

no, it is more important to me to be true to myself, concern
my activities with my life and the lives of those who cannot even
VOICE their concern (for want of attention or lack of voice),
and to speak from my heart and head in the best way I know how
from a place of calm intention. if I can do all this and remain
nonviolent then I know I am doing the work of Allah.

peace be with you,

haramullah
 tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com