From: ahmad@ra.cs.umb.edu (Ahmad Hashem)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Arab intelletuals and the binary mind
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:33:25 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <1993Jan25.155046.11020@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ahmed@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
>
>>Agree 100%.  I do think that we Arabs in general don't have shades of gray:
>>we see the world in black and white (with many exceptions, of course).  This 
>>does reflect intolerance and extremism, I'm afraid.  Even when we get 
>>educated, many of us show traces of the "binary mind" in some way or the
>>other.  (Note for example how Joachim Martillo Ajami on this net takes
>>the "black" extreme in his attacking Islam.)
>
>I thought the opposite was true about the Arabs untill I have read these
>two postings. My ex idea about the Arabs was that they are always in the
>grey area. They are not decisive, and they are not precise, or in
>another word they don't know what they want. I never expected them to be
>so precise; binary or black and white.

I think your ex idea is not correct.  I think Arabs are very (too?) decisive;
they do take a very (too?) clear stand on issues.  (Whether this stand makes 
sense or not is a different question.)  You are mistaking the Arab people 
for the Arab individual.  As a people we Arabs do seem indecisive or always
in the gray area.  As individuals, we are (generally speaking) very decisive 
and at times fanatics.  As individuals we tend to romanticize our stand and 
defend it with all our powers (to the extent of killing or getting killed 
at times).

>It was explained that Albany is Muhaddith, and that he is not Faqeeh.
>Of course this is a binary judgement.

Of course, it it not.  Acknowledging the subtle difference between a MuHaddith
and a Faqih is, in fact, a counter-example to binary judgment!  What is binary,
my friend, is to think that a MuHaddith as great as Albany is also necessarily
a great Faqih.

>This is as saying that an electrical engineer who has a PhD. in computer 
>science does not know any thing about a TV.

Actually, it is as saying that an electrical engineer who has a PhD in 
CS is not trained to do scholarly work on TV's.

>Both mohaddith and faqeeh have the same background of religeous education, 
>and both of them have common knowledge of Quran, Hadeeth, Seerah, Arabic, 
>Fiqh, ..etc.

Agreed.

>I think arabs in general lack the objectivity. They don't have an end target.
>I noticed many wars (arguments) going on on sca, but I didn't notice that the
>binary mentality was a problem, I noticed that every party was blocked
>in one state and persisting in that state. They never thought what is 
>the objective, so they couldn't think of other possible states to reach
>to the target.

Then perhaps we are in agreement on the fundamental problem but we disagree 
on how to label it.  To me, lack of objectivity and being blocked in one
state and persisting in that state *is* what is meant by binary mind; i.e.,
one is blocked in a "black" or "white" state and fails to see or entertain
the other possibilities.

>I think, in Arabic, we have more developed forms to do more expressive
>statements.  Did you consider the words la'alla, Assa, Quad, Rubbama,
>Mumkin, Ja`iz, ..etc

You have a point.  Of course, none of the above is as widely used among
Arabs as the double negative among English speakers.

>>As to Sheikh Albany, I agree with you that most (if not all) scholars 
>>think he is a great MuHaddith but not a Faqih.  
>
>It could be more appropriate to say that he is a great Muhaddith but not
>a GREAT Faqih.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes sense.

>But who is a great Faqeeh, and if there are some, who is absolute ?
>Isn't there a gray area?

Yup.

>Surprisingly, I noticed that Albany is relatively flexible when compared
>with other scholars.

I wouldn't want to examine how flexible the "other scholars" are to tell 
then how Albany fares among them!

>>I am really not saying this to discredit
>>such a great scholar, but only to acknowledge something that is unfortunately
>>present in many of our scholars and that we should all guard against in our
>>lives.
>
>Is that something present only in our scholars ? not in us? 

In both, of course.

>I didn't like to see the arabs doing the same thing that they are 
>criticizing. I don't also like to see the arabs so reactionary, but I 
>hope to see them objective. 

I hope so too.

Salaam, Ahmad