Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله
  • entries
    24
  • comments
    48
  • views
    15,701

parents - the good and the bad


Sometimes we forget to be grateful for many of the blessings God has decreed upon us that if we were to thank him for countless days and nights, it would never be sufficient. Some of us may not realise that despite living in a house where our parents have different mindsets that complicate many aspects in life, perhaps during their time they had it far more worse. We forget that they have gone through immense pressure trying to give us a life far more opportunistic than theirs, yet they fail to realise how a lot of their customs prevents us from seeking opportunities in the first place. Think about the conservative societies they used to live in the past century and how difficult it was to overcome. Perhaps our parents think that their way of upbringing will lure us away from the demonised world, to save our mental stability and hence they carry their past teachings and culture to the next generation. On the contrary, that belief has torn us apart.

Our parents have survived war, signed myriad of papers and fought with the Western laws to seek a better environment for themselves and future offspring. We know that our families cannot seem to fathom our changes as we develop. They believe we are steering out of the line of honour and family reputation that if a slight error was committed then it would be spread throughout the entire community. You end up hearing tales and calumnies from storytellers who often find it entertaining to dwell in the affairs of others. The values and customs I have been raised in believe that a family's dignity and privilege is held by the eldest daughter where her wrongdoings mean familial destruction. Whilst having a good reputation at some point is crucial to living a substantial life, parents forget that our unexpressed feelings matter more than pleasing an egoistic community. 

In Islam, one of the major sins is the displeasing of parents, where their anger is equatable to God's. Surely we must strive to respect them as they become elders, despite the levels of irritability we receive almost everyday. We are taught to maintain patience and that is further learnt more deeply during adolescence. Even so, a lot of the times one has knowledge of what is right yet still choose to divert into the path of wrong. An example is when our parents infuriate us, it results in retaliation rather than remaining quiet and calm. Understandably, nobody wants to hear someone create quite vague assumptions and further jump to the worst conclusions. That is one of the nuisances we normally find within parents.

From past personal experience, despite my OCD was likely of being genetic, I discovered that the strategies my parents used to make the entire family adhere to religion were often uncompromising. They believe using threats will make their children stand firm towards God and whilst I partially agree, the end result may be discrepancy. I've always loved being a Muslim. Observing full hijab from a very young age, praying at night outside the backyard beneath His illuminating creation whilst holding the sacred Qur'an in my hands. I thought I felt undeniable peace, but was it truly as peaceful as it sounded like?  I was on attack the minute I stood onto my prayer mat or opened a supplication prayer. Those rampaging thoughts destroyed my inner peace. It seemed like I was a saintly servant of God, but the reality was that I was hurting deep down without even figuring out the cause. After recovery, a part of me came to conclusion as to what had led to these doubts and whispers in the first place. It somewhat was in relation towards my parent's upbringing, where I had noticed the number of threatening remarks they used in relation to God made me believe that I was obliged to add in the extra effort and consistency towards my prayers and other obligations. However, a number of times they had caught me in such a state and tried to give me solid advice that I am already pious enough in the eyes of God. And yet I always felt like I did a mistake in my ablution that led to repetitive cleansing.  

Then again, we are far more mature than to be constantly blaming parents for our actions. I criticise myself for being too naive and turning small situations into extreme ones. The truth is nobody else is at fault but ourselves because we have full control over our own actions. We are willing to blame others for our mistakes in order to escape guilt or responsibility. Parents may have played some role in the way we have turned out to be, yet we know ourselves way too well as adults that most of it is our own fault, Maybe we did not realise that controlling our thoughts and actions could have been taken into our own hands if only we did not let all that negativity consume us.

 

10 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • Advanced Member
Northwest

Posted

Islam is, at root, based on fear. Fear and obedience precedes faith. Yet constant guilt over one’s sins can be paralysing as well, especially given the stress and duties of daily life.

  • Advanced Member
Moalfas

Posted

Islam isn't based on fear. Some Muslims have focused on propagating fear as it's the easiest way to 'control' their kids and keep them inline. 

 الإمام علي (عليه السلام): إن قوما عبدوا الله رغبة فتلك عبادة التجار، وإن قوما عبدوا الله رهبة فتلك عبادة العبيد، وإن قوما عبدوا الله شكرا فتلك عبادة الأحرار 

نهج البلاغة ٢٣٧

Its narrated that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had broken down the worshipers into three types:

The people who worshiped God out of desire, which is the worship of merchants.

The people who worshiped God out of fear, which is the worship of slaves.

The people who worshiped God out of gratitude, which is the worship of the free. 

Nahj Al Balagha /237

There's much more to worship than simply fear of hell.

3wliya_maryam

Posted

On 12/29/2019 at 2:18 AM, Northwest said:

Islam is, at root, based on fear. Fear and obedience precedes faith. Yet constant guilt over one’s sins can be paralysing as well, especially given the stress and duties of daily life.

I just re read what u said. Whilst I partially agree that fear at times can be important for strong faith, but Islam at its root is based on fear? Why would Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) the most Merciful choose to create a fearful religion? Yes we should be fearful, especially when we do some major sins reminding us that Allah is watching, but too much fear is also unhealthy. If you are a faithful and practicing Muslim, then why should they be so fearful?

  • Advanced Member
Northwest

Posted

2 minutes ago, 3wliya_maryam said:

I just re read what u said. Whilst I partially agree that fear at times can be important for strong faith, but Islam at its root is based on fear? Why would Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) the most Merciful choose to create a fearful religion? Yes we should be fearful, especially when we do some major sins reminding us that Allah is watching, but too much fear is also unhealthy. If you are a faithful and practicing Muslim, then why should they be so fearful?

...

Quote

Fear of God stands for the mental pains arisen from the anticipation of God’s punishment for the commitment of acts of disobedience to Him. It enjoins holding on straightforwardness and forbids vices and sins. … The previous texts have depicted the importance of fear and its contribution in rectifying man and qualifying him to have the honor of God’s contentment. … Excess fear impoverishes the personality and deprives of hope. Moreover, it causes despair, which, in turn, brings about perpetual deviation. Shortage of fear, also, causes negligence, shortcoming, and rebellion against acts of obedience to God. By the balance of fear and hope, one’s self nourishes, conscience towers up, and the spiritual energies go forward. … Accordingly, fear occupies the first place among the noble traits. It has played a big role in the fields of belief since it is the main reason encouraging acts of obedience to God. Feelings of fear enhance the souls and take them to a lofty angelic position that imparts to the ideality of the angels.

 

Quote

 

'He peace be upon him said: "The believer is between two states of fear: the sin which has passed; he does not know what Allah has done for it, and the age which has lasted; he does not know what he will commit of the sins during it, then he does not awake but afraid, and nothing reforms him except fear" al-Kafi 2/1/12

It was said to him:"People commit sins and say that they hope(Allah) and they will continue that till death comes to them." He, peace be upon him said: "They hesitate in hopes. They tell lies. They are not hopeful. Whoever hopes for a thing looks for it; whoever is afraid of a thing escapes from it" Al Kafi 2/68/5

If he knows that it is haram, and he knows that the consequences of haram are to risk earning the anger and displeasure of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), wouldn't he try to avoid earning the anger and displeasure of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

 

 

 

  • Advanced Member
Northwest

Posted (edited)

Respectfully, I have one question. Islam forbids even the mildest criticism of or ingratitude toward one’s parents, even if the parents, as a result of their own background(s), may occasionally—in some cases more often—act in a manner that is either a) contrary to Islam or b) causes distress or c) both, whether due to misunderstanding or other factors. Islam also has a lot of rules about which sins are greater or lesser and the circumstances that mitigate or modulate them. Many other Islamic rules and practices are difficult to remember. or, in some cases, to carry out. For example, repeating some prayers for a certain number of times may prove difficult, if one cannot repeat the phrase and at the same time count the number of times it is repeated, much less pay attention to details such as tone, pronunciation, etc. These kinds of things may tend to drive a prospective revert away from the faith, especially if the person has complications such as autism, OCD, etc., along with a number of negative experiences in life. Dealing with these issues, daily responsibilities, and the practice of Islam can be extraordinarily difficult. It is obviously easier, however, for someone who does not have psychological complications or other dysfunctions.

Edited by Northwest
3wliya_maryam

Posted

11 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Respectfully, I have one question.

Wheres the question?

 

11 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Islam forbids even the mildest criticism of or ingratitude toward one’s parents, even if the parents, as a result of their own background(s), may occasionally—in some cases more often—act in a manner that is either a) contrary to Islam or b) causes distress or c) both, whether due to misunderstanding or other factors

If the parents do act contrary to Islam, it is permissible to speak up against them. Even if they cause distress, speaking up against them is different than disrespecting them, and we know how a lot of parents intertwine culture and religion. Whilst I agree that it is hard to not retaliate and speak in contempt, were not perfect human beings. But we strive to try our best, and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the Most Forgiving.

18 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Islam also has a lot of rules about which sins are greater or lesser and the circumstances that mitigate or modulate them. Many other Islamic rules and practices are difficult to remember. or, in some cases, to carry out. For example, repeating some prayers for a certain number of times may prove difficult, if one cannot repeat the phrase and at the same time count the number of times it is repeated, much less pay attention to details such as tone, pronunciation,

I get where you're coming from, but this is not a good example in relation to what you just stated. Islam really is a simple religion, there are just people who choose to complicate it in many ways. Prayer is one of the simplest rules in Islam, Allah made it easy for us because we would have been praying 50 times a day. Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) asked Him to decrease the number of prayers for the Muslims' ease. You can focus on the words and the number of prayers at the same time, I don't see the difficulty. If we choose to believe that something is difficult, then it will be regardless. From experience I realised that the more calm I am in prayer, the more focused I am.

29 minutes ago, Northwest said:

These kinds of things may tend to drive a prospective revert away from the faith, especially if the person has complications such as autism, OCD, etc., along with a number of negative experiences in life. Dealing with these issues, daily responsibilities, and the practice of Islam can be extraordinarily difficult. It is obviously easier, however, for someone who does not have psychological complications or other dysfunction

Having issues or daily responsibilities whilst practising Islam is not entirely difficult if you're a strong believer. Again, I completely understand where you're coming from and how it leads to low level of faith, but since you mentioned complications beside OCD, if one was to experience such dysfunctions, do you think that the Almighty would be hard on them in the first place?

Having OCD is not only genetic or stems from religion. Religious OCD is often known to come from environmental factors, as I previously mentioned, such as parents upbringing or society pressure. There is no clear evidence that OCD is a result of religion, chemical imbalances also play a role

  • Advanced Member
Moalfas

Posted

18 hours ago, 3wliya_maryam said:

Having OCD is not only genetic or stems from religion. Religious OCD is often known to come from environmental factors, as I previously mentioned, such as parents upbringing or society pressure. There is no clear evidence that OCD is a result of religion, chemical imbalances also play a role

If I may add, we have narrations talking about the Shayateen (iblees's helpers) who's specific job is for instance to instill Wuswas (doubts) such as during Wudhu or praying etc In essence, these Shayateen try to exacerbate OCD symptoms. 

  • Advanced Member
Northwest

Posted (edited)

I have a random question about fitra. How much of our morality is innate? In other words, when we are born, according to Islam, does our divine (as opposed to animal) nature intuitively know what to do in every situation? If that is the case, then why are parents needed to teach the children?

Edited by Northwest
  • Basic Members
karbalaii

Posted

On 2/2/2020 at 11:08 AM, Northwest said:

I have a random question about fitra. How much of our morality is innate? In other words, when we are born, according to Islam, does our divine (as opposed to animal) nature intuitively know what to do in every situation? If that is the case, then why are parents needed to teach the children?

I'm not sure what the Islamic view is here.. however, I don't think our fitra intuitively knows what to do in every situation. You find Shia teenagers who are still dealing with the harms of being neglected and abused in their childhoods, and our childhood does shape how we behave in our adult years. 

  • Veteran Member
Son of Placid

Posted

All religions are based on fear for the sake of adherence. The real question is always which are God's laws, and which are man made God laws?  

Forcing children can always go two ways. The preacher's kid was always the worst behaved. It's not to say they won't become pious later but the pressure to tow the line is often more than a kid can take. I spent all my young years believing I was going to hell because nothing I could do was ever good enough. I couldn't talk about it or it was more condemnation. To be fair, my Father practiced what he preached but that didn't help me. 

With my children I adhered to a promise from Proverbs 22:6, Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. 

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Latest Blog Entries

         0 comments
      Salam Alaikum wr wb everyone,
      It’s been a few years.. and I pray InshAllah you’ve all been well.
      There’s an issue that’s been on my mind for a while now, and I find it pertinent to share, in this current geopolitical climate; where the line had been distinctly drawn in the sand since the Gaza Genocide which we all witnessed live on our screens.
      This also particularly relates to ShiaChat, and some of the discussions that were held in the days I’d been active, years ago.
      There were a lot of discussions happening back then around Iran, WF, Shia leadership/representation, demonstrations in Iraq etc
      To cut to the chase,
      With the exception of Palestine, and Iran’s support for it, I personally didn’t have the best of views on Iran back then, as some might recall recall.
      And whilst we’re all entitled to our opinions and can change our minds or positions to varying degrees, on matters large or small, without the need to vocalise it; but because I was previously very vocal here with my question marks over certain aspects of Iranian policies and conduct, I believe it's very important to be Just, and fair by putting my hand up to say, for the record:
      Iran isn’t a perfect country, far from it.
      But Iran is the ONLY country and government standing in the face of the baby killing Genocidal Zionists and their supporters. 
      Iran is the only country that continuously helped the Palestinians & Lebanese in their legitimate struggle against the barbaric Zionist occupation from the outset of the Islamic Revolution.
      This unwavering stand against the most wicked mass murderers of our time, on its own, is enough of an indication to us that any, and all attempts to demonise Iran in this climate is certainly propaganda and Hasbara.
      Iran in its recent face-off with the baby killing Zionists & the Imperial US bullies wasn’t only rightfully defending itself against an illegal war of aggression; Iran is the only man standing and is defending us all from the servitude and dark future that awaits us, should the Zionists and the US bullies get their way. 
      Iran is standing up for humanity.
      I ask Allah Ta’ala to protect Iran by the love and blessings of the Guarantor Imam الإمام الضامن, Ali Bin Musa Al Ridha and his blessed sister, Fatima Al M’asooma; and I ask Allah Ta’ala to forgive me for any wrong I had assumed of Iran. 
       
      وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ
      And above every man of knowledge is The All Knowing.
      12.76
         0 comments
      https://youtube.com/shorts/-nD2xbrbvl4?si=sOv3sq_lMe4dfIXK
       
      "The Myth of the Unicorn"
      Co-written with Solmaz Rezayi.
       
      In a corner of the boundless sky, a lightless star beckons you to take a step forward and make a difference for the planet and its inhabitants, to wipe away the ugliness from the earth and sprinkle beauty upon it.
      For countless years, through the ages and beyond, the lightless stars have patiently awaited the moment when humanity will finally embrace a path of pure goodness. In that moment, when all the stars shine brightly, and the heavens are aglow, our hearts and minds will finally grasp the profound truths that have long eluded us.
      Would you be so kind as to lend a helping hand and flip the switch on these lights?
       
         0 comments
      The Developmental Cost of Fragmentation: How the Post-Ottoman Settlement Deprived the Arab World of Its Industrial Core
      The post-Ottoman settlement of the Middle East produced a structural distortion whose consequences are still compounding a century later: it separated the Arab world's largest population centre from its most significant resource base, preventing the emergence of indigenous Arab industrial and technological capacity.
      This was not accidental. When Muhammad Ali's Egypt attempted to extend control over the Arabian peninsula in the 1810s–1830s, European powers intervened to roll it back. The post-First World War order institutionalised this logic, establishing small, dependent sheikhdoms over the Gulf's energy reserves while leaving Egypt — then, as now, the Arab world's demographic and cultural centre of gravity — without the resource base to develop at scale. British imperial interests were better served by client micro-states controlling energy chokepoints than by a regional power capable of independent action.
      The consequences are visible in a paradox that defines the contemporary Arab world. The Gulf states, controlling vast hydrocarbon wealth, lack the population to staff their own economies. They import millions of workers — engineers, doctors, educators, project managers — from South and Southeast Asia and from poorer Arab states, including Egypt itself. Meanwhile, Egypt's 100 million people, many inadequately educated and underemployed, export their labour on terms set by host states that offer no permanent residency, limited rights, and minimal knowledge transfer. The value generated accrues to Gulf sovereign wealth funds; what returns to Egypt comes freighted with political obligation. The 2024 Ras El-Hekma deal — in which Egypt transferred 170 million square metres of Mediterranean coastline to Abu Dhabi's ADQ in exchange for debt relief — exemplifies the dynamic: sovereign territory exchanged for short-term fiscal survival.
      Iran provides the most instructive counterfactual. With a population comparable to Egypt's and significant hydrocarbon resources, Iran was forced by decades of sanctions into developing indigenous industrial capacity — steel production, petrochemical management, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and a defence industry that, whatever one's view of the regime, has demonstrably sustained operations against a US–Israeli military campaign for nearly two months. No Arab state possesses comparable self-sufficiency. The Gulf states, for all their wealth, cannot defend their own airports, as the 2026 conflict has brutally demonstrated. Iran's capacity was built under conditions of extreme adversity. The question this raises is uncomfortable: what might a state with Egypt's demographic scale and the Gulf's resource base have achieved under a developmental nationalist programme of the kind Nasser pursued — but with adequate capital behind it?
      The answer points toward the deepest cost of fragmentation: not merely Egyptian impoverishment, but the absence of an Arab developmental core. The Gulf states are now spending billions on workforce nationalisation programmes — Saudisation, Emiratisation — to train citizen populations into roles that expatriates have filled for decades. They are attempting, expensively and artificially, to solve a problem that would not exist had demographic mass and resource base not been deliberately separated. The current arrangement serves a handful of ruling dynasties and their external patrons. It has not served the Arab world's 400 million people, who remain collectively without the indigenous industrial, technological, and military capacity that their resources and population could readily have sustained.
         0 comments
      What Held Iran Together? The Answer Western Strategists Don't Want to Hear
      When the US and Israel killed Iran's Supreme Leader and top military brass in a single night, the playbook said the regime should crumble. It didn't. The reason challenges a deep Western assumption about religion and war.
      A familiar playbook
      When the United States and Israel launched their attack on 28 February 2026, the strategic logic was well-worn: decapitate the leadership, destroy key military assets, and watch a hierarchical adversary lose coherence. Within hours, Supreme Leader Khamenei was dead, along with the defence minister, the IRGC commander, and dozens of senior officials. By any precedent from recent Middle Eastern conflicts, Iran should have fractured.
      It did not.
      Instead, thirty-one provincial Revolutionary Guard commands activated pre-delegated authority and sustained retaliatory operations across nine countries for nearly six weeks, culminating in an April ceasefire negotiated from a position of bruised but recognisable strength.
      Doctrine isn't enough
      The standard explanation centres on Iran's "mosaic defence" — a doctrine formally adopted around 2005 that restructured the Revolutionary Guards into semi-autonomous regional commands, designed to survive precisely the kind of decapitation strikes that destroyed Ba'athist Iraq in 2003 and Gaddafi's Libya in 2011.
      But doctrine alone does not explain why the system held. Organisational charts can prescribe decentralised authority; they cannot guarantee that dispersed commanders, operating under degraded communications and immense pressure, will continue pursuing coherent objectives rather than freelancing, surrendering, or simply going home.
      The operating system beneath the org chart
      What provided that guarantee was something Western strategic thinking habitually underestimates: a shared revolutionary theology that functions as an operating system for distributed decision-making.
      The IRGC is not merely a military organisation; it is an ideological one. Every officer is trained in the doctrine of velayat-e faqih — the guardianship of the Islamic jurist — which locates ultimate authority not in any individual leader but in a divinely mandated system of governance. When Khamenei died, the system's theological logic did not die with him. Mid-ranking commanders could act autonomously because they shared an internalised understanding of the revolution's purpose that required no phone call from Tehran to activate.
      Why Iraq and Libya shattered — and Iran didn't
      The contrast with the region's recent history is striking. Saddam Hussein's Iraq operated through concentric circles of personal loyalty — family, clan, Ba'ath Party, Republican Guard — each bound by patronage rather than conviction. Remove Saddam, and the entire structure lost its organising principle within weeks. Gaddafi's Libya was even more personalised: a deliberate strategy of institutional weakness designed to prevent rivals accumulating power, which meant that when NATO struck the centre, nothing held the periphery together.
      Iran's system inverts this logic. Its combination of ideological training, the Basij militia's integration into provincial commands, and a culture of sacrifice rooted in the Shia narratives of Karbala creates an organisation where shared belief substitutes for direct supervision.
      The uncomfortable lesson
      This is not to romanticise the outcome. Autonomous units struck Turkey and Oman apparently without authorisation — the predictable cost of trading control for resilience. But the broader lesson is uncomfortable for those who assume religious conviction is merely an obstacle to modern military effectiveness. In Iran's case, it was the precondition for a form of organisational resilience that four decades of secular authoritarian rule elsewhere in the Middle East never achieved.
      Six weeks of war may have revealed less about the limits of airpower than about the limits of assuming all hierarchies shatter the same way when their apex is removed.
       
         4 comments
      Introduction
      I asked the reasoning version of ChatGPT the following two questions (in the quotation box).
      The answer to the latter question is presented below.
      This issue is one of many that contrasts the social and economic implications of Islamic injunctions vs. those of other religions. In summary, the Islamic notion of dogs as religiously impure focuses Muslims' attention towards other humans for social and emotional support. I believe that is superior to a society that redirects such attention to animals. 
      @Northwest

      TLDR
      The proposition that an Islamic-oriented society—with religious reservations about dog ownership—places a greater emphasis on human-human relationships than dog-friendly societies finds support in cross-cultural consumer research and Islamic marketing scholarship. The religious designation of dogs as impure curtails intensive anthropomorphic tendencies, leading consumers in Islamic contexts to channel social and emotional resources primarily toward family, friends, and community members. Consequently, marketing strategies and consumer behaviors in these contexts underscore interpersonal bonds, charitable obligations, and group cohesion rather than pet-centric consumption.
      By contrast, in societies that celebrate and encourage dog ownership, anthropomorphism significantly shapes consumer behavior, often shifting a portion of emotional and financial resources to human-dog relationships. These differences highlight how deeply cultural and religious frameworks influence the scope and nature of anthropomorphism, delineating the ways consumers allocate their relational capital between human and non-human companions.
       

      1. Anthropomorphism and Relationship Substitution
      Pet Humanization in Secular or Dog-Friendly Societies
      In many societies that promote dog ownership, there is a pronounced tendency to anthropomorphize pets—assigning them human-like traits and emotions (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007; Journal of Consumer Research). Pet ownership often translates into emotional bonds that parallel, or sometimes even substitute for, human-human connections. For example, Belk (2013; Journal of Consumer Research) discusses how dogs are seen as “extensions of the self,” enabling individuals to fulfill social, emotional, and identity-related needs. In marketing contexts, this humanization of pets manifests as substantial expenditures (e.g., premium dog food, grooming, dog-friendly travel) and even the creation of communities around pet ownership.
      Religious and Cultural Boundaries in Islamic Contexts
      Islamic teachings often classify dogs as najis (impure), especially concerning their saliva, leading to social and religious restrictions on close physical interactions (Alhussain & Thakur, 2019; Journal of Islamic Marketing, Emerald). While not all Muslims adhere to the same level of strictness (diversity exists across regions and jurisprudential schools), in many contexts, dog ownership is minimized or relegated to functional roles (e.g., guard dogs, herding), reducing the emotional human-pet bond. Anthropomorphism, thus, is largely muted. This diminished emphasis on dog-human relationships can redirect emotional and social energies toward more robust human-human ties, as there is little inclination to invest in a being commonly viewed as “impure” within a domestic setting (Ibrahim & Al Kamdah, 2020; Journal of Islamic Marketing).
      2. Emphasis on Human-Human Relations
      Communal and Familial Bonds
      Several studies on Muslim consumer behavior note a pronounced focus on family cohesion, kinship obligations, and community welfare (Wilson & Grant, 2013; Journal of Islamic Marketing; Emerald). This cultural emphasis is partly derived from key Islamic principles like ummah (community) and zakat (almsgiving). Since dogs are not typically incorporated as household companions, the emotional investment that might be directed toward pets is instead often channeled into human relationships—strengthening family ties, neighborhood communities, and broader social networks. Social gatherings, frequent family visits, and kin-based reciprocity form the core of daily life (Jafari & Goulding, 2008; Consumption, Markets & Culture, Taylor & Francis).
      Social Interaction Rituals
      Societies that discourage dog ownership frequently invest in elaborate human-centric rituals: communal prayers, frequent visits to relatives, large-scale cultural festivals such as Eid, and extended family gatherings (Essoo & Dibb, 2004; European Journal of Marketing). These rituals encourage sustained human-human interaction. By contrast, in dog-friendly contexts, social rituals often include pet-oriented activities—visits to dog parks, “puppy parties,” or dog adoption events—showcasing how some communal bonding can revolve around animals rather than solely around human interaction (Holbrook & Woodside, 2008; Journal of Business Research, Elsevier).
      3. Consumer Behavior Implications
      Expenditure Flows
      Dog-Friendly Societies: A significant proportion of household expenditures—such as premium dog food, veterinary care, and leisure activities—can be allocated to pets (Hirschman, 1994; Journal of Consumer Research). Over time, this fosters an entire “pet economy,” often reinforced by emotional satisfaction drawn from anthropomorphized relationships with dogs.
      Islamic-Oriented Societies: Due to religious constraints, there is limited demand for dog-centric products and services. Instead, expenditures that might have been channeled toward pet care could be redirected toward communal obligations (e.g., charitable giving, gifts to family, social events). The consumer culture thus prioritizes human welfare, strengthening what might be viewed as social capital within human networks (Jafari & Goulding, 2008; Consumption, Markets & Culture).
      Marketplace Signaling and Sociocultural Values
      Signaling Communal Responsibility: Consumers in Islamic contexts may signal piety and communal commitment through active participation in social events or charitable acts, reflecting a cultural script that values direct human welfare (Wilson & Grant, 2013; Journal of Islamic Marketing).
      Signaling Affection for Pets: In Western or dog-friendly contexts, owning a pampered dog can signal care, empathy, and a nurturing personality, reinforcing a sense of belonging in communities of pet lovers (Belk, 1988; Journal of Consumer Research). Marketers leverage anthropomorphism in advertising, depicting dogs as “family members” to appeal to consumers’ emotional investment in pets (Waytz, Cacioppo, & Epley, 2010; Trends in Cognitive Sciences).
      4. Societal and Cultural Outcomes
      Stronger Intra-Human Bonds in Islamic Contexts
      The proposition that Islamic-oriented societies have a stronger emphasis on human-human relationships can be understood through the lens of “resource allocation” in consumer behavior. With limited scope for dog-human emotional or social investment, individuals are more inclined to strengthen kin networks, community relations, and collective identity (Ibrahim & Al Kamdah, 2020). This focus on human-centered relationships is further reinforced by religious teachings promoting empathy, community service, and direct human engagement over companionship with creatures deemed ritually impure (Alhussain & Thakur, 2019).
      Diverse Relationship Portfolios in Dog-Friendly Societies
      In societies where dogs occupy central roles in households, individuals often have “relationship portfolios” that include significant non-human elements (Belk, 2013). Emotional fulfillment, social activities, and even identity expression can revolve around pet ownership, potentially substituting or complementing human-human connections. While this can enrich daily life for pet owners, critics argue it may diminish time and investment in broader community involvement (Holbrook & Woodside, 2008; Hirschman, 1994).
       
      Key References
      Alhussain, T., & Thakur, R. (2019). Religious beliefs and consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 10(3), 948–962. [Emerald]
      Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. [University of Chicago Press]
      Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500. [University of Chicago Press]
      Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. [APA; frequently cited in marketing and consumer research]
      Essoo, N., & Dibb, S. (2004). Religious influences on shopping behaviour: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 536–553. [Emerald]
      Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and their animal companions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 616–631. [Oxford University Press for the Association for Consumer Research]
      Holbrook, M. B., & Woodside, A. G. (2008). Animal companions, consumption experiences, and the marketing of pets: Transcending boundaries in the animal-human distinction. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 377–381. [Elsevier]
      Ibrahim, B., & Al Kamdah, A. (2020). Exploring the Islamic marketing ethics from macro and consumer behaviour perspectives. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 11(5), 1295–1312. [Emerald]
      Jafari, A., & Goulding, C. (2008). “We are not terrorists!” UK-based Iranians, consumption practices and the ‘torn self.’ Consumption, Markets & Culture, 11(2), 73–91. [Taylor & Francis]
      Wilson, J. A. J., & Grant, J. (2013). Islamic marketing – A challenger to the classical marketing canon? Journal of Islamic Marketing, 4(1), 7–21. [Emerald]
      Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J. T., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232. [SAGE, frequently cited in consumer research]
      These references illustrate how socio-religious norms and cultural frameworks (particularly in Islamic contexts) shape the nature and direction of anthropomorphism and, consequently, influence where consumers channel their social and emotional investment—ultimately affirming the proposition that Islamic-oriented societies often place a stronger emphasis on human-human relations.
         12 comments
      [amended 19 August 2023 to include references to the Irish potato famine and two Bengal famines]
       


       
      Images taken at the Egyptian Museum, Tahrir Sq, Cairo. June 2024
      Surah Yusuf
      Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) advised Pharoah to hoard grains during the years of plenty. I think this episode is a noteworthy one because it shows how a State can intervene in the marketplace in order to improve the welfare of the wider population.
      But as we shall see below, the government intervention that Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) instigated favoured some sections of the population over others - it was not neutral in terms of how it spread gains and losses across the population.
      https://www.al-islam.org/sites/default/files/singles/633-yusuf.pdf
      While there is other material in the Qur'an that deals with transactions within the marketplace between individual participants - this story stands out in terms of its focus on state intervention. 
      I'll be coming back to this issue later - but I think it informs the discussions we have about Islam and contemporary socio-economic theories. In particular, I think it illustrates that Islam does see the State as an active market participant and that in an Islamic state, the role of government is not one that is hands-off or laissez-faire.
       
      What policy options did Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) have?
      We should not take the story as presented 'for granted'. In reality, the Prophet (عليه السلام). had a range of choices open to him, and thinking those through helps us better understand the reasons for the policy he undertook and the reason why. 
      No government interference
      Let's start with the simplest and easiest option that Pharoah's government could have pursued once they knew that there would be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine (as predicted by the Pharoah's dream which was interpreted by Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام).) .
      Pharoah could have left the entire issue to the 'market'. During the years of plenty, the price of food would have fallen and people would have enjoyed a higher standard of living. For example, the lower grain prices could have led to people rearing more cattle and their diets would have improved with more meat.
      However, during the years of famine, grain prices would have risen and those people who had accumulated assets in the years of plenty would be able to pay the higher prices in the famine years. Those who had not had such assets would have starved.
      This assumes a fairly high level of self-discipline on the part of the population, but as Milton Friedman would say, the people would have been 'free to choose'. This is not a hypothetical option. The British lack of action to the Irish potato famine has been attributed to the British government's ideological adherence to a laissez-faire approach to macro-economics:
      https://kenanfellows.org/kfp-cp-sites/cp01/cp01/sites/kfp-cp-sites.localhost.com.cp01/files/LP3_BBC Irish Famine Article for Lab.pdf
       
      The Bengal famine is another one where government policy was different to the one Prophet Yusuf ((عليه السلام).) prescribed to Pharoah. In this instance, it was lack of government restriction over the action of privateers:
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study
       
      Going back still further, the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 has been directly attributed to British government laissez-faire economic policy.
      https://worldfinancialreview.com/the-political-economy-of-famines-during-the-british-rule-in-india-a-critical-analysis/
       
      Light interference - provision of information
      A common policy option nowadays, where people do not want direct government intervention is to recommend improving the provision of information to the population who will then be better able to make the correct decisions for themselves. The government could have mounted an information campaign during the years of plenty and told people to hoard food themselves, hoarding when there is no shortage is allowed in Islam.
      However such attempts to influence awareness about the famine to come and changing peoples' attitudes so that they saved more than they were used to, would likely have run against increased social pressures on people to do the opposite. For example typically in societies as wealth increases there is social pressure to spend more, in this case, for example, have more lavish weddings.
      Also providing information would have been a practical benefit for the better off e.g. those with storage capacity, but not so good for the poor (who would not have room to store grain, for example).
      The government (using a bit more intervention) could have given tax breaks to people who owned granaries, to help the poor who needed such facilities. Again this solution would be to focus on market-based interventions and simply alter the working of the market using incentives. Current economic theory holds that people discount future risks very heavily i.e. they don't perceive them as much of a threat as they should. So, for example, just telling people they should save for a pension does not work. 
      So we can likely predict that the solutions described above would not have worked had they tried them.
      Heavy interference
      This is what they actually did.
      In times of plenty, Pharoah's government did not let prices fall as would have happened under free market conditions. They kept prices higher than they otherwise would have been because the government intervened and took excess stocks of grain out of circulation.
      All people (rich and poor alike) had no option but to pay the usual higher prices - effectively, the government was taxing everyone, but this was not seen as a loss by anyone because the prices were no higher than usual.
      The government stored the grain centrally and then they decided to release the grain according to their own policies.
      Assumptions made by Prophet Yusuf's government
      If you leave people to their own devices they may not make the best decisions (whether they are rich or poor), this could be due to: People do not have the resources to cater for future shocks (mainly the poor) People do not have the discipline to address future shocks (applies to both the rich and the poor) The government can make better decisions than individuals acting in their own self-interest because: The government can have access to more and better information than individuals do The government may not be as susceptible to a lack of self-discipline  
      Conclusion
      Of all the policy options open to Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) he advised Pharoah to pursue the most interventionist one. Some people may be tempted to call this socialist or communist, but I think those terms carry a lot of excess baggage, so I won't bring them into the discussion.
      What I think can be safely inferred from his choice of policy is a fundamental principle that could inform economic policy in any Islamic state.
      Facing an external shock to the Egyptian economy, he went for the option that would cause the least pain to the worst off in society. Other policy options would have caused more pain for the poorest but somewhat less for the better off.
       
       
         0 comments
      By the time the city finished installing ramps for paws beside every staircase, the ramps for people had quietly been removed.
      No one remembered the meeting where it was decided. Decisions arrived now as laminated notices tied to lampposts with biodegradable twine: PLEASE YIELD TO COMPANIONS; QUIET HOURS FOR CANINE SENSITIVITY. The notices bore smiling silhouettes of dogs wearing scarves. People learned to read them the way one reads weather—by feeling the chill before seeing the cloud.
      Mara noticed first when her neighbour collapsed on the pavement. He was thin, as if he had been erased a little at a time. The street was busy, yet no one stopped. A woman paused only to pull her terrier closer, murmuring reassurance. “Not you,” she said, as the man’s hand trembled toward her ankle. “Careful.”
      A drone hummed in and descended. Its camera irised, not toward the man, but toward the terrier. A soft voice chimed: IS YOUR COMPANION DISTRESSED? The woman nodded. A thermal blanket unfurled—around the dog. The man’s breath rattled like loose change in a pocket.
      At the clinic where Mara worked, the waiting room had been renovated. Plush beds lined the walls, bowls of filtered water glowed with LED halos. People stood. There were no chairs anymore; standing was healthier, the pamphlet said, and chairs took up space that could be used for enrichment. When the nurse called names, she called the dogs’. Owners answered for them, translating barks into grievances with practiced fluency.
      Mara’s brother arrived one afternoon with a bandage soaked through. He had been laid off, then laid out by a factory gate. “Just stitches,” he said. “I’ll wait.”
      But a golden retriever was wheeled past on a gurney, an IV pole jangling like a charm bracelet. Applause broke out. Someone filmed. “Such bravery,” a man whispered. The nurse smiled and closed the door.
      That night, Mara walked home through the park. It had once been a place of benches and chessboards. Now it was a sanctuary. Portraits hung from trees—dogs in graduation caps, dogs with medals. At the center stood a statue, bronze polished by touch: a dog gazing forward, jaw set in purpose. At its base, an inscription had been sanded smooth by time or by hands.
      She watched a man kneel to tie a shoelace. A collie stiffened, hackles raised. The man froze, palms open, the universal sign of surrender. A handler clipped a leash shorter. “You can’t loom like that,” she said gently. “They feel threatened.”
      Mara looked into the statue’s blank eyes and felt a strange vertigo. It was not that dogs were cruel; they were what they had always been—loyal, frightened, alive. It was that people had learned to look at one another through fur.
      On her kitchen table lay an old photograph, rescued from a drawer: her parents, laughing, no pets in frame. She tried to remember when laughter had required translation.
      Outside, the city hummed, orderly and kind, and she could not tell anymore—by posture, by priority—who was meant to serve whom.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Blog Statistics

    93
    Total Blogs
    524
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...