Monday, 15 February 2010

Sacrificial Eid in Karachi

8GRAPHIC IMAGES OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE BELOW - NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED*
A stiff early awakening softened by a pleasant breeze. The atmosphere filled with some of the coolest weather Karachi can offer. The animals perhaps anticipating their fate? On the trip to the mosque for Eid prayers it has already begun. During the course of the day the roads steadily swell up with the blood of animals. The day started with the air smelling of countryside, but is slowly replaced by that of meat, of a slaughter house and later still, the pleasant aromas of cooking.
Every year in the Muslim calender comes Eid-al-Adha which is like an Islamic Christmas, but, in a very Islamic way, it is very violent. Nearly every family sacrifices an animal to commemorate Abraham sacrificing his son which turned into a ram at the last minute. Either cows, goats or camels. A significant portion of the meat is distributed to friends and neighbours and also given to the poor.
I was surprised by my reactions to the animal’s deaths, by my apathy, distress and even enjoyment. The only sacrifice I found significantly distressing was the sacrifice of our own cow; perhaps it was the bond that had been formed over the course of the days prior to its sacrifice, perhaps still it was the fact that I had a direct part in its death – as I held the knife which cut its throat. The other big shock was finding actual enjoyment in the sacrifice of a camel however it wasn’t necessarily the gory killing that I found enjoyable but the whole spectacle surrounding it, the crowd, the commotion and the interest. But perhaps most shocking of all was the cold indifference I displayed to the consecutive sacrifice of seven cows (actually fifty, of which I saw only about seven) in what would be the bovine equivalent to the Hostel film series.
I’m not going to do the done thing, the clichéd reaction and suddenly turn into a vegetarian: I enjoy the taste of meat far too much to do that. What will happen is that I will think a lot more carefully about meat as a biological product; something from a sentient living being that suffers immensely to give us this transient pleasure. It makes me question our whole perspective of meat in both Muslim and Western cultures. Does the former really need to make the animals suffer so much to extract the last drop of blood following an ancient tradition, and does the latter need to confine an animal into an infinitesimal amount of space? And although I commend the modern method of slaughter the animal still suffers enormously before its death.
We are ultimately omnivores, and eating meat has been something we’ve done from time immemorial but perhaps in the modern world we should change our approach, or at the very least our stance. The techniques of both the west and east entail unwarranted amounts pain and suffering. My ideal scenario would be a gigantic island somewhere in the Pacific or Atlantic, full of cows, goats or chickens. All living in gigantic, wild populations (but with lots of space for each animal) and every animal would be killed just before it reaches the end of that particular species' average lifespan. I know this isn't a practical solution but elements of it could be employed! Cant they? Maybe we can only kill animals when they reach the end of their species' average lifespan. There is lots of land out there, especially in places like the USA where you can afford to give animals a hell of a lot more room than the currently have. I also think we should genetically engineer cows to stop farting so as to stop, or at least mitigate global warming.
Although Sacrificial Eid was a fun spectacle, it was also an eye opener. I think Muslims should slowly stop making these sacrifices huge spectacles and show the animal some respect before they begin to consume its flesh. Replace that need for watching animals die with something else, like a good horror film or a David Attenborough Documentary. Although I don't see my attempts at spreading his documentaries around the Islamic world being very successful.

Friday, 30 January 2009

The Best Thing

What is the best thing one can do with ones life?


Not what is the best thing to help oneself and one another lead a happier life, no. What is the best thing to do with your life as a whole in the greater context of humanity?


We would (probably) all be happy with Big Brother on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for the centuries at a time. Constant releases of new albums of cheesey, disgusting, vile, churned out formulaic music. An x amount of new films coming out everyday. A Gladiator arena in every city and daily fights between atheists and lions. We'll all be happy if all of us were at the intellectual level of Jade Goody or George Bush, and this could fairly easily be accomplished within a generation. Indeed I could start a world revolution now, kill all resistors; these so called 'intellectuals' running the world. I could make sure no one in the world would be educated rendering the new generation as idiots as they would grow up watching/doing things including but not limited to what I've mentioned above, and we'll all be happy.


Or, I could just kill the entire world and every person alive, which would probably be frighteningly simple and therefore rid the world of all agony, pain, suffering and tumult.


But I wouldn't do either of those things; and I'm sure any sane person wouldn't either.


My friend says the best thing he could do with his life is to convert every living person to his way of thinking which would be a rational, unemotional, stoic and calculated way of thinking where everyone was wise and unemotional and did everything to advance science and technology and had no art to accompany life (don't let that taint your judgement of him - he's a really nice guy). In this world of constant advances in science and our newly found rationality there'd be no wars, quarrels, fights etc and we could all concentrate ONLY on expanding our knowledge and technology, there would be no art or literature. Essentially a socialist society where wealth is equally shared, no one has emotions and everyone is working on making our civilisation better is, he says, the best thing he could do. We could finally reintroduce emotions and art back into our human nature once we become an advanced type 1 civilisation in the Kardashev scale or the like. Then we could go back to having art and literature again.


That sounds tempting but I think art should be given the same priority as science. If we remove emotions from our being then we would no longer remain 'human'. Emotions are powerful things but they not only serve malevolent desires but also great altruistic and selfless ends. My idea of the perfect society would be similar to my friend's (which incidentally is based on 'The Culture' in Ian Bank's novels) however art would be given the same priority as science. However I'd be very elitist about it and dismiss all forms of 'low culture' or 'popular culture'. I know I sound like a complete snobbish bastard but I think man can get a lot more from Bach and Michaelangelo than Tracey Emin or 50 Cent.

I don't know.

Wednesday, 12 November 2008

To kill or not to save, that is the question.

Hello world, today I hopefully start a journey of discovery, adventure, exploration of all things mentally rich and wholesome, or perhaps the opposite, a realisation of an ever present nagging feeling that in the end it all doesn't matter but more importantly even if it did; that no one would care. Anyway sorry to start this on a bit of a low note but I actually have no desire of this being the lowest double bass solo in this symphony; if you think this is grim, it gets much better. I feel the need to give you a brief introduction to my person before we continue, so I will pander to this need of yours: I am a 20 year old musician (so excuse any corny musical puns), who is too hot to Handel but you know you’ll be Bach for more (see it’s started already) and a keen philosophising-type-person.

I was thinking today, something I find to be an ever less popular hobby in this world of iPhone, iPod, iMac and ITV, Dancing on Ice aside however, what I was actually thinking about was morality; specifically the distinction (if one exists) between 'killing' and 'letting die'. My first example involved a class full of a 100 innocent and hapless kids in London and a hall full of a 1000 people in a most unsavoury place that I've never heard of... Scarborough for example. Now I am presented with the dismal choice of killing the 100 kids to save the 1000 people, or save the 100 kids and let the 1000 die. My initial response was to think that I'd rather save the 1000 people and kill the 100 children because it would be for the 'greater good' whatever that is but then I thought about it for a minute, would I really be able to do that? Could I really kill 100 kids? I couldn't really, and more importantly I wouldn't, I’d much rather let the 1000 die I mean after all it was destined to happen had I not been informed of my possible choice to change it otherwise, therefore there is clearly a difference between actively killing and passively letting die.

Or is there?

I was happy with that conclusion until I was made aware of an example my friend told me. Consider the following scenario, a man is responsible for making sure the water tank is always full in a hotel room, one day he sees another man pour a vial of cyanide in the tank, he decides not to do anything, after all the tank is full, which it is his job to ensure, it just happens to contain cyanide. In this particular instance I would lay the same amount of blame on the man who did nothing and the man who actually poured the cyanide into the tank, so... there is no difference between killing and letting die. It still however didn't seem right; for some seemingly inexplicable reason letting someone die always feels less blameful and less chivalrous than actually killing someone take (consider telling someone you just ‘killed a hundred kids’ to 'I let a hundred kids die’ – the latter out of context would inherently elicit less flak). For example heres another scenario where I have the choice to press a button to kill 100 kids or to choice to let 100 kids die, I have no idea how they will be killed (so as to remove any inhibitions I would have about the method) so is it still the same? Pressing a button or doing nothing? I'd probably choose the latter, because after all if doing nothing is in itself doing something then not playing chess would be a hobby. I don't know, this is what I personally believe, or have come to a conclusion on but please do feel free to correct me where you feel a correction would be needed.