Adversus solem ne Loquitor

"Don't speak against the Sun"

Whenever it really comes down to it, I know that I will always choose my head over my heart in a split-second.
Whether this regards a larger or lower ontological dilemma or something as simple as an outfit to pick for a wedding – I find that I am not really bothered with details as much as I once used to be, unless these details pertain to the colour of clothing, the flavour of skittles, the characters in a movie, the author of children’s literature or tiny rituals navigated on the premise of the weather, my moods or my many prevailing identity crises. I no longer hold anything that is normally considered ‘sacred’ as sacred: faith, dogma, history, theology, God….but I am fine with my personalized ‘happy’ rituals: preparing a gift package for a friends birthday, elaborate to the extreme with ‘To do lists’ and ‘How to Open’ instruction manuals, playing Ludo with Karamat and Fauzia, singing along to eighties hits in my car when it rains. I am terribly content with just trying to be as human as I can be, but not pushed at being it any certain way or within defines set out by someone else.

This now troubles me, because it implies that my literary pursuits and my unquenchable thirst for knowledge may actually be proving to a bad influence. For some reason I cannot reconcile myself to an ideal that demands that I cease to seek answers and ask questions after a certain precarious juncture in time and trajectory, which my very limited forays into philosophy are teaching me is an impossibility for all faiths: organised and spiritual. For the first time, since I can remember I have abstained from joining my khala’s and my cousin in prayer, this is usually a mystic prayer centring around repeating the word ‘Kring’ over and over again like a mantra, the word itself denotes a timeless energy and the act is meant to be a grounding exercise. I abstain because I really do not see much difference between a spiritual mantra and an orthodox ‘tasbih’ and if I do not subscribe to one, this somehow automatically discounts – to my mind - the validity of the other. For me it is always ‘ritual’ that undermines the validity of anything…the glamour used to romanticize a philosophy – any philosophy- in retrospect only trivializes it to the physical sphere of candles, incense burners, hand gestures etc. I realise of course that this is a rather broad and perhaps somewhat unfair slur, but it is how I see it. This is the problem, choosing a logical course demands that you ask “why” you are sitting and murmuring unintelligible syllables at length, and these are ‘whys’ that faith inherently requires you to reject in order to ‘believe’ in something, anything really. Question is: how do you not ask a question that already exists, even if you refrain from vocalising it?

I feel that my khala, whom I have often considered akin to a spiritual guide is slightly disappointed in me, for debating spirituality and mysticism in the same vein as I have done religion. It appears that recent events have rendered ‘religion’, specifically Islam, open to attack but not mysticism. My logic dictates that not to do so for the latter would be hypocritical. I would again be led into the same ethnocentric cyclone that I have struggled very hard to climb out of. If beliefs other than mine are open to question, debate and attack…then logic and indeed justice demands that mine be equally open to similar treatment. I feel that my aunt might secretly hold my new friends responsible for this shift - the afore-mentioned Bookends – because they are both unabashed atheists.

I have discovered that I enjoy the company of agnostics, atheists and spiritualists more than dogmatic zealots, primarily because the former question everything and the latter nothing. Neither of these tangents is truly healthy, I admit because neither can manage to strike a balance between head and heart, but each is the eventual destination point for any determined seeker. Mysticism demands all heart and no head…. I ‘know’ now that this remains outside of the defines of my capacity, Atheism demands only head – this too I find myself incapable of doing and Dogmatism demands neither, just an obsequious ‘Follow the Leader’ rabble. If there are no real middle routes for an honest traveller then where does one turn?

I know quite well – that even though I may question all things and upset the precarious sensitivities of many – I strongly believe in God, very strongly…which – I like to think- is why I question any and everything about Him/ Her/ Them. And whether God is ‘a kid with an ant farm’ or a ‘director to all the worlds stage’ or a ‘bored conjurer getting his kicks watching us make a mess of things’ I know that I like feeling his presence when it rains, or when there is strong wind blowing carrying a pleasant aroma of jasmine (which admittedly is a rare thing in Pakistan). Whether this means I am a believer with too many doubts or a sceptic with only one belief… I know it is.

All I have to wait for now is for someone else to profess allegiance to it so that it can be categorically labelled in the Oxford Dictionary as an ‘ist’ or ‘ism’, till then I remain blissfully abstract. Then again, actively waiting for a dictionary definition might imply that I am uncomfortable with my conclusions....

and the questions just keep on a' coming.