By Abdulillah

Have you ever sat and wondered, what this means, especially as it relates to Jordan or the Middle East? I have read books on this subject, and a plethora of articles and commentary. I even went to a few protests marches and read the signs and heard the people shout. I actually started to get confused of all the things that we want reform for, and the reasons given for each particular necessity.

Don’t get me wrong here, I want reform too, however I have figured out that many of the reforms we are asking for we already have, or at least at one time we did have, and that maybe I do not want reform for all things as they to me on a personal level could be morally unacceptable.

So let start this conversation with the meaning of reform. Than we will move to what we in the Jordan and Middle East want in the way of reforms, and the many offered analysis as to why we do not have them today and must get them, and finally, if we ever get to it, do we really need all of these things that we are shouting for, and would not getting one or two of them accomplish all of them, or at least the ones we want.

Also; do we not have or have had these things already, only we have forgotten how we got them and how we lost them? So why do we spend so much time advocating for them and not figuring out how to use what we already have to gain them back?

Well based on Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word reform is defined as “to put or change into an improved form or condition”, or, “to amend, improve or reclaim by change of form or removal of faults or abuses”, or “to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action”

Note in the definition the word could also mean to improve, or reclaim, to put an end to an evil by enforcement. So, do we constitute everything in our society as evil? Well the answer to that would be no that would be absurd, so let’s move on shall we to find what it is in particular that we want to reform.

Is it something social, or political or maybe economic or maybe it is all three that we want to reform all at one time?

Well a few commentators and writers have stated that “Social discrimination is the greatest of all aliments facing the Arab Middle-East”, or that we are all blinded by internal divisions of ethnicity and tribalism, even in single family units”. Well that maybe true to some extent, but do not all societies suffer from this phenomena. OK maybe not on religious or tribal issues per-se, but you can state that in some countries they discriminate based on economic, race, or political issues.

Others like Brian Whitaker say that “In order to understand the problems of reform in the Middle East we have to look beyond the obvious questions of ending dictatorships, holding free elections and so forth, to consider the broader picture. When we look at Arab societies as a whole, the issue is not simply one of good versus evil, or tyrants versus the rest. Instead, we see people who are not only oppressed and denied rights by their rulers but who also, to varying degrees, are participants in a system of oppression and denial of rights. Thus, the oppressed often become oppressors themselves, victims become victimizers too, and acknowledging that fact is the first step towards a solution”.

He continues to state: “People are still imprisoned from time to time for expressing their views; there are still many taboos and red lines – and yet an increasingly wide range of opinions can be found in print, on television and on the internet. Focusing on freedom in this narrow sense also obscures other denials of liberty which may be less dramatic than dragging people off to jail and torturing them but are actually far more important in terms of the numbers affected and their ultimate consequences.”
Do you believe that argument? It sounds correct on its face but is it really correct completely?

Let’s take the example of oppressing and victimizing that he argues. In some of the Western countries they believe that homosexuality for both males and females should not be an oppressed behavior, that men should be able to marry men and women-women.

If you argue this behavior is immoral based on philosophical and religious or moral grounds and should not be tolerated, than you would be considered an oppressor by this argument, and the person or persons you oppressed (i.e. the victim) would in turn by this argument turn out to be the victimizer of others… and so on and so on.

Now I know I have chosen an argument which some of you might find offensive, however; it was used to highlight the argument for how far some people would like to take reformation if they were given the freedom to do it.

So; not all types of reform is wise. What some people perceive as evil, is in reality that. And that in this particular case/argument it really does not constitute putting or changing this practice into an improved form or condition, and as such, would not be a true form of reform or one that we may want, if the act or behavior is perceived as an “evil” act..

We can turn the table backwards as well on the above argument for homosexuality based on the definition of reform and say, if we live in the society that allows this type behavior and we as a people and individuals deem it evil on moral and philosophical grounds, then by the definition of reform we must attempt to change it, even by enforcement.

So to be sure, we must agree as to what needs to be reformed. Now let’s list all the reforms that I have heard and read about:

• We have a freedom deficit- well I already argued that not all social freedom is good freedom. When does your individual freedom need to be suppressed or even excised from society?

It would be easy for me to say that if you exercised your freedom to commit murder or even yelled fire in a crowded theater this behavior needs to be excised and many would agree. So we need to define what we feel is our limits or –red lines… I hope you all are getting where I am going with this.

• Because of this lack of the perceived freedom deficit in the Arab world, the likes of Mr. Whitaker would say it results in these and “It stifles” an

o atmosphere of change
o Innovation
o Creativity
o Critical thinking and problem solving
o Gender equality
o And all non-conformity, such as sexuality

Ok I can agree that we have problems with some of these issues, but must I reform them all? Well not really because we need only work on this freedom deficit issue and it seems we get them all back all of a sudden. However the question is where do we draw the red-lines on this issue “freedom” as formulated above?

I can argue to you brothers and sisters that we have never really had a freedom deficit, only those who imposed it on us, or that we imposed on ourselves. I can also argue that we already have the guidelines to social, economic and moral living and have had it for thousands of years.

Others in the secular West may choose to argue “No” to actually have full freedom we must be able to change behavior or laws as the people and the times change. Really! Must I be able to change ALL laws, even those that are inherently nature driven, when the majority wants to change how we socially view them in the time they live to actually have freedom?

If everyone all of a sudden stated we must all walk on all fours, must we all allow for the reform to take place, such that we or those that choose to walk on all fours be allowed to do so? Do one or two deviant behaviors also constitute some form of reform because we must learn to accept this deviancy and unnatural behavior? My answer is simply no.

Let’s ask ourselves this question differently; in the changing times from now to the end of our earthly times, is it ever going to be right that we discriminate based on race or gender? We may all say NO… so why this but not that? Well we can argue that the persons color or gender is not something that he or she cannot change; he/she is naturally born that way, and had no say in how he/she was created, so punishing them by discriminating against them for this differentiation would be an evil act and thus deserves reform.

Moreover, I can argue that we already know where complete unencumbered freedom without self-awareness has taken man from the time of Adam and Eve, and Cain and Able. So why would I want to not learn from this behavior from a rational basis. Must I not use rationality and learned experience as a basis for any argument for reform.

The secularist would say, you said it is a learned behavior so why can we not learn to accept behaviors today that are not accepted in times before? Will for starters as explained above is we have learned that these type behaviors as in the case of homosexuality, are unnatural. More-over we can argue that such behavior if allowed to flourish could constitute our protracted demise over-time. As such, we can argue that we must reform this behavior to rid ourselves of it, not allow it to flourish.

Remember reform works it both directions.

Ok let me put it in an another way, if you had an ingrown toe-nail and over-time this toe-nail started to fester in your toe, but because of poor hygiene habits you allowed this to continue, and soon your toe got gangrene, so you went to your doctor and he said because of your poor hygiene and neglect your toe must be amputated, and if you wait much longer it maybe your foot, and any longer than that your leg, and so on until you are dead, what would you do? Well the answer is easy, you would amputate your toe, and you/we would be used as an example to others that this behavior is a not only stupid but an evil act towards your body. In essence you allowed for reform to take place for an act that would be deemed as evil.

So we need to better define what we deem the type of reform we want and how WE should get there, and know that unencumbered freedom may not be the end all solution if it is not tempered with morality, rationality and justice.

In my humble view, we must strive first to conquer the evil that dwells in us, approaching each issue with what we have as guidance, rationality and critical thought and secondly to remember that LOVE between each other should guide all our thinking.

I close with the words of these great men; Dwight D. Eisenhower-President of USA and the General who lead the allies against
Nazi Germany who said “A people that values privileges over principals soon lose both:” and Gandhi who stated “A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes.”

God Bless Jordan and its People.




* Illustration by Abdul Wahab Al Awady/ Al Qabas