Genuine forgiveness
by Prof Dr Sohail Ansari ‘There's
a mighty big difference between, sound reasons and reasons that sound good.
Allaah has also
promised the best reward and good abode for the repentant when He says
: “(The believers whose Allaah has purchased are) those who repent to Allaah (from polytheism and hypocrisy, etc.), who worship Him, who praise Him, who fast (or go out in Allaah’s cause), who prostrate themselves (in prayer), who enjoin (people) for Al-Ma‘ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all what Islam has ordained) and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism of all kinds and all that Islam has forbidden), and who observe the limits set by Allah (do all that Allah has ordained and abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which Allah has forbidden). and give glad tidings to the believers.” (At-Tawbah 9:112)
: “(The believers whose Allaah has purchased are) those who repent to Allaah (from polytheism and hypocrisy, etc.), who worship Him, who praise Him, who fast (or go out in Allaah’s cause), who prostrate themselves (in prayer), who enjoin (people) for Al-Ma‘ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all what Islam has ordained) and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism of all kinds and all that Islam has forbidden), and who observe the limits set by Allah (do all that Allah has ordained and abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which Allah has forbidden). and give glad tidings to the believers.” (At-Tawbah 9:112)
Forgiveness is no forgiveness if there is no choice
· Every Forgiveness is often because of no
alternative. Forgiveness despite the capability of taking revenge is a genuine
forgiveness.
How people present the world through language
People
present the world through language - they refer to the world around us, and
represent relationships between people and things, and draw on experience of
one thing to describe another.
Conflicts arise from
people's differing conceptions of the world and how they think it ought to be,
and it is through language that we express these views and enter into conflict
about them.
Modality
( the meaning expressed by modal verbs ("can", "might", and "must")
Modality is the aspect of language that allows us to hypothesise. Certain words like 'could' and 'must', allow us to express the possibility or desirability of something happening. For example, the headline "Foreign intervention in Syria may cause chaos in the Mideast" suggests the possibility of a certain situation occurring through the use of 'may', while the 'must' in "David Cameron must make the Conservative party look like the nation" suggests that a certain action on the part of David Cameron is desirable or necessary.
( the meaning expressed by modal verbs ("can", "might", and "must")
Modality is the aspect of language that allows us to hypothesise. Certain words like 'could' and 'must', allow us to express the possibility or desirability of something happening. For example, the headline "Foreign intervention in Syria may cause chaos in the Mideast" suggests the possibility of a certain situation occurring through the use of 'may', while the 'must' in "David Cameron must make the Conservative party look like the nation" suggests that a certain action on the part of David Cameron is desirable or necessary.
Words
such as 'may' and 'must' are modal auxiliary verbs. A modal auxiliary is added to a verb ('cause' and 'make' in the examples
above) to express the speaker or writer's level of commitment to the proposition of the sentence,
for example how true they believe the statement is (foreign intervention may cause
chaos), or how desirable or necessary they think it is (Cameron must make
changes to the Conservatives' appearance). By looking at the different modal auxiliaries – which include 'will',
'would', 'shall', 'should', 'may', 'might', 'can', 'could', 'must', 'ought' and
'need' – we can see the range of different meanings that modality makes possible, and also how modality tends to be split into that which
expresses the speaker/writer's level of certainty, and that which expresses how
desirable or necessary a speaker/writer thinks something is.
'The Republicans [could / would / may / might / will] have won the
election.'
The
basic proposition of the sentence above is 'The Republicans have won the
election'. This is a categorical
assertion, with no modality,
expressing a simple fact. However, as we can see, the insertion of any one of
the modal auxiliaries immediately makes the
statement into one that makes a hypothesis about the possibility of something
having happened, rather than the statement of a straightforward fact. Note that
'could', 'may' and 'might' all sound quite tentative, giving the reader the
distinct impression that the opposite - a Republican defeat - is also quite
possible. 'Would' seems to imply the existence of a clausebeginning
with 'if...', for example 'The Republicans would have won the election, if they
weren't nuts', which serves to put a precondition on their election chances (an
election win might have been a possibility if they weren't nuts). 'Will',
meanwhile, sounds much more confident; indeed, the reader may feel convinced
that this choice of auxiliary presents a Republican win as a certainty.
However, it is important to note an important fact about modality:
any modal form turns a proposition into a hypothesis. Because 'will'
refers to an event in the future, which we cannot be certain will happen, it is
necessarily modal.
'The Democrats [should / ought to] have won the election.'
In the Democrats example,
there is much more of a sense of something being desirable: we can imagine that
the writer may go on to give their reasons why they think the Democrats ought to win, e.g. 'The Democrats ought to
have won as they are less nuts than the Republicans'. Alternatively, these modalauxiliaries
could be read as implying that the Democrats are in some way obliged to win the
election: for example, the writer might go on to explain why the Democrats
ought to be able to achieve election by saying, for example, 'The Democrats
ought to have won the election, because the Republicans appeared so
unelectable'.
|
Example 1
The way modality implants certain possibilities into hearers'/readers' minds can have a warning or scaremongering effect. The British tabloid The Daily Mail is notorious for such stories, particularly in relation to the possible causes and cures of cancer. While the use of the modal 'may' in a headline like 'Coffee may raise child cancer risk' acknowledges the fact that a link between coffee and cancer in children is not actually proven, the proposition nonetheless puts a possibility into a reader's mind, perhaps causing them to suddenly make changes to their child's diet. 'Cure' headlines seem barely less manipulative: the suggestion that 'Aspirin could stave off cancer and help victims to survive' may also cause unnecessary fear, or worry readers into changing their behaviour in a way that may not actually be beneficial. It also, of course, makes a (tentative) promise that could give readers false hope about the chances of victims surviving cancer. |
Verbs such as 'think', 'believe' and 'know'
can be used by a speaker/writer to express their commitment to a proposition.
If a finance minister tells us that 'I believe budget
cuts are necessary', then people with a different viewpoint might mock them for
acknowledging that this is a matter of belief, rather than something they are
convinced is true and provable. On the other hand, even if they said 'I know budget
cuts are necessary', the way in which 'know' implies the existence of some sort
of 'scale of certainty' automatically makes the statement modal,
and its veracity therefore open to debate.
Other verbs,
such as 'want' and 'need', express the speaker/writer's desire that something
should be the case, e.g. 'I want the prime minister to admit he was
wrong', 'The government needs to
change its policy'.
Adjectives such as 'possible' and 'certain', and adverbs such as 'probably' and 'definitely'
make it clear that what is being stated is a hypothesis, and not an assertion
of fact: 'It is possible that
there will be an uprising', 'The economy is definitely heading for troubled times'.
These were alluded to in
the discussion of the election examples above. They allow a speaker/writer to
place a precondition on the possibility of something happening, as in 'The
Republicans would win the
election, if they
weren't so nuts'. Note that conditional
structures include modal auxiliaries, helping make clear that
what is being expressed is a mere possibility or matter of
desirability/obligation: 'If European
leaders find a way to work together, then there will be hope
for the single currency'.
|
Spotting modality
Pay careful attention to the use of modality in opinion pieces in newspapers and on the radio and television. Writers of these texts are in a powerful position, and are aware that many hearers/readers will listen closely to their views on important issues. In particular, think about the use of categorical assertions to express absolute certainty – what is being portrayed as fact? Where modality is being used – for example 'might' and 'could', references to future events using 'will' – is a sense of something threatening being created? |
|
Example 2
Modality's potential for ideological impact is linked to the hearer/reader's relationship with the speaker/writer. All of us trust particular figures of authority in our lives, whose opinions we will listen to carefully, or even take as fact. This could be a particular journalist who writes for a newspaper with which we affiliate ourselves politically, a religious text which we turn to for guidance, or a friend who tends to offer good advice on gardening. If such sources inform us what they 'believe' the answer to a particular political problem is, how we 'ought' to live our lives or how 'possible' it is that our hellebores will be the victim of ground elder, then the fact that they are the ones expressing these hypotheses is likely to have a persuasive effect on us. One famous and much derided example is the way American politicians discussed the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction ahead of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Senior political figures frequently used modality to portray their 'knowledge' of the situation in Iraq. For example, Donald Rumsfeld said that "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons" (quote in USA Today), while George Bush claimed that "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas" (quoted in The Guardian). The use of such strong modality by powerful figures is important, especially in such serious matters as (potential) war, because as elected officials they can be sure of a certain degree of trust on the part of the people who have elected them. |
In the News - Naming
Published on 07 March
2013
The way we name things
can tell people a lot about the way we see the world. Say you heard three
different people describing the sight of a public demonstration: the first
person describes those involved as 'troublemakers', the second refers to
'protestors', while the third identifies them as 'revolutionaries'. While each
onlooker has used a single word to describe the people they see, you might
already feel that you can infer something about their different points of view:
the first person seems to have a negative view of those involved, the second a
more neutral view, and the third a positive view.
Naming is of particular significance in the language
of powerful or influential people and institutions. If a newspaper you read
calls those involved in a demonstration 'troublemakers', you might be
influenced to take a negative view of those involved in the demonstration. Here
are a few examples of naming, gathered from the Language in Conflict Twitter
feed. Notice how each example could have an ideological effect
on the speaker or writer's audience, potentially shaping how hearers and
readers view conflicts:
• 'Falklands islanders' – the Argentine foreign
minister, Hector Timerman, recently used naming to help argue Argentina's case
in the territorial dispute over the contested islands. Timerman claimed that "The Falklands islanders
do not exist", thereby naming something yet denying its
very existence. Through this creative and eye-catching use of naming, Timerman
is able to neatly make the point that the islanders are simply British
citizens, and so claims that Argentina should consider the islanders' right to
self-determination erroneous.
• 'Combat zone' – a recent report at the Huffington Post explained how naming has been used to justify the use of armed drones over Yemen. With no armed conflict between Yemeni and American troops on the ground, Yemen could not fit the traditional designation of a 'battlefield'. By naming Yemen as a 'combat zone', however, America has been able to legally justify killings resulting from drone attacks.
• 'Threat' and 'risk' – Tony Blair's use of these terms in the Iraq Inquiry reflected a significant aspect of the way he discussed Iraq prior to the war. Both before and after the war, Blair frequently referred to Iraq and Saddam Hussein as a 'threat' rather than a 'risk'. This is notable, as 'threat' sounds more serious and imminent than 'risk'. As such, this allowed Blair – on both occasions – to emphasise the extent to which he felt it was crucial that there was a military intervention in Iraq. Note that this choice of noun may have played a part in creating a military conflict in the first place, as well as affecting the views of many who heard Blair's warnings about Iraq. For more on Blair's use of 'threat' and 'risk', see Lesley Jeffries's article Threat and Risk - Their Part in the Iraq War.
• 'Combat zone' – a recent report at the Huffington Post explained how naming has been used to justify the use of armed drones over Yemen. With no armed conflict between Yemeni and American troops on the ground, Yemen could not fit the traditional designation of a 'battlefield'. By naming Yemen as a 'combat zone', however, America has been able to legally justify killings resulting from drone attacks.
• 'Threat' and 'risk' – Tony Blair's use of these terms in the Iraq Inquiry reflected a significant aspect of the way he discussed Iraq prior to the war. Both before and after the war, Blair frequently referred to Iraq and Saddam Hussein as a 'threat' rather than a 'risk'. This is notable, as 'threat' sounds more serious and imminent than 'risk'. As such, this allowed Blair – on both occasions – to emphasise the extent to which he felt it was crucial that there was a military intervention in Iraq. Note that this choice of noun may have played a part in creating a military conflict in the first place, as well as affecting the views of many who heard Blair's warnings about Iraq. For more on Blair's use of 'threat' and 'risk', see Lesley Jeffries's article Threat and Risk - Their Part in the Iraq War.
Comments
Post a Comment