We look for partners who are similar to us, even at the gene level, without realizing it, a new study has found.
These mating preferences are statistically significant and play a role in shaping the human genome, summarize the authors cited by Science.
The full text of the report is published in the journal Science Human Behavior.
A team from the University of Queensland, Australia, claims that you are most likely to marry someone who is very similar to you. Someone of similar height, weight, someone of similar intelligence. And this doesn’t happen because “curly donkeys sniff each other out”, as the saying goes, it happens because we actively seek out friends with a genetic heritage similar to our own.
Genetic similarity
Researchers analyze databases of physical and genetic characteristics of people. They sample more than 24,000 married couples of European origin. For each couple, genetic markers for various traits, including height and body mass index (BMI), were isolated for one partner. Using this information, scientists then try to predict the same characteristic of the other partner. If one person’s genetic material predisposes him to be tall, for example, his partner is expected to be tall as well. The purpose of the study is to find correlations in these traits. The final step is to compare these predicted characteristics with the real situation.
The team found a strong statistical correlation between a person’s genetic height markers and their partner’s actual height. The scientists also identified a weaker but still statistically significant correlation between the genes regulating BMI and the partners’ actual BMI.
The correlation is much stronger than we would expect to see if mating were random. These findings are evidence that people actively seek partners with a genetic makeup similar to their own, the team reports.
Choosing mates based on similar traits is a pattern of sexual selection known as “assortative mating.” This allows people to pass these traits on to their offspring. In fact, this practice increases relatedness in family groups and helps offspring survive better—provided that this trait is beneficial in their environment. This is also observed in animal populations.
The team also found evidence of assortative mating and other traits in 7,780 pairs in the UK database. They report “extremely high correlation” for genetic markers associated with education. It’s unlikely that people chose their friends based on the years they spent in school, meaning they were more likely to choose based on similar interests – which is often associated with level of education, said team member Matthew Robinson. ), a postdoctoral fellow in the Genetics Laboratory at the University of Queensland in Brisbane.
Assortative mating affects the genomic structure of people’s traits,” Robinson added. As such, the findings are useful for creating more accurate genetic models to predict the likelihood that family members will inherit diseases or physical traits.
Interestingly, in their notes, many correspondents of Russian newspapers agree that Russia was poorly prepared for a long war with Turkey. So, the former secretary of the Russian embassy in Constantinople, who volunteered to participate in the war of 1877-1878. A.N. Tseretelev wrote the following at the beginning of the war, after meeting Russian officers. “When I see many officers up close … firstly, ignorance is striking: for the most part they do not know where Brailov belongs to Galati, Romania or Turkey, on which side of the Danube Ruschuk … I’m not talking about the lack of any knowledge of ethnography and the geography of Turkey… But that’s not all: at every step one can already hear complaints about drunkenness, violence, outrages in taverns and coffee shops.”[115] This entry was made in Galati, April 25, 1877, and it vividly characterizes what was hushed up by official propaganda: the low level of moral and professional preparedness of part of the officer corps.
The situation has changed little over time. Nemirovich-Danchenko, passing through Zimnitsa and Sistovo in the summer of 1877, noted that “unfortunately, nowhere is a conscious attitude to the matter to be seen. The forces of the Turks in Plevna are not known to anyone; everyone is convinced that soon we will finish with Osman.”[116] Speaking about this correspondent, it should be generally noted that he did not hesitate to be critical of everything that happened in the theater of operations. So, for example, in August, he noted that the campaign was unnecessarily dragged out, and yet neither Plevna, nor Ruschuk, nor Shumla had yet been taken. “And having crossed after three victories,” he wrote, “for the Balkans, we will have to measure our strength with the third army, the army of Suleiman Pasha, which no one has ever defeated and all the fictions about General Gurko’s victory over it were created by foreign correspondents who did not bother check the rumors, just as they invented the unprecedented capture of Razgrad.”[117] His characterization of the Shipka position, which the Russian military considered key in the Balkans, is also interesting. “By the way, about the significance of Shipka,” wrote V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko in early October 1877 – This is the most inconvenient of all mountain passes. In the Balkans, dozens are better than him and less protected. We are standing here, not stepping back – so as not to cause panic in the Bulgarian population of Gabrovo, Drenov and Tarnov, so as not to give rise to alarm in Russia and to the triumph of our enemies in Europe.[118]
But M.A. Gasenkampf, among other things, devoted a lot of space in his diary to the order in the field headquarters and, in particular, to the relations of the assistant chief of staff K.V. Levitsky with officers of the General Staff. M.A. Gazenkampf himself was a General Staff officer, so this topic was close to him, especially considering how the officers of the General Staff, who were in the staff headquarters, were used. “Officers of the General Staff,” wrote M.A. Gazenkampf, – they are embittered at him (K.V. Levitsky – O.G.), because he failed to arrange their situation: inexperienced orderlies are sent on assignments for the General Staff, and the officers of the General Staff sit idle or are busy with current unimportant work ”.[119] K.V. Levitsky really enjoyed little respect at the headquarters. He was a protege of the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich and did not differ in great abilities, if not to say that he was deprived of them. “The highest officials do not even consult with Levitsky on issues that he, as the chief of officers of the General Staff, should be in charge of.”[120] So, princes Nikolai and Evgeny Maximilianovich consulted not with him, but with M.A. Gazenkampf, which of the officers of the General Staff should be asked to appoint to be with them. It is not surprising that “officers of the General Staff,” wrote M.A. Gasenkampf, – they always want to leave the main apartment anywhere. The reasons are quite understandable: in every detachment, the officer of the General Staff is in sight and in serious work, and in the main apartment he is completely overshadowed by the adjutants and orderlies of the Grand Duke. They are given all the prominent and serious assignments, and the officers of the General Staff either pore over the papers or are forced to wander around idle.”[121]
But V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko noted shortcomings in the area that directly concerned the officers of the General Staff – the organization of undercover intelligence. Exaggerating, he nevertheless presented the situation correctly on the whole. “Also, some of our scouts are poorly organized, while Turkish spies are prowling all over the country. Back in Chisinau, people who understood the seriousness of the situation and knew Turkish forces better than our diplomats offered to organize a mass of scouts in Turkey itself. Our blindness was so great that this proposal was not put into motion. “Forgive me, we will finish the campaign in three months, why spend money on scouts!” Thanks to these far-sighted optimists, throughout the campaign we had no information about the movements of the Turks, while they received the most accurate about ours.”[122] As an example, V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko cited the example of General Boreisha at Shipka, when he “saw the army of Suleiman, but did not understand its movement”, and because of his mistake, the Russian troops were almost completely defeated.[123] True, in this state of affairs it was not so much the General Staff officers who were involved in the organization of intelligence that were to blame, but the top military leadership, who expected to end the war in two to three months.
Most correspondents noted indignantly that many wanted to profit from the war. Both states and people. So, “the Romanians took our side by virtue of the consciousness of the benefits of their role as “allies,” wrote N.V. Maksimov, – both materially and politically; that is why a very special relationship was immediately established between us, in which cold efficiency took the place of hot feelings. They tried to furnish every step of their further complicity in accordance with the requirements of their national pride, independence and honor, although this honor sometimes seemed rather dubious.”[124] Moreover, it was customary to blame the Jews for all troubles without exception. It must be said that the latter deserved such accusations (especially because of the Greger, Gorvits, Kogan company, which provided the Russian army with poor-quality food and fodder and profited well from these supplies). So, V.V. Krestovsky noted a sharp increase in prices with the entry of the Russian army into Romania. “Well, they are fighting here! – he was indignant upon arrival in Iasi. “It’s a pity especially for those soldiers who complain strongly that the Romanians and Jews cheat them in every possible way with every purchase and when exchanging money.”[125] Arriving in Ploiesti, V.V. Krestovsky was extremely surprised by the cost of hotels – 10 francs per day or 300 (about 120 rubles) per month.[126] “To the Jews, we must also owe that rise in prices for all products of vital necessity,” he noted, “which manifested itself here shortly after the crossing of our troops across the Romanian border.” “Jews, as you know, are masters of all trades, and are always ready to serve both ours and yours, so long as this service presents the possibility of a profitable gesheft. You will supply a Jew and fodder, and sometimes he will serve as a spy … In Ploesty … these days they even caught one goose, adorning himself with various orders, and who arrived here as an alleged correspondent … Meanwhile, he came to fuss about admitting him to the army, as correspondent … and for this purpose entered the office of the chief of staff, where, as they say, he was safely arrested.”[127]
A N.V. Maksimov described the situation in Romania with the entry of the Russian army in the following way. “Four main parties were noticeable in Chisinau: the party of “doers”, the party of “neutral residents” from the local intelligentsia … the party of “thirsty and hungry” and the so-called common people … The party of “doers” was busy from morning to night. They walked, drove, ran, fussed… And the more they walked and drove, the more serious they became and the more impregnable they seemed… the party of “thirsty and hungry” did not reason, but acted… The arena was wide: crackers, horse fodder , the supply of provisions, the wiring of railways, the markitanism, the acquisition of the necessary materials for crossing the Danube, and even such innocent things as, for example, telegrams.”[128] As a result, he comes to the conclusion that “at first, the arena of military activity presented itself as a wide field on which vampires of various positions and nationalities squabbled, tearing pieces out of each other’s mouths in the rear of the army and raking out everything that could be raked out from an item of public use, called a “money bag”.[129]
After the army crossed the Danube, the situation did not improve. “Since our army crossed the Danube, whole regiments of Jews, Romanians, Greeks and people of the most indeterminate nationality appeared in Zimnitsa … All these gentlemen … put together … wooden benches, laid out their goods … and began without a twinge of conscience to rob and rob anyone who only tried to buy something from them … Drunkenness was exorbitant in Zimnitsa. Theft was developed amazingly.”[130]
On the whole, it can be said that the Russian correspondents of the second group described the war in various ways in their letters, diaries, and telegrams. They showed all its unsightly underside: death, dirt, hundreds of crippled lives, the incompetence of many higher ranks, theft and corruption that corroded the army bureaucracy. In their correspondence, war is not a feat, but dirty, deadly and ungrateful to most of the army, work. “War is terribly sobering when you see it face to face.”[131] This phrase, uttered by one of the Russian correspondents, best illustrates the whole truth of the war, which such correspondents as V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, A.D. Ivanov, N.V. Maksimov and others tried to convey to the Russian society.
Even during the war, many of the correspondents (both Russian and foreign) were awarded awards. They were submitted by M.A. Gazenkampf commanders of the detachments with whom the correspondents were in battle, and he, in turn, submitted it for consideration by the Commander-in-Chief. So, the correspondent of the newspaper “New time” V.S. Rossolovsky and the newspapers “Daily News” A. Forbes received for the battle near Plevna on July 18, 1877 the Order of St.. Stanislav 3rd class. with swords. Correspondents of “New time” A.D. Ivanov and the newspapers “The Scotsman” Carrick were also awarded the Order of St. Stanislav 3rd class. with swords for the battle on July 18 at the village of Juranli. Ivanov took over the duties of an orderly in this battle and passed orders to the chain, and the second voluntarily undertook to provide first aid to the wounded and bandaged them under the fire of the Turks. The differences of all four correspondents were witnessed by the heads of the detachments in which they were – Gurko and Prince Shakhovsky [132]. Later A.D. Ivanov was also granted the Order of St. Anna 3rd class. with swords. The same order was awarded to the German correspondents Danngauer and von Maree for the battles near Nikopol on July 3 and near Plevna on July 18.[133]
Summing up, it should be noted that the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. was one of the most important events in the history of Russia and the Balkan countries in the 19th century. The interest it aroused in Russia and Europe was enormous. Society demanded constant information about it, military experts were interested in obtaining information about the innovations used in its course. That is why a large role in covering the war was assigned to correspondents.
Notes:
[115] Tseretelev A.N., “Letters from the Campaign”, Russian Bulletin, No. 9 (1878), p. 219.
[116] Nemirovich-Danchenko V.I., The Year of the War…, vol. 1, p. four.
[117] Ibid., p. ten.
[118] Ibid., p. 145.
[119] Gazenkampf M., My diary 1877-78, p. 44.
[120] Ibid.
[121] Ibid., p. 224.
[122] Nemirovich-Danchenko V.I., The Year of the War…, vol. 1, p. 28.
[123] Ibid.
[124] Maksimov N.V., “Beyond the Danube”, No. 5 (1878), p. 167-168.
[125] Krestovsky V.V., Twenty months in the army…, vol. 1, p. 145.
[126] Ibid., p. 164.
[127] Ibid., p. 221-222.
[128] Maksimov N.V., “Beyond the Danube”, No. 4 (1878), p. 258-259.
[129] Ibid., p. 261
[130] Ibid., No. 6, p. 362.
[131] Nemirovich-Danchenko V.I., The Year of the War…, vol. 1, p. 317.
[132] Gazenkampf M., My diary 1877-78, p. 75.
[133] Krestovsky V.V., Collected Works, vol. 5, p. 333.
Source of the illustration: “Snow trenches on Shipka”. Artist V. V. Vereshchagin. – Source: Vinogradov V.I. Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878 and the liberation of Bulgaria. – M.: Thought, 1978. – S. 172 (in Russian).
Body and face painting dates back at least 10,000 years. According to Pliny the Elder, even 2,000 years ago, the Romans used natural products in ways that are familiar to us today: they had blush, deodorants, hair dye, anti-wrinkle ointments, breath fresheners, and more.
Over the years, those who have used cosmetics have attracted the admiring glances of others for various reasons – sometimes ritualistic or on the occasion of various honors, but most often, and especially in modern times, the context has always been sexual.
Does wearing makeup really affect how others treat us? Even if it’s easier to accept that makeup affects others’ impression of us, does it really encourage the other person to make the first move?
A study by social psychologist Nicolas Gugen sheds some interesting light on the matter. He used two women who were sitting in a bar in France, in the first case with makeup and in the second case without makeup. In both cases they sat and waited for the men to speak to them.
When a man tried to start a conversation, the woman politely declined the invitation with the excuse that they were expecting friends and signaled the scientists. The procedure was repeated 60 times for one hour in two different bars. Here are the results:
Without makeup – the first contact attempt with both women was after an average of 23 minutes, and then there were attempts on average 1.5 times per hour.
With makeup – first contact was made after an average of 17 minutes and the average number of attempts thereafter was 2 per hour.
These results certainly show that makeup played a significant role in changing men’s behavior, with one-third more men attempting conversation with women when they were wearing makeup.
However, the following details are worth noting. Wearing makeup may have given women more confidence and thus unconsciously changed their behavior to attract more men. And, secondly, the test was conducted in France, and the can-do culture in other countries is very likely to give different results in other places.
North Macedonia submitted a referendum for the Bulgarians
Only days after the Bulgarian Prime Minister Galab Donev and the Prime Minister of the Republic of North Macedonia Dimitar Kovachevski discussed the supply of electricity to ensure the needs of business against the backdrop of global energy. The opposition in North Macedonia submitted a proposal for a referendum to the State Election Commission, reported Nova Macedonia.
That’s what Christian Mickoski did. The consultation will be about the planned changes in the country’s constitution.
They also announced how the question was formulated.
“Are you in favor of repealing the law on the ratification of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between North Macedonia and Bulgaria, published on January 18, 2017?” reads the question.
The head of state Stevo Pendarovski opposed the proposal. According to him, this could stop the country’s European integration.
The gathering of support for the submission of the proposal is pending. After that, one hundred and fifty thousand people will be needed to support its realization.
There is an idea that the referendum should be mandatory.
“The main topic on which we talked with Prime Minister Donev and his delegation was the energy crisis, which shook all economies around the world.
Today, we are fighting the shortage of electricity and expensive energy carriers, which bring big problems for both citizens and businesses,” Kovacevski announced.
“We reaffirmed the good assessment we have of the created preconditions for the positive development of the dialogue between our two countries and that we will consistently work to deepen constructive cooperation in all areas of mutual interest, striving to cover all areas that includes the Agreement on good neighborliness and cooperation between Bulgaria and the RSM and all agreements under the protocols of the Intergovernmental Commission”, stated Galab Donev.
Bulgaria can export about 200 megawatt hours of electricity to the Republic of North Macedonia by the end of March next year, Donev announced after a meeting with his colleague Dimitar Kovachevski.
All people with an open mind, heart and soul are welcome to the new mosque and Islamic center in Sisak, regardless of their religion, Sisak chief imam Alem Crankic told Hina news agency on the eve of the opening ceremony of the religious complex, for which on Thursday Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also arrives.
The new Islamic center will cover an area of about 2,600 square meters and is the third Islamic center in Croatia after those in Zagreb and Rijeka. In Croatia, there is also a smaller mosque in Gunja, which is the first and oldest in the country, and a smaller Islamic center in Umag, Bosnian portal Klix and Hina news agency reported, quoted by BTA.
Already on the weekend after the opening, the Center organizes open days for Sisak residents and other interested parties to visit.
One fifth of the complex is a place for prayers, and the remaining approximately 2,000 square meters are intended for all visitors.
“If Muslims wanted to build this building for themselves, they would only build a mosque. We welcome all people with an open mind, heart and soul, regardless of their religious affiliation, all who are open to meeting and getting to know others,” the young imam emphasized.
In addition to the prayer area, the Center has multipurpose classrooms designed for religious students as well as other forms of learning, such as Islamic culture. There is also a restaurant with Islamic specialties and a large convention center that can host interfaith conferences.
There is also a “sofa room – a space for rest and communication” where visitors will be able to read in an oriental setting with a hot drink.
A feature of the mosque in Sisak is its energy efficiency, which is why it is called the first “eco mosque” in this part of Europe. The center has heat pumps, solar panels and a photovoltaic plant of 30 kilowatt hours.
Crankic points out that he is especially glad that the mosque also has an ecological aspect, because humanity is “getting more and more warnings about the extent to which it is its own enemy and how it will destroy itself” if it does not think about the environment.
Another rite, like prayer and fasting, which is one of the five mandatory pillars of Islam and supports its doctrinal dome, is the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj). The Koran says about it this way: “I do the best Hajj (great pilgrimage) and die (small pilgrimage) for the sake of Allah, and not for the sake of any benefit in this life and glory” (K.2: 196). “They (new moons – auth.) determine the timing of the conduct of their affairs for people, and also determine the time of the Hajj (pilgrimage), which is one of the foundations of your religion” (K.2: 189). Every “true believer” is commanded to visit sacred places for Muslims at least once in his life. “The Messenger of Allah said: “In the period between two small pilgrimages, a person receives the expiation of all sins, and the reward for a large pilgrimage is paradise.” However, despite the obligation of this prescription, the Koran says that only those who are able to do it and who are able to undertake this feat can perform the hajj: “To perform the hajj to this House is an obligation for those who are able to perform it (hajj to the House) “(K.3:97),” Allah commanded those who can go to this House, so that they respond to this call (make Hajj) and arrive at the House on foot or on camels “(K.22:27 ).
Initially, the pilgrimage consisted of visiting the Kaaba and performing the corresponding rites. Subsequently, the Hajj included a visit to the grave of Muhammad in Medina and prayers in the mosques of Hijaz (the western coast of the Arabian Peninsula is the sacred land of Muslims). Followers of the Shiite trend in Islam make an additional pilgrimage to the graves of Imam Hussein in Karbala, the fourth (righteous) Caliph, cousin of Muhammad Ali ibn Abu Talib in Najaf, Imam Reza in Mashhad and the “holy” Mansum in Qom. This pilgrimage of Shiites to the graves of their imams is usually called not a hajj, but a ziyarat – a visit.
Sharia provides special provisions regarding the pilgrimage to Mecca:
Firstly, the one who decides to go on the Hajj must be of age. Women under forty must be accompanied by one of their male relatives.
Secondly, adequate, not insane, and also free (not a slave).
Should not make a pilgrimage for the sake of forbidden and sinful deeds (robbery, murder, theft, etc.). Should also refrain from traveling if there are more urgent matters or if the only possible route represents a serious danger to life.
It is not obligatory for the poor to make the Hajj, unless someone undertakes to provide for both his trip and the maintenance of his family, and there is great confidence that the benefactor will indeed fulfill his promise.
You must have with you “tasrih al-hajj” (permission to participate in the hajj). In view of the dangers that await the traveler, it is also considered obligatory to make a will before going on a pilgrimage.
Finally, the pilgrim, as mentioned above, must be able to perform the Hajj. This means:
Have a road food reserve with you.
Vehicle for the trip, as well as the ability to purchase a ticket for all necessary modes of transport.
To be physically healthy in order to fulfill all the requirements of the Hajj and endure all the difficulties of the journey.
To have a sufficient amount of funds to support the family or those for whom he is entrusted with care. Must be able to properly equip his household so that it does not fall into disrepair during his pilgrimage.
Sharia also provides for hajj for hire. If a Muslim has the means to make a pilgrimage, but does not have health for this, he can send another person instead of himself. At the same time, the one who performed the Hajj for hire, for someone, does not himself receive the honorary status of “Hajji” (performed the Hajj) and must once again perform the Hajj for himself. Sharia permits the performance of Hajj for hire by a man for a woman and vice versa. At the same time, Sharia condemns those who, not having sufficient health to travel, nevertheless take up this business, putting themselves in danger. There are various organizations around the world that provide assistance in performing the Hajj for low-income Muslims.
According to the rules of the Hajj, pilgrims must be dressed in a special attire – a scar. It consists of two parts of white calico or other linen. One piece is wrapped around the body below the waist, the other, larger in size, is thrown over the left shoulder and passed under the right armpit, thus covering the upper body. In men, the head should be open. Women performing Hajj and wearing ihram are allowed to have their faces open, but their hair must be hidden in any case. There is an opinion that a woman does not have to wear ihram at all, she can perform the entire ceremony in any of her clothes, but always with her head covered. (Gulnara Kerimova. “The Road to the House of Allah” https://www.cidct.org.ua/ru/about/). If the Hajj falls during the hot season, the use of umbrellas is allowed. Sandals are worn on the feet, but you can also go barefoot. The pilgrim must set foot on the land of Hijaz already in ihram. A person who has put on ihram, according to the rules, can no longer take it off until he finishes the entire ceremonial.
The second, more extended meaning of the word “ihram” is the adoption of certain prohibitions, putting on special clothes, entering the “sacred” land and, in fact, the beginning of the performance of the Hajj rites. The one who violated the prescription of ihram must atone for his guilt by sacrificing a ram on the eve of the holiday of kurban – bayram. The Qur’an regulates all these actions in some detail: “When you … after having died, interrupted the “ihram” before performing the Hajj, then you will have to enter the “Ihram” for the Hajj again, sacrifice a sheep and distribute it to the poor near the Forbidden Mosque. Whoever is unable to make a sacrifice must fast for three days in Mecca during the Hajj and seven days after returning home. If he is a resident of Mecca, then he does not need, in this case, to make a sacrifice and fast ”(K.2: 196). It is forbidden for a person dressed in ihram to cut his nails, shave, cut his hair “If one of you is sick or has some kind of ailment in his head and had to cut his hair, then ransom by fasting or alms, or by any pious deeds. He can shave or cut his hair, but he must fast for three days or feed six poor people for one day, or sacrifice a sheep and distribute meat to the poor and needy ”(K.2: 196).
It is forbidden to smoke, raise your voice, offend anyone, shed blood, kill even a fly, pick leaves from trees, etc. “During the Hajj, one should not approach women (this includes: sexual intercourse, kissing, talking on these topics – all this is a sin before Allah). Debauchery and bickering are also a sin during the Hajj” (K.2:197). Violation of these prohibitions makes the Hajj invalid. During the Hajj, the “faithful” is commanded to completely immerse himself in thoughts of Allah.
Hajj begins with a sevenfold circuit (tawaf) around the Kaaba, which is performed counterclockwise. The number “seven” is considered sacred by the Arabs. Pilgrims enter the courtyard of the forbidden mosque (Al-Haram) through the gate “babul-nijat” (gate of salvation). At the threshold of the Kaaba, the participants of the ceremony pronounce the words in Arabic: “Labbaik Allahuma labbeik. La ball of lacquer, labbake ”(K.2: 198) (Here I am in front of You, O Allah. You have no partner, You are alone). Tawwafa (bypass), as a rule, is performed under the guidance of a voluntary seid – an expert on the rules of bypass.
The kaaba itself is a black stone (granite) building in the shape of a cube (15 – 10 – 12 meters), covered with a black kiswa (a black woven coverlet with verses of the Koran embroidered on it in gold), which is replaced every year with a new one. The corners of the Kaaba are located on the cardinal points and have the names “Yemeni” (southern), “Iraqi” (northern), “Levantine” (western) and “stone” (eastern), in which the “black stone” is just mounted. Initially, in the pre-Islamic era (jahili), the kaaba was a pagan temple with a pantheon of folk gods. Now for Muslims, the Kaaba has a unique meaning as the first house of worship to Allah. It symbolizes absolute monotheism, the perfect uniqueness of Allah, the absence of any partners in him, which the Koran does not get tired of repeating in many suras. It is believed that the Kaaba – the main mosque of Muslims, is under the throne of Allah, and his throne is located above it in the sky.
In the left corner of the outer eastern wall of the kaaba there is a gilded door, and a little lower and to the left of it, in one of the corners of the kaaba at a height of 1.5 meters, there is a niche with a “black stone”
– al-hajar al-aswad). This oval stone, set in a silver frame at the end of the seventh century, is known to be part of the original structure built by Abraham and Ismail. According to Muslim tradition, it was given to Adam as a reminder of paradise. According to another version, he was Adam’s guardian angel, but was turned to stone after overlooking and allowing his ward to fall. It is alleged that the black stone was originally white, but later turned black, saturated with human sins, or from the touch of a woman who was in a state of impurity. At the same time, it is believed that inside the stone everything also remains white, and only its outer side has turned black. With a small number of people, Muslims manage to stick their heads into the niche and kiss the “black stone”, but with a large confluence of pilgrims, not everyone manages to venerate this “black shrine”. People only have time to touch the stone with their hand, after which they kiss the hand and apply it to the eyes.
There are different opinions about the real nature of the stone. Scientific circles settled on its cosmic meteorite origin. A feature of the “stone” is that it is not immersed in water and can float on its surface. It is thanks to this property that the authenticity of the black stone was confirmed in 951 when it was returned to Mecca after it was stolen by the Qarmatians in 930. There is a walking legend that a black stone hangs in the air. In fact, he does not levitate, but is fixed in the granite wall of the Kaaba, which is obvious to everyone. This misunderstanding most likely arose as a result of a confusion of two Arabic explications (legends) – the history of the black stone and the maqam Ibrahim stone (Abraham’s standing place), about which it is said that it could hang in the air and served Abraham as a floating forest during the construction of the Kaaba. Naturally, neither of these stones currently fly, and both obey the natural laws of gravity.
An interesting feature of the stone-kissing ceremony for Christians is that this action has absolutely no justification in the Muslim tradition. In order not to be convicted of idolatry, Muslims do not attach any religious significance to the stone itself and claim that it has never been an object of worship. The only reason why a simple stone has been so honored is because of blind imitation of the actions of Muhammad, who kissed it and thus began this tradition. All faqihs (lawyers) of the Shafi’i madhhab condemned kissing any inanimate object with the intention of taabud (i.e. worshiping Allah and approaching him), except for a black stone or muzhaf (copy, copy, plural masahif) of the Koran. The second Caliph Omar ibn Khattab said on this occasion: “By Allah, truly I know that you are just a stone, you do not benefit or harm, and if I had not seen that the Prophet was kissing you, I would not have kissed you”150 .
Muslim tradition conveys an incident that took place during the life of the companions of Muhammad (Sahab), which concerns a detour (tavwaf) around the Kaaba. “During the tawaf, Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) bypassing the Kaaba touched all its corners. Seeing this, Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) said that one should not touch two corners (two corners: except for the Yemeni corner and the corner with a black stone). He said: “Is there something in this house (Kaaba) that one should stay away from?” Ibn Abbas said, after reading a verse from the Qur’an: “So there was a beautiful example for you in the Messenger of Allah,” after which Muawiya left this action. Brought by Imam Bukhari”151.
Having made a sevenfold circuit (tawaf) around the Kaaba, a Muslim is not forbidden to spend as much time as he likes in prayer near it. Before leaving, he must perform two rak’ah prayers.
Opposite the gilded door of the Kaaba, 15 meters from it, towers maqam Ibrahim (standing of Abraham). A stone slab is placed here, according to Muslims, with footprints of Abraham (Ibrahim). Here, as a sign of respect for the prophet Ibrahim, the pilgrims read a prayer twice: “We ordered the people to make the place of Ibrahim standing during the construction of the Kaaba a place for prayer” (K.2: 125). According to Islamic legend, the angel Jabriel brought to the prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) a flat stone that could hang in the air and served the prophet as scaffolding during the construction of the kaaba. Muslims believe that the builders of the inviolable or forbidden mosque in Mecca (kaaba) are Abraham (Ibrahim) and his son Ismail: “Remember the history of the construction of the Inviolable Mosque in Mecca by Ibrahim and his son Ismail … here, Ibrahim with his son Ismail lay the foundations of the House » (K.2:125,127). Out of respect for Abraham, Muslims call him “Ibrahim Khalilullah” (Abraham is a friend of Allah): “Ibrahim personifies the unity of all religions – Muslims, Jews and Christians … Verily, Allah honored Ibrahim by calling him a friend!” (K.4:125) This is naturally taken from the Christian Bible: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God” (James 2:23; 2Chr.20:7).
“From the oldest and only history of Abraham, written by Moses, from which information about the life of this patriarch can be obtained, we learn that Abraham never was where the city of Mecca was, and therefore did not build the Kaaba in Mecca. On the basis of verse 19 of the poem (imoallaqaty) by the Arab poet Zogeir bin Abu Solyn, a contemporary of Muhammad, G.S. Sablukov fully proves that the Kaaba was a pagan temple built by “some of the Koreishites and Jorgomites” not earlier than 500 years before the appearance of Muhammad. (See the work of G.S. Sablukov “Muhammedan’s stories about the qibla” pp. 149–157)”152.
Next to the maqam Ibrahim is another building, decorated with colorful Arabic ornaments. There is a well zem – zem (or deputy – deputy) in it. According to the Islamic interpretation of the biblical story (Gen. 21:14–21) about the case of Hagar (Hajara – considered in Islam the second wife of Ibrahim) and her son Ismail, after Abraham left them in the waterless valley of Mecca, Hagar (Hajara) began hastily look for water. In desperation, she ran around two small hills seven times, until finally she saw a spring near her son dying of thirst, which still exists. In memory of this event, pilgrims make a seven-fold ritual run – sai (effort) between the hills of Safa and Merv: “Allah exalted “as-Safa” and “al-Marwa” – two hills, making them reserved places of God for performing one of the rites of the Hajj ” (K. 2:158). Some believe that the source also received its name from the words with which Hagar called her son to her, saying: zyam – zyam, which in Egyptian means – come, come. According to another version, when Hagar (Hajarah) saw the water, she was afraid that all the water would flow out, and said: “Stop – stop” (zam – zam), and the water calmed down.
Water from the source of earth – earth is considered blessed and healing. It is believed that its origins are in paradise. There are many stories about the healing properties of this water. Pilgrims collect it in vessels and vials and deliver it to all parts of the world. Out of respect for this water, it is recommended to drink it while standing. At the same time, it is commanded not only to drink it, but to drink in full, i.e. in large quantities, otherwise you can be considered a hypocrite (munafiq), since a person, as it were, shows his contempt for water. The hadith on this subject reads as follows: “A true believer drinks in full from the source of Zam-Zam, while a munafiq does not drink in full (that is, it is, as it were, a sign of hypocrisy – do not drink enough from Zam-Zam).” There is a hadith attributed to Muhammad, in which he considers even a simple respectful view of the Kaaba and the source of zam-zam to be worship of Allah: Alima (Muslim scholars experts in the Koran, Sharia, Arabic, Persian, Turkish and other languages. Alims were considered the guardians of traditional and moral norms – author) and Zam – Zam. (Moreover) whoever looks at Zam-Zam, his sins will be forgiven.”153 It is also believed that a person whose stomach gets zam-zam water will not be in hell, since the fire of hell and the water from the source of zam-zam cannot be in the same place. Currently, to provide water to millions of pilgrims, the well is equipped with an electric motor.
The next action of the Hajj after the ritual run is the stoning of Satan. This ceremony takes place at the Jamra Bridge in the Mina Valley, about 25 km from Mecca. Pilgrims collect seven stones and throw them at three special stone pillars (jamarat), which symbolize the devil: “And give praise to Allah on the days indicated when the pilgrims stone Shaitan in the Mina Valley, on the 11th, 12th and 13th zu-l-hijji” (K.2:203). First, seven stones are thrown at a small pillar (Jamarat al-Ula), then at a medium one (Jamarat al-Wusta) and then at a large pillar (Jamarat al-Aqaba). At the same time, it is desirable to pronounce takbir (Allahu akbar). According to Islamic tradition, these stone steles mark the places where the devil appeared to Abraham, who tried to prevent the prophet from sacrificing Ismail and whom Abraham, together with his son Ismail, stoned.
After visiting Mount Muzdalif, on the ninth day of the pilgrimage, the pilgrims head for 24 km. from Mecca to the valley of Arafat, where they stand (wukuf) at Mount Arafat from noon to evening. “When the pilgrims leave Arafat and reach Muzdalifah, they need to remember Allah in a reserved place – on the Holy Mount Muzdalifah. From here they need to cry out to God, saying: “Labbaika!”, “Labbaika!”, i.e. “Here I am in front of You! O Allah! Here I am in front of You! You have no equal! Glory and praise to Thee! All power belongs to You!” Allahu Akbar! i.e. Allah is great!” (K.2:196) According to Muslim legend, Mount Arafat is the place where Adam and Eve met after their expulsion from paradise. Here pilgrims also listen to the sermon (khutba) of the Meccan imam. Khutba usually begins with the glorification of Allah and his messenger, then explains the origin of the Hajj and the meaning of the rite of sacrifice. If the mullah or imam – khatib has the relevant experience, then he wraps the sermon in the form of rhymed prose. With the most massive visits to these places, the pandemonium here is huge. Muslims even have information that mass gatherings of pilgrims during the Hajj period can be observed from space.
The next day after this, the feast of sacrifice is celebrated – Aid al – adha (Kurban – Bayram). Muslims perform a kind of Old Testament sacrifice, slaughtering sacrificial animals (sheep, goat, cow or camel): “We have made one of the rites of religion with which you approach people, the slaughter and sacrifice of camels and cows during the Hajj” (K.22 :36). This rite was established in memory of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Ismail (according to the Bible, Isaac). Symbolically, this rite should remind the “faithful” of the spirit of Islam, when submission to the will of Allah is of paramount importance for a Muslim. Since 2/3 of the sacrificial meat is subsequently distributed to the poor (thin, saadaka – a ritual treat), this Old Testament rudiment also reminds of charity and the desire of the “orthodox” to share their earthly goods with the poor co-religionists. Saudi authorities prepare sacrificial animals for this ceremony in advance. Also, ditches are dug in advance, where, in order to avoid the appearance of infections, they dump, fill with lime and cover with sand mountains of slaughtered cattle, whose meat turned out to be unclaimed. According to Islamic doctrine, animals sacrificed on the holiday of Kurban – Bairam, on the Day of Judgment, will recognize their owners, who sacrificed them. Riding on these animals, Muslims will reach paradise by crossing the Sirat Bridge.
After that, the pilgrims shave or cut their hair and nails. All this is buried in the ground. Many natives use this part of the rite wisely and for this purpose become hairdressers for a while, which makes a good living. Moreover, for a short period of pilgrimage, the local population provides for itself for the entire next year, after which Mecca and Medina sink into a 10-month hibernation until the next Hajj.
Before heading to Medina, pilgrims make a farewell detour around the Kaaba (tavvaf al-vida), after which they receive the honorary status of “haji” (hajj for women) and have the right to wear a green turban, and in the Caucasus a green ribbon on a hat. After the sacrifice and shaving of the hair, the prohibitions regarding marital relations and other prohibitions that a person takes upon himself with entering into ihram are removed.
The small pilgrimage (umrah – visit, visit) includes four main actions: ihram, going around the kaaba, a ritual run between the hills (sai) and shaving or cutting hair on the head. It can take place at any time of the year. As a rule, Umrah is performed either at the beginning of the Hajj, after which you can limit yourself to it alone and stop the pilgrimage, or at the end of the Hajj. Regarding the obligatory nature of the small pilgrimage, the opinions of scientists were divided. Some of them (imams Ash – Shafi’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal) believed that the small pilgrimage is as obligatory as the big one (hajj). At the same time, they relied on the verse of the Qur’an: “And in the best way make the Hajj (great pilgrimage) and die (small pilgrimage) for the sake of Allah” (K.2: 196). Another part of the theologians (Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas) believed that the small pilgrimage refers to desirable deeds (sunnah) and is performed only once in a lifetime. As an argument, they pointed to the fact that Muhammad did not include Umrah among the five pillars of Islam. “Also, in the hadith narrated by Jabir, it is said: “A Bedouin came to the Messenger of Allah and asked: “O Prophet, tell me about the small pilgrimage, is it obligatory?” To which the answer followed: “No, but making you a small pilgrimage is good for you” ”(See: At – Tirmizi M. Jami’u at – tirmizi [Collection of hadiths of Imam at – Tirmizi]. Riyadh: al – Afkjar hell – pressure, 1998. S. 169, hadith No. 931)157.
At the end of everything, Muslims visit the tomb of Muhammad in Medina. This action does not apply to the Hajj, but a sense of Muslim duty and gratitude to Muhammad for the contribution that he made to the course of world history encourages the “faithful” to visit Medina. The mosque of Mohammed in Medina, although smaller than the Meccan one, is still striking in its size. In the south-eastern part of it is the tomb of the Arab “prophet”. Approaching his tomb, Muslims should say: “Peace and prayer to you, O prophet, beloved of Allah, O great seer.”
There is an opinion of Imam Nawawi regarding visiting the grave of Muhammad. He says that “it is reprehensible to touch her with your hand and kiss her, according to the correct adab (culture, etiquette, traditions – author) one must be at a distance from her, as if someone came to visit the Prophet during his lifetime. It will be right. And one should not be deceived by the actions of many ordinary people who violate these adab. Their danger lies in the fact that they believe that touching with a hand, etc. contributes to obtaining more barakat (the goodness of Allah – ed.), and this is all from their ignorance, because the barakat is in what corresponds to Sharia and the words of the Alims (authoritative Muslim scholars – ed.), so how do they want to succeed, contrary to the correct adab “. (Matn Idah fi manasik li an-Navii. S.161. Ed. dar kutub ilmiya. Beirut. First edition)158.
Next to the grave of Muhammad are the graves of his companions and caliphs – Abu Bekr and Omar. On the territory of the mosque in a small cemetery called “Jannat al-Bagi” – eternal paradise, there are the graves of the third caliph Osman, the daughter of Muhammad Fatima and his last wife Aisha. Women who adhere to the Shia direction in Islam, be sure to visit the grave of Fatima, where they distribute alms to the poor. In addition to the grave of Fatima, Shiite Muslims must visit the grave of the fourth Caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib in Najaf and his son Imam Hussein in Karbala (Iraq), as well as one of the descendants of Ali Imam Reza in Mashhad (Iran) and the grave of Mansum in Qom, the sister of the Imam Reza. Despite the fact that there are many graves of the descendants of Shia imams and they are located in many cities of the world, it is obligatory to visit only the graves of imams Hussein and Reza. Shiites who make a pilgrimage to these graves receive the status of “Kerbalai” and “Meshedi”.
For those who do not have the opportunity to perform the hajj to the “sacred” Arab lands, it is commanded to perform the hajj in their own heart and make sure of the sincerity of their devotion to Allah and the fulfillment of his unconditional commands. “That is why on the upcoming holidays and on the holidays themselves, each of us should make a hajj in our own heart and our own soul in order to honestly answer the question: do we fully fulfill what our religion requires of everyone? We must not forget that in Islam, preparation for the holidays must first of all be used to strengthen faith, strictly follow religious instructions and prayers, commemorate the deceased relatives and friends, and try to deepen the knowledge of the fundamentals of Islam.
It is believed that the hajj is not only a religious way to please Allah and win his mercy, but also a good opportunity to communicate with each other: “Proclaim to people, O prophet, that Allah commanded those who can go to this House … to they received religious benefit from performing the Hajj (pilgrimage), as well as the benefit of meeting and communicating with their Muslim brothers, consulting with them about what is useful and good for them in religion and in the immediate life ”(K.22:27, 28). “Being a unique form of communication and ideological unity, the Hajj played an important historical, cultural and socio-political role in the medieval Muslim world. Hajj retains its ideological and political significance even today, being a form of unity for Muslims, a place and time for meetings of the leaders of Islamic states and discussion of important problems”160.
Source: Chapter 8. Rites in Islam – Unexpected Sharia [Text] / Mikhail Rozhdestvensky. – [Moscow: b. i.], 2011. – 494, [2] p.
Notes:
150. Nimeh Ismail Navvab. Hajj is the journey of a lifetime. Rites of Abraham. https://www.islamreligion.com/en/
151.Sufism on the scales of Sharia. P. 20 https://molites.narod.ru/
152. Orthodox theologians about Islam. Ya.D.Koblov. Personality of Muhammad. Application. The legend of Muhammadan about the night journey of Muhammad to heaven. M. “Imperial tradition” 2006 p.246
153. Source Water Zam-Zam. Her virtues and blessings. https://www.islam.ru/
154. Prophets. True faith is the faith of our ancestors. . ru/Server/Iman/Maktaba/Tarikh/proroki.dos
155. Institute of Religion and Politics. Hundreds of dead again in the Mina Valley. https://www.i-p.ru//
156. Riyadh counted illegal pilgrims during the Hajj period. https://www.izvestia.ru/news/
In his ethical activity and judgments, man has no right to take the viewpoint of Providence. He has no right to judge sub specie aeternitatis [from the point of view of eternity], appropriating God’s point of view as if he were seated on the throne with Him. Otherwise, he may imagine himself to be a sun shining equally on the good and the bad. To begin to allow and tolerate evil as a manifestation of free will, as God does with man. It may even begin to affirm the necessity of evil in the development of world tragedy, its reasonableness in the ways of Providence. And finally to enter the role of villain and traitor, believing that this role is necessary in the world tragedy foreseen and intended by the Creator and His providence. And the more terrible it is, the greater the humility and self-abasement and self-sacrifice of the actor who performs it for the sake of the celebration of righteousness and justice, for the sake of the celebration of Providence. Such was the role of Judas. “Beata culpa” [blessed guilt] would not be a fault at all, but rather a merit, but if only Judas could foresee the way of Providence and had the right to stand from the point of view of historical necessity, i.e. of the very Providence. The Apostle Paul is aware of these dialectical difficulties and poses the problem as follows: how can sinners be punished, if God’s righteousness and justice are best revealed through their injustice? “Should we not then do evil that good may come?” (Rom. 3:8).
If temptations must come into the world, then someone must take the blame for it—bring them into the world, though knowing that it would have been better (subjectively, not objectively) not to have been born for that role. Indeed, there is no more outrageous ambiguity, more outrageously quaternio terminorum [the fallacy of the four terms, i.e., deductive logical fallacy] than that “ought” and “ought.” In one case, this is a judgment of divine providence about historical destinies (temptations must come into the world), and in the other – a judgment of man about his moral duty, about his ultimate task in time and space: he must take the blame upon himself.
However, this is not a logical fallacy and it is not a sophistry: the whole problem is clearly contained in the two aspects of the obligatory. 1) the divine necessity of Providence and 2) the human necessity of moral action. In his moral obligation, man has no right to stand from the point of view of what is obligatory in the sense of Providence, from the point of view of historical necessity or the necessary degrees of development of the Absolute Spirit. It has no right to stand on the standpoint of Hegel’s historiosophy (that is, the standpoint of the “Absolute Spirit”) or Leibniz’s theodicy. It is equally vulgar and immoral for him to say: everything goes for the better in this best of all worlds, and history is progress in the consciousness of freedom. For it means to justify the crimes of history—for example, the atrocities of revolution—as necessary stages in the development of liberty. If “everything goes for the better”, then “everything is allowed”.
This thought can also be reached from the opposite side: man cannot stand on the point of view of Providence and absolute judgment even when the latter corresponds to his human understanding of good, evil and justice. For example, his thirst for revenge, to exterminate the villain, cannot be interpreted as a demand for divine vengeance. In contrast to this, the words sound: Vengeance is Mine, I will repay. And God rewards in another way and not then, and not where we think and want. And we must not justify the executioner by identifying his action with the will of Providence and divine wrath, as Joseph de Maistre does. It is for this very reason that every executioner is more odious than every villain, because he appropriates to himself the sanction of infallibility, the sanction of Providence, and the “objective spirit,” while the villain bears upon himself the manifest stamp of sin and crime, and that is more humble and – true.
Man has no right either to conduct the terrible judgment, or to anticipate it. The parable of the weeds testifies to this: what “objectively” seems insignificant and unnecessary to him cannot be destroyed for the sake of fulfilling absolute justice (for example, in Raskolnikov – the killing of the evil old woman and in general the whole problem of great personalities fulfilling the will of Providence). As a terrible judgment, absolute Justice acts not through us, but through its absolute servants – the angels. This is revealed through the parable.
In this way, as if by itself the following conclusion is imposed: Penetration into the divine plan of Providence does not justify anything and does not condemn people for their actions, does not contain any anthropodycy, because evil remains evil and it should not be “justified ”, that is, to become a right because of no good and necessary plan of Providence. Moreover, the evil leading to the best in this best of all worlds becomes a great evil; the evil that leads to “progress”, to a just system, is the worst evil – an evil that dares to justify itself by imagining that it is good. In this case, it is not the evil that is justified, but the good derived from it that is compromised. It is not the end that justifies the means, but the means that condemn the end. Any teleological rationalization of the historical process is an immoral enterprise.
Rationalist theodicy is morally unfit for man. But is it fit for God? After all, does it provide “justification of the Deity?”
N. A. Berdyaev’s remarkable article on theodicy in Vol. 7 of the present journal. It contains two main ideas:
1. Denial of false theodicy, of abstract monotheism, of the idea of a motionless, blissful, Eleatic and non-tragic God, creating the world and all the tragedy in it, while remaining isolated and passionless. Such a God should not be justified – this is an evil demiurge, and atheism is right in relation to him (pp. 56-57).
2. Confirmation of a possible theodicy, as a tragedy of God himself, as God’s sacrifice – suffering of God, Lord’s passions. God is love and God is freedom, and love and freedom are sacrifice and are suffering. Such a conception presupposes, of course, the God-humanity of Christ and the idea of the godlikeness of man.
In what sense is positive theodicy presented here? Properly – in only one way: God is protected from the reproach that he “left the bliss for Himself, and the suffering for the creation” (p. 55). Here God loves man and suffers with him.
Can such a decision be recognized as exhaustive? In the negative part, it seems to sound a strong thought: perfection cut off from the world is impossible. Perfection alongside the world, which lies in evil, and in the capacity of the original source and Creator of this world, is, of course, imperfection. If it (perfection) rejoices in its self-sufficiency, it is the worse for it, the more imperfect it is. Of course, perfection here is completeness and completeness (τέλος and πλήρωμα), and it cannot leave anything beyond itself, it must take everything upon itself and receive within itself. Perfection has to accept in its heart, to contain all the evil and suffering and tragedy of the world.
But here comes the difficulty – perfection filled with imperfection! Fullness filled with deficiencies! God, who took evil into Himself! And finally suffering, dying, experiencing tragedy! All these negative values (evil, suffering, death) turn out to be contained in the positive value of the Absolute Good – of God as perfection! But isn’t the tragic-suffering God an absolute contradiction? Is the category of tragedy applicable to God?
One thing is certain: in Christianity there is an idea of a “suffering God” and of the tragedy of God and man. The remarkable thing here is that every tragedy is divinely human and there is simply no other tragedy in its own sense. It is tragic that man is eternally united with God and eternally separated from Him (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?) – eternally carrying within himself the holy and divine, and eternally falling away and losing. Such is the nature of the ideal world, of the idea. (“Sie ist nur da, inwiefern man Sie nicht hat und sie entflieht, inwiefern man sie fassen will” – Fichte).
Plato’s Eros is neither just a god nor just a man, but a “god-man” and therefore tragic and his fate is the tragic fate of Psyche. It is tragic for God to unite with human nature and it is tragic for man to unite with God. The complete absence of tragedy would be the separation of man from God, the absolute self-sufficiency of man who does not suspect God, and the absolute self-sufficiency of God who does not look at man. In the mixing and joining of the incompatible lies the tragedy. That is why, for the gnostic Basilides, the tragedy of the world process ends with an absolute separation, isolation of the spheres: the being separated from God will not suffer, because it is wrapped in the “veil of great ignorance”.[1]
Suffering and tragedy have their source in the all-pervading oneness. If we leave the opposites alone, without connecting them with threads (Plato), if we do not gather them into one, the phenomenon of incompatibility, contradiction, tragedy would not exist. The tragic contradiction can be formulated differently: enemies in love (Romeo and Juliet), innocent guilt (Oedipus), the destruction of what is worthy of life and happiness. But the main tragedy is the accusation and punishment of the sinless and innocent. This tragedy is, so to speak, unbearable, and the question arises: how does God tolerate it? Here the question of theodicy is posed anew: why should the world become a tragedy?
To answer, we must first of all see that the world is truly a tragedy, experience and intuitively penetrate the essence of the tragic. Is it necessary to prove that the world is a tragedy, that life is a tragedy? Moral experience convinces us that the whole world lies in evil, and yet the life of the world is of supreme value, the cosmos is beauty, and all created, all truly existent, is too good. Here is the tragic contradiction experienced from all sides by the human spirit: with the logical, ethical and aesthetic consciousness. It would be better if the world didn’t exist! And, along with that: No, it better be! To be – that’s more than anything! Being is wonderful!
The life of the animal and plant world is full of cruelty, suffering, self-sacrifice, heroism – it is tragic in its essence, because it is hideous and, at the same time, beautiful. The tragedy of nature is in its indifference, and it would not be a tragedy if it did not have the strange radiance of eternal beauty, if it did not awaken in the soul the involuntary recognition (so be it! – And let it…).
However, if we rise to the highest levels of being known to us – to our own life, to the fate of the free man, to the fates of history, then here the essence of life is revealed as a tragedy more vividly than anywhere else. Buddha saw it, Socrates experienced it, Christ raised it to the ultimate god-human height. And each person in his own destiny in some way repeats that of the Son of Man – in not recognizing Him as the Most Beautiful, in the “legalistic” accusations, in the enmity of the Pharisees, in the betrayal of the disciple, in the Way of the Cross of life. History is tragic – both in personal biography and in the biography of nations.
If there are other higher superhuman degrees of being, as all religions presuppose, the world of angels, demigods, titans and heroes, even there the highest category of achievement in their lives is tragedy, as is clear from the tragic fate of the most beautiful of angels . Tragedy is the main historical category and, at the same time, the highest category of life in its greatest fullness and richness. Because history must be the history of all life, with all its sides and in all its fullness. If the life of each “I”, of each spiritual being, is a strange combination of necessity and freedom, as we know from our own experience, then the tragedy of history is necessarily the fate of freedom, or freedom under the power of fate. Only a free being can be under the power of fate, only a tragic hero has fate in the full sense of the word. Biological, causal necessity is not fate.
So, we don’t need to prove that life is a tragedy – everyone knows that from experience. Even the experience of happiness does not cancel the tragedy, because it is a moment of the tragedy (for example “Romeo and Juliet”). The demise of supreme and wonderful happiness is tragic, and history, human destiny, knows no undying happiness. Perhaps they will object to us that everyday life is rather comical than tragic, and the very history of nations reveals the “irony of fate” at every step. That is right. But the point is that comedy is also a possible moment of tragedy. He finds a place for himself in every tragedy embracing the fullness of life; after all, the essence of the tragic and the comic, as Plato also hints in his “Pyrrhus”, is the same. The irony of fate is often tragic and the history of nations is a tragicomedy.
And yet it is necessary to prove this statement, it is necessary to assess all its depth and seriousness, because humanity in its significant part is excited by the desire to avoid tragedy by any means, to prove to itself in any way that everything in nature and in history goes well, improves, progresses, evolves, unerringly arrives at the final earthly paradise. The tragedy-free philosophy of history is very widespread and very diverse. Here in the first place is the atheistic theory of the continuous evolution and progress of mankind. Comte, Feuerbach and Marx fully follow this line, which has been pushed since Epicurean materialism and Titus Lucretius Carr. Quite frankly, Epicurus and Lucretius state that the driving nerve of Epicureanism is the desire to destroy every tragedy in life, and above all the tragedy of the encounter with the other world and its forces. On this basis is built the naive optimism of self-sufficient humanity, which has imagined that everything is going for the better and happens by itself by virtue of some immanent laws of development.
Hegel’s formula that history is progress in the consciousness of freedom is also an attempt at a non-tragic philosophy of history – along the path of rationalistic and pantheistic monism, which regards humanity and its science and statehood as the highest degree of absolute spirit, such a philosophy inevitably leads to the atheistic “religion for humanity”, to Feuerbach and to Marx. With the same optimistic rationalism, she assures us that the atrocities in history are only “sacrifices before the altar of freedom”, and by freedom here is meant the celebration of the rational regulation of all life – this is precisely the kind of “freedom” that Marx also understood. Everything is going well, towards a “conscious” and socially well-arranged humanity. How much deeper, and more serious, and closer to tragic reality is the modern form of irreligious understanding of history, such as we see in Spengler: everything grows, blossoms and withers, everything tends to sunset!
However, there are not only atheistic constructions of the non-tragic philosophy of history, which we may call non-tragic anthropodicys; there are also non-tragic theodicies that originate from the understanding of the Deity, but which in their essence are still strikingly close to the first in their naive optimism and rationalism. Teleologically acting nature, teleologically developing humanity, teleologically progressing economy, all this Providence without God, or more precisely, Providence carried out by false deities – all this is replaced by the teleologically acting Providence of the Godhead in the world and in history. The philosophical coincidence is precisely in naive rational teleologism: the causa finalis is also the causa efficiens. Under such conditions, of course, there can be nothing particularly tragic, and in the end everything works out for the better in this best of all worlds.
The rationalistic theodicy of the Stoics was adopted in principle by Leibniz. Providence is basically rational – every aporia and every tragedy is resolved to the end. Only at first sight many things in nature and in history seem to us inexpedient; in fact, Providence has foreseen everything and turned every evil into a means of achieving a greater good. The petty-naive rationalism of the Stoics, who asserted that bugs exist to keep people from sleeping too long, and mice to prevent them from keeping their belongings in disorder, is in principle no different from the grandiose universal rationalism of Leibniz, forced to admit that the guilt of Judas is a “blessed guilt” (beata culpa, qui talem redemptorem exiguit).
In fact, instead of a theodicy, we arrive at the most terrible moral accusation against a Deity, operating on the principle that the end justifies the means, building its kingdom on sin, tears and suffering. If this is how things stand in the “best of all worlds”, all that remains for us, together with Ivan Karamazov, is to reject all worlds – both the bad and the good. Schopenhauer is right: the attempt to bypass tragedy leads theodicy to the most vulgar optimism: all is well in this best of all worlds! The story turns into a moral vaudeville with a happy ending.
Roman Catholic rationalism builds its doctrine of Providence on the foundations of Aristotelian teleologism and the Stoic doctrine of providence. Added to this is the juridical theory of atonement, turning the greatest of all tragedies – Golgotha – into a rationally proceeding and successfully concluding process between humanity and God. Here all tragedy is radically removed: both God is justly satisfied and humanity is redeemed and saved.
The destruction of tragedy here is achieved mainly through the application of legal categories. Tragedy, however, eludes all legal categories: try to think legally about the affairs of Othello or Macbeth and you will arrive at a series of flat platitudes. This shows that the category of tragedy is infinitely higher, more complex and, therefore, irrational than that of law. Perhaps tragedy is the truest expression of the ultimate irrationality of being – concentration and condensation of the greatest and ultimate aporias, because if this incomprehensible impasse (aporia) is not there, then in its own sense there is no real tragedy.
In this sense, science is tragic, in its aporias, and philosophy – in its extreme antinomies (such as Riche’s exclamation in his Metaphysics: “Yes, it is absurd, but what of it, since it exists”), ethics is also tragic – in the endless clashes of values, in its “pereat mundus, fiat iustitia” [let there be justice, even if the world perish], art is tragic – if only because its summit is tragedy, religion is also tragic – in its mysterium tremendum ( it is terrible for man to fall into the hands of the living God), in constant proximity to God and in infinite detachment from Him – in God-forsakenness. The tragedy of all life and of the entire history of the world – the universal, religious, divine and God-human tragedy – contains within itself, as in a focus, the concentration of all impasses, incomprehensibility and contradictions of the world. Here is the problem of problems, the point of collision and incomprehensible unity, here is the point of reconciliation of incompatible opposites. God Almighty holds in His hand that which is irresistibly pushed away. And this reconciliation of the incompatible is experienced as amazement, horror, tragedy; and together with this the hand of God is most strongly felt in him. That is why it is scary to fall into the hands of the living God, and in this fear is the most ancient experience of tragedy.
Only here does that strange spiritual experience find its explanation, that in suffering, in impasse and God-abandonment, the presence of God is felt most strongly – here, in extreme tragedy, the true theodicy is hidden, because this is where God is revealed – in the incomprehensibility of His Providence.
“From my depth (de profundis) I cried to You, Lord!”
Wer nie sein Brot mit Trähnen as,
Wer nie die kummervollen Nächte
Auf seinem Bette weinend sas,
Der kennt euch nicht, ihr himmlsche Mächte!
[2]
The fate of Job clearly reveals that it is precisely in the experience of the deepest tragedy that man’s meeting with Providence takes place, that precisely here – in this last why? – man stands face to face with God, but cannot see His Face. It can be said: where God acts, there everything is incomprehensible to man, and where everything is understandable, there is no encounter with God – there is the immanent world of human calculations and predictions (of a kind of “providence”). A fully unraveled and rationalized “Provision” would cease to be divine – its rational expediency reveals most unequivocally that there is human intent here. In their pretended consolations, Job’s friends are representatives of the world of rational theodicy: they seek to “justify” the Deity, to conceal the gaping abyss of tragic injustice of rational arguments, to find justice and expediency in Job’s fate according to their reason. However, it turns out that there is more truth in Job’s accusations directed at God than in the “justifications” of rational theodicy invented by his friends. Who is it that obscures Providence with meaningless words? This is what God says about all these “theodicies”.
In his tragic experience, Job felt clearly the injustice of these theodicies, and God Himself confirmed the absolute rightness of this feeling. After the categorical condemnation of human “theodicies” obscuring Providence, what does He say to Job? He unfolds before him a series of problems and mysteries of heaven and earth; He reveals Himself, or rather, hides Himself, as the problem of all problems; and then the tragic aporia of Job turns out to be one of the moments in the great crown of divine mysteries. The story of Job cannot be understood and “justified” through the immanent logos of this world, according to the method of Hegel and Leibniz – it has a prologue and an epilogue in heaven, in the other world. And what is happening there (a command given by God to Satanael) is incomprehensible to man and unacceptable to human ethics. This is not a solution, as it may seem to us, but a deepening of the tragedy and problematism – here God is not defined by human concepts of good and evil. After all, for Job, this otherworldly theodicy remains absolutely unknown; God didn’t tell him about her.
The tragedy of Job, as our Church teaches, is indeed a type of Golgotha, because Golgotha is the ultimate expression of the tragedy that can overtake the Son of Man and the sons of men. To see rational expediency and even juridical justice here is to really obscure Providence with meaningless words, and even worse – to obscure the judgment of good and evil (beata culpa!). Any rational and holy will can desire rational expediency and justice. However, this cannot be desired by the most reasonable and most holy will – that of the God-man. For this, the highest human wisdom and holiness, despite all the “theodicies”, was only able to say: let this cup pass me by! Does this mean that Christ failed to see that all is well in this best of all worlds? Or are these words of human weakness? Such a supposition would be most superficial and irrelevant, and it is refuted by: but Thy will be done. The acceptance of God’s will, of Providence, is not due to an awareness of its rational expediency by human reason. In the prayer for the cup, there is no weakness of the will, no limitation of human knowledge, but on the contrary – an absolutely true judgment of a holy will for man: we cannot wish for the God-man to be crucified, we cannot accept that Justice is crucified on the cross, to desire this crime, even in full readiness for suffering and self-sacrifice. Job prayed all the time: let this cup pass from me! Just like Christ – and not because of weakness, but out of awareness of his absolute right. We should not desire a suffering and humiliated righteousness.
The tragedy of Calvary disappears if we recognize one will in Christ (the Monothelite heresy) – only human or only divine. The tragedy is revealed in full depth only in the affirmation of the two wills: human and divine; a statement for which one of the greatest fathers of the Church – Maxim the Confessor – was martyred. If in this cup passing from me the will is expressed, the holy will of the Son of Man, then in your will, not mine, the divine will of the Father is present (I and the Father are one). The actual aporia of tragedy is that human will can be absolutely valuable and holy even when it contradicts the will of the Father, of Providence, when it will not be fulfilled. This is what Job’s friends cannot understand.
(to be continued)
Source: Vysheslavtsev, B. “Tragic Theodicy” – In: Put, 9, 1928, pp. 13-31 (in Russian).
Notes:
[1] Karsavin, L. Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church, Paris 1927, p. 31.
Parliament and five rotating Council Presidencies commit to work together to adopt the reform of the EU migration and asylum rules before the 2024 EU elections.
On Wednesday, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, Chair of the Civil Liberties Committee Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Asylum Contact Group Chair Elena Yoncheva and the Permanent Representatives of Czechia, Sweden, Spain, Belgium and France signed an agreement regarding the conduct of negotiations between the co-legislators with a view to reforming EU migration and asylum rules by February 2024.
They adopted the following joint statement:
“This is undoubtedly a historical moment. After a couple of months of exchanges on the Roadmap, the European Parliament and the upcoming Council Presidencies are committing themselves to make all efforts to finalise the reform of the Asylum and Migration legislative framework before the end of the current political cycle.
The Common European Asylum System and the New European Pact on migration and asylum represent a top priority in the work of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union and both sides should make the necessary efforts and work together as closely as possible, in a spirit of sincere cooperation, towards the adoption of the legislative proposals before the end of the 2019-2024 legislative period.
To achieve the common commitment to conclude the reform during the current legislative cycle, the negotiations on the respective files should be concluded by February 2024. This would require that the negotiations between the co-legislators should start at the latest by the end of 2022. The effective implementation of the timetable agreed will be subject to follow-up meetings between the Members of the Asylum Contact Group and rotating Council Presidencies.
We believe that by combining our efforts the Union can make real progress and deliver before the end of the current legislature. We should be able to deliver a new legislative framework on one of our most challenging policy areas, which is one in which only a common EU answer can provide a sustainable system. This roadmap is a clear sign of our commitment that we will conclude the work.”
Background
The European Commission proposed the New Pact on Migration and Asylum in September 2020 in order to improve the procedures and reach an agreement to share responsibility fairly among member states and act in solidarity when dealing with migration flows.
When the late Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued an Islamic edict against Salman Rushdie on February 14, 1989, an Arabic word, fatwa, the cleric used to call on Muslims to execute the author reverberated across the world.
The fatwa was issued in retaliation for The Satanic Verses, a 1988 book by Rushdie that Khomeini deemed blasphemous to Islam.
With that chilling Valentine’s Day decree, the two-syllable word, fatwa, inserted itself into the popular lexicon of the West, and has appeared more tenaciously than perhaps any other Middle Eastern term.
It came immediately to the minds of millions of people when they learned that a man wielding a knife last month attacked Rushdie at the Chautauqua Institution, a retreat for artists in New York State.
A fatwa, however, “rarely calls for death,” writes Miriam Renaud, a faculty member in the Department of Religious Studies at DePaul University, in an August 17 article in The Conversation, an independent, nonprofit news organization.
Various Islamic religious authorities can issue fatwas. Most of them are in response to questions about a range of issues posed by individuals or a group of people within a Muslim community.
Fundamentally, the word fatwa means “explanation” or “clarification” about issues surrounding Islamic law, says Renaud. “The process of issuing a fatwa usually begins when a Muslim, confronted with a problem of life, belief or law, is unsure what to do.”
Generally, Muslim individuals solicit fatwas from a local cleric or a group of Islamic law scholars when they are unsure about how to conduct themselves or when they are concerned that they might be “deviating from God’s dictates,” writes Renaud. “They may believe that straying from the path of righteous conduct could jeopardize their entry into heaven. For them, the stakes are high.”
Because fatwas cover a wide range of topics—everything from personal hygiene and marital relations to inheritance law, lifestyle and national allegiance—they require a thorough grounding in Islamic law as well as a sound knowledge of past fatwas.
Muslims cannot simply consult the Quran for answers to religious questions, Renaud explains, because the holy book is either silent on certain issues or various passages in it are subject to different interpretations, making it difficult for believers to decipher the correct reading.
Despite their authoritativeness, fatwas are nonbinding—that is, Muslims are under no compulsion to obey them. “The force of a fatwa derives from the authority, trust and respect accorded to the clerics, scholars or institutions who issue them,” says Renaud. “With this authority comes the power to shape the religious and social norms of the fatwa-requesting community.”
Although fatwas are often solicited by ordinary Muslims, they can also be issued in response to certain situations. For example, a leading seminary in India, the Dar al-Ulum Deoband, issued a fatwa in 2010 against the Islamic State after deeming the terrorist group to be un-Islamic.
“Rare are the fatwas like the one against Rushdie that call on Muslims to kill a particular individual,” Renaud concludes. “But for now, the fatwa against Rushdie stands.”
From its beginnings, the Church of Scientology has recognized that freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. In a world where conflicts are often traceable to intolerance of others’ religious beliefs and practices, the Church has, for more than 50 years, made the preservation of religious liberty an overriding concern.
The Church publishes this blog to help create a better understanding of the freedom of religion and belief and provide news on religious freedom and issues affecting this freedom around the world.
UN Photo/Loey Felipe -
Secretary-General António Guterres addresses UN Security Council members on threats to international peace and security.
Briefing the Security Council on Tuesday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres again underlined the need to de-escalate the situation around the embattled Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.
Europe’s largest nuclear plant has come under repeated shelling in recent weeks, sparking fears of a potential nuclear disaster.
Highlighting his continued grave concern over the situation, the UN chief again warned that any damage to Zaporizhzhia, or to any other nuclear facility in Ukraine, could result in a wide-reaching catastrophe.
“All steps must be taken to avoid such a scenario. Common sense and cooperation must guide the way forward. Any action that might endanger the physical integrity, safety or security of the nuclear plant is unacceptable,” he said.
I remain gravely concerned about the situation in and around the Zaporizhzhia plant, including reports of recent shelling.
Let's tell it like it is: Any damage – whether intentional or not – in Zaporizhzhia or any other nuclear facility in Ukraine, could spell catastrophe. pic.twitter.com/oi5a6sgOUS
The Secretary-General stressed that efforts to re-establish the plant as purely civilian infrastructure are vital.
“As a first step, Russian and Ukrainian forces must commit not to engage in any military activity towards the plant site or from the plant site. The Zaporizhzhia facility and its surroundings must not be a target or a platform for military operations,” he said.
The second step would entail securing an agreement on a demilitarized perimeter.
“Specifically, that would include a commitment by Russian forces to withdraw all military personnel and equipment from that perimeter and a commitment by Ukrainian forces not to move into it. Operators at the plant must be able to carry out their responsibilities, and communications must be maintained”.
The Secretary-General called for commitment to support inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stationed at the plant.
Following months of negotiations, a 14-member team from the nuclear watchdog arrived there last week. Two will remain at the site, which has been under Russian control since the early days of the conflict.
“I trust that the IAEA experts now deployed to Zaporizhzhia will be able to carry out their work without hindrance and contribute to ensuring lasting nuclear safety and security at the plant. All of us have a stake in the success of their critical mission,” he said.
‘Historic’ IAEA mission
IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi, who led the mission, had described it as “historic”. The fact that staff are now there is “unprecedented”, he added.
Citing nuclear disasters in Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as the conflict in Iraq, he recalled that while agency inspectors had experienced “difficult circumstances,” it had always been in the aftermath.
“We in this case have the historical, ethical imperative to prevent something from happening. And by having established this presence, and by agreeing to a special safety and security protection zone…we have the opportunity to prevent this from happening.”
Unsplash/Yehor Milohrodskyi
The Dnieper hydroelectric power station in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine.
‘Playing with fire’
The mission report, published on Tuesday, provides concrete recommendations to address the seven pillars of nuclear safety that Mr. Grossi had outlined at the beginning of the war.
Although the first pillar calls for not violating the physical integrity of nuclear facilities, “this happened, and continues to happen,” he said.
“The hits that this facility has received and that I could personally see and assess together with my experts is simply unacceptable. We are playing with fire and something very, very catastrophic could take place,” he warned.
The report proposes setting up a nuclear safety and security protection zone that would be limited to the perimeter and the plant itself.
Other recommendations call for removing all military vehicles and equipment from nuclear buildings at the site and ensuring the return to clear and routine responsibilities for staff, in addition to re-establishing an “appropriate” work environment.
