The fallacy of faith.

I've always been relatively close to Islam, having had the careful, nurturing guidance from two loving parents and countless other enlightened sources. I've had the privilege of going to the Kaaba numerous times as well as Madinah, largely in part because I lived in Riyadh for ten memorable years and our schools were lawfully compelled to give all students vacations during Ramadan. All of this is relevant insofar as it instilled in me a sense of cultural, religious zeal and affinity towards what Islam as a religion defined in its spiritual essence.

Therein lies the problem. Amidst the clamor of spiritual euphoria, one tends to bend both space, time and cognition towards a more palpable concept of faith. That faith is illustrated and realized through the lens of Islam (or any religion you grew up with) without fully understanding the nature and meaning of said faith. We then, as thinking, feeling and emotional entities, wrap ourselves into a belief system that fits well with our own upbringing, values and principles. It is convenient. It is comforting. It is also the truth. It also defines us, our culture, our identity and our whole belief system.

But what exactly is faith? Who chooses it? Who decides what is right or wrong? What manner does our own experience have in defining our faith?

Simply put, if people were born in Christian faith, what is the probability of enlightenment towards Islam that would be commensurate (in fairness) with destiny choosing people born into Muslim families. What's not to say that the situation can be reversed and Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is the enlightened faith and that muslims are the inheritors of bad luck. Which party then decides what faith is right and which is in the wrong?

But this entire approach is illogical. If religious people postulate their religiosity and knowledge of existence on faith, then that knowledge and religiosity itself is ridiculous. Because faith is arbitrary, and that one man's faith in God is synonymous with one's faith in a tooth fairy simply by the act of believing and submitting to faith. You can have faith in everything, and hence claim that anything can exist. Similarly, you can create your own religion by having faith in anything and claiming to its existence (either in your head or otherwise).

Subscription to and participation in some faith or another, is about such things as belonging to the group, being accepted, establishing one's cultural and social and individual identity, meeting emotional and psychological needs--things like that. The propositional claims of any particular faith are just fill-in-the-blank wild cards that the members have been indoctrinated to babble about. They're mytho-poetic constructions that some people, including believers themselves, mistakenly take to be literal propositional claims.

How many of us can claim to think above the confines of what we were born into? How many of us will act upon it? How much will our own biases seek to supplant any quest for other spiritual avenues than the ones were were brought up to believe?

I feel guilty

Well I just finished watching the Australian Open Final (thanks to the unbelievable level of play witnessed in the Wimbledon final) between two rivals that mirror the same intrigue, drama and personality analogous to Sampras/Agassi. I have to say, although Sampras still remains my favorite, I have to grudgingly concede that perhaps these two tremendous athletes provide the best rivarly in the history of tennis. Of course, by history, I mean since 1990 when I started to follow tennis thanks to a terrific Courier vs. Sampras match on clay.

After Sampras announced his retirement from Tennis, I pretty much lost all interest in tennis and banished it into the depths of "uninteresting-but-once-was-an-awesome-sport" like F1, Cricket and the Moto GP. Although I do not intend on following Tennis with the same youthful exuberance as I did in the 90s, I will try my best to try and watch any Nadal/Federer match in earnest if they so match up in future grand slams.

Now here comes the guilty part. Owing to an epic semi-final which pushed Nadal to over five hours, I was fully supporting Nadal, knowing that he would come to the match as an underdog by virtue of fatigue and muscle wear. After seeing the ceremony, I felt so much empathy for a tearful Federer that I felt sick: here is arguably the best tennis player in the history of tennis reduced to tears because he just can't get over his most challenging hurdle : Sampras' 14 slams in addition to beating Nadal, at his prime, in the final of a Grand Slam.

Now normally men are good at controlling their emotions, and with good reason - they need to be brave in situations that explicitly call for strength and restraint. However, just by seeing the poor guy cry like that made me understand just how much commitment these althletes possess and the sheer agony of perhaps losing to mantle of "The Greatest Ever". In fact, when Nadal said that he regarded Federer as a Great Champion, Federer almost starting bawling. Pressure, expectations and standards are so high for Federer that he just let it all out today - even Nadal visibly felt bad for him.

So here is to Federer for beating Nadal in the French final - if they do meet.