Posts on Religion-1
From [email protected] Tue Jun 29 1999 13:56:13
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: A Plea for Mutual Respect!
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:48:29 [email protected] (Mohammad Farooq) wrote:
[..]
>
>1. Using the case of homsexuality, incest and consensual sex, I was trying
>to make the point that there are clear right and wrong about these matters
>from religious viewpoints. Trading out religion altogether would also mean
[..]
The reason for the negative view by majority towards homosexuality is rooted in the
instinct for propagation and survival of the species. An isolated act of homosexuality
may not threaten the survival of human species but it is obvious that such acts in
a mass scale can indeed threaten our survival as a species. It is nature which
enforces in our mind the intuitive notion of wrong about some act which, if allowed
to proliferate would threaten our very survival. Just like we know that if someone
steals a penny it can never have any negative impact on the rest but we still look
down on the act of stealing a penny as a theft since repeated and simultaneous act
of such can begin to affect the rest. Not marrying is also considered a sin because
although one instance has no effect if done en masse can threaten our species. So
religion is secondary. Religion simply formalizes through decree something that nature
already has instilled into human's mind. It is the eternal law of the nature called
the survival of species that dictates the wrong or right. Never underestimate the
power of this instinct. This power can chnage the wrong of today into the right
of tomorrow and vice versa if survival requires it to be so. Survival instinct is
ruthless and it doesn't care what one thinks individually.
Now on to incest. Again its perceived wrongness by most is rooted in this survival
instinct. Incest upsets one key element of survival of species namely "random
genetic mutation" (Natural selection being the other). Even religion can take
cotradictory positions when survival instinct demands so. Nowhere is this exemplified
so well other than in the Bible. In genesis 19:30 Lot escapes to the hills of Zo'ar
with his two daughters and is forced in exile there while Sodom and Gomorrah are
destroyed. One of his two daughters realizing that it may be the end of their
generations decides to get their father drunk so he can engage in incest in
order to preserve the offspring. The fact that Lot or his daughters are not censured
in the Bible while describing this act itself testifies that survival instinct
can override (or determine) morality (religious):
GENESIS:
19-30: Now Lot went up out of Zo'ar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he
was afraid to dwell in Zo'ar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters.
19-31: And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on
earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.
19-32: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may
preserve offspring through our father."
Finally if homosexuality is wrong because it contributes negatively to the survival of
species then by the same token if overpopulation begins to threaten our survival then
is it possible that nature may enforce a homosexual instinct to curb overpopulation
and bring back a balance? (just a rhetorical question. I don't know). Is this why we
are seeing more and more homosexual cases than before? After all, nature do bring in
this balance in animal kingdom where whenever their is an overpopulation in a species
it seems to follow with an epidemic, mass starvation etc to bring down the population.
In human we have the choice how to do the balancing ourselves. I would prefer adopting
family planning measures rather than resorting to homosexuality which would put an end
to the beauty and symmetry of the wonderful feeling of romance between opposite genders
and the poetry and art and aesthetics that it has inspired over the ages.
cosmic thinker
From me Sat Jul 17 1999 14:17:06
To: [email protected]
Subject: [eSHOM] Re: AGITATION OVER PLOT ALLOTMENTS.
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:39:14 "Zafar Sadique" wrote:
[..]
>of many social problems back home, fanaticism is the least of our worries.
>Bangladeshis are some of the most secularized patriotic nationalists on the
I Disgree on both counts: (1)Fanaticism is a big worry for many of us.
(2) Many posters in various forums make repeated assertions (optatively) that
Bangladesh IS a defacto Islamic country if not dejure. So both assertions
can be debated in the sweeping manner they have been made.
>face of the earth. We don't have the time or the need for 'Bible-thumpers'.
I haver never heard of Bible Thumper's declaring a booty on anyone's head
(there are countless vocal aethists, secularists, bible debunkers in US
providing a rich source of targets of bible-thumpers) forcing them to flee
their country and beloved ones. We not only have our equivalents of
bible-thumpers but head choppers too.
>It is inconceivable for us to be fanatics in religion, although we are rabid
Again strongly disagree. Too obvious to even justify my disagreement.
I can only agree that most of us are not fanatic (As in any society).
>Compared to some of the frenzied fanatical mobs in India and Pakistan, we
>Bangladeshis are a bunch of pacifists!
Thats a very unfortunate "holier than thou" statement. The fringe fanatical
elements in Bangladesh are no less (If not more) frenzied than INDIA/PAK. The
stoning of so many women in rural BD, not to mention the attempt on a renowned
Poet's life (Just a few incidents out of so many I cannot list) is an
eloquent testimony to that.
>the last general election. Of course, one of the reasons why religion (and
>moral principles) have retreated from our minds so much is because we�ve
>become a lot more secular in recent years than our fathers, no thanks to a
Jamat never got any substantial seat in Pakistan days or even in
current pakistan. So the reasoning that Jamat doesn't get enough seat
because we are *more* secular today than before is obviously flawed. In
fact we are less secular than before. Before Friday was not a holiday.
Now one cannot dare think of changing that. Before Tagore song and classical
dance was accepted and much desired among middle class. Now it is considered
Hindu-ghesha by many and viwed with hesitation/suspicion. I can add many more
examples but will not for sake of brevity.
>incident with the Babri masjid, zealots throughout Bangladesh attacked
>twelve mandirs and two masjids. Compare that to what went on in our
>neighboring countries. In India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal, over a 100
>mandirs, masjids and girjahs were attacked (many of them completely burnt to
Again a sad case of "Holire than thou". Was 12+2 vs 100 compared on a
comparable time and space? If 100 destroyed by combined India+Pakistan+SriLanka
over their entire history is compared to 12 by BD over a weeks or months
time span then that was a very poor comparison (Assuming the veracity of both
numbers)
>than you'd think. [The irony here is that the CIA, last year, classified us
>�a country with territorial ambitions�(!) In its Book of World Facts, it
>considered us a nation that had natural tendencies to conquer other lands or
>to impose its cultural views on others. I have no idea how they came to that
Although I would also challenge that assumption by CIA on grounds of political
correctness, but I have no reason to believe for sure that we don't have that
natural tendency. If extrapolation is at all a guide then judging by how
we disposses our own people of their belongings, engage in extortions,
fraud and deception one can imagine how we would be if we had the power or
resources to do so over othger nations with impunity. It may be (A plausibility,
not an absolute assertion) just that because we are so poor (Caused by this very
habits) we cannot display these natural tendencies. Territorial ambitions
requires resources. So if one does not have the resources then we cannot decisively
conclude one way or the other but can make tentative assumptions extrapolating
from other related tendencies.
BUt again I should repeat that it was a very unfortunate and politically
incorrect conclusion to draw by CIA. I have to check on it. Can you please give
exact reference of where and when it was made?
>But in my humble opinion (and from direct experience), the major problem why
>we are spiraling towards destruction is the fact that everyone is out to
>look after their own personal interests. Most people, especially those in
[..]
I assume the "problem" above was meant to be "cause". If so then the *cause*
was misidentified as another *effect* of the same underlying cause, i.e
"spiralling towards destructions" and "look after their own personal interests"
are just the two of many effects of some more basic cause. Whats the cause? That
is the real problem (Or the billion Taka question. I cannot even dare answer it
one post)
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eSHOM] Re: Dealing with Our Moral Bankruptcy
[email protected] wrote on Fri Sep 17 09:21:18 1999:
[..]
>cases the facts. The unfortunate part of these discussions however has been
>the apparent lack of objectivity in these discussions. I do not know if we
I disagree. There has been at least one if not more objective discussions
on it. It is a lot wiser to analyse and critque other's views than to attach
attributes (like unobjectivity) to them (which in itself a subjective act,
not objective). Contrary to what is being alleged above, I found the articles
of Nilu Hasnat, Shaikh Mizan under polynadry and of some others in the Dhoti
thread quite objective. Of course there is an unwritten rule that when a mind
which is pre-wired to some views and dogmas finds a view which runs counter to
that pre-wired view will always declare it to be lacking in objectivity, no
matter how solidly that view is based on logic and evidence. So I will resign
myself to that unwritten rule. (This is well explained by the great
Biologict/Thinker Richard Dawkins in his classic book "The selfish
Genes" while proposing the ideas of "memes".
> I do not know if we
>have been able to conclude (at least in my mind) as to whether Dhoti is a Ben
>Bengali attire or a religious attire for the Hindus. The issue of Polyandry
I, and I believe most readers already knew or have concluded that it
is a cultural attire. Just like trousers is not a christian attire, but a
western cultural attire and we chose to adopt it through British influence
without becoming a Kafir.
>however, has probably gone out of bounds in convincing us with the facts that
> the issue of Polyandry is one stemming out of the equal rights for women.
>In reading some of the well versed articles written by well respected members
>of this forum defending the case of Polyandry, I have felt a pulse of sh
No body was defending the case of polyandry. The moot point was if Polygyny
(an undesirable right) is allowed to a man then on grounds of fairness
polyandry (another undesirable right) should also be allowed to women. That
does not imply a defense of polyandry. A more preferable position would have
been to advocate denial of the right of polygamy to either gender. Tht would
have been fair and proper. But instead majority were interested in producing
specious arguments to "justify" the right to polygyny. Some were harping on
the already known trivial fact that polygyny is not an option, not an
obligatory act, as if the counter argument was why is polygyny compulsory.
Not arguing to the point has alsways resulted in unnecessary verbiage and
repetitions. So far no body has come up with any convoncing "WHY" as to
the denial of polyandry to women, which was the original query that started
the thread of this debate/discussion. Any other discussion is irrelevant.
>ock that goes beyond all the comprehension of human minds. The more shocking
>have been the fact that these are written by some of the best brains that
>our country has produced. I hope and pray that these have been merely a ne
Those so-called best brains can with equal or more justifications express
their shock at their adversaries's views in thses debates.
>gative writing against Polygamy than writing in support of Polyandry. Our r
>eligion has given only tacit permission to Polygamy for controlling and min
>imizing social and sexual corruption that can plague the society after majo
>r wars or in cases of gender imbalance in the population. One of the writer
>s have very clearly pointed out the fundamental demerit of polyandry that w
>ill keep the identity of the father unknown to their offspring which can cr
This has been refuted. DNA tests can easily identify true parent. But
regardless, why is it important to know? I have to repeat my own argument
from my earlier post on this: "This to me appears a very poor justification
of denying a fundamentally important thing as right to equality. Is it
important to know the true genetic father of a child, when the prime issue
in any traditional family is the cohesion of a family, proper rearing of the
child etc. The desire to know the true genetic father is a subjective desire,
the fulfilment of which should not be tied to granting/denying a fundamental
right like gender equality." If multiple males agreed to have one wife, they
should lose any selfish desire to identify their own genetic offspring. If
they chose to be so selfish then they have the choice to be monogamous. Nobody
is forcing them to have more than one wife.
>ions of Algebra. I would leave the eSHOMABESH friends to ponder and find ou
>t the fallacy the secretary had in his presentation.
Fallacy is an inappropriate choice of word here. In an ideal world any
dishonesty is wrong. But anyway in a real world not all wrongs have to be
or judged to be equal. The secretary is far below in the scale of wrongness
that his inept peers who got rich overnight through political connections.
Seems like the secretary was being criticised more than the corrupt
business contractors. To equate them or to criticise the secretary more
than the contractor is tantamount to rewarding the contractor. Let us
condem all corrupts, but be clear as to who comes first in the condemnation.
>
>
>People might scoff at what I have to say. I strongly believe that religion
>can play a dominant role in our personal and national lives in restoring ou
They already do in national life. They also do in the personal lives in
a ritualistic sense. Honesty/humility/tolerance which are the hallmarks of all
religions and all secular ideas unfrtunately do not. Religion is not the
only (or best) way to improve a nation. This is an issue beaten to death so
I will not repeat it here.
>
>
>Allah has been very clear in His definition of what is right and what is wr
>ong. If one understands these signs and symbols, they can very easily disti
Right and wrong are there in our conscience/consciousness. Be a good
human being (let your frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex exert more
control on the middle brain's negative impulses and all will be well)
A religious person can commit wrong and a secular person can be virtuous
and VICE VERSA. But the frontal lobe->midbrain relation is one-way.
>no religion ever condones absolutism. Quran very clearly and scientifically
> states that nothing in this universe is absolute other than God Himself. A
Nothing is absolute also demands that the concept of GOD being created in
the mind of human must not also be absolute. The above statement is quite
vulnerable to an infinite regress.
>and this has scientific and logical reasoning behind it. Our society needs M
>oslem scholars who are fully educated having full understanding and knowled
>ge of the modern technology, modern marvels, and science
Again it is superfluous to bring in religion to science, technology or
vice versa. Neither can validate the other (Although science can
invalidate some religious belief). Religion is a belief without reason
and objective evidence. Science has to do with belief. Can we separate
the two? Even sensible religious people believe that faith should be in
indivdual's personal life, not in the external world.
having said all above, I do agree with the rest of the posting.
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eSHOMH] Re: Dealing with Our Moral Bankruptcy, a rebuttal
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:43:31 [email protected] wrote:
[..]
> Your point of Dhoti's Bangali cultural attachment is debatable though. C
>ulture is always very dear to our hearts and therefore, everyone would be r
>esistant in changing the status quo, Dhoti however, has nothing to do with
> Bangali culture though because the Marthis, the Gujratis, the Sikhs, the B
>angalis and so many other castes also wear Dhoti.
That doesn't still invalidate my earlier assertion that "Dhoti" is a
cultural (Traditional Indian) attire and not necessarily a religious attire,
as much as pants are not Chritsian attire, or Punjabi not a Muslim attire
etc. Any logical person can read my remarks here as not implying that I am
advocating wearing Dhoti !
>
>
>Going back to the issue of objectivity, I did not find any purpose served b
>y those wonderfully articulated pieces although I had admitted the qualitat
>ive value of the individual writings.
I don't see the connection between "objectivity" and "serving any purpose"
or "qualitative value" as is being belaboured above. Talking about purpose,
what purpose if any, is being served by any posting in eshomabesh,
including yours and mine? (There will be as many answers as readers :)
>
>I feel that Mr. Rahman has been a bit unfair in this section by pre-judging
> my own understanding of these issues. I am not particularly sure as to wh
>at type of pre-wiring we are referring to. As conscious human beings, we a
[...]
>y, so this kind of characterization of my beliefs is a bit pre-mature.
My intent was mainly to point out that by characterizing other's views as
lacking in "objectivity" one gives others the justification for the same
characterization of him/her and thus result in an infinite loop. So my
*suggestion* was to critique the message, not characterize them
subjectively. (or to justify such characterization, which was absent).
This is not a crucial point. So I am willing to retract it.
>
>
>On the issue of Polygamy Mr. Rahgman has been articulate in defending the r
>ights of women by introducing similar rights to them.
>
>In our religion, the right of polygamy for men is not the norm but an excep
>tion. This exception has been granted to men for the following reasons:
> a.. Increase of women population after major wars
> b.. General percentage of women in the societies are expected to grow m
>ore than men.
> c.. Minimize social and sexual corruption of out of marriage sexual enc
>ounters.
For each reason for polygyny, there can be shown counter reasons for
polyandry. The reasons should be timless. what if, at some point in time
for whatever reason, women population may become siginificantly lower than
men. Would we wait for a new revelation? Besides what is the basis of this
hypothesis in (b)? What is the source of this projection? Reason (c) seem
to be resigning to a weakness of males by legitimizing it through polygyny
rather than trying to eliminate the sexual corruption by prohibiting it
(Which already is prohibited, so why this appeasement?).
>Mr. Rahman has defended Polyandry quite lavishly in the name of equal right
>s for women. It is not that the practice of polyandry is not there. The W
>estern societies practice polyandry in their day to day life without formal
>izing that as a social law but calling it as out of marriage sexual encount
>er. To our surprise, it is even practiced in our so called liberated part
Again a case of "WHAT IS" in the context of "WHY IT IS" query. It seems to
never go away. Why bring in Western society in a very specific issue that
was brought up under this thread ? The issue was "Why not equal rights"
between genders in the matter of polygyny and polyandry? Any digression
on the existing reality is irrelevant. I am not defending polyandry.
I am just defending equality of gender. Any extrapolation is reader's
prerogative.
>of the society. Given the current male to female ratios and the trends of
>growth, polyandry will leave a major section of the male not finding women
>as their life partners. As a result, this group of male will look for casu
>al sexes that will pose tremendous threat to the humanity in terms of disea
>se, social structures, and social balance.
Since the above discussion is being based on non-religious considerations,
then we might as well bring in evolutionary biology. If left to nature,
it is known that the male female ratios in human is evolutionary stable
at 50:50. A major disaster may temporarrily destabilize that ratio, but soon
it will restabilize at the ESS (Evolutionary Stable State) level, much as
a pendulum will eventually come back to its mean position after nudging it.
Human society granting specific proportional rights of polyandry/polygyny
will not affect the ESS in the long run. In animals polygyny is common as
animal species are not immune to threat of extinction and it is important
that the strongest males mate and produce the strongest offsprings for
survival of the species. The weaker males accept that. Humans are not in
the danger of extinction (Other than nuclear holocaust, asteroid impact etc),
so each male and female can form a mating pair. Strength of individual males
are not relevant for the mating rights.
>are heading for a disaster. I have not condoned the corruption of the corr
>upt contractor but have pointed out that the defender of our regulations an
>d policies have accepted that corruption and has justified his own.
One has to look at the root cause and not at the effect. Corruptions
at all levels is rampant now because of the very corrupt nature of our
political leadership/hierarchy and its trickling influence. As much an
idealist we can be it is unrealistic to expect (not condoming like you
above. Just stating the reality of not to expect) a secretary having paid
their dues through academic credentials and tests to enter a civilian
position in the government and stay clean at 6000 Tk salary when a
political arriviste with no respectable education and forged degrees
making millions in one sweeping move thanks to political maneuvering.
Again, as I said placing the blame in the wrong sequence/degree
does not do justice. It is like handing down the same sentence for a
murderer and a pilferer. This amounts to a reward to the murderer.
Maybe we don't disagree here, do we?
>
>
>The question is how do you build your conscience and how do you become a
>good human being? Religion helps you build your conscience and helps one to
>distinguish between right and wrong. All human beings have a subconscious
Religion doe not "build" conscience. Conscience is there latently in all
human even before religion arrived. Religion is just one way
(By the threat of hell, reward of heaven) to enforce the conscience
(right and wrong) for those who don't possess the powewr to enforce it
themselves (Whose frontal lobes are less effective in controlling their
negative impulses ). A strong enforcing of civilian rules (cf Singapore)
can do it as effectively or more. The real virtuous are those who can
enforce their conscience by their sheer sense of righteousness, not by
human or divine decree.
>
[..]
>will understand. The scientists and technologists are proving what has
>been said in the Quran is right through their logical reasoning that can be
> comprehended by human minds. Every verse of the Quran is work of an art and
>science which has all the scientific and technological reasoning behind
>it.
>Give me one example of a scientific discovery that has tangibly proved a
>Quranic verse to be wrong.
This is your highly individual subjective findings. The claim that
divine books validate/propose scientific principles are made only by
individuals holding that belief and by some self proclaimed
*scientists* who don't have enough credentials among scientific community.
It is not a consensus of scientists themsleves (Be they Christian, Muslim,
or ..). Even Nobel Laureate Dr. Abdus Salam never made such extraordinary
claim. The Oxford Physicist and Anglical priest John Polkinghorne also
never made such claim. Both of them lead a split life as a scientist and
a religious person. If religion having invented science was a consensus
then we wouldn't be spending fortunes to buy text books to learn about
Physics, Biology etc when the original source is there.
Another point. If phrases and expressions are made in a quite general and
vague way, any scientific findings and principles can be "reverse" reasoned
to fit with any revelation. Just like vague and general predictions by
fortune tellers seem to be right on the mark.
>
>With due respect to Mr. Rahman, I would ask you to read the Quran and under
>stand its directives. You will find it to be the greatest work of science
That was highly personal assumption about me (That I haven't read or don't
understand, quite unnecessary and unfortunate). Although I needn't for the
purpose of any *logical* discourse, I would bore the readers with the
information that "I have and I do understand".
[..]
>o other areas of productive outlets. The visit of our prophet in Shab E- M
>irage to meet Allah is a glaring example that Newtonian theory of motion wa
>s wrong and that the theory of relativity is a step in the right direction.
> And a day will come when science will prove that a human can attain the s
>peed of light and be able to see once past while traveling in the space.
About comprehending some verses and not others, who is to judge who didn't
comprehend what?. "A" may think that he/she understands verse 'X' and "B"
doesn't, and "B" may think likewise. These are highly subjective readings
of belief. As I mentioned above no scientist of any repute have ever
tried to substantiate scientifc principles by religious beliefs. Most
scientists and theologicians would rather not mix faith with objective and
rational field of science. Its a completely false statement that Newton's
Law is *wrong*. The truth is that Newton's law does not apply to atomic
world or to objects at high speed. Just like British laws don't apply to
US doesn't make british laws invalid in Britain.
Regards.
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 17:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eSHOM] Re: Religion and Science
Lots of verbiage attempting to validate/plug religion by science has been going
on lately in this forum using at best fallacies, specious arguments and
paralogic. I am asking for advance apology of readers for this long article, but
hopefully this will be my last one under this thread, and it was necessitated by
the other long articles by several members. The fact if I may point out that and
I have repeatedly stressed that religion is a BELIEF, just that. Once someone
has staked their belief into religion one will go out of the way and bend over
backwards to "validate" (by bizarre logic if needed) and soft sell (In some
cases hard sell) their belief it to others by any available resources including
the well established priciples of science. To those die hard permanently wired
believers it will hardly matter how much scientific reasoning or evidence be
given to demonstrate any contradictions between religion and science as they
will take it up even harder upon themselves to defend their heavy stake in the
belief and find by any stretch of imaginations the logic to retort back to such
reasoning and evidence. It will be a sheer waste of time to try to point out the
contradictions to them. Indeed this has already been done again and again and
has gone nowhere. Last two centuries abound with such refutations of religion.
Instead of repeating the endless debate on science and religion at different
times in different societies involving scientists, philosophers, theologicians
etc again here in eshomabesh one is best advised to check out innumerable books
and other resources that have addressed this issue (have beaten it to death). I
wil provide some references at the end of my own general discussion. These
refernces are provided to represent the counter views and for one to judge
for themselves and decide to be convinced or not. I am not urging any biased
belief in those sources either. A critical attitude is always welcome. But
logic and evidence should be the ultimate arbiter.
There is this myth about "explaining" all the inconsistencies/contradictions
that exist in a religion (in its scripture,revelations,tenets) when it is
pointed out by critical thinkers to a blind believer of a religion. One should
realize that one who has formed a belief blindly, can in no way objectively and
critically form an "explanation". Their explanation will necessarily be an
effort to justify and explain (to their convenience) what they already have
placed blind faith in unconditionally. Any explanation, if it is only for
consumption by the members of that same faith and does not convince any one else
hardly qualifies as a rational explanation but merely serves as a placebo to the
insiders to assuage their fears and doubts and as an artificial affirmation.
Even those believers who are often bothered at first by some inconsistencies
surrender to some perceived "scholars" in religion to do the explaining for them
so they can rest assured with no doubts in mind. They can never critically
examine the merit of those explanations as they are merely seeking an
affirmation of their already blind faith and are just content with the fact that
someone with a "good" (subjectively judged) credentials is doing the
explanation that they are desperately in need of for the affirmation of
something they have staked their belief in and would rather not backtrack from
it as the resulting disenchantment would be devastating to their emotional
psyche and disturb stability of their mind. Oftentimes believers in blind faith
respond to critics of their blind belief saying their critics are biased
themselves and their disbelief in the blind faith is itself due to their bias
against the believers. One has to be very careful here. Atheists/skeptics/agnostics
freethinkers exist BECAUSE OF blind believers and NOT the other way around.
It is the constant claims and persuasive attempt to force the belief on others that
created the skeptics/agnostics etc as a counter reaction. Believers of blind
faith do so out of a need and has great stake in the preservation and propagation
of the perceived truth of his/her belief and hence would defend any criticism of
it without caring to judge the merit of the criticism objectively. On the other
hand a non-believer of a blind faith has nothing to gain just by not believing
and criticsing any claims of truth of the blind faith holders. The non-belief
can only be due to the analytical way of thinking by the non-believers who
cannot accept a belief irrationally just because they are being told so. Far
from gaining anything from the non-belief they rather take on potential risk of
depriving themselves from the euphoria generated by the blind belief. Anything
that has a rational basis can never be rejected/criticised by a rational person.
On the other hand a rational person can believe in a blind faith due reasons other
than evidence and logic, for example due to symmetry, simplicity and beauty
(until conclusively proven wrong by evidence and logic. For example, Einstein
believed a steady state theory because of its symmetry but later accepted expanding
uniberse after evidence pointed otherwise) and will honestly admit that the blind
belief is due to a wishful desire (symmetry as in Einstein's case) and since it
has not been proven wrong by evidence or logic might as well believe in it (But
not trying to propagate it through imposition on others). So the clear conclusion
that emerges is that the reason for a rational person to not believe in a blind
faith cannot be "bias" or "scientific fanaticism" (Thats an obvious oxymoron) as
one poster wrote.
The plain fact that emerges out of a study of all these are that no reputable
scientist (reputable by consensus. Just claiming scientist 'x' from country 'y'
is reputable does not make one so) have ever formally or informally given the
verdict that science validates religion. On the other hand overwhelming majority
of scientists do informally state in private the inherent contradictions between
religious revelations and science, but seldom formally and publicly go about
establishing the contradictions, since that goes against professionalism and
creates undesirable bitterness and exposes them to possible nemesis of the
religious extremists. Besides it takes away from their valuable time of research.
Since the belief in the scientific validity of religion is necessitated by the
belief in religion in the first place it might be instructive to contemplate on
the possible origin of the belief in religion itself.
[..] The rest is same as eshomabesh article 2541. Please see that article.
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eSHOM] Re: Religion and Science
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:58:29 wrote:
>therein. I do sense some bitterness in the posting for the ones who put
>their belief in the revelations of our creator. I would like to start my
Again this is another sad case of indulging in judging a poster's
*personality* (bitterness) when it should really have been a judgement
of one's argument and counter arguments in defense of the judgement. My
views reflect those of a vast majority of scientists and critical
thinkers. Is it necessary to analyse my mental state to establish any
logic? For the record I am not bitter at all, I have great tolerance and
respect for personal beliefs. But if one chooses to debate their personal
beliefs on scientific and logical basis then others should be entitled
to disagree and refute them on the same basis. That does not imply any
disrespect or bitterness.
It must be remembered how this thread got started in the first place. It
was because someone brought religion (A special religion) in what was a
non-religiuos topic. That triggered a dissenting view which resulted
in the series of postings and counter postings. If any dissenting view
now appears as *bitternes* to someone then one would rather not bring
religion into any topic of general interest for holders of all religious
beliefs. Mentioning of religion can be made in topics related to religion.
>the message contained therein. I can assure you that an objective
>discussion about religion will not be a waste of time because the ones with
The problem is with the word *objective*. One important criterion of
objectivity is *consensus* that crosses all human boundaries of race,
religion, language etc. Religious beliefs have never achieved such
consensus to be able to claim *objectivity* as the scientific
principles have (Is theory of relativity or Quantum theory, or the
DNA structure of genes denied by scientists of any particular
religion or race?). There is no such consensus of scientific validity
of religious revelations (Not only between religions but within one
religion as well). So the word *objective* can only be uttered
unilaterally by a dogmatic believer and the concept of an *objective*
dialog between dogma holders and critical thinkers is really a farce.
>that we can talk about without focusing on the differences. The ultimate
>objectives of these discussions can be on the purity of the heart that can
>stamp out the moral degradation of our generation.
Who can deny the the importance of "purity of the heart" that can
stamp out the moral degradation of our generation. Lets talk about it
without bringing in religion (specially a preferred one. All human
irrespective of religious denominations should be the targets for such
a discussion/objective). I earnestly hope the next article will shift
in that direction so we don't have to write ad infinitum about the
conflict between science and religion.
>
>
>You are making a wrong assumption here that "faith is blind". Yes love for
>our Creator can be blind but not the faith. We have an internal mechansim
Any faith without logic and evidence (as judged through *consensus*, not
by certain individual or group of believers) is necessarily biased/irrational.
>
>a rational person can be a believer in a religious faith based on his/her
>own reasoning and therefore, his/her stature as a rational thinker should
>not be revoked just because that his rational pattern of thinking has
>confirmed a revelation.
There is a major confusion of thought here. A scientist making a tentative
hypothesis basing on the criterion of beauty/symmetry is not the same
as a belief in a religious revelation. A scientfic hypothesis is
FALSIFIABLE (By contrary evidence and logic). But the belief that a revelation
is the word of God cannot be FALSIFIED. Thats where science and belief part
company. One is falsifiable other is not. Neither can be a belief PROVED in
the objective and consensus sense as scientific principles are.
>
>religion ever advocates the impurity of hearts. The common themes of all
>religion is social harmony, social justice, human rights, and their solemn
>responsibility to other beings and the society in general. It is not to say
>that there will not be any good rulers without religion who will be just and
>fare. However, that will become an individual feit not an institutional
>upbringing.
Thats not true. I gave the examples of Singapore, China and many secular
nations where Institutional upbringing do enforce a crimefree society.
The fact that *common themes* of all religion is "social harmony, social
justice, human rights,.." itself suggest that there is something
universal about these noble human ideals that transcend religious
boundaries. Humanism is the ultimate universal theme. A religious belief
is private and non-universal (To each his own). If all men held their
religious beliefs like the way women do i.e confined it to home then
there would be no need of skeptics, agnostics, free thinkers etc (at
least there would be no vocal debates :)
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eSHOM] Re: Religion and Conscience
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 22:16:03 [email protected] wrote:
Mr. Parvez's response to Dr. Mizan resurected an old debate on moral relativism
vs. moral objectivism. Although we did have quite a few exchanges on this issue
on another forum it is nevertheless an important and interesting issue to
repeat and add fresh thoughts into it. The usual question :"I have my morals. You
have yours. Who is to judge whose is right and who is wrong?" is as old as humanity
and the philosophers, logicians, ethicist, sociologists have been debating it for
centuries and many thoughtful answers have been offered. There are vast litterature
on this issue. I have listed only selected few online. All the routine syllabus of
Philosophy program in academic institutions includes this topic in their erthics
class. Some moral objectivism have good logic behind them and have not been
refuted by moral relativist with the same logical rigour as the objectivists. In
fact moral relativists have always landed in self- contradictions or inconsistencies.
So has the religious absolutists. Let me fist provide my own concept of objective
Wrong. Right is harder to objectify and doing right is more of an optional
(desirable) nature rather than the impertaive nature of abstaining from wrong.
Of course rights are usually convertible to wrongs by the simple recipe:
wrong = "not doing something right". So we can focus on only wrongs. I will first
discuss at length on morality, conscience etc and then go on to specific comments in
Mr. parvez's response since my preceding discussion will make the responses quite
easy and natural. Let me refer to some on line resources on this debate that are
very articulately written and will supplement the rest of my discussions quite
nicely. So I would recommend taking a look at these artilces first:
1. http://www.SecularHumanism.org/library/fi/schick_18_4.html (morality and objectivity)
2. http://www.SecularHumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html (morality and God)
3. http://xent.ics.uci.edu/FoRK-archive/august97/0138.html
(This is a series of debate in a discussion list. Follow the articles in sequence)
4. http://members.aol.com/okhutor/essay/morals.html (objective morality, quite verbous)
5. http://www.optonline.com/comptons/ceo/01546_A.html (Ethics and Morality)
Next let me try to answer Mr. Parvez's query as to what is conscience:
Conscience: It is Analogous to reflex action. A baby or an animal (Both lack in
developed consciousness) may be inclined to touch something appealing (e.g fire
to a baby or any foul tasting object which looks attractive to an animal) but on
contact both will retreat instinctively. Conscience is an intellectual analog to
the physical reflex action, an instinct which causes a human to retreat from an
act that one feels tempted (instinctively) to commit. The retreat is due to a
perception of wrong which is in turn due to a counter instinct. For example
someone may be tempted to steal a large amount of money with out any risk of
being caught, but may eventually decide against it. So it is this advanced (due
to evolution of consciousness into intelligence) instinct that inhibits the
primitive (rooted in survival and propagation) which is called conscience. In
fact animals are seen to steal and rob routinely with no qualms whatsoever, it
is natural in them, prompted by survival and propagation. Their consciousness
has not evolved into the level of intelligence that humans have. Intelligence
has made human species easy to survive and propagate and develop traits such as
compassion, conscience which are not needed for basic survival and propagation,
but help in the constant yearning for improvement. This intellectual instinct
cannot have arisen in human due to religion, since religion is a recent arrival
compared to human civilization which is many thousands years old. In fact human
intelligence (judged by the complexity of human brain) has been almost unchanged
for about 200,000 years. The part of our brain that is identified with the
faculty of judgement(conscience) by neurobiologists, called frontal lobe was as
developed in humans in ancient civilzations as are today. Human and animals
differ significantly on the size of frontal lobes, pointing to more developed
senses in human. Early Greeks, did have concepts of ethics, even before the
revealed religions arrived on earth, so did the Chinese, and Indians, and these
were/are philosophies rather than religion, since they don't decree moral
absolutes being ordained by a divine entity through revelations. Philosophies
are creations of human mind (So is religion, in my opinion, but this will
certainly be debated by the religious purists) so any values emerging from these
philosophies must be human in origin. In fact during the 8th and 9th centuries
in Bagdad a class of Islamic rationalists appeared who used to debate with the
orthodox Muslim clergy as to what makes a wrong. This was the relatively open
atmosphere in Islamic history when some Caliphs of Umayad and Abbasid dynasty
encouraged scholars to imbibe Greek and Indian Philosophy and science to enrich
their own culture (Thats when Caliph Mamun established the House of Wisdom in
Bagdad). This is when science and arts flourished in and around Bagdad. Al Hajen
and And Al- Khwarozmi were bemeficiaries of this era of free inquiry. The free
thinkers (Or Mutazilites as they were known) were influenced by Greek
Philosophers and showed interest in rational discourse. They debated the
orthodox's claim that wrong is as defined by GOD alone. Their point is how did
God decide what is wrong or what is right in the first place. They argued with
the orthodox "It is not logical to say that a thing is evil because it is
forbidden by God, but that it is forbidden by God BECAUSE it is evil", pointing
to the agreement of most divine wrongs with actions already perceived to be
wrong by humans. The usual response by the orthodox was that the Mutazilites
were corrupted by Greek influence. But alas this period of opennes did not last
too long and the golden age of enlightenement came to an end towards the tenth
century when Al-Ashari defeated the Mutazilites and Ghazali blasted the
philosophers and the orthodox ruled again. Anyway that was a side digression to
cite some early debate on this issue.
Claiming that the concept of conscience was born after Moses, Jesus or Mohammed
was born contradicts evolutionary anthropology. One can at best claim that
religions formalized the already existing conscience and added incentives of
heaven and hell to reinforce the effect of conscience, specially at a time and
place when the effect of conscience was sorely lacking. It is not a coincidence
that all the revealed religions arrived at a time and place where total anarchy
was reigning, no checks and balances were in place to enjoin humans to listen to
their conscience. Whereas no such revelations arrived (or needed) in ancient
China, India or among the native Americans before or after the revelations of
Judaism, Christianity or Islam, since those societies were relatively
harmonious. The ethics developed in China was based on human philosophy. But
as I mentioned earlier progress in society has already made that possible
through secular legal machinery which is agreed on universally now. Almost every
one in US irrespective of any religion abide by US laws, which keeps the society
relatively free from crime. Whereas religious laws are non-universal. A follower
of religion A will not abide by laws of religion B etc. But the followers of all
religions concur on most of the universal ethics (e.g not committing rape,
offensice murder, theft, coercion etc) since they result from the common
instinct of conscience ingrained in human consciousness irrespective of
religion. Now let me dwell on absolute vs. relative moralism. Take the usual
naive rhetoric "I have my morals. You have yours. Who is to judge whose is right
and who is wrong?". Let me assure everyone that this simple question is not
being asked here in eshomabesh for the first time in history. This question is
as old as humanity and the philosophers, logicians, ethicist, sociologists have
been debating it for centuries and many thoughtful answers have been offered.
There are vast litterature on this issue. I have listed only selected few
online. Some moral objectivism have good logic behind them and have not been
refuted by moral relativist. In fact moral relativists have always landed in
self- contradictions or inconsistencies. So has the religious absolutists. Let
me fist provide my own concept of objective Wrong. Right is harder to objectify
and doing right is more of an optional (desirable) nature rather than the
impertaive nature of abstaining from wrong. Let me attempt a definition of
absolute wrong:
Definition of Objective/Absolute Wrong:
(a)[ Causing injury to someone's body or depriving them of their assets/possessions
..] see life.html
(b) Lying ABOUT someone [...se life.html]
The two actions above are absolute since anyone irrespective of background
without exception will feel hurt/offended if the above (Certainly will not
consider it "good" or "neutral", hence "wrong") is perpetrated on them. Some may
don't care, e.g a bloodthirsty murderer may not care if (b) is done to them (Since
it has in all likelihood no "effect" on them) but at least they will still prefer
it didn't happen. The important key point to note is "effect" and "consensus".
Does some action have any tangible adverse effect and is there a consensus on the
effect? Lying about someone in most cases (except as in the example) result in
adverse effect (consensus).
Let me emphasize an important key point. All actions/belief need not fall into
absolute wrong/right category. But SOME actions do qualify as absolute wrong as
I have listed above. For example let us break up a perceived wrong into its two
aspects:
(1) Belief that an action (or not doing an action) is wrong.
(2) Preventing/Enforcing the action on others through physical harm as a result
of the belief.
In itself (1) is not an absolute wrong, since neither (a) or (b) is involved.
But IF the action being referred to in (1) is not an absolute wrong in the sense
of (a) or (b) above, THEN (2) is definitely an absolute wrong. (definition (b))
Another important ingredient of objectivity is CONSENSUS that crosses
racial/cultural boundary. For example a certain religious/racial practice may
be viwed by a moral relativist as right since it is believed to be right by
the followers of that religion/race. But if humanity as a whole is considered
then if that practice is considered to be wrong by the rest of the human
population then by the consensus criterion that IS wrong. (For example human
sacrifice). For example if one partcular denomination of a religion decides that
it is right to force their daughter against her will to marry someone of their
choice. (It happened here in US). Honor killing may be viewd as right in many
Muslim society. But since this act of force is an absolute wrong in my definition
above and is also a consensus view of majority of people then it certainly is
wrong to force her to marry someone (and kill her for not obeying).
We can agree that the majority of the world is more likely to be
right than wrong (If one has to make a choice). One cannot give Copernicus's
example to refute this since the belief that earth was at the center of
universe was not a consensus of the entire world, but only by the Christian
church. Global consensus is meaningful after the advent of science and modern
communication where thoughts across the globe is shared and communcated to
make a consensus view identifiable. Medieval Europe or any early period was
not advanced enough to make the idea of consensus meaningful or verifiable.
There may be other moral absolutes that I may have missed and one is welcome to
add it, but one must make sure that they satisfy the stringent requirements of
objectivity. Just as Euclidean geometry builds up on some simple self-evident
truths that all agree on and a complicated and apparently impossible theorem
may be made obvious by reducing it to the basic axioms by step by step process,
so can an action of ambiguous rightness/wrongness be reduced to some basic
self-evident moral assertions which no one can disagree.
Now let me address Mr. parvez's specific query and comments.
>response. Let me put it this way. What exactly is human conscience?
.......
>based on religious views to a significant extent. Are you suggesting
>that his conscience is independent of religion? If yes, why? Please
>ellighten us.
As I explained conscience is independent of religion. Values may be not.
Specially if one does not develop critical thinking faculty then religious
or traditional ideas will shape one's values. Values are not instinctive,
they are acquired, if one allows themselves to be influenced.
>I questioned this thing too in the past but got no answer. Let me ask
>again. Is it that moral cannot be based on faith but on rational
>alone? If Yes, why? The rational also varies from time to time, place
>to place and even from person to person. What defines the standard
>then?
Relativistic morals can base on faith and religion, not the absolute ones.
Rational cannot vary since rational is tied to objectivity. Can truth vary?
The perception of truth vary, not the truth itlsef.
>
>So by the same token one might call such person a "self abiding person"
>if the other one is a "God abiding person". If you call me
As I explained such a person is not "self" abiding person but person
abiding by the laws of consensus. Every one obeys the same secular law.
>unconscientious, I will call you unconscientious too for each of us has
>our way of understanding the concept of conscience. Your conscience is
>not my conscience and who determines who is what?
Again, consensus is the key. By now it should be clear. Remember the
question arises only for actions, not pure belief. People can follow
any customized "conscience" for pure belief but for actions that affect
others the conscience must be the true one of universal consensus.
>
>I questioned this thing too but got no answer. You have your set of
>ethics and I have mine. What makes your "Ethics" as "Ethics" and my
>"Ethics" as "Nonsense". Why does it has to be subjected to observation
>and reason?
Again I repeat the question is relevant for actions, not for passive
personal ethical beliefs. Observations and reason are important in
determining wrong and right for actions that AFFECT OTHERS PHYSICALLY.
For example
>I am putting my question again. A western guy things drinking
>perfectly moral while I consider it immoral. Please identify here who
>is moral and who is immoral.
Wrong question. The best answer to this wrong question is both are moral.
.......
>
>1. It is perfectly moral for Muslims to make ultimate sacrifice for
>their God whatever the cost is. They have their own set of ethics and
>values and it is perfectly justified per their conscience.
Ultimate Sacrifice "for GOD" is vague. You mean like for example
dying in a war to defend one's country? Thats true for any country.
The soldiers of any country lays down their life for defending it.
Thats OK and is not an debatable issue on right/wrong here.
>
>2. You never know how people used to think and conduct in those days.
>You are just watching everything from 20th century perspective. After
>hundred years your views and behaviours may be ridiculed if judged per
>the norm of the day.
Yes, thats the nature of progress. By the same token people of present
don't have to think and conduct in the way people used to in past.
Although I fail to see how can my writngs offend anyone, but neverthless I
will ask for any apology if it did.
regards
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1999 17:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Response to Azizul Huq on Islam and social prosperity
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:15:55 "Aziz Huq" wrote:
>
>Bangladesh will eventually have to seek out a leader who follow our beloved
>Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as his role model. The only way to peace and
>prosperity in Bangladesh is going to be through the implementation of Islam
>in our daily lives.
I have problems with use of the word "only" above and its sweeping
implications. It sounds like an Islamic republic is being advocated
above as a necessary prerequisite for peace and and prosperity. A
secular country can also be peaceful and prosperous. Example are
galore. If we declare that Bangladesh is for all religions then
running Bangladesh with religious laws is unfair for other religions.
A desirable leader for Bangladesh (Or any country) is one who is
honest, has vision, can put the country's interest above that of
party's and knows how to deal with national and international issues
effectively either through his/her own capability or by enlisting the
help of capable and competent team of people. If these conditions are
met, it is irrelevant if at all or what religious belief or role models
he/she follows.
regards,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1999 17:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: On Objectionable website
It is quite expected that we Bengalis would be outraged at the ".."
But lets take a deep breath after cooling down take an alternative
view/approach to this. First of all as Sandeep said these are half truths.
and the rest are falsities. BTW I am speaking on behalf of all Bengalis
(BD and WB). Whatever has been alleged is equally applicable (wrongly or rightly)
for WB and BD. This is one place at least where we can unite on one platform, I hope.
I think we can view this as a powerful point in favour of a unification of two Banglas
(Not under India, not under Bangladesh, but under a new identity with a new name such
as Bongobhumi, Bongodesh, Bengal etc, so that none may feel that one is joining UNDER
the other, but WITH). Anyway, so much for a digression into fantasy. Back to the real
issue. As much as the criticisms in the site were unsolicited, there is still a windfall
effect. It gives us an opportunity to take a look into ourselves and do some soul
searching (Assuming that there is partial truth in it, as Sandeep and I believe). So we
can thank them for giving us this opportunity, and repay the favour by providing our own
criticism of them (Will be harder, as they are not one ethnic group) for their benefit,
if we so choose. Although one is free to record there protest/outrage at the site Sandeep
suggested (I believe in individual choice) I think there is a better way to deal with
this. An angry reponse further polarizes two adversaries. That may stop there criticisms
but will make them more bitter and acrimonious internally. Mind you they are just letting
out their steam, they are not causing any tangible harm to us, since there are really
three ways to cause harm:
1. Cause or threat to cause bodily injury.
2. Cause or threat to deprive of one's assets/possesions by force or by deceit.
3. Provide wrong and damaging information (not opinion) about someone to others.
Providing wrong opinions and views and criticising by itself should not harm someone.
If it did then the terrorists need not have bombed World Trade center. They could just
criticize their hearts out and propagate lies about US causing substantial harm to US.
So in itself these half true criticisms cannot hurt us Bengalis unless we switch on the
hurt button ourselves in our brain. If we are confident enough about our impeccability
then we can just ignore and move on, or engage them in a dialog with us and change their
perceptions (At least for the part where they are wrong). We all know that members of each
group have prejudicial notions about members of other groups. We can't do much to change
that except making efforts in our individual life through daily interactions. But when
these members find a forum to organize and voice their prejudice then we can certainly
view this as an opportunity to debunk these prejudices by inviting the group as a whole
into a dialog.
Two points to note. They are not just one ethnic group bashing us. They seem to be
a composite group of people ganging up (in words) against us. SO we cannot dimiss
this as routine prejudice of one group against other (We Bengalis have our own share
of prejudice against others). Their act seems to be of a reactive nature. We have
to face it and try to identify the root of this reaction in a rational way. First
of all, as long as one is not causing a physical harm, I believe there is room
for a dialog. The best way to resolve this is by inviting the site people into a
dialog and thrash out this issue with us. Maybe they can be invited to join Alochona
and exchange views with us. But for this to work we are prepared to admit some genuine
flaws of our own and they must be prepared to admit some prejudices on their part if
pointed out in a convincing way and not take a holier than thou postion while engaging
in the dialog but only try to explain the cause for their criticism. But if they refuse to
engage in a dialog or are unwilling to change any of their wrong notions then we have two
choices: Express our outrage through pointing out (using logic) that thay are wrong where
they happen to be and/or launch a counter website criticising them, or just ignore and
move on. But the important point is that we view it as an opportunity to do some soul
searching. It may sound like too idealist an approach but I have to be convinced that any
other approach would work better (It may well be that any approach is as ineffective as
the other, its just a fact of life we have to live with).
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Anti-secular? Anti-Christian? Anti-Semitic?
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:35:42 [email protected] (Mohammad Farooq) wrote:
>I don't recall anything specific that would be considered serious enough to
>use labels such as "anti-Christian."
considering the readiness with which the word anti- is attached to
the most innocuous criticism/comments in these days of political
correctness I don't see why the following remarks where "fanatical"
and "stubborn" is being applied to all the followers of a religion,
should be exempted from such a characterization. It is quite fair as
far as consistency is concerned. If "christians" were replaced by
"Muslims" below not only would that have provoked such a characterization
but might as well have gone beyond mere characterization and some display
of outrage and/or threat.
>> Muslims have always welcomed science explaining the world around
>> them, more so than fanatical and stubborn Christians throughout the
>> ages.
>
regarding the use of the terms fanatical and stubborn they certainly are
derogatory (hence anti-) towards christians as a whole. It can only be
said that during certain period in history, the Christian Church (Not the
entire followers of Christianity) were mired in orthodoxy and against
rational thinking ( for roughly a period 1000 years between 500-1500 AD),
and that for some period of time the Islamic Caliphates based in Bagdad,
and Cairo encouraged (Although the Islamic clerics often harassed these
scholars) scholars to pursue knowledge and imbibe from Greek, Indian
and Chinese culture,civilaztion and knowledge thus promoting scientific
culture. That lasted few hundred years and that has turned around now. So
one cannot make such a sweeping general remark about religions for all time.
Even today one can easily find an individual case of a Muslim born rational
and agnostic scientist and an orthodox christian who disbelieves science
and believes in superstition, but that cannot justify characterizing Islam
and Christainity based on these isolated cases. One has to look at the
general trend of the society, whether it is scientifically advanced or
behind, whethet it encourages free thought or imposes censorship. Scientific
progress cannot happen in a regimented thought environment. Scientific
achievement is not due to a gene of Islam or Christainity or any other
religion. There is no Islamic/Christian/hindu gene favouring science. A
scientific achievement occurs through the interplay of one's inherent
genius (gene if you wish) and a favourable social milieu that promotes
free and investigative thought. If that happy match occurs then scientific
talents flourishes as the examples of AL-Razi, Al-Kwharizmi, Ibn Sina
clearly proves. That was a parochial or anachronistic remark if not
derogatory. We cannot live in the past.
>forum Nietzsche has been quoted saying: "With all that I have said and done
>to lambaste the ugly history of Christianity,..." Shall we decorate him
>with the label of "anti-Christian" as well? If not, then I have difficulty
By todays stringent standards of political correctness it sure qualifies
as anti-christian label. But it is an anachronism. We cannot retroactively
charcaterize past deeds. By today's standard even the Greek Philosophers
were naive and dumb to believe in many ridiculous theories of life and
matter. The whole point is consistency and fairness. If everyone insists
on political corretness when others criticize them but doesn't care
about political corretness when they criticize others then that reflects
a lack of sincerity/fairness. Either all agrees to accept any criticism
and forget about political correctness or all agree to stick to political
correctness and refrain from such characterization. The standards of
Political correctness should not be selectively applied.
>Third, the most disturbing labeling Mr. Mitra has used is "anti-semitic."
>It would be hard for me to believe that a knowledgeable person like Mr.
>Mitra is not aware of the fact that "Semitic" (check any reputable source)
>means people belonging to any of the following backgrounds: Hebrew,
One has to be naive not to realize that anti-semitism is understood
to be anti-Jewish in modern usage irrespective of its etymological
literal meaning. Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines anti-semitism
as anti-jewish act/sentiment. This hair splitiing semantic argument
was really irrelevant to the post.
> Indeed, quite frequently, we see
> forwarded news-reports about misdeeds of Muslims, without any
editorial
> comment that much of it has nothing to do with Islam.
Fair enough (Although many news items nowadays do add parenthetically
that such misdeeds do not reflect Islam in entirety). By the same token,
the obscurantist position taken by medieval church should not justify
labelling Christians in general as "fanatic' and "stubborn".
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Taslima Nasreen Might Seek for Political Asylum
I agree with the concluding remarks of Dr. Mizan about freedom of
expression and tolerance. But I would have liked to see that footnote
being the main emphasis instead of the main issue of his post as very
few people emphasize it enough.
[..]
>one. Threatening, attacking or expelling a writer physically speaks
>only of our intolerance and lack of sensibility. I know that such
>people are only a few. Yet it is our shame that we failed to protect
[..]
Intolerance and lack of sensibility is to put it too mildly. Even
a mild VERBAL criticism (e.g here in eshomabesh) is routinely characterized
as intolerant and insensitive. Threatening someone's life just for writing
(regardless of the content) is outright criminal and inhuman. It deserves
the strongest possible condemnation and resistance without bringing in
the issue of the quality of her writing in the condemnation as many do. Such
mixing of issue gives a wrong message and reveals a lack of strength of the
condemnation and is also irrelevant. The number of people who are calling
for her death may indeed be few but the number of people who condone it
("I don't care if they kill her, she is a lousy writer") is sadly not few.
Regarding political asylum, it should be us who should look into ourselves
and do some soul searching. If her own countrymen drive her out by
threatening her life or refusing to protect her what choice can she above
other than seeking political asylum elsewhere?. The right thing for all
would have been to let the law of the land take its due course or if they
believe in divine law then leave it to the divine judgement and not
resort to lynch law. If her own country resort to such extreme intimidation
simply for *writing* (however radical the writings may be) then it will be
disingenuous to resent her seeking or getting political asylum in any other
country. And there cannot be any better reason to grant asylum by any
Government (irrespective of its ideological leanings) to someone whose life
is being threatened and/or not protected by her own country. Why should it
be wrong to grant her asylum?
There are two issues to consider in regard to Ms. Nasreen:
Issue-1: Whats is the quality of her work? Does it have literary
value? Is she popular?, IF so, how much and where? Does her
writing make any valid point? (Does she adress the gender
issue effectively?)
Issue-2: Is it legal and proper to intimidate her physically for her
wrinting? Is it legal to arrest her for her writing? Should
basic human rights be denied to her for her writing?
Issue-1 should properly be addressed in a literary forum or in the
context of literary criticism or in a sociological debate on gender
issue. It cannot be a topic of the street or a national issue with
an outcry of condemnation/arrest/decapitation etc. When the discussion
is about Issue-2 then bringing in issue-1 serves only to divert it
Issue-2 is the real one worth considering and debating as it is connected
with basic human rights. We need to address it dispassionately and with
due regard to the consistent standards that should apply to all citizens.
If writing can never constitute a crime in the legal sense then it
should be a criminal act to call for her death and unlawful to arrest
someone for that. The only extreme measure that a normal civilian
government can do is to ban a book (Even that is unacceptable by todays
standard of freedom of expression).
It is clear that BJP's decision to grant her asylum (if at all) has
nothing to do with Isuue-1 or 2 and thus should not be a matter of
controversy. Any discussion/debate should focus Issue-1/2
Finally it is interesting to see a vast majority of people expressing
a feeling of hatred/shock/hurt for her writing. It is intriguing why
should they be so disturbed by her if she is indeed such a poor writer
or if she is misleading the majority. If she did mislead the majority
then the majority should be convinced (through being misled) by her
writing and would agitate in her favour, which they are not doing.
(Besides if majority are convinced by her writing, then why bother about
the minority's rant and rave? We(?) should worry about the psyche of the
majority who can so easily be misled by one person's writing.).
If on the other hand the majority are not misled then what is to fear
from her?. Why not let her stay and write and talk anything she likes
and let everyone turn a deaf ear to her. What is there so intense about
her to draw so much attention and morbid fear? What can she possibly do
to harm by simply writing and talking when nobody is misled by her? Are
we so weak and insecure about ourselves that we should be afraid of one
unarmed female writer? Just wondering.
Sincerely,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Anti-secular? Anti-Christian? Anti-Semitic?
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:21:40 [email protected] (Mohammad Farooq) wrote:
It is heartening to see Dr. Farooq advocating a principled approach. I would
also like to emphasize this approach. First let me clear some terminologies.
Since the words anti- pro- etc have been abused or twisted so much i would
classify all of us into two groups:
SH = "Secular Humanist/ism". NSH = "Not a secular Humanist/ism"
>
>2. Having a "principled" approach
>
[..]
>object of valid expression of distaste and contempt, sometimes secular
>humanists have their share of the same thing obtained in the old-fashioned
>way - they earn it.
Can you cite an example of a SH (in the true sense and who claims to be,
myself included) expressing DISTASTE and CONTEMPT unambiguously (Not
criticism or disagreement), Please quote, NOT paraphrase.
>
>For example, there are among Muslims who condemn anything wrong done to
>them, but fail to recognize and condemn the wrongs done either by themselves
>or their fellows to others. This is neither Islamic, nor a principled
Very encouraging to see such affirmation from an NSH. Its not common. In fact
the lack of harmony from present to past among different races, religions
can be traced to this lack of principled approach. I believe the magic
solution to bring peace and harmony is when people start take strong cross
racial/cross religious positon on fairness and justice, i.e when members
in large numbers of one race/religion take a strong (I mean strong) and
objective position to defend the basic human rights of and oppose injustice
to the members of other (even adversarial) race/religions. Therein lies the
seed of healing process of all the discord in humanity
>approach. Indeed, it is hypocritical. Similarly, there are many secular
>humanists who also don't have a "principled" approach, as many of their
>positions are reflection of their selective bias.
Again please give an example with exact quote or fact, no paraphrases.
SH concept itself is based on free from bias. A person CANNOT be a true SH
if he/she shows an illogical bias. And biased towards what? There is no
religion/race to be biased towards for a SH. Wouldn't that be a oxymoron?
A SH will only criticise and oppose an act of violation of basic human rights.
Thats all there is to it. They doon't and should not display sheer hatred
for any religion and belief per se as long as those belief don't lead to a
tangible act of violation of basic human rights. Does that sound like
a bias ?. Bias CAN only arise from a preferred belief toward a certain
religion/dogma.
>
>I could be wrong, but based on a "principled" approach I expect from the
>secular humanists who have problems with Talibani rule in Afghanistan also
>to have problem when in the name of secularism an elected female parliament
>member in Turkey is disallowed from her position because she covers her
[..]
>
>May I ask where were and are those "secular humanist" voices in these
>cases - on this forum, similar forums, or among other major "secular
>humanist" individuals or organizations?
Now that you have agreed to adopt the principled approach we may have
some common grounds between SH and NSH since SH is based on principled
(i.e objective fairness). First let me clearly point out that one cannot
compare apples to oranges when applying the standard of principled
approach. There is difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEDGES. A secular
humanist takes a stand against violation of basic human rights (Right to
life, right to express etc). Basic human rights are automatic for just
being a human, no need to play by any rule to qualify for the basic rights.
Priviledges are on the other hand, to be earned by playing by the rules
of those granting the priviledges. Denying a priviledge is not an act of
violating basic human rights and is not an issue for a secular humanist.
We dress properly for an interview so we won't be rejected. A suitor can be
rejected by a woman based on his sloppy dress. These are not acts of
violation of basic human rights. The Turkish female parliament member is
being granted a priviledge by giving her access to parliament. She has to play
by the rule of the parliament if she wishes to be a member. Access to parliamnet
is not a fundamental human right. If she was denied other basic human rights
then of course a true secular humanis would jump to her defense. Or if
hypothetically the parliament was an Islamic one and if a member was denied
access to the parliament for not keeping beard or wearing Islamic dress etc,
then no secular humanist should raise this as an issue and cry foul according
the principled approach. Hope you can see the logical side of the principled
postion. Similar argument applies to all other caes of denial of priviledges.
For example Ms. Nasreen was being given a priviledge by the publisher who
published her books. If the publisher refused to publish her books, that would
not have been a violation of her fundamental rights and nobody should have the
right to condemn that act of refusal by the publisher. But threatening her
physically for her writing IS a violation of her basic human rights.
So, the keypoint again: Distinguish HUMAN RIGHTS from PRIVILEDGES. Secular
Humanists are concerned with basic human rights.
>
>> I am sure you have. So what?
>
>This is quite interesting! Examples of "anti-India" bias does not bother Mr.
>Mitra, but anti-secular, anti-Christian or anti-Semitic does?
Let me intercept here although this is a query for Mr. Mitra. I understood
the "so what" to imply what how can ant-indianism justify anti-semitism. You
misinterpreted it to be his acceptance of Anti-Indianism. How can such a clear
connotation be misconstrued?
>
>> *sigh* Anti-jewish... is that better?
[..]
>No, changing to "anti-Jewish" is not better. First, any form of prejudice,
>and in this case, racism must be condemned. Anti-Semitism is a form of
Again why this obvious misconstrauction? "better" above was very clearly
implying a "more precise" word to convey the intended meaning. You construed
that as anti-jewishness itself being "better" than (whatever). Again
it keeps me wondering why this miscontruction when I can clearly see the
connotation. Is it just me ?
>
>NO, I DON'T. There has been and is still an ongoing veiled attacks and
>"stereotyping". I am against such effort, whether this is directed toward
Stereotyping is a distasteful thing. But overreacting can back fire. The
truth always shine out. ("Dharmer Daak Aapni Baaje"). There is a saying :
"everyone cannot be fooled for all time". Stereotyping can only (mentally)
harm those with inferiority complex or are too insecure and need
affirmation/attention. In this era of too much information in press and on
line (No favourable book on Islam or any religion has ever been banned) how
can stereotyping by SOME make a permanent and drastic misunderstanding amoing
those who don't have any inherent negative bias. And if people have an
inherent negative bias then they don't need those sterotyping anyway to
feed that.
>
>9. Conclusion
>
>I am seeking common grounds AGAINST the wrongs around us and FOR positive,
>constructive future based on a "principled" stand. A better future for us as
>societies, peoples, countries or as forums does not lie in our exaggerated
I would also end with the positive note above. I believe it is possible to
reach a consensus between SH and NSH once this principled approach is
consistently and honestly followed and one is willing to admit and correct
if they realize that they didn't folow it in a given instance.
Sincerely,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:55:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Anti-secular? Anti-Christian? Anti-Semitic?
Greetings to all. I will comment on both Dr. Farooq and Dr. Mizan's views
in this thread. I am sorry that the tea party does not seem likely (Not
that it matters as I was not invited :(
Dr. Farooq's remark (Nov 12 1999):
>Absence of faith in any divine book?
> -- Isn't it FUNDAMENTAL to Secular Humanism?
[..]
Now you were trying to prove..(what point again?). :)
Let me throw my own nuts and bolts concept of secular humanism.
First, one just need to be secular. Secular meaning tolerant of all
religious beliefs. But the tolerance does not apply to violation of
human rights in the name of religion. Also the tolerance does not
mean not to argue back with points when a non-secular person tries
to argue in favour of a specific religion or belief. A secular person
need not be aethist though. He/she can believe in the God of any of
the standard religions, or in the Omega Point of Teilhard de Chardin
or Frank Tipler (In its modern form), the nature God of Spinozza. Nazrul,
Dr. Abdus Salam, Tagore, Einstein all can be truly regarded as secular.
Einstein believed in Spinozza's God (At least he said so to avoid
controversy when challenged by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York
Intentational Synagogue on his position on God).
Second, Humanist/ism means cherishing human values (i.e respect for
basic human rights as outlined in universal human rights declaration).
The same people mentioned above would also be qualify as humanists.
So we are in good company, right Dr. Mizan? :) I am sure Dr. Farooq
would also like to be in this company wouldn't you :) ? Anyone who
doesn't want to be ? There is no need of any registrtaion, contribution,
reciting a revelation, oath taking etc to be secular humanist. Or if
you prefer call yourself secular human if the "ist/ism" after the human
bothers you. :). Just feel and act secular and instantly you are a
secular human. It is as simple as that.
Dr. Farooq's remark (Nov 12 1999):
>Enough said. I do appreciate your analysis and position regarding
>"privilege" and "rights". We DO have plenty of "common-ground" so that we
My points of disagreement with the above regarding priviledge and rights
in the context of the female Turkish parliament member:
Dr. Mizanur Rahman wrote (Nov 11, 1999):
>Mr. cosmic thinker (4 Nov 1999). I do not disagree with Mr. cosmic thinker
>that entering into a school or parliament is a privilege. However,
>that privilege was EARNED by taking the relevant admission test or
>winning the election. After that entering into the school or the
>parliament is a right. Wearing clothes according to one's wish within
>the range of decency, particularly for religious reasons, is not a
>privilege, it is a right. It is the basic human right of practicing
>one's religious belief. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT in USA and in
The point that was missed is that passing the test or winning the
election does indeed grant one the priviledge (admission in school
or parliamnet). But to MAINTAIN that priviledge one has to abide by
the rules set by the school or parliament. If after admission a
student refuses to wear the uniform he/she is bound to wear according
to the school law he/she can be expelled. Maintaining a priviledge
requires a continued compliance of the rules. The sentence:
"Wearing clothes according to one's wish within the range of decency,
particularly for religious reasons, is not a privilege, it is a right"
is not pertinent because it was not the act of wearing cloths that was
being questioned whether it was a right or a priviledge, but rahther the
*act of allowing admission* into the parliament. And it certainly is a
priviledge. One can wear any cloths one wants to in any private and
public place where no priviledge is required to be in. So the right of
wearing one's cloths of choice is not being denied but the priviledge
of admission in parliament is being denied. Any regard of logic will
help one to appreciate this (not so subtle) point.
>
>I better go now and remove the hot tea-kettle from stove, as Dr. Rahman
>isn't quite ready yet to join the tea-party - fundamentally, speaking!
>
Now am I ready to join the tea-party? :)
regards,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:11:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Religion and Science
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:32:04 [email protected] wrote:
[..]
>
>quoted some pure statistics that indicated that the religious persons (who
>practice religion) generally had longer life due to less stress, had minimal
>heart attacks, less blood pressure, less doctor visitations. The list went
That may be true. That does not provide any evidence for a belief in
the religious revelations though. Religion provides a placebo effect and
helps in healing It is known that prayer also does help. Again a beneficial
effect of a religious belief does not make the divine revelations true.
Meditations of various forms (Yoga, Zen, etc) do have remarakable effects.
The Tibbettan monks can withstand freezing temperatures all night without
any cloths through special kind of meditation. But that does not make the
ideas of Buddhist reincarnation etc logically valid. Besides belief is
something you cannot bring about by pressing a switch. Belief cannot be
arrived at by a conscious decision due to its beneficial effect alone.
We know women live longer than men and less prone to heart atacks. But
a man cannot "decide" to be a women to increase his longevity.
Neurologists are now convinced that every belief/propensity etc are
mapped into specific neuronal patterns in the brain. Because of the
formidable number of neuronal connections it is impossible in practice
to determine which neuronal pattern correspond to which belief. If ever
it can be achieved may be then neurologists can induce blind belief in
human brain through artificially wiring those patterns in the brain and
thus impart the beneficial effects of such blind belief.
Besides even if I were able to instil a blind faith in my mind through
some induction mechanism, I would rather prefer a free thinking skeptical
mind and learn the truth using my rational faculty alone than be guided
by a pre-wired dogmatic belief which may lead to a "truth" as I would like
to see it rather than the real objective truth independent of my liking.
Knowing the truth is a very fulfilling reward which more than offsets any
potential health benefit that blind faith can bring.
>
>Statistics further shows that the scientific minds inclined to religion are
>increasing dramatically over time specially the ones of applied science
Dr. Mizan has already quoted the survey by "Nature" magazine showing
a preponderance of scientists' lack of belief in traditional religion,
so the above is belied by the survey.
>These human minds, as that of the Pharaos, starts imagining themselves as
>the creator of things but forgets that it is a mere discovery of a fact that
>was already there put forward by the Creator. It is again the Creator who
A mere assertion without anyway of proving or disproving, so cannot even be
discussed rationally.
>teaches us from the internationally reknowned scholars like Ahmed Deedat
>from South Africa, Prof. Jamal from Canada, Dr. Mostafa Mahmoud from Egypt,
>and so many others who are formally educated in the mainstream.
We don't need the above "scholars" to learn science. All the scientific
principles one learns upto PhD level never require the names or ideas of
those "scholars".
>
>Without being defensive of the statement, I can say that God has asked us to
>read and research to find new frontiers that will take us one step closer to
We learn science not becuase we are told by anyone. I doubt how many
scientists would say they went into science because of a directive from
God. My decision to study science was due to a fascination for it and
the desire to understand and learn about nature. Pure and simple. No
need to wait for any directive from anyone. I am sure all the scientists
of the world entered the field of science through this love for science
and not because they were asked by God.
>venture into saying that reading test papers before the exam is always a
>help not a hinderance to better exam results for those who were regular in
>their classes and understood the lectures well and reaserached well with the
As mentioned before majority of the most brilliant scientists don't hold
any religious belief or made siginificant discoveries in science because
they were helped by reading books of religious scriptures/revelations,
so this conclusion is erroneous. Having read the revelations of religion
didn't increase my scientific knowledge or helped in gettiong better
grades in my physics/chemistry/electrical engineering exams.
Lets us not bring God in every action. We can learn science by just
showing a fascination for it and following the scientific methodology.
We can be artists if we have the artistic inclination and practice
art with perseverence. Its true for any pursuits.
Going back to the original quotes:
>>
on such a theory. If someone read the Quran carefully, they
would have understood that light did not travel in straight lines.
So much of our energy and resources we have vested with the theory of
relativity that somehow has proved the Newtonian theory of motion to
be wrong. If we had read the Quran carefully we would have saved
those investments of mankind and redirected those resources to other
areas of productive outlets. (Ahsan, 23 Sep 1999)
>
I would share with Dr. Mizan's lament and I am also disturbed and nervous
at this kind of pseudoscientific belief. Refering to Einstein's discovery
of general relativity as wasted investment is shocking and a mockery of
Einstein's intellect. General Theory of relativity is a very precise complex
mathematical formulation of spacetime, it can never be derived from Koran
or any book of divine revelation. Koran/Bible etc are not books of science.
They are books of divine revelations which require pure belief. No Physicist
of repute have made or would make such bizarre observations.
With no offense meant,
Sincerely,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: The Defenders and Preachers of Islam
Ref: Mr. Mizan's writing
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:03:27 [email protected] wrote:
>
>I have gone through your writings on "The Defenders and Preachers of Islam".
>I agree with most of your points that you raised but at the same time
>disagree with few points. In my opinion, your writing reflects the ideas are
>just like another Muslim Biased western thinker. In recent world there are
^^^^^^^^^
"Just like" is not an argument or a point. If Dr. Mizan is saying the same
as what another "Muslim Biased western thinker" says, that would be a
coincidental matter not to be brought up as an issue. "Just like" in
itself cannot invalidate a statement in the same way as saying "Sun rises in
the east" by a "Muslim Biased western thinker" would not invalidate the
same statement by Dr. Mizan because he said it "just like" them. The
question is if Dr. Mizan made any invalid point. He didn't and I don't
see any relevant argument in this posting that invalidates Dr. Mizan's post.
>not a single Islamic Country exist that ruled by Islamic Law (Sharia) & order
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>but we have many Muslim majority country even a country with more 90% of the
>populations are Muslim. These countries are not ruling under Islamic
>ideology, Islamic Sharia but the western rules and regulations that have been
If after 1400 hundred years of Islam's arrival "not a single Islamic" country
is "truely" Islamic then claiming that Islam is the fastest growing religion
and is the greatest religion etc loses credibility. No ideology/ism is ever
perfectly followed or implemented. The same thing can be said about
democracy, rule of law, human ethics etc. If these principles were followed
100% then this earth might have been close to paradise. But we can live with
a reasonable level of implementation of it as is the case in reality.
So even though the Islamic countries are are not 100% implementing each
and every word literally of Koran,Sharia, Sunna etc still they are closer
to Islamic laws than any other and can in practice be called Islamic . And
any comparison of those societies with non-Islamic ones will invariably
factor in religion and it is not possible to completely separate the social
practices/customs/traditions from Islam because Islam does influence them
(MOST of them, not ALL) way or the other. They are intertwined.
>girl in fire, stoning to death in a village, throwing acid, rape. Killing
>women for dowrey money etc.) by any individual in Muslim majority country
>treated in western world as an act of Islam or branded as an act of whole
>Muslim community. Although these acts has nothing do with the Qur'an or the
>Sunnah or Islam. These are simply a criminal act. Criminals are criminals and
Actually I have never come across anywhere saying that it is an act of whole
Muslim community. It is the whole Muslim community which becomes very
defensive when these acts are condemned and whenever it is mentioned that
these acts were committed by fanatic Muslims. The statement: "act 'X' was/is
committed by fanatic Mulsims" can not be logically made to be equivalent to
the statement: "ALL Muslims commit act 'X'". Instead of rushing to self
defense in response to such statements, what the whole community should
have done is to take bold steps to prevent, punish and condemn these acts
of the fanatics either through enacting and enforcing appropriate law and/or
through mass protests (If nothing works then an effective way to do that
will be declare a price on the criminals head). Then there would be no need
to resorting to this perpetual rush to self defense when others criticize
those acts.
>they are punishable equally no matter what religion back ground or political
>party background they have. Let us look at the situation what's goes on in
>our country. It is my personal experience, in 1970-1974, if you/we were a
>Panda/good supporter of Awami League/Chatra league or a member of Rakkhi
>Bahini, you/we were above the law & order of the country of that time (which
>includes crimes like raping, acid throwing, killing, bank robbery etc).
Again, my point is that if these acts are criminal (Even in Islam) then
how come the followers of religious parties bring out procession against
NGO's helping the poor women, attacking processions of women, threatening
the life of secular men and women for exercising their right to free
speeches by BUT never doing the same against acid throwing, raping of women
etc? We never see a fatwah given against a rapist or acid thrower or a price
declared on the head of a rapist or acid thrower. We never see orthodox
Muslims taking to street smashing cars and vehicles protesting rape or
acid throwing. But they do so to protest the writings of some they "view"
as anti-Islamic. Isn't acid throwing, raping, even taking the life of a
writer anti-Islamic? As long as there is this selective obsession of the
fanatics with free speech, women's rights, NGO's helping the women etc and
no obsession with the far more serious issues like rape and acid throwing
the stigmatic association of religion and the religious will persist.
>
>In your writing you accused almost everyone that we all are trying to defend
>a person who is guilty. In reality, we are simply trying to justify that
>these people are culprit, criminal and they have nothing to do with Islam.
>These are two seperate issues.
Again only a defensive repetition of this statement doesn't matter unless one
takes a stand against the criminals (gender criminals included) and not against
the critics. But also you are mixing up the case of geneder discrimination
and mistreatment of women with other secular crimes. Of course, murder (except
when it is committed on someone indulging in free speech criticising Islam),
corruption, bank robbery etc are not controversial and an orthidox or secular
does not disagrees on the criminality of those acts nature. Dr. Mizan was
referring specifically to gender related "crimes". And here most of the
Islamic countries/societies don't even view them as crimes but consider
them as accepted if not mandated in Islam. Of coures there is also some
intentional distortion of Islam in this regard. But it is almost a given
that in most Islamic countries of the Middle East women do not and cannot
have equal rights as men.
>
>Please remember Islam is not like all other religion. If you are born in
>Hindu, Jews or Christian family you are a Hindu, Jew or Christian. But if you
>born in Muslim family, you are not a Muslim. In the Holy Qur'an we find that
It would be more appropriate to say "religion 'X' is not like any other
religion". Comparison of religion is never really required in any objective
discussion of any social issue. Anyway the above contradicts many advocates
of Islam (Some here in eshomabesh) who maintain that if one is born in Mulsim
then he/she has no choice but to be Muslim and abandoning Islam would make
them "Murtad". Converting out of Islam is never accepted (at least offcially).
>Let's look at situations of Middle East and Afganistan. What's going on in
>these countries is nothing new. To be in power these leaders are using
>religion as a protective shield around them. Not because they are a true
>Muslim but they know exactly how to manipulate religion in their favor.
Then WHY are the other Muslim countries not condemning them in a FORCEFUL
and articulate way and launching a global movement to bring about
a change there ?
>Similar criminal acts are happening in almost every Country but none of us
>branded these acts are the acts of Cristianity or Zudaism or Hinduism. But in
>case the same thing happened in Muslim majority country it is branded as the
>acts of a Muslim but not as an act of a criminal.
The reason is very clear for why it is so. When these crimnal acts are
committed they are treated as crimes and the government and society takes
steps against the criminals without any fear of any religious repercussion.
When the US government acted against the Christian Fundamentalist Koresh
and his followers in Wacko Texas, the Christian society didn't start a mass
movement against the Goverment or disrupt public life etc and the Goverment
was not fearful of any Christian Fundamnetalist forces. In Bangladesh for
exmple the government or society would be hesitant to act against a
religious fundamentalist group for any gender or other crimnal acts (For
example, calling for chopping the head of a writer and declaring a price
for it is a criminal act by the law of the land, but such fanactics are never
arrested for fear of violent repercussion. The bottom line is that no other
country/society is so fearful/defensive/protective about the acts of its
fanatic members as the Muslim society/countries. This fact has to change
to change this very perspective about Muslims by others.
Best wishes to all,
cosmic thinker
From me Thu Aug 10 10:25:09 2000
Subject: [eshoma] Re: Religion (Use of a the term Fanatic)
--- In [email protected], Mohammad Hossain wrote:
[..parts deleted]
>back, pause and ponder. How is it possible that after more than 10,000
>years of human existence on this earth that we live as a family. We know
>who are/were our father, grand father and great-grand father. It is the
>"religion" that keeps us in binding and defines our freedom and limitations.
>Atheists did not form the fabric of the society as we see today!
The fabric of society is not soley the result of religion either.
Society started to form long before the revealed religions arrived.
Chinese society is based on Conficius philosophy. It is based on
humans, not God. So does Buddhists societites as in japan, Korea
and other Asian countries. Buddhism is also based on human ideals,
not on divine revelations. By all techinical definitions, Confucianism
and Buddhism are atheistic philosophy and so these societies are not
shaped by religion. And they are as integerated a society if not more
than religion based societies. They also know who their father,
grand father and great-grand fathers are. Besides human existence
started long before 10,000 years. Archeological evidence suggests
that even here in USA a native society of hunters gatherers
thrived with family structure as early as 13,000 years ago who
probably moved here from Asia.
>To an atheist there is nothing wrong in same sex marriage or even marrying your
>own sibling. So long!
This is the most crass stereotyping I have ever seen. An atheist is
one who is not (a-) theist. What does that have to do with homosexuality
or incest?. There are theist homosexuals as well as atheist. What
an individual choses to do does not constitute a general principle
to be applied to the whole. There are cases of Priests and Imams
sexually molesting boys. Isn't that homosexuality? Does that make
it a principle for all Priests and Imams to do that? Most atheists
are good fathers/mothers believing in normal family values. Many
people (both atheists and theists) who are not homosexuals and don't
approve of homosexual life style still don't believe in discrimantion
against them either. They just don't believe in denying civil rights
or victimizing someone for thir private lifestyles. Thats just the
principle of democracy and individual freedom. Thats not to say that
that they promote/glorify it. They don't.
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From me Sat Oct 28, 2000 8:45pm
Subject: [eshoma] Re: Bloc voting will empower Muslims
First of all It is unfortunate that almost always an impersonal
article posted by an author is followed up by someone with personal
remarks, innuendos and impressions about the messenger, where
ideally the article should have been followed up with differing
views, opinions or arguments on the MESSAGE of the article, not
about the MESSENGER. What is intriguing is that the original
article being referred to didn't contain any reference top Bangladesh
or Bangladeshis, so on that count alone the followup is misplaced
by alleging that it criticized Bangladesh/Bangladeshis.
Secondly, it is more unfortunate to make statements like "You
simple haven't earned the right to criticize.". This not only
goes against the spirit of free speech, it also sounds very
condescending and smacks of "holier than thou" attitude. There
is no prequalifications for criticism. If a criticism is right,
it is equally valid if it comes out from the mouth of a devil
or the mouth of an angel. Same remark applies to a criticism
which is wrong. It is invalid no matter who makes it.
Intolerance of criticism itself deserves criticism. If someone
does something good for Bangladesh, thats well and good, he/she
should be too busy doing good things to even find time to
monitor someone's criticism and judge if that criticism was
perceded by any act or service to Bangaldesh. A criticism itself
is a service to the country. All organizations, complanies who
really care for their improvement welcomes criticsm from ALL.
they don't set a condition for submitting the criticsm. If one
cannot handle any criticism then either they are weak or
insecure, or are not serious about self improvement, only
interested in feeling good through fooling oneself by looking
through a rosy glass, filtering off the unpleasant realities.
Any criticism, no matter how negative it sounds, ultimately
serve to identify the problems, sometimes acting as a rude
awakening from too much self complacency. There is no such
notion as "earning the right to criticize", it is an equal
rigt for all. No one should be in the judge's seat deciding
who qualifies to criticize and who doesn't. If a criticism
is not valid then one can certainly offer their counter
criticism with points. Such are the standard norms of any
civilized society.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 04:30:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Aparthib
Subject: Re: Mr. Jahed wrote in NFB
To: eshom
At 08:59 PM 11/29/00 -0800, "Nasim Choudhury" wrote:
>Who are we trying to kid here? More people have died in this secular
>century from such lofty humanistic notions as nationalism, colonialism,
>imperialism, ethnic hatred, slavery, etc. than at any other time in human
>history! This pales in comparison to the number of people that actually
[...]
An example of characterization fallacy. "colonialism,imperialism, ethnic
hatred, slavery, etc." are not "lofty humanistic notions" as is being
characterized above above. Neither is "nationalism" always lofty, it is
lofty only as a defensive weapon as it was in the case of Bangla nationalism
that led to the independence of Bangladesh. If nationalism is extended to
an offensive urge to establish a racial dominance through
violence then its certainly not lofty. As much as the original article
was mistaken in characterizing religion as the greatest factor for wars and
religious hatred, the followup response response outdid the original by
blaming all the wars rooted in racism and ethnic hatred on secularism! I
have to invent an aphorism: "Two fallacies don't make a valid point". Even
the so called religious wars are nothing but ethnic/racial wars in disguise.
Any label that gives a distinct identity to a group can potentially act as a
trigger for rivalry and hatred. This is furthere rooted in the biological
imperative of territoriality. Religious wars are not exclusively becasue of a
pure differnece of faith. in abstract religious doctrines and revelations in
as much as there is no reason for a believer in Greek mythologies to clash
with a believer in Hindu mythologies. All wars and clashes in histiory are
rooted in territoriality, triggered by whatever Label (Religion, race,
language, etc) is relevant at that moment in history and providing a
suitable excuse to engage in violence.
>And oh, one other thing...where do you think most of the founders & writers
>of the UN Charter and all its subsequent declarations got their notions
>of equality, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and human rights
>from? Yes, you guessed it. From their Judeo-Christian-Islamic-religious
>backgrounds. It was their faiths that originally taught them such virtues:
Guesswork is not a reliable guide to truth. It is not evident at all
that distinction beteen right and wrong , good and evil is the sole
result of religious indoctrination. On the other it is more evident
that religuious teachings simply caught up with the instinctive human
notionsof right and wrong evolving over thousands of years. Long
before the advent of Islam and Christianity, other civilazations (
Chinese, Mayans, Greeks etc) had a well developed systhem of ethics.
Plato illustrated nicely how right and wrong are human concepts, noit
divine, in his dialog with Euthyphro. As the Mutazzilites, the Islamic
Free thinkers during the reign of the house of wisdom in Baghdad used
to challenge the orthodox :"It is not that something is evil becasue
it is forbidden by God , but that God forbids something because it is
evil." The people of the above ancient civilaztions did not need the
aid of Judea-Christian preaching to understand morality. A vast
population of Far eastern nations of today are not rooted in Judea-
Christian teachings, yet are as ethical, if not more in their conduct,
both socially and individually. Even the teachings of Buddha that
inspired and continues to inspire millionsss of the world are base don
secular principles. Alot can be argued in favour of objective and
human roots of morality refuting the claim that morality is rooted in
religion. It will take too much space here, I would refer the readers
to a relevant article in NFB of November 14 (Does religion define
Morality?) at:
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/nov/14/gv4n396.htm#A4
>acceptable. Long before the UN arrived on the scene, the Torah, the Gospel,
>the Gita, the Qur�an were already preaching tolerance and freedom of
>religion to the masses. We didn�t need no UN Charter telling us these
>things. Don�t believe me? I�m sure there are a few of these religious
Yes, we did need the UN charter, because the preachings of those
religions did not help at all in preventing injustice and human
rights abuse. If people literally followed those preachings then
military, police, judges, courts would be unheard of concepts today.
UN chater does more than each individual religious preaching, because
UNspeaks for ALL humans as a united voice, not from a specific
religious points of view, so has more legitimacy and appeal in
general.
>And by the way, thanks to you folks, I'm even more convinced than ever
>before that secular humanists like yourselves don't know what the heck
>they're talking about.
The above remarks only succeeded in indicating a bitter feelings towards
secular humanism. Unfortunately it did not make any point.
No offense intended,
Aparthib
Date: Mon Jan 15, 2001 6:16am
Subject: Re: Life, Death, Immortality..
This in reference to mr. Shahidul Alam's followup on this thread.
Dear Mr. Alam,
Thank you for your comments and questions on my earlier post. Actually let me clarify
before I proceed to address your questions, that unlike what your conclusion says there is
only one kind of science. Actually the more important concept is that of the "Scientific
Method", not science itself. Scientific method enables us to know more about life and
universe by incremental steps. It doesn't make sense to refer to what we don't know yet as
being some kind of "science". The boundary between the known and the unknown is an ever
expanding one due to scientific method. So it is important to appreciate what a scientific
method is. I will get to your comments and questions after a review of scientifc methods. A
scientific method in a nutshell is the process of using observations and logical reasoning,
along with some plausible assumptions that are not in contradiction with any existing
scietific law, to formulate a tentative hypothesis/theory and then make predictions based on
such a theory which is then tested/verified from evidence at which point the theory
becomes a law.
To summarize the steps:
1. Observations
2. Make some plausible assumptions(premises) based on objective criteria, like Occams'
razor (i.e symmetry, simplicity, beauty etc. )
3. Logical reasoning (Using mathematical analysis and)
4. Formulation of a theory based on steps 1-3 and other establised laws of science.
5. Prediction based on 3 and 4
6. Testing (i.e verify/falsify) the prediction by evidence which can be either through the
results of experiments(repeatedly in a controlled setting) or through enough
observations in nature.
IF (Falsified) THEN
go back to 2 and make a different set of plausible premises and continue from step 3.
ENDIF
7. If step 6 is verified in more than one instance byevidence and observations then the
theory is considered to be a law of nature.
As a further check on its validity, steps 2-6 (observation, assumptions, reasoning,
formulation of theory, prediction and its verification through evidence and future
observations) are subjected to rigorous peer review crossing all cultural/racial/religious
boundaries. All these steps are so objective that there is little scope of disagreement (except
in step 2, and except errors that can be corrected) no matter which affiliation a scientist
belongs to. Any sustained disagreement, if any between scientists are in the predictions
whose conclusive verifications are yet to be found. The disagreement in the predictions are
due to the fact the same observations can be used to arrive at different predictions by
equally valid reasonings, but making different plausible assumptions. So both the scientists
are following the scientific methods but can still be in disagreememnt. The final arbiter is
evidence if and when it is available. Evidence is not always available due to limitations of the
technlogy when the required experiment or observation demands extremely high
sensitivity. A point worth noting is that step #3 is not a static one. New mathematical
techniques/theorems are discovered by mathematicians which allows scientists more
advanced and alternate reasoning based on the same observations to arrive at alternate
theories as well.
Another noteworthy point is that scientific method is an iterative and self-correcting method.
i.e science has the built-in capacity to falsify itself and to rectify as well. It takes just one
exception to invalidate a scientific theory. It is quite ruthless in this regard. It has to be, in
order to filter out pseudoscientists and to ensure integrity of science. It takes a series of
sustained verifications to valifdate a theory. A very important point to note is that to
challenge or dismiss a scientific theory one has to follow the scientific method as well, i.e
only scientists can falsify another scientist's theory. For a non-scientist to question and
dismiss a scientific theory based on his/her cherished faith or bias is
disingenuous/inconscientious ( even more so if it is an established law). It is more
disingenuous for a layman to make a statement like" Science CAN NEVER know that..." etc. It
requires more depth to declare what science cannot than to declare what science can.
Some common fallacies that apply vis a vis science and faith is:
1. When a blind believer refers to a disagreement between two scientists and exclaim "Since
they(scientists) don't agree among themsleves THEREFORE we are correct" ! If A says B is
wrong or vice versa, that doesn't make C right! As I emphasized above science has the built
in mechanism to self-correct and it is not possible to falsify science from outside of science.
2. When a blind believer says: "Science has its limit, it cannot answer all questions, therefore
one has to look at religion to find the the answers.. The fallacy is that believing in something
dosn't make it a knowledge. So answering a question purely based on faith and wishful
thinking doesn't constitute an answer to a question that science cannot answer.
3. When a blind believer accuses Scientists/Science of arrogance and accusing them of
claiming to know it all. On the contrary it is the scientists who base their entire pursuit on the
premise that they can be wrong. Religious followers never admit the possibility of their
being wrong.
4. When a faith is equated to knowledge. Knowledge is verifiable and requires critical
thinking, observations. Faith does not need anything except just a wish to believe.
Now to address Mr. Shahid's comments that science cannot answer questions like why there
is rich and poor., good and evil , why science could not make earth an ideal place of peace
and prosperity. etc etc. Science is not a product that is manufactured by calling a meeting to
establish world peace or get rid of evil. Rather religion makes such audacious claim. But has
religion succeeded in doing that either? At least Science has definitely IMPROVED human
lives and is always improving. It is a dynamic thing. Religion has fixed set of injunctions and
beliefs that have no room for growth. Science of course has also provided tools to destroy.
Nuclear energy can destroy as well can generate useful electricity. It is no different from
apologists of religion saying that Religion can be misused by extremists, but if followed by
virtuous peple it can be very beneficial. The same can be said about science.
Also Re your comment: that in "Latin American countries e.g Mexico, you will find literally
they don't follow any religion" and you mentioned about aids etc. This is incorrect. Latin
America is very strongly Christain . Catholicism is very deeply established there. And aids?
South Africa is topping the list, then India . You are very critical about USA. It is not relevant
in this discussion and it is a gratuitous finger pointing on a specific country. You compared it
with Arab country and implied that because of religion life is peaceful and ideal in Arab
countries etc. Well, all the orthodox Muslims are relishing their life here in USA and you
cannot talk them into moving to Saudi Arabia. They are enjoying all the heavenly pleasures
here, including criticizing their hearts out against USA. They would have lost some of their
body limbs had they done such criticisms against Saudi Arabia while living there. And crime?
You are portraying USA as the country of crime. Again a gratuitous finger pointing. If you live
in Bangladesh you should know very well about crime. Here one doesn't know if they will
return home with intact body at the end of the day. Parents are constantly worried about
their minor son and dausghter's safety and sanctity. Bodies of raped and strangled childs are
routinely found in rivers, bushes etc. Everybody is afraid to go out in the evening, no matter
what neighborhood. Terrorism has gripped the entire nation. many well meaning expatriates
in USA are reluctant to return to Bangladesh even though they are very eager to do
something for Bangladesh. Isn't Islam very strongly believed here? Its better not to point
finger at others, or to look at ourselves first before we do that. Its only fair. You mentioned no
crime in Arab? There is no crime in Singapore also. So what is the point? Dictatorial rule can
keep crimes on check, but that is due to the draconian laws, NOT due to "RELIGIOUS BELIEF".
Its not Religious BELIEF that prevents a Saudi from acting on the impulse to commit rape,
But the FEAR of punishment . Your underlying premise is that without religion there can be
no morality. This is one of the greatest fallacies of religionists. By the way let me remind you
that over Billion people live in Buddhist societies and Buddhists don't believe in God,
prophets or revelations and life in thise countries are much safer and peaceful than many
societies rooted in religion like Bangladesh. A lot can be argued in favour of objective and
human roots of morality refuting the claim that morality is rooted in religion. It will take too
much space here, I would refer the readers to a relevant article in NFB of November 14
(Does religion define Morality?) at:
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/nov/14/gv4n396.htm#A4
Besides, in Saudi Arabia and other religion based countries the worst form of crime, "human
rights violation" are committed. The most humiliating and insulting assault is made on the
most sacred thing of a woman, her body for the most trivial reasons like being in public or
not following the dress code, etc. Freedom of expression is also quashed with physical
torture in the name of religion. You said we don't want the world to be a place like USA .
Fine. But you might as well have said the same thing replacing "place like USA with " place
like "X" and you will find many will agree. How about Bangladesh? If you were one of the
victims or the brother, father, son of the victims would you want the world to be like
Bangladesh.? There are good and bad in all countries, so picking one specific country is not
justified, again reminding of the need to look at oursleves before we point fingers at others.
All your questions on evolution and the complexity of life has been answered by Biologists
and are clearly described in all books on evolution. I did touch on them also in a sketchy way
and also I also listed some excellent books. if you are truly interested in knowing the
answers you would certainly read at least some of them. If you continue to ask scientific
questions even when the scientific answers are there no one can help you. You said "I know,
there are various explanations of above phenomenon in science, but how do so many
co-incidence happen " . I will credit you for asking this excellent question. It may come as a
news to you but this has been also studied and examined by science. And the answers can
be found in the 744 page book called "The Anthropic Cosmological principle" by two top
Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler. As you see we laymen are missing out some
extraordinary things happenning in science because of being surrounded in a closed minded
atmosphere and little encouragement in the pursuit of science.
You said Allah gives you proper explanation by the statement : "Every single thing in this
universe is made for the sake of Mankind (Nimtto Matro)".
If that statement serves as an explanation for everything to you, fine. But faith is not an
explanation, at least in the usual sense of the word "explanation". Can anyone use that
statement to answer "Explain why.." type of exam questions in say SSC/HSC/BSc/Msc
exams etc?, after all, the examiners are all firm believers in Islam, aren't they? What if you
were an examiner of such tests and you got such simplistic answers? :)
No offense meant, just trying to stimulate some thinking. :)
Best Regards, Aparthib
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:21:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Response for Mr. Avijit
I would like to make some comments in disagreement with the
followup response to Avijit's post, which follows my response
First of all to say that "out of all present avalibale religious scriptures of
any
religion, the Holy Qur'an is the only scripture is more straight, direct and
logical."
is an affirmation of pure belief and subjective judgment, both of which are
inadmissible in any logical discussion intended as a rebuttal to someone else's
statements. Saying that holy book-X is better than holy book-Y or Z does not
make X right, neither does it prove the sublimeness of ALL religious books,
even granting the ranking that X>Y>Z etc. They may all be books of
irreleavnt and simplistic observations and preachings held in sublime
reverence only by blind believers, in that case it hardly matters that one is
"better" than the other.
All the statements (1) - (6) below are pure statements of belief except
(3) (Life is temporary) which is an obvious observation that does not
require deep thinking, everyone knows that, religious, non-religious,
atheist, skeptic what have you. Again, statements of pure belief and
obvious observations can hardly be relevant in a rebuttal which reqires
logic.
What is most amusing is that throughout the entire response frequent
reference is being made to expressions like "Quranic Logic",
"Allah's logic" etc. Now is the word "logic" being recoined here or
redefined here as: "A LOGIC is by definition a statement of God as found
in KORAN"? I would be curious which dictionary contains this definition
of logic that is being implied in this response.
Next, the statement: "Those of us who believe in Allah and Life after death
and those who do not have the same believe, have 50-50 probability of the
fact that there might be a life after death.." is even more amusing.
What does the construct "us" have 50-50 probability of the "fact" that there
might be life after death really mean? First of all, for a believer the
probability
is a certainty, 100%. For the non-believer it is 0%. For agnostcs, mild believers
it is anywhere from 0-100%. Whatever the percentage, these percentages
indicate the various levels of BELIEF among various humans in life after death,
NOT THE ACTUAL PROBAILITY OF LIFE AFTER DEATH, because the
probabilty itself is a faith, whcih cannot be objectively proven or calculated
So any logic or argument that presupposes 50-50 (Or any other breakup)
probability of Life after death is a fallacious one, as argumemts should only
be based on objective truths or evidences as premises.
The rest of the response engages in what is essentially a rephrasing of the
famous but discredited Pascal's Wager. It assumes a 50-50 probability of life
after death (An invalid premise as I pointed out) and then advises one of the
merit of believing in it and the danger of not believing in it. It is amusing
that
this Pascal's wager having been debunked centuries ago still survives among
some in t he dawn of the third millenium. The other aspect of the fallacy of
pascal's wager is that even if it turns out that there is indeed life after
death,
it does not make religion-X true, since there are other religions (Y,Z..etc)
whcih
also postulate life after death. So using this "logic" to scare someone into
one's
favoured religion-X is nothing but a naive attempt to attract gullible souls
suffering
from indecision. This "wager" logic can be reused by any religion to justify the
authenticity of their religion. Sicne not all religions can be true so this
"wager" is
nothing but a hoax. Each religion has to invent their own version of Pascal's
Wager
to validate only their religion (To my knowledge that has not been done yet). The
rest of the response again indulges in statements of belief and so is not
relevant as
a rebuttal and thus failed to objectively refute Avijit's views and logic.
No offense meant,
Aparthib
Re: Re: Fwd: Re: Re: HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN THE GOOD THINGS
ABOUT ISLAM?
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 10:11:33 +0600
To: "Haque, Enam"
CC: "'[email protected]'" ,
[email protected], "'[email protected]'" ,
'Nadia Islam' , [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Mr. Enam Haque's post quoted below can be summarized as follows:
"Why criticize Islam since Hinduism has/had also many bad things like
shatidaha, dowry etc.? "
Let me point out sopme fallacies of the above statement. One such
fallacy is that a criticism of "X" cannot be answered logically by a criticism
of "Y". A criticism of "X" has to be made on its own merit by pointing out
the flaws in the criticism of "X", if any without any irrelevant
reference to "Y".
Secondly the above implicitly acknowledges the criticism of Islam,
by saying that "Why criticise Islam only, Hinduism is bad too" etc.
This is a fallacy known in logic as "Tu quoque" ("You too" fallacy).
A "You too" cannot save one from any valid criticism.
Lastly, the comparison was not totally symmetrical. Shatidaha has been
totally discarded and condemned by majority Hindus. It is history now,
similar to with-burning in medieval christianity, now extinct. Dowry is
also waning although not gone completely. At least it is not glorified.
Greed is a an evil human instinct. Most of the evil practices in
Hinduism/Chrsitianity has been marginalized by its followers. Avijit
did point out such acts of marginalization by Ram Mohan and others and
widely accepted by the majority without any fear of physical harm from
the fanatics. But on the other hand all that is being criticized in
Islam is glorified, upheld and defended by Islamic apologists (Fatwa
etc) as being timeless and essential part of Islam and the majority are not
courageous enough to defy the brute force of the fanatic apologists to
challenge them in a forceful way. Therein lies the difference.
I hope this clear distinction is kept in focus in any irrelevant
comparative discussion.
Sincerely,
Aparthib
Haque, Enam wrote:
>
> Ms. Nadia Islam & Mr. Avijit Roy,
>
> You guys are writing all the nice things about Islam. What about Hindu? As
Re: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Information for Ms Nadia Islam
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:49:23 +0600
This is response to Mr. Shahidul Alam's response of March 17 to Ms. Nadia Islam.
Dear Mr. Alam,
I wish to address some fallacies in your response to Ms. Nadia on Kurbani.
Your principal defense of Kurbani as a ritual is:
"There are "logical" explanations behind Kurbani."
And your principal critcism of critics of Kurbani as a ritual is:
"Why criticize the Islamic ritual of animal slaughter when animals are
routinely killed by other religions for consumption as food?"
The three "logical" explanations you gave were:
1. "Kurbani is a sacrifice for Allah (Creator). According to us Allah is the
supreme power, in respect to him any other thing or any other interest
is totally valueless. By implementing this rule, Allah wants to make sure
that, we are not inclined to any earthly matters, e.g love or sympathy for
an animal"
2. "it teaches us a noble lesson - to be sacrificial. Fathers sacrifice for
son, daughters sacrifice for mother, brothers sacrifice for sister,
friends sacrifice for friend..."
3. " we learn how to share our piled up wealth with the poor. What we are
doing, seeing the real human interest (not any animals interest). The
skin of the animal of Kurbani are given away to poor people which then
exported to the developed countries to be converted into exotic shoes
in the feet of people of rich class. Poor people can have such food,
which they can only dream for rest of the year."
Let me respond to each of your above "logical" explanations in sequence:
1. Stare at the above and think for a while. Do you spot any "logic"
there? I see a "belief" in a ritual. A true "logic" by definition will be
universally accepted by anyone irrespective of religion/belief since
logic should/does not require any blind faith. First of all you have to
believe in Allah and then believe that he requires animal sacrifice
to show respect for him. Is this logic to you? It is obviously a belief not
shared by anyone who is not Muslim no matter how logical one is. It is
agross misuse of the word "logic" here. I hope it was an unintentional
misuse.
2. Now again stare at the the above and think for a while. How can mass
slaughter of animals "teach" a "noble" lesson to be sacrificial?
You are redefining the word "teach" . Are you saying that killing animals will
"teach" ANYONE (even if he/she is a Buddhist ?) to sacrifice for his/her mother?
(Or teach him to sacrifice MORE if he/she already does have the propensity for
sacrifice for his/her beloved ones?). How so. Does one have to be a Muslim to
be able to learn to be sacrificial through the animal slaughter? In that case you
are saying that to learn a universal value (of sacrifice for the dear ones) one has
to have a blind faith(in Allah and the ritual of Kurbani). So it cannot be a logical
reason again. then obviously it requires a blind faith. Besides a we sacrifice
among Chriostians, Buddhists, Hindus quite commonly. Is there any evidence
that animal sacrifice among Muslims have made them more sacrificial towards
there beloved ones as a WHOLE than other religions? Let me ask you this in a
personal way. Can you honestly tell me whether on the Kurabani's Eid did the
the slaughter of the cow/goat in your house really "teach" you to sacrifice for your
father/mother/sister? Or is it that you are, just like a tape recorder, repeating the
same message that has been told to you over and over again since your childhood?
If Kurbani is supposed to teach noble values then why do it once a year? What if
I can afford to kill an animal every day? Will I learn noble value of sacrifice 365
times more than one who kills an animal once a year? Please think about it.
3. If helping the poor is the objective, then it is best served by providing funds that can
be effectively utilized for food, shelter, clothing etc. Beef and Mutton is certainly not
a priority for the poor. There are tons of nice examples of how to contribute to the
society to alleviate poverty and hunger. mass sacrifice of animals once a year is
definirely not the best way or even a good way.
Let me now address your criticism as why pick on islamic ritual of animal slaughter
when animals are routinely killed for consumption as food and also as riyuals in other
religions?"
Its true. You are right. Killing animals for food is certainly a legitimate act for human or
any animal and is common. Nature is "red in tooth and claw" as is often said. It is a
biological imperative that we as an animal species share with other animals in nature.
Killing animals in itself is not the issue here, at least not with me and many others.
It is the pretentious idea of a "noble lesson of sacrifice" that is preached in defense of
Kurbani that is being refuted. Belief in a religious ritual is private and doesn't need
justification and is within one's right to practice it as long it doesn't cause inconvenience
to society and public. But when such rituals are defended with the pretense of logic then
anyone with a true sense of logic cannot in good conscience let such "paralogic" go
unrefuted.
With no intent to offend anyone,
Aparthib
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 214739 +0600
Subject: Re [eSHOMABESH] DisbeliEver
Please allow me to put my few cents here.
Taneem Ahmed wrote
(http//groups.yahoo.com/group/eshomabesh/message/3108)
>Dear Avijit Roy,
[snip]
>
>So I am guessing that if I tell you that I fly in the sky every night with
>my wings, you won't believe me. I am just wondering what is the basis of
>your believes. As you brought up physics, let me ask you, do you believe
>that the speed of light is constant regardless what
>the speed of the observer is? Or do you believe in quantum tunneling? If you
[..]
>them. BTW, just for fun, do you believe in aliens? Can you
>prove what you believe?
Let me summarize your three questions before answering them
1. Why do you "believe" speed of light is a constant, independent of observer?
2. Why do you believe in "Quantum Tunneling"?
3. Do you believe in aliens. Can you prove what you believe? (Fun)
First, you have grossly misunderstood one important (you are not alone, if thats
a comfort) aspect of science. Science does not work on BELIEF. Science works on
EVIDENCE and LOGIC. Science arrives at a tentative truth based on logic, evidence
and observation and leaves open for any revision of that truth if future evidence and
observation forces . So you have asked the wrong questions in 1 and 2
Let me give you a simple example. Why don't you touch a live electric wire? Do you
"see" anything dangerous. inside? Does anything hiss or growl at you? why do you
believe it is dangerous to do so? Now you see the importance of evidence in "belief".
All the principles of physics has its solid expeimental evidence behind it. Constancy
of the speed of light or Quantum tunneling are not isolated principles. They are part
of a more a more general framework of the Laws of Physics. One need not place a
belief in Physics. It is there to for anyone to verify. Nothing is unaccessible. All the
physics labs around the world routinely verifies and uses these principles. There is
universal agreement on the evidence. Have you heard of Tunnel Diode? It is based
on Quantum Tunnelling. There are many devices that utilize quantum tunneling.
Constancy of the speed of light has been verified in the lab for centuries, starting
from Michelson. This is such an easy question I need not belabour the point.
Your question number 3 (albeit for fun) exemplifies a very important aspect of
logical fallacy. It is called shifting the "BURDEN OF PROOF". The burden of proof is
always on the person making an extraordinary assertion or proposition. It is a fallacy
to put the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions such an assertion .
To do that would be sophistry (Bad logic, Unacceptable by all agreed standards of
logic and discussion taught universally). It is the burden of one who claims to
believe in aliens to justify that, not one who denies it. Of course we are referring
to an intellectual burden. No gun is pointed ). As I said in science "proof" of any
thing (a principle or an object) is through evidence and/or logic. aliens are not
subject to proof by that standard. Only one who claims that aliens exist has the
moral burden to prove it, not one who denies it, since denial is far more consistent
with existing knowledge and data than assering its existence. Whether aliens
truly exist or not is still an open question however.
>
>[snip]
>>if we're willing to admit the existence of uncaused things, why not just
>>admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman?
>
>But then again why not just admit that there is a middleman as long as we
>admit the existence of uncaused things??? If suddenly our ignorance and
>limitations drive me to admit something like this, why shouldn't I just (for
>the sake of less emails/arguments) join the group of people who already
>believes something uncaused? Or shouldn't I join them simply to argue??? Or
>is it because I just want to be, or at least pretend to be, *different*?
Here I invite you to try to appreciate a n elegant principle followed by science,
it is called OCCAM'S RAZOR (No thing to be afraid of, razor does not mean blade
here ) " If a phenomenon can be explained by more than one theory, the it makes
the most sense to adopt the one which is simplest, requires the least amount of
additional assumtions and seems to fit best with existing knowledge " A middleman
for an uncaused things is an extra baggage to believe in, because such a middleman
is vague, ill-defined. vague and ill-defined concepts don''t have a place in debates/
discussions, only in one's private fantasy world or in a dialog between believers
who reinforce each other's fanatsies, becasue they need it. Regarding your remarks
about want/pretend to be *different* its an irrelevant remark. However aren't we
all being different by the very fact that we differ? So whats this wanting/pretending
got to do here?
>
>Oh and you seem like the person to ask this question... what is the proof
>that *the* creator doesn't exist?
Again this is the Classic example of the Burden of Proof fallacy. It is logic 101
stuff. This is the first example that is cited in a logical fallacy class. sort of like
a "Hello world" code taught in the first programming example of a programming
language. by the way it is not true that a creator does not exist. There is a creator
(i.e a cause of an effect). IT IS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Modern Physics can
explain the creation of the entire universe as well as life itself. It is along chain
of reasoning to see how it happens. But is all there at scientists disposal.
>
>"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
>Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Yes, like superstrings, Calabi-Yau space etc. )
Aparthib
Subject: RE: [eSHOMABESH] Re: argument to oppose
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 121838 +0600
The response below is a typical example of the utter intolerance
shown towards dissenting and critical views when it doesn't seem
favourable to one. First of all calling someone "A" a "basher/hater"
of religion "X" or condemning A's personal view of life is no
respectable or accepted way to engage in a dialog/debate as is expected
in a forum like this one. If "A" is truly a basher of "X" then it should be
self -evident to anyone. Nobody in that case needs to be spoon fed
to identify A as a basher of "X". It is an insult to all the others to assume
they cannot identify a true basher for themselves. Second, calling
someone a basher or accusing him of "spreading lies" is highly charged
personal judgment against somone, even in a free country like USA this
can provide a legal ground for suing as a libel case if one has the resources
to do that. Worse even, no supporting evidence was provided to justify
such strong accusations. There was no no mention of what the "lies"
were that were being spread. This is irrespsonsible criticism. Besdies
accusing an atheist of bashing religion "X" when he is also critical of
religion "Y", is a biased accusation and mischaracterizes him as a "X"
hater which he is not. He is only a non-believer and "critical" of religious
belief , period. And CRITICAL DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO
INTOLERANT necessarily. Nothing he has said can shake/weakeneven
an iota the faith of anyone.
It is unfortunate that almost always an impersonal article posted by an
author is followed up by someone with personal remarks, innuendos
and impressions about the messenger, where the article should have
been followed up with differing views, opinions or arguments on the
MESSAGE of the article, not about the MESSENGER. If a criticism/view
does not appear valid to someone then he/she can certainly offer a
counter criticism/view with points. It should be taken as a golden rule
that if a message contains factual mistake or an incorrect reasoning or
conclusion (having decided that after carefully and correctly
interpreting it) then one should only provide a counter argument
or correct the factual mistake, not dissect the mind of the messenger
or make an announcement about one's personal reaction to the
message . The emphasis should be to focus on the message, not
on judging the messenger's motive/intentions and or accusing the
messenger of such motives/intentions based on one's personal
biased interpretations of the message. It strains the imagination to
see how someone's impersonal words/views/ideas not directed
against anyone personally can HURT/INSULT anyone's personal
BELIEF/FAITH. This defies any rhyme or reason. Faith is an abstract
entity that should reside safely inside one's mind/heart beyond
anyone's reach. There is no conceivable way someone's faith can be
weakened/destroyed/insulted by another's views or remarks (correct
or mistaken). A faith may appear illogical to someone and it is consistent
with freedom of expression for anyone to express the fact that a certain
faith/belief appears illogical to him/her. There are countless instances
of academicians declaring some well established scientific principles
as baseless . Now a scientist's conviction in a scientific principle is no
less sacred or no less justified (if not more) than someone's faith in
religious or other beliefs. No faith qualifies as priviledged or more
sacred than others. Scientists never feel their belief in scientific
principles is HURT by such counter assertions of non/pseudo-scientists.
So why should religious/cultural faith holders be given a privildged
position of immunity to any critical views? That goes against the
principle of equality and fairness. The most important historical
fact that is often forgotten is that it is the religious believers who
first inititated this tension between believers and non-believers by
criticizing the non-believers or trying to impose their belief on
others provoking a counter reaction by freethinkers/non-believers
of debunking believers. It is cause-effect relationship. If all believers
kept their belief private or never tried to persuade/impose on
non-believers there would be no counter arguments by freethinkers.
This is indeed the case in Buddhism where no religious Buddhists
ever criticizes/condemns other fellow born buddhists for not believing
or practicing Buddhist precepts and rituals. This is not unfortunately the
case in Islam, Judaism or christianity.
Anyway my purpose of this respsosne is more to emphasize and remind
ourselves of the principles of acceptable forms of exchange of views in a
forum Hope my response will help to remind all of us about the spirit of
posting guidelines which emphasizes impersonal exchange of ideas and
opninions, showing tolerance towards contrary views and criticisms of views
and expressing counter views/criticisms if needed, but not making personal
insinuations. I don't have to agree with Avijit's views to make this general
statments of principles above. I would also have made a similar remark if a
free thinker made similar personal remarks/accusations against a religious
believer for affirming his belief or making a logical point against atheism.
Aparthib
At 6/4/01 0331 PM, you wrote :
Dear All (Specially people of faith)
This latest posting is another proof that Mr. Avijit is a born basher of
Islam and Muslims.� I find it pointless to argue with someone like Mr.
Avijit who has declared himself as an atheist and whose only agenda is to
spread lies and hatred against Islam for no reason. Rather than arguing with...
Subject: Re: [eSHOMABESH] Re: argument to oppose (att. Mr Avijit Roy)
Date: June 9 12:30 PM
Mr. Kabir,
Few questions for you
1. Can you clarify in precise terms what did you mean by " let
the other people LIVE with their own believes"
a) Have you been prevented from "LIVING" ? If so, how. Or are
you or your belief having difficulty staying alive after reading
Avijit's post?
b) Do you realize that Islam, Christianity would not have been established
had your policy of " let the other people LIVE with their own believes"
been followed to the letter by the prophets and you wouldn't be making
this statement defending your faith in religion to begin with!
2. Are you asking Avijit to stop expressing his view (Shutting up?), in other
words are you advocating suppressing freedom of expression? (Remember
his post was approved by the moderator).
3. If you affirm that if someone argues against the religious concept of God then
it is his own problem and tell him not to try educating the other people, then by
the logic will you also affirm that if someone argues in favour of God then it
is also his own problem and tell him not to try educating the other people?
And this statement of principle should then retroactively apply to the prophets
of religions as well? And that in that case you cannot justify the religion
(including the one you are defending) which owes its birth to preaching
in past?
4. Do you recognize that certain beliefs (call it B-1) become a topic of debate
only because they are preached (religious notion of God for example) and
that certain beliefs (call them B-2) are not debated simply because they
do not require preaching and are not preached (e.g Process theology,
Spinozza's God, Omega Point, Brahma, Shaman God , Unicorn, Ghorar Dim
etc AND the belief in the true identity of one's mother ). If you do
recognize then don't you agree that it is a logical fallacy to make a
case for not arguing about B-1 by citing B-2 ?
I hope you don't my asking you these questions.
Thanks,
Aparthib
At 6/5/01 1151 PM, you wrote
>Dear Avijit
>
>I live in Canada and this is my first such e-mail that I am writing.
>Could you please tell me what is really wrong with you ? why can't you let
>the other people live with their own beleives, if you feel that their is no
>god then fine, it is your own problem don't try educating the other people
>who beleives in God. YOu have to understand that it is one own Beleives that
...
Date: Mon June 11 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [eSHOMABESH] Logical ISLAM for Mr. AVIJIT
Dear Mr. Mab,
First I like to offer my appreciation for expressing your views in a
respectable manner to the opponent of your views. This is very
easy to do and most importantly to do so IS COMPATIBLE WITH
BOTH SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. You sure can
serve as a model for those who make such bitter accusations against
their opponent view like liar(synonymous with spreader of lies) ,
basher of religion etc whenever their opponent's views don't seem
acceptable to them. Having said that I would like to present my
dissenting views on the issues you have brought up and offer my
reasons for dissenting. since you have given the impression that
your belief in religion(Islam) is based on logic, my point is to argue
about the consistency of the very logic you are proposing while
myself trying to take a strong position one way or the other beyond
what my logic automatically dictates.
For example you wrote
Muhammad was telling the truth.
Muhammad lied to his people about receiving divine messages, when he was actually
making everything up by himself.
The very manner in which you have phrased the above already betrays a logical
flaw(fallacy). It contains the fallacy of bifurcation (also known as false dichotomy).
None of the above need be the case. There is the third possibility that Muhammad
SINCERELY BELIEVED he was telling the truth. So he was not lying. But he may
not not have been telling the truth (Of course not intentionally) either!. Because
a sincere belief in something by someone does not guarantee that something is
true and hence cannot provide a crietrion for accepting it as a truth by all
others. Others can only place their belief in such a belief. So it is a faith at the
bottom. You cannot really speak of Muhammad telling a lie or a truth because
the very concept of God is a subjective one and a claim of the existence of God
(or rceiving divine message) therefore is an assertion not verifiable by any objective
means. An assertion can be a truth or false by definition if it can be verifiable or
falsifiable. Hence logically it is not meaningful to say either that he was lying or
speaking the truth.
Once a faith is involved in this important step, logic can never enter in
a meaningful way thereafter. Becasue the entire foundation is based on an
absolute faith. Take the case of thousands of credible people (including
airforce pilots known to posses a high level of mental stability) sincerely believe
they have seen UFOs. Does it automatically make UFO's true for all
objectively? Your cited prophet's positive personality traits to justify your belief
in him. This is a logical fallacy known as the Fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam
(argument by authority or veneration). A person's positive traits/merits do not
provide a logical proof of the truth of his proposition/conclusion, it can only
suggest a sincerity of the person in his belief that the proposition/conclusion
is true. As is so common in history, many well meaning and dedicated people
have believed in the truth of things that could be never be verified, like UFOs,
Aliens etc. In the 60's two people Jane and Seth
(see http//www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/seth.html) claimed to have received divine
oracles that contain answers and solutions to all mysteries of life. Their divine
oracles have been put in writing in several volumes and contain many
informations that were not known at that time (Many scientific facts about
particle physics etc). They were quite sincere in their belief in the
revelations. But does it by any means prove the authenticity of the oracular
experience? Of course they have won many believers in their
oracles. Your criterion of enduring hardship and persecution to preach
a message to judge the objective truth of the message also does not pass the
logical test. Again the hardship and persecution is a testimony to the sincerity
and strength of the belief, not its objective truth. The assumption that a
message is true because the messenger has undergone a lot of hardship a
and misery to preach it is known in logic as the fallacy of argumentum
ad misericordiam (argument by misery).
Now come to your point about three prophets preaching God, so God must
be true, since coincidence is ruled out. This is another logical fallacy known as
hasty generalization or appeal to coincidence. In this case let me assume you
are right and that God truly exist because three prophets preached them. In
that case you are not believing in a God that is preached in either Judaism,
Christianity or Islam. Becasue if you believe strictly in all of them then you have
to believe/practice contardictory faiths/rituals. You cannot believe in Jesus as
the son God and also believe in Allah, or you cannot take part in a mass in a church
and go to mosque and go to a Jewish Synagogue etc. What you would actually
believe in that case is a God in a general sense , a creator of the universe. Then you
will not be very different from many infidels. Even an atheist believes in a creator.
To an atheist the creator is an abstract set of natural laws that creates the universe
and life. Einstein didn't believe in the God of Moses either. He believed in a
naturalistic God (First proposed by Spinozza). etc. just wanted to make sure you
understand the implications of your conclusions.
Lastly you mentioned the "scientific truths" in Quran as the logical basis
of your elief by citing the work of Keith Moore. Again this is the same
Fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (argument by authority or
veneration) at work again. Had this argument of "scientificness" been made
by any normal folk like you or me would it have gained this publicity or
credibility? Why was this scientificness undiscovered until Keith Moore?
Does the alleged embryological verse REQUIRE Keith Moore's
interpretation for its validation? Can it not stand on its own, if it so accurate
scientifically? Can a perfect book of perfect Islamic God need a Non-Muslim
Physician's validation (After 1400 years of Koran's revelation) for Muslims
to accept its scientificity? Now consider the other side of the issue. What if you
found out that
1. KEITH MOOORE NEVER CONVERTED INTO ISLAM
2. He was offered a faculty position (with a high salary) in King Abdul Aziz
University, to work with the embryology committee of the King Abdul Aziz
University in Jeddah, BEFORE he wrote his book. His book was
heavily financed by Saudi Arabia
3. His wrote two versions of his book. The version containing Koran's
interpretation has been published for use only in the Islamic nations. The
other version is (not containing Koranic interpretation) widely accepted
everywhere else. Keith Moore could only convince his interpretation to
those who do not need to be convinced by logic!
Now if one applies the same kind of logic to make deductions as you made in
arriving at your belief what is the inevitable conclusion that can be drawn
about the authenticity or sincerity of Keith Moore's interpretation from the
above three facts? I am not saying that just because of the above facts the scientific
interpreatation of the verse is wrong. That would be a fallacy. The verse should
stand on its own merit. But on its own merit there is not much in the verse to
conclude it is the word of perfect God. So the question is how do you explain
the vague metaphorical mention of embryonic development in the verses as
interpreted by Keith Moore? By Occam's Razor (A well accepted principle of
logic and science, http//skepdic.com/occam.html) it is more likely explanation is
that it is an opportunistic interpretation by Keith Moore, rathre than a genuine
vindication of its divine origin.
Now the question you raised about whether whatever vague and metaphoric
writings about embryology is mentioned in Koran was it at all possible for Muhammad
to know, the answer is yes. He could have known it from his friends who knew the
work of Galen, a second century Greek physician who taught the four stages of
embryonic development in his book entitled "On the Formation of the Foetus"
in first century A.D. His book contains the same four stages of fetal development
that is mentioned vaguely in Koran. The sequence goes like this based on
historical data (From http//www.debate.org.uk/topics/science/embryo.htm)
1. Galen's teaching was translated into Syriac by Sergius Ras el Ain and taught
in Jandi-Shapur.
2. Harith ben Kalada was an older contemporary of Muhammed. who
was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe
of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received
his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur
and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle,
Hippocrates and Galen.
3. Sergius died about the time that Chosroes the Great began his reign,
and may even have been employed by Chosroes to translate Galen
from Greek into Syriac. Halfway through his reign Chosroes founded
Jundishapur, where Galen's manuscripts must surely have been kept
in translation. Towards the end of his reign he had an audience with
Harith Ibn Kalada, who later became associated with Muhammed.
So was it at all impossible for Muhammad to know about Galen's work?
If you still say no, then the obvious conclusion is that it must be the word
of God. Lets assume this other possibility . Now does it make sense for
an all-knowing, supreme, perfect God to express an embrylogical fact
in such a crude and ambiguous way that it hardly draw any consensus
and unanimity . One has to really has to stretch a bit to draw the analogy
between scientific facts and the verse. It can be stated much more
accurately and precisely with todays knowledge of embryology. So if
we apply Occam's razor which possibility is more convincing?
By the way if you are so impressed about the interpretations of the
alleged scientific nature of verses then as a logical person you should
also be impressed by similar claims (equally justified by the respective
faiths ) of scientific truths in other divine books. here is a list of works
that are quite impressive in their arguments. Each one of these books
are convincing enough to turn one into a strong believer of Christianity
, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism. But you cannot have it all way. All
religions are are mutually inconsistent if all followed to the letter. Any
commonality between these religions if at all are the universal and instinctive
aspects shared by all of humanity that need not require a belief in religions.
Even God can be a very general abstarct concept ousdie of religion as I
argued earlier. Here is the list of the books
1. Genesis and the Big Bang The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern
Science and the Bible - Gerald L. Schroeder
2. The Science of God The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
- Gerald L. Schroeder
3. Thinking About Creation Eternal Torah and Modern Physics - Andrew Goldfinger
4. Vedic Physics - Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Subhash Kak (For online details of this book
see http//www.goldenpub.com/)
5. The Tao of Physics An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and
Eastern Mysticism - Fritjof Capra [ Its a best seller first appeared in 1975 by a top
Theoretical Physicist]
6. http//www.ozemail.com.au/~vsivasup/science/index.html (Modern Physics & Hinduism)
7. http//www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/articles/articles/0798/0043.html (Sankhya Philosophy &
Physics)
8. http//www.saigon.com/~anson/vbud/vbpha014.htm (Science and Buddhism)
9. http//www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7348/physics_metaphysics.html
Finally consider the Dogan people of Mali
(see http//www.cyber-north.com/ufo/dogan.html , and
and http//home.earthlink.net/~pleiadesx/chaptr5.htm).
Their faith tells them that their saviour lord resides in DOG STAR (Sirius B
in astronomical term). I have to admit that their claims are quite impressive
as they are backed by a solid supporting evidence! for those who have
not heard about these Dogan tribes, they can claim more legitimacy about
their claims than any other religions, since they correctly predicted the
existence of Sirius B even before it was astronomically detected and
verified by the astronomers of US Naval Observatory . Dogans also
correctly predicted the orbital revolution period of dogstar around Sirius !
But then, Mr. Mab the bottom line is "faith" does not need logic. For every
reason you give for believing an equally or more convincing reason for
not believing can be given. At the end it is a blind unquestioning faith. Faith
does not require logic, it is a non-belief which requires logic, my friend. If
at all logic is needed for faith, that logic has to be a very personal logic,
customized to lead to one's desired conclusion, not the true and genuine
logic that humanity have developed with consensus through much critical
thinking and now taught universally at all institutions and printed in
books .
Peace to you,
Aparthib
Date: Mon June 15 01:23 PM
Subject: Re: [eSHOMABESH] the meaning/explanation
Regarding the advice on reading the Tafseer before reading Koran, I find
this advice contradictory to the messages of Qur'an itself and to plain and
simple logic. Qur'an (i.e God) clearly says in three suras (44.58, 54.17,54.22)
that Qur'an was made easy to understand by God. If anyone who says Qur'an
is not easy to understand and so should read tafseer is contradicting the words
of God (Is it blasphemy ?). Secondly when God revealed Qur'an he did not
mention that one should wait until tafseers are published before reading the
Qu'ran. The Qu'ran was revealed in easy language and was meant to be
read/followed/understood right when it was revealed. God never mentioned
any tafseer by a designated author as the authentic interpreter of Qu'ran.
A faith in Qur'an as the word of God and Muhammad as its messenger is
only needed. If one adds the requirement that one should read tafseers to
understand Qu'ran one should provide logical reasons for this requirement.
If no logical reason is provided then believing in this requirement becomes
another faith. A faith in the dictum that "Qur'an must be read along with tafseer"
which is a faith in a human, since it is a human who issues such dictum. God or
his messenger never issued this dictum. As it is, belief in Qur'an as the word of
God and Muhammad as the messenger of God are two are gigantic leaps of faith.
It doesn't make sense for humans (who are not divinely appointed) to add extra
baggages of faiths at every step. So taking the two giant leaps of faith there is no
logical reason to believe that Qur'an cannot be read and understood on its own.
Now to come to the issue of translation of Qur'an To those who contend that
translations don't truly convey the original message, please carefully
consider the following 5 points
(1) God says Qur'an is easy to understand (44.58, 54.17,54.22)
Conclusion A person with average knowledge of Arabic should
understand Qur'an and should be cognizant of the FACTS and
INJUNCTIONS mentioned in it, athough he may not appreciate
the poetic/aetshetic/phonetic quality in it.
(2) An average knowledge of English is required for someone who is
cognizant of a FACT or an INJUNCTION in Qur'an to express
it in English ACCURATELY
(Like "4" cannot change to "3", or "yes" cannot change to "no" etc.)
(3) A translation by a person with average knowledge in Arabic and
English may not convey the poetic/aesthetic/phonetic quality of the
original, but CANNOT alter/twist the FACTUAL CONTENT
of it. (Follows logically from (1) and (2) above)
(4) Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthall 's knowledge of Arabic was much better
than average. At least we know that Pickthall had better than average
knowledge in Englsih as well
(5) The translations of Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthall aggree with one another.
Conclusion THE TRANSLATIONS BY EITHER OF THE THREE
ABOVE CAN NEVER CONTAIN ANY ERRORS OR
MISREPRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL.
After the above general discussion let us come to the specific issue of 4
wives. Here are the authentic translation of 4.3 (which mentions 4 wives)
by three respected experts of Arabic language (Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthall)
as mentioned earlier. 4.2 is also cited (Yusuf Ali) as a background. 4.3 is not
relevant to this issue, so is not cited.
Now lets see what suras 42, 4.3 say
[4.2]
YUSUFALI To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age),
nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not
their substance (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.
[4.3]
YUSUFALI If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans,
Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall
not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right
hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
PICKTHAL And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry
of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that
ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your
right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.
SHAKIR And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans,
then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but
if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only
one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may
not deviate from the right course.
So its clear enough (As God promised) that all it is being said is
IF [you cannot treat an orphan justly]
THEN you can marry upto four wives
IF [ you cannot treat all the 4 wives fairly ]
THEN marry only one or a captive women.
I don't see anymore buts, ifs in this verse. Its clear enough. No further
human interpretation is needed or is mandated by God. Whether you
like it or not thats a different matter. After all liking or disliking is dictated
by faith here.
Aparthib
At 6/10/01 1021 PM, you wrote
Dear Md Amir Ali,
Please note that you are not qualified to interpret any Sura in isolation and taken
out of context. The proper way to understand a Surah is to read the tafseer and
other related details from the Quran and the Hadith. The 4 marriages are conditional
[...]
Ali Behrouze Ispahani
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 122359 +0600
Subject: Re [eSHOMABESH] Discuss something that unites us than mud-slinging...
While it is certainly true that terrorist bombing is not the sole demesne of just
one party or group, the nature and cause of terrorism varies in a significant way.
All political parties are guilty of bomb blasts, killing etc. But the terrorist acts of
secular parties are not committed to make a statement for SECULARISM. No
political party was ever formed to defend/promote secularism as their sole
ideological goal (It may contain secularism as ONE OF many ideals ). Nowadays
no party except the Communist Party of Bangladesh affirms secularism in a clear
way, and even for them the principal theme is socialism/leftist dogma, not
secularism. Goons of non-religious parties engage in terrorist acts not to DEFEND
or PROMOTE secularism or to bash religion, but to unleash their political vendetta
on their rival political parties. On the other hand the terrorists acts of religious
based parties are not limited to political retaliation against rival parties only, often
it is committed as a protest against secular ideals/policies/cultures/festivals. There
are enough track record of this to justify a kneejerk finger pointing to the
religious extremists for a bombng incident in a non-political cultural event, though
there is a non-zero probability of some others doing it for peculiar reasons as
well. Anyway in the former case the victims of the bombing are rival political
goons/activists, in the latter case the victims are innocent civilians like poets,
singers, spectators etc. That clearly distinguishes the acts of religious extremists
from that of all other political extremists. The former is described by many as
kukure kukure kamrakamri (dogs biting off each other), not to justify it though.
So the important question is not who is behind a given incident of bombing and
the motive (Anyone can be involved for peculiar reasons) but the undeniable
truth behind the acts of bombing and terrorism by religious extremists who
target innocent civilians whose only fault were that they were performing/
participating in festivities symbolizing the Bangla culture and tradition. Now
to take some specific comments from the repsonse below. The assertion that
majority hate secularism ("majority of the population who love Islam and hate
secularism) can certainly be challenged.If hey did they would have voted
the religious parties to power by now. This statement only reflects the wishful
desire of the poster. It is true that "The majority of our people love Islam and
they are not fanatic, fundamentalists or bigots" as is being said. But they love
Islam as a personal belief, but don't want to mix it with politics.
Regarding the comment "Only few of the deviant secular or atheists
are creating all the problems and are the fanatic,fundamentalists
and bigots". Nothing could be more oxymoronic. seculars = bigots??
If a political terrorist from a non-religious party commits an
act of terrorism, it is an act of secular fundamenatlism? What
kind of logic is that? So because all the muggers, acid-throwers,
dacoits, thieves, smugglers who are not members of a religious
party, are secular fundamentalist? What a conveeeenient
characterization. Split the entire population into either
believers in religious politics or secular fundamentalists.
That way if a criminal is not a member of a religious party then
he is a secular fundamentalist. So when a teenaged girl was
hacked to death by a rickshawpuller, who entered her residence
to commit a theft, at Dogair Paschimpara under Demra thana on t
he outskirts of the city on Tuesday afternoon of Sep 7, 2000,
the rickshaw puller was a secular fundamentalist? Right? Or
when Hatem Ali of Char Shyampur in Matihar thana of Rajshahi
killed four year old girl Brishty (Daily Star February 11, 2001)
he was being a secular fundamentalist right?? One does not have
to stretch to this ridiculous level just to make the point that
not all bombings are done by religious extremists.
Date Sun, 15 Jul 2001 110913 +0600
Re: [eSHOMABESH] Why Science Fails to Explain God - Part II
(contd from before)
[...]
The Muslim sits... Because that is what a chair is for. (End of Part I)
Part II
Then another student interested in science stands up and speaks
"Both the professor and the Muslim student is flawed in their conclusion about
what the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol of science says"
The professor was wrong on two counts. First, Science DOES NOT say that
anything not perceived by our senses do not exist. The professor might get some
help from his colleague who specializes in the philosophy of science or his
colleague friend in the department of Physics to straighten it out". By that flawed
logic, even electrons do not exist, as we do not perceive individual electrons by
our senses. So by that logic science will make itself non-existent, since much of
science's principles base on inatngible entities like electrons, quarks, photons etc.
Science only proves the existence of anything by logic, evidence and observation
(through experimentation). So science cannot prove or disprove "God" as it is not
amenable to scientific study. Second, The definition of God itself is full of
contradictions and inconsistencies to be amenable to even judge its existence or
non-existence. It is like arguing about the existence of a human that is invisible at
all times. It is meaningless to even say it does not exist." One has to have a clear
definition of an object before its existence can even be debated. God has never
been defined without contradictions/inconsistencies to be universally agreed. Its
like the definition of an invisible human, except this human is endowed with infinite
strength, infinite compassion, infinite knowledge, infinite this and infinite that etc.
On the other hand, brain is a well-defined object and logic, evidence and observation
do testify to its existence. Doctors and medical students see brains on a roiutine basis.
The professor and the muslim student both scratch their head.
Then the science student speaks to the Muslim student
" By the way your were incorrect about cold being the absense of heat. Cold is
not a scientific term, but a term to reflect our subjective perception of temperature.
Heat and temperature are not the same thing. So it does not make sense to say cold
is the absense of heat. Cold is relative term to mean something is lower in temperature
than another. So your saying that cold or darkness does not "exist" is not a meaningful
assertion. Its like saying that sorrow does not exist because sorrow is the absense of
happiness, or that night does not eist becaseu it is the absense of day etc.. You were
pushing the word exist to a bizarre extreme. This was not any informative analogy at
all in the debate.
You also made another mistaken remark, that electricity and magnetism
is not fully understood by science. In fact is is one of the few areas of science that is
fully understood. Again you can consult our physics professor to confirm that.
You made another flawed remark about evlution. It goes back to the issue of whether
we need to "see" something with our own "eyes" for it to be true. Obviously not as
I showed earlier. Do you see a flower suddenly pop up in front of your eyes? So
does it mean it did not evolve from a bud? What about an oak tree. It took years for
it to evolve from a tiny seed to a big tree. Do you see it with your eyes every moment?
Biological evolution is even much slower process than all of these. Again, it is
evidence and obvservation. There is no debate among biologists about the fact of
evolution. Any debate is on the exact mecahnism, time scales etc all technical issues.
The evidence lies in the fossils and in the bedrocks with layers of layers of ancient
plants and animals. Even human embryo shows evolution on a miniatuire scale.
Before becoming huamnlike, it goes through several forms, at times developing
gills like fish and shedding it off later. These have all been observed through
ultrasonograph images. We would have never known about this had utrasonograph
imaging not been discovered. So one need not see evolution with their eyes for
evolution to be true. Like electron, it is evidence through observation that lends truth
to it. Evolution happens over a much longer time span (millions of years). By the way
humans did not evolve from monkey. Rather monkeys and huamns evolved from the
same primate ancestor millions of years ago. Human and chimpanzees have 98%
in common in their genes.
The Muslim student looks puzzled and awed. The philosophy professor
also seems awed at the science student's depth and says "I am yet to learn
so much myself. I will certainly read up more on science to be more
knowledgable about it"
All leave the classroom, more humbled and knowledagble.
Date Sat, 14 Jul 2001 221947 +0600
Subject Re [eSHOMABESH] THE LAMENT OF AN ATHIEST
It is unfortunate that so many apologists are obsessively picking
on rationalsists (mostly Avijit) in a personal way. All of them are
making personal accusations, slandering personally for being this,
being that etc. What was achieved through these personal bickering?
Anything constructive? Was any profound insight gained by calling
him a liar etc? It was rather self defeating for the apologists to engage
in such personal bickering against one poster and then complain about
nothing constructive came from Avijit & other rationalists . If nothing
constructive came from Avijit then nothing constructive
came from the personal bickerings of his critics as well. Right or
wrong, Avijit did make some impersonal points (with exact quotes)
about religion, not against any person. But no informative content
can come from personal bickerings and accusations. Just taking a
look at some samples of such bickerings will drive the point
1. "Mr. Avijit and his associates,Nadia Islam(no doubt a pseudo name)
are working as paid agents of a larger groups"
(Amir Ali June 29 in "non-believers", msg # 3252)
2. "Manush er kichu ta lojja thaka uchit. But it seems like these days we
are missing that." (Message 3263, Taneem Ahmed July 4)
3. "I am not going to even read whatever crap you have to say after this.
You really don't have any shame." (Message 3268 , Taneem Ahmed July 4)
4. " please let's do positive works rather than getting involved with meaningless
debate with blatant liars (of course the atheists are the greatest of liars as they
conceal the utmost truth of the existence of God. "
(Msg# 3241, Wohid "Note for Believers" Jun 26)
Some other apologists have accused Avijit of waging a war against
religion, bashing religion, crossing the limits of free speech and decency ,
engaging in hatred and incitement etc.
(Like in "A sham counter presentation", july 8, or in
"THE LAMENT OF AN ATHIEST" , July 14 etc).
All of them seem to be obsessed with one person, Avijit.
Now I am yet to find a single post by Avijit where he has initiated any
unsolicitous attack on ANYONE personally. All he has done is defended
himself against such a personal attack.
The only accusation against Avijit that will be technically correct is that he has
been critical of religious tenets in general. (He has criticized the tenets of ALL
religions). So the question boils down to this Is criticism of the tenets any religion
unethical, a criminal act? The answer is without doubt , no. It is well within
individual rights and freedom of speech to do so. Criticsm of scientific principles,
of literary and artistic works are all allowed. So why should religion be given
a unique priviledge of immunity to such critique. There is no law in any
democratic country against debating religious tenets and dogmas.What is
unacceptable is a personal attack of anyone for expressing their views.
Once an apologist try to propagate and preach what they perceive as truth in
a public forum, then its a fair game that anyone who does not agree with that
expresses their dissenting views and denial of that claim with their own logic.
It is not fair to expect that any view/opinion should not be challenged. Then
they should post in an exclusively religious forum, where they will only hear
"amen". This is an open forum for all views, thats why dissenting views by
rationalisst also are approved. It doesn' make sense to respect the moderator's
approval and then criticise the poster for expressing their views. The only
reasonable thing to do is to critic the rationalists' views with counter views and
logic. If there is any strong case against them it will automatically shine out, no
need to make personal attack on them for that. Calling one "greatest liar" does
not achieve this. Anyone can say that against their opponent.
If religious tenets have to be immune to any criticism then at least for fairness
they also have to stop preaching about its truth to others. A priviledge has to
meet some conditions, it cannot have it both way. If all believers stopped from
trying to preach the truth, the scientificness of their belief etc to all in an open
forum then indeed a case can be made about any one sided criticism by the
rationalists. But tht is not the case. Apologists have been persuasively
trying to preach their beliefs and views to all. So the playing field should be
even. Of course the critics of the preaching (The freethinkers, rationalists)
have to refrain from making a personal attack against any believer preaching
their belief. (Which they have done so far).
The bitterness that so many readers are expressing against Avijit, it is
worthwhile to go through some of Avijits' post, they hardly show any personal
acrimony towards those who were bitter towards him. For example just refer
to the two posts
1. Avijit to taneem (Who called Avijit shamelss, lojja thaka uchit, crap writings etc)
in msg # 3284, "calm down", July 5
2. Avijit to Amir Ali (Who called for Avijit's epulsion and also accused him of
being paid agent of other groups) and wohid, msg # 3292, July 6
It is unfortunate to see such exaggerated accusations against Avijit, like
inciting hatred, waging a war on believers etc. Can pen so effective against
a strong belief ? If so, is the belief really strong then? One should think over
it.
I fail to see how an impersonal critique of religious tenets can provoke
a personal attack. Please provide a good reason to justify that. Let us all
know the reason if we are missing it. Even if the views/arguments of a
rationalist is wrong it should be refuted by logic. We should be tolerant
of all views, right or wrong and refute any view with facts and logic.
Just speaking for fairness.
Aparthib
From me Fri Jun 2 19:30:32 2000
Date: Fri Jun 2, 2000 11:43pm
Subject: Re: [Shetubondhon] Hindu-Muslim Relationship
The previous three contributors, Bhattacharya, Dr. Zaman and Dr.
farooq have discussed at length the historical perspective of
evolution of Communal harmony and breakdown of the same in Bengal.
While it is certainly very illuminative and instructional and I thank
each one of them for this, I think it is also important to focus on
the brass tacks of the issue after having gainined such a perspective
which I will try to do in my post.
First, I must emphasize that the issue of religious harmony is
intimately conected with the issue of secularism. Since in
Bangladesh/India we have a history of tension and strife between a
good segment of the two religious community, secularism will
inevitably be a factor in the whole equation of religious harmony. In
a society where there is no such history there may not be such a need
of explicit affirmation of secularism as a state principle to gain
credence in the effort to achieve religious harmony, because there is
already a religious harmony to begin with. But since we are now
discussing the issue of attaining religious harmony, an affirmation of
securalism is necessarily an important prerequisite. With that in ind
let me go on and discuss the issue of what the reality is and how to
deal with the issue to change the reality. I am being guided by logic
alone. This is a vital issue where logic is absolutely essential.
Emotions always invariably lead to a biased view of the issue making
any attemp to achieve the end difficult if not impossible. So I would
try to present my views in the form of axioms/postulates/corollaries
and observations. I will also define precisely key terms that are
vital in the discussion.
SOME DEFINITIONS:
Communal : A belief that a member of another religion is inferior/evil
simply due to being born in that religion.
a) Soft form: When belief is limited to pure thought as
prejudices.
b) Hard form: When belief is followed by physical
actions to harm and violate the basic human rights of
the members of the other religion in opportune moment.
Obscurantist : Who (mis)interpret religion in a very strict and narrow way
and engage in practices/beliefs in the name of religion that
goes against knowledge and reason.
Religious/Spiritual: One who believes in the revelations/scriptures/rituals
of their religion at a personal level.
Religious-Natiionalist : One who may or may not be religious at a personal
level, but are extremely nationalist with religion
being the sole inspirational base for their
nationalism.
Corollary: (1) One can be communal and NOT Obscurantist (True among both
Hindus and Muslims. (2) One can be Obscurantist but not
communal. I have a personal experience of an example of this.
I knew of an obscurantist Muslim who was very kind and and
completely free from prejudice towards a Hindu guy. He helped
the Hindu boy a lot in his finacial crisis and helped him to
get through his college here. But he practiced the most
antiquated believes in his home. (3) One can be Religious/
Spiritual but neither Obscurantist nor Communal. Most Muslims
and Hindus in Bangladesh and India probably fall into this
category.
DESCRIPTIVE PART (Concepts/Postulates/Corollaries/Observations):
1. SECULARISM (Of a State) = a)Tolerance of all religion. b)Allowing free
religious belief and practices for followers of all religions. c) No
preferential representation/recognition/mention of any specific religion
(regardless of the numerical size of any religion) in all branches of the
state machinery. (Concept)
2. Secularism DOES NOT IMPLY opposing/banning religion (practice or belief) itself.
(Corollary of 3)
3. No religion is endangered or hindered by secularism. (Corollary of 2)
4. Secularism helps in the attainment of religious harmony. (Postulate)
5. If a society places a higher priority on achieving religious harmony over a
wish to see their own religion being reflected in the State then adopting
secularism is worthsacrificing that wish. (A tautology maybe?)
6. Secularism is a state principle not to be confused with mind sets of the
society making up the the state. A state can be secular yet a majority of
the individuals making up the society can have personal prejudices and
biased views against certain religions. e.g, India is a secular country
but not all Hindus of India are free from communal hatred or prejudice.
(observation)
7. Secularism (By State) is a NECESSARY, not a sufficient condition/guarantee
for perfect religious harmony. (As 11 shows above). The sufficient conditions
are:
absence of communal hatred, religious prejudice and intolerance at personal
level. Means to meet these necessary conditions will be discussed in the
second part. (Postulate)
8. If any principle is agreed on as good/ideal then by the fact that the
principle is violated or not applied fully in a given instance does not
make the principle itself wrong or candidate for rejection, e.g secularism,
democracy etc (Postulate).
9. To attain perfect religious harmony there has to be a state principle of
fairness and equality between all religions regardless of the numerical
superiority of any given religion and regardless of the wishes of that
numerical superiority contrary to the principle. (Postulate)
10. The truly communal (see definitions) sections of any religion are a small
minority. (Postulate/Observation)
11. In Bangladesh a preferential recognition of religion exists in the
constitution e.g Islam as the State religion.
12. In Bangladesh we have "Hindu-Christian-Bouddho Oikko Parishad". No Parishad
or Shamiti/Shangha named "Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Bouddho Shampriti/Shanghati
Parishad/Samiti/Shangha" exists. (Observation)
13. India officially declares itself as Secular. Bangladesh does not. (Observation)
14. Most Hindus in India accept the official adoption of Secularism as a state
principle and the minority Hindu communal forces don't challenge this official
position by threat of armed struggle (As yet) (Observation)
15. In Bangladesh most Muslims (now) wish to see Islam being reflected as a State
symbol. A small but powerful segment of Muslims in Bangladesh would oppose with
threats of force (now) any initiative to declare secularism as a state principle.
(Observation)
16. There exist lot of syncretic cultural elements between Hindu Muslim. For
example, Lalan Fakir, Hasa Raja, Kabir, Kanu fakir, Garib Khan. The last two
were famous Muslim writers of Vaishnav Padabali in the seventinth century
Bengal. Of course Nazrul is one of the greatest syncretist of Hindu-Muslim
cultural harmony. Nazrul wrote Shyama Sangeet, which is one of the most
religious songs of Hindus. Bhai GirishChandra Sen was the first to translate
Koran in Bengali. I am sure my examples are a small fraction of all possible
syncretic elements. (Observation)
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS:
The above descriptive notes already have some normative connotations.
Specially observation 11 points to an unfortunate reality. The very fact
that such a united front of Hindu-Christian-Bouddho commuinity had to be
formed points to a symptom of a malaise. It is sad that there is not a
single organization/committee (Not just political, but social/cultural
as well) comprised of members of ALL religious community solely to
promote religious harmony. It is not enough for just poets,
intellectuals etc to come forward when an act of communal hatred occurs.
There has to be a sustained social activity by a dedicated body to
promote religious harmony in peace time on a day to day basis. It is
overdue. In view of the assymmetry between 7 and 8, however (here I hope
my observations #14 is wrong), I am pessimistic about a meanigful goal
of perfect Hindu-Muslim harmony. Symbolism is very important. Without
symbolism any declaration of honest intention of treating all religions
fairly by the majority will lack in credibility and viewed with
suspicion by the other religions. The very refusal to adopt secularism
(or insistence otherwise) itself can be quite justifiably read as a sign
of a lack of sincerity.
For example Dr. Farooq said:
>religion. However, with all due respect, if a better relationship between Hindus
>and Muslims or for that matter between any other groups is contingent upon
>even removing the symbols from constitutions by giving a purely secularist
>character, I am afraid our dialog is a non-starter. And, this is one of the
This validates my pessimistic note above. If a recommendation/suggestion of
secularism is a non-starter then I guess it will never start. There is a
logical incomaptibility in expecting both a preferential state position on a
given religion and a perfect religious harmony because the minority religion
will never accept it in heart. Any fruitful religious harmony has to involve
initiatives that are mutually acceptable (at heart). A hindu will/should
understand a Muslim's concern if India ever declared its state religion as
Hinduism or adopted Hindu religious practices/beliefs in any manner in the
state affair. This is simply a principle based on logic. I don't see any way
of bypassing it logically. Its is clear that Hindu-Muslim harmony can only
be attained at a price. The price being letting go of the cherished desire
to see reflections of one's beloved religion in state. Without that symbolic
but significant sacrifice the best we can hope to achieve is a society free
from religious "riots" (Through draconian law and force), not a society of
perfect religious "harmony".
As to the second part of the above quotes of Dr. Farooq, yes they are simplistic
if looked in isolation. But if one insists on the symbols then the the counter
insistence for removal of these symbols triggered by that the first insistence
that changes the context and it is no longer simplistic, as it becomes a matter
of principle carrying great connotations in a society plagued with religious
tension. By the very insistence of symbolism one has elevated a "simplistic"
thing to a signifucant issue in the principle of equality. So labelling it a
a great "failure" of Secularists really is saying that secularism has failed
because it is championing a principle of secularism!
Going back to my descriptive part, item #15, It shows that harmony and
compatibility is possible despite differences. If Nazrul was alive and was
allowed to freely express his opinion on accepting or rejecting secularism my
bet is that he would have opted for the former.
In conclusion let me state the problem and make some nuts and bolts suggestions
in the attempt to seek a harmony in Hidnu-Muslim relationship: (All of them
based on symmetry)
1. On a state level: Adopt secularism as a state principle and. Have the
education system emphasize religious harmony
2. On a social level: form Hindu-Muslim committee for friendship, more
participation of cross religious festivals, vigilance committee to
prevent any spread of communal acts of violence. Teaching religious
tolerance in schools and inside the family. Radio and televisions can
correctly present the teachings and scriptures of all religion to the
viewrs to dispel myths and stereotypes. In other words a whole
institution and culture of religious tolerance has to be developed and
nurtured through social initiatives.
3. On a personal level: try to learn as much about the other religions as
one can by reading and making friends. Refrain from making any assertion
of superiority of one's religion over the other in a discussion with
a member of another religion. Very importantly, criticise and rectify if
a wrong or stereotypical remark is made by someone. It goes a long way
by creating trust and credence in the effort of seeking harmony when a
Hindu points out the mistake in another Hindu's remark about Islam/Muslims
or a Muslim points out the mistake in another Muslim's remark about
Hinduism/Hindus. For example some time ago a Hindu poster in SCB in a
heated thread on Hindu-Muslim debate made a very derogatory remark about
Nobel Laureate Prof. Abdus Salam as being a third grade physicist who
managed to wrest the nobel awa\rd through shady manipulations and
bribing. No Hindu poster expressed shock at such postings. Similar things
happen on the other side also. One has to play the devil's (metaphorically)
advocate when fairness demands so.
4. Be aware of the fact that the belief/actions of the communal minority never
never truly reflectt that of the majority. Sometimes when the minority
fanatics are extremely violent and vengeful the majority may be afraid to
speak out, even in that situation the one should not jump to labelling the
entire community as communal, but try to understand the dilemma of the
majority.Also note that a criticsim of India by a Muslim on an economic/
poltical issue does not by only logic make one communal. This is a common
fallacy that has caused many a truly non-communal Bangladeshi Muslim to be
painted as communal/fanatic by their Hindu/West bengali counterpart. For
example the of raising the issue of Farkka and the the island of South
Talpatty.
With best wishes,
cosmic thinker
From me Tue Jun 20 19:30:32 2000
To: [email protected]
Subject: [TOTM/June/00] Hindu-Muslim Relationship:
[..]
Regarding my forming impressions vs. being scientific/rational/
logical/objective/free I am intrigued by the presumption that the two cannot
be consistent. Forming impressions based on some experience (e.g reading) is
a valid postion that does not contradict logic. It is unavoidable in art/literary
discussion where we see critics often differ on an interpretation of a poet's
work (Tagore for example). As I said I based my impression of Nazrul's
syncretism on the presence of Hindu and Muslim themes in his work. If Nazrul
is not a syncretist by strict definition (If unanimously decided by Nazrul
and Linguist expert) then its my use of the word syncretist that would be
wrong (As applied to Nazrul), not my impressions. Only when one tries to draw
a conclusion (proposition,ie. either true or false), based on the impressions
there is a room for error. Again one can be rational/scientific but still
vulnerable to mistakes. Einstein made a blunder too!
back to the original theme. I named Nazrul and others just as an example to
illustrate the common cultural ingredients between Hinduism and Islam in
their writings and to conclude that building bridge or achieving harmony
is possible. And I made the subjective remark that Nazrul's writings are
more suggestive of his secular leanings. Again I must remind again that
secular does not mean non-religious. One can be religious yet secular (I
clearly explined it in my earlier post). The quotes from Nazrul referring to
his call for the defense of Islam (Not knowing in what context he wrote those,
but thats not important here) does not contradict secularist position, since
secularism advocates respect for all religions so if one calls for a defense
of Islam IF attacked then that is not going against secularism. My point
is that Nazrul's writing doesn't show any theocratist leaning. So despite
his quotes on defending (Implying an offense) Islam/Muslim, beween labelling
him secularist or theocratist I would go along the former.[..]
Now let me respond to the followup post of Dr. Farooq:
[..]
2. Regarding the difinition of secularism. None of the definitions really contradict
the position of EQUAL respect/tolerance for all religions. All these definitions
refer to excluding religion from state and civil affairs which is another way of
stating the equality of all religions. Equality can be achieved in two ways. One
by equal representation of ALL religion in state affairs, or no representation
of ANY religion in state affirs. The first one is costly and loaded with overhead
and prone to misuse, thats why the second opton is prefered in the West. In
Bangladesh/India it can be a compromise of the two. SOME religious aspects can
be represented equally in the state, not each and every ritual and practices. For
example even during in Pakistan times, Dhaka radio used to broadcast Gita/Koran/
Tripitok before the commencement of the evening sessions. Public schools used to
mandate Hindu religious studies for Hindu students and Islamic studies for Muslim
students upto class seven. Nothing wrong with that. Any knowledge is welcome.
3. Regarding the issue of discrepancies in the definition of secularism, all the
difinitions are still consistent with my definition of secularism. Its just that
these definitions are emphasizing different aspect (separating church/religion
from state affairs). None of these definitions imply banning/opposing religious
belief and practice. Why not take a pragmatic example. USA is a secular country.
Is it limiting the religious practice of Chgristians, Muslims, Hindus? There
are mosques, temples, Ram Krishna missions in all major cities. All religious
festivals are held without hindrance So what is the problem? Are Muslims
forbidden to go to the mosque in India, or celebrate Eid etc? Now Don't bring in
riots and prejudices. Those are social manifestations of personal instincts.
Those are the very realities that Hindus in India have to address as well.
We are talking about the issue of secularism as a sate principle. What does it
matter how Merriam-Webster or council on secular humanism defines it? Western
secularists have their unique reasons for asserting their position. We in
India/Bangladesh have our own. So,lets not follow literally the positions of
each and every council or committe that are based in the web, in certain US
cities or in a certain dictionary. Why not just adopt the pragmatic examples
of a secular state as in USA/INDIA/UK etc ? Do you feel hampered in your
religious pursuit living in USA? I don't think so. Consulting a dictionary or
a committee in USA is not relevant to our discussion of secularism as applied
to Hindu-Muslim context in Bangladesh/India. It may be a topic of an academic
debate. Hindu-Muslim problem in the subcontinent is an old festering problem
and whatever means help to relieve this which does not compromise any religious
belief or practice is a fair means by any logic to me. It is interesting that
there was more cultural harmony between Hindus-Muslims in Bangladesh when it
was East Pakistan as both Hindu-Muslim were more worried about asserting/defending
their shared Bengali identitiy in the face of Pakistani/Punjabi imperialism where
they looked down on/exploited all Bengalis. It is ironic now that Hindu/Muslim
Bengalis don't have any such common enemy to forge an alliance against so
instead of our Bengali heritage we are more interested in leaning toward Islam
as a national identity thus undermining the religious harmony that once existed
under Pakistan. In view of this reality secularism as a state token (in the
strict ideal sense I have outlined that Dr. Farooq seem to accept in principle)
is essential in restoring that sense of harmony.
Dr. Farooq's comment:
"If religious harmony means that people have to be secular (characterized by
"indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious
considerations), then it is also like, quite similar to Mr. Khorshed's
analogy, beheading to get rid of the headache"
This again shows despite my repeated affirmations about the meaning of secularism
(as it applies in the context of India/Bangladesh) it seems that confusion still
remains. Secularism is a principle that applies to "state", not to an individual.
Does it make sense to say I have to "be" democratic or you for the nation to be
democratic? Belief in in democracy is required for impementing Democracy as
belief in a secular state is required for religious harmony. People don't have to
change or "be" anything different that what they are for state to be secular/
democratic. Bangladesh was without democracy (in the true sense) until
1990. Does it mean that people had to change or "be" something else after 1990?
One can continue to be religious/fanatic/atheist/whatever under a secular state,
because a true secular state will allow all religious beliefs and practices
(equally). Islam in Bangladesh was not in a state of danger or oppression before
it became the state religion in 1988. In fact strict secularsim was in effect
in Bangladesh until 1978. I don't believe anyone would say that Islam was in
danger or people's religious belief/practices were compromised in Bangladesh
before 1978. Islam was alive and well before 1978. So why not revert to pre
1978 constitution of Bangladesh? Doing so would cause no harm but would only
help to aquire substantial mileage in the quest for religious harmony. So at
the end let me just state that forget about Merriam-Webster, forget council
on secular humanism, etc, let us just restore the contstitution to its pre-1978
status. Of course then we still have to follow up with the other steps I have
outlined in my earlier posts for achieveing religous harmony. Is that too radical
a suggestion? I hope to see other's valuable views and input on this.
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From me Fri Jun 30 12:00:10 2000
To: [email protected]
Subject: [TOTM] Secularism - Final thoughts
I like to conclude my contribution to this thread (while still staying within
the Topic of the Month spirit by submitting it on June 30), by pointing out some
fallacies (some intentional, the rest due to inability) and myths that are used
in the discussion of secularism.
1. Failing to see the cause->effect relationship in the adversarial position of
secularism and theocracy. For example let us for the sake of generality assume
two adversarial groups A and B (e.g A=secularist, B=Theocratist etc)
Denote "-->" = An offensive/defensive action toward/against
A-->B-->A-->B-->A-->B-->A....
1 2 3 4 5 6
Some fallacies conveniently look at some intermediate step (4->5 say),
ignoring the preceding sequence and declare B as the offender! For example
When US fist launched the attack on Iraq in 1990 any subsequent defensive
maneuver by Iraq was labelled as an aggressive posture. How convenient. Failing
to see the first offender is a common and convenient fallcy.
2. So what caused the emergence of secularism? Of course secularism came long after
the religions(revealed) arrived. So secularism couldn't have caused the genesis
of religion. Its the other way around. In fact secularism was a reaction to
religious persecution. The fallacies against secularism try to place secularism
in parallel with religion as another doctrine aimed at destroying religion
itself (Again conveniently forgetting that secularism was triggered by
religious "persecution", not religion). History is rife with examples of
religious persecution in medieval Europe and Arabia. We all know about
peresecutions of the infamous inquisition. The burning of Giordano
Bruno, the persecution of Galilieo are glaring examples. Many free thinkers
were tortured and killed under Islamic theocracy also. Even today in most
of the Islamic theocracies in the middle east free thinking will not allowed
and will be suppressed if it is expressed, by acts of human rights violation.
When religion is combined with state power it inevitable leads to coercion/
oppression. So it is the persecution of the religionists (A->B)of the free
thinkers that caused the historical emergence of secular ideas as a back lash.
Secular ideas never came to oppose religion itself. In that case it would have
opposed ALL faiths and religions. Secularists never had anything to say against
Buddhism although a huge proportion of humanity practice Buddhism. Secularists
are against religious persecution/coercion, NOT religion itslef. This has to
be uttered like a daily affirmation since it so easily forgitten by so many.
3. Another fallacy try to paint secularism as a doctrine. The trick is to append
"ism/ist" to anything and promote it to a doctrine. Taken to an absurd extreme
this fallacy can be applied to label anyone strictly neutral as neutralist,
anyone believing in truth as truthist etc. and to say that neutralists are
"fanatic" "believers" of neutralism, that they are another form of fanatics etc. !
Secularism favours neutrality. Here's what the official position is on this issue:
[Quoted from http://www.SecularHumanism.org/library/fi/cherry_18_1.01.html, 10
myths about secular humanism]
"Related myths are that secular humanism is the official religion of the
government, the media, the universities, and anyone else who refuses to support
a favorite dogma. All these claims make the same mistake: they confuse
neutrality with hostility. That's a good tactic if you want to create a persecution
complex, but it disregards the fact that neutrality toward different worldviews is
the best protection from persecution in our democratic society. Separating
church and state doesn't mean that the state promotes atheism and humanism,
but that it provides equal protection to all beliefs, as people of many religions
who are at the forefront of the battle to defend the "Wall of Separation" will be
the first to tell you."
4. Another trick is to make an act look very heinous by expressing enough outrage,
(not objectively establishing the intrinsic heninous nature of the act, IF any)
and thereby equating those acts to all acts of human rights violation committed
by religionists. There is no example of a secular person ever having committed
an act of human rights violation. No one can violate human rights by expressing
thoughts or criticisims. Thats what secularists do. Its the religionists
who are not merely content with criticism but in coercion and persecution to
suppress and punish free thought. So there is an obvious assymmetry that is also
conveniently overlooked. Another fallacy is when an act that has nothing to do
with secularism or human rights violation is cited to denigrate secularism. For
example the case of the Women Turkish parliament member is cited to illustrate
the "excessess" of secularists and by expressing enough outrage and loud
condemnation promote it to a human rights violation. But cold logic can readily
enable one to see that it was a case of denial of a priviledge and not a case of
violation of basic human rights. Denying access to the parliament for not
conforming to a dress code does not prevent anyone from believing and practicing
their faith/religion. For example when I went to school in Bangladesh we had
strict uniform code. If anyone violated that code by wearing a religious dress
(Islamic/hindu whatever) they would have been asked to leave and come back with
the proper dress. This is just a principle in action that applies to the school.
Outside the school in home and public places that rule does not apply (as was
also the case of the Turkish female parliamentarian). If you want to enjoy
certain priviledges then play the rule that is appropriate to that priviledge.
No violation of human rights are involved in these situations. Only denial of
privildges due to non-compliance of the rule of game for enjoying the priviledges.
5. Some religionists/anti-secular posters have contended that Islam is not just a
moral and ethical system of beliefs. Its more than that. By saying that they are
first of all implying a special priviledged position of Islam is state affairs vis
a vis other religions and secondly implying that Islam is not merely personal but
inevitably linked with state and public life (Although the five pillars of Islam
that makes one a Muslim does not require connecting religion with state). This is
certainly against the spirit of bridge building. Because a very basic premise of
bridge buoilding demands that all religions are treated equal in the eye of state
laws. At personal level of course on can assume superiorty of their own pet
relgious beliefs. Like Dr. Kaushik Sen has pointed out a Hindu kight argue that
Hindu religious scriptures (Like Manu Sanghita) has encoded all aspects of humnan
conduct and it is inseparable from Public and sate affairs. If that is allowe to
happen then India will become a Hindu state. With Islamic Bangladesh and Hindu
India it is only an easy guess that no bridge building will be needed, as all
Hindus will reside in India, and all Muslims will reside in Pakistan/Bangladesh.
But do we really want that? Do we want all the countries of the world to be
monoreligious because each religion thought they are a special religion and they
cannot separate it from the state? If one religion thinks that way then it
legitimizes other religions to think that way also and thus inevitable precipitates
a polarization along religious lines.
Thanks to the moderators for allowing me and others to express our views.
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From: Aparthib
Date: Mon Oct 16, 2000 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Divided by Religion....United by
I didn't read it as "Trying" to portray Durga Puja
as a "common" festival of "all" Bangalis. I can only see
positive in that report, nothing negative. There has
been so much hot air on bridge building before in this
forum, so much pedantic discourse on communal harmony,
nothing can match this practical and spontaneous real
life act of bridge building. It has brought two families
from this two adversarial religions closer together
giving each side a chance to know better about the other.
Religious festivals to most people are just that. A
festival to enjoy and socialize. Taking part in a festival
without actually performing the rituals strictly shouldn't
change one's faith in their heart. In the report it was
clearly stated that the Hindu spouse also took part in
the Muslim religious festivities. I see it as a win win
situation. A paradigm example of bridge building. Whatever
bridge these couples were able to build is priceless and
achieved much more than what the hot air on communal
harmony in this forum did. I salute those couples for
taking such a bold step and being examples in bridge
building. One also should not lose sight of the fact
that these people did what they have every right to do
as free individuals, and no one else has any right to
criticize them for their personal matters. They did not
preach thet ALL SHOULD do what they did.
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed Oct 18, 2000 9:35pm
Subject: Re: [TOTM/Oct/00] DIVIDED by Farakka
Its true that there is less participation on Farakka. The reason is simple.
Farakka is a technical issue. To make a substantial contribution to this
objective issue one needs to have access to objective data along with
the technical expertise, both of which are inaccessible to most of us laymen,
to be able sieve through the data and make any criticism and suggections. What
most of us can certainly say with firmness is that we in Bangladesh should and
would like to see Bangladesh's interest be looked into and hope that its
national interest be protected. Indians on the other hand should and would
be more interested in their national interest. This is only natural.
Territoriality is an inseparable and primitive imperative of humans and
animals. Territoriality transcends culture, language religion etc. It can
affect members of the same family even. Although we would like to see our
self interest served best we as individuals can hardly do much. Only state
leaders and their appointed technical experts are in a postion to act on
our behalf to safeguard our interest, by applying all leverages that are
available to our side and bringing international partcipation etc. We can
only hold our leaders accountable (not vote them to power etc) if they fail
to safeguard our interest (or at least if they don't try best to safeguard
it, there's not much a weaker party can do anyway), or betray our national
interest for their petty self interest, as we know how easily our leaders
can be bought. Religious harmony, on the other hand is something that is
very accessible on an individual level. It does not require techincal
expertise. It can be affected by individual attitude and behaviours. So I
don't see any reason to link the two mutually exclusive and issues of very
different nature. If Farakka does divide us it should not divide us as two
religions, but as two parties with a conflict of interest, like France and
USA on trade and agriculture issues etc. (French almost "hate" the US for
their perceived trade imperialism), but individual French and Americans
can and are still friends.
From: me
Date: Fri Oct 20, 2000 6:26pm
Subject: [shetu] Re: Divided by Religion....United by
This in response to Dr. Zaman's request for clarification on my use of "hot air" Maybe "hot
air" was an infelicitous choice of expression. I used poetic license wrongly in prosaic context.
I myself took part in the "hot air". What I intended to convey was that all our exchanges
really did not have any tangible impact on bridge building. But that may not have been the
goal anyway. If the goal was to bring diverse ideas from diverse people then it was certainly
successful and useful to all. I was ranking the relative merit between the actual bridge
building accomplished by those model cross religious couples versus that achieved by our
articles. But now that I have defined scope of the bridge building discussions due to the alert
observations of Dr. Zaman, in retrospect the hot air characterization was not relevant, even if
true.
Having issued my clarification let me take this opportunity to add some more of my thoughts
to this thread to make this post more substantive. I repeat that bridge building through cross
religious marital alliance and participation in cross religious festivities is a noble but
voluntary act. Just like community services are meant to be voluntary but noble pursuit. Also
one has the right to participate or not to participate in such cross religious activities. It is
personal. But it is of great positive significance in the context of Hindu-Muslim harmony. It
is not as significant in the context of Hindu-Buddhist relationship, even though Buddhism
was at one point almost driven out of India by the Hindu dynasties.
Fortunately the Hindu persecution of Buddhists in the first millenium did not leave behind it
a legacy of hatred, animosity and suspicion between these two communitites. Unfortunately
past Hindu-Muslim conflicts (starting with the Muslim invasion of India) left a permanent
legacy of hostilities and suspicion that continues to this day. There is reason for this
difference. My theory is that this difference is due to (1) Hinduism and Buddhism are rooted
in the same land and culture, whereas Islam is rooted outside India. (2) The dreaded "i" word
in Islam. Whatever attempt is made to interpret away the negative mention of idolatry in
Islam, it is and probably will always be a sore point between the two religious communities
(Not necessarily on individual levels, as we see clearly, but on a systemic level).
How to overcome these two bottlenecks is a matter of great siginificance and substance that
have to be dealt with in an appropriate forum or context. It is due to this legacy of suspicion
and hostilities that any social activity that help to bridge (even at a local level) the two
religious communities is of great positive importance to those of us who cherish to see a
harmony between the two communities on an equitable term. If bringing peace and harmony
is the prime goal of all communities, and even religions, then any act which helps in
whatever small scale to bring some peace and harmony in life (life subsumes Hindu Muslim
relationship) then it is serving the same goal as religion itself and should be welcomed.
Thanks,
Aparthib
From me Fri Oct 27, 2000 00:13am
Subject: [shetu] Re: Divided by Religion....United by
I would like to address the comments of Dr. Farooq and Udayan Chattopadhyay
in this followup.
Dr. Farooq wrote:
"To be candid, I am simply dumbfounded by this statement. Such statement only
plays in the hands of extremists that reinforces the divisive and dangerous
undercurrents that we are observing."
Dr. Farooq here made a major logical fallacy. This kind of logical fallacy
itself has contributed to much of the unfortunate misgivings and mistrust
between individuals and communities. When person "A" tries to "EXPLAIN" or
UNDERSTAND a possible CAUSE of a deplorable act or behaviour by "B"
(B = individual/community), it never automatically implies that "A" is
sanctioning or condoning that act/behaviour of "B". Any judgement of "A"'s
view on the act/behaviour should be based on "A"'s other statements,
behaviours or acts, not by "A"'s attempt to "EXPLAIN" the acts of "B".
In every possible books, papers, articles, lectures, sociologists,
psychologists, scientists are puttting forward their own theories to explain
possible causes of social evils. As person with such high academic credentials
I am sure Dr. Farooq does read a lot of such explanations, even in his own
field of economics. There are many explanations by economists of economic
disparitites betyween social strata and between nations. Are they necessarily
justifying such disparities in trying to exaplain it? Should anyone get
dumbfounded reading/hearing such artcles, papers, books lectures trying
to provide possible causes/explanations of social evils/problms? I am sure
all will agree that one should not. This is the essence of culture and
education, to engage in the pursuit of understanding/explaining social
problems and evils through ideas and opinions. Not that all such explanations
are correct, they don't have to be. Besides who can say for sure which is
correct and which is wrong, specially in social issues which are not as
objective as the hard sciences. There will be a spectrum of opinions.
All opinions and insights are valuable in such pursuit of understanding.
No one should feel dumbfounded by anyone's ATTEMPT to EXPLAIN
something. If this principle is accepted then what was it about my statement that
dumbfounded Dr. Farooq? I was putting forward one such attempt to explain.
"A" was me and "B" was Muslims/Hindus and the act/behaviour was the deep
seated communal hatred/prejudice of one towards the other. By theorizing
about the possible cause did I also imply that the "possible" causes were
justified or correct? Did Dr. Farooq think so? Did he confuse "explaining"
with "justifying"? If not then what why was he dumbfounded? Let me propose
an eye-opening survey of my own. How many readers were "dumbfounded" by
my theory explaining the possible causes of Hindu/Muslim tension? Please
email me if anyone else was dumbfounded. Not that everyone need to agree
with my theory. For example Mr. Udyayan Chattopadhyay didn't agree with
my explanations. But he wasn't dumbfounded. I don't agree with the views
of many others as well. But I am not dumbfounded. I find it illuminating
to differing views, right or wrong. I am only dumfounded, if ever, when
anyone preachess hatred and violence. I don't think anyone here ever does.
Regarding my explanation, I was not too unrealistic in identifying one
cause of the perpetuation of Hindu-Mulsim tension being the perception among
many Hindus that Islam came from outside, not in India. It certainly
is not a justified cause of hatred, whether or not the statement that
Islam came from outside India is correct. Mass psychology is not based
on a carefully thought out and well-reasoned ideas. Xenophobia is a
a mass instinct. It manifest itself quite ubiquitously. A fear, hatred
/prejudice of something external, outside one's sphere of familiartity
is a very common mass instinct. We see regional hatred between different
districts at home. I was just stating this as a reality of life. Ideally
this should not be the case. Whether Islam came from outside India or
not is a semantic issue. Islam did ORIGINATE in Arabia, which is certainly
outside India. That many in India converted to Islam does not change the
fact of origin of Islam being in Arabia. Where is the disagreement here?
Hinduism certainly evolved in India. Aryans may have come from outside,
but they created Hinduism IN India. So Hinduism as a religious system
is rooted in India, not in any other country. Again that does not justify
a feeling of hatred for Islam or christianity. Of course if one stretches
the scope too widely then everything is rooted in the African plains.
Thats where the early hominids evolved and gradually radiated out all
over the world. So EVERYTHING, christianity/Judaism/Hunduism/Islam all
are outside of their current area of dominance, except Africa, where
the roots of all humanity lie. This kind of statement can well serve a
strictly logical purpose of refuting any statement trying to characterize
something being from "outside", but in our context where we are trying
to identify the cause of the sour relationship between Hindu-Muslim which
is based on reality as "preceived" by the average followers of each, it
is pedagogic and irrelevant.
I am also intrigued by Dr. Farooq's apprehension that my "explanation" will
"play to the hand of extremeists'. Extremists from which religion ? Are
the extremists waiting for my "explanations" to indulge in their extremism?
Have they not already indulged in extremism? My explanation of a possible
"cause" of extremism certainly is a post hoc effort. An attempt to "explain"
the causee of extremism cannot itself "cause" extremism. The attempt to
explain an act can only come "after" the act. Earlier in some posts Dr.
Farooq ridiculed logic. This is one case where simple logic could have
spared him from the trauma of being "dumbfounded". Not advanced symbolic
logic taught in gradiate level course, simple logic from common sense.
Now I would like to address the comments of Udayan Chattopadhyay
He said:
> I don't think this necessarily holds. Islam and Judaism are not only
> from the same land and culture, but from the same book, originally,
> with many beliefs overlapping. Yet look at the relationship between
> Jews and Muslims today in areas where they exist side by side in any
> significant number.
here I have to remind of a simple rule of logic that if a statement
is true, the converse of the stament doesn't have to be necessarily
true. The statement that a possible cause of religious tension is that
the religions are not from the same land and culture does not mean that
that two religions from the same land and culture cannot have tensions.
The reasons are different. The cause of the tension between Islam and
Judaism is purely land. If Israel hadn't occupied Palestinian land
there would be very little tension today, although in ancient days the
Jews did occupy the land of Canaan, the ancient Palestinian people.
But that Biblical event is too ancient to leave any residual legacy of
hatred between present Palestininas and Jews. But no such issue are at
the root of Hindu-Muslim tension. It is solely based on religious
difference (being from different land is one of them) and intolerance
of such differnce.
As far as Quoting historinan Ramesh Chandra, I couldn't see any attempt
to explain the cause of Hindu-Muslim conflict. He just stated his views on
the effect, not the cause. I haven't read his work, but certainly his
quotes don't throw any light on a possible deeper explanation or cause of
such conflict.
Regards,
Aparthib
Date: Sun Oct 29, 2000 10:01pm
Subject: Re: Hinduism/Islam: Rooted within/Rooted without
It seems like Dr. Farooq's response to my posts are reducing our exchanges
into personal bickerings, and in that case at least I am not the one who
started it, after all, I never never mentioned any name in my original
post which triggered these personal exchanges. I always believe in the
golden rule that if a message contains factual mistake or an incorrect
reasoning or conclusion (having decided that after carefully and correctly
interpreting it) then one should only provide a counter argument or correct
the factual mistake, not dissect the mind of the messenger or make an
announcement about one's personal emotional status (being hurt, dumbfounded
etc) being affected by the messenger, unless one is sure that the message
clearly reveals an agenda/motive/intent on the part of the messenger that
runs counter to the cherished values and principles that we all share as
humans. If a message does not contain such an INTENT but can be
MISINTERPRETED (Of course conveniently) by nitwits to reinforce their
own extreme agenda the it is the misinterpretion of the extrtemists that
one should be dumbfounded by, not by the message or the messenger.
I feel forced against my wishes to respond to these personal followups
as there is a potential for some readers to be misled by the persistent
glib statements and reasonings.
For example I stated that the past Hindu-Muslim HOSTILITIES started with
Muslim Invasions (Sultan Mahmud). It was twisted to show that I meant
CONVERSIONS into Islam was due to the invasion. Conversions may have started
earlier or later for whatever reasons (economic reasons, the curse of
caste systems, personal preference etc). The conversions alone could not
have created any hostilities between the two religions, like the conversions
into Christianity didn't. It is this invasion (By plundering generals who
happened to be Muslims) that created the sour feelings in the mass Hindu
mindset. It is safe to assume that if a plundering Christian general
invaded India and wreaked havoc, the the same bitter feeling would have
been implanted among Hindus. As I said superficial mass psychology does not
distinguish between the act of some extreme groups claimimg to represent
a religion or ideal and the peaceful intent of the vast remaining majority
of that religion. I am pained by this mass psychology when I see that even
many non-fundamentalist Hindus blame/look down on the entire Muslim community
of PRESENT for the barbaric act of some Muslims of very different cultural
ethnic background of PAST. It is no different than seeing an educated
Bangladeshi hating indiscriminately any Pakistani of today (who may not even
have been born in 1971) becasue of what Yahya and Tikka Khan odered his army
to do in bangladesh. Or more appropriately, if a sensible Pakistani today
tries to understand/explain the root of the widespread hatred among Bangladeshis
towards Pakistanis by stating that it may lie in the genocide committed
by the Pakistani military in 1971 should that Pakistani be condemned
as reinforcing hatred between Bangladeshis and Pakistanis?. I hasten to add
that this analogy is not quite symmetrical as a contemporary pakistani is
still not too different ethnically and culturally from the barabaric
Pakistani rulers of 1971, wheras the Muslims in Bangladesh are far removed
from the ethnic and cultral roots of Mahmud and other Mughal rulers and
plunderers. But I am using it as a handily available analogy. I was not
far from truth in saying that this mass psychological impact of the
invasion/plunders of Mahmud (and followed up by other generals/rulers later)
was ONE of the cause of the genesis of hatred and suspicion toward Islam.
I never said that the invasion was the cause of conversions. I also mentioned
ONE such cause of tension from the Muslim side as well, that being the
hatred towards idolators/idoltary. How could I possibly be advancing/reinforcing
divisiveness when I am pointing out the unjustified roots of hatred that
BOTH sides have towards each other?. Even that hatred of idolatry was of a
very narrow historical scope. It was a reaction against the then Arab
idolators and pagans who actively opposed the spread of Islamic faith. That
reaction should not have been so sweepingly generalized to apply against
idolatry/idolators everywhere at all times. These are the unfortunate mass
fallacies at the root of all religious rifts. A bridge building should
bring to fore all these fallacies from both sides so as to address them
effectively as a prerequisite of bridge building. Am I still dumbfounding
Dr. Farooq? :)
Further example of twisting my words is the following statement:
[Mr. Aparthib goes a long way to make the point that his theory does not
"necessarily" indicate that he himself concurs with the statement."]
My NON-concurrence was with the antagonistic Hindu mass attitude towards
Islam due to its being rooted outside India + the pluderings of Mahmud and
later Muslim generals/rulers, not with the STATEMENT that Islam is rooted
outside. Was this misinterpretation intentional or due to inability to
think logically?
The question was raise as to how are my statements contributing to the
bridge building? Two answers to this statement. Bridge building has to
be based on facts, not denial of it. It is the misinterpretation of facts
that damages bridge building, not the STAETEMENT of it. If the statement
"Islam is rooted outside India" is misinterpreted as "Islam should be
hated because it is rooted outside" then it is the latter statement that
is to be confronted/challenged/condemned, not the former. Next bridge
building requires that one correctly identifies the mass psychology (wrong
most of the time) that is at the root of the divisiveness. I did that by
identifying the (Hindu)mass psychology of misinterpreting the fact of
Islam's external root as a cause of hatred towards it. Thirdly, its too
judgemnetal to try to raise the issue of how much I am contribuiting to
the casue of bridge building through my posts. I could turn it around by
asking how much my accuser has contributed? It can only be judged by the
party on the other side of the bridge. Let them be the judge. Stating
facts should not damage the bridge, even if the facts are misinterpreted
or misused, as long as it is understood as such i.e (MIS)interpretation/use
Regarding Dr. Farooq's comment:
[ I don't know whether Mr. Udayan was or wasn't dumbfounded. Does everyone
who IS dumbfounded SAYS that he is dumbfounded? Does the absence of
saying that one is dumbfounded necessarily mean that the person is not
dumbfounded? De we have a logical fallacy here, Mr. Aparthib? ]
There is a paradigm called "giving benefit of the doubt" which is not
affected by logic. I applied that paradigm to Mr. Udayan. In Dr. Farooq's
case, there was no doubt as he explicitly said it. Am I spoon feeding
through foolproof reasonings or what :) ?
I should rather stop here. I don't wish to respond to any further
nit picking and personal bickerings although I may again be forced to
in defense only, although I hope not, since I made my postion quite
clear (As if I didn't before :).
Regards,
Aparthib
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 3:34am
Subject: Re: Hinduism/Islam: Rooted within/Rooted without
First I would like to commend Dr. Farooq for stating what has been sorely
missing in all the sayings and writings of Islamic scholars in my limited
recollections and knowledge. I am referring to the statement of
Dr. Farooq: "rejection of idolatry as a matter of faith does not mean that
idolators have to be hated or demeaned..." This is a very substantive
positive message for bridge building.
However, I still have to respond to another misconstruction of my remarks.
I could have made issues with the many isinuations aimed at me (like seeing
similarities between my statements and BJP, "is it a coincidence that..?"
etc etc). I din't want to be nit picking and make a list of all the
insinuations.
Referring to the following comments and lists of Dr. Farooq:
> especially from the opposing viewpoints, in terms of "bickerings",
> "nitwits", "glib statements and reasonings", "twisting", "inability to think
> logically", and "nit picking", it is important that we regain our focus.
First, the inclusion of "nitwit" in the above list. Let me quote exactly the
relevant line from my post:
():
"If a message does not contain such an INTENT but can be MISINTERPRETED
(Of course conveniently) by nitwits to reinforce their own extreme agenda
then it is the misinterpretion of the extrtemists that one should be
dumbfounded by, not by the message or the messenger."
My above remark was in turn referring to Dr. Farooq's comment:
()
"Such statement only plays in the hands of extremists that reinforces the
divisive and dangerous undercurrents that we are observing."
So it is clear that "nitwits" in my remark was clearly referring to the
extremists who might misinterpret my statements to further their "extreme"
agenda as feared by Dr. Farooq in his quotes above. It is very clear (Just
stare at the above quote of mine) that the word "nitwit" goes with "their
own extreme" in the same sentence. It does not even need logic (Logic would
have certainly helped) but simple English syntax to see that "nitwit" is
referring to the extremists. I am obviously referring to the same extremists
that Dr. Farooq is referring to.
Second, the "inability to think logically" was part of my question:
(message 1313)
"Was this misinterpretation intentional or due to inability to think
logically?
It was a question as to which of the two causes was the misinterpretation due
to. I didn't imply it was the second. I couldn't think of any other cause.
So quoting part of, not the whole statement in the above list certainly
served
to misinterpret it.
But I would rather end this post with a postive hope that bridge building
will continue with each side of the bridge engaging in critical self-
examination and thanks again to Dr. Farooq for his constructive statement.
Hope this will end our personal exchanges and that substantuive impersonal
messages will be posted under this thread again.
Best wishes to all,
Aparthib
From [email protected] Tue 22 Sep 1998 13:57:05
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Protesting Threat on Taslima Nasrin
[..]
then its really like saying "majority is always right". If that is the case,
then its also right that all foreigners should leave USA, as most Americans
would want that. Its the constitution that prevents what most people want by
instinct but know is wrong by intellect. Majority of the a religion would want
to convert others into theirs by force if they could. Does that give them the
right to do so? Majority aren't always guided by righteousness or reason. An
entire frenzied population of a nation can be provoked to a mass carnage of
women and children.
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 09:43:36 +0600
Subject: Re: [eSHOMABESH] Humanist & Rational Sentiments??
At 9/13/01 04:43 AM, you wrote:
>
> Dear eShomabesh readers:
> [..]
> If Islam indeed promotes this, then why does such an alleged and
> grossly misinterpreted 'promotion' identify with and followed
> through by ONLY a handful of radicals who may also be adherents
> of Islam, while the majority of the Muslim believers think very
> differently?� An UNcivil war against ordinary Muslim believers
> is the last thing any responsible person with any empathy toward
> humanity ought to be promoting right now, albeit indirectly.
>
�����The answer to the "why"� in the first part above is
�����simple: Because the majority of the Muslims place
�����humanism over literal adherence to religious scriptures.
��� � Despite the recurring theme of the scriptures: "fight the
�� �� non-believers", the majority of the Muslims don't literally
���� follow up�on those exxhortations but exercize prudence
���� and humanistic considerations. But not so with the
���� extremeists who are inspired by such exhortations and
���� seek legitimacy from them. Without those scriptural
��� �exhortations,� the extremeists would have been left with no
�����source� of� inspirations and legitimacy for their actions. They
���� can� find other pretexts for extremism but�those are much
���� easier to deal with and countered, unlike the divine
���� justifications which are much harder to counter, as is so
���� painfully evident.�If these scriptural exhortations are�the
���� fountain head of their actions how�does it help in ending
����their inhuman acts by only verbal criticism of the extremists?
���� And�punishing the extremists involved in one incident of
���� terrorism will only provoke� further extremists inspired by
���� those same exhortations�to fight more and the vicious cylce
���� will go on forever. What is the solution to this vicious cycle? It
���� is�this question that goes begging. No answer has been given
�����yet.������ ���������
>
> the skies of America yesterday.� If we have a blind faith in
> radicalism may be we ought to purify such feelings with a touch of
> reality and love of human life.� Hatred toward ordinary Muslims could
����������� Love of "human"� life is a contextual expression. Certainly the
����������� terrorists are also "humans". It doesn't make sense to love them
����������� while at thge same time condemning them for their acts. And if
����������� one identifies certain scriptural� exhortations as being at the root
����������� of this terrorism, certainly that does� not mean a hatred for the�
����������� majority� who do not exploit those� exhortations literally and
����������� engage in such� inhuman acts.
It is important to suggest a realistic solution to the problem of terrorism.
This is a complex one requiring a change from all sides, a rexamination of US
policy, which itslef has engaged in inhuiman acts against Iraqui civilinas, an
in depth look at the scriptures, more proactive stand of the majority of peaceful
Muslims. At the end it really doesn't matter much how� radically or improperly
an individual
writer phrases his views of the roots of extremism. The terrosists are not
inspired by such individual's� phrasing in cyberspace, they� already have enough
inspiration and legitimacy. Besides, an inspiration of� any act cannot be derived
from its detractors.
Aparthib
Date:�Thu,�9�May�2002
Subject:�Re:�[M-M] Only�in�India�-�The�issue�of�apology�for�past
This�is�spurred�by�the�ongoing�debate�under�this�thread
and�Kisan's�latest�post�where�he�mentioned�the�need�for
a�closure�of�the�issue�of�Muslim�atrocities�in�India�that
started�around�the�tenth�century�AD,�by�suitable�apology
and/or�admission.��Let�me�first�state�some�general�principles:
(In�what�follows�it�is�assumed�that�a�section�of�X,�where�X
�is�a�racial/religious/ethnic�group,�committed�a�crime�in
�the�past,�on�another�racial,�religious�and�ethnic�group�Y�)
X�should�not�be�held�morally�responsible�for�the�past�
wrongdoings�of�some�section�of�their�ancestors/predecessors,
and�it�will�not�be�fair�to�demand�APOLOGY�from�X,�since�
that�amounts�to�treating�them�(The�current�generation�of�X)
as�the�perpetrator�of�that�wrongdoing.�This�is�against�a
humanist�maxim�that�all�are�born�innocent.�A�person�(And
by�extension�a�race)�cannot�be�morally�incriminated�for�
its�birth�roots,�but�only�by�its�own�conduct�and�actions,
not�by�the�misdeeds�of�its�parents.�A�crook�may�beget�a
saint.
On�the�other�hand�it�is�morally�incumbent�on�X�to�
ACKNOWLEDGE,�ADMIT�and�EXPRESS�moral�indignation
for�the�wrongs�committed�on�Y�in�the�past�by�some�section
of�its�past�generation.�Failure�or�refusal�to�do�so,�despite
clear�and�objective�evidence�of�such�past�crimes,�will
morally�incriminate�X�and�deserve�condemnation.
With�the�passage�of�time,�the�clear�identification�of�the
victim�and�the�perpetrator�can�get�fuzzy�and�fuzzier.
For�example�let's�take�the�specific�case�of�the�Muslim
invasion�and�atrocities�in�India�in�the�early�second�millenium.
Those�Muslim�invaders�were�mostly�Afghans�(or�Mongolians)
and�some�Persian�in�origin.�So�only�Afghans,�Mongols,
Persians�can�be�identified�as�the�X�sharing�the�identity
of�the�original�perpetrators.�Muslims�in�India�(and�less�so�for
Muslims�in�Bangladesh)�today�have�nothing�to�share
with�those�Afghans�or�Mongols�to�be�identified�as�"X".
Some�of�the�forefathers�of�the�Muslims�in�India�converted
to�Islam�from�low�caste�Hindus�to�escape�caste�system,
having�nothing�to�do�with�the�invading�Muslim�conquerors.
An�apology�from�these�Muslims�would�not�be�ethically
justified�at�all.�But�the�fact�remains,�wrongs�were�committed
on�the�Hindus�in�India�by�Muslim�Invaders.�All�human
tragedies�need�a�closure,�in�some�way.�Because�the
descendents�of�the�victim�who�share�some�important
traits�(religion�and�ethnicity)�need�to�get�beyond�the
painful�memory�of�their�forefathers�and�move�on�and
get�over�the�lingering�sense�of�bitterness.�And�it�is
important�to�get�over�this�bitterness�for�a�stable
communal�harmony.�And�the�only�way�such�closure�
can�be�brought�about�is�by�persuading�them
(Afghans,�Mongols,�Persians,�Arabs)�to�admit�(through
official�history)�that�such�invasion,�plundering�and�
oppression�of�Hindus�in�India�did�take�place�by�their
forefathers.�
As�for�Muslims�in�India��(or�for�that�matter
in�the�subcontinent),�the�only�thing�they�can�do�is�
NOT�TO�glorify,�defend,�or�deny�those�acts�of�invading
Muslims�and�accept�it�as�historical�fact,�feel�moral�
indignation,�and�not�be�apologetic�just�because�they
share�the�same�religion�as�those�invaders.�Regrettably
this�has�not�been�the�case.�As�far�as�my�school�memory
goes,�all�such�invasions�were�either�portrayed�as�gallantry
of�the�Islamic�conquerors,�sometimes�even�glorified�and
in�other�cases�simply�described�as�facts�of�history,�with
only�the�outcome�of�such�invasions�mentioned�and
the�changes�they�brought�forth.�Rarely�is�the�atrocity
of�the�invaders�involving�crimes�of�communal�nature�
(destroying�and�plundering�temples,�idols,�violating
women�etc)�mentioned�as�historical�facts.�Including�
such�historical�facts�in�the�official�history�and�its�
accpetance�by�Muslims�(Or�NOT�offering�resistance�
in�the�least)�will�be�the�sensible�way�to�bring�this
closure.�And�once�this�closure�is�brought�about�in�this�
manner,�Hindus�will�have�no�moral�ground�to�rationalize
destruction�of�Babri�mosque�and�the�cycle�of�
action-reactions�will�end.�So�I�agree�with�Kisan
on�the�need�for�a�closure.�And�there�can�be�no
closure�unless�an�honest�acknowledgement�of�the
historical�truths�by�Muslims.�This�is�the�rationalistic
approach,�in�my�view.
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 121738 +0600
Subject: Re [mukto-mona] Quoting out of context
Dear Gitte,
Show them the following three verses (There are many more that would
serve the same purpose) and ask them what is the context? These apologists
can be trapped in their own game by the "Koran is God's word, perfect,
timeless" etc. If at all a context is required , then a perfect verse should
contain the context in the verse itself clearly, not left out or left up to
humans to interpret and find a context using their own judgement (which
may not be correct) , something not expected of a divine verse which is
meant to be perfect.
[4.56] (Torment to Non-believers)
PICKTHAL Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them
to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh
skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.
[10.4] (Severe Punishment for non-believers)
YUSUFALI "..but those who reject Him will have draughts of boiling fluids, and
a penalty grievous, because they did reject Him."
[98.6] (Severe Punishment for non-believers)
YUSUFALI Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among
the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of
creatures.
So you may be a decent non-believing person having committed no
crime, never hurt anyone, instead may have loved others, done many
philanthropic works, but still will have your skin burned for ever in hell,
and condemned as the worst of the creatures. What can be the context
to justify your deserving such a fate? They can say well it is meant fot
the non-believers in that time who were engaged in all sorts of vice etc.
Then you tell them, what is the point of me reading in 2001 a supposedly
"timeless" verse that is meant for some dead men in Arabia of the 6th
century ? Shoudn't the perfect timeless word of God be applicable to
anyone anywhere? Besides the vrese clearly mentions non belief as
the sole critrion for such punishment. Shouldn't that context be clearly
mentioned in a "perfect" verse so that I don't misinterpret it to be
applicable to me?" See what answer you get.
Date: Sun Dec 31, 2000 9:04am
Subject: Re: War of the words
Ref:
I feel compelled to provide a rejoinder to the responses of Dr. A. Hasan
(messages # 1513 &1529) to Dr. Kaushik Sen's earlier post as it brings
out some very important principles that are relevant to exchanges of ideas
and opinions in this forum and in any sensible forum. One of those
principles is to focus on the message, not on judging the messenger's motive/
intentions and or accusing the messenger of such motives/intentions based on
the misinterpretations of the message. It strains my imagination to see how
someone's impersonal words/views/ideas not directed against anyone personally
can HURT/INSULT anyone's personal BELIEF/FAITH. This defies any rhyme or
reason. Faith is an abstract entity that resides safely inside one's mind/
heart beyond anyone's reach. There is no conceivable way someone's faith can
be weakened/destroyed/insulted by another's views or remarks (wrong or right).
A faith may appear illogical to someone and it is consistent with freedom of
expression for anyone to express the fact that a certain faith/belief appears
illogical to him/her. There are countless instances of academicians
declaring some well established scientific principles as baseless . Now a
scientist's faith in scientific principles is no less sacred or no less
justified (if not more) than someone's faith in religious or other beliefs.
No faith qualifies as priviledged or more sacred than others. Scientists
never feel their belief in scientific principles HURT by such counter
assertions of non/pseudo-scientists. So why should religious/cultural faith
holders be given a privildged position of immunity to such criticisms? That
goes against the principlke of equality and justice.
[...]
Dr. A. Hasan wrote: (1513):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Daktar Sen:
> Here, you have done it again - spoke about a thing which you do not
> have any basic understanding about, and impose on others as the 'all-
> knowing' authority of 'Setubondhon'!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Here the appropriate principle being violated is accusing someone of
not knowing or having a basic understanding. More serious is the
accusation of "Imposing" on other's an 'all-knowing' authority of
'Setubondhon'!" Now this is going too far. How can anyone "impose"
such an authority on others? What does it mean to say that? Nobody
has ever claimed to be all-knowing, nor has others labelled anyone of
being so. This is a highly biased judgemental remark on Dr. Sen.]
[...]
Dr. A. Hasan wrote: (1529)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>And anybody talking about faith is fanatic and extremist! I wish you were
>listening to yourself, and evaluate what should be considered fanaticism
>here. I did not proclaim in my post that everything that Muslims preach
> today is logical, you made the statement up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This was an unconscionable misquoting of Dr. Sen. Nowhere in his post
Did Dr. Sen mention "And anybody talking about faith is fanatic and
extremist!". One instance of a misquote already destroys the
credibility of this rebuttal loaded with personal acrimony. This is against
the spirit of Shetubondhon or any forum to accuse someone personally
, putting words in their mouth (or thoughts into their mind) for
expressing views that one does not like or accept. The proper response
expected in a rebuttal is citing reasons for disagreement and putting forth
contrary views and opinions.]
[...]
Dr. A. Hasan wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anyway, you very carelessly avoided the question I posed, and
> sidetracked only to attack the whole faith (not just Islamic) in
> general and gave some self-contradictory answers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[He certainly did not "attack" faith. This is a serious allegation
against someone and if not correct makes the accuser culpable
rather than the accused. Let us first see a universally agreed on
definition of an "attack" of faith and then use that definition
to decide if faith was attcked or not. Defining "attack" conveniently
to justify the accusation is unconscionable.
Besides "attack" of a faith is an expression that may not be well
defined or meaningful. A faith is an abstract entitiy residing in the
heart of someone and by any logic is not amenable to an "attack" as
it cannot be weakened/destroyed against the wish of the believer
of the faith by other's words and views. If by "attack" one means
"criticism" then certainly Dr. Sen did not criticize faith itself. He
may have called faith "illogical" (I agree with him on that), but that
is a "characterization" of faith, NOT a "criticism". ]
Dr. A. hasan wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Believing in faiths,
> according to you, will give rise to violent showdown between groups.
> So we have to get rid of faith which is probably your objective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[This is the most objectionable instance of accusing the author of possesing
an "objective/motive", based on a subjective judgnment and misinterpretation
of the author's views. It is pathetic that this is what a shetubondhon post
has come down to. I can categorically say that nowhere in Dr. Sen's post
have I seen any call or desire to get rid of ALL faith. Those who have
followed Dr. Sen's posts in past will agree that he has been most respectful,
conscientious and fair in all his writings. I personally hold him in high
regard for that.]
[...]