Posts on Religion-2
Date: Sun Nov 5, 2000 0:25am
Subject: Re: Infallibility of Scriptures
[...]
He wrote:
> It is a sad irony that Islam-hating bigots and obscurantist Muslims agree
> with each other in interpreting Islamic tenets, and need each other as their
> raison d'etre. But I am pretty sure, by the grace of Allah, that both of
> these species will become extinct as God's evolutionary plan unfolds.
I am having difficulty reconciling myself in principle with the above segment.
There are several aspects of this difficulty. First, in identifying who these
so called "Islam-hating bigots" are. I find this label itself problematic
(and possibly oxymoronic). So who are the Islam haters? (1) Is it anyone who
doesn't believe in the dogma of Islam ?(could be atheists or deists/theists
with a general view of God) (2) is it anyone who criticizes the call by
fanatic extremists for the decapitation of an author for his/her writings or
more genrally anyone who condemns any violent act or threat of violence by
religious fanatics against those whose ideas the fanatics don't like? (3) Is
it someone who advocates secularism society and governmemt? None of these
three cases can be objectively characterized as hating "Islam" as a system
of private faith and rituals for individuals. How does one objectively
establish "hatred" against a religion? For the religious fanatics the hatred
is quite objectively established through coercion, violent acts/threats
thereof.
But the so called Islam-hating "bigots" are invariably characterized by their
opposition, refusal, criticism and other non-physical acts never backed up by
any violent act. The use of bigits in this case is certainly oxymoronic since
these so called "Islam-haters" are basically acting in defense against the
coercive acts of the religious bigots. One should not lose sight of the the
extremely significant ASYMMETRY between the so called Islam-"hating bigots"
and the religious bigots.The latter gave rise to the former as a defensive
reaction. The former would not have existed without the latter. The latter
are intent on physically imposing their ideas and beliefs on others and ar
eager to deter their critics with physical threats. Two "equate" the two is
a monumental inequity. Should the Palestinians fighting against the Israelis
be labelled as Judaism-"hating bigots"?
In christianity itslef secularism arose out of a reaction against medieval
church to control society and state and stifle free thinking and at times
physically persecuting them(death). Since christianity corrected itself from
within to put an end to this tyranny of religion the secularism movement in
christianity gradually lost relevance and today it is only busy with the
issues of abortion rights, keeping school free from preferential
representation
of religious prayers etc. In Hinduism or Buddhism the Hinduism/Buddhism-
"hating bigot" concept never arose because there was no instance of Hindu/
Buddhist clergy ever ruling society/nation by strict scriptural decrees or
widespread persecution of dissenters. In christianlity today nobody calls
these secularists Christianity-"hating" bigots. Even the aethist assoiation
of America are accepted as part of the mainstream society. A democratic
society can and should tolerate all kinds of personal belief systems. The
so called Islam-"hating bigots" are symptomatic of the the unfinished task
of self correction within Islam that Dr. Kaushik Sen pointed to in his
excellent post. If Islamic followers and rulers allowed dissenting opinions
and views without threatening the authors with physical force (decapitation)
or did not impose a rigid system of practices on every member of the society,
the Islam-"hating bigots" would also disappear and loose relevance. After
all, a solid and secure belief system cannot be sabotaged by mere views and
opinions that do not agree with religious beliefs, if at all it should give
the believers an opportunity to test the strength of their conviction in
the belief.
It is not too profound a realization that a non-coercive, non-threatening
system of beliefs cannot provoke an antagonism no matter how irrational
or irrelevant those beliefs appear to be. Nobody comes out with a vocal
ANTAGONISM against the belief in fairies, unicorns, or even God. A purely
philosphical refutation of such beliefs (specially if the belief is
preached to the non-believers through hard-selling) is however common and
should be acceptable since no force or violence is implied in such refutation.
So Islam, or any other religion, AS A SYSTEM OF FAITH cannot and did not
provoke anatgonism against it. It is only when the FOLLOWERS/PRACTITIONERS
of relgion engaged into coercive acts against the dissenters that generated
backlash (much like Israeli occupation of palestinian land generated
Palestinian backlash).
I have even greater diffculty with the following message:
> raison d'etre. But I am pretty sure, by the grace of Allah, that both of
> these species will become extinct as God's evolutionary plan unfolds.
If we strip the message of its euphemistic coatings, the message
unambiguously
reads (when applied to one of the species, the so called Islam-"hating
bigots"):
"You don't deserve to live because of the way you think/talk"
This is because, as I have painstakingly argued above that no-matter who are
characterized as Islam-"hating bigots" they are invariably limited to views
and opinions and its verbalization, not violent acts or coercions. Now if
natural selection weeds out some species then it does not matter what one
believes or wishes. After all natural selction works blindly on physical
laws, it does not care for personal wishes or ethics. But applying our
faculty of conscience and reasoning (which itself is an advanced byproduct
of natural selection) is it conscionable that we wish the extinction of a
species just because of their views/opinions/defensive criticisms?
There is no precedence of non-believers/secularists/free thinkers ever
physically liquidating believers or coercing them into non-belief or prevented
believers from practicing religions. Even in former communist China and
socialist Russia, (the two former societies that were most idetified with
anti-religious persecution and are certainly not paradigms of a free society
that true secularists espouse), no ban was imposed on private religious
practices and beliefs, only on mixing religion with public life. Turkey is
cited as another example of religion bashing. But it NEVER bans or discourages
religious practices and beliefs. One can hear Azan from the Mosques, people
going to mosques, offering prayer, fasting, giving alms, everything that
islam enjoins their followers to do are not only allowed but are engaged
in by the very same people that oppose bringing religious practices in
certain premises that one gets into through the granting of priviledges,
so one can choose to renounce the priviledgs if they are unwilling to
accept the terms of the priviledges. But no matter how one looks at the
whole issue one cannot in good conscience equate the two species let alone
desire the extinction of the species based on their views and opinions.
Regarding the folowing remarks:
> in the Quran. I do not agree with them. To me, the Quran is a book of moral
> and spiritual guidance and is not intended to be a textbook of science. I
> am not seriously disappointed that the Quran does not contain the equations
> of quantum field theory or the chemical structure of the DNA, because the
> Holy Book contains something vastly more important - guidance on how human
> beings ought to conduct themselves in individual life and how they ought to
> build and govern a just society.
>
[...]
The issue is actually not that any religious apologist argues that Koran is
a textbook of science, they don't (obviously, as they are aware it is
easily falsifiable) but that they contend that scientifc principles and
facts are "coded in a symbolic way" and alluded to metaphorically in Koran.
And they always use this to relate scietnific principles and facts AFTER
they are discovered, not BEFORE. It is very conveneint and safe to retrodict,
by use of specious and vague analogies and "arguments".T hey claim
that religious scripture compactly encaptures ALL the scientific facts
and principles in a symbolic way. One can certinly rasie an issue with
that.
If one does not take a literalist view then it loses its claim to
originality and depth and becomes so general that it can be conveniently
applied in a post hoc manner to explain/justify anything found by
pure human wisdom. A principle that is too general, too encompassing
loses power and utility. It is not intellectually rigorous to
say that both creationism and evolution is "accomodated" by it,
because first scripture is very vague about these ideas and it is not even
clear what "accomodate" would mean in this case. There is a trade off
between precision and power/utility. A precisely stated principle
(If accurate) has much higher utility and power than a vaguely stated
principle which can be fitted to any situation due to its very vague and
general phrasing.
regarding slavery, as with any practice or belief which is ethically wrong,
it need to be proscribed unequivocally, a mere indication of DIRECTION
by mild words or exhortations is inconsistent with the usual strength
with which a principle should be preached. If banning of pork can be
doe so unequivocally, why couldn't be slavery be proscribed unequivocally?
The setting of directions could have followed such a proscription. And
certainly the implementation of abolition could have been been phased
out over time to make the transition smooth, but the stating of the
unethicalness of slavery should not have been postoponed or suppressed.
It certainly gives a mixed message or dilutes anti-slavery intention.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Date: Thu Nov 30, 2000 10:21am
Subject: Re: "In the Name of Secularism"
[..] by raising enough hell and furore an issue can be promoted to an
unjustofied level of seriousness and its real nature can be distorted to
project something else that what it really represents. [..]
Let me make twofollowing important statement of principle as a guide for
discussions that follow.
1. A DENIAL OF A PRIVILEDGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATION.
2. PREVENTING AND/OR PERSECUTING FOR EXCERCIZING ONE'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
(FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IN PUBLIC PLACES, FREEDOM TO
PRACTICE ONE'S FAITH/RELIGION ETC,) DOES CONSTITUTE A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION.
A human rights violatation is invariably characterized by either forcefully
(Ultimately by physical means) preventing someone from doing what they are
entitled to do as a RIGHT (Reminder, not as a Priviledge) or by physically
torturing someone as a punishment for having done soemthing they are
entitled to do as a free person.
Let me answer the rhetorical question asked by Ahsanul Karim:
===============================================
Many a time we hear from the followers of secularism that so
many bad things are done "In The Name Of Religion", but have we
ever heard from the same followers what is happening
"In The Name Of Secularism"?
================================================
What is happenning in Turkey is that Merve Kavakci was denied
admittance to the parliament because she refused to comply with the
dress code by insisting to wear a scarf and still be admitted to the
parliament. She decided to fight against this denial wehich triggered
a political struggle bewteen herself and the authority. As with most
third world cointries political opposition is dealt with repressive
measures (Bangladesh is no exception, in fact much worse, here
jouranlists are abducted and killed for writing provocative articles).
Now this does not sound lile a human rights violation issue. Here in
secular USA and in many other western countries one can see signs "No
shirt no shoes no service". Bare footed/shirtless people simply walk on
by after seeing the sign. Human rights are not violated. They don't
launch a political movement to fight this and cry human rights
violation. People not dressed properly for an interview are rejected a
job offer. Human rights are not violated. Women reject their suitors
for not grooming themselves properly. Human rights are not violated.
School children are reprimanded and rusticated for not wearing uniforms
(In Bangaldesh also). Human rights are not violated. If Merve Kavakci
had complied with the condition for the priviledge or decided go back
leading her usual life not worrying about enjoying the priviledge of a
parliamentary member then this would not have become an issue. To see
real violation of human rights one has to look at Saudi Arab as Shubha
rahman pointed out, where women are punished for not wearing hijab/
veil. And we are talking about punishment, not denial of a priviledge.
Most punishments are physical, the worst form of human rights abuse and
insult to the dignity of a woman. When an author is issued a death
fatwa merely for writing about their ideas and views that is a human
rights violation. People are being misled into believing that religion
itslef is being attacked and followers of Islam are being tortured or
prevented from practicing Islam. As the report itself says that 70%
women wear Hijab in Turkey. None of them are being tortured or being
prevented form wearing Hijab. Those who watch the Travel channel where
Turkey is featured quite regularly cannot escape noticing women wearing
hijab freely in public places and homes and Islamic traditions and
practices reflected in peoples life. There are mosques and the sound of
Azan is heard routinely. Islamic customs are widely followed in Turky
in personal life unhindered. Turkey is a strictly (mislabelled as
fanatically) secular state and true to this spirit they don't allow any
public/state projection of Islam that has the potential of sowing the
seed of fanaticism.
The original article appeared in a site that is dedicated to the
opposition to secular views and systems. They have vested interest in
maginfying and distorting the issue to draw sympathy and outrage to
undermine secular principles. There is no such thing as secular
fundamentalism. If at all, Turksh authoruty have been rigid and not
compromised their principle of not allowing admisiion to parliamnet
unless one stops wearing scarf. Unlike Canada and US where authorities
have been lenient towards these issues. But allowing turban to sikh
mounted police was a gesture of good will driven by practical
considerations as Sikhs are a powerful ethnic component in Canadian
society and Canadian police would have lost a dedicated and efficient
group of policemen if they hadn't yielded. Same is the situation in US
wher practical consdertaions (Plus geuine sensitivity) also inspired
companies and goverment agencies to grant priviledges. They didn't have
to. But they did. It was not becasue it would have been otherwise a
case of human rights violation that Sikhs were allowed turbans or women
were allowed to wear hijab in certain work places in USA, but because
it was practical and goodwill is considered a nice aspect of civilized
culture.
I am neither defending nor criticizing te Turkish Government's policy.
They could certainly follow Canada's and USA' example and be more
lenient toward granting exceptions and priviledges. But the socio-
political reality is different there from that in Canada and US so they
know best what is right for them. Certainly there are political
repressions there like in Bangladesh and other third world countries
which amnesty international and other international bodies should
monitor and apply pressure to reddress them. But calling the instances
of denying priviledges as "Human Rights Violation" was pure rhetoric
and hysterical and motivated by the desire to undermine secularism.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 03:12:18 -0800
Subject: Re: Infallibility of Scriptures
[...]
Dr. Zaman wrote:
"When I visited Bangladesh back in 1994, two men were beaten unconscious, one
in Dhaka and one in Chittagong. Both were allegedly suspected by a "secular"
student group (that did the beating) of being a member of an "Islamic"
party. Neither man was. Both of them, however, had beard. The man beaten
up in Chittagong was actually a Hindu (he should have known better than
sporting a beard)! Here you have an additional symptom of bigotry -
stereotyping."
My Response:
[ A general note: Sometimes an event itself does not become an issue
as much as the characterization of the event. For example when the
members of student wing of the ruling party beats up members of the
the members of student faction of the opposing Jamate Islami political
party, instead of characterizing it as inter party strife (a very common
feature of Bangla politicial life) it is characterized as secularists bashing
religionists it takes on a very different siginificance. This alternate
characterization can be and most often is done with the explicit purpose of
justifying an opposition to a principle (secularism) in this case]. When so
many non-Jamati political opponents are routinely being beaten, abducted
and tortured by rival party members (Take all permutations of AL, BNP, JP,
JSD etc). it is never characterized as "Muslims killing Muslims" or
"secularists killing secularists" or "rightists killing leftists or
vice versa" as these characterization don't buy any mileage for anyone or
serve to further any agenda or arrive at a desired conclusion. It is no
different than characterizing the "denial of admission to parliament" to
the female Turkish member as "preventing her from wearing a scarf". The
second characterization (which is also a false characterization) helps to
serve anti-secular agenda. Secondly individual incidents only serve to aid
in one's argument. They never help to establish a general principle or
derive a general conclusion. An incident of BCL students beating up some
Shibir members does not providse any relevant supporting argument to
establish or refute any argument/conclusions in this thread of our
discussions. BCL activists are not necessarily targeting followers of Islam,
but targeting rival student groups who themselves have engaged in violent
activism against BCL and other poltical student wings. So it IS NOT an
example of secularists bashing religionists as some would like to
characterize. Besides it is in the middle of a cause-effect chain:
cause1->effect1->cause2->effect2->cause3..
and if one does not look at the root cause of this event then a blame can be
put on the wrong party for the entire chain of clashes. Shibir followers have
track records of violent activities in Chittagong. The fact that wrong
persons were beaten (or even the act of beating) up points to the failings
of the BCL students, NOT of secular principles. ]
Dr. Zaman :
"A well-known "intellectual" in Bangladesh once remarked,
"ek matro oshikhkhito ebong eetor lokerai Islam e bishwash kore" ("only
uneducated and mean people believe in Islam"). This man was reportedly an
atheist. He was nonviolent but his contempt for Islam was not obviously
warranted by any rational examination of Islam.
My repsonse:
[ An atheist, regards ALL religions as baseless and irrational, and in
exceptional cases as above may sound contemptual. The fact that
he mentioned Islam is coincidental as he lives/lived in a society majority
of whom follow Islam. So this cannot be taken as an example of "ISLAM
BASHING", rather as a socially tactless and emotional way of
characterizing RELIGION-FOLLOWERS. Let me remind again that this
individual rare incidence did not help to establish or refute any
general principle/conclusion. It is hard to spot an atheist these days in
Bangladesh and it is not fasionable to do so. It is fasionable to show how
many times one has done Umrah, which prestigious pir one is a follower
of, how much one has donated to Mosque, how many religious parties one
hosts in one's residence etc]
Dr. Zaman :
"A related example of an atheist bigot who was also quite violent comes to
mind. He did not believe in any religion but hated Jews, to the extent that
he launched a campaign to exterminate all Jews from his country. I will let
you and the readers guess his name."
My response:
[ Again its a case of mistaken characterization. It was a case of racism
rooted in ethnic superiority complex, not a case of religious bigotry. It
was not even a case of color racism as the Jews were equally white as
the non-jews Einstein was as white as Hans Bethe, but one was forced
out of Germany, the other stayed safely back , although both were top
scientists in Germany ].
Dr. Zaman said:
"But not all atheists and agnostics are Islam-hating bigots."
My Response:
[ Agreed. But those that are, they are not really Islam-hating, but
religion hating, BUT the hatred is of an intellectual nature, indicating
an ideological opposition , not physical opposition or persecution for
religious belief]
Dr. Zaman :
"Many of the Islam-hating bigots are supposedly believers in other religions.
They are mirror images of Muslim bigots."
My Response:
[ Agreed. But must add that these bigots are not atheists/agnostics, since
they are believers of one or the other religions ]
Dr. Zaman :
"If someone criticizes Islam itself on some rational grounds, that is
yet different from denigrating Islam with contempt. It is only the last
behaviour that can be characterized as bigotry. Therefore,
Islam-hating bigtory is two levels removed from opposing/criticizing
Islamic bigotry."
My Response:
[ This is where subjectivity makes it a problematic issue. Denigrating Islam
with contempt is invaraibly a subjective characterization . To many believer
any criticism of religion is viewed as denigration or contempt of religion.
Besides even if one wants to denigrate or express contempt for a religion
by a verbal expression, that in itself cannot do any harm to any religion,
so, that attempt to denigrate or contempt should be a non-issue. The only
issue that can arise is when someone is prevented from or persecuted for
practicing a religious belief, which has never happened , it is the reverse
that has happened when free thinkers in Islam have been persecuted
and is still being persecuted or are persecuted if anyone dares to
exercise their freedom of expression in many Islamic societies . ]
Dr. Zaman :
"Some of the Palestinians may indeed be Judaism-hating bigots, because they
hate Jews and Judaism, regardless of Israel's unjust occupation of their
land. They would have hated Jews and Judaism even if Israel did not come
into existence. They will continue to hate Jews and Judaism even if
Palestine becomes liberated. But most Palestinians are not bigots."
My Response:
[ Agreed. And this remark can be generally applied to any race/religion
to state that not all members are haters of other religions/races ]
Dr. Zaman :
" I do agree that there is a strong need to cultivate more tolerance and
openness in Muslim societies. If that happened, we would probably
still have the same number of bigots, "
My Response:
[ It is not clear what Dr. Zaman is referring to as bigots in above. If it is meant
as Islamic bigots then yes, I agree because Islamic bigots exist to oppose
tolerance and freedom of thoughts. But if he is referring to anti-Islamic
bigots then its a judgement call since free thinking has never been
cultivated in Islam, so it is a judgement call and a advanced prediction
to say that there would be still bigots. It would make no logical sense
for the existence of anti-religious bigots in such a free and secular
environment since the existence of these anti- religious"bigots" is
rooted in religious oppression. There can be still some anti-religious
bigots against other religions. That is a universal trait of minority radicals]
Dr. Zaman :
"I agree with you with some qualifications. Any belief system can be
"sabotaged" by a rival belief system. It is by successive sabotaging of
belief systems that we have ended up with so many of them. There is nothing
inherently wrong in such sabotaging as long as it is done within the
framework of a civilized culture. A civilized society needs to ensure that
the "battle of beliefs" takes place under just, fair and humane "rules of
engagement." "
My Response:
[ Here I have some logical reasons to differ. How can belief-X can be
sabotaged by belief-Y assuming no coercion? (I am sure Drt. Zaman
understand that I never advocated coercion into non-belief or change
of belief) Beliefs are matters of heart and if one changes their
belief from "X" to "Y" without coercion then it is not sabotaging
but a conscious change of heart which is a fundumental human
prerogative and since it is done of one's free will no one or no
belief can be blamed for that. I don't see any justification for
calling the proliferation of belief systems as due to "sabotage" .
Proliferation of beliefs without coercion is a healthy sign of
diversity/pluraity/democracy and is a positive aspect, not a
negative one to be wrongly imputed to an act of "sabotage"]
[..]
Aparthib
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 04:10:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Infallibility of Scriptures
[...]
Dr. zaman wrote :
" What I was pointing to was the beating up of a person because
he had beard, without checking whether he belongs to the intended enemy
party. It is the equivalent of beating up a person in India because he has
"tiki" and/or "paita" on the suspicion that he might belong to a Hindu
"fundamentalist" party. This shows intolerance and stereotyping of religious
symbols, the hallmarks of religious bigotry. That wrong persons were beaten
up was not my point either. "
My Response:
[ Unfortunately the characterization fallacy is still evident here. A bigotry is
directed against RELIGION, not a PARTY. When a beard is being used as a
desperate attempt by vicious party goons to identify some member of a
RIVAL PARTY, that is by definitiion a polticial vendetta against a rival party,
not an act of religious bigotry. The fact that beard was used to identify a
member of a party is only an indication of the poor and inaccurate sense of
judgment and inability to use any objective means to identify them, to them
the beard was the only available lead to spot memebers of the RIVAL PARTY,
not a symbol of a RIVAL RELIGION, hence charrcterizing it as RELIGIOUS
BIGOTRY is still incorrect. If it was an act of religious bigotry then the BCL activists
would have invaded all the mosques and target all the musollis, Korans would have
been burnt etc. It was directed against SHIBIR, a rival poltical student of extremist
inclination, NOT against religious followers per se. Clear and straightcut. So it
is an issue of where to apply the expression "RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY" properly,
and thats where we differ.]
Dr. zaman:
"It is the mental process that chose the wrong victim, rather than the wrongness
of the victim that I wanted to underscore. "
My Response:
[ And it is the incorrect characterization of that mental process that I am
pointing to. The mental process is driven by political rivalry, not religious
bigotry, as I explained above, since BCL didn't target religion followers in
general, but SHIBIR members. Chances are that those BCL students go to
mosque every Friday and fast, hold Quran in high reverence, like so many
corrupt politicians do]
Dr. zaman:
"Mr. Aparthib seems to believe secularists are neither violent nor
bigotted. I just wanted to point out there are instances to show that they
may be both."
My Response:
[ This is a a gross mischacaterization of my points and views.A secularist
can be a violent person by temper, of course, he may beat his wife, or
kill a person out of anger (crimes of passion) for cheating him financially
(Secular law will deal with him in that situation), BUT not engage in violence
in the NAME OF SECULARISM against RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS. I challenge
you to cite an example of the above. (violence IN THE NAME OF SECULARISM
against RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS). Also a reminder: violence does not include
denying a privildeg or preventing one from doing an act that is not a fundamental
human right and is also not allowed by the law where the act is committed
(e.g defecating in public, trying to enter a restaurant barefooted where it is
not permitted, or trying to enter the parliament wearing a scarf where it is not
allowed etc). I NEVER SAID THAT a secularist cannot be violent person. Violent
acts can be performed by anyone, irrespective of their beliefs, although the
nature and cause of the violences are very differnet depending on each cases.]
Dr. zaman:
""Let me ask Mr. Rahman a very simple clarifying question, "do you believe
'Islam-hating bigots' EXIST at all? Do you also believe that
'Hindu hating' or 'X-hating' bigots EXIST at all?'
My Response:
[ YES X-hating people (X = Islam/Hindu/Christian/Judaism/Buddhism) ALL do
exist. But where we disagree is whether a given act shoudl be characterized as
X-hatred. For example you characterized beating of a Shibir follower by a
BCL student OR using beard as an unreliable lead to identify a SHIBIRITE
as an act of bigotry (Islam-hatred), and I explained that instead it was an act
of poltical hatred. If we conveniently redefine bigotry to include poltical
hatred then we will not be in disagreement. But stil to be unambiguous
one has to be clear which type of bigotry is being refered to in a given
context.]
Dr. zaman:
"As a symmetric example, Muslims may also regard all ideologies that fall
outside the "tradition of revelation" as false and baseless. Neither
atheists nor Muslims can be characterized as bigots for holding their
respective beliefs. But to hold an entire group of fellow human beings in
contempt is certainly bigotted. Otherwise, the word "bigotry" has no meaning
and has no reason for a place in the English dictionary."
My Response:
[ Contempt again is a matter of judgement, and hence subjective. This is at
the very root of all persecutions where contempt is unilaterally judged and
violence committed to counter such a perceived contempt. This has always
been a one way street where a "contempt" is always alleged by religionists
against secularists/atheists/agnostics/skeptics etc. A subjective concept
should not be the basis of an objective conclusion or act. We certainly can do
without a dictionary when we are really trying to make our points objectively,
where we can resolve any possible ambiguity ourselves ].
Dr zaman:
"if the "coincindental" fact that the above gentleman lived in a Muslim
society caused him to denigrate that society, he would have probably
denigrated Hinduism contemptuously if he lived in a Hindu society. So, we
can characterize him as a person who was prone to develop extreme
intolerance (which, according to the Webster dictionary is "bigotry") for
the community into which he was born and in which he lived."
My Response:
[Again, denigration being subjective, cannot be objectuvely used to judge
intolerance. If such is the case then a majority members of any religion, race
etc can all be labelled as intolerant. Majority Muslims perceive non-Muslims
as inferior to them, a white man in rural Bangaldesh is called a red monkey,
firingi etc, always seen as less human than the familiar fellowmen, and vice
versa. So this rare atheist who thinks of religious followers as "itor" was not
any different from them, and he does not provide an example of anything
that we are discussing. ]
Dr. zaman:
"I was not trying to establish any general principle/conclusion. I was trying
to refute, with a counter example, YOUR general principle that atheists
cannot be bigots."
My Response:
[ This is another unfortunate case of misquoting/misconstruction of my
position. First nowhere have I unambiguously indicated such a general
principle. Please refer again to my response earlier and carefully
rexamine it. I have only questioned the justification for calling such
an atheist as a "bigot", a strong word with precise connotations. I have
only emphasized that an atheist cannot be a hater of a specific religion
but an intellectual hater of ALL religions in general. Bigotry is intolerance.
And I argued that such intellectual/passive hatreds are very common
and does not constitute intolerance, since intolernaces affect
others tangibly.]
Dr. zaman:
"It is all in the eye of the beholder. When I visit Bangladesh and read
magazines and newspapers, I come back with mixed view. To me, it appears
that all subcultures of Bangladesh, the "Mullah" culture, the
"Bengali/secular" culture, the "Muslim/westernized" culture, the
"Bengali/westernized" culture and their variations and combinations, with a
generous helping of the "ZeeTV" culture, are all doing well. If I open a
page of the Inqilab, it gives me the impression that Bangladesh has been
taken over by a group of Indianized or westernized
"infidels" and atheists. When I open a page of the Sangbad or the weekly Jai
Jai Din, on the other hand, it feels like Bangladesh is about to be taken
over by the Taleban. If you look at it objectively, about every strand of
ideology and cultural disposition appears to be thriving and growing in
Bangladesh."
My Response:
[ Its all in the eye of a *biased* beholder, not an objective beholder.
The disagreement was not in quality, but in quantity. Certainly different
shades are highlighted in different media. But that does not negate my
assertion that some shades are more prevalent and are the norm, and the
others are the exceptions, representing a minority. An objective person
does not need any of those newspapers reflecting certain prefernces to get
the real picture. Atheists do exist as minority and are considered social
outcasts in bangladesh, the first question that a prospective groom is
asked is if he is a devout follower of religion. It has never been seen in
history 0f Bangladesh that an atheist is being sought for as a prospective
groom etc. If you are arguing that ALL occur in equal numbers, or that
atheists outnumber believers then please provide some backup evidences.
]
Dr. zaman:
"Bigotry can be based on religion or something else (such as race). Next,
bigotry based on religion can be either an attitude of contempt against the
religion itself, or against the community of followers of the religion, or
both. Anti-semetic bigotry is of the second kind. The "ethnic" group in
question was a religious group. The group did not share anything else in
common, neither race, nor culture. A nonbelief in religion did not keep the
man in question from viewing the religious group as a monolithic group of
"bad" people that needs to be exterminated."
My Response:
[ Now we are the crux of the issue. You had earlier characterized Hitler as an
ATHEIST BIGOT, not as a RACIAL BIGOT, your comments above essentially
vindicates my questioning the valididty of the using the former label to
Hitler. I thank you for this vindication. Hitler was a RACIAL BIGOT. As a
parenthetical remark let me add that even bigotry is rooted in something
other than religion /race. Ther is always a root casue of hatred (Cause
being used in the "efficient"
sense as giving rise to an effect). Whic is rooted in the utter humiliation of
Germany/Germans in World War -I and where jews were suspected in
collaborating with Germany's foes to bring about such humiliation. But
regardless the extermination of Jews by Nazis is the most disgraceful chapter
in human history. And again it was not rooted in religion, or atheism, but to
rivalry arising out an event and giving way to the most base impulse in
humans. (aggression, rooted in Biology). ]
Dr. zaman:
"A person can be characterized as "communal" if he harbors and projects
an obsessively exclusionary view about communities other than his own.
Whether he expresses his view in newspaper articles, street side
speeches or violent acts does not change the fact he is communal. The
same goes for the closely related characteristic of bigtory. Also, whether
a person hates Islam exclusively or as a subset for his general hatred of
religion, he is bigotted. The litmus test is "extreme intolerance."
My Response:
[ Again the problem is the subjective nature of the chracterization of
hatred. An atheist's "hatred" for religion is a subjective characetrization
of the critic of the atheist. Unless an atheist himself/herself states that
"I HATE RELIGION-X" it is the subjective judgement of the critic. And
even if an atheist makes such a statement , he/she is speaking for himself,
not as spokesperson for ATHEISM/ATHEISTS n general. So quoting an
exceptional atheist who has not even made such an extreme
statement does not help to refute, establish or illustrate any conclusion/
argument.] An attitude of superiority (and hence inferiority of others) are
pervasive in ALL species. Fro example Non-Sylhetis think derogatorily of
Sylhetis and vice-versa, Comillites against North Bengalites, take all
permutations, it is acceptable and common to exclude many regions in
matrimonial initiatives. These are all endemic complexes that exist but yet
not characteruized as intolerances that has become a major social issue.
Similarly an isolated example of an atheist showing an air of superitority
over theists ("Itor") is not of any bigger siginificance than this endemic
complexes.
I have no doubt that theists have this same feeling of superiority over
atheists. In fact this superioroty complex is more a rule than an exception
among theists consderinmg the wide spread negative outlook that is
held against the atheists, as I mentioned in the case of groom hunting
etc. ]
Dr. zaman:
"Not necessarily true. Atheists and agnostics can also be bigots if they are
"extremely intolerant" of any group of people, based on religion, race or
culture."
My Response:
[ As I have made detailed argument earleir that for an atheist/agnostic,
bigotry based on RELIGION is illogical, all bigotry for them must be
based on race, culture, a historic event etc that placed them in adversarial
relation with the race, as Hitler's case shows ].
Dr. zaman:
"My position is that not all anti-religious bigtory is the result of
religious bigotry and oppression. Some of it or a lot of it is rooted in
ignorance and prejudice."
My Response:
[ Anti-religious bigotry of one religious member towards another
may be due to ignorance or prejudice, and not religious bigotry, but
anti-religious "sentiment" of atheists/agnostics/skeptics is certainly
rooted in a reaction to religious bigotry and oppression towrds them.
Otherwise there is no reason for one to be religion-haters in as much as
one never hates a bel;iever in Greek Mythology, believer in fairies,
unicorns, thunder God etc etc. I would request Dr. Zaman to pause
for a while and stare or reflect on my above remarks carefully as it
has missed him before. ]
Thanks and best wishes to Dr. Zaman and all readers who volunteered
to read my response upto this point :)
Aparthib
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 07:54:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Secular Fundamentalism
Re: Dr. Farooq's post:
[..]
Dr. Farooq wrote:
"Recently, our secular friend, Aparthib, made a rather global
statement: "There is NO SUCH thing as secular fundamentalism." [emphasis is
mine]; If someone makes a statement that "There IS such and such a thing" or
"There is NO SUCH thing", it is expected that they would do their homework before
making such a categorical or global statement,.."
My Response:
[ Well, lets see who really needs some homework. There are two aspects to the
usage of the expression, secular fundamentalism. (1) Its meanigfulness as a
concept and (2) Its value aspect, i.e when and if such a concept is meanigful
whether it has (a) neutral (b) negative or (c) positive connotation. In case (2)
I will invariably assume that (b) is used by Dr. Farooq and others in all
these discussions/debates, otherwise it would have been a non-issue. Now lets
examine when such an expression is not meaningful, and if and when it is , which
value does it have.
Unlike a tangible object or article whose existence is established by its
unmistakabale physical presence, one cannot make an expression of an
idea meaningful and viable by simply uttering/using such an expression,
regardless of who utters/uses that expression, be it Joe Schmoe, a Harvard
Professor (very unlikely though), a columnist (Be it Chicago Tribune or Dainik
Manab Zamin). Dr. Farooq is better qualified than the Chicago Tribune
columnist, so he can adequately argue for the viability of such expression,
without the help of Chicago Tribune columnist or any of the other folks. I
could not have conceivably used my assertion:
"There is NO SUCH thing as secular fundamentalism." to mean that there is no
USAGE of that expression. Of course that would be trivially wrong. It is the
widespread erroneous usage of such very expression that I was trying to argue
against. If Dr. Farooq wants to force this trivial connotation on my assertion
then his followup post would reduce to nothing but trivial nitpicking. So I am
assuming he is not insisting on such construction.
Secular fundamentalism is an OXYMORON (hence it cannot exist as a viable
concept) IF fundamentalism is used in first sense (Merriam-Webster) :
" a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally
interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching "
Can secularism preach literal following and teaching of Bible? Or Koran, or..?
In this sense I can certainly repeat that secular fundamentalism does not exist.
"Secular fundamentalism", can be a meanigful concept, IF the second more
general definition of fundamentalism is used (Merriam-Webster):
"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of
basic principles"
With the above definition of fundamentalism, "Secular fundamentalism"
as a meaningful idea can only be of neutral or positive value, since in
this case it only means strictly adhering to the principles of secularism.
Does any principle ever preach "non-strict adherence? For critics
of secularism it doesn't buy them anything additional to use such an
expression, since it only means strict secularism, so it has no additional
value beyond that of secularism itself. Since this definition of fundamentalism
does not buy the anti-secularists any mileage so this is not the sense in which
it is used by them. Then in what sense do the anti-secularists use this
expression. A general clue to this answer is : "Use any definition that makes
secularism appear bad and religion a vicitm of secularism". And thats exactly
what they do and Dr. Farooq has graciously provided such an example of a
"conveeenient" defiinition (that follows later).
So again I can certainly repeat that secular fundmentalism does not exist ]
Dr. Farooq wrote:
"secular fundamentalist" might be described as: one who views the world in
stark, bipolar terms, thereby impairing the capacity for critical thinking;
as such he or she lives in fantastic dread that somewhere, somehow, no
matter how small or benign, a public display of the religious faith will be
made; and who, upon being exposed to said public display, reflexively
imputes, without pang of conscience, the most evil and vile intentions to
those making the display."
My Response:
[ This definition, regardless of who invented it, is by the very nature of its
definition, value laden against secularism, unlike the value-neutral
definitions of Merriam-Webster so it is only an internal attempt of an
anti-secular person/group to conveniently define it in such a way as to help
taint secularism and is the "conveeeenient" definition that I referred to
earlier. Nice try though. As I have said elsewhere, a passive belief system that
has no track record of coercion, no persuasive attempt of imposition, no physical
persecution towards non-belivers/dissenters can never give rise to any
hatred/back lash from victims of such, becasue there is no victims to begin with,
in much the same way that belief in fairies, unicorns, Thunder Gods, snake
Gods etc has never created any victims and consequent back lash.
So unilaterally putting thoughts into the mind of secularists above, saying
that all public display of religious belief and practice are considered "evil",
"vile" etc, by secularists (Or strict secularists, as if there is any
difference) is a pathetic mischaracterization in a desperate bid to denigrate
secularism/secularists. No secularists ever look down on Buddhists for wearing
Geruas, for Hare Krishnas shaving their heads and singing chants etc, no
secularists would be offended or call it evil to see a woman wearing a scarf,
a man wearing a cap and Islamic dress
in public. etc. If Muslims and Christians only engaged in or limited themselves
to religious practices in such a non-imposing/unobtrusive manner without any
persecution/coercion then secularism would never have been born as a principle
(Or rather counter principle, to defend against the INVASIVE actions of
religious dogmatists. Christianity has virtually erased its past coercive
nature, Islam has not ]
Dr. Farooq wrote:
"Fundamentalism in the sense of extremism, religious or secular, is a
formidable challenge for the whole world. It is important to recognize that
they are merely counterparts of each other. Both deserve unequivocal and
conscientious condemnation. Supporting, defending or rationalizing one abets its
counterpart too. Do we agree on this?"
My Response:
[ Absolutely not. Another nice try to equate religious extremism = strict
secularism Religious Extremism has negative value, even Dr. Farooq is admitting
above, and I will give him whatever credit is due for that, but secular
fundamentalism (I prefer the expression strict secularism), in its meaningful
definition has only neutra/positive value as I argued above. NEGATIVE !=
NEUTRAL/POSITIVE. (Here I am using the standard notation from computer logic and
mean "!=" to be "not equal to"). How can
anyone agree to such absurd artithmatic? Well, using the "conveeeenient"
definition, of course he can "logically" strengthen the hatred of
anti-secularists toward secularists, but certainly no secularists will buy such a
negative defitnition of secular fundamentalism. Alert readers will not fail to
notice the trap here :)
Although irrelevant to this debate, I must remind that no defintion of
secularism, ever advocates preventing anyone from or persecuting for pursuing any
religious belief /practice. Another reminder, denying a PRIVILEDGE for practicing
a ritual when the granting of the privildege requires abstaining from such a
ritual in a restricted premise where
the privildge (could be admission to such) is granted is NOT against
secularism. Secularism is not about granting priviledges. ]
Best regards,
Aparthib
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:49:22 -0800
Subject: Re: Secularism (2): Setting the record straight
Re: Dr. Farooq's followup
[...]
Even
assuming that I may have made inaccurate statements (Although I don't
think so. And certainly inaccurate does not mean illogical), that does not
take away anything from the validity and value of the principles of
secularism. I am just one believer in secularism among the majority of
the people in the world who believe in secularism and democracy.
So obsessively focussing on me and my supposed "inaccuracies" wouldn't
help him in the cause of anti-secularism. Even if I made an inaccurate
remarks to support secularism, that does not disqualify secularsim,
but points to "To err is human", which applies to ALL human. If I ever do
make an inaccurate I would most humbly stand corrected and welcome
any correction, as truth and accuracy only help logic and rationality, not
dogma. I don't think that I was inaccurate in my statement that
"communism never banned religion or persecuted anyone solely due to
holding a religious belief." Please let me know from a authentic source
that unambiguously states that religioous BELIEF and rituals are
BANNED under communism. Communism is a dogma like theocracy. All
dogmatists tend to be repressive and resort to human rights violation to
PRESERVE their dogma from perceived threat from a rival dogma.
Comunism and religion are rival dogmas and hence they are mutually
inconsistent and antagonistic. A communist regime will perceive "threats
from religion" and vice versa. Secularism is NOT a dogma , rather a reaction
to a dogma (theocracy), and hence is compatible/consistent with religious
but not theocracy. So if and when a communist regime perceives a (maybe
unjustified) threat from a certain religious follower or a subset of followers
and resorts to repression, it is committing an act of poltical repression in the
name of communism, NOT secularism and it should be characterized as
poltical repression instead of "Secular fundamenatlism". Secularism does not
advocate communism and does not condone repressive acts of communists,
or anyone against anyone solely due to their beliefs. So using China or Russia,
the two former dogmatists regimes to be the repesenttaives odf secularism
was as usual the proverbial conveeeenient characterization to further one's
anti-secular crusade. Secularism does not reprsent communism or vice versa.
If one really has to insist on using the expression fundamentalism, then a better
choice would be communist fundamenatlism.
Let me pause heer and maybe put to rest all these lingering debate and
identify where we all stand so as to save us from wasted words and band
witdth repeating ourselves.
Followers of secularism, like myself:
1. Accept and tolerate freedom of ALL religious belief and practices with
no preferential ais towards or against any particular belief.
2. Do not hate or look down on any public display of any religious practices
where it is permitted and do not interfere with public life and is not in
contradiction with civil laws that are obeyed by all the otherv religious
followers. (To my knowledge NO religion manadates performance of religious
rituals inside a parliamnet, in a public square etc.)
3. Do not accept using religion to influence or affect state principles or
policies
4. Oppose any human rights violation committed solely due to holding a
religious belief or practicing it. (Reminder: Human rights violation does
not include denial of a priviledge). If anyone does enage in such persecution
, they are obviously not representing secularism.
5. Believe that, If a State/Society that claims to be secular, but shows
preferntial bias towards or against certain religion then it is failing of
that society to enforce strict secularism (secular fundamentalism :), not
the failing of secularism as a principle, in much the same way that law and
order is not ideal in many countries where rule of law is the goal. Aslo
reminder that if any religion or religious followers "X" act in a way that
comes in clash with civil laws and place them in an advantage over other
religions/followers, and the state oppose such initiatives, it cannot be
labelled as a biased position against "X" or being preferential towrds "Y/Z.."
Now let me ask Dr. Farooq, do you agree with all five of the above
in principle? If, yes, then lets end this debate, as there is no basis of
any debate then. In that case you also believe in secularism.
IF you don't, then you are certainly opposed to secularism, and
I will request you to clearly explain which one's do you disagree
with and WHY. Again please don't cite instances of violation, as we
are focussing on the principles itself, not its violation.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:51:52 -0800
Subject: Re: Secularism (1-a): Secular Fundamentalism:
Re:
I have to repeat my earlier assertion that just because such and such
said "X" doesn't make "X" a valid/logical/meaningful statement. So providing some
MORE examples of the usage of "Secular fundmanetalism" does not provide MORE
validity to its usage. It is not the examples of its usage but its logical
consistency intrinsic to a statement that decides whether it (secular
fundammentalism) is a valid characterization, not
even the academic credentials of those making such characterizations. I didn't
need anyone's reference to bolster my arguments against such contradictory
juxtaposition of the words "secular" and "fundamenatlism"
. It may well be semantic hair-splitting at the end. After all, by redefining
any word or expression one can always make it suit them advantageously. But in
its most widely understood and precise meanings of the two words, the
juxtaposition is oxymoronic. Of course ther are wide shades of
individual attitudes toward religion, beliefs etc ranging from skepticism,
contempt, ridicule etc. But calling individual attitudes toward religion
"secular fundamentalisdm" is a ridiculous stretch. An "attitude" or "view"
cannot be promoted to any "fundamenatlism" or "extremism". After all, secularism
did not arise just because of "attitudes" of religionists, but due to what was
"DONE" by religious extremists to non-believers/dissenters. So individual
attitudes (finding religious beliefs/rituals irrational/funny, etc) do not
qualify for such strong labels as "fundamenbatlism" or extremism. Such attitudes
don't have anything to do with secularism, so associating the word "secular" with
such attitudes are clearly tendencious. Some abstract and "conveeeenient"
definitions of "secular fundamentalism" doesn't help to detract anything from
secularism or justify linking the word secular with individual attitudes and
mindsets that are unacceptable to religionists. I have repeatedly stressed that
non-believers/secularists have never "DONE" anything repressive to
believers/religionists SOLEY due to their holding a religuious belief or
practicing their belief in a non-intrusive manner. I have challenged to cite an
example of such. All repressions,
persecutions that have been committed were committed by Racial suprematist
(Hitler), or communist regimes, or simply politically oppressive regimes not
behaving democratically, all of which DO NOT
represent secularism, though they may all be non-believers and believe
in not mixing state with religion, but that is secondary to them, dogma
(racial supremacy, state control of human life etc, supprssing any
opposition, from religionists or a rival secularist entity, example AL
towards Jamat/Leftist JSD etc) is PRIMARY, so they do not represent secularism
(At least not in theor repressive actions). Of course there are many
anti-secularists respected positions in the academia. And anti-secularists are
not limited to Islam. Christianity/West has its share of anti-secularists as
well. It is ironic that frequent and indiscriminate allegations are made against
Christian/Western propaganada about Muslims/Islam, but where convenient, the
same Westerners/Christians are serving as credible and prestigious references
to shore up ant-secular attitude and views. How conveeeenient. All the four
characterizations a,b,c,d , that resulted from the "research" of a non-secularist
are nothing but perfect example of "conveeeninet characterization" coming from a
tenacious critic of secularism and as expected only serves to denigrate
secularism. These four characterizations have nothing to do with the principles
of secularism. Let me comment on each of the four characterizations resulting
from the research:
a.
Secular "fundamenatlism" is: deeply held "moral" principles "shorn" of religious
rationale?? Is secularism suposed to be based on religious moraliity/rationale as
opposed to humanistic rationality/ morality?
This part is in fact calling secularism itself "secular fundamenatlism" !
b.
Secular "fundamenatlism" leads to REPRESSEIVE and AUTHORITARIAN secular
regimes over nonsecular and popular ones?? Is the definitionn being done backwards,
as if whatever leads to "REPRESSEIVE and AUTHORITARIAN secular regimes over
nonsecular and popular ones" is
known as Secular "fundamenatlism"?? Or is it defioned another way
and this is the corollary of such defionition? Either way its nothing but another
fallacy. Repressiveness and authoritarianisms are hallmarks of dogmatists, like
THEOCRACY/COMMUNISM, MILITARY DICTATORSHIP,
or ULTRA NATIONALISM/RACISM like Hitler. Using the word secular in this
context was again very 'conveeeeninet", wasn't it?
c.
Is there any doubt that mixing of religion and politics is abnormal,
irrational, DANGEROUS, and EXTREMIST.? Religion is private faith
and rituals and are based on divine concepts for its followers,
, politics is for hmans based on reality and need for all humans. How
can they be mixed, it is absurd. Although again these choices
of the words are by the nonsecularist, but they are not too far from the
truth, thoigh a better choice is appropriate from secular viewpoint.
d.
" The secular fundamentalist, however, insists on FORCING HIS PARTICULAR
DOGMA ON THE REST OF THE SOCIETY." ???
Nothing can top this. One who forces his particular "dogma" is a
secular fundamentalist?? What dogma? Then Ayatollah was the
greatest secular fundamentalist !! He forced his dogma on the Iranian people.
Need another example? Or is it that a secular fundamentalist (definition please)
is supposed to force his "dogma" on others? and in that case what is the "dogma"
of a secular fundamentalist? We are back to
square one. How can a research leave so much loose ends?
Well, I fully concur with the author in that " I would have no further comment on
this, because I do not believe in "gair jore torko kora". "
Best Regards,
Aparthib
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 06:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Secularism: 1-b, 3-a,3-b,3-c,3-d,.. ad infinitum
Friends,
[...]
Dr. Farooq's views are within "--" followed by my responses within
[ ].
Dr. Farooq wrote: (1-b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extremism: The common denominator of "fundamentalism" (religious or secular)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comments:
[More appropriately, Extremism: "The common denominator of religious
or non-religious dogmatists" Example of non-religious dogmatists are
Communists (e.g Stalin, Mao), racial supremacists (Hitler) etc]
Dr. Farooq wrote: (1-b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but I hope no one would suggest that any of the following academic journals is
anti-secularism, conservative medium:
British Journal of Sociology of Education
Columbia Law Review
Journal of Law and Religion
Michigan Law Review
Yale Law Journal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comments:
[ I hope no one would suggest that [Shetubondhon] is a secular fundamentalist
forum, yet a "secular fundamentalist" (or a defender of secular fundamentalism
is posting articles freely here (Guess who :). Get the drift? ]
Dr. Farooq wrote: (1-b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More interestingly, I found a new expression "Scientific Fundamentalism". Where?
In some anti-secular, conservative, bigoted source? Well, you judge. It's in The
Scientist magazine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, well, another one of those such and such says "X" therefore "X" is legit
kind of argument. There has been this science envy that has motivated
many pseudoscientists/postmodernists/non-scientific intellectuals to
castigated science/scientists This backlash was due to the continuous
debunking of pseudoscience and the erroneous effort of some humanities
academicians to use science in their work. This has been amply
discussed in many forums. The famous Sokal Hoax is an eloquent
testimony to this fact. So these disgruntled non-scuentists and
some disreputable renegade "scientists" have attacked mainstream science
and called them "fundamentalist". No surprise there. I have discussed
such science war in my posts in Alochona. See the two articles under
the subject "Re: Postmodernity and the Crisis of Truth"
at
and
Dr. Farooq wrote: (1-b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has a negative dimension: "STRESSING STRICT AND LITERAL ADHERENCE"
- that's the extremism - no flexibility.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So by the above logic strict and literal adherence to Koran and Sunna has also
negative dimension, extremism - no flexibility ?? Another one of those Freudian
slips? :) How about strict and literal adherence to justice, liberty, ... ??? If
secularism as defined and understood widely is acceptable then whats the negative
dimension of its strict adherence?
Dr. Farooq wrote: (1-b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where lies another fallacy of the line of logic and analysis that Secular
Fundamentalism is oxymoron.
...
But, nope, the response in this case seems to be purely dogmatic. No matter
who says what! And, I thought it is claimed that dogmatism is the domain of
the religionists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comment:
[Not agreeing with a view even when it is held by "many" or by a "respected
scholar" is not dogmatism. Agreeing with the views of others where logic
and rational thinking does not lead one to it is a herd mentality and is rather
itself a hallmark of dogmatism, as dogmatism thrives on salesmanship/persuasion
by refering to large followers of a view rather than the logical and rational
basis of it. Regarding this persistence of oxymoron issue, I clearly stated that
it is an oxymoron ONLY IF the first sense of the word fundamentalism is used, so
why this harping on the theme, I don't know. For other senses of the word,it is
not an oxymoron, but an inappropriate characterization nevertheless.]
Dr. Farooq wrote: (1-b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that's the attitude, then I have no more to say about this either, as those
who are interested, especially to understand and recognize that there IS
difference between secularism and secular fundamentalism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments:
[Of course, there IS a difference. A sif the issue was if they are same or
different. The issue was the appropriateness of charcaterizing something
as "secular fundamaentalism" when a more appropriate characterization
is applicable. The first is a term with a valid and unique meaning, where the
second is a term used inappropriately to characterize extremism that is not
related to secularism, or to mischaracterize certain actions/attitudes as
"extremism" when it doesn't really qualify for such a strong label.]
Dr. Farooq wrote: (3-a)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover,
it is quite interesting that the same people who are boisterous defenders of
the "right" of Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin, who most callously insult
others' faith, especially for the sake of money and recognition, and who
find some of the regimes with terrible human rights problems, such as
Afghanistan, utterly unacceptable and loathsome, do not seem to have any
problem with the Turkish policy of interference with hijab, barring a
parliament member to take seat in the parliament and other concomitant issues,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments:
[CERTAINLY. I did emphasize that human rights abuse is
characterized by persecution solely due to a dissenting faith or views,
where the persecution takes the form of physical coercion, like lashing
a woman, severing the head etc. Turkish policy of not allowing Hijab in
parliament, doesn't even compare a fig with this gross violation of human
dignity through infringement of one's bodily sanctity as committed by the
Talibans.Seems like this foolproof difference will never sink in :( ]
Dr. Farooq wrote: (3-a)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This "privilege" thing seems to be rather peculiar - really and almost
uniquely peculiar - approach to this whole thing. Indeed, some of the other
fellow "secular humanists" not only do not agree with such "privilege" approach
to rationalize the Turkish Secular Fundamentalism, but some even have gone to
the extent of calling Turkey's type of approach as "not far from fascism".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments:
[This is not hard to understand. The logic goes like this:
It just so happens coincidentally (Because one doesn't require the
other), that many of the secularists of Bangladesh also happen to be leftist
leaning. In fact progressiveness is DEFINED by these intellectuals as
secularism AND socialism (Or equivamently anti-capitalism/anti-western).
And since USA is identified with Capitalism (or equivalently anti-socialism),
anything that is identified as pro-US/pro-West would be automatically fascist
and despicable (secular or not). So these secularists find Turkey despicable,
but are OK with similar strict enforcement (in fact much worse) of secularism
by the communist/socialist regimes. They were all praise for former Russia
and China, no matter how much human rights abuse they committed.]
Dr. Farooq wrote: ( 3-a, Quoting Dr. Mizan)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not disagree with Mr. Aparthib 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 many other countries of the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments:
[Here we see a secularist (Dr. Mizan) and a non-secularist (Dr. Farooq, my
assumption, since he has not defended or agreed with the principles of
secularism) agreeing. This interesting agreement illustrates that how two
adversaries can agree(On despising Turkish regime) due to very different reasons.
One despises Turkey due to its strict enforcement of secularism,
while the other due to Turkey's Pro-US military regime, although a military
regime is no worse than communist/socialist dicatorship. Interestingly
Leftists military regimes (Like Cuba, N. Korea, Libya etc) are not at all
disliked by these leftists secularists. How conveeenient!
Well, who said a secularist will always have to be logical :). Rational thinkin
requires secular principles but not vice versa. Dr. Mizan's argument is flawed
by assuming that by taking and passing the relevant test or an election a
"priviledge" is promoted to a fundamental human right. This is an absurd logic.
Besides passing or winning is only ONE out of many criterion to win and MAINTAIN
a privildege. No privildege is unconditional or permanent. ALl the conditions
have to be complied with on a continued basis for its maintenance. Passing the
admission test is certainly a criterion, but so is wearing uniform on a regular
basis. Same is the case with parliamnt. Another fallacy above is usage of the
wrong expression (or conveeenient expression) to arrive at the desired
conclusion. The wrong expression being: " Wearing clothes according to one's wish
within the range of decency, particularly for religious reasons, is not a
privilege, it is a right." Alert readers who have folowed my previous posts by
now must have detected the fallacy of mischaracterization. Of course wearing
clothes according to one's wishes is a RIGHT. What is not a RIGHT
is being admitted in the parliament/school without adhering to the dress codes
for such admission. That would certainly be a PRIVILEDGE. The clever alternate
characterization above served to arrive at one's desired conclusion.]
Dr. Farooq wrote:(3-c)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998 "47 professors and university administrators were dismissed for
wearing or SUPPORTING the wearing of head garments."
[http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/library/irf99/bl_irf_turkey99.htm?terms=refah ]
NOTE: Dismissal for even "supporting"!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments:
[Again, it should be remembered that Turkey is run by a military junta of a third
world country, not an ideal scenario of democracy. It is certainly repressive
towards opposition to its policies like all third world countries (militray or
civil). Dismissing for supporting the right to wear hijab WHERE IT IS NOT
ALLOWED, certainly is still an undemocratic/illegal act as per western
democracy. Although it is not still a human rights abuse in its strict
definition,
but it is certainly an illegal act. This kind of illegal acts are rampant in many
countries, even in Bangladesh (A civilian "democratic", certainly NOT secular
fundamentalist nation), where officials, educators are fired/hired on the basis
of their political affiliations. So what is different for Turkey? Supporting the
right to wear hijab WHERE IT IS NOT ALLOWED, certainly is an oppostion to
Government policies, so the Turkish government is acting like most third world
repressive regimes (suppressing opposition) which are otherwise not accused of
being SECULAR FUNDAMENATLIST. So why characterize Turkey as such. Isn't
it plain and simple repressive regime bent on quashing all opposition to its policies
(Like Baksal) ? Why not characterize it as such? compare this with a the ruthless
repressive regime of Saudi Arabia, wher the repression such sever for not
conforming to its strict dress and behaviour code (not just in priviledged
places but public places and in private as well), that nobody dares to even
challenge or question it. In Turkey at least one could challenge and protest
thereby attracting outside attention. Nobody raises roof over Saudi Arabia's
brutal repression since there is no protest (out of fear), thereby not creating
any noise to draw attention of outside world. Besides outside world (Western,
thirds world, ALL) shamelessly condone Saudi Arabia for economic resons,
as most countries have mutually profitable economic ties with it and would
rather not do anything to lose such beneficial ties by irking the Saudis.
Principles do give way to pragmatism after all. ]
Dr. Farooq wrote:(3-c)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Rights Organizations almost universally treat the overall situation in
Turkey as human rights issue and their coverage of human "rights" issue in
the context of Turkey includes anti-Hijab measures. I have not found a single
human rights source that constructs the problem in terms of "rights vs.
privilege" distinction to explain the problem away.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments:
[ Another eample of characterization fallacy. The whole point is Turkish
regime is repressive towards OPPOSITION to its policies. So, yes, it
becomes a human rights issue (though of a much milder scale than the
physically torturous acts of Saudi regime towards people simply
because they refuses to comply with its strict regimens, not due to
their OPPOSITION to such strict regimens. Thats a big difference)
once they crack down on opposition to supress it. But denying the
priviledge of admission to parliament/school is in itself not a human
rights abuse. Regarding the 18 year girl being in prison for taking part
i an opposition protest thats an act of political repression too. And it
should be condemned as political repression just as it should be in
many other third world countries including Bangladesh. Giving
it a religious persecution tone is self serving. A similar mischaracterization
appeared in another post By Dr. Zaman where BCL students attacking
Shibir folowers was characterized as anti-Islamic bigotry rather than]
a political vendetta against an OPPOSITION party activist. AGain while
condemning the repressive act towards the 18 year old girl bu Turkish
authorities I must add that it was notr an anti-religious act at all. There
are 70,000 mosques in Turkey well mainatined by the government.
Private practice of faith is not at all barred or discouraged and is in fact
practiced by the very people enforcing the strict secular principles.
If religion was kept private (Which it should be and can be while still
being true Muslims) the Turkey need not have adopted these draconian
measures to supress these OPPOSITIONS. Its hard and unrealistic to
be as democratic as USA in Turkey where the radicals are so bent to
thwart the secular policies of the state. Maybe secularism is not
compatible with democracy in a Muslim country where Islamic
radicalism is so hell bent to undermine it with all the force. Its like
so many in Bangladesh comment whether we are ready for true
democracy at all. But thats a different issue.]
Dr. Farooq wrote: (3-d)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the ally of Turkey, U.S., "criticized Turkey's decision to ban the
Welfare Party and expressed its concern that the closure of
LEGITIMATE parties 'damages confidence in Turkey's democratic,
multi-party system'."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another context, this would be charcateruzed as big brother USA
unsolicitously sermonizing a third world country and using its own
standards and values to dictate a throd worlkd ciountry. Our leftist
secular froends would have jumped up and down and shouting down
with Imperialist interfernce in a third world country's internal affair.
Thats what they say when USA criticized the communist regimes in
Asia and Europe. Also the religionists condemns USA when USA
criticizes soem Islamic countries for their poor human rights record.
Now conveniently US criticism of Turkey is greeted with cheers. Why
not use the same standard and say that Turkey knows best how to
deal with its own problems and decide how to fight Islamic
Fundamentalism and it doesn't need sermonizing from big brother USA?
As I mentioned above, USA style civilized democracy, although highly
desirable and a dream wish for all of us, is unrealistic and a far shot
in Bangladesh/Turkey/Somalia you name it. India is much closer to
it. That is not to defend the political suppression by Turkey, but to
point out again the mischaracterization of such as "secular fundamentalism"
(This will be the recurring motif until it sinks in deep enough :) ]
Dr. Farooq Wrote: (3-d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above article, you can also read more about how the "right-of-the
center" secularists got rid of the "left-of-the center" secularists in
Turkey. "The result was a PURGE from these state institutions of more than
2,000 intellectuals perceived as espousing leftist ideas incompatible
with the Hearth's vision of Turkey's national culture."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comments:
[De ja vu! Again an instance of partisan clashes between rivals being
confused with religious followers versus secularists. It
was NOT a purge of followers of RELIGIOUS FAITH. It was
a clash between THOSE WHO BELIEVED IN LESS PROJECTION
OF RELIGION IN STATE AFFAIRS versus THOSE WHO BELIEVED
IN MORE resulting in the purge of one. It was NOT a clash
between FOLLOWERS OF FAITH AND NON-FOLLOWERS resulting
in the purge of RELIGION. (Stare at the difference for a minute)
Dr. Farooq wrote (3-d):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, when they go extra miles to defend
secularism - all secularism, even if democracy and/or basic
human rights need to be sacrificed - then, secularists don't serve
themselves or the cause of secularism well. Yes, not well, at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comments:
[ Secularists should defend secularism. Democracy and BASIC
HUMAN RIGHTS should be be defended as well by secularists
and those who believe in democracy. They are all compatible.
No need to sacrifice democracy or basic human rights to defend
secularism. If democracy or basic human rights are violated then
stand agianst such violation without confusing the issue by
bringing in the expression secular/ism and instead of calling those
violating it as secular-fundamentalist, call them anti-democratic.
Using the word "secular/ism" in such cases of violation of
democratic or basic human rights is evidently tendencious and
well calculated ]
Derogatory comments were made about Kamal Pasha. Poet
Nazrul, the hero and icon of Dr. Farooq and countless millions
had lauded Kamal Pasha in one of his famous poem. Zia had named
a street under him in Dhaka. Disliking Kamal Pasha for his
strict secularism is a dislike of a partsian nature for those opposed
to secularism, just like communists villifiy democracy as an evil of
the imperislists/capitalists. ]
Thanks for your attention,
Aparthib
Date: Wed Jan 17, 2001 10:58am
Subject: Re: Monkeys and more
While concurring on the need of the eternal quest of the metaphysical I
differ with both Mr. Nezbath Maswood and Dr. Zaman that Bishwa Ijtema and
Kumbha Mela symolize such metaphysical search. Both are nothing but a
result of the herding instinct of human. Metaphysical search is best done in
quietude and solitude. Metaphysical search does not require millions herding
in a flock. I don't know about Kumbha Mela but Bishwa Ijtema has been a
public nuisance. It has caused serious disruptions in traffic and brought
miseries to the life of many daily wage earners. Intercity buses had to
cancel their schedule causing grief to interdistrict commuters. Causing
public inconvenience by encroaching on their normal activities and costing
public exchequer is no metaphysical search to me. Paradigms of metaphysical
search are found in Einstein, Hawking, Sagan etc. All the mystical poets,
philosophers and theologists in history although produced no profound truth
about nature like Relativity, Quantum non-locality etc but at least they
did not cause any disruptions and inconvenience in public life, on the other
hand have inspired among millions the spirit love and humanity like
Vivekananda.
Some posters have angrily reacted to the critical comments about these
gatherings as "trivialization" and lamented it. Well something that is
already trivial cannot be trivialized. Faith/Belief/Rituals etc mean only
to those who believe in it. For others it is trivial. It may sound politically
incorrect to characterize it as trivial when millions are involved. But then
the same thing can be said about any cult/fad like sports/entertainment
etc. To the fans it means a lot, to others they are trivial. But at least they
are not accorded any priviledged status causing public grief. Why should
religious faith be given a privildged status? This Ijtema affair has become
an issue because it is encroaching on public life. Everything has cause. This
ciriticism/trivilization wasn't for nothing. I have emphasized before in more
than one occasions that unless a belief/ritual encroaches on others no one
bothers about it. Secularism was one such effect of a casue (religious
persecution). There is nothing wrong with conventions and conferences for
any interest group. It is done routinely in a standard format that doesn't
not interfere with daily public life. One final point, trivializing or
characterizing it as wasteful cannnot be equated with religious extremism.
The former does not encroach on others, rather it is only a reactive comment
against encroachment in public life in the name of religion and belief. The
latter is a proactive encroachment on others life. A sea of a difference that
an reader must be aware of and not fall into the trap of glib attempts to
equate the two.
Regards,
Aparthib
Date: Fri Jan 19, 2001 4:46pm
Subject: Re: Monkeys and more
I appreciate Dr. Zaman's clarification. We can agree to disagree on how
to read the minds of the millions who do congregate. Whereas he is reading
their mind as "they congregate as it attends to their *psychological*
need for connecting with the metaphysical." , I read their mind as "
they congregate becasue of a primal instinct that humans share with many
other species to pack/herd" (Lessons from Sociobiology). And whereas
for lower species the herding is spontaneous through some natural stimulus
(season, natural cycles etc), for humans who are tightly bound by culture
a man made stimulus is devised to initiate it and make it look natural.
I certainly agree with him in that I too personally do not care for
these congregations. However I have nothing against their ideology or
philosophy as it is said to be based on platitudes like mesasages of
peace, divine love etc unlike the usual harangues full of invectives
in Friday Khutbas by many (not all) imams. I only have problem with
their knocking on the door (like Dr Zaman has) and the disruptive
effect their congregations produce, and here anyone savvy on the
Kumbha Mela event can illuminate us whether that causes similar
disruptions in Public life. If not then certainly Ijtema organizers
have a lesson to learn from Kumbha Mela organizers. Mayb ethe venue
could be shifted somewhere remote, Tongi is a very strategic area
for commuters, factory workers and all the major national transportation
network goes thorough Tongi. Governemnt certainly has a role to play.
But the leaders of our government are more interested in obtainining
some divine profit through "final blessing" or whatever.
As a secularist (Which implies pluralist) I also believe in all
undisruptive/unobtrusive religious rituals, just noted this in case
my precision statement of secular principles mentioned time and
again before did not make any impression yet.
Regarding Dr. Zaman's opinion that Dr. Farooq was not bemoaning the
"trivialization" of the Ijtema but the trivialization of the religious
sentiment and of religion itself, I have to differ here as the original
article was clearly targeting the Ijtema thing. If religion was the
target of trivialization then one does not need Ijtema, anything religious
can serve the purpose (daily prayers, recital of Koran, fasting, or simply
the ACT of BELIEVING in Islam) of trivialization. In that case he didn't
need to wait a whole year for the Ijtema to happen so to allow the
trivialization. He would get excuses to trivialize every minute, as
every minute some religious event is happenning. By the way, I do not share
my views with the original author in ALL issues nor do I find his style
and mode of writing complete;y agreeable with mine. But thats not
relevant.
Dr. Zaman agreed with me that people have a *right* to trivialize any
belief Actually it is me who have to agree with what he is saying here, as I
never said that, but I agree. I also don't trivialize "faith" GRATUITOUSLY as
a matter of taste and culture. But IF someone is not content keeping
faith inside but also tells me that his faith is RIGHT/BEST/PERFECT/BETTER
THAN../ etc then I have in good conscience the right to point out otherwise by
logic. And that will be consistent with good taste and culture too.
And regarding his vicarious affirmation that Dr. Farooq also has a right
to protest such trivialization, let me remind that the RIGHT was never
questioned or challenged (so it was defense without an offense :) as this
right is fully consistent with what I have been stating as principles all
along. it was not that the RIGHT of/to protest that was CHALLENGED, but
that the attempt to elevate the said "trivialization" and equate it to
"religious extremism" was CRITICIZED. (Criticizing a view/stand !=
challenging a right). I hope I have made it foolproof enough to preclude
any further clarification on my part.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Re: [Shetubondhon] World Hindu Council burns copies of the holy Qur'an:
Where is the World? Sun, 18 Mar 2001
[...] One should not compare the issue
of demolishing statues with individual instances of burning
COPIES of Koran. Mr. Aziziul Huq aptly pointed out the fallacy
of such comparison in his post. Buddhists staues are all unique,
and they represent an ancient civilization, and belong to the
entire humanity as a legacy of its past heritage. These statues
are not mass producabl. They are all uniquely carved out of the
labour of love of many individuals. Individual copies of Koran
are private properties and can be instantly replaced by another
printed copy and is within the private right of an individual who
burns that copy. As despicable an act of Koran burning is, it does
not cause an irreparable loss to a shared property of humanity or
its faith as Aziul Huq pointed out. It is not the prerogative of
the world to condemn individual private acts of burning of any
property, religious or not. Besides Burning of individual copies
of Koran cannot destroy Islamic "faith" or its symbolism.
Individual cases of flag burning cannot destroy the sense of
patriotism in its citizens or destroy a nation either.
And it is not true that no hue and cry is raised when "so
many odds or gross violation of human rights are indulged by power
base". Whether such hue and cry has any effect is a different matter,
like the hue and cry didn't save the statues in Taliban case.
And it is also not true that intellectuals were silent in the case of
babri mosque demolition. They were NOT, be it in India or bangladesh.
Thirdly as Dr. Zaman repreatedly and cogently pointed out it is
inappropriate to condemn act "Y"(rightly or wrobngly) when someone
else rightly condemns act "X". All acts that deserve condemnation
should be dealt with one at a time and not compared or used to
justify one by citing another.
Just wanted to point out the the assymetry in logic when emotions gets
the upper hand in sensitive issues.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Re: [Shetubondhon] World Hindu Council burns copies of the holy Qur'an:
Where is the World?
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:56:17 +0600
[...]
M. Harun uz Zaman wrote:
> we are discussing. To me, that (the issue of symmetry) is an
> immaterial point, and also a harmful exercise because it allows a dilution of the
> moral culpability of either offense.
My Response:
It was not the issue of symmetry but ASSYMETRY I was focussing on. If anything
dilutes the moral culpability it is the act of not acknowledging the assymetry between
two wrongs. Logically if we equate a more serious offense with a less serious one that
rather dilutes the culpability of the more serious one, and it is a bit insensitive
toward the less serious offender to be treated equally with the more serious one. One
must recognize shades. It is a fair practice. Juts as two wrongs don't make a right,
equating two unequal wrongs don't make make a right either.
Dr. Zaman wrote:
> Yes, it is indeed a free speech type of LEGAL right to burn books,
> flags, and other objects not covered under property rights. An
> individual certainly has the legal right to destroy property that
> he owns (e.g. a copy of Quran that he purchased). But it is a
> different question altogether whether he has a MORAL right to do
> so. There are many morally offensive actions (including offensive
> speech) that are legally permissible. So, I am intrigued by what
> you mean by "within the private right of an individual."
My Response:
"MORAL right" is a subjective concept since it doesn't have any
universally agreed on standard. What is universally agreed on is that
if an act of "X" causes a tangible damage to "Y" irrespective of "Y"'s
belief then that act is certainly wrong and hence not within the moral
right of "X" to commit it.. Here "Y" can be a person/society/humanity.
Tangible damage is a physically measurable damage like destruction of
properties (statues, assets etc) or physical harm. Any act which does not
cause such tangible damage (Like burning of privately owned flags/scriptures
etc) cannot be called morally wrong in a universal way. In fact any act
which is not morally wrong in a universal way falls into the category of
LEGALLY permissible. Anything that is morally impermissible in a universal
way irrespective of belief systems almost certainly falls into legally
impermissible. So my point is that it is not proper to even use the expression
"MORALLY wrong" in a logical debate (which is what I presume Dr. zaman is
intended in his response) since it is a vague term. Hence such acts of debatable
moral culpability do not require a universal condemnation. Any condemnation
of such acts can be done optionally by those who regard them as morally
culpable, but those who don'y make such optional condemnation cannot be
condemned either for not making that optional condemnation. This is what I was
focussing on in my response to Mr. Ahmed who was condemning world
conscience for not condemening Koran burning acts of individuals.
Dr. Zaman wrote:
> It certainly does not. But it causes irreparable damage to the
> feelings of an entire community and to social harmony. It reinforces hostilities
> and prejudices that we should all be fighting to get rid of.
My response:
Please pay very close attention to what I will say now. This is a very important
topic among student and prefessional philosophers as to what is the true casue
effect relationship between events/acts. If an act (which is not considered
morally wrong in a universal ) "X" which cannot by itself cause any damage
triggers the brain of another person "Y" to cause an act which is universally
wrong morally (killing or causing physocal harm to others, burning of other's
properties) then who is to be blamed for the latter acts of universal moral culpability?
You are obviously blaming "X". I will blame "Y". This is called the efficient cause
of an act. The efficient cause of the acts of "Y" is "Y" him/herself. Blaming it
on "X" is shifting the buck and an act of defending "Y". This is no different from
a male chauvinist blaming the woman for being raped rather than rapist becasue
she dressed in an "inviting" (Of course in the judgement of the male chauvinist)
manner. When will we ever put the balme wher it really lies??? If someone detsroys
the social harmony by their own tangible acts on the pretetxt of someone elses
intangible acts then the repsonsiblity of such disruption sof social harmony should lie
squarely on the tangible acts and their perpetrators. My earnest request to Dr. Zaman,
please pay very close attention to the logic in all this with due rigour.
Dr. Zaman wrote:
> It is indeed the prerogative of the world, and any individual, to
> condemn individual private acts, or group acts, or governemental actions. This
> prerogative does not depend on the character of the party (private or
> not) committing the act. The condemning of a private act is as much a free
> speech right as the act itself, if not more so. And most certainly, there is
> a MORAL right (in addition to the legal right), and IMPERATIVE, to
> denounce a morally indefensible act, even if the act is legally protected as a
> free speech right.
My respone:
Again you have missed my side of the thrust. Basically I was saying 2+2 = 4
and you are saying, NO, 3+3 = 6 ! Condemning a non-tangible private act
is certainly a MORAL RIGHT. Did I deny it? Look again. My issue was
that (Look closely here): It is not morally incunbent on the world at large
(implying a universal aspect) to condemn such acts of non-universal wrongness.
It is within one's right NOT to condemn such acts of non-universal wrongness.
Did I make it clear enough. ? Mr. Ahmed was condemning the world for not
condemning such acts. Of course Mr. Ahmed has certainly the RIFGHT to make
such condmenation, and certainly I have the right to refute his position.
All views, arguments, critcisms, intangible acts (of non-universal worngness)
etc are within one's rights. What is not within one's right is a universal
wrong that causes tangible damage to others irrespective of the belief of
those damaged.
I hope Dr. Zaman will carefully review my arguments before responding to them,
if at all. And it will help to repsond in a precise way, not by 2+2 =4
No 3+3=6 type of responses in a general way.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Re: [Shetubondhon] World Hindu Council burns copies of the holy Qur'an:
Where is the World? Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:28:07 +0600
[...]
My arguments and views are based on the premises that :
1. A key criterion of the objectivity/universality of any attribute (wrong/right etc) is
CONSENSUS crossing religious/ethinical boundary. i.e an act can be considered
wrong morally in an objective/universal sense if all agree to it wrongness
irrespective of their belief/religion/race etc. A necessary attribute of an objective
wrong is that it causes a tangible damage to someone which is not a result of any
particular way of thinking due to his/her faith/belief. For example if "X" causes
physical injury to "Y" or robs "Y" of his/her possesions, then the damage to "Y"
does not depend on his/her belief/faith system. But on the other hand if "X" makes
a blasphmous statement about "Y"'s religion or burns his own copy of a religious book
of "Y"'s faith, then the damage to "Y" is a result of "Y"'s belief in that faith and
more importantly a result of "Y"'s subjective characterization of "X''s act as a DAMAGE to
"Y". Just because "Y" believes it to be a damage doesn't make it so. A different person
"Z" of even the same faith as "Y" could as well ignore "X''s act as non-issue or
irrelevant to his/her faith, let alone damagaing him/her.
2. Each act (of differing culpability, universal or not) deserving condemnation should be
done so ONE AT A TIME.
3. When someone condemns act "X" , others should not say "Why condemn act X only and
not act Y"?
This is clearly in violation of 2 above. Moreover if act Y is not wrong in a universal/objective
sense then it is even more inappropriate to raise its issue in connection with the condemnation
of an act X of objective/universal culpability (as explained in 1 above). It is also inappropriate
when to X and Y are of clearly not of same culpability (when both are universally wrong).
4. An act X which is universally wrong should be condemened universally, It is a human
imperative to do so. An act "Y" which is not universally wrong CAN be condemened by
anyone if they choose to. But it is not a universal imperative. Here the right to condemn is as
fundamental as the right to not condemn. Since this act is not universally considered wrong
(even though it can be considered distasteful) so there is no legeitimacy in DEMANDING a
universal condemnation or condmenation of the world for not making such universal
condemnation.
Having oulined my basic premises, I will contend that my initial response to Mr. Ahmed as well
as followup to Dr. Zaman was all consistent with the above four premises. If Dr. Zaman agrees
with all four above then obviously all his rebuttals to me was misdirected and wasted, as we
are not in disagreement (A case of 2+2 =4, NO 3+3 = 6 fallacy). If he does not agree with
anyone of the above my request for him is to pin point that disgarrement and the reason for that.
My initial criticism of Mr. Ahmed was to point out the violataion of premises no 2 and 3 and 4
above. He was condemening the world for its lack of condemnation of Korna burning.
Now as to D. Zaman's contention that the act of demolition of statues by Taleban can also
be characterized as not being objectively wrong, my point is that it is universally considered that
ancient statues belong to humanity or at least to a society whose ancestors build those statues.
So it is destroying "other's" properties (Statue IS a property). Talebans did not build those statues,
so they don;t have the right to destroy it. So it does not qualify as a relative (non-universal)
wrong. It is being characterized as wrong by all of humanity (CONSENSUS).
On the other hand burning a privately owned Koran, a Bible, a Veda, a flag cannot be such a
universal wrong. Many people of all religions/nations would not consider that as an act of wrong,
only a distasteful at best. We see it routinely in the West where flags are burnt, museum artifacts
are disgraced with smut, blasphemous remarks are made in works of litterature, yet the common
westerners ignore such acts and move on. No social harmony is disrupted, no threat is issued or
carried out. No arrests or imprisonments are enacted. Here the famous maxim of Voltaire is
relevant : "I may not agree with you, but I will die to defend your personal right" (Paraphrased
as I don;t recall the exact wording).
I have made my point clear enough and and oulined my basic premise on which my entire
responses to Mr. Ahmed and Dr. Zaman is based on. Its time for me to call it a day.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Re: [Shetubondhon] World Hindu Council burns copies of the holy Qur'an:
Where is the World? Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:32:33 +0600
I would not have written a followup to Dr. Zaman, was it not for what I
believe to be some fallacies contained in his response. The first such
fallacy is his conclusion that (I quote) :
"There is NO consensus across religious boundaries. Those that do not agree
include the Talebans and a lot of purist Muslims across the world."
Of course if EACH human being is needed for a consensus of humanity there
can be no consensus on anything, including the fact that the earth is round,
one can always find a wacko denying such an established fact. OK, I will
restate it (although it was quite obvious) : "A consensus of MAJORITY of
humanity crossing religious /racial boundary". Buddhist statue demolition do
satisfy that criterion of universal wrongness.
The second fallacy is his conclusion that : (I quote)
"The *psycholgical* damage caused by the breaking of the Budhdha statues do
DEPEND on the BELIEFS of those harmed, which include Budhdhists.."
The fallacy in the above is the assertion that the statue demolition is a
psychological damage. Statue is a physical property (asset), so it is a
tangible damage, not a psychological one. And this property does not belong
to the damager (Talebans), but to the Buddhist community of the world. Just
like if someone destroys MY favourite piece of art, the damage is a
REAL and tangible object, not psychological. The fact that a tangible damage
ultimately is ultimately felt psychologically through neurons do not make the
tangible damage (Efficient cause) a psychological one. Whereas the damage
"imagined"/claimed by a believer to have been inflicted on him by a blasphemous
remark of an infidel or burning of Holy book or a flag owned by the "burner".
That damage is truly psychological, no tangible property (belonging to the
"vicitm" claiming the damage) like a piece of art or body part is involved in the
damage. No objective evidence of damage (Loss of property, reputation or
physical injury) is seen in the victim other than his/her verbal claim of being
"damaged/hurt". Is this difference too hard to comprehend Dr. Zaman? :).
Your comparison of the logic of Taleban's not owning the statues since they
didn't build it with the logic that the chair I own is also not my own since
I didn't make it is also erroneous. The ownership of the chair was established
through an equivalent compensation paid to gain ownership. One need not build
it to own. If Talebans had bought out the statues from the Buddhist societies
and then it would be their propertiy. Just because the staues were
geographocally located in their territory does not make it their property
(This is where a legitimate polemic can take place).
You asserted that "The Afghan government owns all property in Afghanistan that
is not privately owned, and it owned the Budhdha statues.". This is where our
contention lies. It may well be your opinion. But does it reflect a consnesus view
of universal nature?
The consensus of humanity is that all religious artifacts of ancient civilizations belong
to the entire religious community belonging to that ancient religion. I will concede if
you vould prove me otherwise. If you insist on that criterion of ownership then ALL
the mosques/Islamic shrines etc builkt by Islamic ancestors in India and many other
non-Muslim countries would also be the owned by these countries (present) and
can destroy them rightfully as well.
Let me refute the most controversial assertion of Dr. Zaman: (quoted exactly):
"There is no universal wrong."
Are you sure? Tell me any society where RAPE/STEALING/MURDERING AN
INFANT is NOT consdered wrong.
This is the definition (best one) of Universal wrong I can give:
"An act that is considered to be wrong by MAJORITY of humanity crossing
religious/racial boundaries."
If this definition of universal wrong does not satisfy you, nothing will,
because this IS the meaning of universality.
You characterized my premise no. 4 as wrong argument since there is no universal
standard of legitimacy. This is a good example of sophistry. This kind of argument
can easily lead to slippery slope. For example when Dr. Zaman said that he considered
Mr. Ahmed's condemnation of both Statue demolition and Koran burning as right
but the attempt (if any) of linking the two "wrong". By his logic the preceding
"wrong" is also questionable as there is no universal standard. It seems like he is
defending moral relativism in general and using absolutism selectively (calling
some action wrong obvioulsly implies absolute wrong in the mind of one making the
"wrong" characterization) where it suits the argument. One cannot pick and choose.
The only thing we can do is to set some non-changeable criteria for universal/
non-universal wrong and then fit all actions into the appropriate category according
to which criterion it satisfies. I have tried to do that with my defintion of universal
wrongness. (amneded to reflect the obvious fact that CONSENSUS implies that of
majority, not literally every human)
Lastly , just to remind all that my polemic with Dr. Zman is more of a pedagogocal nature
and is in no way in clash with the call "let us join Dr. Kaushik Sen in standing together
at this hour." We are all joined by rationality and tolerance already.
Best wishes,
Aparthib
Date: Fri Apr 20, 2001 10:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Shetubondhon] Re: Standard and Islam
I have several comments to make on Mr. Muhammad al-Faruque' s followup.
The first is on the diversity advocation. This is a mistake if not
carefully examining it on case by case basis. On the well-meant
pretext of diversity many existing evils are protected and nurtured
just to maintain diversity. Diversity clause should not be
unconditional. All the members of any diversity should satisfy at
least some minimum criterion. General Zia with all good intentions
rehabilitated many religious fanatics and fanatical parties that
acted against the spirit of the liberation of Bangladesh just for
this sake of this diversity (He himself NEVER believed in or was
a fanatic though) and we are seeing the result in the series of bomb
blasts, rising tide of Taleban extermist activities etc. It is not
imperative to include all the elements into the diversity umbrella.
The dangerous ones need to be left out and ostracized. Not going
into the historical debate as to true nature of the Wahabites
(original or the current followers), my point is to not invoke
the diversity clause in an unqualified way. Diversity applies to
the various spectrum of the rainbow (i.e within the visible
spectrum, not to the ultraviolet or the infra red, figuratively
speaking)
I would like him to explain what he meant below:
> From Islamic perspective, if you isolate the church from state, the
> civilization becomes like a dead body. But if the church looses its
> "dynamic" character, then the civilization is crippled. That's what exactly
> happened to the Islamic civilization in the past and that's why Europe
> gained the upper hand.
The clear meaning I can glean from the above is that you implied that
Islamic civilization was dead/crippled because the church (i.e the
Islamic clergy in this case) got separated from the state and lost
its dynamism?? So you are obviously advocating theocracy! Well, I
have nothing to comment in that case.
> "Picturing Islam as an antithesis of modernity" and making "parallelism
> between Islam and Arab imperialism" are some of the historical fallacies
> that, unfortunately, are penetrating in our history. What you and I can do
Islam (through its practice in most of history), did act as
antithesis of modernity. Yes, today one can interpret the Islamic
scriptures in their favoured way (as does many so-called
neo-modernist Islamist) and claim that it encourages
everything that modern world does and have like science,
technology, freedom of speech, respecting individual rights
and liberty, gender equality etc etc, to make it indistinguishable
from the ideals of a secular democracy, but the reality says
otherwise as is evident from the mindset of the majority who
follow it. Islam and Arab can never be separted. There are
many non-arab Muslims even (including Bangladesh) who
believe that Arabic is a divine language and one cannot be
true Muslim unless one learns Arabic. The entireedifice of
Islam is Arab based (Facing the Mecca while praying, Hajj,
kissing the stone of Kaba etc to name a few). Of course the
non-historical part of Islam (Koranic scripture), like praying,
fasting, being kind and respectful to elders, not backbiting etc
has nothing to do with Arab Imperialism. But many parts that are
based on historical events and lessons, do have lot to do with
it, if not with "imperialism" (I am not sure if that was alleged
even by anyone), but at least with Arab culture and nationalism
My next question is regarding the remarks:
> church, the Muslim world went the opposite route." To be factually correct:
> Muslim world didn't go to the opposite route, rater, it remained on the
> route it was following - kept (mostly in theory) the state and church
> together. The tragedy was that though in theory the state and church should
> remain together in Islam, in practice the medieval rulers abused it in
> their favor - used the church to serve their personal cause.
I think there has been a misunderstanding here about the meaning of
"going the opposite route". What Dr. Sen meant and I agree is that
they went to the opposite route of emphasizing the dogma of religion
rather than empirical science, logic, philosophy etc. Dr. Faruque
seem to have interpreted it in the sense that they went towards
more separtion of church(Islamic) and state. Well, you are clearly
defending theocracy in the last sentence above, so I have no further
coments or arguments to make.
My last comment is on his following remarks:
> devoted their lifetime in non-empirical science. But neither India nor the
> Islamic world was devoid of scholars in empirical science - Khwarizmi, Ibn
> Sina, al-Farabi, al-Hawazin, al-Biruni, Banu Musa, were some among the long
> pool of such people from the Islamic world. What has gone wrong (and we
> know why) is that the East couldn't keep up the tradition of scholarship
> that once thrived there.
All the names mentioned above, were scientists and scholars
by dint of theor critical mind and thinking, being inspired by
Greek, Indian and Babylonian civilizations. It was not DUE to
Islam that their talent flourished and shone. There is no
Islamic gene. Rather their achievements can be characterized
as DESPITE Islam. 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 Bait-ul-Hikma, i.e 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. It was due to this relative openness of the
Bagdad rulers that their achivemnents can be credited to, NOT
to the rigid orthodoxy of islam or its tenets. All these
scientists, physicians were champions of reason and critical
thinking, they never credited the scripture for their success
or for inspiration.
It is well known that talents thrive in an open atmosphere,
when no divine restrictions are imposed on the pursuit of
knowledge. Its not that the East couldn't keep up, but for
Arabia it was that they isolated themsleves on purpose from
modernism due to strict orthodox view of Islam, specially
the Asharites (Followers of Al-Ashari were the main players
in this plunge into obscurantism.
In conclusion I would refer interested readers to an excellent
article titled "Why didn't the Scientific Revolution happen
in Islam?" by Pervez Hoodbhoy, professor of Physics at the
Universoty of Islmambad whome I had the priviiledge to meet
whe he was visiting prof. at the Univ. of Washington. the
URL is: http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?hoodbhoy_dec2397
Thanks for reading,
Aparthib
Date: Tue Apr 24, 2001 12:06 am
Subject: Re: [Shetubondhon] Islam and History of Science (1): Introduction
It is unfortunate that Dr. Farooq's post is mostly directed against
the messenger (myslef) rather than the message itself, forcing me
to write in defense and thus reluctantly dragging me in a personal
debate, which I don't relish. Although the header of the message
is "Islam and History of Science (1): Introduction" it is mostly
an introduction to my thoughts and mind as he reads it. His post
serves as a nice illustration of some common well known informal
fallacies. These fallacies being:
Fallacies of:
1. Argumentum ad hominem (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm#ad-h)
2. Red herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)
3. Argumentum ad verecundiam (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#auth)
4. Straw man http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
5. Style Over Substance (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/style.htm
6. Anecdotal evidence http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#anecdotal
7. Appeal to Emotion
(http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html)
8. Appeal to Ridicule
(http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html)
9. Non sequitur http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/n9.htm#nonseq
Most of he entire verbiage was about me, how my earlier postings didn't
make sense to him or were not understood (Appeal to Ridicule), or that
my views and reasonings are disturbing, caused him to be dumbfounded
(Appeal to emotion), or pidgeon-holing me into Islam-Hater camp (Straw man)
etc.
The entire posting was a red herring, as it had not much to say cogently
refuting my earlier postings but was a lengthy irrlevant prelude mostly
emphasizing some precepts of about his views of the right and wrong approach
to expressing views and making arguments (Style over substance). Writing a
lengthy response with 90% of it devoted to some lofty but irrelevant discussions
of ideals and principles that sound impressives and with 10% or so devoted to
the actual refutation (Which is still a Non sequitar) may appear persuasive
to many who are not used to critical thinking.
Then there is this personal anectdote of one Professor Dr. Thomas
Hockey being quoted to add to his argument (Anecdotal evidence) that
can hardly add any substantive value to a logical rebuttal to my
post he was purporting to engage in. Personal anecdotes don't qualify
as a sound argument to refute any view.
Then there is this Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority),
Quoting some statements of Dr. Salam which he made in a metaphorical
sense in selected gatherings to refute or prove a general position. The entire
message boils down to his assertion that my claim of that the achievements
of Khwarizmi, Ibn Sina etc can be characterized as DESPITE Islam, not DUE
to Islam is wrong, because Dr. Salam said [quotes from the site referred to
in his message].
Now how on earth can these quotes be used to arrive at the counter claim,
i.e that Islam was the cause for the blossoming of these scientific talents
of their time? How does it even prove that Dr. Salam's genius in Physics was
due to Islam? His entire research work and approach has been quite secular.
Even in the article referred to By Dr. Farooq, he is never shown to
claim any connection between Science and Islam/Koran. Quoting scriptures
metaphorically to inspire the lay audience (who are already heavily steeped
religioius dogma) to inculcate the pursuit of science doesn't prove that
excellence in science can be attributed to Islam/scriptures.
Ghandhi also made praising comments on some of the sayings of prophet
Muhammed in the Suhrawardi'e book on the sayings of Muhammed. Does it
make Ghandhi an absolute believer of Islamic tenets and all its revelations?
Great scholars and leaders do time to time quote from scriptures from
their own religion or others on things that are universal and inspiring
and dear to them. That alone is not a criterion to judge their belief in
all the doctrines/dogma of their religion. We cannot and should not pretend
to go into the mind of Prof. Salam to pass a judgement on what his level
on religious belief WAS. We can certainly affirm what it WAS NOT. And he
was a not dogmatist emphasizing absolute belief in ALL the revelations
themselves. He never did. There are inspiring verses and sayings in the
scriptures of all religions providing convenient metaphors to reinforce
certain views suiting appropriate audience at convenient times.
That article quoted also quotes Prof. Salam and writes "I do not disagree
with anything that Dr.Hoodbhoy has written in this book", he wrote in the
preface, and then went on to state in the clearest and most unequivocal
terms the irrelevance of religious beliefs to scientific discovery:"
And add to that the following quotes from another nice article by Pervez
Hoodbhoy "Salam, Science and Secularism"
(http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?hoodbhoy_jan0598)
"It was in 1985 that I was pleasantly surprised to receive a
letter from him in Islamabad, where I was (and am) teaching,
saying that he had read my critique of orthodox Islamist
attempts to create an "Islamic Science" and the role of religious
intolerance in destroying Muslim intellectual achievements
many centuries ago. He suggested that, should I visit the
Centre, he would like me to call upon him."
..
"Two years later Salam wrote the introduction
to my book "Islam and Science - Religious Orthodoxy and the
Battle for Rationality". In his essay he makes perfectly explicit
that the validity of a scientific truth can be adjudicated only
according to criteria internal to science and not by appeal to
religious, metaphysical, or aesthetic considerations."
..
"From dry and dusty history books he rescued the
scientific and intellectual achievements of Muslim intellectual
giants of a thousand years ago and turned them into symbols of
cultural pride. The crucially important thing is that he
emphasized these achievements as belonging to the realm of
the rational."
Notice how Salam emphasizes on the rational, not religion as being
the source of the achievements.
So much for exploiting Salam to counter my conclusion that
Scientific accomplishments around Bagdad in the first millenium was DESPITE
Islam, not DUE to Islam. Of course I used "DESPITE" to emphasize the overall
rigid Islamic orthodoxy that was the norm in Islam (Not conducive to critical
thinking and thus scientific inovations), with relativley short window of
opennes that allowed such scientific achievements. As for the quotes from
scriptures It is the only pragmatic thing for Prof Salam to do to exhort
his Islamic audience from turning their mind into science from religious
dogma. He never advoctaed Koranic/Islamic science like all the Islamic
countries in middle east do. If indeed Islam was the CAUSE of scientific
acievements, then certainly it would make sense to advocate such moves,
wouldn't it?
Another quote from the article in Dr. Farooq's post: "The Islamic Science
Foundation, a grand scheme for scientific advancement with an endowment
of $1 billion collected from oil-rich countries, came to nought after
Salam was banned from ever setting foot in Saudi Arabia".
Indeed he was so Islamic that Saudi Arabia banned him! He was not considered
even a Muslim in his native Pakistan. He was even excommunicated from there.
One should consider the fact that his linking with Islam (Mohammed) as
cited in the article at a CERTAIN time (well after his nobel reception and
after his peak of intellectual success) was coincident with the time he
faced the most hostile reception from the Islamists in Pakistan and was
under threat of being excommunicated. Consider the following quotes from
a site of the orthodox Sunnis:
(http://www.irshad.org/idara/qadiani/tahaffuz/absalam.htm)
--Begin Quote
[
BUT, when that scientist and expert
1.cuts the roots of religion of Islam;
2.poses a threat to Islamic interests;
3.makes his expertise a vehicle for the propagation of his sham faith;
4.turns his skill into converting Muslims into apostates; and
5.lures Muslim youth into his religion by offering temptations of money,
marriage or employment;
THEN, our Muslim admirers while singing an eulogy for him are in duty
bound to Islam to warn their Muslim brethren against the danger lurking
in this erudite personality.
Dr. Abdus Salam is a Qadiani first and a scientist later. He is a zealot
of Qadianism. Under the garb of his scientific performance he is a
conspirator against Islam.
Does any government of the world tolerate conspiracy? Are conspirators
not consigned to the gallows? When no government tolerates conspiracy
against the state, how can conspiracy against Allah and His Prophet(SAW)
be allowed a let-off!
Dr. Abdus Salam's present leader, Mirza Tahir, is an enemy of Islam and
is an ally of enemies of Islam. He is beating war-drum against Pakistan
and cursing the whole Islamic world because they don't support him.
]
--- End Quote
Of course "that scientist" above refers to Prof Salam.
According to the Sunnite Muslims Dr. Salam is a Kafir So either Dr. Salam is
wrong or the Muslim Orthodoxy is wrong, both cannot be right at the same time.
Take your pick.
Now under this atmosphere how could have Prof Salam walked on the thin wire
saving himself? Does anyone remember Taslima Nasreen wearing veil(Burkha) in
Dhaka airport? Now would anyone cite that example to eulogize Purdah by saying
that even Taslima Nasrin believes in it!.
I don't think I need say anymore. thanks to all readers if it seemd longer than
needed.
aparthib
Date: Tue Apr 24, 2001 6:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Shetubondhon] Thoughts on Belief and Reason
In response to Dr. Zaman's post, my plea to him is that it is only fair
in an honest debate to be more specific to point out when using such a strong
characterization like "downright fallacious statements to my arguments for my
benefit as well as others. This is unlike what we are used to from him in
this forum. Anyway I will gladly answer his question. The question was, is
God an objective reality since (As phrased by Dr. Zaman): "There appears
to be a broad consensus across religious belief systems that there is a God".?
This a fallacy of "loaded question". If you phrase the question improperly
a yes/no question will not be meaningful. My short answer still is NO. Let
me explain why it was not phrased correctly.
He missed the key ingredient of a TRUTH, that of verifiability. God is a
result of a universal INSTINCT. Not a universal truth. A mere COMMONALITY
of an unverified belief across RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYETMS does not at all
meet the objectivity criterion of a TRUTH/REALITY. It is not a CONSENSUS
as Dr. Zaman phrased it. Consensus applies to a consciously decided agreement.
The important points to note are:
1. There is a difference between truth and belief.
2. Truth requires an objective means of arriving at through consensus
across religious and racial boundaries. Beliefs don't meet
at least the first criterion.
3. God (In the sense of creator) is a belief based universal INSTINCT.
It is not verifiable objectively with a universal consensus (Like
the earth is round or that it revolves around the Sun). God is not
an objective REALITY. It is a belief based on an instinct that is
shared by all of humanity (Wondering at the root cause of the
universe and Life and a desire for immortality
Th INSTINCT of a creator is a reality. We all feel it. Some extrapolate
that instinct into narratives of personal God in revealed religions, that
talks in a specific language, assigns a human as his/its spokesman, expresss
human emotion of anger and kindness etc, sets inheritance rules etc. That
part is neither instinct, nor universal (consensus based), but a result of
religious-cultural conditioning. Others don't succumb to such indoctrinations
but have their own abstract concept. There can be no strict atheist in the
true sense, if atheist is defoened as someone who deosn't think there ia ANY
root cause of the universe. Because at least we know that the Laws of Physics
can create the universe (As Quantum Cosmology has shown) and life (As modern
evolution theory suggests). So the root cause is at least a set oof Natural
Laws. There can a root cause of these Natural Laws as well?. MAYBE. Many
scientists and skeptics believe in this MAYBE. But they don't claim to know
what it could be like or its nature. But does that not make them theists or
atheists. Informed agnostic maybe the best choice of the word that applies.
So I can symblize the most meanigful stance on God as:
Unknown(?) --> Laws of Physics (known + unknown part) --> Universe/Life
My points about objectivity and consensus does not make sense when applied
to universal human instincts, be it instincts of God, ghosts, angels etc. It
only applies to TRUTHS and to universal RIGHTS and WRONGS. Humans across
all religions have fear of ghosts, haunted houses etc. That does not make ghosts
or spirits an objective reality. I have fear of ghosts too :). There are too
many eye witness accounts across all races, religions to make one feel a bit
uncomfortbale in a Haunted House where violent murders took place in the past.
About God, as I said it is a universal instinct primarily roorted in the
common sense cause-effect perception about the universe and life. But there
is also a universal evolutionary root of this instinct. That of survival.
Even praying is speculated by scientists as having a placebo effect and thus
beneficial. If a belief helps to calm oneself it is thrapeutic, even if the
object of belief is non-existence. Like Anthropolgist Lionel Tiger says
"Religion probably has a genetic basis. To guard against the paralysis of
deep depression. When facing the inevitabilty of death, natural selection
responded to this problem by wiring into our brain a moderate propensity to
embrace sunny scenarios even when they are not supported by the facts"
All of human is basically insecure (irrespective of religion/race). So belief
in GOD is a universal recipe to overcome this insecurity. To repeat, it
doesn't make sense to use the notion of objectivity and consensus to such
instints.
best wishes,
Aparthib
Date: Fri Apr 27, 2001 6:40 pm
Subject: Islam and the History of Science - Some clarifications
I wish to wrap up with my final comments on this debate on Islam and Science.
Thinking about it there should not be any debate the way Dr. Farooq has
has twisted the issue. His postings continue to reflect the red herring and
straw man fallcy. So what is the issue? Should we really be arguing and
spending hours to dig out quotes from authors to prove something that was
not even an issue? Was it ever suggested that "THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION
TO SCIENCE BY MUSLIM SCIENTISTS EVER" or that "NO ONE BORN IN ISLAM
CAN EXCELL IN SCIENCE" ? I never did, no one else did. In fact if it is
ever challenged by anyone (Like a communal/bigotted Non-Mulsim)I would
be the first one debunk such outrageous remark and may as well refer to
research of Dr. Farooq. This is the straw man fallacy that Dr. Farooq
created resulting in his volumes of painstaking reasearch. He deserves
encomium for such research work. But all his voluminous research and
quotes from "FATHERS" of history just to prove that Mulsims scientists
did contribute to science in past, which was not even debated and was
agreed to? What a waste of time if that was the aim of these lengthy
articles. Because that was not at all what was at issue (At least with
me). In fact I myself was refering to the achievemnts of those "Muslim"
scientists like Ibn Sina, Al-Khwarijmi, Al-Hajen etc, but the issue I
raised was whether their achievemnts (Which I repeat is NOT debated),
should be credited to the dogma of Islam or to the critical
mind/rational thinking of those Arab scientists? If it is the former
then Science should have flourished even more and continued into the
second millenium when orthodox and dogmatic enforcement of Islam was
prevalent. We should have then seen many Noble Laureate scientists
from Saudi Arabia, (The heart of Islam where it is most strictly followed).
Does it make sense to characterize the achievemtns of "Muslim" scientists
of past and present as the achievement of Islam itself? Then by that logic
all the achievemtns of Einstein and other Jewish scientists be characterized
as being due to Judaism, or that the genius of Weinberg (Christian born
but atheist) is due to christianity. So all of "WESTERN" progress of
science should be characterized as the success of "christianity". Just
because the free thinking/rational minded Arab scientists in and around
Bagdad in the 9-10 the century happened to be Muslim it doesn't make
sense to immediately credit Islam for their achievement in as much a
it doesn't make sense to credit Judaism for Einstein's genius or
christianity to Steven Weinberg's genius. I emphasized that it is an
intellectually free atmosphere that encourages scietific thinking
(irrespective of which religion) which presupposes crtitical thinking.
And in such atmosphere of free thinking Muslim born scientists are
as capable of achievemetns as any other. Thats what those Arab scientists
proved. (Their achievemts should more properly be characterized as "Arab"
achievements if it is to be contrasted with "western" achievements).
Thats why it was during the relative period of free thinking
that these scietists flourished. In fact many of these critical thinking
scientists were suspect in the eye of the Islamic clergies and they had
to cleverly tread a thin wire to save themselves. And when the door of
free thinking was shut down so did the end of scietific revolution end
in Islam (As the article "Why scientific revolution did not happen
in Islam by Hoodbhoy shows). There was such an expected direct
correlation. No amount of quotes from any idols, "fathers" of Islamic History
can contradict this common sense logic. What these quotes and historical
data can prove is that Scientific achievementa are not exclusive to
any one religion, which was NOT at all proposed or implied. A "father"
of history can be idolized for his work in retrieving/compiling
historical data favouring a particular religion/race etc. Thats a
painstaking work deserving plaudit. But interpretation or
characterization of any data is very personal reflecting a certain
metaphorical sense, or due to a certain context relevant to the quote
etc, and does not count as a decisive logic to establish any objective
truth, even if that interpretion is from a "FATHER", only logic and
data can do that. I mentioned in an earlier post the fallacy of
characterization. Just because George Sarton characterized some historic
fact in a certain way in some quotes does not make it an objective
truth nor one can objectively "interpret his interpretation" to exploit
it to make an objetive case for an argument. By the way, even today there
are quite a few brilliant Muslim born academic scientists in USA
who are originally from countries where Islamic dogma reigns. they
probably would not be able to flourish fully had they stayed back in
their country of birth. In conclusion I hope that never again is a
debate dragged on and valuable time spent on "ignoratio elenchi"
(irrelevant conclusion), straw man and red herring fallacies.
Regards to all,
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 112428 +0600
Subject: Re [Shetubondhon] Is Islam antithesis of modernity?
Dr. Faruque,
In my earlier response I had expressed my disagreement with your views
in an impersonal way. Your response is more personal and calling me and
my views self-centric. This is not a personal issue to be "self" centric. I
am sharing my views with that of the secular world-view including USA of
which you are a beneficiary by living here, working, abiding by its constitution
etc. In fact the majority of the world has secular, democratic systems in place,
only a few are based on religious and scriptural/injunctions. So calling my
view which merely affirms this accepted view of the majority "self-centric"
will rather put you in an indefensible position. If you have misunderstood
this affirmation of mine of secular world view then it is my not fault. I was
clear enough. Now regarding your puritanic criticism of my use of the
words "evil", "dangerous" etc, I admit I wasn't priggish enough to avoid using
such words. But what you are defending here is extreme relativism. Anything
goes kind of attitude and is recipe for anarchism. Equality has its definition.
Freedom of expression, right to form groups are all granted in democracy.
That does not by any means imply tolerating their actions equally. I or any
individual cannot or should not decide how to set the criterion to limit
and and exclude certain groups. Secular Democratic institutions have that
mechanism through consensus. Again the model is USA (Not perfect, I again
emphasize).
Dr. Kaushik and Dr. HarunuzZaman has provided adequate clarification on
this issue. If you had only read their articles (And it will be unfortunate if you
haven'e since both of them are directly related to your posts). In his article
( http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1917 )
Dr. Sen clearly pointed out the dangers of equating KKK, Aryan Supremacists
etc with the mainstream in the pretext of Pluralism. Dr. Zaman in his post
( http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1938 )
pointed out that it is the behaviors that should be limited and controlled,
not the right to express and form a group. Limiting/controlling behaviours
automatically excludes many fringe groups from the mainstream. It is this
kind of exclusion I was referring to. He also mentioned the west (specially
USA) as a working model for that (Not perfect). I agree with both Dr. Sen
and Dr. Zaman here. Now if I priggishly retract usage of the terms
"dangerous", "evil" pretending that KKKs, Aryan Supremacists, Talebans,
Asaharites etc are not evil or dangerous will you also banish these terms
from your vocabulary for ever? )
The response to the remaining part of your post is already contained in
my two responses to Dr. Farooq in :
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1940 and
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1956
I would request you read them carefully to locate the parts that
respond to your .post appropriately. I don't wish to repeat myself.
Thanks,
Aparthib
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 1:30 PM +0600
Subject: Re [Shetubondhon] Is Islam antithesis of modernity?
This is a followup of my earlier reponse to Dr. Faruque. Your
following remarks suffer from a characterization fallacy that I
addressed in detail in my exchange with Dr. Zaman earlier. Please
refer to the posts
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1417
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1438
for such clarifications.
All political parties are guilty of bomb blasts, killing etc. But no party
does that IN THE NAME OF secularISM. No party exists in the name
of secularism (It may contain secularism as ONE OF many platforms). NOW
no party except the Communist Party of Bangladesh affirms secularism,
and even for them the principal theme is socialism/leftist dogma, not
secularism. When goons of Awami League, BNP, Jatyo Party etc engage
in terrorists acts they don't do so to make a statement in favour of secularism
or to bash religion itslef, but to unleash their vendetta on rival political
parties. On the other hand the terrorists acts of religious based parties are
not limited to retaliation against rival parties only, often it is committed as
a protest against secular ideals/policies/cultures and/or in support of
religious dogmas. That clearly distinguishes the religious extremists from
all other political extremists (Again their is no secular extremists). I have also
argued in detail against such oxymoronic usage of "secular fundamenatlism"
in my earlier posts. Again to avoid repetition I urge you to go through them.
They are
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1448
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1958
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1464
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/shetubondhon/message/1510
That should provide adequate clarification in response to your remarks here.
Regarding your final comments on the inseparability of Islam and politics,
Of course that is your view, I never said it is not true. Thats why an Islamic
State is incompatible with democracy. Because in a true democracy where
not all citizens belong to the same religion or even if they do not all its citizens
may believe in religion itself or even if they do they may instead believe in the
separability of religion and politics (A great majority of Bangladeshis fall into
this category) , such islamic State with a religiously mandated "inseparabilty"
enforced on all its citizen cannot function in a truly democratic way.
Lastly, the issue of Islam being antitthetical or not has been totally
misinterpreted and taken in a different tangent. There was no disagreement
that during a window of time the Islamic rulers of Baghdad did enourage
science and free thinking and it is then that Science and Arts flourished.
This culture of encouraging science, arts, free thinking did not last. Thats
why Sciecne did not continue to flourish in the same glorified way
under orthodox Islam beyond much into the second Millenium because
such encouragements of science, arts and free thinking were withdrawn
In a free environment, religious inspiration is redundant for scientific and
artistic growth, the inner human spirit to pursue that is all that is needed.
All it needs is absence of any bottlenecks imposed by dogmas. The current
poor level of scientific accomplishment in islamic countries testifies to this
correlation as is also so elonquently outlined in Pervez Hoodbhoy's essay
that I referred to earlier.
Thanks,
From aparthib Sat Sep 16 01:22:00 2000
To: [email protected]
Subject: [bdesh] Re: Picture from Hubble Space Telescope
I see an attempt here to link planetary nebulae with a religious verse. This
is a flawed attempt that is often made by apologetics of all religions, some
more than others.
If one likes to see science in anything they can see it anywhere. Some Joe
may have said "All is relative" before Einstein's theory of relativity.
By this stretch of imagination that Joe can legitimately claim that he
already knew about relativity and claim originality. Any vague phrase, pun,
quote etc by humans, scriptures etc can be customized and made to fit any
scientific principle which also have been phrased in a very general way for
popular consumption hiding the underlying precise sense of these principles.
Its an insult to science and the scientists whose painstaking research has
helped unravel the complex workings of the laws of nature and reality. None
of these scientific revelations were inspired from, dependent on, or utilized
any of the religious revelations. If religious revelations could not and did
not lead to any of these scientifc truths in a stand alone way then by any
criterion and logic they cannot be used to corroborate science. There are
many unanswered questions in the basic understanding of the universe. Why
can't the verses of scripture throw any light on them? For example we don't
at this time know for sure if the universe is closed, open or flat. No body
is daring to make a prediction based on any revelation. But if it is
ever found out by science I am sure one can dig out some vague words of a
verse from some book of some religion and claim to "see" the answer that science
has finally managed to find. Its always AFTER the fact that these semblances are
found. It has never been found BEFORE the scientific discovery. Is that
a coincidence? Nobel laureate Physicist Dr. Abdus Salam warned against people
trying to explain Big Bang using verses from Koran, saying that the current
version of Big Bang is the best known scientific explanation for the creation of
the universe. What if a better scientific explanation than Big Bang is found
tomorrow? Should the verses be changed to accomodate the new scientific view?
Religion can never vindicate or falsify science. The truth or falsity of a
scientific principle lies within science itself. Religious scriptures cannot
speak of any scientific principle. Religious revlations are absolute directives
and narratives for humans to follow as faith unquestioningly. Many revelations
clearly contradict many accepted scientific principles. 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. Koran/Bible/Gita etc are not books of science. Any
coincidental vague semblance between a verse and a popular phrasing of a complex
scientific principle is soley due to the very general and vague wordings
admitting of any interpretation that one chooses to impose on it. All one needs
is some vague reverse fitting argument to connect the two. One can find Quantum
Mechanics in Tagore's poems, or relativity in the Buddhist Monk Nagarjun's
writing. Just seeing what one likes to see because of a preset belief in a
favoured belief system doesn't make it so by any objective criterion. My purpose
is not to disrspect religion or its revelation, but to question the attempt to
reconcile the two in an illogical way. They can be irreconcilable and yet can
continue and thrive as separate ways as long as one does not get in the way
of te pursuit of the other.
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Mon 2 Oct 2000 18:30:29
Subject: Re: Religious scriptures and science
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: [email protected]
Faith and logic are incompatible. If faith could be validated by logic
(correctly applied with incontrovertible evidences) then it would not be
labelled faith but a universal natural principle/phenomenon. Faith that
religious revelations contain scientific fact can never be justified
by facts, evidences or logic. Some superficial similarities using only
words cannot qualify for a proof or evidence. One must be reminded that
the mark of a genuine proof, evidence and logic is a consensus that
crosses all racial, ethnic and religious boundaries. That is not to say
that a consensus is the only criterion of validity, but consensus necessarily
follows from logic, evidence and facts. A sound logic using facts only can
validate any conclusion. A fact by definition is an incontrovertible
observation based on sense perceptions. Thats why the laws of science
are universal. We don't have an Islamic principle of Relativity, or a
Hindu Quantum Mecahnics or Christian Law of Evolution. All these scientific
principles are convincing to scientists of all denominations. The logic
and evidences speak for themselves, no belief in any religion is
required for the acceptability of scientific principles. A majority of
the scientists and theologicians agree that science cannot be corroborated
by religious revelations or vice versa. Only a handful of scientists
(Almost all of them of questionbale credentials, some with mediocre
credentials) and zealous followers and apologetics of religious seem to
be obsessed by the effort to link the two, which of course they are
entitled to with full rights as a free human being as are the skeptics and
more moderate followers who disagree and point out the flaws in this effort.
There is some inherent inconsistency in this approach to validate religion
by science. First, we know that in almost all religions this attempt is made.
They are all equally convincing (or unconvincing, take your pick). So, there
is no rationale to accept the reasoning of one religion over the other, on
grounds of pure logic. Since all the religions are based on the assumption
that the others are wrong (in the sense that their holy book is the only
one containing the word of God) they can not all be right. But since the
reasoning used to validate revelations with science are no better in one
religion than the other there is no basis of selecting one as right. Follower
"A" of religion "X" will of course only accept the reasoning to link religion
"X" with science. Follower "B" of religion "Y" will believe in the reasoning
of religion "Y" to link their revelation with science and so on. A valid
logic and evidence linking any religion with science should be accepted by
ALL, i.e by any follower of any religion, or a skeptic/non-believer. But
that obviously is not the case. So none of the reasonings in any of the
religions are based on sound logic or argument. Now let me raise the issue
of the need to assert the "perceived" link between religion and science.
First of all faith in a religious revelation is unconditional. One places
faith in the revelations due to being born in that religion and due to
reinforcements by society, surroundings and culture etc. (This is a good
example of "meme" in action. One can read the idea of memes in Richard Dawkin's
"The Selfish Gene" or Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine"). Some examples
and references of various "A"s from various "Y"s trying to find science in
their respective revelations will follow later in this post. Once one stakes
their faith in their revelations, the next step is to look for confirmations,
reinforcements of that belief. It is a self-feeding mechanism whereby an
apparent similarity between a revelation and science strengthens the faith
which in turn motivates one more to "search" for more similarities and the
reinforcements add up in a runaway fashion. Now the question is even if one
chooses to reinforce this faith by "seeing" the similarities, do they need
to declare that similarities to anyone? I would argue NO. If the faith is
strong in one's mind then announcing the supposed similarities between
revelations and science is not needed to strenghthen the faith (Repeat, for
those not alert in keeping the context straight, its the ANNOUNCEMENT that
is not needed to strengthen the faith. BELIEF that the similarities between
science and revelations point to the validity of the revelations, on
the other hand may be needed to strengthen the faith in revelations). A
strong faith does not and should not require a public affirmation or sanction.
Now if these announcements are made to convince others about the validity
of the revelations then the obvious conclusion is that it is not succeeding.
It is not convincing many of the moderate religious folowers, let alone the
skeptics. Majority of the scientists are not convinced (even for the religion
that they are born in). Some of the few pseudo and mediocre scientists that
do try to prove the truth of revelations with science do so out of some
vested interests and are actively funded and supported by wealthy religious
organizations or individuals. Others quote the similarities in a
metaphorical sense to emphasize that science is encouraged by revelations
which is noble in intent but flawed by any logical criterion. A motivation
to pursue science is better obtained by exposing the young minds to the
beauty of nature and universe through popular science books, movies, field
trips etc.
Here are some examples of attempts to validate (or reconcile) religious
revelations with science covering a cross section of relegions, except
Islam since a link was provide for that in the previous message under this
thread. All the following appear quite convincing, but not enough to pass
logical scrutiny to validate their respective revelations and make a
logical person believe in them)":
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]
5. http://www.ozemail.com.au/~vsivasup/science/index.html
(Modern Physics & Hinduism)
6. http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/articles/articles/0798/0043.html
(Samkhya Philosophy & Physics)
7. http://www.saigon.com/~anson/vbud/vbpha014.htm (Science and Buddhism)
8. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7348/physics_metaphysics.html
9. SIRIUS MYSTERY - Robert K.G. Temple
Sirius is the brightest "star" in the heavens. This book details the theory of
objective facts that "the existence of civilization on Earth is a result of
contact from inhabitants of a planet in the system of the star Sirius prior to
3000 BC." It is established that intelligent life exists frequently within our
galaxy, and that their technological abilities can not compare to our own
technology which would be "primative" in comparison. A present day African tribe
of Mali named the Dogan, are in possession of incredible information, more than
5000 years old, concerning the Sirius System. Pre-dynastic ancient Egyptians are
also associated with the secret and the sacred traditions. The Dogan are descended
from Ancient Egypt. These mediterranean "tribes" and the Dogon reflect great wealth
of mythology and learning and also a knowledge dependent on physics and astrophysics.
There is much detail regarding the above topics that are mind-boggling. Many
illustrations and plates and diagrams are included. This book is an outstanding
Classic. Eye-opener. For more check out http://www.cyber-north.com/ufo/dogan.html
, http://home.earthlink.net/~pleiadesx/chaptr5.htm
Thank you all,
Aparthib
Date:Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Some Weird Logic in the Polygamy Debate
To:NFB
Mr. Ullah and Uddin's hermeneutics of the Qur'anic Ayah on marrying
4-wives (April 25) led Mr. Ullah to the "freedom of choice" defense of it.
Let us scrutinize this and some other remarks made by him and Mr. Uddin
that are so typical of apologetics. For this discussion I will assume
the absolute tenets of apologetics that (1) GOD is PERFECT and (2) GOD's
book (Qur'an) is also PERFECT.
Now first take the "freedom of choice" clause. Mr. Ullah said(quote):
"Qur'an is not forcing the believer to marry four wives".
Now can Mr. Ullah cite anyone in 1400 years of Islam's history who
ever alleged that Qur'an FORCES the believer to marry four wives?.
It is easy to refute an allegation if the allegation is a made up
one!. This is a case of RED HERRING fallacy of logic. Now come to
the "PERFECT" clause. If GOD is perfect then why not grant that
freedom of choice to women as well?. Can PERFECT GOD be sexist?
OH, yes, the paternality issue. How can a man know which one is
is child, right? But Couldn't a PERFECT GOD anticipate DNA testing
merely 1400 years ago, a blip in the history of the earth? Or
couldn't the ALL-KNOWING God proclaim that women can also have
the same freedom as men only AFTER 1986 when DNA testing will
be available, until then only men will have this freedom. Besides,the
most important point is, even without DNA test, if polyandry is left as
a choice, then let the men decide if it is worthwhile for them to marry
the same wife if they cannot identify his child. Let the buyers beware!
The freedom of choice factor alone can settle that issue. Those men
who care for parentage issue will not exercize their freedom of choice,
those who don't will. As simple as that.
Mr. Ullah claimed: "Qur'an embody universal message across all time
and age."
Well, if the fact of war in the 7-8th century Arabia etc reducing
the number of men to defend this choice for men only, then the
question is, If Qur'an embodies universal message across all
time and age, then why use this 7th century Arabia scenario as
the basis of this supposedly timelss/ageless Ayah? It obviously
doesn't apply today as then, and never did for other societies before
or after 7 th century. Also if "all time and age" is to be consistently
maintained then God should also have made make provision for any
future possibilty of reduction of women's population (Who can
say that there may not be an epidemic affecting women only, or
that female infanticide may not become rampant again, like in
China?) and proclaimed the same choice for women as well.
Now lets examine Mr. Ullah's remark:
"It is a provision given so that under unforeseen circumstances
this allowance could be practiced to preserve humanity."
Also mr. Uddin cited devastating diseases reduding "male/female
gender ratio" to defend this choice for men.
Well it seems that Mr. Ullah, a mortal seems to have more sense than
PERFECT GOD. How could a PERFECT GOD, in his PERFECT book,
leave out this important conditional clause of "unforseen circumstance"
for polygmay? Why did he leave it upto a mortal to interpret and read
his mind? After all, a perfect book, should be self-contained and
self-explanatory, not requiring mortals to put their convenient
interpretation on it. GOD should have definitely included that clause
himself if he meant it. Hmm, points to ponder.
As for Mr. Ullahs' remark: "Even under present social condition
if a Man and four women consented to build family having mutual
respect and understanding, I don't think anybody should have any
problem with that". Well, Mr. Ullah, like you I also don't see
anything wrong with me or anyone else if 4-wives consent to build
a family with one husband, if it is looked at as individual rights
and freedom issue, its only that fairness and reason demands
that we shouldn't then have any problem with 4-husbands (polyandry)
consenting to building a family with one wife either. (Don't forget
the DNA clause if parentage issue arises, or conveniently forget
the freedom of choice issue that you so forcefully used in polygamy).
But there is another side to it. Despite the individual rights and
freedom defense, there is a contrary side to it. When male/female
balance exists then polygamy may be unfair to many males who may
find it harder to find wives as one man will have hogged 4-wives
for himself. This same problem applies to polynadry as well. So
one should not overlook this aspect of the problem. So if by the
logic that when men poulation is reduced polygamy is recommended,
then by the same logic in balanced gender ratio, polygamy/polyandry
should be discouraged as well.
Mr. Uddin cited the "Equal treatment/love to all 4-wives clause".
On one hand this clause is used to "justify" polygamy, and on the
other hand its supposed "impossibility to fulfil " clause is cited
to prove that polygamy is ruled out indirectly. This is a strange
logic. On one hand the Ayah is defended in favour of polygamy,
by citing gender ratio etc, on the other hand the ayah is used to
argued against polygamy by arguing that it rules out polygamy
by the very stringent condition that it prerequires. Weird logic
indeed. Then who is to judge such subjective criterion as
"love equally, treat equally"? If it is left to the judgment of
the husband of course it will be easy to fulfil!.
Finally, lets look at Mr. Ullah's remart: "Look at the Muslim world
and count how many men are practicing polygamy."
Here Mr. Ullah is revealing his subliminal embrassment of the practice
of polygamy by his defensive plea "Look its only a SMALL nunmber that
are practicing it". Well, Mr. Ullah, whats wrong if LARGE NUMBER
were practicing it? You said there was nothing wrong with it a moment ago,
didn't you? So why bring this "count how many men are practicing
polygamy" clause in your defense. If polygamy has so much beneficial
effect (preserving humanity etc) why not "THE MORE THE BETTER"?.
You cannot have it both ways Mr. Ullah :)
Aparthib Zaman
Date:Fri, 27 Jul 2001
Subject: Response to Mr. K Rahman (July 23) - Atheism->atrocities?
To: NFB , cc: [email protected]
This is in response to an article by Mr. K Rahman which appeared on NFB
dated July 23. (Titled "Islam Bashing -- favorite pastime for some ) in which he
linked atheism with acts of atrocities committed by various dictators in history. Now
one need not be an atheist to refute the unqualified assertion made by people
like K Rahman that only atheists can and do commit atrocities, just as one need
not be a Muslim to refute that only Mulsims ca and commit atrocities, or just as
one need not be a christian to refute the allegation that only christians can and
commit atrocities and so on. So I will argue from a neutral vantage point in trying
to refute the views of K Rahman and other folks holding such belief whom I will
label AI people (Who literally equate Immorality with Atheism). Mr K Rahman
remarked "it is pointless to ignore the atrocities and injustices people have
perpetrated by using religion as their source of inspiration.." By that he admitted
that atrocities and injustoces have been committed by USING RELIGION AS
SOURCE OF INSPIRATION or lets say in the name of religion. Now these
people he admitted as having committed atrocities CANNOT be atheists.
Because atheists do not commit any atrocities USING or IN THE NAME OF
religion. So they must be THEISTS. Hence his very premise that only atheists
commit attrocities falls flat on its face. In fact let me turn it around and show
examples after examples of crimes by NON-ATHEISTS. Does Yahya Khan,
Tikka Khan ring the bell? Does the Spanish Inquisition ring the bell? It is easy
to cite ample examples of oppressive Hindu/Christian/Jewish/Muslim rulers ?
Now consider some non-oppressive, moral (by human standard) non-theists.
Does Nehru ring the bell? Does Gorbachev ring the bell? Does Biddha ring
the bell? (Yes, he was Godless,never preached or expressed belief in God,
preached only love of human and all animals). Were Greek Philosopher
Democritus, Bertrand Russell, Darwin, Thomas Alva Edison, Sigmund Freud,
George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Charlie Chaplin, Carl Sagan, Nobel Laureate
Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman etc etc criminals? Did they try to be? Many
of them led a life which only a truly religious person people is supposed to lead!
(as claimed by theists themselves).
Now the AI people may he may argue, oh those theists who commit atrocities
IN THE NAME OF RELIGION were bad theists, not good theists, or they were
not TRUE theists, but FAKE theists etc. So what. Regardless of whether they
were good or bad theists,the fact remains that THEY WERE NOT ATHEISTS.
they all believed in religion and God., many of them even pray and perform
rituals (like offer Qurbani, offer Friday prayers etc.).� Their belief did not
succeed in offering any deterrent to their crimes. Only an effectively enforce
legal and penal system can act as a deterrent for both theists and atheists. The
AI people may still insist that only the TRULY religious will never commit
atrocities. Well, is that such a deep statement ? Even under atheistic regimes
like former China and USSR theft, murder, rape etc were against the law and
punishable crimes. An atheist who is TRULY law abiding would also not commit
any crime either. So what is so unique about theism in deterring crime? There
are significant number of atheists in Singapore where crime is very low. In India
a survey of prisoners reveal that majority of them believe in God.
Then K Rahman went on to cite the atrocities of Communists of China, Russia and
Polpot of Cambodia and concluded that it was the atheists who commit atrocities.
This exemplifies A common fallacy called guilt by association fallacy. Just because
Stalin, Hitler, Polpot ruler etc were all atheists do not mean they committed their
atrocities IN THE NAME OF or BECAUSE OF atheism. Lets take Stalin. He may
be described as a human who was (1) A white, (2) A male , (3) A communist,
(4) A Russian , (5) A tall guy, (6) A guy with moustache, (7) An atheist etc. Now
one might conclude generalizing from his atrocities that
1. Whites commit atrocities (Suits a non-white)
2. Males commits atrocities (Suits a woman)
3. Russians commit atrocities (Suits an American)
4. Communists commit atrocities (Suits capitalists)
5. Tall guys commit atrocities (suits a short guys)
6. Guys with moustache commit atrocities
(Suits a guy who lost his girlfriend to a guy with moustache)
7. Atheists commit atrocities (Suits AI people among the theists, like K Rahman).
Of course common sense thinking and a little knowledge of history should should
convince anyone that it is Stalin's personality and his obsessive hunger for power
and love for communistic philosophy and intolerance of any opposition (perceived
as well as real) to his ambition that was the reason for his atrocities.
Once can play the same game and pick a non-atheist who had committed atrocities
and succeed in concluding that theists commit atrocities.
Atheism is not a dogma where there are orders like "kill believers" etc. Just as the
AI people argue that a bad theist may commit crime, the same logic can be used to
argue that a bad atheist can also commit crime. Not only that, a bad atheist who
commits crime does it NOT in the name of atheism, but in the name of some other
dogma like communism or due to political/nationalistic goals, like a military dictator,
Nazism, fascism, racism, etc or a politically oppressive civilian regime, there are
plenty of examples of such, committing human rights abuse on its innocent citizens.
By the way Hitler is also mentioned to by many AI people to validate their position.
In fact Hitler was not an atheist, he was very much a christian, but by ideology a
racial supremacist. If at all his example can be used to argue the other way that
theists commit atrocities.
All repression, persecutions that have been committed in history were
committed by Racial supremacist (e.g Hitler), or communist dictators(e.g Stalin),
or simply politically oppressive regimes not behaving democratically, none of
which represents atheism, though they may all have been non-believers but
that was an incidental secondary factor, dogma (racial supremacy, state control
of human life etc) was the primary. So it is ridiculous to cite the examples of
atrocities of Stalin or Pol Pot communists to characterize them as atheistic
crimes. It only proves a morbid disgust of the AI people towards atheists.
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 10:49 pm
Subject: [aalaap] Re: PBS Documentary on Islam followed by Conquistadors
Message #92
--- Farida@y..., wrote:
>
> I was watching "The Conquistadors with Michael Wood" last night on PBS. What
a
> contrast! The white people wrote the history of Islamic conquests in the image
> of what they did to the land THEY conquered. And today, some of our people are
> slavishly imitating the racist Western histories and calling themselves "free
> thinkers." I had tears in my eyes as I watched how great civilizations like
> the Aztecs and the Incas were completely destroyed by the Europeans in the
> name of Christianity.
Indeed, it was "IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY". Should Christianity
be blamed for that, or the rapacious conquistadors? In the case of
Islam, apologists with some justification contend that it
is not Islam but those extremists who plundered IN THE NAME OF
ISLAM be blamed, the same remark should apply here more justifiably,
since in Bible (new testament) there is no call for war or killing
at all. My point is that just because some Westerners blame Islam
and Mulsims for acts of some why should the Muslims play the same
game and blame Christianity/Christians/West for acts of some. Each
feeds on the other to continue this viscious cycle. Let us only
blame those who blame religion (Islam/Christianty/West/East etc).
I am very curious to know (1) WHAT are the free thinkers "slavishly
imitating from racist Western histories" ? (2) Are all free thinkers
doing that? (the point I am getting at is, does a free thinker HAVE
TO slavishly imitate from racist Western histories ?), If not,
then why link "free thinkers" with "slavishly imitating from racist
Western histories"? Isn't it as flawed as linking the destruction and
killings of conquistadors with "Christianity", or that of Mahmud with
Islam? It is time this vicious cycle be broken!
> most tolerant of rival beliefs. Wonder what she has to say about the Spanish
> Conquistadors and the massacre of Aztecs and Incas in the name of
Christianity.
> While the white man simply anihilated the natives in North America and
imposed
> their religion and themselves in the land grabbed from the natives, Islamic
> conquests never destroyed civilizations and innocent civilian population
> wherever they went. In fact, as keen learners, the Muslims gathered
> knowledge and
First characterizing it as " WHITE MEN" who annihilated would be as
unjust as characterizing the plunderings of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazani
and later conquerers from the West of India as "MUSLIM MEN"
plundering and destroying temples. The same thugs and plunderers
who wreaked havoc in South America wreaked havoc in their own native
countries to their own compatriots. Entire European populace were
hostage to the powerful and vicious church and their henchmen
applying the most oppressive and distorted version of Christianity
to their own fellow citizens. Many lost lives in the dark ages of
Europe in the hand of the inquisition. And the victims were all
whites. The conquistadors who were sent to conquer South America
were mostly blood thirsty criminals. They cannot be used as
representative of white race or Christianity.
Never destroyed is a strong word. Sultan Mahmud did destroy when
he invaded India. But again, he was not being a true Muslim. The
same goes for the Conquistadors. Mohammed Ghauri, Qutubuddin Aibek,
Bakhtiyar Khilji they all had taken part in destructions to some
extent or other.
While the West/White/Christianity admit their wrongdoings of past
of (Even when most of them are not even related to those criminals
like Cortez, Columbus) it will be unfair for the Muslims not to
make a simliar dispassionate assesment of the past wrongdoings
in the name of Islam and be in denial or take pride in it. It may
be mentioned that Vatican has officially admitted its wrongdoings
during the inquisition era, like punishing Galilieo etc.
> to Europe. It is stupidity on any Bangalee Muslim's part to say that our
> religion is something separate from our culture. Islam in Bengal adapted
itself
> to the culture, just like it did in other countries. To say "Islam first" and
> culture second is an insult to the great spirit of Islam. Moreover, a
religion is,
> by
Let us be sure to identify who insists that "Islam first" and culture
second. It is the religious fanatics who insist that. Not only
that, they also go as far as denying the culture part(Bengali) as
evidenced through the frequent bomb blasts in Bengali cultural events.
This fact may get lost with the sudden shift of gear reflected
in the above comments.
> I should remind the so-called "free thinkers" that even the anti-Islamic
stuff
> that they are so fond of imitating and repeating ad nauseum have been thrown
> out in garbage at least a century ago. But, I suppose you cannot cure
> scavenger s from their habit of living off other people's discarded
materials,
> just as you cannot cure the prejudiced hate-mongers.
Again, it would be helpful to know WHAT is this "anti-Islamic stuff" that
free thinkers are putatively imitating? And again, the question: Is this
a necessity? If not, then again, why link two uncorrelated traits?
(Free thinking and "imitating anti-Islamic stuff"). Disparaging "free
thinking" for isolated instances of some free thnkers' imitating
anti-Islamic stuff (when the former DOES NOT necessiate the latter)
is a good example of throwing the baby with the bath water.
About the metaphor of scavengers living off other people's discarded
material, my only response is :
1. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
2. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 102439 +0600
Subject: [aalaap] Re Internet Serves to Unite Anti-Muslin Groups
Indeed, radicalism is like all vices, knows no racial/ethinic/religious
bounds. It is impertative to stay on guard against all shades of radicalism,
and to condemn and oppose any acts or threats of human rights abuse by them.
But while condemning such radicalism, we must be objective enough to realize
that radicalism is like no other vice, it is rooted in an action-reaction duality.
In a given instance of radicalism, one of the radicalism is usually a root one,
while the others arise due to a reaction to it, while in a different instance
another radicalist may take the role of the root etc. Once the action reaction
chain has inititated and progressed far enough then looking at the middle
one sees an alternating action-reaction pair and one can take either one as
the action and the other as the reaction depending on the vanatge points
that suits them, ignoring the root cause that started this action-reaction chain
to begin with. As much as it is hard to swallow this bitter truth for those who
inherit (not by conscious decision) the same faith as the root radicalists it
must be admitted in heart by them for the sake of moral integrity.
Aparthib
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 113103 +0600
Subject: [Aalaap] Re ALL THAT ATHEISM DOES "NOT" OFFER-7/1/01
Some comments in response.
FIRST RE
"There are so many excellent and well proven examples of
the existence of God"
MY COMMENT This is a very unscientific statement to make. Not
a single "proven" example of the existence of God exists.If it
did then it would be part of mainstream science, bcause science
deals with the provable. We won't have any debate on God as God
would be an established scientific concept.God would be an
important topic of a Physics text. I am posing a challenge for
anyone to produce one "proven" example of the eistence of God.
Metaphoric refernces like "God does not play dice"(Einstein),
"Mind of God" (Hawkings) only serve to illustrate the
implications of scientific theories, not their personal beliefs
about God. It would be the height of naivette to claim to read
the minds of those scientists. I fact these and most reputed
scientists do not believe in God as is widely understood. If at
all they do, they only believe in a higher level of natural
cause-effect than provided by the known laws of Physics. Even
that is a belief, not a proven/provable fact. Faith or belief
can not be logically proven. Proof of a faith is oxymoronic.
NEXT RE
"Just because you don't understand something does not mean its
not there!"
MY COMMENTS Obviously the above is implying that since God is
not understood it doesn't mean its(God) not there. This is a
fallacious statement. So if I don;t understand how a square can
become a circle that doesn't mean that it cannot be done? Or
that if I cannot understand how 2+2 = 5 then that doesn't mean
it cannot be so ???. For an ill-defined concept the question
of it's existence or non-existence both are meaningless. If a
well-defined definition of God existed then it would be testable
within scientific method. Of course one can conveniently define
God in their own way and make it exist. Like some define God as
= nature. And since nature exists so God exists. Or some define
God = Laws of Nature. Since Laws of nature exists. Hence God
exists. Very convenient. Some define God = Love for all humanity.
Now who can challenege the existence of such a God. All these
definitions are just putting a conveneinet label on what we can
identify and relate to. So God as a fundamentally deep concept
is still undefined. At the root God is nothing but a descriptive
term to reflect our igotrance about the ultimate reality of the
existence of the universe. There is no way out of this igonorance
by playing with words. The personal God of the religions are too
fraught with logical fallacies and contradictions to pass as any
meaningful concepts. To go over these contradictions and fallcies
now would be flogging a dead horse. All schools of philosophy
acknowledge those contradictions and they are not even debated
academically anymore Itis only debated among lay public who are
poorly equipped with logic or scientific thinking to even
appreciate the contradictions and logical fallacies.
The bottomline is that that both the statements "God exists",
"God does not exist" are logically flawed, becasue to be true
propositional statements they have to contain well-defined words,
and neither of them does (God is not a well-defined word). So
both are logically meaningless statements, as no "True/False"
attributes apply to either.
Aparthib
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001
Subject: [Aalaap] Re ALL THAT ATHEISM DOES "NOT" OFFER-7/1/01
aalaap#290:
I did not "avoid the whole point" as I myself specifically addressed
the issue of the logical flaw in the statement "God does not exist"
So the allegation was misdirected. But regardless, it is a LOGICAL
flaw to make the statement, not a SCIENTIFIC flaw, because a statement
which is not even properly constructed logically cannot be called a
proposition, let alone classified as scientific or unscientific.
But my point again would be to emphasize the logical flaw of the
statement that "God exists" which is the offending flawed statemnent,
rather than focussing on the statement "God does not exist" which
is said in REACTION to the former. The former is stated by proponents
of a new dogma. The latter is made by those who reject such dogma
due to the inherent contradiction/inconsistencies embedded in that
dogma. There is no dispute as to the logical inconsistencies and
contradiction in all the definitions of God advanced by theists. I
am assuming I don't need to go into that. That is a topic in itself.
So "God does not exist" is merely another way of saying that
"it is meaningless to say God exists because God cannot be defined
without logical contradiction". If anyone says more than that and
insists that "No, God IS a well-defined concept, but I still insist
God does not exist" then I will have issue with such an atheist. Now
let me come to the second point that escapes many apologists and
critics. Even if there is an atheist who outright declares the
NON-EXISTENCE of God,then is he/she any different than someone who
outright declares the EXISTENCE of God? there is no assymmetry here.
If the unknown clause absolves the theists' outright declaration of
God's existence of any logical & scientifc flaw, then the same unknown
clause should absolve an atheist's affirmation of God's non-existence
of any logical/scientifc flaw as well. Put differently,if the theist's
affirmation has the possibility of being true, then the atheist's
affirmation also has the the possibility of being true.This whole
thing then becomes a charade. The charade is a result of the one-sided
obsession with the atheist's position. A theist's position is equally
flawed, if not more (In fact more, since it is the one proposed first
provoking the atheists's assertion in response). The BURDEN OF PROOF
lies with the proponent, not on its critics. To summarize
The statements1."God exists" and 2. "God does not exist" are BOTH
logically flawed, but (2) would not have been said had (1). not been
stated, but not otherway around. That is the significant asymmetry
Aparthib
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001
Subject: [Aalaap] Re ALL THAT ATHEISM DOES "NOT" OFFER-7/1/01
Let me offer my "explanantion" .
First Re:
"What Aparthib has explained in his latest posting is why he/she
believes the statement "God Exists" is logically flawed as well
when taken in the context of science. Agreed."
My Response: This needs a clarification. I DID NOT say that "God exists"
is "scientifically flawed as well". Rather I said that it is logically flawed and that
It cannot be even be judged in the context of science to be judged scientifically
flawed or not. Logic is the first review board so to speak, only after it passes
the logic review (which it does not) can it be pased on for a scientific review
to be judged if flawed or not.
Next let me offer my explanation on the main point of the
post, which is that by the very possibility that a primitive
human race might have said "Nobody can ever do this", one
should conclude that they implied "God cannot exist" Put
simply it is being argued that
"Nobody can ever do this" --->(implies) "God cannot exist"
This is not a logical inference. It is an indirect assumption
based on one's own interpretation (reading the mind of the
one who is saying that, not a logical method)
1."nobody" here clearly implies another human
2. The concept of "God" in the sense used by theists (which
caused the gensis of atheists) came long after the
prehistoric races. Roughly it is in Judaism that we see
the first ever concept of God. Al other mythical mention
of sea god, mountain god, thunder god etc are just expressing
human sens eof awe at the fury/majesty of nature. These are
not the Gods in the debate of "God exists/does not exist".
So to say the Neanderthals meant to say "God does not exist"
simply by saying "Nobody can ever do this" would be an untenable
stretch of logic. Even today we hear this kind of expression
from normal folks, but they don't mean to imply God does not
exist (This inference would be more logical today as the concept
of God to whom nothing is impossible is firmly established now).
I think I have offered my explanation satisfactorily.
To me it is clear that theism preceded atheism, not the other
way around (hint just stare at the a- in a-theism). It should
be beyond debate.
Aparthib
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
Subject: [Aalaap] Re ALL THAT ATHEISM DOES "NOT" OFFER-7/1/01
I completely disagree that Avijit was "saying a completely different thing
than what� he meant! ". Even his quote did not substantiate this allegation.
Anyway the point is that� when an atheist rejects the claim of� the existence of
an ill-defined� notion of "God"� he/she is not limiting it to any particular
religion, but to ALL religions (Since none of the religion can escape the
inherent contradition in the notion of God) so it is fallacious� to cite a Jew
or Hindu's rejection of Muslim's personal God� to argue that it makes the
Jew or Hindu an atheist. They Hindu or Jew have their own version of
an equally ill-defined God.� Each religion reject s the notion of God of any
other religion except their own. So by your logic� all� religions should be
atheistic! I am afraid it will make it harder to engage in a meaningful debate,
as it is a clear case of sophistry.
Re
"Now, I have a clear belief on what I perceive as God. The problem for an
atheist is that he/she is not� sure what "not to" believe in as there are just so
many different possibilities. "
My response: clear "belief" on a "perception"� does not mean anything.�A clear
"perception" of a "belief" might� be what was meant. A belief is a belief is a belief.
Belief need not make sense or logic. A belief can� even include� 2+2 =5 nobody
can be challenged for a belief. Belief is like a fantasy. Anything is allowed. "clear"
or "unclear" does not apply to belief. Secondly� the author is revealing his� missing
an obvious point. That "atheism" is NOT A BELIEF. It is the REJECTION OF a belief.
Its just like if someone rejects the claim of the existence of "Santa Clause" he is not
placing a belief in anything BUT indicating his ABSENCE of a belief in such.. Most
debators in theism/atheism in academic circles have gotten beyond this confusion, it
is ironic to see it still persists among some.
Re
"Nature does it all. Is it then too much of a stretch to say that the
atheist's God is the nature? "
My response Some atheists do say that. One must realize that many atheists
(not self-proclaimed but labelled by others) are really agnostics, pantheoists,
deists. The trueblue self-proclaimed atheists do claim that nature does it all.
They are not saying deep by that, but rephrasing their ignorance about the
ultimate reality just like a theist phrase their ignorance by invoking an ill-defined
God as doing it. No substantial difference between theists and this kind of atheists.
They both try to hide their ignorance by finding a way around playing with words.
The bottom line is that "NOBODY KNOWS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH
ABOUT REALITY". But at least those well-versed with the latest state of
the natural laws (cosmic code) know how universe and life can spring forth from
the materialization of the cosmic code (Read Laws of Physics). What they don't
know is what is the source/origin of this cosmic code (NOBODY KNOWS). But
it is the physicists who FOUND this cosmic code.
Re :
"And I have not yet explored the issues of HOW we explain the natural
world around us. The way this is done, be that through science, religion
or atheism, makes it even a tougher case against atheism".
My Comment: "tougher case against atheism" -> you are right (If you really
meant it). In fact it makes the the case tougher FOR theism if we note the
fact that science can explain the creation of universe and life thrugh a set of
natural laws(more precisely thorough it matrerialization. "It" from "Bit").
People not familiar with cosmology and evolution's latest state may not be
aware of this remarkable fact. What still remains however is the question
of the creation(origin) of the natural laws themselves. Therein lies the last
hope for theists, by claiming that GOD created those natural laws which in
turn created the rest through its implementation (Just like a neclear bomb is
an implementation of the laws of Physics). It is not a profound thing to say.
Just an adhoc one invoking an ill-defined notion of GOD.
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:19:29 +0600
Subject: [Aalaap] Re: Post #328 [by R. Farook]
This is in reponse to post #328 which is available for view
at the link below:
It was not, and it should not be made into a debate on the
definition of atheism. That would be a diversionary tactic
to change the subject. Anyway, I did use in a recurring manner
a common sense and indispuatble definition which is "rejection
of theism". Here I assumed theism is well-defined. This definition
of atheism subsumes pantheists, deists, process theology,
agnosticism and the true blue atheism (Which you defined as a
the view that observable nature itself is the ultimate reality).
Let's stick to the original issue of whether atheism is flawed
and theism is not. (That was your premise which I intended to
refute). I argued that in the least they are both flawed, and
that from a strict logical standpoint theism suffers from a
greater flaw than atheism. All these have been argued in my
earlier posts, so no need to repeat.
Regarding your comments on the science aspect (again this would
be diverting from the main issue), I have to insist, much of it is
erroneous (although I will not say "completely" wrong as was said
about me). This will take too much space. So I will refer to sites
where I have argued in detail and have given plenty of references.
They are all related to Life, God, Universe, etc., quite relevant to
this debate and will provide all the points and clarifications that
I could possibly give in this context. The URLs are:
http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/scimeta.html#ARTICLE6
http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/scimeta.html#ARTICLE6
http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/religion#article10
http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/religion#article10
The other articles in these two webpages may provide some additional
pertinent views. One is welcome to browse through all of them.
Next some comment on the remaining part of the post.
Re:
"Finally, back to your argument about atheism. If we say an "atheist"
is a non-believer in God and that is the God that we (as opposed to
everyone else) define, then yes, everyone else not believing in God
can be termed an atheist, relative to our belief"
My comment: De Ja vu! I thought I cleared it up. An atheist is not a
non-"believer" in "God" . That's a flawed characterization. An atheist
is one who "rejects" the notion of God because of its inherent contradiction
and vagueness. Belief or non-belief is not relevant to atheism.
Re:
"Your atheist is like Girl Z, claiming to belong to some special
belief system that defies God even though he/she does not know what
God is! "
My comment: First let me rephrase your statement to reflect the truth:
"Atheists "defy" (deny would be more precise) God "because" God is not
defined precisely by theists without contradiction".
Second, your comparison of "girl Z" with atheists missed the point
again.
Atheism is not a special "belief". Unlike the Girl Z when she chose a
"dress" without looking at other dresses, atheists don't have any dress
(i.e God/religion/belief). It is a null set. (absence of all the religious
beliefs). Is it so hard to understand? May be to some it is as is apparent.
On the other hand it is the individual religionist (Muslims, Hindus, Jews,
Christians, et.al.) who can be compared with Girl Z as they all think their
religion is special, and they don't always check out the other religions to
make a comparison before placing their belief in their own religion. They
simply inherit it and are irrevocably biased in favour of their inherited one.
~~Aparthib
Date Sat, 16 Jun 2001 222049 +0600
Subject Re [mukto-mona] From A Newcomer
Dear Manab,
Your curiosity as to what lies at the root of religious belief strikes a similar
chord with my own wondering about it for a while. I have understood as
much as I can as a layman. Here is my summary of my own findings.
Just as cognitive psychologists are now convinced that there is language center in
human brain enabling child to instinctively learn a language, neurobiologists also
now believe that there is a religion center in the brain. This view is gaining ground
day by day. A recent frontpage feature on Newsweek (God and the Brain, May 7, 2001)
also reconfirms this view of neurologists. In fact this is already giving rise to terminologies
like neuroreligion neurotheology etc. Social scientists, philosophers so far tried to
explain religious propensity in humans in subjective terms that always ended up in
jugglery of words with all the words cross referencing each other. Nothing substantive
could be gleaned from it. For a clear and substantive insight objective concepts and ideas
from science has to be utilized. This is what is happenning now. I will provide several
referneces (boks and web links) that will give you a glimpse of the nature of the
sceintific work being conducted and what has been learned. Of course the Newsweek
article will be abn excellent starter. At the root it is evolutionary biology that is the
basis of it all. Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists/psychologists have
theorized on this connection of evolutionary biology and religious belief. Neuro-
biologists have further extended this connection from evolutionary biology to
neurophysiology. In simple terms, religious belief is traceable to survival instinct
in humans. And evolution certainly does what is needed to human organs to increase
odds of survival. It is consciousness (result of the complexity of cerebral cortex) in
human which distinguishes them from other animals and which enables them to be
aware of its mortality that instills religion in its cerebral cortex evolutionarily. We the
skeptics are but aberrations to this neuroreligious wiring of the brain among majority.
This wiring of the brain for belief in general (religious or otherwise) is known as
memes. So, to summarize, religious belief is rooted in biology. For a much more
detailed understanding here are some references
On line Articles
1. For an excellent on line article on the Biological roots of religious
belief check the site http//www.SecularHumanism.org/library/fi/hunt_19_3.html
2. Ali Sina's rationalthinking site has a nice article which discusses the brain-religion
connection http//www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html (Why bad beliefs don't die)
3. Here's an article http//neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/498
that is typical of the modern view from neurological research.
4. Virus of the Mind - Dawkins (http//www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/Dawkins/)
5. http//www.SecularHumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html
(Dawkins on science vs. Religion)
Books
1. In the recent book "The God Part of the Brain", Philosopher of Science Matthew Alper
proposes that beliefs in God, the afterlife, mind-over-matter and superstitions have a
physiological origin and may be encoded into human DNA, evolved as a defense
mechanism to help people cope with the anxiety that comes from being aware of our
own mortality. Alper has made the most convincing and irrefutable case so far of this
view which is based on the results of the latest research on neurology and sociobiology
coupled with Darwinian metaphysics. It has got rave reviews from sociobiologists and
philosophers. Readers are finding it hard to refute it. One reader got too carried away
in his review (under Barnes and Nobles website) and wrote
"The Birth of a New Science Neuroreligion. All 6 billion plus inhabitants of Earth
should be in possession of this book. Matthew Alper's tome should be placed next
to the sacred writings section in the libraries, bookstores and dwellings throughout
the world.Matthew Alper is the new Galileo. (Watch your back Matthew!).."
For an online glimpse of the premise of Alper's work see
http//www.godpart.com/premise.html
2. The meme machine - Susan Blackmore (Explains very convincingly the spread of
religioous memes).
3. For an insightful tour of human mind and the biology of religion refer to the
book "Mystical Mind Probing the Biology of Religious Experience" by
Neurophysiologist and psychiatrist Eugene D' Aquilli. Aquilli(late) is mentioned
as one of the pioneer in this research in the Newsweek article and in fact the work
referred to inNewsweek is an extension of aquilli's research.
4. Last but not the least the monumental tome with 844 pages
"Zen and the Brain" written by Dr. James Austen, a Neurophysiologits from
The Academia who has also practiced Zen meditation himself!
Both Aquilii's and Austen's work point to a neurophysiological basis of all mystical and
religious experiences/beliefs.
Hope that helps in your quest of a deeper understanding of the root of relgious virus.
Aparthib
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Qura'anic Debate-2
Date: Jun 21 2001
Well, Satish Saberwal and Paramanav aptly
cited the examples of Veda, Upanishad being memorized as Shruti's
for millenia. Samir Nandy mentioned Kalidas and Balmiki as other
examples of epics by illiterate folks. I am not sure if Homer was
illierate as well. Need to check it out. The bottom line is that Quran
does not point to anything unprecedented. But it is better to explain
it by objective factors rather tha by similar examples. And the best
explanation is in terms of memes. Instead of going into memetics,
let me point to some nice links and books on this. The idea is that
when a dogma, belief etc is hammered down on a tender brain by
everyone around from childhood to adulthood, it can get firmly
entrenched, often irrepairably. When punishments of hell, rewards
of heaven, concept of sin (gunah) and virtue (sawab), martyrdom as
a guaranteed passport to heaven etc are repeated like a mantra day
in day out, it can produce the most poweful meme that human can
produce, anything can be achieved with such powerful meme.
Memorizing Quran is a picnic with such potent meme at work.
If similar brain washing with carrot and stick was done in any other
religion day in day out we would see similar feats. But we know such
is not done in any other religion except Islam. Remember that meme
is now understood by neurologists as being mapped to a certain set
of neuronal wirings. Brain is a powerful organ, it can be misused,
well-used, or simply over-used in harmless pursuits.
Regarding the following comments
>The Qura�anic debate is not a fare debate. Because, the critics are in an
>advantageous position. In this debate, the believers has to prove that the
>Qura�an from cover to cover is without a shadow of mistake/contradiction.
It is quite fair, as the BURDEN OF PROOF is on those who made such
extraordinary claim. It is fair to expect that one has done all their homework
before making such claims. Once such claim is made before verifying
its validity, then sympathizing with them for the difficulty in validating
their claim is not legitimate. The apologists brought it on to themselves.
They initiated the debate with their extra ordinary claims to begin with.
Regarding the following
>establishes certain financial regulations. It is not a �Mohakabbyo� (what is
>the English word of it?) though its poetic beauty and melody is
>indisputable. It is a kind if its own. It cannot be read in the way all
The "indisputable" above can itself be disputed! The "melody" and "beauty"
you are referring to is to a believer's ear. When you identify with a message,
it sounds many times multiplied in its appeal. Of course there will be some
non-believers who may find the sound of Azan melodic. Many find
Reggae melodic. I don't. Its a personal taste. Many (need not be Mullahs)
in Bangladesh do not find Tagopre songs melodic. So its all personal taste.
And finally regarding your query
>But how the Qura�anic language stood immune to
>that evolution?
I am not sure are you referring to Arabic or Quran itself that did not
change? If its the latter it is easy to explain. Quran cannot change by
definition. Its a tautology to say that. Any mention of change/revision
of Quran invites death sentence. If its the former, I am not an
Arabic scholar to comment on it, but we know how rigid orthodox
Islam is in incorporating foreign word or elements. That can explain
it. Nothing divine about it. Is it. Occam's razor can provide us lot of
simple plausible explanations.
Aparthib
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:59:44 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] For lina Al-Gay
Dear lina Al-Gay,
You have made derogatory mention of "idol-worship" twice in
your post. If you think "idol-worship" is wrong can you justify
your thinking so by defining "wrong" first and then relate "idol-worship"
to your definition to justify it. Let me anyway ask you, does it hurt
you in anyway if your Hindu colleague at work worships an idol
in her home or inside a temple? Please think carefull before you
answer.
Second, you tried to trace a UN charter for tolerance to the
verse "Koran 109:6 .... To you your religion and to me Mine"
The expression "To you your religion and to me Mine" can be said
by an RSS/Hindutya fanatic to a Muslim or vice versa without
being a liar/hypocrite. It is a tautological statement to make, because
it cannot be otherwise. It does not prevent intolerance (And it does
not, as we see so clearly). Its like saying "I am Muslim. You are a
Jew". or "I am a Hindu. You are a Muslim" . Does that add anything
beyond the tautlogy to instil tolerance? Of course people tolerant by
nature will read tolerance in it. But tolerant people do not need such
tautology to become tolerant. They are tolerant to begin with. The
intolerant ones would not read anything beyond the tautology.
Date: Sun Jul 15 18:18:53 2001
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Some thoughts (Nadiya, Usman and Dr.Sina)
Very well said. Except I don't see any reason to get satisfaction
of scoring some points when "believer's face turns blue claiming victory."
I must remind us that we are talking about the coerecive/oppressive aspects
of religion, not religion as a general belief system. Logical refutation of
non-oppressive/non-coercive but illogical aspects of religion in response
to apologists' claims is also fair game. Diehard believers will never get it,
they will always claim victory and also will sincerely believe they are right
and all logic against them are false, so getting satisfaction in a debate with
them is out of the question. All that rationalists can achieve and feel
satisfaction for is that many fence sitting moderates (Who are the majority)
can be swayed by logic and evidence. And they are silent most of the time.
Their effects will hopefully be eventually felt. I don't think prefixing prophets
and saints' name with Mr. Mrs etc will have any impact on the die hard believers.
that may enrage them instead.
Regarding the 7 ponts listed as the reason for success, all makes sense.
At a more fundamental level, there is one reason which is biological: BEST
strategy for implementing the STRONGEST survival instinct. Maybe the
"BEST" is the result of "STRONGEST". BEST here is not in the ethical
sense, but in the sense of providing the best odds of success :). The meek, the
gentle, the peaceful never have the "STRONGEST" urge of survival (sigh).
As biologist David Buss says "Our ancestors were all jealous, thats why we are
here. Those who were not do not have any successor alive today" today.
If through the knowledge of science rationalists ever develop a much more
effective counter strategy situation will not change. None of the strategies are
working very well as of now, but no better strategy is known either. Only time
will tell what lies ahead. So I agree that any strategy as as relevant as another
and let everyone try to counter it in their own way, as long as it does not
violate the basic human rights. Avijit, Ali sina etc can be mutually complementary,
not mutually exclusive .
Aparthib
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2001 131912 +0600
Subject Re [mukto-mona] Re Islamic atrocities in bangladesh June 20
This is in response to gsubrec's post.
>[...]
agreed with all of the above, except want to point out that Raja Ram
Mohan Roy had the back up (and he chose to utilize that) from the
British Raj. That was key to his success . The fanatics did try
hard to oppose him and since British rule was strictly enforced they(
fanatics) could not have done anything to pose anty physical threat
to Ram Mohan. Such is not the case in many Islamic nations. No
government is willing or capable to protect any reformer against
the fanatics' threat. There are exceptions of course. Turkey, Iraq,
Syria, Morocco etc are free from or much less infested with religious
extremism/acts. Malaysia may have some fanatic elements, but thay
are not hostile to Non-Muslims, only believe in practicing orthodox
rituals of islam.
> Greece- Population exchange with turkey - successful
> Yugoslavia - secularism - unsuccessful
> Albania, USSR, China, - repression - partly successful, but once
> repression is ended, islam came back
Repression of religion is not ethically right. Freedom of religion
is as basic a human right as any other. Communism as a dogma
just tried to get rid of another dogma. And "Islam came back"
is not or should not be an issue or concern. Relgion is there, we
cannot do anything about it. It is the oppressive aspect which
should be an issue. Most of the Muslims in China, Korea,
Russia etc are peaceful. There may be some exceptions,
and the exceptions have to be dealt with socio-culturally by
the rest to defang them.
[..]
A case for a reaction cannot logically be made just on the basis of increasing or
decreasing numbers. It may seem impalatable to the folowers of religion "X" to see
number of religion "Y" increase due to higher breeding rate or the number of religion
"X" decrease due to lower breeding rate or migration. But that cannot by any standard
of ethics or humanity provide a ground for a back lash or the formation of a hate
campaign. The focus must be on actual crimes committed or human rights violated by
some members of "X" on some or many members of "Y". And yes, it does happen. It
happens in everywhere, in different degree. In Bangladesh it is certainly true that
minority Hindus have been vicitimized by Muslim fanatics, but actually those fanatics
are more accurately criminal thugs taking advantage of the inherent weakness of
the minority to commit crimes which is their prime motive. The same criminals are
also vicitimizing weaker members from the same religion but they are not reported
or appear to be acts of religious fanaticism. This is an irony. Actually the fang of the
real Islamic fanatics are felt by fellow Muslims, like the target of Fatwas are Muslim
women in the villages, and the poets/authors (also Muslim) etc.
[..].
Thanks,
Aparthib
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:19:26 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: A Sanatan Criminals' Last Ploy?
You lost some further credibility here. BD DID NOT
declare itself an Islamic State. If it did then it would be
governed by Sharia law, prevailing constitution would
have been scrapped, BD would not be a democracy
anymore, Sheikh Hasina (A female, labelled pro-India
to boot) could not have been the head of state, Jamat
would not have gotten three seats, and the religious
parties would not need to campaign so vigorously
for an Islamic State. (None of the above is true).
It sure helps to set up BD as an Islamic State so
that ALL Bangladeshis (not just the true fanatics)
can be painted as fanatic or supporter of fanaticism ,
or opponent of secularism.
(Excellent illustration of Straw man fallacy).
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2001 231613 +0600
Subject Re [mukto-mona] Re A Sanatan Criminals' Last Ploy?
Well, democracy, social justice, freedom of speech, secularism, rule of
law, none of these are ever fully implemented, even though they are
all declared as goal. So it is not at all a profound statement to say
that Sharia is not fully implemented. Thos e who have not implemented
it fully (Assuming truth of what you claim) are not consciously holding
back its 100% implementation. They obviously preach 100% as their ideal
goal and working towrds it. Otherwies they are not Islamic State, not
all Muslim countries are Islamic State as I said earlier. Either there is
an Islamic State, or their isn't. It can't be both partially. Regarding
Bangladesh, In 1978, secularism was dropped from the constitution,
true, but that hardly affetcted national policies at all, it was a symbolic
move (Which no secularists agree with) to satisfy the precondition of
some Oil Rich Muslim states for giving economic aid to BD. Vested
propery act has been abolished by present government. Now come to
your number game. No argument can be made for or against a
principle /ideal by sheer numbers and finding correlation between the
numbers (decrease in population) and some cause (religious fanaticism).
This is known in logic as either (1) Fallacy of false cause or (2)
causal reductionism
Let me explain. The decrease in population due to migration can be traced to
multiple causes
1.Increased job opportunity in India.
2.Inherent insecurity of being a minority.
3.Discrimination (mostly isolated cases. Present in India as well)
4. Victim of criminal acts, like rape, abduction,assaults as you mentioned.
1 and 2 no one can have any issue with. 3 is unfortunate and can be
dealt with through legal measures by a sincere government .
Now come to 4. which gsubrec mentioned as the prime cause of BD->India
migration. Now does gsubrec know that many Muslim citizens of
Bangladesh are being the daily victims of rape, assault, eviction,
extortion etc by the Mafia groups, gangs (Knoiwn as mastans). Now
Hindu victims can flee to India. The hapless Muslim victims cannot
do that. They are trapped in BD and have to face these hyenas. Being
of same religion is certainly not going to help. So to correlate the
migration due to these acts of crimes by CRIMINALS with religious
torture is an obvious fallacy of false causation or correlation
(Intentionally made). This is not to diminish the plights of the minority.
But this is not the plight of just the Hindus. Muslim victims
have a common share in this plight. And I am certainly not proud of this
crime gangs perpetrating their heinous acts with relative impunity. It is a
disgrace to our government/party. If a strong rule of law is enforced to
protect ALL, that will also include the minority. It is totally irrelvant to
cite increase of Muslim population in India. No human laws are violated
or laws broken by increased population. Hindus are free to preach/practice
vigorous higher breeding rate to counter that. I repeat, I am not insensitive
to the plight of the minority in Bangladesh, but I believe that is more due to
overall decrease in law and order, disrespect for human lives (in general),
rise of gangster culture etc than due to rise in religious fanaticism. Rise
of religious fanaticism has rather adversely affected the Muslims secular
authors/poets, feminists, NGO workers, etc, women targeted for Fatwa etc.
If gsubrec is really interested in the plight of the minorities due to factor 4
then he better sic RSS on the Maafias and Mastans of Bangladesh, and they
will be our welcome guest for that, instead of preaching blanket hatred
like KKK, Aryan nation etc.
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 12:46:12 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Shotyer Shondhaane!
At 8/19/01 04:28 AM, you wrote:
>
> self-proclaimed truth seeker, whose pseudonym is arguably a veritable
> contradiction to his stated intentions, here is my humble
>
truth seeker != truth revealer/confessor.
BTW No scientist(Truth seekers) is required to
expose the truth about his sexual orientation/
family info etc for truth "seeking".
>
> --If ANY particular 'dogma' endeavors to serve ALL humanity, would
> you not consider some illumination on it? Are you suggesting that
>
>
No such dogma exists, all dogmas envisage serving ALL
by first covering (By force if necessary) ALL under the
dogma, no dogma intends to serve anyone who chooses
to stay outside the dogma. In other words all DOGMAS
preach indoctrination/conversion as a prerequisite for
serving. Any example to the contray would be appreciated
>
> HUMANISM as YOU understand it does not have any DOGMAS; are you
> implying that DOGMAS can only exist if religions serve as their
> backdrop? Might it be reasonable to speculate that an objective
>
>
Humanism does not have any dogma (By strict definition,
agan a counter example would be very helpful)
Humansim also does not require anyone to abandon any
dogma as precondition for serving them, as long as the
dogma is not used for oppression, human rights abuse.
Example, a humanist might be a peace corps member and
help the earthquake victims in India (Hindus mostly),
or the famine victims in Somalia (Mostly Muslims). An
atheist may have a believer friend and vice versa and they
do help each other in times of crisis.
[...]
And whether it was religion basing article (That is a differrent
issue from stealing his post by the group), that is a judgement call.
To a believer any criticism of even a subset of religious tenents is
"Religion-bashing". In other words one has to stop critiquing
religion totally to be absolved of "religion-bashing" accusation.
Not tenable in this age of freespeech and illumination. Nothing
is above criticism. Creationists are criticizing well-establishes
scientific principles (NOT dogmas ) wity impunity, sicentists are
not launching lawsuits or abusing the creationists personally,
they only argue back with more logic and evidence and gives up
trying to convince and goes about their business if that does not
work. So criticizing some religious tenets can by no -means be
judged religion-"bashing", and it would have been much preferable
for religious apologists to do what the scientists do against the
creationists.
>
> --When any one of us chooses to engage in a FREE-style critique of
> any religion using vituperative and unsubstantive language, we
>
Those two words are "judgement" calls. MAYBE some
may have genuinely used such language (apologists
uses such genuinely much more often), but then that
does not justify vicariously accusing the entire freethinkers/
huamnists group. Besides such usage of vituperative
was not directed against a person, burt some oppressive
aspect of religion, in my knowledge so far. If it was directed
against a perosn (A truly vituperative language, not like you
are wrong/mistaken) then I am sure majority of freethinkers
would not subscribe to it, but would not raise hell as it still
not be as pressing an issue like incidents of human rights
violation being committed around the world and beiong
defended (or condoned) by apologists. One need to discern
this vital difference.
P.S It seems apparent to me (I may be wrong, please point out
if so with arguments ) that you are holding the freethinkers
onto a to a much higher standard than the apologists. It is OK to
the freethinkers if you intendt that as their well-wisher as a fellow
freethinker . But it will not be OK to the freethinkers (But will be
OK to the apoogists) if it is intended in reverse. As a strict neutralist
one should require equal standard from all (I believe in strict
neutrality as far satisfying a uniform standard for all, I hope
all freethinkers do, as rationlists they should). It will be highly
appreciated that you clarify where your stand in this.
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:31:14 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: TO: Aparthib [response to post #2052]
(metaphorical language)
If we accept the premise that ALL religious extremists are
worth condemning, then by the same token, many verses
in the holy book can also be considerd worthy of unedited
quote (like "Kill idolators/infidels") by the Islamic
extremists (and they do) as well to suit their agenda. To be
To be consistent would you not then agree that such verses
should also be judged to have been phrased without paying
due concern for its potential misuse? What goes around
comes around. You have bound yourself to doing so by
criticizing the mortal authors for not guarding against the
possible misuse by extremists of their "incendiary" language.
The same standard should be used against some verses of
the scriptures, as you are using against the writings of these
mortals freethinkers? And its not just only the verses or
the "incendiary" articles of freethinkers, many selected
quotes of famous folks if taken verbatim but out of
context (Like Nazrul) can serve anyone's extremist agenda,
Should we not then reevaluate (posthumously even) all
the writings of all and put under the magnifying glass for
such potentially misusable quotes? Where does it lead us to?
The point is we have to grant some leeway to any authors
as long as some guidelines are not grossly violated (personal
attacks, hints of violnece/coercuion etc).
This misguided puritanism unfortunately is costing the
freethinkers (in terms of spending valuable energy clarifying)
rather than the extremists or apologists (who actually gloat
over it). That is issue of real concern here.
Aparthib
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:08:08 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Some Additional Clarifications for Mr. Ali Sina!
[...]
1. The first point is that we should not gloss over subtle yet vital
qualitative difference. One such difference that was glossed over
by Munir is apparent in his following remark:
"Although it is not your cup of tea, but do these stories justify someone
else's similar zeal as yours to hark on "Eradicate Christianity"?
The fact is that the scriptures of Christianity (specially New Testament)
does not contain verses, exhortations that are explicitly hostile to
dissenters, disbelievers and other believers that can lead to oppression
if followed literally. So speaking of "eradicating Christianity" would
be even logically untenable (Besides being tactless) as those stories
can in no way be literally traced to christianity (Implying it's dogma and
scriptures) itself. So the only ones left to be justifiably blamed are
those extremists who committed those horrible acts in the NAME OF
christianity. But in contrast we have to face the unpalatable fact that
the Islamic scriptures (Koran and specially hadith) do contain plenty
of hostile references to dissenters, disbelievers, other believers (A
disagreement on its existence can be settled by exact citations)
which if followed literally can and do lead to tyranny. So a genuine
difference exists and a metaphoric mention of eradication (through
enligtenment/exposure) of THOSE HOSTILE segment of Islamic
scriptures in addition to blaming the genuine abusers of Islam,
would not be as irrelevant as it would be for christianity where
such hostile refernces do not exist. As critical freethinkers we should
discern vital differences and ac knowledge it, regardless of how
politically incorrect/unpalatable it appears to a freethinker with
some residual soft-corner towards their religion of inheritance,
from which they have graduated to freethinking/rationalism/skepticism.
2. The second point I wish to make is that I agree with Munir that
the expression "eradicate Islam" can be exploited by the dogmatists
to (mis)interpret it in the sense that they seem to understand and
follow : violence/coercion (Of Islam in ENTIRETY, evoking the spirit
of Jehad as a reaction, even though an eradication of the OPPRESSIVE
part through enlightenment was purported). While their interpretation
is genuinely wrong, it still adds extra work for Freethinkers to have
to now battle on two fronts. One front is the usual one of
enlightenment/exposure, the other front being the clarification/defense
against the apologists (including even the moderates, who have this
visceral revulsion of any mention of total absence of religion, as
misconstrued in the metaphoric "eradication" word) who have
conveniently misinterpreted the "eradication" and found a cause for
declaring a war against the freethinker for using such word. I agree
that this second extra baggage could have been averted by tactically
avoiding such metaphoric expressions. But my difference with Munir
would be in not making a public issue of this tactical mistake, loudly
so that the apologists can hear it. That adds a third front (baggage
that the freethinkers have to deal with, which is to clarify again to
Munir (and to the apologists) the true sense in which the word
"eradication" was meant.
I also agree that using extreme adjectives to label any person
(specially religious figures held in reverence ) is not consistent
with rationalism and should not have been used. While the
metaphoric word used against a subset of religious dogma can be
defended at an ideological level (not tactical though), using extreme
adjectives to describe any person is indefensible in ideologically and
tactically. One should be done listing historical facts about any
influential/famous person by quoting from authentic sources
and leave the readers to form their own perception in their mind
as to how to/whether to use any label. Being tactical would have
still served the same goal of enlightenment/exposure while saving
himself from the extra baggage of having to defend against the bitter
accusation of intentionally hurting the religious sentiments of all
(including the "non-extremist" moderate apologists). That way the
apologists would be forced to face the facts and deal with it, instead
of using those "adjectives" to divert attention and focus on the
author's motive and thus conveniently avoid the trouble of having
to deal with the unpleasant historical facts quoted verbatim from
sources that even extremists cannot call into question
3. I think my clarification in 2 above would now help explain why the
Hindutya site could post the articles by freethinkers verbatim and
still get some mileage out of it. Because they can also conveniently
misinterpret the "eradicate" in the sweeping sense (Islam in its
enitirety) to further their own cause of eradicating Islam in its
literal sense. But, instead of criticizing them for not
avoiding this potentially misusable metaphor in front of the
apologists so that the apologists can get some mileage out of his
critcism of the freethinkers (what we call same side in soccer),
I would have preferred that he criticized them in appropriate forum
where this criticism with good intemtions could not be exploited
by anyone for gaining unfair mileage. and create extra baggages for
those whose goals are enlightenment/exposure to reveal and
thus "eradicate" the oppressive side of religious dogma (Not
religion itself as I emphasized) by creating an awareness/
consciousness among the religious followers. After all it is
the means and not the end that all are agreed to, the end
being the goal just mentioned above.
Aparthib
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:01:09 +0600
Subject: Re: [eSHOMABESH] Dr. Shaikh Action Alert - Point of Law
(The "it was all according to law" defense)
When lawmakers theselves din't give any consideration to
humanity then defending such extreme punishment (taking
life in cold blood) for exerizing such a basic right as free
speech "It was in accordance to the laws" is a statement that
can only come from a heartless computer. And we are taking
about an extreme act of taking away life (Nothing could be
more extreme than that) which is preached to be the most
precious gift of God, and can only be taken by God according
to scriptures.
1. Hisroshim and Nagasaki was bombed according to US laws.
2. Hitler can justify killing Jews by justifying it was in accord with
Nazi laws.
3. Spanish Inquisition could (and did) justify their persecutions
by "It was in accordance to the laws" clause.
4. US laws allowed slavery before civil war and segregation was
legal in many parts of USA before civil rights act of 1964.
5. Stalin could justify his killings by the same clause "In accordance
to the communist laws"
6. POL Pot can justify killing fields by the same claws.
All the crimes that have been and is beeing committed by any state
can be defended by the same clause. That would invalidat any criticism
against any oppression anywhere. And we think we have come a long
way from the days of inqusition, slavery etc.
So how dare the world condemned all the above acts?
secondly when the judges of the lower courts uphold the decision only
out of fear of the extremists and not by their conscience what kind
compliance of law is that?
thirdly, whether it was even a balsphemy is itself in serious question.
According to many Islamic sources it was not. And many religious
individulas are also condemning it. So to defend this inhuman
death verdict in principle is even more inhuman.
When the lawmakers violate "universal human rights" in such an
extreme fasion (taking away life for mere speech)" the the world
can arguably question/criticize such laws or at least the extreme
implemention such of such a law.
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 12:25:51 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] TO: Aparthib and Avijit ..
[...]
2. Those apologists will take your
posts as a moral boost for themselves and as a vindication of their
position (As you leave a wide room open for them to interpret that
you are speaking on their behalf) and fortifies their position, which
adds some extra work for the freethinkers who have to clarify and
defend themselves, which is needed to preclude some non-committal
readers of those forums from forming a negative impression
about freethinking. Of course you can still say if those non-committal
readers "choose" to tilt one way based on your post, then its their
right, so why should it be an issue to freethinkers? The answer is
obvious, if they are tilted by your posts, it is possible they may be
retilted the other way reading the refutations by the freethinkers.
It is a battle(peaceful) of ideas and my point is that your posts
push the freethinkers back one step and they have to advance
two steps to make any progress in that battle (without your post, it
would have been one step).
3. Some of the goals of dogmatists and those of the
freethinkers may overlap, like staying away from dishonesty,
corruption , helping people in distress (although dogamtists
put priority in helping the distressed who subscribe to their
dogma). But those overlap goals do not count as the deciding
factor as to who you identify with in principle, it is the
non-overlapping goals and ideals which count, and I again
assume you are with the freethinkers.
Thanks,
aparthib
Date Wed, 25 Jul 2001 121918 -0000
Subject [Aalaap] Re Response to Shabnam Nadiya
[..]
Only religion is fairness? ["(1) Fairness is religion"]. So all
non-religious individuals/societies are unfair without exception,
right? And all religious folks/societies are fair without exception? If
we accept that significant exceptions do exist among either, then the
religious/non-religious factor has no relevance to fairness/morality
etc. Japan and Singapore both have a non- religious majority
population. Buddhists are godless people, since Buddhism is a
philosophy, not a religion. Yet, they are far more fair and moral
than many religious societies. Too many points can be made to make
a case for morality's human roots, not divine. The fact that many
religions do encourage moral behavior do not make morality divinely
ordained, since many humanly developed philosophy and school of
thought taught the same morality long before the religions arose
(Confucius, Buddha, many Greek and Indian sages). I will refer
interested readers to consult anyone of the following links to
appreciate human source of morality:
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2001 000222 +0600
Subject Re [mukto-mona] Clarification !!!!!!!! ??????? !!!!!!!!
Dear Avijit,
[...]
You are right ALL religions are based on many falsehoods . But combating
it need not be the focus for all of us. The best way to counter these
falsehoods are a vigorous science education program encouraged at the
grass roots level. In India fortunately many rural college and school teachers
(specially in the South) are forming informal clubs to debunk myths and
fake claims of Godmen and teaching these to their students with success.
Here in USA many falsehoods are being propagated by Quantum/Mystical
Healers, Creationists, Postmodernists (who are nothing but scientific
quacks). They will be there. Freethinkers cannot do much to make them
disappear, but can only debunk them intellectually. I agree with Dr. Sina's
putting top priority on fighting the oppressive aspects of religion that
are still being practiced/condoned/ and the threats that those who criticize
them face from the fanatic elements ( with the connivance of the moderate
apologists). And the top priority it should deserve as they are issues of
human rights violation.
Regarding falsehoods there are two kinds of falsehood (1) offensive (2)
neutral It is the offensive falsehoods of religion that inspires the
followers to infringe on other's basic human rights that should be
challeneged/fought, not the neutral ones. Religion is a vehicle for many
peaceful folks seeking solace in trying times. My sister found peace
through praying when widowed. She needed religion for her sanity. She meant
or did no harm to anyone through that irrational act. Every religion offers
that vehicle for their respective members.
So religion cannot or should not be targeted in a blanket sense. It is the
dangerous falsehoods and its vicious spread by the extremsist that
should be fought. It is the declawing /defanging of the extremists in all
religions that need to be done. How it can be done I am not sure. Nasser,
Borguiba, Ataturk had success, but not in an everlasting way. I hope I was
able to set the perspective for you through my "clarification".
Aparthib
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 22:35:56 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Sandipda's Experience
At 7/29/01 09:21 G. Brec wrote:
[..]
virtue and vice of humanity as a whole are not divided across religious
boundary. A good majority of the followers of any religion are not inherently
inferior/superior to others. Your position has been to pit Hinduism against
Muslims. You have failed to empahsize the humanism as the primary factor.
But have only acted as the messenger of RSS and Hindu supremacists.That
takes away from your credibility as a humanist. As you correctly pointed
out peaceloving and reformist Muslims are handicapped by the real threat
posed by the extremists.
Hindu reformists did not have to face this real threat. So it made their work
easy. Its not that they are more reform minded than moderate Muslims. So it is
not that the majorty of Muslims are any different/inferior to the majority of the
Hindus. It is only that the Islamic extremists are extremley vengeful against
anyone differing with them. Add to that the factor of funding of Islamic extremists
by oil rich countries or rich organiztions (Bin Laden's group) I bet if Hinduism
retained its oppressive aspects until today and RSS was funded by a hypothetical
rich Hindu Nation/group, AND RSS/Hindutya fanatics becomes extremely violent
(issuing Hinutya version of Fatwa) then any attempt in Hinduism would face the
same dilemma as the moderate Muslim. So it DOES not prove that Islam/Muslims
are inherently more evil than any other.
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:01:13 +0600
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PEACE Re: Atheism kills imagination
At 8/15/01 08:59 PM, you wrote:
>
> Surely the world has not forgotten the mass executions commited by
> the atheist USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, China and in a private
[..]
> Munim
I feel compelled to point out an important fallacy of characrterization
here. the fallacy being that of associating atheism with acts of atrocities
committed by various dogmatist dictators in history. One need not
be an atheist to refute the this kind of fallacies. Just because Stalin,
Gang of Four, Hitler, Polpot etc were all atheists (By the way David
Koresh was not an atheis, but very much a christian fundamentalist)
do not mean they committed their atrocities IN THE NAME OF or
BECAUSE OF atheism. Lets take the example of Stalin's oppression.
He may be described as a human who was:
(1) A white, (2) A male , (3) A communist, (4) A Russian ,
(5) A tall guy, (6) A guy with moustache, (7) An atheist etc.
Now one might fallaciously conclude generalizing from his
atrocities and his attribute above that Only:
1. Whites commit atrocities (Suits a non-white)
2. Males commits atrocities (Suits a radical feminist)
3. Russians commit atrocities (Suits an anti-Russian)
4. Communists commit atrocities (Suits capitalists/democtartists)
5. Tall guys commit atrocities (suits a short guys)
6. Guys with moustache commit atrocities
(Suits a guy whose wife ran away with a guy with moustache)
7. Atheists commit atrocities (Suits a theist).
Of course common sense thinking and a little knowledge of history
should should convince anyone that it was Stalin's personality and his
obsessive hunger for power and love for communistic ideals and
intolerance of any opposition (perceived as well as real) to his
ambition that was the reason for his atrocities and acts of oppression.
Sometimes an event itself does not become an issue as much as the
characterization of the event. If a communist dictator's crime is
characterized as an "atheistic" crime then by using that same logically
fallacious characterization the acts of a murderer, acid-thrower, thief,
rapist, smuggler etc can be characterized as theistic crime as well. In
fact most criminals are not atheists. So most crimes in the world can
be characterized as theistic crimes. The fallacy lies in conveniently
splitting the entire human race by theists (when it suits them) into
two camps (atheists and theists, instead into other more appropriate
camps) so that they can vilify atheism by citing oppressive acts of
communists, as communist are also atheists. (By the way thats the
example they can quote). There is no example of a non-political
atheist (individual or leader) who committed acts of oppression
DUE TO/IN THE NAME OF atheism, becasue atheism (I repeat not
communism) is not a dogma containing exhortations (Thou shalt kill,
maim, etc") . All such acts were motivated by a desire for suppressing
political opposition to communist dogma. On the other hand there
are ample instances of non-political theist (individual or dictator)
who has committed or is committing acts of oppression/human
rights abuse DUE TO/IN THE NAME OF religious dogmas. The
medieval inquisition is a good eample of oppression in the name
of christianity. All the Islamic countries routinely commit human
rights violation in the name of Sharia Rules (On women and dissenters),
and religious scriptures do contain hostile mentions of non-believers
and dissenters, and exhorts followers to fight the non-believers. So
there is a fundamental difference between communistic oppression
and theistic ones. The former is inspired by a desire to stifle
opposition to communist dogma, (hence NOT due to atheism per se),
the latter is inspired from exhortations in religious scriptures (Hence
DUE to theism per se).
Aparthib
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:17:35 +0600
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PEACE Re: To Mr.Fatemolla (Quoting contrad. verses)
At 8/18/01 04:02 AM, you wrote:
>
> From the Quran.....
>
> Al-Baqara (The Cow) (Arabic) - Recite
> 2:62 Lo! those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, ...
The problem with this approach of quoting a verse from
Quran to make a point is that it is possible to quote
another contradictory verse to make the counter point.
Apologists will be quick to add that you have taken the
counter verse out of context . But then it is equally valid
to argue that the original verse was also taken out of
context. There is no objective criteria to judge which was
not or which wasn't taken out of context when the language
is quite clear as to what the verse is saying. Saying
"out of context" itself is a subjective expression that can be
exploited to suit ones purpose. Either we accept both (Then
we end up in contradiction), or reject both (Then quoting
scriptures is of no help to make any point). Since ALL verses
are supposed to be of absolute validity as word of God it is
impossible to argue against any verse being exploitated one
way or the other. An example of a contradictory verse to that
you cited would be Sura Al-Imran: 3.85 and Sura AL-MAEDA : 5:51
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:40:40 +0600
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PEACE A bunch of children pointing fingers
(not all holy books holy)
At 8/17/01 08:51 PM, barbara stanton wrote:
>
> them... Like I said before All religions and sacred
> texts speak of peace, not war...some how those
[...] Many sacred texts do speak
of war (Of course peace too). [...]
Now examples. Gita (The most scared text of Hinduism) do
emphasize that war is justifed and a necessary evil (Refering to
the war beteen the Kauravas and the Pandavas). Old testament
talks about war (eye for an eye etc), as well and promising Jews
of the land of Canaan driving out the Canaanites. New testament
talks about armageddon. Quran talks about war profusely
(even glorifying and mandating it for believers against non-believers).
Only Buddhist texts to my knowledge has completely avoided
mentioning war, rather emphasizing peace and non-violenence
(To a fault, some might say, unrealistic in this violent world).
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 18:43:16 +0600
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PEACE No act of injustice should eer e overlooked by anyone
At 8/19/01 12:08 PM, Cyndie wrote:
>
>[..]
> tool of oppression. It is not Islamic what these people are doing no
> more than the Inquisition of Spain or Crusades were Christian acts.
I agree with you 100% with the first part . But I disagree
with the last part where you claimed that the acts of
Islamic Tyrants are inconsistent with Islam itself and that
the acts of the Spanish Inqusition were contrary to
christianity. While the acts of Spanish Inquisition was
genuinely against the Christian values (Specially
New testament), the acts of Islamic tyrants are not
necessarily inconsistent with Islamic scriptures. These
Tyrants are just implementing Sharia Laws (Which is
considered essentail part of authentic Islam by majority).
Hence they are not tyrants who are literal believer of
Islamic scriptures. I agree with the remaining of your post.
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 22:11:55 +0600
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PEACE- to Cyndie, Re: Atheism kills imagination
(The familiar "No truly Islamic state eists" defense)
At 8/20/01 02:41 AM, you wrote:
>
> Since there are NO ISLAMICALLY ruled countries in the world please refrain
> from blaming the blameless.
[..]
2. "There are NO ISLAMICALLY ruled countries in the world" (100%
Islamic is implied here) is a convenient clause to absolve of
all countries ruled "PARTIALLY ISLAMICALLY" (Which do exist) of
any blame for wrongs they commit. Partially can range from
anywhere upto 98%. And within the sample of these partially
Islamic nations, it is seen the more Islamically a country is
ruled the more oppressive it is. So how can one extrapolate
and have confidence that a transition to 100% (from 90-98%)
will suddenly reverse to an ideal paradise? (Unless all those
who don't believe in religious coercions accept it as fate and
acquiesce under 100% rule)
3. Just as "There are NO ISLAMICALLY ruled countries in the world"
clause can conveniently be utilized by apologists of Islam to
absolve Islam of any flaw, apologists of other religions/dogmas
can absolve their religion/isdeology of any flaw by refering to
a similar clause. That way all dogmas (Communism, Marxism,
Nazism, Fascism, various cults engaged in extremism) can
absolve themselves by the "NOT 100%" clause. It is fair and
realistic to judge all religions/dogmas by the acts of the ones
that are closest in their implementation (95% or whatever)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:18:20 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Adnan :- breastfeeding
At 8/17/01 06:24 AM, Lina Al-Gay wrote:
>
> THen can i also assume that you guys make such generalization concerning
> islam?
No. If and when anyone did make any unfair generalization I am
sure you (or any other freethinker, I would have) did not forget to
justifiably point that out to him/her. It would have been relevant
to do so then. If you didn't point it out to him/her at that time
then now there is no point to bring it up now in this contet.
Besides it doesn't justify your generalization now. That would be
a "Tu Quoque" fallacy.
By the way quoting exactly from scriptures and using established
logical rules to argue against claims of miraculousness/
scientific validity/absolute truth etc of Islam by apologists etc , or
to cite and criticize instances of coercion, oppression and other
human rights abuse in the name of Islam by those who take Islam
very seriously is NOT a generalization. Neither is the argument
against similar claims of apologists of other religions or criticism
of its certain negative practices be considered a generalization.
A generalization would clearly imply that Islam (or any religion)
is ALL negative or that ALL or MAJORITY of its followers are bad,
just as associating a negative trait with majority of males will be
considered a generalization (Which started all this). I have not
seen that being done here by any rationalist/freethinker, unless I
missed any such post .
RE: [eSHOMABESH] Enemies of Humanity
date: 8/28/01
[...]
����� All of the above is pure theory and is only one man's
����� opinion (in this case yours), most others don't have
������this opinion, who believe in a more orthodox
������interpretation/implementation of religion, where
������things are more rigidly defined/practiced. Its the
������version of religion as implemented/enforced/
����� endorsed by the majority that� matters,�not what
����� a minority of� passive�individuals perceive it to
����� be as� in case of� Dr. Shaikh.
contained in M-M post below:
To: M-M 9/18/02 Re: Why We Critique Only Islam !
[...] Also the very title of the thread (Why we critique
"Only" Islam ) is misleading. It should not be why critique "only",
but why critique "more often", or why "sustained"?. Of course all
these issues are internal within those who claim to be freethinkers,
agnostics, secularists, moderate fideists (see my article in Mukto-Mona
"A GUIDE TO DEBATING RELIGIOUS ISSUES" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/6557 , for
terminologies). For the religious apologists, the issue is not why
"only", or why "more often", but simply "Why". So my essay assumes
that scope of this issue. And my purpsose is to argue that it should
not be "only", but "more often/sustained" and try to give some
rationale behind that.
First let me make this affirmation, so no one can make the same hasty
generalization as they invariably do to others. ALL ACTS of terrorism/
extremism are wrong, evil and worthy of condemnation regardless of
the affliation of the perpetrators. If an extremist kills an innocent
child(or any human), for the sole reason they belonged to a particular
faith then it is equally helinous morally, wherther it is by a fanatic
of religion A, or religion B, or by ANYONE, period. But that does not
mean that the role of religious scripture in those respectve acts of
extremism are also equal. This important distinction is ignored or
missed by even some secular liberals.
Not taking on each individual post. let me try to addres in a general
way the points that all those posts share in general. The points can
be summarized below as (Stripping off all redundancies):
1. All extremisms are equally bad, so why critique only one particular
extremism?
2. Why focus on religious extremism, when there are are other serious
problems in the world, like hunger, poverty etc?
3. Why (a) criticize Islam and (b) Demonize All Muslims for the acts
of some of its followers?
4. Critiques of Islam are no different from the religious fanatics
themselves.
5. Why look at the negative sides only of religion, why not focus on
the good sides only? People with evil intentions will see only the
dark side, the good guys look only at the benign side.
Let me address each point in the same sequence as listed above
with rationalism as the sole guide:
1. Extremists exist in all religious scriptures and all extremisms are
equally bad, so why critique only one particular extremism?
It is not a secret that Old testament, some Hindu scriptures like
Manu (and even Vedas) do contain some unacceptable and intolerant
passages (If not towards other religious followers by name, to a
class of people with some distinct attribute). It will be hard to
find such passages in Buddhist scriptures, though. So it is not true
that ALL religions contain intolerant passages. The Old tetament, as
well as the Hindu scriptures have been critiqued many a times in past,
and no SUSTAINED violent counter movement resulted from those
critiques. Those passages have been acknowledged by mainstream as
being intolerant and unacceptable by the mainstream followers and are
not zealously defended by them anymore. Most importantly those
passages are not giving rise to a sustained extremist movement nor ar
the criticism of those passages giving riise to a sustained violent
backlash against the critiques, like it is in Islam. So therein lies
the primary rationale for why critique "more often" or why a sustained
critique. All acts of extremis are wrong. But the roots of all
extremism are not same in seriousness.
Let me deal with the nature and classification of extremism
in some more detail below:
Two different causes/classes of extremism (A & B) can be
identified :
A) extremism-A: This class occurs/occurred as one time or isolated
events, provoked by some act or event. It targets a very
specialized group of people. It is not part of a permanent
ideological plan or agenda for extremist acts, but is event driven.
Many of these extremist acts were initiated and inspired by a
unethical leader with evil ambition who succeeds in creating a
group of followers by misguiding them. In other cases it is a
result of extremists taking matters in their own hands,usually as
retaliation, often guided and abetted by politically motivated
quarters. One distinguishing feature of these acts are that the
innocent civilians are not the primary intended targets , but may
be affected as collateral damages. Intention is a distinguishing
factor. Many of the acts of extremism-A in past are now viewed as
shameful chapter of history, having lost its sustaining power
after the death of their inspiring leader, if any. These extremist
acts of the past do not pose a threat to contemporary human
society, only exists as a bitter memory. These acts are unanimously
discredited by all current societies and nations, although some of
these acts were (and still are by some) viewed as resulting from
series of events reflecting the then historical realities and some
were considered by them as justified then, but certainly not
justified anymnore, now that the historical reality is different,
and humanity has evolved out of the mindset existing then, with
increasing sense of humanism and democracy across nations. Many
such extremist acts do also happen now in many parts of the world,
specially in non-democratic and/or underdeveloped nations. The
ultimate motivation behind all these acts are territorial,
although religious differences may serve as a convenient grouping
factor for rival territorial interests. But an important
feature of this extremism is that it does not affect the lives of
ordinary civilians of other nations. The killings in Gujrat, in
Srebrenica, or US bombings of Afghan civilians, all of them, as
despicable an acts as they are, did not become a world wide
security concern for ordinary citizens. They are still viewed as a
one time or isolated, localized acts, and the condemnation for
such acts are mainly against those who did not prevent or deter
them or punish the culprits (The then government or political
party in power), in addition to condemning the extremists
themselves.
Most importantly, acts of extremism-A are not directly tracebale
to any written scriptures of any religious revelations, although
the A-extremists themsleves may belong to one certain religion and
terrorising followers of another. In absense of a clear scriptural
verse calling to fight and harm the followers of another religion
or disbelievers viewing them as perpetual enemies, the motivation
of a sustained attempt to enagage in such extremism is also absent.
Even if some extreme fanatical believers of these religions today
were to try to use some obscure scriptural verses to engage in
sustained extremism, their contemporay society or nation of their
religion would disown these extremists and their acts and thus
these extremists would not find any moral or financial support
from them or from any powerful nation and society of their
religion. These kind of extremism, although crimes, do not by
itself trigger a world wide fear and concern and conferences and
meetings to combat extremism. Instead emphasis is paid on stricter
enforcements and improvements of democratic rules and law
enforcements mechanisms, and urging the government in power at
the time of occurrences of such acts to act better.
B) extremism-B. This class of extremism is based on an inspiration,
an ideology, rooted in the written scriptures of a religious
revelation. These acts of extremism are not just one time acts or
events, but poses a sustained threat to humanity. Since these acts
are rooted in scriptures, the lingering threat of it happenning
will always be there, whether or not provoked by an incident or
historical event. Events or incidents trigger a spike in extremist
acts, but even without such provocative events, a lingering fear
of such acts happenning remain. Thats why this kind of extremism is
the reason for world wide conferences and meetings to combat
extremism. This kind of extremism, being rooted in scriptures, is
not easily disowned by the mainstream followers of the scriptures,
because their "distortion", "out of context" kind of criticism of
extremism can easily be dismissed by the extremists as itself being
"out of context". For example consider "kill X, if Y". So if a
mainstreamer says it is wrong to kill X since Y was not true, then
a extremist might say to the mainstreamer, "of course Y is true.
You are just judging the context wrongly." All the conditions "Y"
of scriptures are general enough to make either of them right. So
logically one side is no more defensible than another. And if the
overwhelming majority views the scripture as flawless and absolute,
that will inevitably prevent them from taking a decisive and firm
stand against the extremists. Thats why we don't see religious
edicts(fatwa) to kill these extremists for misusing the scriptures,
and no reward in heaven is assured for killing these extremists for
misusing scriptures. The problem is that while the mainstream
followers take a strong and impassioned stand in clarifying that
those religious passages have been misused by the extremists,
they never take the same impassioned stand to point out any
accounatbility for misusing the scriptures and enforce them.
All the problems of why critique "more often" would have
disappered, had the latter been the case. But alas, that is
not the case.
A distinguishing feature of extremism-B is that many of these
acts are intended to target innocent civilians, just because those
civilians happen to belong to a religion portrayed as hostile or
adversarial in the scriptural writings. The targets are not simply
collateral damages.
The only way to put an end to religion based extremism would have
been to physically overpower the extremists by the mainstream
followers, their society and nation. But that has never been the
case. Instead the extremists receive sympathetic attitude and
help from a good number of the mainstream followers, and are
morally and finacially backed by powerful and wealthy groups and
nations.
This inability to settle the issue of extremism-B may be viewed in a
metaphoric sense as a design flaw of the scriptures . A smart user
may be able to use a software containing bugs with no damage, but a
dumb user may mess things up using the same flawed program. We cannot
blame the dumb user, who has been provided the program, although may
subject him to a punitive action for causing harm to others, as a
deterrent against similar such misuse. Rather we will blame the
author of the program, or those who continue to promote and
distribute it, claiming it to be flawless. Such is the case of thse
scripture with potential for misuse by its vagueness and ambiguity.
A scripture ideally should not be in the business of calling for
retaliation, killing etc. This is a primitive instinct of nature that
is followed even in animal kingdom, where lions are seen to kill
hyenas for robbing them of their kills. Rather it is tolerance which
should be the recurring theme of scripture. But unfortunately most
religious scriptures do "unncessarily" talk about "necessary"
violence, opening the potential for its misuse, not its natural
(biological) use as is seen in nature.
So to summarize, the distinguishing feature of extremism-A and B are
that while acts of extremism-A can be religion based, but are only
event driven, since no permanent enemy status of followers of other
religions is mentioned in the scriptures of the extremists's religion,
although the mention of such is conditional, that conditional is
easily justified and misused with no provision for accounatbility for
that misuse, so is indefensible. Acts of extremism-B are are
certainly religion based, can be event driven, but not necesarily
since a permanent adversarial status is given to other religions in
their scriptures. This important basic distinction creates all other
higher level differences between the two classes extremism that
are observed.
The fact that some acts of extremism-B draws more vociferous
condemnation than extremism-A by some critics, do not mean that they
are condoning or endorsing the latter, but may just be to offset the
fact that the former are not condemned strongly (and even defended
by some in principle) by a substantial segment belonging to that
religion and the fact that the affected areas due to these acts are
not localized in time and space. Thus these critics feel that a
stronger condemnation is appropriate for these kinds of acts because
of this very distinguishing feature of extremism-B from extremism-A.
A sustained ectremsim drwas sustained crititism. One time, or event
driven extremism drwas one time or event driven critcism. Pure and
simple. In the case of extremism-A, the blame can be mostly placed
on the government in power at the time of its occurrence for failing
to prevent it. But in the case of extremism-B, its no use blaming it
on any specific government or its failure, because it is more rooted
in religious scripture itself and culture based on it, and to the
schizophrenic attitude and action shown by the followers of the
religion in condemning or combatting these acts of extremism. These
kind of acts need a world wide condemnation and awareness raising
activities. One of those posts opined that pointing out those
intolerant passages from Koran may turn an otherwise moderate
peaceful Muslim towards violence. I don't uderstand how rthat can
rationalize suppressing the intolerant passages. This really points
to a symptom. If that is indeed so, that points to a very deep
problem that lies in the religious culture itself that these verses
form as the basis of. As mentioned earlier, there are violent
passages in Old Testament, but I don't think that a peaceful Jew can
be made to turn to violence just by pointing out those passages to
them. It is this stability of other believers against such
perturbations versus the instability of Islamic believers that is an
important point to think over, and that also provides another
rationale for why critique "more often".
2. Why focus on religious extremism, when there are are other serious
problems in the world, like hunger, poverty etc?
Yes, there are other serious problems. But just because many
serious problems exist that should not bar one from focussing on
one problem nor obligate one to discuss ALL problems. One Person A
can focus on problem X, person B can focus on problem Y, or person
C can fopcus on problems A,B,C... if he/she chooses to (All the
power to him/her). It is important to realize that A's focussing on
problem "X" does not in any way prevent or discourage B from
focussing on problem Y. Implying so would be a fallacy similar to
the fallacy that many cynics commit saying "why send man on the
moon when there is homelessnes and hunger on earth?" The fallacy is
that the funds for moon landing were not diverted from a pre
allotted fund to help the homeless and the poor. The homelessness
and hunger are due to a complex web of soci-politico-geographical
factors. It is certainly possible to both send man on the moon, and
eliminate hunger and homelessness by properly addressing those
factors. anyway enough digression.
3. Why (a) criticize Islam and (b) Demonize All Muslims for the acts
of some of its followers?
These are very common accusations/questions asked. What is
notable is that most invariably think that (a) implies (b). But
it is a big fallacy. It like saying that criticizing a flawed
program means criticizing all the users. I haven't seen yet any
critic ever clearly stating implicitly or explicitly that ALL
followers of Islam are evil, demons. All such allegations are
personal subjective judgement calls, where they did not give the
benefit of the doubt, if any. It is an extreme and libelous
accusation/characterization to make and is itself against
political correctness that seems to be the motivation behind such
accusations in the first place. To say that "A" demonizes all the
followers of a religion is demonzing "A". Criticizing a religion
or for that matter any world view, divine or human is never to
incriminate ALL its believers. Many religious critics issue that
disclaimer. If even after that one insists on such
characterization, then one is just showing one's biased and
subjective interpretation of those critics of religion. Now
wouldn't the same folks laugh if someone insisted that the
critics of a scientific theory calls ALL scientists stupid? What'
s so different here? Does religious faith deserve a special
priviledged immunity to criticism? Only apologists can say that.
It is expected from them. But such demand for special priviledges
to religion from those who call,themselves agnostic, liberal etc
is not expected. The plausble reason for secualr liberals and PC
sticklers to advocate such immunity for religion may be the "
compassion/tolerance" factor fo the poor/weak. may be they view
the faithful as weak, and of course it is the poor who are more
religious for emotional security, so need a special protection
compassion from them. Maybe they view scientoists as strong, able
to handle any strong criticism of scienmtific theories. But this
is a misdoirected compassion. Believers in religion have stronger
(At least they claim) conviction in their belief than scientists
have in their theories. But again, I must emaphasize the critics
of religion as far as I know never intend or will demonize the
poor and peaceloving non political folowers of Islam or any
religion. I haven't seen any yet. It is very likll;ey that the
parents, sisters of these critics of islam are devout Muslims who
practice religion priavtely and non-intrusively, and these
critcis never demonize or think of them as demons!. No xcritic
of islam has ever said anything against any Sufi, who are Muslims
by all criteria, for example. By the way, in no other religion we
see this bitter and strong condemnation of critiics of religion
by fellow secularists as we see in Islam. No secular christian/
Hindu is seen to characterize even the severest critics of
christianty/Hinduism so harshly.
This kind of logic/question (Why criticize Muslim/Islam) for the
acts of few can easily lead to slippery slope where no
accountability can ever be attributed for any wrong at all, other
than the perpetrators, who may have long died. For example we
should have no reason to demand apology from Pakistan for the
atrocities of 1971. After all, it was Yahia Khan(dead), Tikka
Khan(dead), and of course the individual soldiers (They are
humans with free wills, not robots) and who comitted those
atrocities. But because yahia Khan was not treied and punished
for his atrocities we still blame and demand apology from
"Pakistan". If Muslim nations do not take apologize and punish or
at least try to deter the acts by Islamic terrrorists then
naturally, one will have to look at the roots in scriptures for
such acts and blame it on those scriptures. Some acts of wrongs
do need a root cause(blame) analysis, not just a condemnation of
those acts. Just like a gruel kitchen can provide temporary
relief in a famine, giving alms to a poor may provide a
temporary relief to the begger, but neither can solve
permanantly the problems of hunmger and poverty, similarly just
blaming or condemning the terrorists and their acts is not enough.
One has to go deeper and find a more fundamnetal cause and blame,
if you will.
4. Critiques of Islam are no different from the religious fanatics
themselves.
This is a very unfair fallacy of equating wrongs. religious fanatics
engage, in and/or actively support acts of extremism. No
critic of religion, no matter how radical ever advocated, supported
let alone engaged in any extremist acts that harmed anyone. The
only wrong in their approach may be lack of political correctness
A secular person obsessed with political correctness could have
equated a critic of religion with a critic of secularism (And there
are quite a handful of hate-mongering one among them). But such
uneven comparison between a religious fanatci and a critics of
religion is unconscionable. And we don;t see such equalization among
other religions, no christian critic is equated with an abortion clinic
murderer (or an inquisitionist) by any secular or moderate christian.
5. Why look at the negative sides only of religion, why not focus on
the good sides only? People with evil intentions will see only the
dark side, the good guys look only at the benign side.
This kind of argument shows some naivette. Of course there are
good sides, noi matter how little, to anything. When critiquing the
bad sides, it is not relevant or necessary to cite the good side,
becasue those good sides does not serve to prevent the bad
sides, nor does it help to exonerate it from the bad sides. Hitker
may had some good sides too (He was a loving father and a
husband I recall from TLC documentary). I am sure Tikka Khan
also had some nice things to say as well. So should we stop
talking about his dark side as seen in the 1971 massacre of
Bengalis, or should we also mention his good side every time
we mention his misdeeds?
I must emphasize that my writeup is not intended to criticize
(Let alone demonize) the authors of the above posts, but just
to draw attention to some inherent pitfalls in some of the
views expressed in those posts that are quite commonly
shared by many, liberals and conservatives alike.
- Aparthib