aalaap_team

In response to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nabic-l/message/2914

Greetings to all. My thanks to member Mr Musaddeque Hossein for his
kind and thoughtful response. This thread, and any other in which we
explore matters of faith that may appear unclear at some level of
reasoning, I shall partake in with the spirit of seeking knowledge and
better understanding. Since my position on religion is well-known by
now among interested readers, a common question may be, why am I
participating on this forum with a membership primarily made up of
religious folks?

The topic of religion has always fascinated me. Growing up, the
religious mythology about Muhammad as shared by my now-deceased
widowed mother fascinated me immensely. I followed all of the lessons
but, as I was growing up, I also realized that in order to develop an
inner sense of ethics and morality, it would only make sense to seek
lessons from a larger demesne of history and religious mythology than
to remain within the confines of one ideology primarily due to my
lineage.

As a teenager I began to notice much hypocrisy among adults, and their
public proclamations about being faithful became increasingly
repugnant. It was however liberating to not lose an inner sense of
spirituality but let it live and breathe as that of a world citizen,
without the nonsense of compartmentalizing people based upon
conjectural insistence as to who has the best guidebook on morality
from God--a conjecture that is arguably rooted in defense of one's
lineage, but offer little if any logical or rational defensibility.

In living life as an adult for over two decades, un-enslaved by
predisposition to religious prejudgment, it is painful to note that so
many adults are prone to such predisposition. While I empathize and
understand it to be their right, I am not sure how healthy it is when
they push the same on their children--enforced religious teachings
that are seldom if ever uncaged of "we are better than others" design
flaw of most draconian faiths. In a world where technology has
enabled humans to become closer to each other there seems less
justification to uphold such communalistic notions of separatism, the
roots of which are defensible mainly with "This is our culture".

Our children grow up facing the reality where the world does not
appear as bifurcated as they were taught as children. As they learn
to reason in most other aspects of their lives, the prejudiced
religious view of others "unlike us" becomes more and more isolated
from other, rational aspects of their lives, yet it endures primarily
due to social pressures and parental expectations, and for those so
unfortunate, also due to adult obstinacy that they indeed have the
only mantle of godly truth. In the real world how exactly does it
help bring peace for all we are quick to subordinate possibly because,
in order for our faith to shine unsullied, we blame every other
cause--some religious, of others, and philosophies that we refuse to
understand, as well as global political jockeying of the
powers-that-be. According to some rationalists the mindset of holding
one's faith blameless can be an example of 'cognitive dissonance.'

Before straying any further from the topic even though I consider this
backdrop incidental to my response to Mr Hossein that is at the
bottom, let me admit that in my liberal arts education at a private
college in the midwest of USA, I studied the religions of Judaism and
Christianity while majoring in accounting and finance. Sort of as a
consequential curiosity I delved into a personal study of Islam to
some extent. It is my opinion that intellectual Islam may have the
best set of tools to guide those that seek a religious frame of
reference to define their morality in the modern world, yet its
adherents seem quite unprepared to live in a pluralist world due to
stark, blunt comments and notions about the faiths and lifestyle of
others. Exceptions from this exist but they seldom make the rule. The
awareness of the power within Islam is least understood as a moral
guide when its rituals and literal dicta become people's focus,
without understanding the larger, humanitarian guidance it can also
offer in a far better way than do its predecessors. The unpreparedness
I consider to be an outcome of the process of Islamic teaching of our
youngsters that routinely lacks spiritual development beyond "just
memorize this and listen to your mullah-guide."

When we become adults religion becomes a smaller part of our lives
except maybe for those who embrace it more intensely to offset a sense
of identity crisis as immigrants to foreign lands, where Islam is no
longer the majority faith. For most there is seldom a clear-cut adult
process of spiritual development within Islam. In my humble opinion
people ought to learn about other world faiths along with the newer,
non-religious philosophies so that they can compare and better
understand their faith as well as the falsity of adhering strictly and
literally to it, in an arrogant manner disrespectful of others.

I decided to re-join this forum because matters of religion are more
focusedly discussed here, and religion is one of my interest areas. I
recognize people's need to seek answers to the universe in a spiritual
way, but I can also see quite clearly the danger from seeking it using
archaic tools that have outlived their usefulness in the modern world,
even though those were quite likely useful in less evolved times when
communities were much more isolated and distribution of knowledge much
more restricted. On this forum the common ground I see is that of
inner spirituality. Yet the fact is, my perspective of it differs
materially from the same of many other members on this forum. But I
hope we can reflect over our inner spirituality, and endeavor to
strengthen it if its framework is sometimes challenged civilly than if
we remained cloistered in groups that always agree with us, singing
hymns of isolation from the rest of the world in a bifurcated and
largely-impractical tune of "us" versus "them." I also hope we all
seek to reduce if not eliminate such prejudice and embrace humanity
with open arms--appreciating its diversity as within the laws of the
gods some of us endorse, as opposed to tagging them as despicable and
inferior.

Sometimes I come across posts on this forum whereon ignorance about
western philosophies and cultural aspects seems pronounced and
pungent. Amongst any close-knit faithful group such ignorance might be
comforting. But in the larger world where we all live, such ignorance
seems unconvergent with our notions of global peace and respect of all
humans as equals. On this forum, however, there are voices of a few
faithful that seek enlightenment from a larger canvas of humanity,
such as Dr Harun uz Zaman and Dr M. Omar Farooq, whose explications on
faith matters can be quite balanced, educational and informative.

On a separate post I soon wish to share excerpts from a recently
published book on the innate need of humans for spirituality, along
with suggestions to reconsider our traditional notions of God. God if
any seems more supportive of evolution of human thought and progress
than our insistence to the contrary, as we stay glued to our
interpretations of His wishes that predate modern civilization. I was
fascinated by that book; some of our readership might consider it
thought-provoking as well.

Without further ado, below are my direct responses to Mr Hossein's
comments on the above post. I'll use "MH" acronym, for excerpts from
his comments. My responses will be preceded by "SMI" and their text
will be colored as green, which in my opinion is symbolic of
peace--peace that ought to supersede our un-debatable and factious
notions to prejudge others.

[MH] "In fact the western concepts are the product of the rebellion
against the draconian and whimsical laws promulgated by the christian
church and the jewish faith."

[SMI] The rebellion against "draconian and whimsical" laws
promulgated by the Christian church and the Jewish faith is in fact a
universal imperative. It is not a concept (Western or Eastern). The
same universal imperative should be directed against the "draconian
and whimsical" laws promulgated by the often-intolerant Islamic faith
("SHARIA", Fatwas, forced dress codes, etc., to name a few.)

[MH] "If Br. Islam feels that there is proof that Islam may have been
invented then I would suggest that he present it in the forum for all
to examine. Until then he should refrain from purveying allegations."

not "invented" and peddled by its
believers as "absolute truth." Please note that MH claimed Islamic
"ordain"ments are not "open" to "debate". I did not suggest that
secular laws are not open to debate but, rather, that we consider
their arguments more carefully than brush 'em all aside as a
collective of but anti-Islamic imperatives, as in case of the French
ban. I also asked why the French must "believe" Hijab is "ordained"
in Islam, when only a small percentage of Muslims wears it. In
response MH contended its "mandate" is not open for debate as it was
"ordained," just as was the ban against alcohol.

Clearly, if MH insists the "mandate" must supersede all else, I see it
more as his duty to "prove beyond any shadow of a doubt" its basis was
not invented. I respectfully suggest MH consider using tools other
than religious insistence, for "[f]aith is a much weaker tool to
justify the characteristics of a religion as its believers contend
than the rational arguments with which the definitions of universal
human rights have been formulated in the west," as I wrote earlier.
Let's remain clear about the person between us, upon whom the
incumbency to prove the "mandate" rests.

Moreover, "proof" is circumstantial just as in crime. It is not a
coincidence that the verses of Quran have many issues: internal
contradictions, incoherencies, and errors. Note that apologists often
quote verses that stand on their own, but also insist on 'context' and
refer to other verses when verses selected by others seem incongruent
and even contradictory to their claims about Islam. It is also
pertinent to mention the fact that most verses seem to be revealed in
response to the personal needs of Prophet Muhammad and seldom directly
to the need of ordinary humans. There are too many that will need a
book to compile, but it can be done on request in a separate post.

[MH] "That does not mean that the Muslim countries are shining
examples of human rights. Most are not."

[SMI] By your admission "most" are not. Thank you. If in 1500 years
of Allah's chosen religion that is purported to be "simple" could not
achieve its purpose, why couldn't now be the time to start looking at
Islam rather than blaming it on humans? Not to push the point, but
consider the allegory of a defective software. Can its maker(s) keep
blaming the users forever?

[MH] "The objective of my argument was to point out the hypocritical
nature of western..."

[SMI] The presumption of "hypocritical" seems rooted less in fact and
more in misunderstanding or ignorance of the western imperative in
context: that of human rights and freedom. First, please note that
any issue of imperfection within Western societies is open to debate
and change, UNLIKE the way it is with Islamic laws that are not open
to "debate," even in the face of the blunt reality of their
imperfections in "[m]ost" Islamic countries.

Second, if MH argues that telling minorities what they can or cannot
consume publicly and their women what dress code they should abide by
are incumbent upon Muslim men (primarily) when they are majority
because it is according to God's "ordainment," but when they're the
minority in secular countries that enforce laws which can be argued
and debated, they must reject those point-blank because those must be
"superseded" by their godly "ordainment", I am sorry but that hardly
seems at par with the notions of universal human rights with which
majority of global people will rationally agree. This can be a case
of 'cognitive dissonance' of some Muslims.

Third and most specific to MH's comments, there is nothing
hypocritical about protesting the violation of basic human rights.
Anyone concerned with human rights
(Eastern or Western) would protest their violation and/or denial.
Nobody has to be perfect to protest such clear and consistent
violation committed as a policy. Besides, the act of protesting does
not forfeit the right of others to criticize any human rights
violation by the West either. Naturally, therefore, why the confusion?

[MH] "The objective of my argument was to point out the hypocritical
nature of western commentators who overlook all the abuses in their
own societies and with a "holier than thou" attitude, think that
supporting the drinking of beer to the detriment of the society and a
country is some how laudable and any muslim protesting that is anti
human rights. Human rights is a subjective term in the west and
applied as the powers that be see fit."

[SMI] Interesting argument but fallacious for the most part, in that
it twisted the whole issue of the alcohol ban by alleging that
"supporting the drinking of beer to the detriment of the society and a
country is somehow laudable." I am sorry to have to point this out
but, in fact, the issue was not that "supporting the drinking that is
deemed laudable" but, rather, it is supporting the right to drink
alcohol by individuals just as normally as it is their right to eat
and drink anything else. Supporting individual rights is the hallmark
of a free, civilized society.

I also suggest a re-read of my earlier arguments in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nabic-l/message/2905. Consider these
two interesting points: (1) Allah needed to SEE drunkenness of a few
before banning it for all; what does that say about the claim of His
foresight? (2) Should the radical / extreme behavior of a few decide
the right for all? If a few drunk should suffice for God to ban
alcohol for everyone even though not everyone drinks to get drunk,
what might He suggest regarding the behavior of a few radical Islamic
extremists who claim to be Islamically inspired to kill civilians, if
anyone should propose a ban against the right of all Muslims to
practice Islam, following the rationale of this mythological factoid?

[MH] "Human rights is a subjective term in the west and applied as the
powers that be see fit."

[SMI] There is nothing subjective or western about the notion of
"respecting individual human rights". All the Far Eastern nations also
practice and endorse it. For example, drinking is not forbidden there
or, closer to our homeland of Bangladesh, in India. (Not a western
nation) It is only commonsensical. In contrast, it is not
commonsensical to violate one's basic rights due to some unprovable
claim of godly "ordainment."

If a rational chain of arguments cannot be the common basis to explore
these concepts, I can understand it to be a difference in our
preferences. However, I respectfully suggest we refrain from arrogant
yet ignorant remarks to justify our "ordained" violations of human
rights of others. Just to prove my point, please consider once again
if any country where Muslims are minority should claim godly
"ordainment" to ban everything that is "ordained" for Muslims
according to their faith. What will the Muslims there do? Wage an
Islamic jihad to fight such "oppression" and begin internecine warfare
to protect their godly "ordainments" from those oppressive kafirs?

As I stated on a previous post, such irrational insistence, pushed
obstinately, goes nowhere in the end and, for all practical purposes,
is a pronounced subtraction from what I hope is a common concern to us
all: global peace.

Thanks to all.


Regards,

S Munir I