Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

[mukto-mona] FW: Summary of the book The Waste of Time by Dr. Syed Sajjad Husain. [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from S A Hannan included below]

Please see this document

 


From: Muhammad Ibrahim [mailto:muhammadi1945@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:27 AM
To: Naim usman; kamalmwdo@gmail.com; L Lunceford
Subject: Summary of the book The Waste of Time by Dr. Syed Sajjad Husain.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Assalamu Alaikum.

 

I am forwarding a copy of summary of the book 'Waste of Time' written by Dr. Syed Sajjad Husain, a very sincere intellectual of the sub-continent.

 

The summary has been prepared by Abu Imran, a former civil servant of the government of Bangladesh and regular writer in the news papers.

 

This is for favor of your kind information.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mohammad Ibrahim


Attachment(s) from S A Hannan

1 of 1 File(s)


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Who wants Bangladesh?



Who wants Bangladesh?

In an exclusive interview with PROBE, columnist and political thinker Farhad Mazhar says a section of the society wants to be with the US, another section with India and yet another with the Arabs. We need to determine who actually wants Bangladesh, he says

Interviewed by ANWAR PARVEZ HALIM

The present government is termed "the government of change". Do you think the changes have begun?

'Din badal' is the script of a mobile company, the advertisement in the time of political decadence and signifies our slavery to transnational corporations and neoliberal ideologies undermining our national interests, security and sovereignty.  Even the 'muktijuddho' ( war of liberation) has become a commodity to sell products and services of the companies. Watch advertisements in TVs by transnational companies. A paradoxical situation indeed, where transnational companies are dismantling the political, social and cultural structure of Bangladesh using the rhetoric of liberation war. 'Din badal' (roughly translated 'days of change') of the present government should be understood in this context. Interesting, isn't it? When Obama talks about change, it is quite a different matter. It is in context of the policies of George Bush. I wouldn't say things were very positive in previous regimes either. We are seeing a continuity.

No one seems to know what "digital Bangladesh" means and the general people find the term rather confusing. What do you understand by this concept of Awami League?

I certainly am not clear about what it means and our leadership in the government is equally unclear about the rhetoric they deploy for political gains. "Digital Bangladesh" has no meaning at all. This slogan sidesteps our real problems pertaining to food sovereignty, economic exploitation and class divisions, cultural perceptions of religion and language and so on. You can not solve the real life problems in a virtual space. There are so many problems; we haven't reached a stage where we can enter a "digital" Bangladesh. Moreover, "digital" will come to us automatically. The government doesn't have to do this, the companies eager to make profit for information technology will take full advantage of this juvenile slogan.

This government has swept to power with a brute majority. Surely the people have more expectations than ever from this government concerning development, good governance, peace and progress.

This government has been brought through the process of January 11 events and their accession to power is not a surprise at all. Secondly, brute majority or not, nature of our Constitution is constitutional dictatorship of one person. The matter of votes is really irrelevant since the Constitution is basically undemocratic and anti-people and offers scope for dictatorial rule by the elected Prime Minister, a consequence of Article 70.  Why should you have 'more' expectations. One may at best agree that it was a verdict against the four-party alliance.

So it looks like the foreign quarters who planned the "minus two" formula have given up their endeavour in this regard?

Why do you say "foreign quarters" only? Didn't our civil society want the "minus two" formula too? Didn't the civil society say that Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia are the only problems for Bangladesh? The fact is that the interests of these foreign quarters, civil society and certain sections in the army, converged. There was resistance against this among the people and even within the army. It was the urban middle class whose political perception was that Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina's bickering was the country's sole problem.

There are some who believe the 1/11 formula is still on...

It didn't start with 1/11, this is nothing new. The process to project Bangladesh as a failed state started long ago. It started when Awami League came to power and there was the Udichi bomb blast in 1999. When President Clinton came to South Asia, the US's perception was that it might be possible to see Bangladesh becoming a moderate Muslim country. This was thwarted by these acts, to prove that Islamic militants are active in Bangladesh.  A very different image of Bangladesh was projected. As a result, Clinton didn't step foot out of the US Embassy while he was here and went straight to Delhi and Hyderabad. This was the beginning of the shift of US foreign and security policy in South Asia. Clinton signed a vision statement with Indian leading to a security pact which, in turn, ultimately led to nuclear dealings between the two countries. Bangladesh was marginalised. Then came the 9/11 and within the paradigm of war against terrorism Bangladesh has further fallen into disgrace and now perceived as threat for regional and global security.

What will the ultimate 'scene' of this political theatre?

If there was a script already in place, you could talk about the last 'scene'. However, reality is that history is rife with accidents. One can never tell with certainty whether the people of Bangladesh are going to accept the present scenario. We have to see how the people, the huge majority of people with their sufferings and problems of daily life, react to the situation.

The people elected this government with a vast majority of votes. Can we expect the government, then, to meet the people's expectations?

Neither the present government nor BNP's represent the people's interests. You may criticise Awami League for being pro-Indian, and they obviously are politically but BNP was much more pro-Indian in terms of providing political benefit and creating conditions that has seriously undermined security issues of Bangladesh. During BNP's rule, Indian interests in economy and other sectors were upheld more than during Awami League's rule.

Now we have a new class of urban petty-bourgeoisie impressed by the India's growing economy, Shining India, etc. They will naturally be drawn more to safeguard Indian interests in Bangladesh more than their own national interests. Cultural aggression of India will also reinforce this class. You can stop that only by bringing the economic, political and cultural interests of the masses, but you can not expect that from BNP or the four-party alliance. So we are in a mess.

More so because, the nationalist forces, if you are accustomed to think through such paradigm, in contrast to pro-Indian politics, is defeated. Just as in 1971 the left forces were defeated, now the nationalist forces who are to build up the state, defend the sovereignty, mobilise the masses to defend their national interests, motivate the entrepreneurs to build up a national economic base, strengthen national culture, etc, are defeated. Army has become 'denationalised' in serving international interests in peace missions. If you can not pay a mercenary, he will serve those who have dollars. This is very simple. While nationalists were supposed to build up soldiers with nationalist commitment and visions we have done the reverse. We, therefore, are paying very dearly. I am using the term 'national' in a positive sense and not narrow 'nationalism'. Ideally nationalist forces consider persons of all creed and colour or ethnic backgrounds, etc., to be citizens of the country. I am afraid, this political force, if there were any, has been diminished. My point is the present regime or the past regime – none of them can meet people's expectations. A new politics is a must for us to make an exit from this mess.

The nationalist forces are all split and divided.

There should have been two trends to represent nationalist politics. One is what we politically term as bourgeoisie that carries out activities in its own interests. The other is the radical left. Ziaur Rahman symbolised the revolutionary unity between the people and the army though November 7. But BNP couldn't catch on to this politics. They projected a politics of army versus Awami League. This is not working any more. They couldn't hold on to the people's politics and this resulted in a decline of nationalist forces in general and caused their own demise. We are facing the consequences today. During Awami League's rule, Rakkhi Bahini killed the leftist elements. But then again from Ziaur Rahman's time down to Khaleda Zia's rule, the Maoists, leftist leaders were also being finished off. Usually in the era of imperialism and fascism, on the other hand, it is the revolutionary left that develops the national imagination in a positive sense to unite the masses against the predatory imperialist powers and interests. It did not happen in Bangladesh.

But what about the other leftists?

The left elements you see now are not leftists, even in a liberal reformist sense. They are just appendages of Awami League. They speak the language of George Bush, using terms like "fundamentalism", "terrorism", "war criminals", as if these are the only issues around. They have nothing to say about the economy or such important issues. They contest in the election under Sheikh Hasina using Awami symbol. How can you call them leftists?

Again, we always hear about pro-liberation, secular forces as if other than them no one fought for independence...

What is important is how we look at the 1971 Independence War. Those who call themselves pro-liberation forces think 1971 was a victory over Islam. The linguistic nationalism has been put forward against the Islam, which not merely theology, but culture of the majority of the people as well. But those outside of this sphere should have pointed out that the Bengali Muslims who weren't even considered to be Bengalis, had to lay down their lives in 1971 to prove they were Bengali. Instead, reacting against 'Bangalee nationalism' the contesting political parties from the opposite camp of Awami League allowed this to take a communal turn. Muslim identity prevailed over linguistic and cultural identity. This was a grave mistake. Unless we clearly understand the Muslims of Bengal had to pay with blood in 1971 to prove that they are Bangalee as well, we can not win the game.

Islam has a secular effect on our culture. In the past we saw stories of gods and goddesses and mythology. Then with the advent of Islamic culture, there was the Arabian Nights, stories of Gule Bakawali, Saiful Mulk, etc. The sufis came to this land and secularism entered the scene with strong spiritual standing. Nationalists have ignored these elements and as a result a communal element has been introduced.

Now let's come to the BDR incident. Two investigations were carried out – one by the government and the other by the army. The reports have been finalised but not made public officially. The media is releasing bits and pieces only. Is this intentionally being covered up or what motives are behind this?

In Bangladesh, while investigations are still being carried out, information is leaked to the media and a "media trial" takes place. This must be stopped. A proper trial cannot be carried out like this.

From what I hear on TV, Awami League is saying that the bits of army report that have been revealed to the press are attempts to cover up the facts. So what is emerging here is a matter of the government report versus the army report. There is a big gap between the two. If that is so, this will lead to a serious political crisis. If they think that Awami League is involved in the BDR incident, the army officers might want to resolve the matter in one way or the other. But we don't know exactly what is in the report. We only hear bits here and there. We don't know the government report either. Things could lead to a big crisis here, a political trauma.

We have been harmed by this incident, but what about our neighbouring country? Does it stand to gain, as some people claim?

How have we been harmed? And what do you mean by "we"? "We" don't exist. We have proved time and again that we are not a political community yet and do not understand the political necessity of sovereign power to defend ourselves as a collective. We are divided people. You will have to solve this problem first.

What about the army? Hasn't that been hit hard?

Let's be very straight about it. Now, we have mercenaries, not soldiers with sense of dignity, honour and courage. We have denationalised the army the day we sent them to the peace missions. How can the army turn away from their constitutional duty following a letter from UNDP, in fear of not being sent on the UN peacekeeping missions? Where is their dignity?

Look at BDR. They are changing their name, their uniforms, saying these uniforms are "stained with blood". What audacity! How can an army officer say that? What about the army killing two presidents? What about that uniform?

And why shall we say that India has gained from this incident? What about out urban "DJuice" society? Aren't they gaining? They are getting contracts, cosmetic companies are coming in, mobile companies are coming, Unilever is coming and so on. They are getting benefits out of this. Why blame India?  We should look at our own face first.

Now about the war criminal issue. The government has begun working on this, but Jamaat says it has no war criminals in its party. What do you say?

If you want to try the war criminals, you have to bring in Pakistan and India. In fact, India should be held most responsible where war criminals are concerned. The war criminals were in their hands, but they sent them back to Pakistan through the Simla Agreement. Now the matter is simply being politicised and persons are being tried for political benefits. Awami League has brute majority, they can enact laws, and if they want they can kill anyone calling them 'war criminals'. What difference does it make now? But don't say this is a trial of war criminals. I want war criminals to be tried. I want the war criminals who are in Pakistan to be tried. I want India to be brought to trial too. How could they send back to Pakistan those who had committed rape and other war crimes?

Is there a chance for the opposition to turn around and make a comeback?

What is the "opposition"? This is a contest between two gangs of dacoits who come to power to plunder. Unless these elements are cleared away, nothing can move forward. It is our job to point this out.

It is said that a US-India nexus has turned its sights towards Bangladesh. Does that mean there are darker days ahead?

Nothing could be darker than the darkness we plunged into at present.

So what lies ahead in the future?

We never had a present, so how can I say about the future? In the sense that we are not 'citizens' committed to defend the country and the collective interests. We are not aware yet of our own acts and opinions with full understanding of the implications. As citizens, we are all responsible. If you want to keep Bangladesh, you have to wake up.

How to overcome this crisis?

We must evaluate whether we actually want Bangladesh or not. How many of us actually want Bangladesh? Look at the middle class. Some want to join up with India, some with America. We are destroying our water, land, ecology, environment, biodiversity and as a result people are either migrating within the country or looking for jobs in Middle East, Malaysia and other countries.

What about the masses?

The masses are not taken into account. They do not exist in the kind of politics we are in right now. Whether it is the peasantry or the working class, they are not a part of this. But as I said, there are certain elements of chance, of contingencies, that may determine how these masses are going to act in the future. The contradictions, anarchy and lack of political directions had created objective situation for a change. I think radical intellectuals will have a major role to play. So the middle class is not the end of the answer. The middle class, the so called 'civil society' doesn't want Bangladesh. Based on their cultural history, their intellectual history, the kind of papers and journals they publish, I can say with certainty that they do not want Bangladesh because necessity to organise the people as a political community is absent among the dominant middle class. Part of them wants to be with India, part of them wants to be with USA and part of them wants to be with Arabs.

Looking back, Bengali Muslims started getting educated in the 1920s. Before that they thought they were going to get back their Mughal empire. But when they woke up they found others becoming lawyers, doctors, etc and they became communal because they had to fight these new elite Hindus. They started searching for their Muslim identity. They started learning English. From 1920, in a matter of only 27 years, they succeeded in bringing forth Pakistan in 1947. Then in 1971 peoples of Bangladesh made a state for themselves. This was the peasantry, the masses, and not the middle class. This was a big achievement. But this state has been destroyed systematically by this middle class. This is the middle class who has the nationalist discourse of the so-called discourses Bangalee nationalism and on the other side so-called discourses on Bangladeshi nationalism. They are communal on both sides. Bengali nationalism is communal because it constructs the identity in opposition to other nationalities, other ethnic groups. The Bangladeshi nationalism is communal because they don't accept Bangalee culture and derive their identity from religion in opposition to other religions and cultures of Bangladesh, reducing them into minority. Islamists denies history and culture of the land and want to 'Arabise' us. Islam is part and parcel of our life but we are not Arabs. Bangladeshis are not Arab but Islam has an extremely important part to play here.

Those who are seen in this "Islamic" category are being accused of being militants...

That is a different issue. There is a broader global and regional strategy of those who have created the discourses on War against Terror and militancy should be judged in this context, good or bad. In general terms every group of political organisation, Islamic or otherwise, has the right to articulate their voice, and realise their goal. Look at Awami League, BNP or Jatiya Party – each and every one uses violence to establish their partisan goals. While you allow big parties to be violent you can not suppress militancy just because they have different politics. If we suppress them in the democratic process to articulate their ideology, they will obviously turn to militancy. When a state or society suppresses the voices of the 'other' the violence is already committed. The militancy is the response to the violence that has already been committed against those who want to speak, make their voices heard and reach the masses. Violence remains the only means to express their ideas. If we are serious about democracy, we must allow all voices to be heard and debated. Is there any place in society for the ultra-left or the "militants", to really articulate their causes in the so-called democracy? In the name of democracy, we have instituted a form of fascism. You are accepted to the so called civil society if you accept their norms, their discourses, their way of judging people, believing what their media blurbs all the time, etc. This is fascism. We subscribe to 'democracy' but do not allow any different opinion, isn't that paradoxical?


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Graft eats away up to 50pc of contract value



Graft eats away up to 50pc of contract value

 

Loss of government money from corruption or otherwise in projects involving public procurement is often as high as 40 to 50 percent of the contract value, Planning Minister AK Khandker said yesterday.(The Daily Star)

He also said public procurement with large financial involvement, either by design or by default, creates greater temptations or offer more opportunities for corruption or misuse of funds.

The newly formed Public-Private Stakeholders Committee (PPSC) aims at "citizen engagement" in monitoring the public procurement process, to ensure transparency and accountability, the minister added.He was addressing the first meeting of PPSC in the conference room of National Economic Council at the planning ministry secretariat.

Last month the government in a bid to bring more transparency to public procurement process formed the 27-member watchdog committee comprising representatives of its own and the private sector, with the planning minister at its helm.

Representatives of the Centre for Policy Dialogue, Transparency International Bangladesh, Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industries, Bangladesh Association of Construction Industries, Bangladesh Association of Consulting Engineers, Brac, Proshika, and Dhaka Reporters' Unity are also in the committee.

The planning minister yesterday also said PPSC stands out as a unique expression of public-private partnership which is expected to devise ways for institutionalising social audit of public procurement.He identified the committee's area of work as a sensitive area in the country's striving for good governance.

According to a government circular, PPSC will annually evaluate the overall impact of the Public Procurement Act on the government's purchasing process. Any detected irregularity will be discussed in the committee meetings. It will also advise the government on any required change in the act.

The committee will also discuss procurement issues relating to any particular ministry, and will be able to form sub-committees at district levels, the circular added.

The first meeting of the committee was jointly organised by the government's Central Procurement Technical Unit, and the Institute of Governance Studies of Brac University.

In the meeting the members brainstormed the committee's future plans, and received information about pubic procurement laws and regulations.

 http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=124805



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Fwd. RELIGION AS I VIEW IT -Asghar Ali Engineer [Institute of Islamic Studies]




 


 
<<...I believe religion should in no case be married with politics. Politics is all about power games and hence the best role for religion and religious leaders would be to maintain its distance from politics and act as strong critic of political establishment.

 

The doctrine, later on invented by some Muslim leaders, that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam be reinvented to say that religion, while maintaining its distance from politics, should, through criticism of political authorities, try and correct their course.

 

Religion, by becoming part of any establishment, much less political establishment, loses its very moral spirit. Not only that, if it becomes its own establishment, religion gets corrupted. Religion, therefore, should not become an establishment at all. All religious establishments develop their own politics of control and hence suppress people, even eliminate its critics.

 

I believe that no religion is possible without freedom of conscience and fearlessness and commitment to truth. A religious person jealously guards his/her freedom of conscience and commitment to truth. It is lack of this commitment to truth that results religion becoming an obstacle rather than being helpful to human beings. Without this freedom of conscience and commitment to truth, religion ends to become lifeless and ritualistic....

 

...I believe that all religions are a source of rich values and a precious heritage of entire humanity and coupled with reason, a precious gift of God, we can transform our earth into a real paradise of peace.

 

Thus what we need is real synthesis of faith and reason to achieve our goal. Faith, reason, love and non-violence are our real saviours. These should be the guiding stars of our life and to humanize ...>>

 

 

----------------------

Subject: [Secular Perspective] Islam and Modern Age
Date: 2/1/2010 6:03:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: csss@mtnl.net.in

 

 

RELIGION AS I VIEW IT

 

Asghar Ali Engineer

 

(Islam and Modern Age, February 2010)

 

I am now about to complete 70 years of my life. I have faced many challenges and have gone through much turmoil in life. However, on the whole I am quite satisfied with my life and my modest achievements. I initially gave up my engagement with philosophy and theology in favour of engineering for better material prospects. But with hindsight I feel that it was not a correct decision that I had taken.

 

I came back to this intellectual arena when I decided to resign my job as a civil engineer in 1981 to re-engage with these subjects. I feel I would have hardly achieved any thing as a civil engineer though perhaps I would have had better and more comfortable life in the material sense. But spiritually and creatively I would have died a non-descript man. When my involvement with social and religious issues intensified, I decided to give up my job and re-engage with philosophical and theological issues.

 

My education was not in very reputed institution but only in municipal or government schools and colleges. My father taught me Islamic theology based on Qur'an and hadith and he had the knack of implanting it deeply in my intellect. It was as a result of this that I never lost my interest in these subjects throughout my life. Not even as an engineer. However, as a result of orthodox Islamic education I could not develop a critical mindset. I was taught not to question but to accept.

 

However, my father, despite his orthodoxy was a tolerant soul and I learnt from him to tolerate other viewpoints. Developed further, it resulted in developing critical thinking. Later, by the time I graduated in engineering I could appreciate one thing: real education results in rejection of what is and developing in what should be. It is this tension in what is and what should be leads to the creation of a new world.

 

Conforming mindset results in reinforcing the status quo which benefits the leaders of the established order. One who is lost in this world finds it very easy to live with establishment but those who wish to create a new world would never accept the given. All prophets, rishis and munis and great thinkers always rejected the world they were born in and left a new world behind before they died.

 

For these prophets and great thinkers, one who is lost in this world is a kafir (one who hides the truth and lives with falsehood) and one who creates a new world is a mu'min (believer in truth, in justice and human dignity). They lived and died for new possible world. The other world is always possible. From Buddha to Christ to Muhammad they all rejected the given world and showed us the way to create a new world.

 

Buddha, Christ, Muhammad (PBUH) gave up their comforts of life and spent years reflecting on possible new world. Instead of losing themselves in the comforts of given world they preferred to engages with blue print of a new world. Those who are lost in this world live for themselves and those who struggle to create a new world live for others. Kings and rulers who lived for themselves are part of history and their burial places are also not known. But prophets, rishis and munis continue to inspire us long after their death and their burial places and samadhis are visited by millions.

 

When I understood this secret of life I tried in my own humble and limited way to work for another possible world. It also changed my understanding of the word kafir and mu'min. I had inherited certain fixed meaning but now a new meaning dawned which was more in conformity with the Qur'anic spirit. It is not that one who does not accept Islam is kafir and one who does, is always a mu'min

 

A real kafir is one who lives for himself and for comforts of his own life making serious compromises with fundamental values of life such as truth, justice, compassion, human dignity and inflicts suffering on others for his own comforts and lust for power and self. He lives in this world. And real mu'min (believer) is not only one who formally accepts Islam but one whose life is a continuing struggle for truth and who refuses to compromise with falsehood, is an embodiment of compassion and is always engaged in relieving others' suffering.

 

To me the Prophet of Islam is what the Qur'an aptly describes him as Rahmatun lil 'Alamin i.e. Mercy of the Universe. It is mercy and compassion which results from tenderness of ones heart, from living and feeling soul, which helps in relieving the entire humanity of all suffering. It is the hard-heartedness and lust for gain which inflicts suffering on others. However, later Muslim rulers, to fulfil their lust for power, changed the image of Islam and reduced it to some formal observations and beliefs while inflicting suffering on others. All the later theological debates (with certain honourable exceptions) and fatwas of kufr (unbelief) were the result of this reversal of Islamic spirit.

 

It has happened in the history of all religions that the founders' Herculean efforts to create a new world are reduced to naught by those who convert religion into an immutable formal theology to retain their control over power. The real spirit of religion (I am not using the word 'religion' here in its pro-establishment theological sense) is to keep on challenging coercive powers. And the Prophet (PBUH) rightly defined jihad as telling truth on the face of a tyrant ruler.  

 

Thus, from the above saying of the Prophet (PBUH) I conclude that real jihad can never be violent in form; much less using violence for achieving one's objectives. Jihad is nothing but constant struggle to challenge coercive and unjust powers for creating the other world where there will be no violence or even coercion. According to my own understanding of the Qur'an, jihad is nothing but ceaseless spiritual struggle for a just world and violence is permissible in exceptional circumstances to defend oneself. And for that too it should be avoided as far as possible.

 

I believe any change brought about by violent or coercive means will never do away with injustice and can, at best, result in greater coercive powers. Violence, in other words, continues to reproduce itself. I also believe that religion, instead of going along with political power, should remain its strong critic. Since power corrupts, power will corrupt religion also and we have seen this in history.

  

However, it is happening even in the twenty first century in many countries including some advanced countries of the West. Politicians misuse religion and corrupt its teaching and practices most cynically to reap political benefit.

 

Initially it may appear that religion is a value-giver and a moral force and hence it would put politics on the right track. Every time it has proved to be an illusion and I believe religion should in no case be married with politics. Politics is all about power games and hence the best role for religion and religious leaders would be to maintain its distance from politics and act as strong critic of political establishment.

 

The doctrine, later on invented by some Muslim leaders, that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam be reinvented to say that religion, while maintaining its distance from politics, should, through criticism of political authorities, try and correct their course. Religion, by becoming part of any establishment, much less political establishment, loses its very moral spirit. Not only that, if it becomes its own establishment, religion gets corrupted. Religion, therefore, should not become an establishment at all. All religious establishments develop their own politics of control and hence suppress people, even eliminate its critics.

 

I believe that no religion is possible without freedom of conscience and fearlessness and commitment to truth. A religious person jealously guards his/her freedom of conscience and commitment to truth. It is lack of this commitment to truth that results religion becoming an obstacle rather than being helpful to human beings. Without this freedom of conscience and commitment to truth, religion ends to become lifeless and ritualistic.

 

It is my conviction that religion should spur healthy change rather than become an obstacle. However, change should be for the benefit of the whole humanity and not for a section of it at the cost of others. Value-based traditions should not be compromised and change should be guided by general human welfare. Traditions should not be spurned just because they are traditions and should not be worshipped because they are traditions. Traditions must change if they cease to play a healthy role for the humanity.

 

It is my opinion that religion should not divide but unite humanity. Human solidarity is the common denominator of all religions. The feeling of superiority over other religious traditions is human arrogance rather than true religious spirit. A true religious believer would never claim superiority over other religions. Since truth is the core of all religions (no religion would be acceptable without this core of truth) one truth cannot be superior over the other. However, their cultural expressions can differ and it is these cultural and linguistic differences which make one religion different from the other. Customs and traditions and parts of religious rituals are products of culture more than religion.

 

Cultural diversity should be celebrated and this diversity is the way of life for the entire humanity in these days of rapid transportation. Qur'an refers to this diversity as creation of Allah and all Muslims should all the more welcome it. If cultural diversity is accepted, it helps ease inter-religious tensions also as most of our religious practices are cultural in origin. Cultural and linguistic differences are more fundamental than religious ones.

 

Also, all religions have urged human beings to resist temptation, anger and feeling of revenge. Forgiveness is one of the highest qualities of religious life and in Islamic tradition Allah has been repeatedly described as Ghafur al-Rahim (i.e. Pardoner and Merciful). Thus a worshipper of God has to forgive and control his anger and feeling of revenge. These are truly religious qualities.

 

If one can suppress one's greed, anger and feeling of revenge, there will not be much violence in the world. One commits violence because one is greedy and wants to take away what belongs to others or when one is angry and wants to take revenge and fails to forgive. Even world wars have taken place because of these negative attributes in an individual or group or nation. Our world would be a much better place to live if these negative qualities could be suppressed.

 

Here I am reminded of a Sufi called Sarmad who was contemporary of Aurangzeb. His story is very inspiring and also illustrates what it means to be religious. He had supported Dara Shikoh, also inclined towards Sufism, and hence Aurangzeb wanted to kill him. He obtained fatwa from the 'Ulama on the grounds that he did not recite kalimah (profession of Islamic faith) fully. He would only say la ilaha (there is no god) but did not say illallah (except one God).

 

On the basis of the fatwa Aurangzeb ordered his execution and when the executioner raised his sword, one of Sarmad's disciples rushed and whispered in his ear: 'now at least say illallah and save your life.' Sarmad replied 'do you want me to speak lie to save my life?' The disciple, surprised at this reply said, 'is it lie to say illallah? 'No', said Sarmad, 'it is the highest truth but for me it would be a lie'? 'Why', the disciple asked. 'Because', Sarmad said 'I have not been able to really deny so many gods of desire still sitting in my heart. How can I then say il lallah (except One God)? I am still worshipping so many idols of desire and not free of them'. And his head was cut off.

 

Unless we deny these idols of desire we cannot become truly religious. This was the message of Sarmad. Not only we worship these idols of desire, we fail to suppress anger and feeling of revenge and purify our heart. Thus being religious is a constant effort, a continuing jihad against all evils we are controlled by. We are not free persons because we are shackled by desire, greed and revenge. A truly free person should be free of all this and his/her only passion should be truth and justice.

 

I also believe that passionate love of Creator and all human beings irrespective of their religion, colour or ethnicity should be our motivating force. 'A heart without love', says Jalaluddin Rumi, 'is nothing but a handful of dust. A human devoid of love is not worthy of humanity'. Jalaluddin Rumi whose mathnavi (an epic poem in several volumes) is called Qur'an in Persian was a great scholar holding a high place in the court of the King of Quniya in modern day Turkey but was devoid of love.

 

It was a roaming dervish Shams Tabriz who introduced him to the importance of love so much so that he began to say: 'I am neither Muslim, nor Christian, nor Jew, nor from earth nor from heavens, nor from east nor from west nor from north nor from south, but my only identity is love and love of my beloved'. It is this passionate love that made Maulana Rum to write mathnavi which made him eternal and people revere him and read his mathnavi with great fervour even today.     

 

Another great Sufi saint Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi also makes love fundamental in his school of thought. He says in one of his poems that 'love is my religion and love is my Shari'ah (law). Love indeed sustains life on this earth'. This love is universal and in fact I believe one can love God only through love of His creation. Life will be barren without love.  It is love which frees human person of all negative passions i.e. anger, hatred greed and revenge. It removes the feeling of 'otherness' of the other.

 

Love transcends all barriers; religious, linguistic, cultural as well as ethnic.  Pure love can be only in pure heart. It admits of no interests. There should not be any expectation in love. It admits only of sacrifice for the sake of one's beloved. It also does not admit of any sense of possession. Beloved cannot be possessed. Any sense of possession destroys the spirit of love as love is supposed to be selfless.

 

Religion often creates a sense of otherness for people of other religions whereas love creates feeling of oneness and thus love is a superior most feeling. Love also implies the respect for beloved's integrity. For Sufis real beloved is Allah and a Sufi considers death as wisal i.e. union with Allah. For a lover the greatest joy is union with his beloved and hence love takes away the fear of death from the lover's mind.

 

There are two categories of love 'ishq-e-haqiqui (real love) and ishq-e-majazi (figurative or metaphorical love). Love of Allah is real love ('ishq-e-haquqi) and love of human person is called 'ishq-e-majazi. Sufis express their love of God through love of human persons. For them real love has to be expressed metaphorically. I, therefore, maintain that human life is incomplete without love. Also, richness of life can be appreciated only through love. It is through love that one finds worthiness of life.

 

I also believe that real religion does not lie in rituals like prayer, fasting, pilgrimage and so on. These are means to an end and the end is inner perfection, ridding one's heart and soul of all evils. If rituals become an end in themselves, inner perfection cannot be achieved. These rituals may be necessary but never sufficient for true religiosity. However, for many, religiosity consists more in performing these rituals than perfecting oneself.

 

I think rationalist attack on religion is not justified. They think reason is an end in itself. Reason is also a means, not an end. Human life is incomplete without emotions, particularly emotion of love. Reason, in philosophical sense, enables us to understand this world and hence reason plays an important part in progress and development. But reason without faith is lame. A perfect human being stands on two legs – reason and faith. It is perfect faith accompanied by reason makes human life properly balanced.

 

Once a human person arrives at certain conclusion with the help of reason, the role of reason ceases there and the role of faith begins. It is faith in one's goal which infuses spiritual energy in human person to act. It is again faith which enables human beings to make supreme sacrifices to achieve one's goal. Reason can show the way but cannot take one to its destination.

 

If I am convinced that human freedom and dignity are important goals, I must act to achieve these goals. Here, not reason but faith enables us to act and do whatever possible to achieve these goals. I admit faith in its extreme and devoid of reason, can be exploited by unscrupulous elements and blind faith becomes powerful tool for exploitation of many gullible people. In this sense I am one with rationalists but I disagree with them that faith is always blind and only reason helps.

 

As blind faith is undesirable, scepticism, the extreme form of reason, is equally undesirable. Once the founder of scepticism fell into a ditch in his old age while walking with his disciples and cried for help. However, his disciples, true to his teaching began arguing whether it is worth saving the master's life. But one of his disciples said human life must be saved and he pulled out the master from the ditch, risking his own life.

 

According to the Islamic tradition, when Ibrahim (Abraham) was asked by Nimrod to jump into the fire as he was fighting against his tyranny and oppressive rule, Abraham jumped into it to save the oppressed whereas reason was only analyzing whether it is worth doing so. It is faith in values which allows human beings to sacrifice for others. Reason is important for progress and development but faith is essential for deciding the direction of progress and development.

 

Today's progress and development is motivated by greed, profit and consumerism and is utterly directionless and it is achieved through the misery of millions and total destruction of our climate and ecological balance. Today's progress and development, made possible through technology, is utterly destructive of all values and finer and sensitive aspects of inner human life. It is also not possible without using violence against the weak. The developed countries are using violence in the African and Asian countries to sustain their unsustainable growth based on greed and consumerism. Without violence they cannot sustain this so called growth. Reason is quite neutral to this destruction and only faith in human values and human goals can show the way.

 

Humanity today needs faith in these values and sensitization towards others suffering as never before. We are destroying our planet earth with utter impunity. Thus we need a world without violence and thousands of years ago insights of great religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Bahaism showed us the way. However, even these religions became prey to human greed and there is a great need to revive their real spirit. We should also remember that all great prophets, seers and saints were from oppressed classes and were critics of powerful and arrogant rulers and liberators.

 

I believe that all religions are a source of rich values and a precious heritage of entire humanity and coupled with reason, a precious gift of God, we can transform our earth into a real paradise of peace. Thus what we need is real synthesis of faith and reason to achieve our goal. Faith, reason, love and non-violence are our real saviours. These should be the guiding stars of our life and to humanize our progress and development. We will be really humanized.

--------------------------------------------   

Institute of Islamic Studies,

Mumbai.

E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in



Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.

__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Fwd. RELIGION AS I VIEW IT -Asghar Ali Engineer [Institute of Islamic Studies]




 


 
<<...I believe religion should in no case be married with politics. Politics is all about power games and hence the best role for religion and religious leaders would be to maintain its distance from politics and act as strong critic of political establishment.

 

The doctrine, later on invented by some Muslim leaders, that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam be reinvented to say that religion, while maintaining its distance from politics, should, through criticism of political authorities, try and correct their course.

 

Religion, by becoming part of any establishment, much less political establishment, loses its very moral spirit. Not only that, if it becomes its own establishment, religion gets corrupted. Religion, therefore, should not become an establishment at all. All religious establishments develop their own politics of control and hence suppress people, even eliminate its critics.

 

I believe that no religion is possible without freedom of conscience and fearlessness and commitment to truth. A religious person jealously guards his/her freedom of conscience and commitment to truth. It is lack of this commitment to truth that results religion becoming an obstacle rather than being helpful to human beings. Without this freedom of conscience and commitment to truth, religion ends to become lifeless and ritualistic....

 

...I believe that all religions are a source of rich values and a precious heritage of entire humanity and coupled with reason, a precious gift of God, we can transform our earth into a real paradise of peace.

 

Thus what we need is real synthesis of faith and reason to achieve our goal. Faith, reason, love and non-violence are our real saviours. These should be the guiding stars of our life and to humanize ...>>

 

 

----------------------

Subject: [Secular Perspective] Islam and Modern Age
Date: 2/1/2010 6:03:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: csss@mtnl.net.in

 

 

RELIGION AS I VIEW IT

 

Asghar Ali Engineer

 

(Islam and Modern Age, February 2010)

 

I am now about to complete 70 years of my life. I have faced many challenges and have gone through much turmoil in life. However, on the whole I am quite satisfied with my life and my modest achievements. I initially gave up my engagement with philosophy and theology in favour of engineering for better material prospects. But with hindsight I feel that it was not a correct decision that I had taken.

 

I came back to this intellectual arena when I decided to resign my job as a civil engineer in 1981 to re-engage with these subjects. I feel I would have hardly achieved any thing as a civil engineer though perhaps I would have had better and more comfortable life in the material sense. But spiritually and creatively I would have died a non-descript man. When my involvement with social and religious issues intensified, I decided to give up my job and re-engage with philosophical and theological issues.

 

My education was not in very reputed institution but only in municipal or government schools and colleges. My father taught me Islamic theology based on Qur'an and hadith and he had the knack of implanting it deeply in my intellect. It was as a result of this that I never lost my interest in these subjects throughout my life. Not even as an engineer. However, as a result of orthodox Islamic education I could not develop a critical mindset. I was taught not to question but to accept.

 

However, my father, despite his orthodoxy was a tolerant soul and I learnt from him to tolerate other viewpoints. Developed further, it resulted in developing critical thinking. Later, by the time I graduated in engineering I could appreciate one thing: real education results in rejection of what is and developing in what should be. It is this tension in what is and what should be leads to the creation of a new world.

 

Conforming mindset results in reinforcing the status quo which benefits the leaders of the established order. One who is lost in this world finds it very easy to live with establishment but those who wish to create a new world would never accept the given. All prophets, rishis and munis and great thinkers always rejected the world they were born in and left a new world behind before they died.

 

For these prophets and great thinkers, one who is lost in this world is a kafir (one who hides the truth and lives with falsehood) and one who creates a new world is a mu'min (believer in truth, in justice and human dignity). They lived and died for new possible world. The other world is always possible. From Buddha to Christ to Muhammad they all rejected the given world and showed us the way to create a new world.

 

Buddha, Christ, Muhammad (PBUH) gave up their comforts of life and spent years reflecting on possible new world. Instead of losing themselves in the comforts of given world they preferred to engages with blue print of a new world. Those who are lost in this world live for themselves and those who struggle to create a new world live for others. Kings and rulers who lived for themselves are part of history and their burial places are also not known. But prophets, rishis and munis continue to inspire us long after their death and their burial places and samadhis are visited by millions.

 

When I understood this secret of life I tried in my own humble and limited way to work for another possible world. It also changed my understanding of the word kafir and mu'min. I had inherited certain fixed meaning but now a new meaning dawned which was more in conformity with the Qur'anic spirit. It is not that one who does not accept Islam is kafir and one who does, is always a mu'min

 

A real kafir is one who lives for himself and for comforts of his own life making serious compromises with fundamental values of life such as truth, justice, compassion, human dignity and inflicts suffering on others for his own comforts and lust for power and self. He lives in this world. And real mu'min (believer) is not only one who formally accepts Islam but one whose life is a continuing struggle for truth and who refuses to compromise with falsehood, is an embodiment of compassion and is always engaged in relieving others' suffering.

 

To me the Prophet of Islam is what the Qur'an aptly describes him as Rahmatun lil 'Alamin i.e. Mercy of the Universe. It is mercy and compassion which results from tenderness of ones heart, from living and feeling soul, which helps in relieving the entire humanity of all suffering. It is the hard-heartedness and lust for gain which inflicts suffering on others. However, later Muslim rulers, to fulfil their lust for power, changed the image of Islam and reduced it to some formal observations and beliefs while inflicting suffering on others. All the later theological debates (with certain honourable exceptions) and fatwas of kufr (unbelief) were the result of this reversal of Islamic spirit.

 

It has happened in the history of all religions that the founders' Herculean efforts to create a new world are reduced to naught by those who convert religion into an immutable formal theology to retain their control over power. The real spirit of religion (I am not using the word 'religion' here in its pro-establishment theological sense) is to keep on challenging coercive powers. And the Prophet (PBUH) rightly defined jihad as telling truth on the face of a tyrant ruler.  

 

Thus, from the above saying of the Prophet (PBUH) I conclude that real jihad can never be violent in form; much less using violence for achieving one's objectives. Jihad is nothing but constant struggle to challenge coercive and unjust powers for creating the other world where there will be no violence or even coercion. According to my own understanding of the Qur'an, jihad is nothing but ceaseless spiritual struggle for a just world and violence is permissible in exceptional circumstances to defend oneself. And for that too it should be avoided as far as possible.

 

I believe any change brought about by violent or coercive means will never do away with injustice and can, at best, result in greater coercive powers. Violence, in other words, continues to reproduce itself. I also believe that religion, instead of going along with political power, should remain its strong critic. Since power corrupts, power will corrupt religion also and we have seen this in history.

  

However, it is happening even in the twenty first century in many countries including some advanced countries of the West. Politicians misuse religion and corrupt its teaching and practices most cynically to reap political benefit.

 

Initially it may appear that religion is a value-giver and a moral force and hence it would put politics on the right track. Every time it has proved to be an illusion and I believe religion should in no case be married with politics. Politics is all about power games and hence the best role for religion and religious leaders would be to maintain its distance from politics and act as strong critic of political establishment.

 

The doctrine, later on invented by some Muslim leaders, that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam be reinvented to say that religion, while maintaining its distance from politics, should, through criticism of political authorities, try and correct their course. Religion, by becoming part of any establishment, much less political establishment, loses its very moral spirit. Not only that, if it becomes its own establishment, religion gets corrupted. Religion, therefore, should not become an establishment at all. All religious establishments develop their own politics of control and hence suppress people, even eliminate its critics.

 

I believe that no religion is possible without freedom of conscience and fearlessness and commitment to truth. A religious person jealously guards his/her freedom of conscience and commitment to truth. It is lack of this commitment to truth that results religion becoming an obstacle rather than being helpful to human beings. Without this freedom of conscience and commitment to truth, religion ends to become lifeless and ritualistic.

 

It is my conviction that religion should spur healthy change rather than become an obstacle. However, change should be for the benefit of the whole humanity and not for a section of it at the cost of others. Value-based traditions should not be compromised and change should be guided by general human welfare. Traditions should not be spurned just because they are traditions and should not be worshipped because they are traditions. Traditions must change if they cease to play a healthy role for the humanity.

 

It is my opinion that religion should not divide but unite humanity. Human solidarity is the common denominator of all religions. The feeling of superiority over other religious traditions is human arrogance rather than true religious spirit. A true religious believer would never claim superiority over other religions. Since truth is the core of all religions (no religion would be acceptable without this core of truth) one truth cannot be superior over the other. However, their cultural expressions can differ and it is these cultural and linguistic differences which make one religion different from the other. Customs and traditions and parts of religious rituals are products of culture more than religion.

 

Cultural diversity should be celebrated and this diversity is the way of life for the entire humanity in these days of rapid transportation. Qur'an refers to this diversity as creation of Allah and all Muslims should all the more welcome it. If cultural diversity is accepted, it helps ease inter-religious tensions also as most of our religious practices are cultural in origin. Cultural and linguistic differences are more fundamental than religious ones.

 

Also, all religions have urged human beings to resist temptation, anger and feeling of revenge. Forgiveness is one of the highest qualities of religious life and in Islamic tradition Allah has been repeatedly described as Ghafur al-Rahim (i.e. Pardoner and Merciful). Thus a worshipper of God has to forgive and control his anger and feeling of revenge. These are truly religious qualities.

 

If one can suppress one's greed, anger and feeling of revenge, there will not be much violence in the world. One commits violence because one is greedy and wants to take away what belongs to others or when one is angry and wants to take revenge and fails to forgive. Even world wars have taken place because of these negative attributes in an individual or group or nation. Our world would be a much better place to live if these negative qualities could be suppressed.

 

Here I am reminded of a Sufi called Sarmad who was contemporary of Aurangzeb. His story is very inspiring and also illustrates what it means to be religious. He had supported Dara Shikoh, also inclined towards Sufism, and hence Aurangzeb wanted to kill him. He obtained fatwa from the 'Ulama on the grounds that he did not recite kalimah (profession of Islamic faith) fully. He would only say la ilaha (there is no god) but did not say illallah (except one God).

 

On the basis of the fatwa Aurangzeb ordered his execution and when the executioner raised his sword, one of Sarmad's disciples rushed and whispered in his ear: 'now at least say illallah and save your life.' Sarmad replied 'do you want me to speak lie to save my life?' The disciple, surprised at this reply said, 'is it lie to say illallah? 'No', said Sarmad, 'it is the highest truth but for me it would be a lie'? 'Why', the disciple asked. 'Because', Sarmad said 'I have not been able to really deny so many gods of desire still sitting in my heart. How can I then say il lallah (except One God)? I am still worshipping so many idols of desire and not free of them'. And his head was cut off.

 

Unless we deny these idols of desire we cannot become truly religious. This was the message of Sarmad. Not only we worship these idols of desire, we fail to suppress anger and feeling of revenge and purify our heart. Thus being religious is a constant effort, a continuing jihad against all evils we are controlled by. We are not free persons because we are shackled by desire, greed and revenge. A truly free person should be free of all this and his/her only passion should be truth and justice.

 

I also believe that passionate love of Creator and all human beings irrespective of their religion, colour or ethnicity should be our motivating force. 'A heart without love', says Jalaluddin Rumi, 'is nothing but a handful of dust. A human devoid of love is not worthy of humanity'. Jalaluddin Rumi whose mathnavi (an epic poem in several volumes) is called Qur'an in Persian was a great scholar holding a high place in the court of the King of Quniya in modern day Turkey but was devoid of love.

 

It was a roaming dervish Shams Tabriz who introduced him to the importance of love so much so that he began to say: 'I am neither Muslim, nor Christian, nor Jew, nor from earth nor from heavens, nor from east nor from west nor from north nor from south, but my only identity is love and love of my beloved'. It is this passionate love that made Maulana Rum to write mathnavi which made him eternal and people revere him and read his mathnavi with great fervour even today.     

 

Another great Sufi saint Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi also makes love fundamental in his school of thought. He says in one of his poems that 'love is my religion and love is my Shari'ah (law). Love indeed sustains life on this earth'. This love is universal and in fact I believe one can love God only through love of His creation. Life will be barren without love.  It is love which frees human person of all negative passions i.e. anger, hatred greed and revenge. It removes the feeling of 'otherness' of the other.

 

Love transcends all barriers; religious, linguistic, cultural as well as ethnic.  Pure love can be only in pure heart. It admits of no interests. There should not be any expectation in love. It admits only of sacrifice for the sake of one's beloved. It also does not admit of any sense of possession. Beloved cannot be possessed. Any sense of possession destroys the spirit of love as love is supposed to be selfless.

 

Religion often creates a sense of otherness for people of other religions whereas love creates feeling of oneness and thus love is a superior most feeling. Love also implies the respect for beloved's integrity. For Sufis real beloved is Allah and a Sufi considers death as wisal i.e. union with Allah. For a lover the greatest joy is union with his beloved and hence love takes away the fear of death from the lover's mind.

 

There are two categories of love 'ishq-e-haqiqui (real love) and ishq-e-majazi (figurative or metaphorical love). Love of Allah is real love ('ishq-e-haquqi) and love of human person is called 'ishq-e-majazi. Sufis express their love of God through love of human persons. For them real love has to be expressed metaphorically. I, therefore, maintain that human life is incomplete without love. Also, richness of life can be appreciated only through love. It is through love that one finds worthiness of life.

 

I also believe that real religion does not lie in rituals like prayer, fasting, pilgrimage and so on. These are means to an end and the end is inner perfection, ridding one's heart and soul of all evils. If rituals become an end in themselves, inner perfection cannot be achieved. These rituals may be necessary but never sufficient for true religiosity. However, for many, religiosity consists more in performing these rituals than perfecting oneself.

 

I think rationalist attack on religion is not justified. They think reason is an end in itself. Reason is also a means, not an end. Human life is incomplete without emotions, particularly emotion of love. Reason, in philosophical sense, enables us to understand this world and hence reason plays an important part in progress and development. But reason without faith is lame. A perfect human being stands on two legs – reason and faith. It is perfect faith accompanied by reason makes human life properly balanced.

 

Once a human person arrives at certain conclusion with the help of reason, the role of reason ceases there and the role of faith begins. It is faith in one's goal which infuses spiritual energy in human person to act. It is again faith which enables human beings to make supreme sacrifices to achieve one's goal. Reason can show the way but cannot take one to its destination.

 

If I am convinced that human freedom and dignity are important goals, I must act to achieve these goals. Here, not reason but faith enables us to act and do whatever possible to achieve these goals. I admit faith in its extreme and devoid of reason, can be exploited by unscrupulous elements and blind faith becomes powerful tool for exploitation of many gullible people. In this sense I am one with rationalists but I disagree with them that faith is always blind and only reason helps.

 

As blind faith is undesirable, scepticism, the extreme form of reason, is equally undesirable. Once the founder of scepticism fell into a ditch in his old age while walking with his disciples and cried for help. However, his disciples, true to his teaching began arguing whether it is worth saving the master's life. But one of his disciples said human life must be saved and he pulled out the master from the ditch, risking his own life.

 

According to the Islamic tradition, when Ibrahim (Abraham) was asked by Nimrod to jump into the fire as he was fighting against his tyranny and oppressive rule, Abraham jumped into it to save the oppressed whereas reason was only analyzing whether it is worth doing so. It is faith in values which allows human beings to sacrifice for others. Reason is important for progress and development but faith is essential for deciding the direction of progress and development.

 

Today's progress and development is motivated by greed, profit and consumerism and is utterly directionless and it is achieved through the misery of millions and total destruction of our climate and ecological balance. Today's progress and development, made possible through technology, is utterly destructive of all values and finer and sensitive aspects of inner human life. It is also not possible without using violence against the weak. The developed countries are using violence in the African and Asian countries to sustain their unsustainable growth based on greed and consumerism. Without violence they cannot sustain this so called growth. Reason is quite neutral to this destruction and only faith in human values and human goals can show the way.

 

Humanity today needs faith in these values and sensitization towards others suffering as never before. We are destroying our planet earth with utter impunity. Thus we need a world without violence and thousands of years ago insights of great religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Bahaism showed us the way. However, even these religions became prey to human greed and there is a great need to revive their real spirit. We should also remember that all great prophets, seers and saints were from oppressed classes and were critics of powerful and arrogant rulers and liberators.

 

I believe that all religions are a source of rich values and a precious heritage of entire humanity and coupled with reason, a precious gift of God, we can transform our earth into a real paradise of peace. Thus what we need is real synthesis of faith and reason to achieve our goal. Faith, reason, love and non-violence are our real saviours. These should be the guiding stars of our life and to humanize our progress and development. We will be really humanized.

--------------------------------------------   

Institute of Islamic Studies,

Mumbai.

E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in



Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.

__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___