Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly

I suppose the position of Islam on slavery was not the best example for "following the essence of what is good in a religion"; it was an OK example. My reading of the Koran actually tells me that the religion asks its followers to treat slaves with fairness, and considers freeing a slave to be a good deed. It does not condemn slavery, nor does it provide any clear cut reward for freeing a slave.

 

However, that does not change my concept of how to follow religions properly or correctly. I do not think following anything in any religion that is more than a thousand years old should be done literally. Even the good things in them should be judged for their essence, and adapted to fit the good common senses of the civilized human minds.

 

Sukhamaya Bain

 

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>; Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Mukto-mona's new policy in effect

Presentation of a relevant fact does not have to be professional or scholarly.

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@...>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly

 

Muhammad himself was not rich enough to possess any slave.  However, after marriage, he owned a few.  The most prominent of them was Bilal who became the first muezzin in Islam. History also records him punishing another bunch of slaves who escaped with death.  I wonder if Subimal Chakravarty found this article 'scholarly'.

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 8:19 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] How to follow religions correctly

To me, following any religion "correctly" would be to follow the essence of what is good in it, dump what is bad in it, and not waste too much time trying to prove something in it to be good when it actually looks pretty bad. I do not have the patience to hear the context in which something hateful was uttered in a religious book. Hateful words in a religious book do necessarily make that religion bad. To me, the context does not matter, because a hateful utterance is very likely to make the average follower hateful; the average follower is likely to have no time or wisdom to see the context. Also because most human beings should not have too much time to spend on religions; they need to keep using, developing and improving science and technology, without which even the religious fanatics would not have the quality of life that they are enjoying.

 

Here is an example of what I call "following the essence of what is good in religions." Mohammad's preaching of Islam had praise and rewards for people who freed slaves; he did not abolish slavery through his religion. To me, that was great in the 6^th century; and I can respect him for that. But now, we are not as primitive as the 6^th century people, we can do better than that. We not only abolish slavery, we treat all innocent humans with respect and dignity; we even afford a good deal of dignified treatment to criminals.

 

Sukhamaya Bain

 

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

"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

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.