The Fable of Religious Sentiments
24 Sep, 2007
- It is not a pleasant experience to be injured or hurt; physical pain makes us scream. The more subtle senses when get hurt are also supposed to scream, but those screams remain unheard. Innumerable feelings of mine are wounded everyday; artless lowly language of poetry in magazines and newspapers haunt my poetic instinct, popularity of cheap and shallow literature wounds my literary instinct; dishonestly of the political leaders attack my political sentiments; likewise many more feelings of mine are injured and made blood-spattered each day, I do not know how to cure them, I do not know of any quarter of the woods or city streets where I can go and yell about those injuries. The state has not taken any measures to protect those feelings, it never did cross the mind of the state. Is it not the state's responsibility to protect such priceless emotions of mine through constitutional law? Many may say, it is not possible at all for the state, since this type of process would involve opening up of a hideous 'emotion ministry' that will be responsible for cataloguing the billion different sentiments that circulate in the minds of billion different people, trace the roots of their injuries and attacks, and take steps to protect them from those attacks. It is not the state's duty to guard my literary, poetic, aesthetic, or political sentiments, but now the state has taken up a strange enough responsibility of protecting 'religious sentiments'; the state is attempting to mark out where 'religious sentiment' is being hurt. Why is the state not formulating laws to protect my artistic, sexual, political, and poetic sentiments? This is because the state does not believe in artistic or aesthetic sentiments, these are matters of ridicule to the state, the state has no role of play even is such emotions are attacked, injured and, eventually killed. But 'religious sentiment' is no such matter of ridicule, it is very important; the state believes in it, and that is why the state is so keen on protecting it.
What is this religious sentiment in order to keep which undamaged the state is so concerned? Science has come a long way during the past few centuries, we know about the nature of the universe if a scientific manner, where there is no room for unworldly mythology, but still the world today is enveloped in mythological culture. Mentally we are living in the mythological world, the same world, which can be found in the mythological books of Plato, Aristotle, and Ptolemy. The mythological nature of the world was changed by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein. The world these people created does not match with the world depicted in the mythological books. However, this world of reason does not effect our imaginary world, which is still occupied with the mythological ideas, even though those ideas have been proved non rational and unscientific. There is an ongoing contradiction between the real world and the imaginary one we live in; human beings are living in that very contradiction between mythology and science. Religion derived from the astonishment, fear, and greed of human beings in ancient time, they imagined many gods and goddesses, they covered the entire sky with a constellation of the divine. Human beings considered those gods and goddesses to be constant, those who did not accept the authority of those gods were tormented. Since then men have been inventing new divine forces, canceling the older ones as invalid, even though those were the worshiped forces previously. Belief in a particular God and worshipping him is a major thing; however, what is even more significant is the creation of the social structure employing those beliefs and rituals of worship. No specific religious is everlasting; in the last five thousand years a few thousands religions have been proposed on this earth, many religions have perished after being practiced for centuries due to the emergence of new religions. Is religion compatible with reason and science? Theologists themselves admit that religion does not go by reason, religion goes by reasonless blind faith, religion will not ask any new questions, seek no new answers; all the answers have already been given in the old holy books, all the truth lie in those books. Nevertheless, people from one religion do not believe in the books held sacred by other religious groups, usually they oppose each other, people from one religion considers others lacking the true religion; overall, people from all religions agree that religion is a matter of faith, where reason is obsolete. Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics everything goes by reason, knowledge is impossible without reason, no truth can be revealed without reason. Blind faith cannot produce paddy, run cars, build even a small bamboo bridge over a canal; faith can do but one amazing thing, send us to a world of limitless happiness after we die. Men have only one are where reason does not function; the nature of this area is quite different, all truth can be attained here with unreasonable thoughts and blind faith. This very blind faith is called 'religious sentiment'.
The 'religious sentiments' of men are not alike, since there are many religions; innumerable religious faiths divide up the world. People from each religion posses a particular kind of 'religious sentiments', on top of that there are subdivisions within each religion, each possessing their unique type of 'religious sentiment' . In the case of most religion the practitioners are not well versed about the main ideas of their religion, they amend new beliefs into it, which are not at all related to the main religion. Many issues layer up in the human mind to give birth to the unreasonable feeling of 'religious sentiment'. This is the 'religious sentiment' that gets injured and attacked. There is no way to measure or detect the fact that 'religious sentiment' has been attacked or injured. Unreasonable feelings cannot be measured with reason. The way most states run today that attacks and injures 'religious sentiments' quite frequently. For example, the 'religious sentiment' of a devout Muslim could be injured just by looking at a temple, because in the world of his faith there can exist no temple, similarly a Hindu person can be offended to look at a mosque, since to him the mosque is unwanted. If a devout Muslim decides that his 'religious sentiment' is being wounded because of the sight of a temple, and demands the temple to be abolished, what will the state do in that case? If a devout Hindu demands that the sight of a mosque is attacking his 'religious sentiments', then what measures will the state take? Pure/devout/genuine religionist's tender 'religious sentiment' can be wounded each second; television, cinema, women at the universities, women at the parliament can injure the 'religious sentiment' of a devout practitioner, who can in turn demand that such things are abolished. Earth and the other planets go around with the sun in the center, universe was created from a 'big bang', it was not created radically, it was created approximately one to two hundred billion twenty years ago, and the universe is expanding since then, the sun and the planets the solar system were formulated four hundred million half hundred billion years ago, humans have not come to earth being locked out of paradise, rather, they have evolved on earth approximately two to four million years before, the mountains are not screwed to the earth, all of these facts are taught at the universities--these ideas could seriously damage the 'religious sentiments' of certain individuals, and they can raise voice to have such knowledge to be banned. What will the state do then? Will the state ban science? 'Religious sentiment' is completely unreasonable, and therefore it is impossible to measure how much it is injured. Unreason cannot be measured with reasonability.
Is it the state's duty to harbor, nurture, and protect 'religious sentiments'? If the state will impose any ideal or philosophy over the inhabitants that that would be ideological despotism. Any type of religiously motivated ideology is suspicious and harmful, and it is not only harmful, but it leaves men blind, restricts their creativity from unfolding. The evolvement of knowledge during the last few hundred decades have not been an easy phenomenon, religious ideology made the path of knowledge more difficult and restrictive; many knowledgeable men have been persecuted and killed. Later it was revealed that the knowledgeable men were set on the right path, while the blind religious ideology was wrong, but forceful and brutal. Even though religious ideology does not play any real role in human life, but it still remains powerful by the careful protection of state machinery. The state is validating blind faith over reasonable knowledge. Even in this age of science mythological beliefs are being intensified, men are being intoxicated with such beliefs; and the irony is the gifts of modern science and technology are being used to transmit such ideas rooted in blind faith. It is legitimate to preach any false ideas on behalf of the religious ideology, and it is being done on a regular basis, but the ultimate truth cannot be spoken, because it goes against the grain of mythological beliefs. What we see being sermonized through books, magazines, radio, television is mythological beliefs, which has no reasonable premise, most of which is hilarious meaningless talks; but not one word could be uttered against mythological beliefs in radio or television. The whole point of the evolvement of knowledge is that it will challenge the mythological beliefs, attack them, and invalidate them; but the state is taking advantage of knowledge, but rejecting the consciousness that comes from knowledge, and is continuing to harbor and nurture mythological faith. Men are not born with any particular religious or 'religious sentiment'; but as soon as he/she is born the religion and 'religious sentiment' of the family starts operating on the human being and makes him/her a part of the family clan of religious faith. Parents, relatives, neighborhood, religious rituals, from school to university, text books, magazines, newspapers, state machinery keeps placing religion and 'religious sentiment' into the human beings head, which polish the person at every moment, cripple his/her creativity and develops unreasonableness in his/her head. If the person belongs to a religious group that is the dominant one of the state then the 'religious sentiment' taken more and more furious shape increasingly. One question is often asked, and that is, why are those that are educated, those who have gained success in different fields of knowledge nurture something unreasonable as blind faith of religion? The fact that they posses religious faith, stands alone as the proof of the appropriateness of religion. But this is no proof. These so called educated and knowledgeable persons are born into families that inject fear and greed into their minds, which they can never escape; they spend their life in a dilemma between reason and unreason. Most of them remain unaware of the dilemma, since humans are such strange animals that they can hold contradictory consciousness. Religion does not only promise eternal happy after life, it facilitates advantages in the material world as well. It is easy to go with the societal rules, going against them is much harder. Men, therefore, give into the material gain in this world and promises of gifts in the after life. This is why the religiousness of educated knowledgeable persons cannot stand as the proof of the correctness of religions. Since religion is understood as something positive and good, we can expect religious people to be honest; but do we not always see the miserable dishonesty of such people? Bangladesh is now a very religious state, the television in the midst of indecent singing and dancing is keeping busy in preaching religion, the religious leaders are performing pilgrimage after pilgrimage, the supernatural excitement of religion is spreading in all directions; therefore, Bangladesh should be overflowing with honesty and goodness. But in reality we can see massive dishonesty, unparalleled corruption, limitless rape. Religion and honestly were supposed to be commensurate with each other; but in reality, religion parallels corruption, dishonesty, and rape. Then is 'religious sentiment' guarding only a bunch of unreasonable belied, greed, and worldly clashes?
'Religious sentiment' is not innocent, it is quiet violent; the people who are falling preys to it are not dishonest corrupted ones, but those that are honest and knowledgeable; knowledge is the biggest prey of 'religious sentiment.' Knowledge has been in conflict with religion for centuries, even after being tormented, knowledge is surviving and changing the world; but still the false mythological beliefs are ruling today, torturing our knowledge. No reason or attribute is required for the decree of 'religious sentiment', rituals and the old holy books supply the energy, and using that energy 'religious sentiment' asserts its uncontestable power. The spread of violent blind 'religious sentiment' is heightened by poverty, illiteracy, corruption, and politics for power. The poor do not have the chances for higher education, all regions of knowledge is unknown to the poor; it is the most effective place for the spread of unreason and blind/bad faith; the uneducated and poor man finds peace and power in that religious faith. Since he does not posses material wealth or power, he holds a magical supernatural power, which does not provide him with anything in reality, but like a drug keeps him lively. Corruption works for religion; deceitful men in order to cover up their corruption and exploitation evoke religious extremism. This is why the more corruption there is in the society, the more religious it becomes. Politicians use religion; they realize that the easiest way to win power is through creating religious exhilaration; they would not have to benefit the citizens, develop society--these are tough jobs; the easiest is to use religion as a tool to gain and sustain power. This results in the successive downfall of the society, like what is happening in Bangladesh today. State must be free of mythological emotion or sentiments, because mythological sentiments for the last thousands of years have not benefited mankind, but damaged it continually.
----
Note: This article was written by late Prof. Huyamyun Azad who was brutally attacked by Islamic fanatics in Bangladesh. Read a commentary on the heinous attack in our website: Attack on Humayun Azad: Launch counter-measures or face doom!: This penetrating article is very timely in the context of recent imprisonment of a cartoonist in Bangladesh and religious fanatics' outcry about their "religious sentiments" being hurt. First published in Mukto-mona.com in Bengali, the English translation (by Rubaiyat Hossain) is being published here with permission from Shabdaguccha -- a bilingual literary magazine published from New York. (fwd Jahed Ahmed)
Name: bobby
Date: Sunday September 23, 2007
Time: 20:44:13 -0700
Comment
Why does the world tolerate intolerant people? They should be paid back in the same coin. Discrimnating against fellow human being just because they do not have the same beliefs than yourself! Why can't they accept that others could have as strong convictions as themselves. Why can't you treat religion as a personal thing rather than forming groups to fight with other people. That is the true face of filthy religion of Islam.
Name: why shud one tolerate intolerant people ??
Date: Sunday September 23, 2007
Time: 22:47:46 -0700
Comment
muslims r intolerant they say kalima to insult humanity which claims that an illitrate camel humper was a prophet,and no one else can me. its insulting. we must ban religion especially islam bcoz its intolerant of others but ask us to accept islam or be killed. so islam must be banned with christianity and judaism. bcoz the jews started the whole prophet biz.
Name: vbv
Date: Monday September 24, 2007
Time: 00:24:24 -0700
Comment
Name: vbv
Date: Monday September 24, 2007
Time: 00:40:20 -0700
Comment
You are right that it was the jews who started this business of prophethood! These prophets have the exclusive rights to communicate with their god and angels and also the absolute right to tell people to fall in line and believe all the muck,trash,lies and bullshits upon the pain of death if you don't submit unquestioningly! All Abrahamic creeds are "prophet-based" and highly intolerant! But then all religions live of the fear and insecurity of human beings promising false hopes and salvation , and also a better life in the hereafter if you submit abjectly and unquestioningly to that particular religion! Professor has analysed correctly that in the light of the above facts the so-called 'hurt sentiments' play a big role in bigots oppressing the commonman tyrannically with his own agenda and lust for power in the name of a religion! That is why if religion mixes with the affairs of the state and governance it will only bring more untold misery and tyranny to the ordinary citizens.The sooner we are rid of religion the better wiil it be for human freedom,happiness and prosperity ,not the least being better mutual understanding and less turmoil!
Name:
Date: Monday September 24, 2007
Time: 04:39:22 -0700
Comment
"so islam must be banned with christianity and judaism. bcoz the jews started the whole prophet biz." did the jews tell the arabs to steal and pervert their religion and spread it by the sword?
Name: vbv
Date: Monday September 24, 2007
Time: 05:00:22 -0700
Comment
Yes! why not ban all religions and make the world a better and saner place to live? Morality comes from within and not because of religion. You will find atheists more kinder and morally better persons than the religious bigots who will use religion as a cover to indulge in all criminal and nefarious activities ,including inciting the gullible to murder and rape!
Name: Joanne
Date: Monday September 24, 2007
Time: 05:28:15 -0700
Comment
Please excuse me Professor. I must criticize your article simply because of either very poor wording which did not convey your meaning, very poor science, or both. "Earth and the other planets go around with the sun in the center, universe was created from a 'big bang', it was not created radically, it was created approximately one to two hundred billion twenty years ago, and the universe is expanding since then, the sun and the planets the solar system were formulated four hundred million half hundred billion years ago, humans have not come to earth being locked out of paradise, rather, they have evolved on earth approximately two to four million years before, the mountains are not screwed to the earth, all of these facts are taught at the universities--these ideas could seriously damage the 'religious sentiments' of certain individuals, and they can raise voice to have such knowledge to be banned." The number is closer to 13.7 billion years ago. Homonids appeared on Earth perhaps a couple million years ago. But then, I studied too much science and engineering for a "proper" woman, I'm afraid. {^_-}
Name: Godot
Date: Monday September 24, 2007
Time: 11:00:20 -0700
Comment
Dear Prof Humayun Azad, Your article was a boost to my Rational Sentiment. Thank you for a great contribution. I am still surprized by the number of the readers of this site who take every opportunity to promote their alternative "religions". They need to know that most of ex-Muslims left Islam and are not seeking another faith, especially here...This site is to expose Islam. Followers of other religions, LEAVE US ALONE!
Name: kafir/infidel ( & Ex-communist ).
Date: Monday September 24, 2007
Time: 13:36:59 -0700
Comment
wov- that is quite a jumble of thoughts to unravel. This is my preliminary response. It seems this professor has a prophetic knowledge like profiteer MO . Sorry to put a break on his expose. Does the professor , thorougly understands what each religion is ? & what the basic principles, philosophy, values ,ethos of each religion ? Whatever he writes - is fully applicable to ISLAM only. It does not apply to Hindu ( sanatana dharma - so called Hindu religion by others - the name 'HINDU religion " itself was labelled & foisted by foreigners. Hindu religion was never meant to be a religion in the sense & definition of ISLAM, christianity & Judaism. SANATANA DHARMA - as it used to be referred was a way of life - to lead pure, pious, moral, ethical values filled with spirituality- with extreme tolerance, peace, love, nonviolence ,accepting the incredible diversity of universe - seeing divinity, value, utility, sacredness in every creature. That is why one can not even easily define what is Hinduism & who is a Hindu !!!! it is a highly evolved, reasoned basic values - open ended philosophy - always absorbing newer useful ideas. Hindu religion never contradicts science or rational thought. For example Knowledge is accorded highest priority - by worshiping - knowledge & music as Godess saraswathi - nowhere else such concept is found..... The professors musings has basis only in ISLAM/Muslims. And not to Hindu/Hinduism. By citing or mentioning Hindu religion on same plane as ISLAM/Muslims- the professor has demonstrated his ignorance unwittingly. In INDIA - the birth place of SANATANA DHARMA - many religions were tolerated ,given place. There are many thousands of churches, thousands of Mosques, synagogues, mandirs for sikhs, Jain temples, Budhhist temples can be seen . It is only in ISLAMIC/Muslim countries - saudi, iran, Iraq, PakiSATAN ,Bdesh that Moslems will not allow to build temples of other faiths. Similarly art, dance, music, paintings, statues all originated in INDIA & copied by others. Hindus do not feel that their sentiment is wounded when they see a Mosque . In fact ,in INDIA - Temple, church, Mosques can be found side by side . So on both counts the professor is wrong conclusively - and right only when he talks about ISLAM. Obviously the professor did not know much about Hindu values, philosophy, principles. It seems he assumed - all like to be ISLAM/Muslims. ... This article is badly written as pointed by JOANNE. If the professor is writing about & against religions ( correctly about ISLAM/christianity) - then why is he writing to say that mand will return to paradise for peace ,purity etc. His writing about the origin of earth ,universe are also wrong. He is a confused lot- trying to write something profoundly but without adequate knowledge. ''' I will write more comments on this later.
Name: Chrissie
Date: Tuesday September 25, 2007
Time: 04:54:49 -0700
Comment
I agree with the late Prof. Huyamyun Azad's sentiment expressed here. "Religious sentiments" should not be a civilly protected right. If your faith in your religion is so weak, if your religion's doctrine is so fragile, then it deserves to be question and challenged. And if your faith is strong, and your religion's doctrine strong, it will stand up to the challenge, if not convince those who do not agree. As a Roman Catholic, I have no problem with people's criticism. I can argue my case, defend my faith, without raging and attacking someone. I can accept when they don't agree, take the ridicule (good at throwing that back too, mmmm I know, not very Christian).
Name: Marie
Date: Tuesday September 25, 2007
Time: 12:01:11 -0700
Comment
It is not religion that creates hate it is the adherents, the people, that create hate. Islam was created by a madman who hated people that were different from him. Christianity and Judiasm do not promote hatred against non Christians and non Jews. Nazism is an example of this, because it's ideology was created by another madman who also hated Jews and anyone that he thought was un-German. People could try to ban religion in an attempt to stop hatred, but in the end it won't matter because hatred is an unfortunate human condition and also the people who want to ban religion are also promoting hatred towards people who do not have the same beliefs as they do.
Name: kafir/infidel ( & Ex-communist ).
Date: Tuesday September 25, 2007
Time: 20:29:59 -0700
Comment
There is a lot of confusion here both in the presentation of the article & the comments by such people VBV & Godot. The premise on which this write up ( with many mistakes & wrong interpretations ) is based is wrong. The author should confine himself with specific case of IALM / Moslems/ & countries like saudi, Pakisatan/iran/Bangladesh & all other declared ISLAMICc countries officially & where state sponsors & crafts the policies, dictated by religion. clearly Humayun Azad's ideas do not apply to liberal, secular ,humanist democracies like INDIA, USA, UK, Europe, canada, ISRAEL etc where state is based on republic - for the people, by the people & of the people. Religion do not dictate ..... Also everybody must know that only ISLAM/QURRAN/MO/ Alla dictates that ISLAM must be made & rule on people, even ISLAM is so primitive, bigoted, narrow, cruel, evil, fascism, totalitarian ,dogmatic, intolerant.... Again everybody must note that what Humayun wrote applies to ISLAM/Mohammadens. Humayun made big blunder by mentioning Hindu/hinduism - as every knowledgeable person must know that Hinduism is the most secular ,most tolerant, most universal, most peaceful & there is nowhere written, mentioned, advocated that Hinduism must rule & all other religions have no place . This is proven from history of 7 millinnea. So in this point Humayun is wrong.( & other points too.)..... vbv - who are you to ban all religions ? some dictator ? your idea that atheists have morals is complete bankrupt. Take for example POL Pot, Stalin,MAO ,IDI amin, Hitler etc. You canot discard the belifs of all human beings. Human brain adopted the idea of /concept of God - the same brain is also responsible for the advancements in science. No scientist is against the concept of GOD - even if they do not believe in GOD. Even Einstein did not advocate for abolition of reliigion . We just do not have answers yet. That is all. Even then just like in science - a hypothethis is made/postulates are formulated/assumptions are made- without any evidence - just to test an idea . Like this there are umpteen examples in science. Anyway - ISLAM is uniquely evil & it is a unique case . Christianity is also bad but it has become civilized now. But the case of Hindu religion is quite apart in the opposite direction - since it does not impose any thing on anybody, not dogmatic, not totalitarian, do not advocate that it is superior & do not advocate for the destruction of other religions,other people etc. Hinduism is also most peace loving. Hinduism evolved after extensive arguments, challenges, discussions, explored in depth the questions of human existence, universe, their place, interrelations, meaning of existence etc. Most important Himduism is a positive concept ( ISLAM/christianity are negative just like communism - are fascist too.). Hinduism is also scinetifically sound - atleast far better . just look at Yoga, meditation, pranayama . hind philosophy do not contradict with anything . It is highly & universally valid .
Name: vbv
Date: Monday October 15, 2007
Time: 04:24:10 -0700
Comment
Idi Amin was not an atheist but a believing muslim who retired to Saudi Arabia after he was overthrown in Uganda. As for Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot ,they were not atheists in the strict sense of the term, as they were slaves to an idealogy called "communism" or extreme leftist dogma which is as intolerant as any organised religion .Hitler was a roman catholic who wanted to found a religion of his own based on racial superiority of the germans. A true atheist does not subscribe to any dogma or belief system. You can take the examples of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawkins, Roger Penrose,etc. These are eminent persons in science,journalism,etc. and they are true atheists not pushing any agenda for any belief system. And I would emphasize that these persons are morally upright without the crutches of a religious dogma. Their contributions to the world in whatever field they have an expertise is truly great. Need I say more to disprove that religion has no true ethics other than promoting itself .