SOME BASIC POINTS ABOUT RELIGION ISLAM (part five)
Since master will become more powerful and wealthy if he could get more slaves hence the commandment, you shall spread this message as far and wide as you can by all means at your disposal. Also when going gets tough and things get bad for the master and the slaves begin to feel the brunt their attention is diverted from the real problem that master has to a new enemy out side. Thus slaves when they get hungry they go out and attack others like bandits to rob them in the name of god. Slaves are frightened into submission as well as given incentive of reward not in this life because that will cost the master but in a life that is not really there. If any slaves tries to leave the group, you shall kill him, tells the holy messenger of god according to stories of these like masters. All businessmen try and secure their business and expand so the organised religion is nothing any different, for that is livelihood of the masters. So they too need to keep steps ahead of their slaves.
Now the slave mentality. You see once a slave, always a slave. This is what is happening to us religious people. We have been indoctrinated for thousands of generations, how is it going to disappear overnight especially if education is still kept out of reach of those for whom it matters and any educated themselves are silent due to fear of their own lives or that they are bought people, for they too must use their education to make a living. Believe you me my very dear friends this trap is really difficult to come out of unscathed. You take your explanation of religious commandments and mine and superimpose it on people that we are talking about it and see which explanation is more closer to reality of all times and places in this world. Shall we deny the struggle between the rich and powerful and the destitute? Or shall we deny the fact of our evolutionary instinct based hierarchical order? Why do you think that the gap between the rich and the poor remains 180 degrees always? Would you tell me that it is all fault of our religious or our political leaders of today but the actual religion has nothing to do with it? Islamic inheritance law is based on tribalism which tells you not to treat people equally. You must love your own children more than mine. That is why when you will die and leave any thing, it will not go to my children but yours. You will leave double for your boys than for your girls. Do you not feel that something is wrong here? Especially if life in this world is not of any importance for a true muslim, for he lives for hereafter?
The fact is that in early primitive human communities women were used to create alliances or strengthen them with other clans and tribes. They were treated just like cattle and they still are particularly amongst backward tribal societies. Since women were to be given away therefore they were treated badly in their parental homes and had no peace where they were sent as a gift. Of course, things always changed for the better with time by little bit improvements here and there and so they continue. This was always out of necessities not because people became wise over night. You see if you and I entered a competition, we each will try and out wit the other and the result will be an improvement without either of us really working for it in a conscious sort of way. It is a kind of side effect or by product of the process. Likewise, ideologies improve, political systems improve, social structures improve, cultures improve, economic infrastructures improve and so do our practices and traditions. People who fail to compete effectively lose out. However, to compete effectively you need to be willing to make changes in things that cause you to lose out and so you need to come up with ideas, systems and practices that help you to be a winner. If I can clearly see that all your ideas, systems and structures or practices are a recipe for loss then you do not expect me to believe that you are going to be a winner and so bet on you instead of someone who I consider is going to win, for he has all that he needs to win. I think this is a very serious point but I don‚€™t know what you guys are going to make of it. I will come back to any of these points again later on that I see are relevant as we go on in this discussion.
So as I was saying, if religion (islam) taught us to love each and every person, we would have had a fairer society for which we are all striving but cannot get it because we are not going for it in a the right sort of way. To get that sort of society we must get rid of tribalism and the tribal mindset ie master slave mentality. When we all love and respect each other equally as human being on the basis of merit rather than on the basis of kith and kin relationships that is the time we will become really thinking human beings. Let us go back to commandments and we are told, you shall not stone to death anyone who is accused of rape unless the accuser brings four male witness who are blameless. The questions that arise in my mind are, who is going to get raped? Mostly a poor woman. Who is going to rape her mostly the powerful men. Where from is the poor women going to bring her witnesses and so many? Who will be foolish enough to stand witness against the powerful landlord? Other powerful landlords? No mostly they too will be taking advantage of all this. Or is it the poor vessels, who depend on their landlords for their livelihood? Moreover, if there are four good muslim men what the hell are they doing there, are they not going to do anything to stop the rape from taking place? And who would be mad enough to rape a woman in front of four good men, if they are the good men?
Moreover if it is an act of madman then why stone him to death ie sick people need treatment not punishment? Also if a women cannot bring four witness, does that mean, she has not been raped? Why should she be punished with so many lashes or even stoned to death for adultery? How can failure in producing required evidence lead to conviction of adultery? It could be that she is telling the truth and perhaps she has become pregnant and would bear a child in time. The problem here is that if a women stays silent after being raped and becomes pregnant then she will be accused of adultery, for why did she not claim at the time that she was raped? However, if she did then due to lack of evidence she becomes accused of adultery or of false accusation? Does this make any sense to anyone or am I mistaken? Please help! The only way this makes sense to me is that islamic laws are to give impression of protection, fairness and justice to the destitute but they meant something else in practice to preserve the prestige and position of the rich and the powerful. We are told that a muslim women is not to travel alone but with a man eg father, brother etc for protection. Now if four men are needed to be witnesses then if somebody‚€™s sister is raped by say a couple of madmen. One can take care of the brother and the other of the sister. Moreover, statement of brother is no use as a witness, she should travel with four men not one. What kind of protection is that? Is it not better to make the society more humane, open and friendly than to lock up the women in cupboards? Moreover make changes in required legal evidence as well as up grade crime prevention and detection systems and methods. As things stand, a landlord can call his vessel and his daughter or sister and rape her right in front of him and there is not a thing the poor man can do. This is islamic sharia at work, the perfect divine law to protect the weak.
My question is, who is the alleged perfect divine law protecting, the powerful or the poor? My answer is, the rich and the powerful. One can also read some statistical data to see how many powerful people have destroyed how many unfortunate people in muslim states. Collect the news paper or news magazine reports if you like of your own religion or state. Organised religion according to my understanding promotes crimes in the name of compassion, love, fairness and justice etc. Some times some religious people argue, why religious people put so much effort into promoting their religion if it is not true? They do not realise that if that was the case then why fights between religions and why people promote different religions? Are they all promoting them because they are all true? So the idea that muslims are promoting the true religion but others are promoting falsehood is a wrong idea. People, if they want to judge others, they need to judge each other fairly by applying same rules in same cases.
You see any organised religion including islam is manipulative and therefore deceptive. It has to give impression that it is good and fair etc etc to make a kill therefore the commandments seem good but when we analyze them under the electron-microscope so to speak then we see a whole different ball game at play. I mean look at the holy messenger of Allah, who with all his kindness and compassion did not ordered but suggested that the slaves be treated better. Is that for the good of the slaves or their masters? Who loses out if they are not treated well? Obviously the masters. Because an ill treated slave would not be as useful as a well kept slave. Let us take example of animals people use for their daily work. If they mistreat them they do not last very long, do they? If a work horse that pulls the cart for a delivery person etc dies or becomes ill through maltreatment of the owner then the owner along with his family will have to starve, for that is the only source of his income. It shows that at least the prophet was clever enough to realise this loss. The kind act would have been to free the slaves, educate them and help them stand on their own feet. Don't get me wrong such things did happen in the early life of Muhammad when he was trying to get supporters for his cause, for that would be the people ie people in that situation that would be more likely to support anyone to get out of the mess. You can see that happening in India and Africa even today that christian and muslim missionaries are converting destitute hindu people in the name of helping them ie dalits and sudras etc. In fact muslims are converting christians and christians are converting muslims whereever they can.
10) Although here I am talking about muslims but the points I am raising are valid in case of any religion, for basically they are all the same as I understand them. Let us look at some more commandments and see if they are also tribal in their origin or not. In case of murder the quran tells muslims to kill a slave for a slave and a free man for a free man or a woman for a woman. The way it is expressed in the quran is quite clear and only makes sense if we look at it in a tribal context. That is if you killed a member of my tribe then I must have a member of your tribe killed in return. Now if you killed a woman in my tribe then I must get a woman of your tribe killed in return ie like for like. In this context it is quite clear that the actual killer is irrelevant. What I mean is that if a woman of your tribe has killed a man of my tribe then I want a similar man of your tribe killed in return, full stop. If a man of your tribe kills a woman of my tribe then I must get a similar woman of your tribe killed in return. So what we are looking at here is the islamic concept of justice, which is, of course, tribal. The real justice as we understand it, is that we get the killer and not his kinsman or his slave etc etc as the quran tells us that would be wrong as I see it but perhaps you do not. Remember, we are told time and time again that the islamic law is for ever and ever. By the way the case is exactly the same in other religion‚€™s scriptures ie they all have tribal laws.
According to religious scriptures woman are not allowed to be witness on their own, there has to be a male witness. For example, in islamic sharia we are told that the testimony of two women is equal to one man but only if the required witness has to be of two men, so there could be one man and two women witness. However, testimony of four women in this case is not equal to two men. This is again tribalism at work here. Master has right to beat up his slave, husband has the right to beat up his wife and the parent has the right to beat up his child. Likewise, the tribal chief being the head of the tribe has the right to beat up any member of his tribe. This is why an innocent member of his tribe can be killed by him in return for killing of a member of another tribe. That is why I used master and slave expression everywhere. Parents are masters children are slaves. You see, the pattern that emerges from the scriptures cannot be mistaken at all for anything else. So as I was saying a wife is actually a slave not a loving and caring partner in life. This is why men did not have one but many wives as well as many many slave girls yet religions are against premarital sex between consenting adults as well as adultery. This has nothing to do with sexual morality, love or even lust etc etc but pure and utter primitive tribal need for survival. This is the way tribes were and it shows in the scriptures many a time, again and again. This is why people had many many children, so that they could fight against other smaller tribes to enslave them or to protect themselves against the bigger tribes etc etc.
If people could think beyond themselves or their time they could have kept their population well under control. You see religion promotes population by being against birth control, because when religions were invented these things were thought to be necessity of that time, for people were not sensible enough to realise they could live together in peace. Because they had no much sense, they did not create peaceful societies but then we all learn from our mistakes because our mistakes cost us dearly so we are forced to not to make the same mistakes twice but some times we still do. That is why the world is still very much like it used to be ie full of illiterate, ignorant and violent primitive and tribal people. This is how religions spread ie various tribes of the time took over each other or they formed tribal alliances under some sort of agreements. You see, today we have more ways and means to spread the message and we are more knowledgeable as well, yet we fail to convince each other. Can anyone understand how mass conversion to religions took place other than under threat of violence or actual violence? So to think that any religion spread by peaceful means is contrary to what we observe in the real world. Humanity has been moving from violence to nonviolence but it will take ages to get there. It is because of tribalism that I think religionism is dangerous because expansion of tribalism is imperialism, for tribes joined together to form kingdoms and kingdoms began to take over other smaller kingdoms and so the story continues. Meanwhile as populations grew scientific and technological development was resisted and the result is what we see ie people are unable to produce enough even to meet their own daily needs.
Anyway let us turn to another aspect of the quran ie having a civilised discourse. The quran commands muslims to be nice to none muslims when debating about religion with them, see 2/258, 16/125, 25/63, 29/46, 31/19 etc. It clearly states that nonmuslim kings of the time heard the arguments of quranic prophets etc as well but with testing patience ie they allowed them the freedom to speak till they over stepped their mark as set by the kings. In other words the quran tells us that the prophets etc were the good guy and the kings etc were the bad guys. It also tells the muslims that religion is a matter of self conscious or individual choice eg 2/256, 4/137, 10/99, 25/47, 3/90, 109/6 etc etc. You cannot make people believe what they do not accept mentally by reason. So far so good but now the other side of the story with which I have problem. I would like you to bear with me, for it is a very long topic. Let us start with Allah himself to see how far he follows his own advice. As I read the quran from beginning to the end, I see Allah speaking with people in a manner and tone that I do not considered even civilised never mind wise.
If I want to guide my children or if they were not listening to me, I should talk to them with patience, love and affection and perhaps give them incentives and motivate them sensibly but not if I was a tribal man trying to fit the shoe of a god, for then I wouldn‚€˜t know how to talk better, for that is all I know. You are right, I am assuming the quran is word of an Arab tribe‚€™s man. The quran begins, BIS MILLA HIRAHMAA NIRRAHEEM ie in the name of Allah, the merciful, the beneficent. Here, it is clearly a third person talking about Allah and it is not Allah himself talking about himself. However, I am told that it is really Allah speaking as a teacher, to teach people how they should praise him. In that case it causes another problem ie it seems that Allah is talking like a primitive tribal man, for he is praising himself to begin with, which sounds like an egoistic person talking. This does not seem right to me, for Allah should worry about our needs first, not himself being praised. Are you going to keep your kids waiting in suspense as to who exactly you are? You will simply tell them, look kids, I am your father who loves you and takes care of you. You do not tell them, look kids, I am a very nice guy, I own the house in which you live, I give you clothes you wear, I bring the food you eat, so I want you to sing my praise. It seems to me Allah does not know how to be direct in introducing himself. All he needed was to say, look people, I am Allah who created you and feeds you, even if love has to stay out of this equation. The author of the quran is beating around the bush so to speak.
Also introducing oneself like this does not seem right to me ie I am this and I am that. I do not think that any wise person speaks like this about himself to introduce himself, it sounds like (excuse my expression) introduction of a Mafia Boss who wants to take over the gang so to speak. After telling people for praise, Allah gets down to incentives and then threats ie usual tribal business of beating people up. That is how the first chapter or sura alfaatiha seems to me. It does not seem to me anything like god‚€™s word. I will not do the same in case of the rest of the quran for that is a far bigger task than I can handle at the moment, for I do not have time to comment on each and every verse of it. Moreover, these are only samples of problems that I see in the quran, due to which I reject the quran as a word of God. Not only that but if one examine the text of the quran, there is a clear evidence within the quran that proves it word of man. Going back to the way Allah speaks in the quran, please consider examples where Allah insults pagans, jews and christians etc etc. See 2/13, 18, 171, 6/25, 39, 7/176, 179, 8/55, 9/29, 10/42, 25/44, 43/40, 47/12, 62/5 etc. The quran contains many verses calling people names for rejecting it. The wise person would lay down the message and leave people to accept or reject without calling them any names whatsoever even if they make a wrong choice, for that is the whole purpose of freewill and revelation according to the quran itself.
You see, whenever two people discuss things and they differ, there are only two possible outcomes. Both wrong or one right. It is not possible for the both to be right in the same sense. Now people are born ignorant, they are kept illiterate and to be rational it takes a lot of practice in developing critical faculty. It is easy for Allah to say to such people, you are stupid and your ancestors are stupid but whose fault is it in the first place to put people in such situations and then expect the impossible of them? Who looks more stupid to borrow the quranic expression? Is it a sensible thing to do to hand over the encyclopedia to a baby or even to read out to him? You see, to understand more knowledge one needs to have the necessary level of knowledge already. I will now turn to offensive preaching tactics used by organised religion. Please, read the verses relating story of Abraham. Note, how he enters idol temple, breaks all the idols of pagans and leaves one standing to make a point. See 21/57 etc. The point was, the idols are not gods, for they did not respond to Abraham‚€™s actions. My problem is, does muslim God respond when his temples are defiled? The idols remained in Kaba for centuries before Muhammad removed them. If I went and did the same to islamic places of worship in Makkah and Madina today to make exactly the same point, would it be the right thing to do? Please think fairly and not according to the quran, because if you take the quran as basis for making your judgements then how would you judge the quran itself for its wrong or right? Moreover then the christians and their bible is also right. Why? Because they say, Jesus is son of god and that is the way they interpret the holy bible. If your religious book is your criterion according to your interpretation then their holy book is their criterion according to their interpretation. Now if your book says that Abraham has done the right thing and you accept it right because it is in your book, then by the same logic, the christians are right in believing that Jesus is son of god because that is in their book. This means the problem stays where it is so our criterion is wrong. The criterion is the way of solving the problem and if it does not solve the problem then it is not a criterion. The problem in this case is disagreement between the people involved ie atheists, muslims and christians etc etc. So we need to agree that criterion has to be such as is fair to all involved.
Going back to prophetic behaviour, according to the islamic sources, Muhammad did the same to idols of Makkan pagans. Recently Taleban did the same to statutes of Budha. That was in my opinion according to the quran but was it the right thing to do? One must realise the act of Abraham is reported by Allah in the sense that he has done the right thing. Let me take you to another act of Abraham. Please see 2/258. According to Abraham god must prove his existence, how? By showing the kind of sign that Abraham expects of a pagan king if he is really a god. What is Abraham‚€™s demand? His demand is that if the claimant of godhead is really god then he should get the sun to rise from the opposite direction ie the west. Please notice again that this story of Abraham is also told as a very important thing. Perhaps, because Abraham won the argument. However, it shows quite clearly that it was Abraham who lost the battle. Why? Because he has told us that you should never believe in anyone‚€™s claim without a proof. Now is there anyone amongst his followers who could prove that God of Abraham exists? Now none can prove so, therefore god of Abraham is also as good as the god he seems to have defeated.
I should perhaps come back to the point whether what Abraham demanded as a proof was even possible for any god at all ie the reversal of earth‚€™s rotation. There is such a saying in the quran that had god wished the night to be permanent, he could have done it 25/45, 28/71 etc. This actually raises problems. For example, the quran tells us that we should observe the universe or things in it and arrive at a conclusion. Why is this a problem? It is a problem first in the sense that Allah thinks when it is night on the earth it is night over the whole of the earth, for sun has gone down and will stay down. It is also problem in the sense that our observation only matters if we could understand things the way they are. If one minute god does things one way and the next minute in another way then we will become confused ie things happening the natural way and things happening miraculous way cannot be mixed or they are bound to confuse us , for one negates the other. If one minute someone tells me that once upon a time cats flew in the sky and calls it miraculous and the next minute that they never fly, for that is the way cats naturally are, what am I suppose to make of all this when as far as my own experience is concerned I know that cats do not fly?
This is why if god uses nature as evidence then it has to be natural way and if he uses supernaturalism as evidence then it has to be that way, but it cannot be both ways. Not that this is true definition of any divine proof, for that is impossible as I made it clear in the earlier posts. It is impossible because we are physical beings and only sense and understand physical things not nonphysical things. In physical world a proof begins from a physical object and ends at a physical object. Logic or sequence of event in the witness statement only explains it without any lose ends creating a water tight explanation of the event thus proving the case or claim. It is therefore alright to claim and prove that one physical things led to another but not that one nonphysical thing led to another, for that being nonphysical cannot be proven. One has to realise that physical objects and the logical linkage for them both can be tested for their right or wrong but as soon as one steps into arguments about nonphysical then both the nonphysical thing and its related logic is all assumptuous that cannot be tested or proven ever. This is why we cannot and should not mix science and superstition. I am using many such absurd statements my self to show the problems and absurdities of arguments about the nonphysical and so they should not be taken as evidence that one can prove or disprove something nonphysical merely by logic. Likewise my argument continues that god has no mind to change, for if he changes his mind then he is no god, for that makes his knowledge imperfect. On the other hand if he cannot change his mind or make choices then he has no free will. You see the contradiction causes a serious problem here. However, these arguments and their problems I may state later on when I discuss nature of god according to the quran and whether it is possible for such a god to exist or not.