Months back, there were reports in the papers on the "yoga controversy" in Malaysia. Muslims, it argued, were in danger of being corrupted by elements of Hinduism: the chantings of "Om". While it is to be appreciated that Islam is a strictly monotheist religion and Hinduism is not, and Muslims, by their faith, are required to steer clear of the very spirit of polytheism or atheism in their activities, this is utterly absurd. In 7th century Arabia, Muslims were asked to get rid of curtains bearing images in their homes, because polytheism was rampant in the society, and even though while offering their obligatory prayer, they were not bowing in front of these images, it was advised that they needed to leave no doubts about their belief. This obviously meant that in times when they weren't issues of concern, pictures, images and statues were taken for what they were - pieces of art - but certain kinds of Muslims a.k.a mullahs, have insisted otherwise. Hence, the declarations that pictures are haram (forbidden) in Islam; hence, the firing to dust of Buddha excavations in Afghanistan; hence, the menace of the Taliban.Likewise, it makes no sense that Yoga should be forbidden to Muslims, but our clergy, border after border, is now beginning to wake up to these unending rays of enlightenment. The latest buzz is a ban on Indonesian Muslims. I say "these" because previous trendsetter rays have set high precedents. Much earlier, though I can't say when exactly, a decree by the authorities-that-be, declared that a Muslim woman couldn't practise - yes - yoga, because that would require her to wear pants in the company of other women, which could "lead her to have lesbian sex".
Muslim men and women are also recommended not to spend time together needlessly and without a third presence, except in the case of spouses or unmarriageable kin. Flirtations are looked down upon in Islam. But an Al-Azhar cleric has, like his "cell-mates", without effort given fodder to the mischievous to humiliate his religion. He has found an ingenious way to allow marriageable men and women to sit together, alone, in private, without guilt, and - wait for it - without chances of promiscuity. The woman can breast-feed her male friend, which would make her unmarriageable to him, having achieved an instant certificate of motherhood.
On a very serious note, I am not surprised that the average person feels disgusted at the thought of religiosity, or believes only in humanism for religious ritualism does not make anybody a better person. True, it doesn't, because it has been hijacked by feeble-minded fools who alone are responsible for giving Islam a bad name. And these kinds exist in all religions. I'm only quoting from the Muslim world lest somebody else feels insulted or doubts my intentions. I have only one thing to say to the disgruntled man of faith: Religion encourages reason!
Photo credits: http://www.healthspablog.org
Copyright (c) 2008 Saadia Malik
Posts
33 comments:
bloody hell...
so weird :(
God is one..loving humanity is loving god, people who do not believe in this..well, why waste our time yaar?
i studied in a muslim college, i work in a muslim country..i love everybody? any problem?
"I am not surprised that the average person feels disgusted at the thought of religiosity, or believes only in humanism for religious ritualism does not make anybody a better person."
I heartily agree with you. Thanks to the hyper-ritualistic religious, it's becoming harder and harder to argue for religion in these complicated times.
Religion is being used by all to start wars. It is giving all a bad name. Islam is the one that is taking the brunt of it. Yet no matter what one you look at they all our guilty including Judiasm and Christianity in causing the problems of today rather than being the one to find the answers to what is going on around the world. Being a revert to Islam, I am finding that my move is away from any form of organized religion and just being more spirtual in nature.
It's disturbing.
I love yoga it helps me center my chakra. Plus, it gives me an excuse to use the word chakra.
I have been doing yoga for years and have seen its benefits. It has nothing to do with religion.
Mumble Bee, thank you for shedding light on Hinduism, in its pristine form. I must admit that I haven't looked deeply into Hindu texts/books, but I have had the knowledge that the idols are worshipped in the capacity of sub-Gods. In Abrahamic religions, neither is that allowed nor is nature worship. But that debate was besides the point. My argument was the way our mullahs have hijacked all sense out of Islamic history and rituals.
What Adi Shankara has done to Sanatana Dharma - as you suggest - is what many a 'saints' have done to Islam. And frankly, as far as my own convictions go, nobody has the right to add to the basics of a religion, if indeed, they believe that it comes from a Divine source, even if they say they're doing it out of goodwill. One is free to interpret but not to intervene in such affairs.
oh God,
just when you think that you have you seen it all, people come up with something to shock the living daylights out of you.
saa, i had posted a comment reg newspapers that u had asked..wonder whether it got posted or got lost..take care..
what te heck is the prob? anywy. i am comp illiterate and that is 2 blame. u asked abt newspapers. TOI has ceased to be a newspaper. Its owners call it a product. so it can turn right, left and centre based on the marketability..Hindustan times, centrist. The Hindu is a leftist paper with the editor being a redcard holder.
Dear Saadia
This is coming from an agnostic and an atheist (depends on the time of the day) so don't read too much into it. But I don't agree with your argument (though you’re fully entitled to it) “ …nobody has the right to add to the basics of a religion, if indeed, they believe that it comes from a Divine source, even if they say they're doing it out of goodwill. One is free to interpret but not to intervene in such affairs.”
Nothing is permanent except change. A religion has to evolve with the changing times and human development, else it is likely to atrophy and die. Even Islam has evolved from the other “Abrahamic religions” (the commonality is immense – the difference being in ‘procedural guidelines’), which would not have been possible if a different thought was not allowed to flourish. Just as water finds its own level so do human experiments with just about everything in the world.
A very interesting post, though a trifle shocking.
Saadia, you and I had an interesting discussion on religion a while ago on one of your postings which connects up really well with what's being said here:
http://saadiam.blogspot.com/2008/12/believe-me.html#comments
Munna, you've raised a very interesting point. While I wouldn't say that a religion has to evolve over time, I definitely believe that it allows people to evolve over time. My argument was for the basics of religion: if Islam tells me that there is One God, and He is to be worshipped in a particular way, then those are the rituals that I must not contaminate with my own enlightened thoughts.
However, in matters of social and legal concern, I am more for maintaining the spirit of the message. I'll share an example.
In the Qur'an, Islam requires a widow to observe a waiting period (i.e. not marry elsewhere) for three periods after the demise of her husband. The spirit of this directive was to ascertain the fatherhood of the child. In these days, when the same can be done through medical means, then I believe it allows us to change with time, with the pace of life, and accept the paternity tests, even if those are conducted on the following day.
Id, I hope I won't have to tend to two very powerful discussions now! Haha...
* the Qur'an, Islam requires a widow to observe a waiting period (i.e. not marry elsewhere) for three periods after the demise of her husband. The spirit of this directive was to ascertain whether the widow was pregnant or not, so that there would remain no question on the fatherhood of any child.
@ Saadia, what you’ve illustrated is basically a change in ‘procedural guidelines’ without tampering with the basic tenet of faith. Now consider the case of Ahmadiyas and their beliefs, some diametrically opposite to ‘finality of Muhammad as the last prophet’, which clashes with one of the founding pillars of Islam. They still consider themselves as Muslims and adherents of Islam while several Islamic nations (including Pakistan) consider them heretics and persecute them. Their faith has evolved from Islam .They are a minority but supposing they had numbers on their side, their version of Islam would have counted as true belief.
So along with people and society, religions also do evolve. It’s basically a question of power of persuasion of ideas, which appeal differently to different people at different times.
If the tenets of a religion are to evolve over time, then I won't call that 'faith'. Of course, persuasion of ideas is inevitable in terms of the interpretation of a religion - but to add to, or take away from its basics - is not something acceptable to me. Ahmadis argue against Muhammad being the 'seal of the prophets', and I am nobody to judge a single soul, if he/she is truly convinced. That is between them and God. Since you are noncommittal towards Him, I see that you are open to all shapes and sizes of religion. But for the religious, basics are not to be tampered with. If the basics of one religion don't convince them, they are morally bound to be true to their hearts and minds.
On a different (but relevant) note, religious law-making does not alone harbour absurdities: An army marches on its stomach
Secularasana - How weird is this piece. I appreciate the author's want for Hindu-Muslim unity; but "Muslims who don’t mind a tipple or two; Indian Army personnel who have a soft spot for romantic movies; proud Indians who, despite their fierce patriotism, can’t resist sports footwear of international brands. The list of Hindus afraid of death despite knowing that all is maya is also reassuringly long"?
So is it better to compromise on one's convictions for the sake of secularism (a.k.a pluralism!)?
Wa'Alaikum Assalaam! So we agree! I think people who call themselves 'spiritual' and not religious, might be doing so because they do not see propriety of method in rituals or maybe because of disgruntlement for reasons cited in this post. Either way, they are acknowledging a Higher Being. But yes, on a personal note, I couldn't separate the two either.
Religion seems to have a totally different identity to you. For me, it does not confine. It defines the focal point of my life, and does not snub my ability to question who I am or how I relate to the universe. If anything, it encourages that search and in innumerable ways, provides answers. Textbook injunctions are, but a small part of the entire paradigm of religion and people who define religion as such, malign it. To argue that enlightenment comes only outside of its "shackles" is a false basis for there are no shackles, unless that is the name given to believing in a God, believing in a universal value system, and understanding human nature.
Mumble Bee, don't take it personally. I just got a chance to mull over the various ways that people defile religion (as in the post itself). So I feel the urge to tell my side of the story too!
Are you arguing that there are no value-systems? Because to the examples you have given, I could add the values that Hitler preached in his Mein Kampf. But we won't call all those universal because at the end of the day, everybody or most people, call the same values right and the same values wrong, and that is triumph!
I am still convinced of there being values that are universal. You can quote a million examples of various people possessing divergent views about one thing, but that won't hamper the belief in and existence of universal values: killing is bad, lying is wrong, humbleness is a virtue, discrimination should be eliminated...
Dare I say, the example of Nazi Germany you're quoting actually speaks for religion more than against it. It says that humans have weaknesses and can easily be biased. Religion is there to remove those biases and to keep a check on weaknesses. It is how you look at it, really!
Dear Sadia
yes there are universal set of values and it is known as ethics . it needs no religion to define it .. actually religions makes people biased .. because religion means faith .. and faith is contradictory to reason ..
look at this world and you will realise that .. you want to live is denial is your decision
Since you're making a jugdement call here, I will not honour your comment with an actual response. I have had other, rude comments from you on this blog, so I'm not surprised.
Dear Mumble First we need to define two things
The meaning of God ..
And d reason for belief system ( Mind)
God is a creation of Human Mind .. it is a perception of truth (which we don’t know) it is an epitome of our endeavor .. it is our goal of human intellect .
It has originated from search of purpose from the mundane ness of our own existence and our quest to define our self , as an individual and as a part of society .
So God has to obey humanity . it has to be within the limits Goodness of Human Existence .
Problem comes when we define divinity as super ceding human values , where perception has overtaken humanity as the guiding principle . Abrahamic Religions are a good example of this narrow-mindedness
Humans are mind .. not brain ..
We are Mind not matter .. The physical world is a secondary result of our primary source , Mind .our life is a purpose to serve the intangible dreams . aspiration and emotions. Society is made of this interaction between dreams aspirations and emotions . and hence we need a belief system .. a goal .. a purpose .. this purpose binds us .. and we know it as humanity .. as ethics . and the perfection of this humanity is God ..
The biggest medieval arrogant pagan system is the concept of one god .. which is promoted by all the followers of Abraham ..
Please note that the god is a perception of this Purpose (humanity) .when this perception is taken over by personal hunger for political power and fake arrogance , it proclaims that only “my” god is right and all other gods are wrong ..
There was never one God in this world and will never be .. every individual have right to create its own Perception .. and by self criticism it refines its own perception and its own belief system .. to understand self and the existence of humanity
Dear Sadia
I expressed my views ..and I expect your comment or criticism on that ..
By calling it Judgement call you are being rude Sadia.
Post a Comment