In Bangladesh, thanks to the donors, we are focussing exclusively on legal measures to improve our society. This is disastrous.
What happens to morality? A society that attempts to rely exclusively on law is already moribund. Law without morality means a dead end. The NGOs have focussed attention on a 'rights-based' society. There's a reason for that. They have a parallel agenda of secularism, and the promotion of 'univeral [western] values'. And this precludes the morality that we have learned from religion. A hatred of religion is prevalent among the intellectuals - instead they import werstern ideas that have no resonance here.
Values such as compassion, empathy, altruism, commiseration are dead or dying. Without these values no society can function as a group of human beings, but as a bunch of animals - for even animals have their natural laws. When Nelson Mandela was faced with the task of nation-building, he went beyond rights and appealed to the Christian value of turning the other cheek. Unfortunately, he also imported secular western values which have devastated his society.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Ethnocidal Civilisation (essay)
(click above for article)
Western civilisation commits ethnocide and menticide, as seen in India and recently in the Middle East.
Ethnocide – culture murder – has been the repeated behaviour pattern of western civilization, as testified by Alexis de Tocqueville. The culture is not content with mere conquest: it must control the very thoughts of those conquered. A recently published book on a Christian mission in Bangladesh retells an old story against the background of both the Muslim and British invasions of India, centering the Garos and the loss of their ancestral religion.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Theory and Data
Even sociologists tend to put theory before data (and not just economists and imperialists).
In the sociology of religion, European and British sociologists have maintained that, just as Europe became secular over the centuries, modernity in the rest of the world would lead to a similar demise of religion.
Thus, according to Steve Bruce, secularization is an integral process in a liberal democracy: given religious choice, people will lose faith and turn away from religion.
Yet America has been a democracy for two hundred fifty years, and it is still a vigorously religious place. It seems that Bruce et al just don't want to acknowledge facts.
"Towards the end of the twentieth century, however, a step change occurred in the debate," observes Grace Davie in her book 'The Sociology of Religion'. Until the early 1990s, the links between modernization and secularization were still generally assumed." However, looking at America "Europe begins to emerge as the exceptional case".
Sociologists like Peter Berger began to renounce the secularization thesis. "My point that the assumption that we live in a secularised world is false," notes Berger. "Although the term 'secularisation theory' refers to work from the 1950s and 1960s, the key idea of the theory can indeed be traced to the Enlightenment. The idea is simple: Modernization necessarily leads to a decline of religion, both in society and in the minds of individuals. And it is precisely this key idea that turned out to be wrong."
In fact, the wellsprings of the sociology of religion are themselves poisoned. The founding fathers of sociology, from Marx to Weber, were convinced of the inevitable redundancy of religion. Subsequent researchers have simply mimicked them.
Interestingly, in the 2001 British Census, when religious identity was first included in the survey, it was found that, against expectations, it was not the inhabitants of the industrialized North who revealed themselves to be non-traditional; those with 'no religion' were concentrated in the cities in the South, largely in the university towns, among the faculty and the employees.
At this point the subjects becomes terribly relevant to Bangladesh and the Muslim world. Bangladesh was founded on the principle of 'secularism', a principle that was shot down by successive military governments. Recently, there has been an attempt to sideline Islam and resurrect the corpse of secularism by the ruling political party (whose leader is the daughter of the pater patrie) and the intelligentsia.
These dinosaurs hark back to the earlier views on modernity and secularism: indeed many, if not most, were trained in universities here and in Europe, in the doctrines of the founding fathers.
Let us hope they go the way of those earlier beasts.
In the sociology of religion, European and British sociologists have maintained that, just as Europe became secular over the centuries, modernity in the rest of the world would lead to a similar demise of religion.
Thus, according to Steve Bruce, secularization is an integral process in a liberal democracy: given religious choice, people will lose faith and turn away from religion.
Yet America has been a democracy for two hundred fifty years, and it is still a vigorously religious place. It seems that Bruce et al just don't want to acknowledge facts.
"Towards the end of the twentieth century, however, a step change occurred in the debate," observes Grace Davie in her book 'The Sociology of Religion'. Until the early 1990s, the links between modernization and secularization were still generally assumed." However, looking at America "Europe begins to emerge as the exceptional case".
Sociologists like Peter Berger began to renounce the secularization thesis. "My point that the assumption that we live in a secularised world is false," notes Berger. "Although the term 'secularisation theory' refers to work from the 1950s and 1960s, the key idea of the theory can indeed be traced to the Enlightenment. The idea is simple: Modernization necessarily leads to a decline of religion, both in society and in the minds of individuals. And it is precisely this key idea that turned out to be wrong."
In fact, the wellsprings of the sociology of religion are themselves poisoned. The founding fathers of sociology, from Marx to Weber, were convinced of the inevitable redundancy of religion. Subsequent researchers have simply mimicked them.
Interestingly, in the 2001 British Census, when religious identity was first included in the survey, it was found that, against expectations, it was not the inhabitants of the industrialized North who revealed themselves to be non-traditional; those with 'no religion' were concentrated in the cities in the South, largely in the university towns, among the faculty and the employees.
At this point the subjects becomes terribly relevant to Bangladesh and the Muslim world. Bangladesh was founded on the principle of 'secularism', a principle that was shot down by successive military governments. Recently, there has been an attempt to sideline Islam and resurrect the corpse of secularism by the ruling political party (whose leader is the daughter of the pater patrie) and the intelligentsia.
These dinosaurs hark back to the earlier views on modernity and secularism: indeed many, if not most, were trained in universities here and in Europe, in the doctrines of the founding fathers.
Let us hope they go the way of those earlier beasts.
Monday, November 8, 2010
To Whom Can I Speak Today? (short story)
To Whom Can I Speak Today?
(click above for the story)
The democratic transition brings murder to the streets and even homes of Bangladesh. Several NGO directors mysteriously die trying to scrawl a message in blood. Zafar Shah takes it upon himself to decipher the vermilion calligraphy.
Excerpt:
'“Let me start from the beginning, Zafar sahib. When General Harun-ur-Rashid was in power, I was an MBA student. I was – and am - an avid fan of both the General and you, Zafar sahib. I have read all your newspaper articles and several of your books. You predicted that with the overthrow of the General, and the introduction of multi-party democracy, there would be violence, and a strong demand for security. As soon as I passed, I borrowed from banks and invested my own money in my security agency. The General was overthrown and my firm prospered.”'
(click above for the story)
The democratic transition brings murder to the streets and even homes of Bangladesh. Several NGO directors mysteriously die trying to scrawl a message in blood. Zafar Shah takes it upon himself to decipher the vermilion calligraphy.
Excerpt:
'“Let me start from the beginning, Zafar sahib. When General Harun-ur-Rashid was in power, I was an MBA student. I was – and am - an avid fan of both the General and you, Zafar sahib. I have read all your newspaper articles and several of your books. You predicted that with the overthrow of the General, and the introduction of multi-party democracy, there would be violence, and a strong demand for security. As soon as I passed, I borrowed from banks and invested my own money in my security agency. The General was overthrown and my firm prospered.”'
Friday, August 6, 2010
Bangladesh Bans Use of National Anthem As a Ringtone
Bangladesh Bans Use of National Anthem As a Ringtone: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
So it's official: the country's religion is Nationalism, not Islam.
You can use suras from the Koran as your answering ring-tone, but not the national anthem.
This goes hand in hand with the recent banning of Islam from the political sphere: anti-Islamism has become rampant after the Awami League came to power.
The courts have judged half of our national history to be illegal: military rule from 1975 to 1990. That is, the benign period of our history is illegitimate, while the malign periods are legitimate.
This is a morality stood on its head: how long can it stand there? Not long.
That military rule should be declared illegal testifies to how far the intelligentsia have deviated from Muslim political history and philosophy, scorning such luminaries as al-Mawardi and al-Ghazali, who defended military autocracy unconditionally. This also explain how a Muslim society can deligitimise the benevolent part of its history, and sacralise the wicked years.
So it's official: the country's religion is Nationalism, not Islam.
You can use suras from the Koran as your answering ring-tone, but not the national anthem.
This goes hand in hand with the recent banning of Islam from the political sphere: anti-Islamism has become rampant after the Awami League came to power.
The courts have judged half of our national history to be illegal: military rule from 1975 to 1990. That is, the benign period of our history is illegitimate, while the malign periods are legitimate.
This is a morality stood on its head: how long can it stand there? Not long.
That military rule should be declared illegal testifies to how far the intelligentsia have deviated from Muslim political history and philosophy, scorning such luminaries as al-Mawardi and al-Ghazali, who defended military autocracy unconditionally. This also explain how a Muslim society can deligitimise the benevolent part of its history, and sacralise the wicked years.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
An Evening With Nationalists
As I've mentioned before, most of my wider family are nationalists – they are supporters of the Awami League. That they are beyond reason and sanity, everyone knows: that they are beyond humanity should not be a well-kept secret either.
My wife and I spent an evening with them: it was supposed to be a getting-together to mourn a dead relative, but we found the booze flowing merrily enough, and, naturally, singers at the podium.
But that was nothing compared to what followed.
My cousin and his wife had recently come here for a short visit. A more tragic couple I have yet to meet. She had breast cancer, and had had a mastectomy performed. She was under chemotherapy. They were devout Muslims, and thoroughly apolitical.
But she had a major defect in the eyes of her nationalist relatives: she wore a hijab (albeit with the face showing). That she was very religious seemed to earn her the scorn of everyone present. And they were both revolted by the booze, which the company sensed.
The girl was crying. She spoke, sobbing, to one of my uncles: "Nobody knows what we're going through" I heard her say. And I could imagine: besides the Damocles' sword of cancer hanging over you, there's the sheer cost of treatment in America; even insurance was expensive and my cousin had lost his job in the economic downturn, and his wife couldn't work.
And my uncle told her: "Try to take things lightly".
How do you take cancer lightly? Is religion an inappropriate response to the prospect of imminent death?
So, there were these secular nationalists, swilling booze and listening to the songs of Tagore, and looking down their collective noses at my cousin and his cancerous wife for being practicing Muslims, non-Awami Leaguers.
Isn't that our country writ small?
My wife and I spent an evening with them: it was supposed to be a getting-together to mourn a dead relative, but we found the booze flowing merrily enough, and, naturally, singers at the podium.
But that was nothing compared to what followed.
My cousin and his wife had recently come here for a short visit. A more tragic couple I have yet to meet. She had breast cancer, and had had a mastectomy performed. She was under chemotherapy. They were devout Muslims, and thoroughly apolitical.
But she had a major defect in the eyes of her nationalist relatives: she wore a hijab (albeit with the face showing). That she was very religious seemed to earn her the scorn of everyone present. And they were both revolted by the booze, which the company sensed.
The girl was crying. She spoke, sobbing, to one of my uncles: "Nobody knows what we're going through" I heard her say. And I could imagine: besides the Damocles' sword of cancer hanging over you, there's the sheer cost of treatment in America; even insurance was expensive and my cousin had lost his job in the economic downturn, and his wife couldn't work.
And my uncle told her: "Try to take things lightly".
How do you take cancer lightly? Is religion an inappropriate response to the prospect of imminent death?
So, there were these secular nationalists, swilling booze and listening to the songs of Tagore, and looking down their collective noses at my cousin and his cancerous wife for being practicing Muslims, non-Awami Leaguers.
Isn't that our country writ small?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Two Religions of Bangladesh
The Two Religions of Bangladesh
Category: News and Politics
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_iftekhar_070307_the_two_religions_of.htm
The Two Religions of Bangladesh (Analysis)
According to Ninian Smart, nationalism is as much a religion as any of the regular variety. Nationalism has never been able to supplant Islam in Bangladesh, and the two religions coexist in hostility.
Category: News and Politics
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_iftekhar_070307_the_two_religions_of.htm
The Two Religions of Bangladesh (Analysis)
According to Ninian Smart, nationalism is as much a religion as any of the regular variety. Nationalism has never been able to supplant Islam in Bangladesh, and the two religions coexist in hostility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
