HUMAN
DIVERSITY IS NATURAL
Not all have the same mental and psychological
predisposition to believe and feel the metaphysical dimensions of reality and
that’s also understandable and natural. Not all were born and raised in an
environment that propitiates or shapes a certain metaphysical belief from a
young age… though true belief can’t be shaped or forced; is an interior and
free act of conscience. Our time presents us striking contradictions, from the
complete freedom to believe or disbelieve to the imposition of a single belief.
Again, in the present, Islam is the only religion that imposes a single belief
and extreme punishment for dissidents.
We are all different and that is a great
human richness. I was born in a Christian country but was never forced to
follow any religion. Here, many different religions coexist peacefully. I don’t
have a religion but I have a deep spirituality and a huge sense of the
Transcendent. And I have values that may be considered Christian, but not
because anyone imposed them to me but because they are coincident with my human
values.
When I was around 12-year-old, I remember
telling my mother (a Christian Catholic) that we (she and I) were much more alike
than she might thought, only the fundaments of our values were different: she
thought, felt and acted as she did in great part because her parents, her
teachers, priests had told her those were good values. I thought those values
were good because that was obvious to me. Observing the world around,
experiencing life, learning about History, Science, Religions… Using my
individual conscience and interacting with empathy with people had led me to
that “obvious” and natural conclusion. Later, my mother understood and
completely agreed with my position. In this article, I don’t want to go further
in any analysis and reflection about Christian values, but I still have no
doubt that they are good, peaceful and human. What some followers of
Christianity did in the past or do in the present may not correspond to those
values, but the values remain intact and are defended and practiced by the
large majority.
My spirituality is beyond religions, it is
an important part of my inner state of conscience and of my existence and role
in the world. I believe this free spirituality can bring anyone closer to the
Great Mystery, to each other, to Nature, to the Universe than any religion. Most
of the times, religion is an obstacle to spirituality, a thick wall of dogmas
and ignorance. Islam surely is a thick dark wall between humans and their own
souls. The spirit can’t survive in an environment of radical dogmas, intolerance
and punishment.
Humans are body and soul. We may call the
immaterial part spirit, conscience, mind, awareness… even brain or
intelligence. Though the brain is quite physical, we only know and use
consciously about 75% of it; and intelligence is a complex structure of many
different functions and abilities that reflect all the interactions among all
brain areas and data accumulated. Moral judgment depends from those
interactions as logical thought does. What is amazing about moral judgment (the
one that distinguishes a good action from a bad one) is that implicates the intervention
of the largest number of brain areas (and neuroscience already proved that)
than any other kind of thought, judgment or mental activity. In other simple words:
being good is a sign of a well balanced intelligence! The most free and
critical brain is able of more fair judgments!
The spirit forms a unity with matter,
moves matter through life, towards life ― mens
agitat molem ―, towards wisdom, towards a fulfillment and a purpose of
inner and outer truthfulness (“the possible perfection”) in our mental and emotional
experiences and in our actions. The guidance and the path of the spirit never
lead to death, oppression and suffering; this means we don’t seek death,
oppression and suffering and we don’t cause it to others. It is absurd that a
religion may prescribe evil actions in name of god and tames the spirit to
prevent it from reaching freedom and goodness by its own means. Religions that
don’t allow the spirit to breathe and grow freely don’t even understand what to
be human means, and subvert from the beginning essential notions of “good” and
“bad”, that are universal values not moral restrict dogmas.
Each spirit has its own path to fulfillment;
it’s an apparently solitary journey made in union with all creations (Nature,
people, human creations, the Unknown). Guidance comes mainly from within and
from the example of the good and wise. Spirituality does not demand or need religions
and intermediaries, like prophets, clerics, muftis, imams, theologians,
ideological leaders… all instruments of theocracy and ideology. Only those who
want to rule societies and even the whole world need this. What the soul needs
is inner identity, peace, freedom, humbleness and wisdom. This is not a “divine
revelation”; these are natural insights accessible to any spirit that isn’t
imprisoned by dogmas, prejudices, religions and ideologies.
Preserving our inner difference is
preserving our identity. Our common family is Humanity not any religion and its
followers; our common home is Earth, the Universe and the Great Mystery (if you
accept there is and there will always be a Mystery). In this sense, the spirit
that perceives just a tiny glimpse of the Eternal Unknown experiences wholeness
and eternity through this perception, even if it is limited and ephemeral. And
the Eternal Unknown is everywhere, from the light of a sunbeam to the
conscience of our existence, from the small drop of rain to the existence of a
huge Universe that no one will ever know in its totality… The spirit,
conscience, true reason are humble; dogmatic belief is always arrogant and an
obstacle to objective knowledge and to subjective and individual spiritual
inner perceptions.
RELIGIOUS
MORAL versus ETHICS
Particular groups (religious, cultural,
social) tend to build their own moral codes. Those who share the precepts in
those codes may consider them the best moral principles for them, but no one,
no group, has the right to impose those values to others against their will,
mainly when those moral principles go against human rights and the universal
dignity of each human being. Ethics is universal. Moral is always particular.
Only those values that may be applied universally, respecting all, may be
acceptable. That is what Ethics stands for. Moral is and will always be the
reflection of a particular view, defending and respecting only those who share
those same vales.
In the following paragraphs, the word
“moral” is sometimes used with an equivalent meaning of “ethics”, because I’m
quoting articles where both words are taken as synonyms, but they are not.
It is really worrying to realize that
among Muslims “moral” is exclusively connected with religion and the belief in
god (as some humans conceived it). From their point of view, only Islamic
believers can be “good” and “right” because they are the only ones that believe
in the true god! If that is so, then why are so many acting against goodness
and righteousness in all the violent ways? Here is a fragment of a report about
“moral” among Muslims by the Pew Research Center (2013):
God and Morality
«Muslims widely hold the view that it is necessary to believe in God to
be moral and have good values. In nearly every country
surveyed, at least half of Muslims say an individual’s morality is linked to
belief in God. This is true especially in the countries surveyed in Southeast
Asia, where more than nine-in-ten Muslims say
it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. At least eight-in-ten say the same in most
countries surveyed in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa region; only
in Lebanon does a smaller majority (64%) share this view.»
Sources: - https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/
- Cf. The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society, Pew Research
Center, 2013, pp. 24-26. - https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
The History of Islam shows clearly how
moral was shaped by the practical needs of Muhammad and his followers: to
conquer and tame the population. Believers are always easier to govern than
non-believers; they are more submissive, abnegated and, the most of the times,
ignorant. Ignorance is the perfect ground to sow irrational beliefs and
superstition. From the point of view of Islam, non-Muslim believers are
unbelievers, infidels, so they must convert or be eliminated. Jihad has
precisely this barbaric aim. Jihad is a fundamental part of Islamic moral code
that, fortunately, it isn’t universally accepted as an ethical position or we
would live in a permanent state of universal war. There would always be free
minds opposing to this universal dictatorship and trying to preserve true
ethical values. And ethical values are independent of religions, cultures,
races, education, particular beliefs and gender. On the contrary, moral codes
are based on that.
Studies from the last two decades in the
field of cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology,
economics, and anthropology and bioethics point to a very interesting point: we
just need to be human to be moral. Marc D. Hauser in his book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (2006)
affirms that «humans have evolved a universal moral instinct, unconsciously
propelling us to deliver judgments of right and wrong independent of gender,
education, and religion». This means that we don’t need religion to distinguish
right from wrong; we need knowledge, empathy, conscience, freedom and free
will. In spite of religions and ideologies, humans were somehow able of finding
a reasonable path to ethics. Though many humans keep acting like cruel savages,
a basis of positive universal values was achieved just because along with wild
instincts of survival we also developed instincts of peaceful coexistence that,
after all, are essential to survival.
Following a similar point of view, Harry
Foundalis states the following:
«What non-muslims
consider as moral is the “Universally Moral”. It is the moral code that we human beings inherited from our
non-human ancestors; in other words, it is the biological moral
code, which was molded into the texts of some religious holy books,
especially those of the Judeo-Christian and Hindu religions, in the Buddhist
and Confucian traditions, etc.
In contrast, what Muslims
consider moral is what Muhammad did in his life — plain
and simple. In fact, the Qur’an itself
(i.e., Allah) urges Muslims to do as Muhammad did.
Thus, for the non-muslims to understand what is moral in Islam, all they have
to do is examine Muhammad’s life (but also the
Qur’an), and they’re guaranteed to have all their
answers about Islamic morality.»
Giving a list of examples from the Quran, the author points a few examples of values and behaviours that are consider morally right and mandatory in the Muslim moral code but are unacceptable under the “Universally Moral”:
EQUALITY
«(…) By “Equality” I mean that every human being has the same human rights with every other human being, irrespective of gender, religion, or anything else. This is not true in the Islamic world. For example, Muslim women and Muslim men are not equal, both in theory and in practice. (cf. Qur’an - Qur’an 4:34)
And in practice, inequalities exist in
many ways: women, but not men, must completely cover their hair and bodies; a
man can marry more than one woman but a woman only one man; women must stay
confined and pray in one area of the mosque specially designed for them, but
only men can pray in the main hall of it; women cannot walk alone out of home,
but must be accompanied by a male relative; and many more. As for inequalities
in religion, in Islam a Muslim is considered superior to an infidel, who is
assumed to be second-class citizen while living in an Islamic society. In any
case, “Equality” is not a moral issue in
Islam, but it is in the rest of the world.»
CONQUEST
«(…) By “Conquest” I mean, of course, the act of
going at war and conquering the land of another nation. Conquest is considered normal in the Islamic world, and even a virtue
and a show of power, as Muhammad was a warlord who conquered the entire Arabian
Peninsula. As a result of conquering nearby tribes, Muhammad’s men (the
first Muslims) acquired wealth and slaves, and the Qur’an
devotes a whole chapter on war booty and slaves (sura 8, Al-Anfal:
“Spoils of War, Booty”). But in the rest of the
world Conquest is an evil act, an immoral act of depravity, because it savagely
violates precisely the principle of Equality among all human beings,
discussed above. There can be war among two nations, but the conquest of
one by the other is considered an immoral act of the conquering nation.»
And the author goes on addressing directly to Muslim readers, demonstrating that the violence and killings perpetrated nowadays by Muslims all around the world were prescribed since the beginning by their Prophet and holy book:
«The fact that your prophet Muhammad was a conqueror
means that he was a warlord. As a warlord, he killed people.
You understand this, right? You understand, I hope, that he didn’t convert the tribes of Arabia to Islam by
offering them bouquets of roses. He was met with resistance, which he
subdued by the power of the scimitars of his men, who formed his army. Well,
you see, this killing of people, no
matter how “noble” the ultimate goal sounds to you, is considered highly
immoral in the non-muslim world.
(…)
If you think that taking other peoples’ lands and
making them your own is fine, then, in the eyes of the rest of the world, you
are not just immoral, but a villainous barbarian.»
(vide http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/WhenceReligion.htm#morality)
The perception of the dangers and atrocities of Islam is not recent. We can find many writings from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. One may say: “But those works were written by westerners that didn’t know or understand Islam, that’s why they are so critical.” Wrong! Those authors knew Arabic, read the Islamic scriptures and knew the History of Islamic bloody conquests. And in spite of all that knowledge, they are able of being quite accurate and impartial. Some authors prefer not even utter an ethical judgment about Islamic principles or actions. They just present excerpts from the Quran or the Hadith. The following two excerpts are from an 18th book that is focused especially on the morality of the East, mainly Islam.
The first one make us remember certain
ideologies that demand total loyalty and despise the love and links between
people of the same family or community. Only those ideologies, that even
pretend to be atheist, came much after Islam, but used and are using exactly
the same dogmas and precepts (ex-Soviet Union, China or North Korea among
others…) and the loyalty demanded is not towards a god or a prophet but towards
an ideology and a leader:
«O true believers! Take not your fathers or your brethren for friends, if they love infidelity above faith; and whosoever among you shall take them for his friends, they will be unjust doers. Say if your fathers, and your sons, and your brethren, and your wives, and your relations, and your substance which ye have acquired, and your merchandize, which ye apprehend may not be sold off, and your dwellings wherein ye delight, be more dear unto you than God and his apostle, and the advancement of his religion; wait, until God shall send his commands: for God directs not the ungodly people.» (Chap. IX., Vol. I., p. 242)
«When
ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great
slaughter among them; and bind them in bonds;
and either give them a free dismission afterward, or exact a ransom, until the
war shall have laid down its arms. This shall ye do, verily if God pleased, he could take vengeance on them without your assistance:
but he commands you to fight his battles,
that he may prove the one of you by the other. And as to those who fight in
defense of God's true religion, God will not suffer their works to perish: he
will guide them, and will dispose their heart aright; and he will lead them
into paradise, of which he hath told them. O true
believers, if ye assist God, by fighting for his religion, he will assist you
against your enemies; and will set your feet fast: but as for the infidels, let them perish; and
their works shall God render vain.» (Chap,
XLVII, Vol. II, p. 376)
In The morality of the East - extracted from the Koran of Mohammed - digested under alphabetical heads, Printed for W. Nicoll, London, 1766 (pp. 77-79)
