WHAT IS RELIGION?

What is religion? It is vital to know that, before we make any insight into religious fundamentalism. It is an answer, rather, a ray of hope. People don't think they can do much. They asign all worldly responsibilities to God. God, they think, will help them out of all their problems. God will control all their systems. In fact, God is responsible for all their systems - political, social and the like. These are all best left to God. God is steering the ship, and we are lowly subordinates, and we can't control the ship.

In fact, all the terrorism that's taking place in the world today by religious extremists, especially arabs, stems from dissapointment in the political system. The remedy, according to them is putting the highest authority (God) in charge of the political system. Much of the hate against the US is because of globalisation etc., not against secularism or christians as the media would have us believe. Otherewise, instead of the WTC towers, the entire Vatican would be destroyed.

Of course, they will then, have to please (and keep pleased) God. This is done by (seemingly) different ways in various religions (or schools of thought). But in all of these, the methods have found their way in the systems. There has to be a certain way to deal with the problems to be dealt with in these systems, such that God will remain pleased. So, when you come to look at it, if a religion fails to involve itself in these systems, it has itself failed. Take, for exapmle, Buddhism. The Hinayanist sect of Buddhism, which preaches to abstain oneself from all material possesions and to concentrate mainly on the self, has simply vanished. Why? Because it totally seperated the follower from the systems. Now, when a person's existance is governed by these systems, well, how can such a religion (as Hinayanism) survive at all?

All the successful religions teach the existance of a supreme, universal spirit (God). God's will is final and infallible. This is why they succeed. God is the highest power, so I won't interfere. Leave it all to God. He'll do a better job. But Hinayanism  was an atheitic religion (it did not belive in God). So it died out. Simple reason would have a person belive that people don't want a God, as a God would bind them into chains of rules, which would diminish their individuality, and their  freedom. But people are willing to give all that away. Why? It's because religions concern themselves with things unknown to humans. They will of course, be afraid of the unknown, and the explanation that they accept, they adhere to. So, they want a God, to secure their life in the 'unknown'. And since none of these explanations have been scientifically proved yet, no person can convince another person that their current relgion is wrong and their own is right. But they themselves (of course) believe that their religion is right, and are ready to fight for that (to secure their life in the unknown). This 'unknown' generally deals with death.

Another important feature of the successful religions of the world is, that they are extremely rigid. They almost cannot be changed, or "reformed". But, Hinanayanism was a very flexible religion. That's another important reason why it died out. People like to believe that there is a set path, a pattern to do things. This is why the rigid and coercive religions survive. Again, simple reasoning would have one think: Why would anyone want to be bound to a set of coercive rules?

So, when the people don't want to participate in the systems, who does? This is where religious heads come in. They are treated as the "reprasentatives" of God. They will ensure that things go about in a manner such that God will remain pleased. But that does not mean that these people are still devoted to the methods, for the reason given by the religion (in scriptures, for example). These people (religious fundamentalists) are often sucked into the corruption that exists in the systems (especially the political system). So, after their entry into the systems, the people are no longer attached to the methods for their sincere belief in them (even if this belief was very strong earlier). After exposure to the coruption in the systems, they use these methods (and pretend to believe in them), because, now they have power, which they can exert over the proletariat, with little or no resistance. They can make pretty speeches and promises, just like other politicians etc., and they don't stand a chance to lose.

This type of control can be achieved only through religion, or ,to be more exact, God. Ever since the dawn of civilisation, leaders have been fighting over this type of control. Most have used brute force. But the nature of force is against their objectives. By using force, they try to tell the people (according to the people, at least) that they are greater than God. That is just not acceptable to the people. So they rebel against these forces (and usually win).

But the type of control religious fundamentals use, that goes deep down in the hearts of people (as it concerns God), and they don't rebel. In fact, they are even ready to die fighting those against these fundamentalists, because again, there is that fear, that God would be angry if they didn't.

Take the crusades. Who would want to risk sure death, fighting like that, which does not even get them any material benefits. Those fighting for the Arabs wanted to please Allah, while those fighting for the Europians wanted to please their God. Both feared their (respective) Gods would get angry if they didn't. The fear of God was deep in their social and political systems.

WHAT ABOUT THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION? WERE'NT THEY AFRAID OF GOD THEN?

Let's take a look at the nature of the protestant reformation. The people had been troubled for a long time. They had no material benefits from the suppressive activities of the religious states either. Well, this led to an anger which apeared as the rennaissance.

Well, of course, they still believed in a God, and were afraid of Him, but now (the rennaisance), they believed that God was not Who they were told (not taught) about by the Church. They saw Him as more like a human. More like themselves.

Now what were they like? As mentioned earlier, they had no material benefits from the religious activities of the Catholic state. So now, they wanted material benefits (which is only natural). So now, you dont see much religious fundamentalism in the rich nations like the US, UK etc. This is because, their culture is not based on (or bound by) the rules of religion and the fear of God, but on material benefit.

WHY WAS THERE NO SUCH REFORMATION IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES?

Why was there no such change in the Islamic countries? The people there were treated harshly too. Is it not possible that they lost trust in the ulemas, just like the Europeans lost trust in the Pope and others of the Church?

There is a very important reason for this. In Europe, there was political patronage for the movement against the Church. The Church had used its authority in the political spheres. They used their power against the monarchs. So obviously, the Kings and Queens were no friends of the Church. So, as soon as there was a spark of dissent with the church in ordinary people, the political heads allowed and encouraged it to gain momentum. Therefore, this movement spread like wildfire in Europe. If the movemet would succeed, the various monarchies would gain (or regain) supreme power over the Church. That is why the movement took place.

But there was a stark contrast in the Islamic world. There, the religious heads were in the patronage of the political leaders. They were an instrument of the political leaders, over the proletariat. So, the political leaders and the ulemas were very co-operative. So, if there was any dissent against the ulemas'  opressive measures, it either did'nt gain any momentum at all, since not many people would go against both God and the State. Or, this dissent was easily and quickly supressed. In both cases, no mass reformation could take place. This is why the Arab world is still in this type of state, where people are supressed in the name of Allah.

In fact, about the only time where a massive reformation took place was in Turkey, by Mustafa Kemal Atat�rk. After more than three centuries of high achievement, the Ottoman Empire had declined from the 17th to the early 20th Century: With Sultans presiding over a social and economic system mired in backwardness, the Ottoman state had become hopelessly outmoded for the modern times. The Atat�rk was one of the greatest leaders the world has known, and achieved a lot in little time. He transformed Turkey into a liberal and secular country. Turkish policies respect Islam, but at the same time, they are modern, secular, liberal and progressive. In fact, The Atat�rk is called the second greatest Islamic leader ever (after Prophet Muhammed).

But that was a unique case. Otherwise, in the Arab world, such liberation is unheard of.

IN THE REFORMED WORLD, HOW DO THEY KEEP THE PROLETARIAT IN CHECK?

It is not just that the proletariat does'nt want participation. The leaders don't want them to participate either. But now that the fear of God cannot be used, what sort of propaganda do they use?

Well, in the US, they use a feeling of infallible patriotism. To an ordinary person in the US, the US just can't be wrong. It just can't. They almost killed all the chances of development in Nicaragua, it was hailed as a victory against evil, even though it was against an order by the Security Council and the World Court. But that's a whole different story.

AND WHAT IS THE SITUATION IN RELIGIOUS STATES?

There have been such states throughout history. The Holy Roman Empire in the dark ages of Europe, is a good example. They had tremendous power over all of Europe. They were corrupt, and used the fear of God to assert their power.

Everyone will agree that they were corrupt. They used the teachings of Christ and those in the Bible, and their authority as reprasentatives to God. Of course people were afraid of them. They used this fear to their advantages, to get more and more luxuries. An example is forgivement of sins for money. This in itself was against the religion (obviously). But people still obeyed their repressive measures for the fear of God.

However, as time went by, they became so powerful that their corruption became obvious to the people. The people no longer believed that they were true reprasentatives of God. So, they were no longer afraid of the church. So, they also did not want them to take care of the political systems. Thats why they rebelled against the Church.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS STATES?

The contemporary religious states are in many ways similar. All of them take religious values as the most important factor in deciding political matters. For the Taliban, Osama bin Laden was an important ally, as he fought in the name of Islam. For a secular nation, siding with Osama bin Laden would be an obvious mistake, since he was one of the US's biggest foes (even before the September 11 incident), and the US had a lot of power over an economically weak country like Afghanistan. But the Taliban sided with Laden, who fought in the name of God.

Another side to these states is in the people's view towards them..Take the Taliban in Afghanistan. They overtook a quite emancipated society, and made harsh religious changes, in the view that they would affect the social structure (to suit 'Islamic morals'). But in practise, thats impossible. Even though the people obeyed these orders, that was out of fear of punishment. When the US dropped bombs on the country, the people were not eager to uphold the 'Isalmic values' that the Taliban advocated. Nor were they devastated when the Taliban left Kabul and the Northern Alliance took over.

So, the Taliban would have been much more successful, if they had made huge changes in the social life (to suit the "Islamic values" they advocated). Then the people would have supported them fully, and would even have fought for them.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

To bomb a country, and to kill all the followers of a religion is of no help, because then, it is set even more firmly in the minds of the victims that the attacker is evil.

What is needed is of course something in the nature of the protestant reformation of Europe, that is to say, a mass realisation, with poltical backing. A particular religion can still be followed, but it is made more human, because to be human was what God made humans for.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other places of intrest :-

PEOPLE'S CENTURY EPISODE -  GOD FIGHTS BACK - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/peoplescentury/episodes/godfightsback/

Mustafa Kemal Atat�rk - ABOUT THE Atat�rk - http://www.ataturk.com

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________