From Tribalism to Humanism

I`ll read your article later ... but just from the title ... just teach me how to change my mother and my father?

Re: # 1
dear zeemax...we are always free to adopt new mothers and mother lands and mother

tongues....

peri parnani kashmir di si...kashmiri boldi si....peri nani amratsar di si...punjabi boldi

si....peri sister lahore rehndi hay tay urdu boldi hay....and i adopted canada as my

motherland....and speak english now....realizing from kashmir to amritsar to lahore to

toronto is the same mother earth...who will welcome us in her heart when we die......dil di

boli sab di maan boli hay...mohabbat di zabaan naheen teh fasaad hi fasaad hay..

zeemax ji..smiles...sohail

its hard to change old generations mentality but if we realize it then we can pass this message to our next generation...if we manage to have one!

I fail to see how and why tribalism is bad and how humanism is a better alternative. Any social structure, in fact, comes into being because of certain demands of internal and external factors that bind a group, circumstances, group dynamics and probably technology. Man will always live where he is more comfortable and safe as long as the circumstances permit; and he will adopt to the changing circumstances; causing the old system to be modified and changed. That is how human beings have evolved in the past 1 million years.

I don`t think that any method of living is superior or inferior from the other; the only difference that counts is the ideology and principles by which a society and individual live by. I fail to see why a tribal society cannot practice humanist attributes (which in your opinion are somehow superior) or conversely why a humanistic society (if one will ever exist) would not bear tribal attributes.

I do not see any merit in your thesis.

Re: # 4
dear urstruly...it might seem from your letter that we disagree but from your comment

` i don`t think that any method of living is superior or inferior from the other` reflects we

are closer in thinking. the problem in history is not that one group (tribe) thinks their

ideology and lifestyle is better, they even want to enforce them on others. america

today wants to enforce her ideology on the third world.....in the past christians and muslims

and communists tried to conquer other countries and tried to colonize them.....

we have not evolved to the philosophy of live and let live,,,thank you

for your honest comments....sohail

Amen! Sohail sahib -- alas -- humanism is being replaced by the religion of chauvinism -- no more: shia hai aik aankh to sunni hai doosree....great piece!.

Shore qaum-o deen meiN zikr-e rawaadaari sohail
keya sunnaee day hameiN tujh jaisay deewanay ki baat

Re: # 6
dear nasah...thank you for your kind comments. they reminded me of martin luther king`s

comments that if we follow the principle of an eye for an eye....soon the whole village with

be blind....all the best....sohail

Re: # 5
dr sohail.
the philosophy of live and let live is very simplistic and and highly superficial.when we look into historical process we find that clash is something that is inherent in human beings.it is invetable.why are we always reluctant to accept this obvious fact.every ideaology on this earth is expansionist.democracy ,islam christianity and communism fascism.they all are expansionist.so why should we blame a certain ideology for being expansionist or admire other for being less expansionist.why do we develop our thesis and give judgment on the basis of this rediulous and superficial criterion.human history or society itself is the evidence of human nature.this kind of approach just destroy the seriousness of the issue under consideration.what we should do is to look into the philosophical and technichal grounds of those ideology and then give judgment not the basis of being less violent or extremly violent.
regards

Re: # 9
dear philosopher....i am sorry if i could not clarify my point. what i am trying to say is that

we all have multiple idnetities. my name is sohail. i was born in a muslim family in

pakistan. now i have a choice. i can identify as a muslim and a pakistani. my folks told me

that because i am a pakistani muslim ...indian hindus are my enemies and we need to have

jihad against them. for me to rise above such tribal mentality i believe that hindu men and

women from india are my bothers and sisters. that is how i can resolve my persoanl and

collective conflicts. i feel leaders of religious and political organizations and parties need to

rise above the partisan politics. today in america genuine politicians have to rise above

democratic and republican politics.....alongside the political and historical dynamics there is

a psychological dynamics....every human being who kills another human being has to take

responsibility for his tribal mentality and not be swayed by the charismatic cultish

leader....who is willing to die and willing to kill for his ideology. it might seem simplistic

philosophy but it is the starting point. every soldier of an army and every member of an

extremist religious and political party makes that choice. when you meet people in your

living room, within a few minutes of passionate discussion the tribal mentality surfaces and

a family meeting turns into a war.....you can see that when people decide about their

own or their children`s wedding. how many people marry because of character how many

focus on the tribe...? i believe each one of us has to rise above hundreds of years of

conditioning if we have to evolve as a species.it might sound idealistic but i think it is a

reality of our day to day social and political lives. visible minorities pay more price than

others for such tribal mentality and prejudice.thanks for your comments....sincerely sohail

Dr. Sohail,

Is it fair to say that Mahatma Gandhi symbolized a more humanistic thought process whereas Mohammed Ali Jinnah symbolized a more tribal mindset?!!

Re: # 11bjkumar
is it fair to say that gandhi`s ``humanistic approach``was an attemt to make people of sub-continent submit to colonial their colonial masters and oppression and jinnah`s ``voilent mindset``made the oppressed people of india fight against the ``double standard of shanti philosophy``and their colonial permoters?
regards

#12 Philly yaar

I would rather wait for the good doc to attempt to answer my simple question before I even take a crack at understanding your legalese-like stuff.

You are not a lawyer, by any chance?!!

thank you drsab for writing a very relevant article for indian subcontinent, specifically the issue of religious conversion. the hindu tribals feel that christian tribals from abroad have a colonial agenda in supplying cash for conversion, and there will be a new TNT. so hindu tribals are going to tribal areas and setting up tents and hindu revivals.

Re: # 11
dear bj kumar....knowing a little bit of history of chowk readers who are very passionate

about pakistani and indian conflicts and their political leaders, i do not want to step on a

minefield.

in my humble opinion it was ironic that gandhi and jinnah could not resolve their political

conflicts and negotiate with mountbaten in a way to prevent massacres of innocent muslims

and hindus and sikhs. it was one of the biggest tragedies of 20th century. i am a writer and

a therapist not a politician. as a teenager my introduction to humanistic philosophy was by

saadat hasan minto, the short story writer, creator of a masterpiece like toba take singh.

minto wrote ` do not say 100 muslims went to heaven and 100 hindus went to hell. say we

lost 200 precious human lives` for me such thinking separates tribal thinking from

humanistic thinking.

in my book ...prophets of violence, prophets of peace,,,, i have discussed the differences

between triangle of gandhi, jinnah and bountbaten from mandela, butulezi and de clark of

south africa. white south african governement was going to divide south africa in 8

bantustans based on tribes. mandela did not want that so he said...we do not want to

divide south africa in bantustans like india got divided in pakistan and hindustan. mandela

went to see butulezi and swallowed his pride and told him we can prevent the

massacre....butulezi agreed and both leaders made peace and then negotiated with de

clark to prevent break up of south africa.. i wished jinnah and gandhi could have resolved

their conflicts and saved innocent human lives.

while i was reviewing their biographies i was also surprised as a psychotherapist to read

that gandhi disowned his son as he became a muslim and jinnah disowned his daughter as

she married in another faith....both leaders disowned their flesh and blood as they left the

tribe.....how sad...sincerely sohail

Re: # 13bjkumar says;

[I would rather wait for the good doc to attempt to answer my simple question]

you really need doc sohail[psychatrist].

Iqbal Sacraine....is a coservative blair camp of muslim.....Rushdie every one knows advocates change......The Right Time for An Islamic Reformation



The Right Time for An Islamic Reformation

By Salman Rushdie

Sunday, August 7, 2005; Page B07

When Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, admitted that ``our own children`` had perpetrated the July 7 London bombings, it was the first time in my memory that a British Muslim had accepted his community`s responsibility for outrages committed by its members. Instead of blaming U.S. foreign policy or ``Islamophobia,`` Sacranie described the bombings as a ``profound challenge`` for the Muslim community. However, this is the same Sacranie who, in 1989, said that ``Death is perhaps too easy`` for the author of ``The Satanic Verses.`` Tony Blair`s decision to knight him and treat him as the acceptable face of ``moderate,`` ``traditional`` Islam is either a sign of his government`s penchant for religious appeasement or a demonstration of how limited Blair`s options really are.

Sacranie is a strong advocate of Blair`s much-criticized new religious-hatred bill, which will make it harder to criticize religion, and he actually expects the new law to outlaw references to Islamic terrorism. He said as recently as Jan. 13, ``There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered [i.e., banned] by this provision.`` Two weeks later his organization boycotted a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in London commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz 60 years ago. If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem.


The Sacranie case illustrates the weakness of the Blair government`s strategy of relying on traditional, essentially orthodox Muslims to help eradicate Islamist radicalism. Traditional Islam is a broad church that certainly includes millions of tolerant, civilized men and women but also encompasses many whose views on women`s rights are antediluvian, who think of homosexuality as ungodly, who have little time for real freedom of expression, who routinely express anti-Semitic views and who, in the case of the Muslim diaspora, are -- it has to be said -- in many ways at odds with the Christian, Hindu, non-believing or Jewish cultures among which they live.

In Leeds, from which several of the London bombers came, many traditional Muslims lead inward-turned lives of near-segregation from the wider population. From such defensive, separated worlds some youngsters have indefensibly stepped across a moral line and taken up their lethal rucksacks.

The deeper alienations that lead to terrorism may have their roots in these young men`s objections to events in Iraq or elsewhere, but the closed communities of some traditional Western Muslims are places in which young men`s alienations can easily deepen. What is needed is a move beyond tradition -- nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows to let in much-needed fresh air.

It would be good to see governments and community leaders inside the Muslim world as well as outside it throwing their weight behind this idea, because creating and sustaining such a reform movement will require above all a new educational impetus whose results may take a generation to be felt, a new scholarship to replace the literalist diktats and narrow dogmatisms that plague present-day Muslim thinking. It is high time, for starters, that Muslims were able to study the revelation of their religion as an event inside history, not supernaturally above it.

It should be a matter of intense interest to all Muslims that Islam is the only religion whose origins were recorded historically and thus are grounded not in legend but in fact. The Koran was revealed at a time of great change in the Arab world, the seventh-century shift from a matriarchal nomadic culture to an urban patriarchal system. Muhammad, as an orphan, personally suffered the difficulties of this transformation, and it is possible to read the Koran as a plea for the old matriarchal values in the new patriarchal world, a conservative plea that became revolutionary because of its appeal to all those whom the new system disenfranchised, the poor, the powerless and, yes, the orphans.

Muhammad was also a successful merchant and heard, on his travels, the Nestorian Christians` desert versions of Bible stories that the Koran mirrors closely (Christ, in the Koran, is born in an oasis, under a palm tree). It ought to be fascinating to Muslims everywhere to see how deeply their beloved book is a product of its place and time, and in how many ways it reflects the Prophet`s own experiences.

However, few Muslims have been permitted to study their religious book in this way. The insistence that the Koranic text is the infallible, uncreated word of God renders analytical, scholarly discourse all but impossible. Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of seventh-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger`s personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message?

The traditionalists` refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists, allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. Laws made in the seventh century could finally give way to the needs of the 21st. The Islamic Reformation has to begin here, with an acceptance of the concept that all ideas, even sacred ones, must adapt to altered realities.

Broad-mindedness is related to tolerance; open-mindedness is the sibling of peace. This is how to take up the ``profound challenge`` of the bombers. Will Sir Iqbal Sacranie and his ilk agree that Islam must be modernized? That would make them part of the solution. Otherwise, they`re just the ``traditional`` part of the problem.

The writer is a novelist and essayist whose works include ``The Satanic Verses.``

Dear Dr. Sohail,
At a very early age we are taught to work against each other. In a class room the teacher will often ask a question by saying, ``Okay so who can tell me the answer to this question...``. Usually some eager idiot who knows the answer will stretch out his hand and win the approval of the teacher but also earn the envy and hatred of his classmates. Look at the word ``Best`` it means that the ``best`` student is ``better`` than the majority. This encouragement to sort of defeat and leave others behind is highly destructive and probably leads to craziness violence and shootings. When I was in class 3 the principal stood on the stage and announced the names of the monitors, one girl and one boy for each class. These lucky kids went on the stage and all of us were forced to clap for them. And then as the majestic morning sunlight filled the assembly hall, From the very hands of the principal they recieved their monitor badges which they wore with pride. Was I happy for them? Did I delight in their glory? Did I say to myself, `Yes I am so happy for Ali and Sanya. I hope they become more successful...` No. Instead I dreamed of wearing that badge and prayed for their downfall.
Now I realize that the principal should have called all of us on stage. And announced loudly, `Each and everyone of you is special. You are all monitors.` Isnt that what humanism is? By the way Ali grew up to be a successful doctor and Sanya grew up to be very attractive. So things worked out for them. But a lot of negative feelings were generated and this I think leads to tribalism. We need to find a way to make everyone feel special and not just those two.

tolkinin # 17

That`s pure blasphemy.

#1 Zeemax {``#1 by zeemax on January 9, 2007 11:47am PT
I`ll read your article later ... but just from the title ... just teach me how to change my mother and my father?``}

Zee Bhai,
I can help you with 50% of your question? I am offering the same advice I gave to Ali1. The next time the Sardarji yatris arrive in Nankana Sahib, pick out a fat rich one and give him a good hugh while screaming ``Bauji, tusi kith rehnda?`` If he doesn`t accept you, then slap his ass with a solid paternity suit. :)

{``As we become more aware of our unconscious tribal mentality and consciously adopt a humanistic philosophy, we will be able to rise above our differences, resolve our conflicts at a personal, social and political level and learn to live with each other harmoniously and peacefully. Loving one’s neighbor has been a part of folk wisdom for centuries—we just need to broaden the definition of neighbor and include all races in the human race and all tribes in the human tribe, as we are now, more than ever, living in a global village.``}

Sohail Sahib,
Beautiful sentiments expressed in a wonderful essay. Although I have never expressed myself as well as you, I no longer feel so lonely as a Pakistani. Thanks. Please take it as a compliment - you sound like a true Sufi.

{``As we become more aware of our unconscious tribal mentality and consciously adopt a humanistic philosophy, we will be able to rise above our differences, resolve our conflicts at a personal, social and political level and learn to live with each other harmoniously and peacefully. Loving one’s neighbor has been a part of folk wisdom for centuries—we just need to broaden the definition of neighbor and include all races in the human race and all tribes in the human tribe, as we are now, more than ever, living in a global village.``}

Sohail Sahib,
Beautiful sentiments expressed in a wonderful essay. Although I have never expressed myself as well as you, I no longer feel so lonely as a Pakistani. Thanks. Please take it as a compliment - you sound like a true Sufi.

Sohail Sahib,
I liked your article so much that I started stuttering. :) Sorry about the multiple posts.

drsohail

A good article by its theme but rather simplistic written by a psychotherapist.

The fact is the religion, like Islam, which is open to everyone is essentially anti-tribalist. The `Takfiri` mulla has however made even Islam worse than tribalism. Just imagine Yousaf Yuhanna, a cricketer, Choohrah Masih, can become a Muslim Musalli only by declaring Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an imposter and his followers Ahmadies as non-Muslims and kafirs `wajibul-qatl` and then begin worrying presently about the so called Islamic Ummah.

The problem so called Ummah face to day as epitomized so succintly in #17 below in the article by SR is,`` Will Sir Iqbal Sacranie and his ilk agree that Islam must be modernized? That would make them part of the solution. Otherwise, they`re just the ``traditional`` part of the problem.``

Re: # 21
dear salim chauhan....i know you are good with words. so a praise from you is a wonderful

compliment. as a poet for me words are a means to an end....and the end is...winning

hearts is more important than winnning arguments....my ideal is a human being who has

a mind of a scientist

a heart of a poet

and

a personality of a mystic

all the best...sohail

Re: # 24

dear teshah....in urdu poetry we call it sehl-e-mumtana....meer taqi mir was good at it

like his couple

kaha main ne kitna hay gul ka sabaat

kali ne ye sun kay tabassum kia

to express profound things in simple words. bertrand russell said...it took me fifty years

to write simple. i like to share my ideas not impress others. sorry if my style disappointed

you. i hope you agree with the content....thank you for honest comments...sohail

#10 Dr. Sohail

Very well said, Dr. sahib! All I can say is...

Bravo! Keep up the good work, sir!

#19 by kaalchakra on January 9, 2007 6:58pm PT
tolkinin # 17

That`s pure blasphemy.
...............................................
Dont shoot the messenger before even reading.....Islam has its beginning in tribalism,hashimites etc..
even today there are more different muslims Khoja,Bohra Suleimani Bohrah,Shia Sunni,Ismaili,Kurds,so many.......
Islam is never taught as an overall part of theology as i know christian and judeaism is ..that is why islamic madarssah students are obscurantist and stunted in there enlightenment

Dear Dr.

Awesome Facts and Observations ! You are absolutely 200% Right. It is not the tragedies that kill us. It`s the messages. where in this world I can find a TV channel which give us Human News ?
thks & rgds

Think Global !
Ahad

Daktar

You are so right. Thanks.

I wish this theme was taught to little children in our schools.

The West does teach teach this to little children in schools - ``People are Different - and it is OK to be Different``.


nhk

Dear Dr. Sohail

More than relegion, the prophethood is the culprit. Prophethood is based on lies and deceit and it exploits the basic instinct of fear of unkonwn and turn one man against other. The major war in histories are fought by the abrahamic relegions. Prophets sow the seed of war for example Mohammad sow the seed of wars between momins and kafirs, between muslims and jews.

Did Bush the Global Paindu read this?

#31 Why are you hindus all so full of hate for muslims? Every time a new hindu poster comes to chowk - he starts off by ranting like a maniac about islam. The more intelligent ones calm down after a few months, the stupid ones continue year after year.

You think hindus dont have any problems? you have them in spades. So worry about your own community first.

Dr. Sahib,

It is indeed true that the more primitive and narrow-gauged the mindset, the smaller the group with which an individual identifies.

Trouble is - we now have narrow-gauged mindsets existing alongside broad-gauged mindsets in the world. That is why we have so many political problems in the world.

Re: # 27
dear bj kumar....thanks for your generous words. i am in favour of education and

evolution than bloody revolution. and we all have to work together to educate our future

generations...thanks once again...sohail

Re: # 29
dear ahad..i agree act local..think global....sohail

Re: # 30
dear nazarhayatkhan....i agree with you. i hope one day text books for children are

prepared by enlightened people who are inclusive rather than exclusive....thanks for your

comments....sohail

drsohail:

Thanks for writing on a topic which apparently is so easy to understand yet is very complicated inherently.

I remember, a friend of mine made a comment some thirty five years ago, on religion being the root cause of trouble in the world. He said, even if you remove religion as a ``common factor`` from the equation, humankind will remain engaged in suicidal wars. I am still pondering on this point to see if it can be refuted. There are many factors other than religion which contribute to our fateful doom.

In the end, it seems we are perpetually entangled in the struggle of ``survival of the fittest.`` Your analysis is quite accurate but the solution is `idealistic.` Although it seems very callous (I wish somebody proves me wrong), it appears that wars are a natural implement to keep the human population on this planet within reasonable bounds. It is a kind of natural `control mechanism` (calamity) between population growth and decay. Now we have reached a stage where it may cease to be a control mechanism but may become a source of universal nuclear holocaust and end the human race.

On a different note, I believe humanism is better than the divisive religions for harmonious life.

Mohammad Gill

``I believe humanism is better than the divisive religions for harmonious life.``

Only in a moral sense. In the real free-for-all, dominate-by-any-means-possible competitive framework, humanism has no defense against divinely-ordained divisive tribalism.

And when divine tribalism focuses first and foremost on subverting its followers` sense of morality, it can become almost unstoppable.

So its doubtful that you will break any associations. Afterall, ``WE ARE ALL CHILDREN OF MOTHER EARTH`` is the oldest, most hackneyed wisdom on earth. It has been said a million times before, a million times better.

drsohail,

So, anybody who is not a humanist is a tribal, and by extension responsible for all the wars and misery in the world. How skillfully you create a new US vs THEM where you are the good guys and those who disagree are the bad guys.

Re: # 39

dear kaalchakra....if we follow your philosophy then we will all stop writing because i agree

that all that we say or write is written better by other philosophers. moses gave us ten

commandments thousands of years ago and humanity is still in mess. i believe some things

need to be said and written and discussed again and again. each human being and each

generation has to discover truth in their own unique way. i am just sharing the truth i am

discovering as i learn more and i hope i keep on learning and growing till the day i

die....sincerely sohail

Re: # 40

dear khurram....i hope you are not serious what you wrote. i am not

presenting ...HUMANISM....as a new religion. if you are offended by the word HUMANISM

then i need to say that i hope that all of us try TO BECOME FULLY HUMAN. and part of that

is to review our identities and how we perceive others. we need to review our

conditioning...religious, ethnic, cultural etc. Please focus on what I am trying to say rather

than just focusing on the words. Going a step forward all I can say is that I am trying to

become FULLY HUMAN rather than punjabi and muslim and pakistani etc etc but it is hard to

unlearn the conditioning of generations emotionally as well as socially ...sincerely sohail

Re: # 38
gill sahib....thank you for your kind words. human beings have to face conflicts....it is aprt

of living together. but we have choices in our personal, social and political lives. we can

choose the road of cooperation or the path of confrontation, choose to live peacefully or

start a war. i hope we choose the road of peace and harmony rather than war and

violence. i am optimistic that when peace consciousness in our future generations will

become more than violent consciousness we will evolve to the next stage...it might be a

dream but we have to dream before the dream comes true...poets and philosophers and

scientists are creative people and like to dream and then share with others. i like sharing

my dreams hoping that others would join my dream of humanistic peaceful

living...thanks...sohail

Dear Sohail,

Thanks for writing a well-meaning article. You seem to be suggesting, and please correct me if I`m wrong, that if all of us just raise the level of our consciousness and start thinking in terms of one global community, we would solve the problem of tribalism. What do you suggest as the method to achieve this? The tribalism that you talk about, which may have had a selective value in the past, has divided the humanity into conflicting social and economic interest groups. Most of the economic resources are in the hands of a tiny minority. It takes usage of brute force in the name of tribal identity to maintain this imbalance. Shedding tribal mentality will mean loosing the rationale of using force. As soon as that realizations sinks in, I think, people will be forced back into tribal mindset. Then there are many social and cultural values that make no sense in a rational sense. Their very survival depends on their proponents claiming moral superiority over other cultures and societies. This, again, is an impediment to humanistic thinking. You, rightly, advocate thinking of oneself human first and make every other identity secondary but there are some identities, for example certain religious ones, that just not function if they are not the primary identity. So, you might as well advocate letting go off those identities instead of making them secondary.

I admire your ideal of humanism and share your dream. I just wonder how practically possible the idea of migrating to humanism from tribalism is.

Rafi

Re: # 44
dear rafi....thank you for your thoughtful comments. i wish you interacted more on chowk

so that others could benefit from your knowledge, experience and wisdm.

My article might sound idealistic but I think we are moving towards that ideal slowly. The

statistics I read show that in 1900 only 1% people in the world responded to questionairres

stated that they did not belong to any organized religion and considered themselves

agnostics, atheists, freethinkers and atheists but in 2000 the number increased to 19%. so

nearly one in five have accepted humanistic philosophy. It means that there is more social

consciousness in a century.I am optinistic that in the the next couple of centuries it would

double and tripple. And when humanists become influencial in changing the policies in

schools, colleges, universities and parliments then more and more people will be educated.

I believe in evolution rather than revolution. There is a possiblity we might not survive and

commit collective suicide but I am an eternal optimist. So from practical point of view I

think education and increasing social consciousness are powerful tools and steps in that

direction to make that ideal and dream come true and people like you are doing wonderful

things as teachers to educate others. keep up the good work...sincerely sohail

Well, there is frustration that some might misread this personal meditation as if you had actually discovered a method to move people from `tribalism` to `humanism.` Rafi_aamer nurses a similar hope. Right now, it is only each person being their own light, but tribalism triumphs repeatedly precisely because each person does NOT want to be their own light.

Dr. Sohail,

Are you a Creationist, or an Evolutionist? If you are the former, I would like to know why the Creator decided to make so many different kinds of colours, sizes, and shapes (and smells in case of Indians) instead of just one size fits all? If however you`re the latter, I would like to know if it is possible that man may have retained some characteristics of the various animals it evolved from during different stages of its evolution?

Thanks in anticipation.

Zee, dr sohail probably mislayed his psychotherapist`s cap....

drsohail,

Perhaps I was too harsh in what I wrote. But, you are presenting humanism as an alternative to something called tribalism. And you are defining triabalism very broadly. Religious communities are based on shared values. If that is tribalism, then everyone is a tribal , even if they call themselves humanist.

The problem is not tribalism per se but use of coercion in inter-tribal relations. What you are advocating is non-coercion in inter-tribal relationships. That CAN be consistent with most tribal philosphies and is not an alternative to tribalism.

`Being fully human` is the claim of all religions. It is meaningless unless you define the actual HOW. Once you do that you are forming your own tribe. There is no way around that.

``He said, even if you remove religion as a ``common factor`` from the equation, humankind will remain engaged in suicidal wars. I am still pondering on this point to see if it can be refuted.``

Well, just look at the history of the last century. WW1, WW2 and then the Cold War where we teetered on the brink of annhilation for decades. All of that had nothing to do with religion. Currently, we are fortunate to be living in an interrugnum of peace because one side in the Cold War collapsed completely. Just wait till somebody becomes strong enough to challenge the other side. It will be back to the brink - religion or no religion.

Re: # 47
Dear Zeemax...to clarify my position, I do not believe in any Creator as I have not

experienced him/her/it. As a poet I feel God is a metaphor that human beings have created

over the centuries like the metaphors of tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

Evolution in fish and birds and animals was guided by instincts but after human beings

came into existence, we, because of our well developed brains and minds and

personalities, have choices to follow instincts or follow our conscience, our ethical sense.

Each human being and community decides

...to take life towards the past and regress

or

...to move forwards and accept the challenges of the present and pave way for a better

future

I believe that we need to try at a personal and communal level to make our tomorrows

better than our yesterdays so that we can evolve and grow and inspire our future

generations to embrace the whole humanity and not just our own tribe. I believe in

teaching our children that our enemies are our distant cousins..sincerely sohail

``I believe humanism is better than the divisive religions for harmonious life.``

There is a paradox in evolution of all religions that humanism cannot escape. They start out as critics of an existing belief system. They appeal to something universal and criticize the lack of universality of the existing belief system. Once their critcism is successful and the old belief system is discredited, it falls upon them to build a new belief system. As soon as they do that they become just another belief system and lose their appeal to universality.

There is really no way around this because Universal Truth has to be actualized into practice if it has to have any practical meaning. But once actualized, it is always less than Universal.

So humanism, (whatever it is) once put into practice will become just another `divisive religion` .
Of course, I am using the word `religion` in a broad sense as a basic system of values and not just a dogmatic creed.

Re: # 49
Dear Khurrum...I wish we could talk face to face so that we can go beyond words and have

heart to heart talk. What I am suggesting is that in ever conflict beteen two human beings

or two communities...whether husband and wife, two families or two countries....we can be

stuck with US/THEM position or both agree to rise above it and find common solution. A

solution that both parties can live with. Buddha said...a lasting peace happens when both

sides win equally. Khalil Gibran said...love is not looking at each other, it is looking in the

same direction. You and I are trying this at this time through a genuine dialoge. I can

respect your opinion and find common grounds and resolve our differences and learn from

each other or I can pigeon hole you in one group/tribe and stop communication. To be able

to have a genuine dialogue with people from different philosophies and lifestyles is an art

we learn and are not born with.

I do that every day with couples and help them resolve conflists and save marriages and

families. I tell the couple

husnband believes in A

wife believes in B

both belong to different families from different ribes

I tell them if you love each other then we need to discover C...common grounds which has

best of A and best of B

For me people with tribal mentalities cannot transcend that and believe their philosophy is

better but people with humanistic philosophy and personality (you can use another word or

term for such people) are flexible and can see the telescope and not stuck to their

emotional microscopic view. Is microscopic and telescopic view a better metaphor for you.

Live locally...think globally...is another way of saying the same thing. People who live in

different cultures or exposed to literatures of different cultures usually have more chances

to develop such personalities. They can easily move from microscopic to telescopic to

microscopic views.

For me to be a punjabi and paksitani and muslim is a reflection of the tribal reality I am

born in. But I have a choice to remain that or identify with punjabis who are sikhs,

pakistanis who are sindhis or pathans or muslims who are free thinkers and hindus who are

indians. This is the homework we all have to do. Humanism is not just a philosophy it is

also a personality and I have written about Humanistic Philosophy and personality in my

new book Freedom of Religion...Freedom from Religion.

It is a process and we are all learning and growing and inspiring each other. Thanks for

inspiring me.

all the best...sohail

Freedom from religion....dr sahib, so long as you carry the label of a religion, you are every bit a part of it. There is then no freedom from religion. A very good likelihood exists that your children will go back to every part you detest.

Humanism is a failed idea. There is no way it can overcome the charm of religion. You are the label you carry, not what you believe. And Buddhists have lost out in place after place.

Re: # 54
dear kaalchakra....you are right...labels can be misleading....but words are all labels...you

are kaalchakra...i am drsohail.....people think because my name is khalid sohail....i am a

muslim....rather than a freethinker or a humanist or just a human being....but that is the

first impression....like the cover of the book....and it is important.....but i feel book is more

important than the cover...person`s character more important than the coulour of the skin

or the name or the tribe he/she belongs to. i hope people judge my book after reading it

rather than just the name and the cover. for me the name of my book is intended to clarify

two interpretations of secular humansim...freedom of religion...freedom from religion.

for you i can rename it...TO BECOME FULLY HUMAN....but human is a label

too for a cultural animal who can create labels through language...animals do not. so we

can use words to reveal ourselves and express love and affection or use words to conceal

ourselves and spread anger, bitterness and violence. ...smiles...sohail

drsohail,

thanks for your article. I admire your aspiration but skeptical whether we, human beings can acheive it.

on a related note, i am interested to know whether you have heard and have an opinion of this guy - U G Krishnamurthi
http://www.well.com/user/jct/

thanks,
avkrishna

Re: # 56
dear avkrishna...every human being that is liberated is a step forward in that goal of

human liberation. evolution is always a slow process. it took us millions of years to get

here, can you not wait another few centuries?

UG Krishnamurti is called a `spiritual terrorist` I am amused by the expression. he sounds

like J Krishnamurti...who I have great respect for. J Krishnamuri had influenced

psychiatrists like RD Laing, philosophers like Joseph Campbell and novelists like Henry

Miller. Did you ever read him? his last book was First and Last Freedom..introduction by

Aldous Huxley who was his friend.

thanks for reference...sohail

drsohail,

I do respect your opinions and agree with much of what you say. But there are also points of disagreement.Perhaps due to my lack of communication skills I am not able to articulate those disagreements properly.

Firstly, let me say that I do not disagree with your goals. Who can disagree with peace and love amongst all? Please do not assume that any disagreement with you implies a rejection of these noble goals.It`s when you describe HOW to get to these goals that I have problems with your statements. Some of these problems may be with the implication of some terms you use that you may not have intended. For example, you keep repeating that humanism is a way ``to become fully human``. Does that mean everyone else is less than fully human?

Beyond these misunderstandings, there is still a fundamental disagreement. You hold that humanism is something beyond tribalism while I insist that it can be an aspect of every tribal philoshpy. Just because I consider muslim as my primary identity does not mean that I cannot empathize with my non-muslim neighbour. It would not make me any less of a muslim nor would I need to step outside Islam to do it. For you, it appears that humanism is only possible outside of religion or at least by relegating religion to a secondary role.

You refer to ``Freedom from religion``. You probably think of religion in a narrow sense as a dogmatic creed. But if religion is seen as one`s ultimate concern then there is really no getting away from it. One is always ultimately concerned with something , even if it is called humanism. So if humanism is your basic , foundational world-view then it is your religion, even though it may not have a God or a prophet. You can claim equal status for your religion but cannot claim it to be something above and beyond other religions.

It appears to me that you are generalizing from your experience of resolving conflicts between individuals. I can rise above the narrow thinking that is causing conflict with my wife and embrace a broader thinking that includes her viewpoint as well. I can do that at an ethnic level and at a national level. Your position seems to be that ultimately I should be able to rise above to all divisions by becoming a humanist. Humanism is to you a foundational belief system that has universal validity above all other value systems. My position is that this is only a CLAIM of universal validity and should be treated at par with other claims like Islam and Christianity. At the foundational level , there is really no rising above . There is only conversion. So the analogy with resolving conflicts between individuals does not apply.

hello drsohail, khurram and k-chukra(after a long time)

Looks like there is an interesting discussion going on where folks are not hurling crockery at each other (read no BJPians here)

I think someone rightly said here that there can be no universality in the practical world. Humanism from its name suggests that its scope is humans. It is really a matter of deciding whether or not humanism is greater than other religions if we don`t pressume that there is a GGGGod.

I personally think that humanism can be above other religions because it targets the matter (ie human wellbeing)directly. Traditional religions insert God as a proportionality constant to do this and of course, the constant becomes a handicap in scaling of ideas to broader situations. Traditional religions suck because they were built with the perspective of a tribal society. They aren`t ready to admit this but this is another story. We have to do our measuring by analyzing their effect on humans.

I think in the future, humanism can feel to be too narrow as it does not completely incorporate the elements of existance. It tries to give more weightage to humans` social attributes than the selfish ones.

More later....

Re: # 26

drsohail

Thank you for your kind words.

I wonder you call yourself a Punjabi and ignore the Punjabi Poet-Sage, Bulleh Shah, the greatest of humanists, when talking of Humanism. I think he had said the last word about Humanism when he said:

``Masjid dha de, mandir dha de, dha de jo kujh dheinda
Ik bande da dil nah dhaawein Rab dillaan wich rehnda``

Again, I don`t think labels essentially cause divisions and hostility. For instance, when you call yourself a Punjabi you become near and dear to myself without creating any hostility among Punjabies and non-Punjabies, but when you call yourself a Muslim and a Pakyone at that a lot of people would get alarmed, especially in western countries. Ironically, in Pakistan you can get the lable of Muslim only by hating Ahmadies and abusing the founder of that community. In fact, the very word `Pak` seems to have become today a symbol of hatred in the global village.

Re: # 59
dear malik ...if you are in toronto then we should meet. we are also having a seminar on

jan 21st on humanism. if you are interested you can call pervaiz at 416-288-3501who is

arranging it.

dear khurrum

i agree with malik that one of the fundamental differences between humanism and religions

is that in humanism...human beings are in the centre of the dialogue and can decide laws

and rules by consultation of parties concerned without consulting gods and

scriptures...which are at the centre in religions....sohail

Re: # 60
dear teshah...i never said that our ethnic and cultural identities are not important. it is only

when the secondary identity becomes more important than our humanity that we get in

conflict... i frequently quote bulley shah...a great mystic poet.

being a punjabi is wonderful...unfortunately my parents never taught me to read and write

punjabi...rather taught me urdu and arabic and english...

my only unfortunate experience was when i went to bangladesh and when i told bengalis

that i was punjabi...there were strong negative reactions...lateron my bengali friend took

me to a museum where i saw what pakistani punjabi army had done to bengalis in

1971...kiilings and rapes and violence and torture...that was one day i felt embarrassed to

be a punjabi and more ashamed to be part of such human community who tortues other

human beings...i never knew the atrosities done by punjabis untill that day...

sincerely sohail

malikjahanzeb

Long time indeed! Hope you have been a fine humanist all these days - taking care of your own welfare rather than running around promoting God`s pleasure. LOL

#51 Dear drsohail,

Thanks for getting this creationist/evolutionist thing out of the way. So man evolved ... so far, so good... and that the evolution has not ended, as you say:

``Evolution in fish and birds and animals was guided by instincts but after human beings
came into existence, we, because of our well developed brains and minds and
personalities, have choices to follow instincts or follow our conscience, our ethical sense.``

Here you make a number of `fatal` errors, if I may say so.

Firstly, evolution was not guided by instinct but by purely physical/biological necessity for survival against the elements and predators. E.g. the furry coat was gone by the time of Neanderthals not because of instinct but because by that time the hunter-gatherer culture had taken root and man had learnt to hunt down and use `other` or `less-evolved` creatures` coat to cover himself against elements rather than requiring his own. However, the Cro-magnon (the modern man) came along next who was even smarter and caused the former`s extinction.

Thus, evolution amongst species has been guided by competing physical interests between themselves as well as against forces of nature, and nothing has changed in this regard since the time, in your words, after human beings came into existence. Evolution is continuing in exactly the manner it always has.

Secondly, your proposing ``...have choices to follow instincts or follow our conscience..`` it would follow from the foregoing argument that, primarily, natural selection was nothing but establishing a food chain due to necessity of own survival, which is a selfish motive to begin with and thus inconscienable. That should be sufficient proof that any form of conscience (or consciousness ... even assuming that either is a reliable guide) cannot win in competing interests for survival over another, and it isn`t really a matter of choice between the two, never has been, nor can be ever. It may be added here that `Survival` does not mean to the modern man what it did to the Neanderthal. It is now a relative term and may more accurately be substituted with Marginal Existence.

It would appear that you cannot at the same time believe in evolution as well as conscience and ethics.

The only thing that transcends this Marginal Existence and breaks out of its essential linkages is Spirituality, but that stems from religion and in turn leads to a Creator ... but that has been ruled out in the beginning.

Oh well ... back to the drawing board.

ref#64[Thus, evolution amongst species has been guided by competing physical interests between themselves as well as against forces of nature, and nothing has changed in this regard since the time, in your words, after human beings came into existence. Evolution is continuing in exactly the manner it always has. ]

Dear Zee and Dr Sohail

Evoultion is guided by somthing called by Shopenhaur `Will to Life`.

Life has this urge to spread itself and in thta process it transforms it self to continue.

Not only man but every living being possesses free will. Free will is somthing shown by Adam and god and his prophets don`t like it.

Biggest set back to free will comes from prophets who expoit the inane fear in the humans to their advatage.

Mohammad combined sex with this fear and made it the main drive for muslims to kill and plunder non muslims. He called it `Jihad` and he prostituted and Allah and made Allah subserviant to his ambition. In a sense he made Islam a relegion of the idolators.

Because Mohammad is the biggest idle in Islam. An idle represent god. Mohammad represent Allah. He goes lot further. In other relegions it is only man who pray and worship god. But in Islam it is god and his angels who pray for peace on Mohammad.

Sorry I just diverted little bit away from the topic.

Ram Chandar

Ref#65

Please read `idle` as idol.

ramchander

That`s idle talk. At least make it logically coherent.

Ref#67

Dear Kaal

You may be right. It may be the effect of bit of red wine.

Trivialism to Even More Trivialism

On every return visit to this article, one finds it more trivial than one originally assumed. Now it is beginning to read a lot like another spin of an ersatz and despicable religious doctrine that everyone should detest.

I am trying hard to be a sympathetic reader, Dr. Sahib. Is the problem here that you didn`t clearly define what you mean by tribalism? Is your tribalism a mindset, a personality, an individual-level emotion/behavior, group/tribal behavior, a philosophy, an ideology, religion in general, some group of religions, one particular religion?

These different defintions should make your analysis and its conclusions very different.

It`s OK, ramchander. Idolatry is a very interesting thing - in how it completely enslaves the human mind and destroys the mind`s ability to function independently. If you have been thinking about it, please do write more.

Re: # 64
dear zeemax....words can be misleading and since we are having a verbal dialogue here

we may not be able to fully communicate our ideas because of the limitation of words and

their traditional meanings. let me give it one more try.

for example i am of the opinion that `spirituality` has been traditionally associated with god

and religion but in 20th century there are a number of psychologists who call `spiritual

experiences` as `peak experiences` and show that those peak experiences can be

experienced by any human being even those who have no faith in God or follow any

religions. Neurologists are also showing that those experiences can be experienced by

stimulating Right Temporal Lobes. I have discussed that issue in my earlier

article...Science, Psychology, Spirituality

and shared my position that as a Humanist I believe that spirituality is part of Humanity

and not part of Divinity. My opinion is that human beings are gradually evolving with their

experiences and becoming wiser. Such wise people are developing COMPASSION and that

COMPASSION is not only for their own family and tribe but all families and tribes and see

all humanity as part of human family and human tribe. Whether you call it thinking

global....universal love.....`spirituality....humanism....to me does not matter. What matters

is that when there is conflict...between our families and tribes and humanity at large...do

we act only protecting our tribe...such mental set I call TRIBALISM [you can call whatever

you prefer] or we act keeping the whole humanity in mind [...such mental set I call

HUMANISM [you can call whatever you choose]. But there is a significant difference is such

mental sets, mental attitudes, such personalities and lifestyles from a psychological and

social level and that difference is going to decide between our regression or progression,

collective suicide or living long, violence or peace as a species in the next few centuries.

sincerely sohail

ps...this discussion is inspiring me to write another article for www.chowk.com for future

dialogue. thanks for the inspiration

``There is one kind of people who will be closest to God on the Day of Final Judgement - they will be even closer to Him than the prophets and the martyrs. It will be those people who found each other as complete strangers but then established relationships and friendship with each other; their friendship deepened and they became so close to each other that they helped each other emotionally and financially if need be and they started feeling pain of the other and they stood by each other through thick and thin. Blessed are they``


...........Holy Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)


Dr. Sohail

There is a reason that some people scoff at some of the ideals of humanism, when they are presented as the next best thing after the sliced bread. Pahleez.

Re: # 69

kaalchakra you are asking for an answer to a question which in itself is many layered.

``Is your tribalism a mindset, a personality, an individual-level emotion/behavior, group/tribal behavior, a philosophy, an ideology, religion in general, some group of religions, one particular religion? ``

And somewhere in there is the word ``philosophy``. Surely this is the highest layer. It is this which dictates to all other definitions. Let me explain:

starting with the individual, he or shehas a mindset which dictates his/her emotions. Taken as group thisgets modified to accomodate others mindsets. Religion imposes a rationale (if youcouldcall it that) of the dominant mindset on the whole group (or groups) thus making the ``concept of accomodation`` moot upto a point. When many groups with many religions come together, you get an interesting dynamic. I
f they are already accomodating, you get a debate and a philosophical outcome - which is essentially a rationalisation of everything from the individual mindset, to a groups mindset to the mindsets of groups. At this point the outcome has to be perforce humanistic.
If on the other hand they are not accomodating, you end up in a never ending crusade to figure out which isthe dominant religion. Philosophy and argument and rationale go out of the window. What remains is the law of the brute?

addendum to #73
in the second case it is ridiculous to talk of humanism.......

#71 by drsohail

1) ... there are a number of psychologists who call `spiritual experiences` as `peak experiences` and show that those peak experiences can be experienced by any human being even those who have no faith in God or follow any religions.

Of-course, even though I didn`t bring up spiritual experiences - just spirituality. You`re probably referring to experiences like NDEs and you`re right that such experiences happen to anyone. But that was not the point.

2) ... What matters is that when there is conflict...between our families and tribes and humanity at large...do we act only protecting our tribe...such mental set I call TRIBALISM.

So in the tribe of the small fish in the evolved food-chain, for sake of the `fish` tribe at large, the small fish should be happily eaten by the tribe of the big fish, because that`s `humanism` in the overall fish community, irrespective of size, creed, colour and all the rest. Is that it Sir? Or is there a problem with my mindset.

Now I`m even more confused than I was before .. you`re not helping me at all Doc.

Ramchandar,

Do come back when you`re sober ... LoL !

dr sohail, I have read your article many times these past few hours (okay I do have some time on hand). You have an interesting way of putting things (and this includes your interacts).

What intrigues me, are a number of things, (see #69 to Kaalchakra for example). You have also left out a very important componenet of the equation, namely resources. All fo the fights are for resources and who these resources can be equitably distributed (not equally). Unless and until you take this into account, all the bright ideas can be chucked out of the window. No.

#77 on resources: if human beings stopped squabbling over the land and wealth, they would be able to focus on the vast resources of the solar system, compared to which the planet earth is a drop in the ocean.

In other words, even the most greedy of matkas would realize that resources are virtually limitless. And humans can aim for things that are far, far more rewarding than merely ``getting wealthy``.

#78 that is in the realms of speculation - since
(a) we do not know what type the resources are?
(b) we do not know how of what is there can be exploited right now?
(c) we do not know how to exploit what we have not encountered in terms of resources ?

iron_mask,

You`re going down a really slippery slope. Have you decided what describes a human and what describes a resource first? Is it possible that humans may themselves be a resource? Or a resource which you consider non-human may actually be human? Have you ever seen tears in the eyes of an animal? I have. Are there wilting willows and Raat-Ki-Raani?

Real slippery slope ...

#79 not true. even right now the nations of the world (US, EU, China and to a lesser extent Japan and Russia) have serious money earmarked for exactly this purpose. and we know a lot about these resources:

e.g. the mineral value alone of just the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter has been calculated to be worth trillions and trillions of dollars. add to that the materials in the rest of the solar system - giant planets and scores of moons some almost the size of earth, the millions of objects in the kuiper belt, and the massive energy generatd by the sun itself - all this is within reach.

if this ``tribal mindset`` was not diverting resources into wars, those resources would be going towards these true frontiers - mankind`s control of the solar system, curing disease and prolonging life...

``2) ... What matters is that when there is conflict...between our families and tribes and humanity at large...do we act only protecting our tribe...such mental set I call TRIBALISM.

But, why do you dump all religions of the world in this category? And why do you think your humanism requires `freedom from religion`?
Are you aware of the Christian roots of modern western humanism?

Re: # 80 yes, that is why I left #79 incomplete....and is implicit in one of the questions

Re: # 81 but what are the minerals? If they contain something new, can we extract what we know from them, or do they contain something new which we donot know how to exploit (its like the radiation chemistry of the 1800`s). We speculate, but there is nothing concrete.

#80 further to that see #73

Re: # 77
dear iron mask...alongside my humanistic philosophy, i also like socialistic philosophy

where human progress is more important than economic progress. i think as human beings

we have enough to share and look after our needs....but not greeds.

that is one reason i live in canada where health care and education is free and we have

social services rather than america where 33 million (poplulation of canada) has no health

care and we are spending billions on war in afghanistan, iraq and now in somalia. it is a

matter of preferences and choices....wise humanistic choices.....we make individually and

collectively....sincerely sohail

#84 the minerals in the solar system are remarkably similar to earth. you should know all this!! why dont you google nasa.gov or some such site and see what i am talking about. this is not science fiction by any means. but a hard reality that is much more practical than the kinds of issues raised by the ``tribal mentality`` (which exists in spades on chowk, e.g.)

Re: # 87 I agree...with you here...here is the deal....whilst the great unwashed of this world are fighting it out, some of the washed are looking outwards. Keeping the interest ofthe unwashed on and its resources, allows for greater and better exploitation of the universe. Forget the universe - see antartica recently!

e.g. the mineral value alone of just the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter has been calculated to be worth trillions and trillions of dollars. add to that the materials in the rest of the solar system - giant planets and scores of moons some almost the size of earth, the millions of objects in the kuiper belt, and the massive energy generatd by the sun itself - all this is within reach.

if this ``tribal mindset`` was not diverting resources into wars, those resources would be going towards these true frontiers - mankind`s control of the solar system, curing disease and prolonging life...

Golden.

Is there oil in space?

(head-scratching)