Chowk Special

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: Rishi

Regarding your earlier comment about my mention of Brahman:

I personally found the description in the Gita to be supremely beautiful, and interestingly there is a very strong commonality between the description of the supreme Divinity in the Gita and the narratives of Ali bin Abi Talib in his sermons (collected in Nahjul Balagha). If you`re interested, you might check it out.

I don`t know whether you are interested in this, but I find that there are very interesting ethical parallels between the battle of Mahabharta and Karbala. The details are not quite the same, but you might enjoy reading about Karbala.

regards,
Wasiq

Re: SR

Vintage stuff...Reminded me atleast partly of another with the same initials.

Rishi

RE: SR

/ *

I`ll leave poor old Allah out of it, since he`s been falsely accused of everything that has happened since the Big Bang any way.

*/

Well said, Mr. Rabbani!

RE: Wasiq

Dear Bokiman, keep up the struggle. You may find answers that will be therapeutic for all of us!

And thanks for the accolade! It`s more than appreciated coming from a dear friend.

Best,

maTha

I`d like to add my voice in thanking all the participants for this stimulating and rigorous discussion. This InterAct session sets a very high and admirable standard. I hope it can be maintained in other discussions.

SR: You have a great knack for synthesis, bringing the various threads of discussion together and cutting to the heart of the matter. Keep it up! :)

Wasiq: Thanks for the lucid explanation of QM and GR. Truly fascinating, and it motivated me to dust off my college physics textbook buried in my closet and read up some more. I`ll check out your other article, too.

Finally, thank you for your unrelenting honesty throughout this discussion. It is inspiring, and humbling (to me). You da man! :)

To all Chowkwallahs and beyond:

In a soul-baring minority insecurity-sharing moment from me, please realize that all Shias, from the moment of birth are inculcated with a sense of persecution complex that is very hard to shake as one grows up with an ideology that is shaped by the weight of centuries of defeat and being `wronged` by history. It is a struggle to retain objectivity when ones defenses are constantly being called to the fore.

Thank you everyone for a truly stimulating discussion. Until we dance this dance again ...

Anita

Re: Kafir (93)

``My problem arises when human beings, as social and political creatures, try to appropriate meaning to this mystery ...``

That makes two of us! Probably a sad consequence of our mind`s tendency to interpret ...

Actually I would love to talk about the discordance between Quantum theory and General Relativity. Here`s a simple explanation:

In General Relativity, the force of gravity does not exist, instead matter and energy distort space-time much like a heavy object sitting on a stretched piece of fabric. A marble rolling on this fabric will no longer move in a straight line in the vicinity of this heavy object. This is not because of a force, but because of the distortion of the geometry of the underlying sheet it is rolling on. The amount of distortion can be parameterized by the ``curvature`` of the sheet, and in GR the curvature of space-time is directly proportional to the energy density. Since mass is proportional to energy, a more massive object produces a larger curvature and hence a larger deflection of the paths of other objects, hence the appearance of a stronger gravitational field.

Now let us come to Quantum Mechanics. In QM, there is an uncertainty relation due to Heisenberg which states that for a small enough time, the quantum vaccum can produce a state with arbitrarily large energy. In other words, the QM vaccum is not empty but full of activity where particles and their anti-particles emerge spontaneously and then annihilate each other. If the particle antiparticle pair is not very massive, it lives for a longer time compared to the a more massive pair. i.e if the energy of the pair is E, then it lives for a time proportional to 1/E. So in QM, we can produce a state of arbitrarily large energy but only for a short enough time.

Herein lies the heart of the discrepancy. When one tries to formulate a Quantum Mechanical version of GR, one finds that one is faced with an infinite number of states with very large energies or curvature. This is due to those high energy states that are continually produced in QM for very short times. A state of very large curvature is called a black hole, and therefore the theory of Quantum gravity is full of black holes, and it is not possible to do any meaningful calculations. (c.f Infinite in All Directions on Chowk for an introduction).

regards

I want to thank all the participants of this discussion for the sophistication and honesty of their arguments. It has been a mind expanding experience. Special thanks to my dear friend Kamal, known to us as Matha, for his bitter-sweet pill of sincere incisiveness wrapped in Matha-esque humor, there simply is no substitute! And to Anita, for starting all of this, and carrying it through with her usual finesse. Goga, Saima, Noor, Kafir and Godot shone like gems, my thanks to you for your words and more importantly your skepticism.

I also want to apologize to anyone whom I might have offended, advertantly or inadvertantly. These topics border on some of the most personal beliefs of people. By watching my own reactions to things I take for granted, I can not only recognize how silently one can be deceived, but also how differences in opinion on what cannot be firmly established, harden into walls that cannot be scaled. My views on all of this are thankfully in a process of evolution, and I hope that stays.

Finally I must thank SR for providing perspective, at least to me. Yes, I must confess, that I am still silently driven by what I imbibed as a child, and that in cases like this, the mind has a tendency to crystallize insufficient knowledge into ``firm`` conclusions.

So let me go one step further, and bare my soul to you:

My fundamental questions are:

(1) Is there the presence of a spiritual dimension in human history, or are all religions merely a-posteriori concoctions of power-hungry (but imaginative) priests and rulers?

(2) If (1) is true, is there is a genuine spirituality in Islam?

The way I see it is that, regardless of whether people have been thoroughly abused and manipulated by clergy (or related parasites), the willingness of people to be abused points to the presence of a spiritual need. Second, the lives of and work produced by spiritually motivated people speaks for itself about spirituality as a fuel for human ingenuity and imagination. Thus, spirituality, even as merely a functional definition of something much more mundane, appears to me to be a fact.

The next related question that arises is whether one can find an evidence for spirituality in the human history? Do we find instances in history, where the turn of events point us clearly to a new historical phenomenon and processes unlike what we associate with ordinary people like ourselves and their aspirations.

This question, to me, logically links in with the issue of the presence of genuine spirituality in Islam. I went back to history books because I wanted to find the evidence for that break with history. I believe that it is possible to do so, contrary to what my friend Kamal would argue. To me that possibility is also, at a certain level, an imperative. I personally would not qualify as either a Shia or a Sunni, I am sure both sects would find more than enough deficiencies in me, however, as far as I have been able to trace so far, I am inclined to lean one way versus another on certain matters.

That preference does not make the other side perfect, however, within the context of the discussion pursued so far, that is unfortunately how people will construe my standing, and given my limited abilities that is how I have presented it. In this present discussion, I have been hard pressed to stay within a particular context of the discussion, defined by my wish to identify a spiritual history of Islam. If I were to outrightly deny the existence of any spirituality (as impled by Matha and SR in my opinion), then obviously, the whole context changes.

Sticking to the above mentioned context, within Islam what I see is that one side dominated the other and successfully marginalized it. I construe this as a great example of the dialectical process of history, where we see the negation of a negation. Muhammed negated the Makkan elite, which in turn negated Muhammed right after his death.

If one were to not ask about ``good versus evil`` (whatever that means), but merely ask the question of what happened to the movement of Muhammed, then the answer would be that it was negated. That conclusion by itself is startling enough for most people. In my opinion the detailed discussions of who comes out cleaner at the other end are just details. Of course, if there was no spirituality to start with, then Islam today is nothing more than a magnification of a tribal quabble fourteen centuries ago. All the bells and whistles that we see in it are later inventions.

If on the other hand Islam is more than ``full of sound and fury, signifying nothing``, to me this particular historical turning of the tables signifies a very critical event, not only for Islamic history, but also human history.

Even as a die-hard scientist, I must keep my mind open, after all one can only talk probabilities.

regards,
Wasiq

Sohail:

Exactly my thoughts, expressed better than I could have! One minor addendum. You say this has been such a civilised and mature discussion on ``this`` forum. I would have said ``any public`` forum.

Again, a sincere thanks to all Chowkies!

regards,

Re: Wasiq

Justice and Morality

It may be that we are speaking at cross-purposes and I apologize for miss-reading your statement To my mind Justice derives from a Morality and not Morality from Justice. The reverse seems unlikely, simply because the concept of Justice is based on the idea of fair, equal, for which a standard or a desired value is necessary. A = B, only if B = A. Say in a society, for instance, chastity is a value for which virginity is moral for a bride. In case the bride is not found to be a virgin, it would be considered Just for her to be rejected. Whether this is rational, compassionate etc., are moot points for someone who does not deem chastity as much a value as ethics/love. In other words, his Morality is subtly different, therefore his sense of Justice.

Coming back to Islam, Morality dictates Justice. Pakistanis value the sanctity of religion, for us the moral value of its beliefs is such that we have the blasphemy law (for example). Whether this value is in conflict with other values of ours such as democracy, compassion and tolerance is a debatable issue. Whether it achieves certain other goals of a society is questionable.

Plato and Freedom of Thought.

Plato defines philosophers as seekers of truth at any cost, visionaries who are ``spectators`` of all time and existence. Socrates was dismissive of the poets of the age, because poets appealed to the senses, to emotions and wrote peans in the praise of gods, rulers etc. Sycophancy was Not one of Socrates greater skills; he was a very bad P/R man. According to him Poets were not thinkers/rationalists, i.e, seekers of Truth, but self-aggrandizing and misguided.

In the ``Republic``, S makes a strong case against the rulers of the time and keeps espousing the role of Philosophers as the true guardians of public property.

In the Apology, Crito, Socrates is ultimately tried and condemned for crimes against the state and blasphemy against the ancestral gods and the corruption of the youth. His specific crime? The desire to seek truth., because ``an unexamined life is not worth living``. I think with the evidence, Socrates was definitely all for the Freedom of Thought and chose to die rather than apologize for his ``crimes``.

Once again, I don`t think that the Caliphate was about a reign of philosophers in the above sense. By definition, a Caliph has to up-hold the Morality designated by religion and not the humble search for Truth. The search for Truth would have led the Caliphs away from the Morality defined by religion, towards ideas just as `blasphemous` as Socrates`. I may be wrong about the Calipahte here?

To sum up, Socrates` Morality, Belief and Value was the search for Truth, and this was in conflict with the Morals of those in power. I interpret this search for Truth to mean Freedom of Thought, though tolerance of all and sundry was not one of Socrates` virtues. You are welcome to point out any flaws in Plato`s Utopia.

I hope the above makes sense. I think your comments have provided tremendous input in all this and thanks for all the information and analysis of Islam through the ages.

All the best.

General Comment:

Congratulations to the Chowk for having achieved a remarkable standard of civility in this debate. This has, so far, been the most `mature` discussion about Quran and Islam we`ve seen on this forum. My spirits are uplifted because the fundies did not spew a torrent of irrational vitriol and poison the climate. Perhaps they`ve written off the inhabitants of this forum and this has become a haunt of apostasy.

Also, the fact that no one has made any caustic remarks against the Naqvis, Jafareys, Zaidis and Bokahris, for fostering their Shia agenda, is most encouraging. Thankfully, the sipah-e-sahaba and sipah-e-rasool are not on-line.

I salute the restraint of faithful Muslims here for not getting bent out of shape and resorting to fatwas against us, wayward Muslims, who are not impressed with Mohammed`s claims of prophethood or the Quran`s divinity. Here, let me single out Rehan and thank him for having the decency to add the ``caution`` (that his arguments will not suffice for those who do not have an a priori faith in Islam) before getting into his tirade in the defense of Quran`s divinity and authenticity.

To my friends, Noor ul Islam and Kafir, I want to pay a special tribute for being eloquent in the pursuit of reason and in their unrelenting arguments against myth and superstition. You gentlemen have my utmost admiration for laying it out for all to see and making no bones about it.

Saima, Anita and maTha, though not as unabashedly eager to claim that `the emperor wears no clothes`, have nonetheless, made superb and valid contributions and said essentially the same things (while hedging their bets against a direct fatwa of `murtad` and `vajib-ul-qutal`). Mr. maTha it`s good to see your name on-screen after a long time. I`ve missed your convoluted, twisted and perverse humor. Thank you for your valuable insights.

Wasiq,

My friend, your are the banner carrier and star of this debate. Your passion surprised me and your fervor is impressive. As the debate raged on your heart took over your head and I`m afraid you went a bit out of your way to represent a particular view, not always with the same incisiveness that we`ve all come to associate with your name.

The only reason I want to bring the following up is because you stated at one point that your views were `still evolving`. In other words you are not a committed partisan, but an open minded person who is willing to rise above clan loyalty and be objective.

In this entire debate, I`ve been unable to ascertain whether you actually believe in the divinity of Quran and Mohammed`s claims to prophethood, you only indirectly imply that you do. Yet there is no mistaking your Shia sympathies, and your slant of the historical interpretations.

You treat Mohammed and Ali with kid`s gloves while taking the others to task. This is not fair if one is to be objective.

Though I will not go so far as to allege that Mohammed was an opportunistic charlatan and a fraud I will, however, suggest that he was an astute politician, who adapted his strategies with effective expediency. He was intelligent and well ahead of his times. I do not treat him any different than the other contemporary characters. They were, after all, products of their time and culture, which, according to today`s standards, makes them primitive barbarians. It is unreasonable to treat Mohammed and Ali as if they were angels descended from heaven while Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman and Mauwia were demons. This is an oversimplistic, two-dimensional caricaturization to which the faithful are apt to subscribe.

You decry the evil of nepotism practiced by the likes of Usman, Mauwia and Mirwan, yet you are willing to allow, what you call, `Mohammed`s family` to be treated as `special` and thus more qualified to ascend to the top of the Islamic society. I find that an internal contradiction in your values.

It is easy to see that they were all nepotistic and the one side prevailed while the other was marginalized. Had circumstances been different, the reverse would have been the case and the other party would have been crying `foul`. ``Sour losers`` is what you`d be calling them today.

The second point to which I take exception is your assertion that Islam was `saved` because of the sacrifices of Ali and Hussein, and had it not been for the tragedy at Karbalah we would not see Muslims today. This is, to put it mildly, a fantastic claim, which stretches the imagination, and unless one has been hammered with this idea since childhood, one is unlikely to arrive at this conclusion.

Let us not kid ourselves, Islam spread through the sword. Period. This is not unique to Islam. All world religions that survive and thrive have had state sponsorship. Throughout history, including our own times, prophets come at a rate of dime a dozen. As Kafir pointed out, David Koresh and Jim Jones are recent examples. In the time of Mohammed, too, there were competitors (Tulaiha of Beni Asad, and Musailima of Beni Haneefa). What separates the successful religions from those that die off into obscurity is state sponsorship. Cyrus sponsored Zoroastrians, Constantine sponsored Christianity, Ashoka sponsored Buddhism, etc.

For Islam to have been the widespread religion that it is today, those early conquests were an absolute essential. Mohammed, himself was the empire builder, he just didn`t get enough time to do more than he did. MaTha has already pointed out the examples of his aggressive and expansionist policies. Even the conquest of Mecca itself is proof positive of his grand designs.

If anyone is to be blamed for the marginalization of Ali and the ascent of the House of Abu Sufyan, it is none other than Mohammed himself. (Anita Zaidi, in one of her replies said ``Allah and Mohammed are to be blamed``, but I`ll leave poor old Allah out of it, since he`s been falsely accused of everything that has happened since the Big Bang any way.) Ali, as we know, was Mohammed`s loyal and devoted follower. Almost like a younger brother, he lived under the shadow of this more capable man and developed a kind of relationship of servitude with Mohammed. Ali risked his life by sleeping in Mohammed`s bed the night the later escaped (in Abu Bakr`s company) to Medina. Ali was always handy to do the grunt work and never questioned Mohammed. My contention is that Mohammed USED Ali as one would a loyal servant. Until the conquest of Mecca, Ali was also Mohammed`s main scribe or secretary. However, the funny thing is that after Mecca fell and Abu Sufyan recanted, Mohammed `marginalized` Ali and took on Abu Sufyan`s young son, Mauwia, as his personal secretary. This obviously must have hurt Ali`s feelings, but the obedient servant that he was, he never rebelled.

Furthermore, it is easy to visualize that Fatima, who adored her father, must have been somewhat unseay with this feisty young woman Ayesha who shared his bed and did not accord him the same reverence that everyone else did. Ayesha took liberties that others didn`t and having a soft corner in Mohammed`s heart, she assumed an air which was, at least of a while, pretentious. It is therefore natural to see Fatima`s husband begrudgingly taking a lower place to Ayesha`s father, whom the couple must have viewed as a usurper to their `family rights`. Human nature, I`m sure, has not changed much in 14 centuries.

Abu Bakr and Omar were not wealth seekers, though they may be intoxicated with power. Abu Brk is said to have 40,000 dirhams in Mecca before he joined Mohammed, yet when he moved to Medina with is friend, he was only worth 5,000 dirhams. He is said to have spent money freeing Muslim slaves, but only seven slaves are mentioned in literature and they cost only 400. His financial decline was due to the losses suffered because of the economic sanctions imposed by the Mecca elite. Omar was also a very spartan man. During his reign, prisoners of war that were brought to Medina expecting to see pomp and pageantry as they had in Constantinople and Ctesiphon would see a modest and dusty town of mud houses with a bunch of old men in tattered clothes sitting around in the middle of the town square. One of those bare foot shabby old men would, to their shocking surprise, turn out to be the world`s most powerful emperor.

Contrary to your assertion Omar was not a very successful expansionist. He was a hotheaded simpleton who bumbled into expansion due to the competence and over zealousness of his generals. Moreover, Byzantium and Persia were exhausted after 26 years of continuous war and were ripe for the picking. Emperor Heraclius was dead and Constantinople was rife with intrigue and the empire was in paralysis. In Ctesiphon, Yezdegird was a young and inexperienced ruler who had not had enough time to consolidate his rule after the death of Chusro Perveiz..

In the six years since the Prophet`s death, Muslim warriors had never been paid. Their reward was plunder. Mohammed himself had set the precedence. One fifth was loaded up and shipped back to Medina. The remaining four fifths was distributed among the troops. If, therefore, peace was to prevail, the troops would have had to be paid. However, as yet there was no civil service nor any organized economic administration and it was necessary to keep the `revolution and fervor` going or it would all collapse like a house of cards.

The only ones to see this necessity were Mauwia and Mirwan.

Omar is not one who supported his generals as a true expansionist should have. His reign would have not seen the expansion in the empire it did, had it not been for extremely favorable geopolitical atmosphere and competent field commanders whom the Khalif never appreciated nor backed up.

Example: (1) Amr ibn al Aasi, who practically on his personal initiative conquered Palestine (including Jerusalem) and went on to take Egypt, was unreasonably and disgracefully dismissed. (2) Khalid ibn Waleed was `marginalized` for no good reason. (3) Saad ibn Abi Waqas, the first `modern` general in Islamic history, and one most competent, was dismissed for totally stupid reasons.

(The reign of Usman, is de facto the reign of Mirwan, and that is when we see, for the first time, the beginnings of state structural organization.)

Ali`s brief reign was another interruption that did more to retard the consolidation of the empire than anything else. These idealists were more hindrance than help. As we saw in the history of early Soviet Communism, the struggle between Stalinists (who wanted to consolidate first) and the Trotskyites (who wanted to `export` the revolution) was resolved in the favor of Stalin and less than a century later the empire collapsed. In Islam, the `Trotskyites` won out and the empire lasted much longer. (Please don`t dwell on this example, its been given more for effect than anything else.)

Mauwia, and Mirwan, on the other hand, were extremely efficient and capable administrators. These two, along with Mirwan`s son, Abdul Malik, are the reason we see Muslims far and wide in the world today. They were the true builders and consolidators of the empire which Mohammed started but could not finish.

…SR

Re: Saima (88)

Actually I think you misread me, I said ``Islamic view of ``justice`` is not separate from its view of ``morality``, the latter derives from the former``, and not the other way around.

On another related point, Plato`s Republic was anything BUT freedom of thought. Who said Plato believed in freedom of thought or speech? In an ideal city, the rulers were philosophers who were to be specially trained for their special job. The works of poets for example were to be carefully regulated, for according to Plato the false moral notions of the traditional poets had a powerful and negative impact on the general public. Philosophical reflection was to replace popular poetry as the force that guided moral education.

regards, and thanks for being a key member of this interesting debate.

Re: Noor (89)

Yes. Agreed utterly. My only contention is that
some belief is always needed, morals or values or ethics...because of the imperfection of knowledge. A point sometimes made by many religious scholars to defend religion.

To,

Noor, Anita, Wasiq, RR, MaTha, all thanks for a great discussion.

Re: Goga (91,92)

Thanks for looking for the references. I was hoping someone would go and cross-check the references I have been spewing.

In fact the Hadees of Paper (Qartas) is mentioned SEVEN times in Sahih Bukhari. Here are the explicit references. I went to the web-site that you mentioned, and stopped looking after I found it FOUR times.

References for The Hadees of Paper in Sahih Bukhari:

1) The Book of knowledge
2) The Book of Jihad
3) The Book of Khumus
4) The Chapter on the Illness of the Prophet and his death
5) Same as (4)
6) The Book of Illnesses
7) The Book of Holding on to the Quran

I found the Hadees in these 4 places in this web-site:
Vol. 9, Book 92, Number 468
Vol. 1, Book 3, Number 114
Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 288
Vol. 4, Book 53, Number 393

For other explicit mentions of Hadrat Umar see:

1) Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Wassiya. (This reference is very interesting because it mentions the first use of the slogan ``Hasbuna Kitab Ullah`` and also the words ``Haza Rajlun La-Yahjur`` -- which translates into ``This person is spewing nonsense``)
2) Musnad Imam Hanbal, Al-juz Ul-Awwal.
3) Tabaqat-e Ibne Saad

The fact that Hadrat Umar uttered these words has been accepted by, Imam Hanbal, Ibne Saad, Ibn Ul-Atheer, etc. It will be quite hard to get a better set of Islamic scholars.

I will await your response until you have gone through these sources, otherwise we will be going in circles.

Your point about the Shia-Sunni comparison of who ``respects`` the Prophet more is faulty. The Shias believe that the Prophet completed his mission supremely, what happened later was the fault of his power hungry companions. Even the most anti-Shia Sunni scholars do not come to the conclusion that you came to. However, I believe that bickering over this point is useless, after all you have access to the sources and have your own intelligence. The question relevant for us today is what really happened, and whether we can get a clear idea from the sources available to us?

All of the other things (about the faulty ``the Quran could have been re-instated`` argument) are in discussion in other threads on within these responses (Matha, Wasiq, ANita), so I do not wish to repeat myself or others.

However, while we are at the issue of the ``sincerity`` of certain people, you will be hard pressed to explain why these gentlemen abandoned the dead body of the Prophet and instead ran away to Saqeefa so that they could get power? Could they not wait for a day? On the other hand the family of the Prophet (including Ali) and some of the devoted companions remained with the Prophet and buried him. These gentlemen who ran away were NOT present in the bathing, funeral prayers or the burial of the Prophet.

References for the circus of Saqeefa are very illuminating:

1) For an introduction to the incident of Saqeefa see Vol 5, Book 57, Number 19 in Sahih Bukhari.
2) The History of Ibne-Khaldun, Part 2.
3) Abu Muhammed Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qaitba (died 270 A.H) in Al-siyasat wa Imamat.
4) History of Ibne Asakir (Tareekh ul Kabeer)
5) Abu Jaffer bin Jarir At-Tabari in Tareekh-ul-Umam wal Malook, Part 3.

AGain, maybe we should talk about this after you look at these references.

best regards,
Wasiq

Re: Wasiq

I think I understand your argument regarding subjective and objective knowledge. I also agree that nature at different levels (subatomic, cosmological) may behave in ways contrary to our assumptions about our human-scale environment, and that we should keep an open mind about this Unknown. My problem arises when human beings, as social and political creatures, try to appropriate meaning to this mystery (under the guise of religion and mysticism), very subjectively and with glaring contradictions across cultures, where no meaning may inherently exist. And the political ramifications of this appropriation of meaning.

BTW, I`m fascinated by the inherent discordance between Quantum theory and the General theory of relativity that you mentioned. Could you briefly explain it, or if it`s too complicated for a brief explanation, could you refer me to a source (keeping in mind that I`ve only had two semesters of college physics:))? Thanks.

Re: Saima Shah

I agree that belief underlies any epistemology, whether humanistic, religious, mystical, or whatever. Humanists base their knowledge on materialist, scientific assumptions; religionists on prophetic, historical personalities and their teachings; mystics on some mysterious spiritual source. We could argue til the cows come home about which view is correct, but that wouldn`t be very fruitful. As a pragmatist, I`m more concerned about how each affects our lives socially and politically and which is the best for the age in which we live, ensuring both individual and collective well-being.

Re: Anita Zaidi (and Goga)

``...the inherent morality in this passion for globalization is consumerism and unbridled capitalism, my friend, not our common good.``

My friend, I think there are two distinct issues here: historical process and moral principle. Comsumerism and capitalism are the historical, political engines that are bringing about a globalized world where we are all increasingly dependent on each other for food, livelihood, information, security, etc. Consumerism and capitalism are not moral principles, they are methods of economy. My argument is that moral principles like justice, compassion, homesty, equity, sacrifice, etc., that were previously restricted to the tribe will eventually have to expand to include the whole world because we will all depend on each other for our collective survival and well-being. Obviously, the majority of humankind hasn`t come to this understanding, but I think that`s where we`re heading (if we want to survive long-term).

As for divinely-inspired prophets motivating us to expand the meaning of `us` to include the whole world lest we be sent to Hell, yes, that is a powerful tool for social manipulation and action. But the real Hell we should fear now is not a fiery pit with a horn-headed Shaitan poking us with a pitchfork, but a world torn apart by war, racism, pollution, resource depletion, poverty, famine, because we couldn`t resolve our problems as one global tribe. Modern day prophets should be able to spur us to action with this hellish scenario, and WITHOUT divine inspiration, thank you very much.