When every child asks his parents who created him, he is told that all people, living things, the earth, the celestial bodies, the universe and everything that there is and ever will be, is created by a very specific entity with infinitely vast supernatural powers who orchestrates every single occurrence in every corner of existence; God. Then follows years of religious indoctrination which paints an image of an immaculate being who is self-sufficient, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. This indoctrination coupled with fear of excommunication prevents us from asking the next logical question in a series of never-ending ventures into the unknown: who created God?

Most of us would angrily respond (after a short spell of damnation) by preaching that the very notion (of God having a creator) is simply ludicrous. We ignore the fact that these so-called fundamental beliefs (leading up to the image of a Creator god) were instilled in us by lifetimes of principles that can only best be described as religious dogmas, instead of even a shred of empirical proof. Questions relating to the nature of God are shunned by both parents and societies as they feel an overwhelming sense of sacrilege. This intentional elusion is perhaps attributed by our desire to preserve our faiths; or simply to avoid the inevitable conflict between religion and science.

When presented with this little personal dilemma, a friend suggested that by opening this particular situation to the scrutiny of science and logical reasoning, we would unleash an infinite queue of doubt and reckoning (as if the entire fabric of existence solely depended on it). After contemplating this for a while, I realized that the daunting sense of uncertainty is the essence and pioneering force of science; an undying sense of inquisitiveness followed almost always by discovery, innovation and understanding. Knowledge existed long before the creation of the universe and it shall continue to exist even after its possible cessation (à la the infiniteness of the mathematical numeral). So why do we still use God as a full-stop on all instances of the natural world (or otherwise) that eludes a conventional explanation? Is all this a mere frailty of the human mind brought about by some evolutionary blunder as one blogger suggested?

A few nights ago, an ongoing joke with a friend to disprove the existence of God led to a personal revelation of a sort. When asked to explain all the suffering on this earth (human and otherwise) despite God’s tenure of all His divine abilities and mercifulness, he presented the standard apologists’ response; God’s divine psyche does not have to be on par with that of the human or more specifically, God does not necessarily have the very human emotion of empathy. I rebuffed this by highlighting the various similarities (that I could draw) between the divine and human ‘minds’: jealousy (conditioning absolute belief in His unity), possessiveness (worshiping /reverence) and the most controversial, vengefulness (dreadful mechanisms of torture) just to name a few. So if God can have these idiosyncrasies which are reflected by our human nature, why not empathy? Would not a compassionate and omnipotent being do all that is in its power to salve mankind (or any other creature) from constant suffering and certain doom? My cornered friend (who is a fellow agnostic theist also sick of organized religion, who shares my belief that there is an individual path to God and eternal bliss) admitted that the face of God is irreparably stained by eons of corruptive religion which has been fabricated from its truest form to benefit just a few individuals who continue to exert their terror, power and influence on the masses. I, for one, totally concur with him.

So to answer myself, I think we created [the perception of] God. Individually, socially and even politically. What we have to ultimately decide is which perception to embrace and then to follow. As far as I am concerned, its an easy choice.

One thing that really upsets me is religious intolerance and since I live in the Maldives, unsurprisingly, I am ticked off a lot. Just today I came across this blog entry by a Maldivian lady, referring to the recently released Story of Jesus Christ in Divehi language.

First of all, let me be very clear on something. I neither represent the people behind the works you mentioned, nor do I endorse it. But I am also NOT against it as I believe in religious freedom for all enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights (something we have yet to embrace).

It’s interesting to note what she wrote for her photo caption “Some Books Against our Religion“. I am not saying the books she mentioned weren’t directed at Maldivians with the obvious (yet vague) intention of converting us, but how do you think the efforts of these individuals (to propagate their religion) constitute a deliberate assault on our Islamic faith? In my opinion they are not against my religion… it just advocates another faith. Sadly, this is the universal logic in these islands. Anything contradicting our faith and common ideology is hastily interpreted as heresy, which by the way, nobody tries to rebuff; instead we focus all our energy on condemning the creators of such work.

Something else I noted about her blog entry.

“Dear friends please dont listen to any of this fake stories, They may affect the way you think. u may even get this mail. But please dont read it or listen cause a single story may change the way we think about our religion. We must be confident with a great will, that non of these fake stories may do a single thing on us.”

My own people continue to baffle me… we parade around flaunting our so-called unshakable Islamic solidarity (based on mostly obscure dogmas) but at the very sight of something un-Islamic (such as these stories of Jesus from the Christian perspective), we become paranoid and hell-bent on flushing them out of our society at all costs. This attitude is not just limited to deliberate propagation attempts but also towards historical, educational, cultural and artistic media pertaining to other faiths. Cable television is routinely subjected to this form of “censorship”. Programs highlighting foreign faiths (especially Christianity) are hastily taken off the air as if it was common trash or porn. Is our belief (ageedhaa) so weak that we all become apostates as soon as we are exposed to the preaching of an ambassador of an alien religion? Most Maldivians would challenge this assumption, but if so, why do we continue to treat other religions so degradingly? How would we feel if programs showcasing the Hajj are censored while we were watching it on say Italian cable television?

It saddens me to know that we have no respect for anything other than Islam even when our scripture specifically demands that we maintain mutual reverence with the other faiths. By treating each other with dignity, respect and tolerance can only we co-exist.

Lastly, she said this:

“Why don’t these people do what they want to their belivers? Why do they want to interfere with ours ? Shame on them for these kind of activities. Allah will never forgive them. They meant to be in jahanam forever”

They preach and propagate their faith for the same reason why we lecture non-Moslems. We too, are deluded into thinking we are offering them salvation while ignoring the fact that belief alone does not redeem a soul. Actions count too. At the end of the quote, she did what was typical of Maldivian behavior towards such matters; she condemned the authors and producers to the depths of hell. This is plain ludicrous. As if she (or anybody else) had any say on their ultimate fate. I’ll end this post with a interesting passage from the Koran; what God had to say about this.

“Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in God the Almighty, and believes in the Day of Judgment, and leads a righteous life, will receive their due recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve”

- Chapter 2 The Heifer, Verse 62

Note to Golden Lotuz (the original author of the quoted texts): I understand that you may feel targeted for this rebuffing, however that was not my intention. I have been meaning to express myself about the religious indiscrimination that exists in our society for a long time, you merely served as a vessel for it. I thank you.