Here is a simplified version of Acharya Brajendra Nath Seal's commentary on Tuhfat-ul-Muwahhidin.
Original writings can be found here
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.45303/page/n13/mode/2up
The Style and Composition of the Tuhfat
Raja Rammohun Roy’s book, Tuhfat-ul-Muwahhidin, is a highly unique and distinguished work in Indian-Persian literature. It promotes pure rationalism, completely free from traditional dogmas, cultural conventions, and prejudices. It also firmly rejects the idea of divinely inspired priests, prophets, and the supposedly flawless guides of organized "revealed" religions. Beyond its powerful message, the book has excellent literary quality. It stands far apart from the typical religious debates written by older, native scholars. This is because its reasoning is tightly woven, it stays completely on topic without wandering, it refuses to use popular myths or folk stories as examples, its language is clear and direct, and its arguments follow strict, unbroken logic.
This specific writing style immediately shows that Rammohun Roy was deeply familiar with the literary techniques and debate styles of European thinkers, such as John Locke and Voltaire. At the same time, he cleverly used familiar Eastern literary tricks to appeal to traditional, conservative readers. By including well-placed quotes from the Quran, famous verses by the poet Hafiz, and respectful traditional titles for the founder of Islam, he softened the natural defensiveness of his readers. This allowed him to smoothly guide them through his radical and foreign ideas. Such a masterful book could only have been written by a deeply mature thinker who understood both Eastern and Western religious literature, rather than a reckless, hot-headed young rebel.
Universal vs. Specific Human Beliefs
People all over the world generally agree on one core idea: there is a Supreme Being who created and governs the entire universe. However, the moment they discuss specific details, they completely disagree. The characteristics and attributes that one religion assigns to God rarely match the descriptions given by another religion. Humanity is heavily divided by their specific ideas of God, their complex religious doctrines, and their strict rules about what behaviors are allowed or forbidden (Halal and Haram).
Rammohun concludes that because these specific beliefs and rules vary so wildly, they must be artificial creations caused by human training and cultural habits. However, the universal belief in a Supreme Being is completely different. Faith in God is a natural human instinct. People do not believe in a Creator simply because they are taught to; they believe because a healthy human mind naturally cannot exist without this core understanding.
Evaluating the Claims of Different Religions
While the foundational belief in a Creator is universal, the specific religious systems built on top of that foundation are vastly different. Can all of these different religions be true? Rammohun answers with a firm "no". These religions often present completely contradictory ideas about God and teach opposing lessons. What one religion commands you to do, another strictly forbids. Using the rules of traditional Arabic logic, Rammohun points out the absurdity of claiming that multiple contradicting religions can all be true at the same time.
Even if people admit that all religions cannot be true simultaneously, some might argue that one specific religion is the absolute truth while the rest are false. Rammohun anticipates this argument and immediately demands a "sufficient reason" to prefer one specific religion over all the others. (The concept of "sufficient reason" was a widely accepted rule in ancient Arabic logic, and it was later introduced into 17th-century European logic by Leibnitz, proving to be a highly useful tool in scientific studies). Because his mind was shaped by strict logical rules, Rammohun easily sees through the flaw in this argument. He rejects the idea that one religion is superior because there is no objective, logical "sufficient reason" to prove it.
So, does this mean every religion in the world is false?. Rammohun argues that if they cannot all be true, and no single one can be proven to be the absolute truth, then we must conclude that the specific, man-made dogmas of every religion are false. It could be argued that Rammohun is not saying every religion is completely false, but rather that no religion can be proved to be true. Therefore, when people blindly assert that their own religion is true and all others are false, they are making claims that are entirely unsupported by reason.
The Search for Truth
To conduct a fair, unbiased investigation into the truth or falsehood of different religious principles, a person must do two things:
They must comprehend the true nature and purpose of created things.
They must understand the true value and consequences of human actions, even if the results of those actions are hidden at the time.
Rammohun views both of these skills as essential components of human perfection.
What Prevents People from Seeking the Truth?
Since humans are rational beings, you would naturally expect them to search for the truth. Yet, in reality, they rarely do. What makes people so unwilling to seek the truth?. According to Rammohun, people avoid this search for the following reasons:
Religious leaders invent fake dogmas because they are driven by a desire for praise and honor.
These leaders pretend to perform miracles and use them as fake "proof" that their teachings are divine.
Through these tricks, they successfully gather massive crowds of followers.
These unfortunate followers lose their ability to use reason and conscience because they unquestioningly submit to their leaders.
As a result, they become brainwashed into believing that horrible crimes—like murder, stealing property, and torture—are actually acts of great religious virtue.
They read myths and legends filled with impossible events just to strengthen their blind faith in both past and present religious leaders.
They are taught that their salvation depends entirely on having firm faith in their spiritual leaders.
Consequently, they believe they can commit heinous crimes—like lying, stealing, breaking trust, and adultery—without ruining their salvation, even though these crimes deeply harm society.
They are conditioned to believe that any desire to question or investigate their religion is an evil temptation from Satan.
Because they are so used to hearing impossible, magical stories, they easily accept absurd and nonsensical doctrines, which leads them to literally worship physical objects like stones, plants, or animals.
Finally, they believe that killing anyone who insults their religion, or sacrificing their own lives for their religion, is a glorious act that guarantees salvation in the afterlife.
Society and Religion
Next, Rammohun discusses the sociological foundation of religion. He was certainly familiar with the famous "social contract" theory (the idea that early humans consciously agreed to form laws and societies), and he accepted it in a slightly modified way. However, he completely rejected the idea that society was an artificial creation or the result of a single, historical agreement.
In the Tuhfat, he makes it very clear that humans are social creatures by nature. Their natural instincts force them to live together and keep each other company. Therefore, humans must always be viewed as members of a society, living and functioning within a community.
To make this social life work, three primary conditions are required:
Language, which serves as a medium to express and share ideas.
Laws and customs, which define personal property and protect individuals from violence and aggression.
Fundamental religious beliefs, specifically the belief that the soul is separate from the body, that there is an afterlife, and that humans will face rewards and punishments in that afterlife.
One might ask why Rammohun does not explicitly list "belief in God" as a requirement for society. His answer is that the belief in God is automatically included in the belief of future rewards and punishments. It is not necessary to specifically mention the Creator when discussing the basic building blocks of society.
Therefore, human social life has always expressed itself through language, law, and religion. Religion is simply one of the natural ingredients of society; it is sociological by nature. From this perspective, society is the larger container that includes religion, not the other way around.
According to Rammohun, people cannot function without believing in a soul and an afterlife, even though the actual reality of these things remains a hidden mystery to us. These basic beliefs are all that society actually requires a person to hold. Historically, humans have never expanded beyond these simple, indispensable beliefs without causing harm to the very society that religion was meant to protect. Rammohun argues that religious leaders took these two useful beliefs and added hundreds of useless hardships—such as strict rules about eating and drinking, purity, and lucky or unlucky days. These extra rules have injured and damaged social life, rather than improving it.
When Rammohun says the existence of the soul and the next world is "hidden and mysterious," he means that we can assume they exist, but we cannot possess any definite, factual knowledge of what they actually are. However, he acknowledges that even popular, imaginative ideas about the soul, heaven, and hell have been useful to society. The fear of being punished in the afterlife has effectively stopped uneducated, illiterate people from committing illegal acts.
Investigating the Truth and Rejecting "Revealed" Religion
Rammohun states that humans possess an innate, natural faculty. Because of this faculty, any person with a healthy mind who honestly and impartially investigates different religious doctrines can successfully separate truth from lies. They can identify fallacies, discover the one Creator responsible for the harmony of the universe, and dedicate themselves to doing good for society.
In the Tuhfat, Rammohun completely rejects the idea of historical "revealed" religions (religions that claim God gave special instructions or favors to a specific group of people). God does not play favorites with individuals or races. Rammohun points out the obvious fact that all people equally enjoy the blessings of nature, and equally suffer from pain and inconvenience, regardless of what religion they follow. Just as the physical world operates strictly on natural laws, the inner world of human reason and conscience operates on laws, leaving absolutely no room for God to magically intervene or grant special favors. Therefore, it is entirely illogical to claim that God created humans to follow the specific rules of one religion, and that followers of all other religions will be punished.
The Twofold Nature of Belief
Rammohun argues that every human being has a built-in ability to logically figure out that a wise Being governs the universe. Every person can arrive at this foundational belief completely on their own, without any outside instruction, simply by keenly observing the mysteries of nature.
However, people rarely stop at this pure, logical belief. They take a step further and adopt the artificial beliefs promoted by the society they were raised in. As a result, individuals claim to believe in a specific Divinity with highly specific attributes, following the peculiar rules of their local creed.
Some believe in a God that has human emotions like anger, mercy, hatred, and love.
Others believe God is a force that simply extends through all of nature.
Some lean toward atheism or believe that "Time" or "Nature" created the universe.
Still others assign divine powers to physical, created objects and worship them.
People fail to realize the difference between these artificial beliefs—which are just the results of custom and teaching—and the natural, intuitive belief in a Creator, which is a core part of being human. Because they are blinded by habit and do not understand how cause and effect actually work, they start believing that washing in a certain river, worshipping a tree, becoming a monk, or paying a priest for forgiveness will magically wash away a lifetime of sins and bring them salvation. They falsely believe that these objects and priests have actual, magical power. In reality, any feeling of purification is just the result of their own imagination. If these rituals had real, tangible power, they would work on everyone, even people who don't believe in them. While the strength of an effect can vary from person to person, a true cause-and-effect relationship does not require the person to "believe" in it for it to work.
The Rejection of Miracles
In the Tuhfat, Rammohun completely throws out the concept of miracles. He views supernatural acts and miracles as pure, simple lies invented by ambitious religious founders. These founders invented miracle stories to make their religions seem divine and to trick common people into following them more fiercely. Rammohun provides a detailed logical breakdown to prove miracles are fake:
I. The Argument from Cause and Effect:
(a) Using inductive reasoning, Rammohun states that everything in the world is connected by a strict chain of cause and effect. Everything exists because of specific conditions, meaning the entire universe is connected in a logical web.
(b) He acknowledges that many things—like the advanced inventions of Europeans or the fast hands of a juggler—seem impossible to understand at first. But just because something is difficult to understand doesn't mean intelligent people should assume it is magic. With deep study or proper instruction, the hidden causes of these "impossible" things can easily be explained.
(c) If a highly intelligent person still cannot figure out how an amazing event happened, Rammohun says they should use their intuition. It is much more logical to simply admit that you aren't smart enough to find the cause yet, rather than jumping to the impossible conclusion that the fundamental laws of nature were broken.
(d) Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason for people to believe in illogical, impossible events that they have never seen themselves, such as ancient stories about people rising from the dead or flying up to heaven.
(e) He finds it incredibly hypocritical that people demand strict logic in their everyday business transactions, but instantly abandon logic when it comes to religion. They have no problem believing that a chanted prayer cured a disease or a magic amulet prevented a disaster, even though there is zero logical connection between the two.
II. The Argument Against Blind Faith:
Religious leaders often try to silence questions by telling their followers that logic and reason have no place in religion, and that faith is all that matters. Rammohun firmly replies that a rational human being should never believe in something that has no proof and goes entirely against logic.
III. The Argument Against "Omnipotence":
(a) Clerics often argue that because God is all-powerful and created the universe out of nothing, He certainly has the power to do impossible things and break the laws of nature.
(b) Rammohun points out a major flaw here: proving that God can do something only proves it is a possibility. It does not prove that the specific, ancient miracles claimed by religious leaders actually occurred in reality.
(c) Furthermore, if you are allowed to use the "God can do anything" argument during a debate, then all logic falls apart. The difference between what is possible and what is impossible disappears, making logical demonstration completely useless.
(d) Finally, Rammohun argues that even the Creator does not have the power to do things that are logically impossible. For example, God cannot create a co-partner equal to Himself, God cannot make Himself not exist, and God cannot make two opposing, contradictory truths exist at the exact same time.
Why Ancient Traditions (Tawatur) Cannot Be Trusted
Rammohun then attacks the concept of Sabda-praman (in Hindu theology) or Tawatur (in Islamic theology). This is the religious argument that ancient miracles must be true because they have been reported through a continuous, unbroken chain of trustworthy people across generations.
Rammohun points out the massive difference between a reliable historical report and the kind of "traditions" relied on by religions.
(a) If you want to prove a miracle using a chain of reports, you have to prove that the first people who saw it told the truth. To do that, you need the testimony of the second generation. To prove the second generation told the truth, you need the third generation, and so on, all the way down to the people living today. Rammohun points out that we cannot even trust the people living right now to tell the truth, especially about religion!. If we know our contemporaries lie, how can we blindly trust an endless chain of strangers from the past?.
(b) Religious leaders claim these reports were passed down by a special class of people who were incapable of lying. Rammohun notes that we have absolutely no proof that such a perfectly honest class of people ever existed in ancient times.
The Rules of Historical Proof
To separate real history from fake religious traditions, Rammohun lays out the rules of historical criticism:
(a) A historical report is only believable if it comes from uncontradicted eyewitnesses AND if the event itself does not break the laws of nature.
(b) Religious clerics often ask: "If you believe the historical stories about ancient kings written in books, why don't you believe the supernatural miracles written in our ancient books?".
(c) Rammohun replies that historical events (like a king taking the throne or fighting a war) are perfectly natural, probable things that everyone agrees happen. Miracle stories, on the other hand, are wildly contradictory and impossible.
(d) Furthermore, historical facts about kings are just probabilities, whereas religions demand that you accept their miracles as absolute, unquestionable certainties. You cannot compare the two.
(e) Even in normal history, if historians find contradictory reports about an event, they throw the reports out. For example, historians from Greece and Persia wrote contradictory stories about Alexander the Great's birth and conquests, so modern people do not believe either story with absolute certainty. We should apply this same skepticism to contradictory religious myths.
(f) Finally, clerics sometimes argue that since we can't physically prove who our own parents are (we just have to trust the general report of our family), we should also trust the general reports of miracles. Rammohun shoots this down easily: a child being born to human parents is a visible, natural fact. A child being born without parents (like a virgin birth) is completely outside human experience and contrary to reason, so the two situations cannot be compared.
Rejecting Prophets and Mediators
Rammohun totally rejects the idea of "mediatorship"—the belief that God uses prophets or religious leaders as middlemen to guide humanity. He gives several reasons for this:
(a) People who believe in prophets also believe that God directly controls everything in the universe without needing any help.
(b) If God directly guides humanity, there is no need for a prophet to act as a middleman.
(c) If God does use a middleman to communicate, then that middleman would need another middleman, creating an endless, illogical chain.
(d) The appearance of prophets and "revelations" is actually driven by external, historical causes and social conditions, not by special instructions from God.
(e) Most importantly, the religions fiercely contradict each other. The very same person that one religion worships as a holy guide to the truth, another religion condemns as a liar leading people into error.
Are All Religions Sent by God?
To explain away the massive contradictions between different faiths, some believers argue that God intentionally updates His rules. They claim that just as human kings repeal old laws and write new ones as society changes, God created different religions for different eras, superseding old rules with new ones.
(b) Rammohun replies that comparing the true God to an imperfect human king is a terrible analogy. Human rulers have to change their laws because they are flawed, they don't know the future, and they act on mixed motives. A perfect, all-knowing God would not need to constantly fix His own rules. Furthermore, the commands of these religions are violently opposed to each other. Hindu Brahmins claim God strictly ordered them to worship idols forever, while Muslims claim God strictly ordered them to kill idolaters. Would a wise, merciful, and generous Creator intentionally write contradictory rulebooks designed to make humans slaughter each other?. No. Therefore, these violently opposing rules are not from God; they are the fabrications of men.
(c) Also, one religion will claim that their leader was the absolute final prophet. Another religion will claim that the final prophetic mission must end in the bloodline of David. These are not "laws" that can be updated; these are historical predictions. Since they contradict each other, if one is true, the other must be false.
(d) Ultimately, it is perfectly obvious that throughout history, ambitious people have intentionally endured hardships and invented these religions simply because they wanted the power and honor of being revered as leaders.
Dismantling Other Religious Arguments
Rammohun takes time to destroy other common arguments that clerics use to trap followers:
I. The "Better Safe Than Sorry" Argument (Pascal's Wager):
Clerics often use fear to secure followers. They argue: "If my religion is false and there is no hell, you lose nothing by believing in it. But if my religion is true and you don't believe, you will go to hell. Therefore, it is safer to believe.".
(a) Rammohun points out two massive flaws here. First, a sensible person cannot simply force themselves to genuinely believe in something that is completely illogical and contrary to reason, just to play it safe.
(b) Second, blindly believing in these dogmas causes immense harm in the real world. It leads directly to bigotry, deceit, immoral practices, and social mischief.
(c) Finally, if "playing it safe" was a valid way to find the truth, you would be forced to practice every single religion on Earth simultaneously to ensure you were completely safe. Because that is impossible, you have no choice but to use your reason to investigate which religion, if any, is actually true.
II. The "Follow Your Ancestors" Argument:
Clerics argue that you should never question your faith, but simply follow the ceremonies your forefathers practiced.
(a) Rammohun exposes the hypocrisy of this argument by pointing out that every single founder of a new religion had to rebel against and abandon the religion of their forefathers. Changing religions is a completely natural human habit.
(b) Furthermore, God gave every human being an intellect and the ability to distinguish between good and bad. God expects us to use this valuable gift, not leave it unused while we blindly follow the herd.
III. The "Majority Rules" Argument:
Followers of major religions often boast that they must be on the right path simply because they have the most followers.
(a) Rammohun replies that the truth of a statement has nothing to do with how many people say it. A true seeker must follow the truth even if the entire majority is against them.
(b) Besides, every single major religion in the world started out with just one founder and a tiny handful of followers. If having a small number of followers makes a religion false, then every religion was false when it began.
The Positive Philosophy of the Tuhfat
Near the end of the book, Rammohun reveals his own positive spiritual worldview, which is built on three main pillars:
Rationalism: The active use of human intellect to separate truth from error.
Intuition: The use of human intuition to separate good from evil. He considers this internal moral compass to be a natural inspiration from God, which is vastly superior to the fake "revelations" found in religious books.
Universal Love: The belief that true devotion to God simply means connecting with all fellow humans through mutual love and affection.
This philosophy is essentially the religion of a freethinker. It is perfectly summarized by a quote from the poet Hafiz: "Be not after the injury of any being and do whatever you please. For in our way there is no sin except injuring others.". This exact worldview closely parallels the "Religion of Nature" promoted by European Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Volney.
The Four Classes of Humanity
Rammohun concludes his book by dividing all of humanity into four categories regarding religion:
The Deceivers: Corrupt people who intentionally invent religious creeds and dogmas to manipulate others, gain power, and cause division in society.
The Deceived: The gullible, deluded masses who blindly adhere to leaders without ever investigating the facts for themselves.
The Deceivers and Deceived (The Zealots): People who have been successfully brainwashed into believing the lies, and who then actively try to force those beliefs onto others.
The Rational Seekers: Enlightened individuals who, with the help of God, use their reason to ensure they are neither deceived by others, nor try to deceive anyone else.
Comments
Post a Comment