It is most popularly known for the saying that the end justifies the means, and thus it can be legitimate to perform evil acts if they lead to a worthwhile end. People can be killed and kidnapped and tortured, according the religious version of Utilitarianism, if this would lead to a worthwhile group religious goal. People themselves do not matter- only the goals of the group matter. What I am calling here ‘Religious Utilitarianism’ goes against both religious ethics and against revelation. For Islam, why would God reveal his will to mankind if people were worthless and did not matter? Why would God reveal laws, such as not killing women and children and the elderly, if they are to be violated in God’s own name? To define Islam as a religion that does not care about humanity is to deny the importance of Quranic law, and to deny Allah’s concern with human morality. Religious utilitarianism also twists the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of people; instead, we have the greatest good for US, whoever that group of the virtuous and saved happens to be. Other human beings and their pain are simply ignored. While the philosophical justification for Islamist violence and ignoring human pain comes from atheist rather than religious souces, its political sources are also atheist. The idea of terror as a tool of the Revolution comes from the Russian anarchists, anti-tzarists, and early communists. It was publicized by Lenin with his October Revolution; he believed in terrifying potential enemies by murder en masse, and killing entire crowds. Later Hitler’s more organized attacks also became attractive, as Nazi propaganda and fugitives spread through French North Africa at the end of World War II (while the Allies focused on liberating France from German domination, they largely ignored its colonies). Thus, some of the people accusing Nazrul of non-Muslim values themselves have values adopted, and twisted, from Western sources. As for Nazrul, is it accurate to say that he is immune to human pain because he is a Muslim? I would say quite the opposite- he shares the pain of humanity, and bemoans the situations that cause it. This is why he is a poet of both love and revolution. I shall give examples from his poetry of his concerns for the joys and sorrows of humanity. However, some confusion may arise from the varied meanings of the term “humanism”. There are several different definitions of the term. It was originally associated with a philosophical and literary movement which developed during the Renaissance in Western Europe, which emphasized the study of the classics, or the humanities. It also represented a rebellion against the rigidity of the church of its day, emphasizing the role of the arts and sciences, and having a “general emphasis on lasting