Monotheism and its Discontents

When the Lord [Yahweh] your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drive out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

—Deuteronomy 7:1-6

Allah gave the Prophet Muhammad four swords (for fighting the unbelievers): the first against the polytheists, which Muhammad himself fought with; the second against apostates, which Caliph Abu Bakr fought with; the third against the People of the Book, which Caliph Umar fought with; and the fourth against dissenters, which Caliph Ali fought with.

—Islamic jurist Shaybani1

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you willunderstand why I dismiss yours.

—Blogger Stephen Roberts

I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race.

—Author Gore Vidal

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

—Voltaire

According to Islamic history, sometime between 628 and 632 the Prophet Muhammad sent out letters to various Arabian and non-Arabian heads of state. The purpose of the letters was to call the leaders and their people to Islam. But the letters also contained a threat with the sense that if the leaders failed to heed the call it would be their doom. The letter to the ruler of Egypt from the self-identified “Apostle of Allah” reads:

Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. Next, I summon thee with the appeal of peace: submit your will to God and you will attain peace. God shall give thee thy reward twofold. But if thou decline then on thee is the guilt of the Copts. O ye people of the Book, come unto an equal arrangement between us and you, that we should serve none save God, associating nothing with Him, and not taking one another for Lords besides God. And if ye decline, then bear witness that we are Moslems.2

Although some of the details of these letters are now regarded by historians as spurious, the critical point is that the Islamic tradition accepts them as genuine. By being accepted, they became an accepted pattern for the Islamic treatment of other religions. There is the offer of a carrot (peace and the reward of God if Islam is submitted to) and the threat of a stick (destruction and woe to those who refuse).

Osama bin Laden knew this pattern quite well. He followed it in 2002 in his letter to the American people. This letter made little sense at the time to Americans, who were not familiar with the history of Islam. But to those who know of Muhammad’s previous “call to Islam” it is quite familiar. In bin Laden’s letter, we find these words:

The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. The religion of the unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad … If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation.3

In these two letters we see two things. First, the full range of monotheism and its discontents is on display. The discontents arise from qualities peculiar to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). As discussed by Arvind Sharma in the previous chapter, those qualities are a conclusive claim to possess the whole truth, an exclusive claim to be in sole possession of that truth, and a separative demand that all others join—or else.4 Second, as bin Laden’s echo of Muhammad’s example shows, Islam continues to bring the world all the discontents of Abrahamic monotheism even into the 21st century.

REVELATION AND THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS

The three Abrahamic religions are so called because they trace their origins to the spiritual father Abraham from the book of Genesis. Abraham illustrates the two essential and defining features of monotheism as it arose among the Semitic peoples. He is absolutely faithful to the revealed word of God and he is absolutely obedient to the commands of God. That obedience supersedes all normal human attachments and relationships, as is clear from the verse: “For not I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”5

Revelation is a very ancient and integral part of Semitic tradition. In the words of Islamic scholar Anwar Shaikh:

Revelation means that the universe has been created by God, who loves to be worshipped. He reveals His will to mankind through his agent, called the prophet, who happens to be the divine interpreter. Salvation is not possible unless people obey the prophet who is God’s messenger … It was God who made laws and revealed [them] to the ruler, and gave him instructions regarding the government and morality.6

Among the early Semitic peoples, their rulers were priest-kings who acted as the vicars of god upon earth. It was typical of these rulers to present themselves as unworthy or reluctant voices of God. We see this tradition at work when Moses establishes himself as a prophet for the Hebrew people in bondage to the Egyptian Pharaoh, but is reluctant to be the voice of God on account of his stammer. Muhammad also follows this tradition. There is a story about an angel writing a message and asking Muhammad to read it. Muhammad says he is unable to three times and three times the angel chokes him.7

A critical element of Abrahamic revelation is the view of God as wholly other, and both unknowable and unknown without God’s revelation of himself. This aspect of revelation is in a sense quite logical. If God was knowable or approachable by human reason, there would be no need for revelation, or at least it would be of a more limited importance. But if God is completely mysterious and separate, revelation becomes all-important because it is our only source of information or guidance. In turn, the prophet himself becomes all- important as the only source of information about what has been revealed.

Revelation must be accepted as dogmatically true in and of itself without any empirical basis. Christian theologian James Packer acknowledges that “no guarantee can, in fact, be provided except … by a renewed acknowledgement of, and submission to, the Bible as an infallible written revelation from God.”8 Theologian Karl Barth also admits that accepting the revealed truth “can only be attested in the realm of humanity by an appeal to proclamation through the Church, to Holy Scripture, to revelation.”9 Perhaps the clearest statement, however, comes from Catholic apologist Cardinal Newman:

[Faith] is assenting to a doctrine as true, which we do not see, which we cannot prove because God says it is true, who cannot lie. And further than this, God says it is true, not with His own voice, but by the voice of His messengers; it is assenting to what man says, not simply viewed as a man, but to what he is commissioned to declare, as a messenger, prophet, or ambassador from God.10

For the Abrahamic religions, faith involves not simply believing God but believing that certain men such as Muhammad or the Apostles have a commission from God. These notions of what faith and religious knowledge are lie at the heart of all the Abrahamic religions.

For the Jews, this basis of religion takes the form of an ethnocentric exclusivism. Hence, God establishes his covenant with Abraham and his legitimate offspring, whereas Ishmael (Abraham’s other son by his slave-girl Hagar) will not be party to the covenant. With Christianity and Islam, however, this ethnic element becomes less important and is even repudiated. But the exclusivism remains in the form of creedal exclusivism. One must believe the correct doctrine as revealed to men. Hence, Jesus says “the only way to the Father is through me,” and Muhammad says, “If you obey me, then you obey Allah, and if you disobey me, you disobey Allah.”11 This is one reason why Christianity and Islam went on to become proselytizing religions.

ABRAHAMIC ABSOLUTISM AND EXCLUSIVISM

As Newman has observed, the Abrahamic approach to faith produces two remarkable results:

Faith has two peculiarities; it is most certain, decided, positive, immovable in its assent, and it gives this assent not because it sees with the eye, or sees with the reason, but because it receives the tidings from one who comes from God.12

In other words, faith is at once absolute in its claims (“immovable in its assent”) and immune to rational argument. The moral consequences of this have been nothing short of disastrous for the world. As the history of the Abrahamic religions shows, faith becomes the justification for the worst sort of imperialism.

With Judaism, our primary source of information is not history per se but the religious texts of the Jewish people themselves. Nevertheless, this source is quite clear. Following the commands of Yahweh, the ancient Hebrews travel out of Egypt to the Promised Land. In several places we see that the conquest of this territory involves great slaughter and even genocide. The Hebrews are directed to take vengeance upon the Midianites by killing every adult male, taking the women and children, capturing the property, and burning all their towns and camps.13 Moses even becomes angry with his followers for allowing all the Midianite women to survive since some of them had enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord. At his order, all the boys and non-virginal women are also killed.14 Elsewhere, Moses describes how the land of Sihon was given over to the Israelites by the Lord:

When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them—men, women and children. We left no survivors.15

After the death of Moses, the conquest of Canaan is left to his successor, Joshua. This campaign begins with the siege and destruction of Jericho, which may stand as a representation of the rest of the conquest of the land. Jericho is several times described as being “devoted to the Lord,” meaning that the Lord of the Israelites has claimed it and it is doomed to destruction:

So everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.16

This approach is the fulfillment of the Lord’s command to Moses: “you shall destroy all the people that the Lord gives over to you, your eye shall not pity them.”17 For the followers of the Lord, just about anything is permitted against those who stand in their way. Non-chosen people are legitimate targets for conquest, massacre, and exploitation. This is a remarkably dualistic view that is only matched by Islam.

With Christianity, the discontents of Abrahamic monotheism are somewhat attenuated for several reasons. First, Christianity began as a religion of the powerless—dispossessed Jews, poor gentiles, and slaves. Lacking political power, it could not immediately embark on the wars of conquest seen in Judaism and Islam. In later ages, that would change. Christianity did play a role in the conquest and conversion of the New World, for instance. But Christianity is also not a “pure” Abrahamic monotheism in the same sense as Judaism and Islam. By introducing the concept of an incarnate God, from the viewpoint of the other two religions, an element of the old polytheism is involved.

Furthermore, non-Semitic elements became intertwined with Christian thought from a very early period. We will look at some of these elements in the next chapter, and how they led to a less dualistic ethical system than we find in the other two Abrahamic faiths. For our purposes it is enough to note how Philo of Alexandria brought the concept of logos from Greek philosophy into the Jewish tradition. By Philo’s time, ‘logos’ had come to refer to an amorphous, disembodied principle of order that guided the universe. In the Gospel of John, this notion becomes fused with Jewish thinking from the very opening phrase: “In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”18

In Islam, by contrast, the imperial impulse seen in Judaism becomes a universal principle. Whereas the Hebrews had never sought to build a vast empire or to subjugate the entire world, the Muslims see this as their duty. They are provided divine sanction and the promise of rewards by none other than their Prophet, Muhammad:

Allah promises that the Muslim who participates in jihad with no compulsion, other than true faith and to serve Allah, will either be admitted into Paradise or sent home with Allah’s reward or a share of the spoils of war.19

A new wrinkle has even been added to the promise of reward. The Hebrews had been told their posterity would reign if they should keep their covenant. Muslims are offered the same promise, plus eternal life in Paradise.

Accordingly, the first task undertaken by the followers of Muhammad after his death was a campaign of territorial conquest to expand the sphere of Islam.20 It was motivated by an absolutely dualistic view of the world, as Islamic scholar Efraim Karsh explains:

Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities. In order to achieve this goal it is incumbent on all free, male adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising struggle “in the path of Allah,” or jihad. This in turn makes those parts of the world that have not yet been conquered by the House of Islam an abode of permanent conflict (Dar al-Harb, the House of War) which will only end with Islam’s eventual triumph.21

The dualistic view of Islam is perfectly on display in the use of the standard word, kafir, to refer to all non-Muslims. Although this word is usually translated as “unbeliever,” as Bill Warner has argued, that translation sounds morally neutral, while ‘kafir’ as used by Islam is never neutral. A kafir is the lowest form of life in the Islamic system. The kafir may be tortured, killed, enslaved, and lied to. Although there are different classifications of kafir—polytheists, idolaters, People of the Book (Christians and Jews), atheists, pagans— the term applies to all of them. None are due the same moral treatment as a Muslim is due.22 Although some believe that People of the Book are a special category, the final word on them is given in the Qur’an: “Make war on those who have received the Scriptures but do not believe in Allah or in the Last day.”23

Muhammad even created his own equivalent of the Battle of Jericho. After the Muslims besieged a stronghold of the Banu Qurayza, a tribe of Jews living in Arabia, the tribe surrendered. Just as Moses had done with the Midianites, every adult male was killed and the rest of the people and property seized. Somewhere between 600 and 900 people were slaughtered. From Muhammad’s wife Aisha, who witnessed the killing, we know that a woman of the town lost her mind when she saw her family destroyed and was killed along with the rest. Full details of the killing are recorded as a holy act in both the Qur’an and the Hadith.24 The stronghold itself was razed like the walls of Jericho.

Further details of the Islamic scourge can be found in the chapters on Universal jihad and India. Despite the death of their prophet, Muslims were still propelled forward to conquest by his earthly example, particularly his insistence that “I was ordered to fight all men until they say there is no God but Allah.”25 In the case of Judaism, there was great slaughter in Canaan when the Israelites came to claim the Promised Land; with Islam, the entire earth is seen as the Promised Land.

SEMITIC AND INDIC RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS

In contrast to the Abrahamic tradition, what Sharma refers to as the Indic religious tradition makes not revelation but knowledge the primary authority. Epistemological concerns are central in the Indic tradition (in Hinduism and Buddhism, for example). Since experience and human knowledge are accepted sources of information, reason and faith are not seen as opposed as they often are in Abrahamic traditions.

This greater emphasis on knowledge and epistemology means disagreements over doctrinal matters are of considerably less importance. In the Abrahamic tradition, where all depends on revelation, if a group gets its understanding of revelation wrong there is in principle no way to correct them. Either they must be convinced or forced to recant (or destroyed, as often happens to heretics). But in a system that admits experience, proof or evidence can be used. Even if an argument is unconvincing, it isn’t a matter of life and death. If a Buddhist and a Hindu cannot convince one another, they can go their own ways and have done with it. If a Christian and a Muslim disagree, the Abrahamic assumption is that one is mistaken and in danger of going to hell. In the Indic tradition, by contrast:

There is no Hell, for that means there is a place where God is not, and there are sins which exceed his love. If the infinite love of God is not a myth, universal salvation is a certainty.26

In the Indic religions, there is no pressure for doctrinal uniformity. It is not necessary in Hinduism, for example, for all believers to believe the same things about nature or even god. As scholar and statesman S. Radhakrishnan puts it:

There has been no such thing as uniform stationary unalterable Hinduism whether in point of belief or practice. Hinduism is a movement, not a position; a process, not a result; a growing tradition, not a fixed revelation.27

This means Hinduism is open to critical thought and change. In this respect, it is almost the opposite of Islam, where the revelation given to Muhammad cannot be changed or developed, and any development is seen as heresy.

The Indic tradition also does not subscribe to a belief in one god in the Abrahamic sense of something other and independently unknowable. Instead, God is posited as an ideal to be emulated or achieved. As S.N. Dasgupta writes:

The highest reality is no individual person separate from us, or one whom we try to please, or one whose laws and commands we obey, or one to whose will we submit with reverence and devotion. It is, rather, a totality of partless, simple and un-differentiated experience which is the root of all our ordinary knowledge and experience and which is at once the ultimate essence of our self and the highest principle of the universe.28

Since God is perceived so differently, “salvation” is also regarded differently. Hence, in Vedanta philosophy we find the doctrine that “the knower of Brahman [the ultimate reality] becomes Brahman.” The Bhagavad-Gita claims, “With the self unified through yoga, looking on all things with equal vision, he sees the Self in all beings and all beings in the Self everywhere.”29 The issue of salvation is a matter of knowledge of realization—one attains salvation by learning or overcoming ignorance.

The ethical systems of the Indic tradition are also non-dualistic. There is no separate code saying to treat believers one way and non-believers another. Instead, the Mahabharata simply declares, “Non-injury is the highest religious norm.” The expectation is that this norm is to be applied to all things, not just one group of people. In the Dhammapada, the Buddha declares, “All beings fear death, all beings tremble at punishment. Therefore, neither kill nor cause to kill.” In the words of historian Arthur Toynbee, “the spirit of mutual good-will, esteem, and veritable love … is the traditional spirit of the religions of the Indian family.”30

Since the Enlightenment era, philosophy and science have also emerged in the West as a counter to the assumptions of the Abrahamic tradition. Like the Indic religions, philosophers and scientists are focused on experience and knowledge while revelation has no authority. As B.L. Hebblethwaite puts it:

The apparent irrationality of revelation-claims is that they allegedly rest on an unchallengeable and untestable basis. Moreover, as soon as serious attention is paid to the fact of rival revelation-claims in the different religions, it appears that the authority of any one religion’s revelation-claims is undermined, or at least put in question.31

THE POLYTHEISTIC ORIGINS OF ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS

There is a further objection to the claims of the Abrahamic religions. If the assumptions about divine revelation are correct, one would expect these religions to have been delivered as a whole and at once. Instead, what we find at the beginnings of the Abrahamic religions is that they grew out of existing traditions rather than emerged suddenly in a blast of insight—as would be expected if they had been doctrines revealed by God.

In the case of Judaism, “There is … overwhelming testimony to the boundless polytheism of the mass of people even in Jerusalem.”32 Archaeologists have unearthed artifacts and shrines dedicated to divine figures of all sorts. Up until the seventh century BC, it seems that members of Israelite families were living in a polytheistic religious sphere quite separate from the official religion of the state.33 Down to the reign of Josiah, Yahweh was one of four deities worshipped by the Israelites: El, Asherah, Yahweh, and Baal.34 Engravings have been uncovered in Palestine dedicated to “Yahweh and his Asherah,” indicating the two were worshipped together at some point. Archaeologists have also found carved statues of pregnant women that they believe were used to symbolize Asherah. According to some scholars, the gods Yahweh and El were eventually combined into one, while the worship of Asherah and Baal became officially excluded. Nevertheless, worship of Asherah in particular persisted all the way to the Babylonian captivity.35

It was 19th century historical scholars who first uncovered the evidence that showed a growth from animism to monotheism among the Hebrew people. At first, the God of pre- prophetic Israel was a tribal god whose power was limited in scope to the land of Canaan. It was the work of the Jewish prophets who created the religion of Judaism (later modified by rabbinical traditions), introducing the innovations that culminated in the monotheistic wisdom of the book of Isaiah.36

Christianity evolved out of Jewish tradition, but has also incorporated various elements from outside traditions. The notion of an incarnate deity is one example, as it is generally regarded as foreign and repugnant to the monotheistic traditions of both Judaism and Islam. Other examples include the integration of pagan rituals and festivals such as midwinter becoming Christmas and Spring fertility rites merging with the observation of Easter. The use of Saints as intercessors between worshippers and God, although not present in all Christian denominations, is also an example of polytheistic practices being adopted by a monotheistic religion.

Islam has been even more brazen in its adoption of pagan rites and ceremonies. The holy Kaaba in Mecca was a center of idol-worship long before Muhammad’s time. Muhammad discarded most of the idols but retained the Kaaba itself and its prominence. He justified his actions saying Abraham and Ishmael built the structure.37

Worshipping at the Kaaba and kissing the Black Stone are also holdovers from pre- Islamic times. Even the five times daily prayer facing Mecca was a pagan practice that Muhammad borrowed for Islam. One part of the hajj, where the pilgrim runs between two small mountains at Mecca, was also adapted from a pagan practice. There’s even a Hadith about this one, where a Muslim complains to Muhammad about the practice because it had been used by the ignorant. Muhammad essentially tells the man not to worry about it.38

Another Islamic practice known as tawaf, this one at the heart of the hajj, is also a holdover from pagan times. This practice involves going around the Grand Mosque in circles. The polytheists used to do this in the same place in order to please Hubal the moon god as well as hundreds of other deities of the Kaaba. Religious circumambulations are also practiced by Hindus and Buddhists, though both religions are regarded as the worst sort of pagan idolaters by Islam. Hubal is still present in an even more significant way: his symbol, the crescent moon, has been adopted as the universal symbol of Islam.

Pre-Islamic religion can be seen in Islamic traditions in other senses as well, such as the preservation of animistic beliefs that the power of an individual soul can inhabit certain parts of the body such as the blood, the teeth, or the hair. Accordingly, there are a number of specific Islamic traditions concerning the beard and hair of the Prophet Muhammad. Hadiths record his habit of trimming his moustache but letting his beard grow, and his practice of oiling and perfuming his hair and beard. The holiness of Muhammad’s beard as a symbol of dignity and manhood is now recognized even in common oaths. Arabs will swear by their lives or their beards, and the more solemn oaths will be sworn by the Prophet’s beard.

Although the Abrahamic religions claim to have received wisdom by direct revelation, their histories reveal that many of the practices and rituals had pagan origins or otherwise developed out of pre-monotheistic cultures.

THE MYTH OF RELIGIOUS CONFLICT

If you were to ask a representative of the Indic tradition what a “religious conflict” was, he would probably describe something like a religious debate. Formal debates were a fixture of ancient Indian culture, and often pitted “orthodox Hindu thinkers against their heterodox opponents (materialist, Jain, Ajivika, or Buddhist).”39 These debates had agreed-upon ground rules, and reasonableness was the guide rather than fervency of belief. At worst, the losers of such a debate might be expected to convert to the views of the winner.40 There is no danger that someone will be killed because he embraces the wrong kind of metaphysics. The medieval Islamic scholar al-Biruni himself observed this quality in the Indian people:

They totally differ from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe, and vice versa. On the whole, there is little disputing about theological topics among themselves; at the utmost, they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious controversy.41

For the Abrahamic faiths—above all, for Islam—religious conflict can include genocide. Debate is difficult and ultimately contingent because the basic facts are provided by revelation rather than reason or experience. If the opponent does not accept revelation, there are few ways to impose it other than to use force. The European clashes over dogma and doctrine during the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, and the entire 1,400 year history of Islamic jihad stand as historical testimony to the willingness of Abrahamic religion to resort to force in religious disagreements.

The tendency of Abrahamic religious conflict toward violence can be explained by the great psychologist William James. As James has pointed out, belief is highly correlated with action; or, as James himself puts it, “there is a believing tendency whenever there is a willingness to act at all.”42 At bottom, our beliefs are matters of passion and will—the same sources from which our actions spring. But there is another side to matters of belief, which we see hinted at in James’s statement that, “As a rule we disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use.”43 When we say we have no use for something, we diminish not only its importance but its existence. In other words, we deny or repudiate it. The will to believe is also the will to deny, and this will to deny also has its root in our passion and will. Regina Schwartz has painted a skillful picture of monotheism and its will to deny:

Sometimes monotheism is entangled with particularism, with the assertion that this God and not any other gods must be worshipped, a particularism so virulent that it reduces all other gods to idols and so violent that it reduces all other

worshippers to abominations.44
This is why ardent Muslim believers like Osama bin Laden are so willing to kill. The

same psychological force that guides their belief also informs their will to deny others their own beliefs. Since the content of the Muslim’s belief is provided by revelation, there is no way (other than convincing him he has misunderstood revelation) to reason or argue him out of it. As a rule, the Muslims who believe the most powerfully will be most willing to kill or to destroy.

Herein lies the difference between Judaism and Christianity on one side and Islam on the other. The European Renaissance and Enlightenment (along with modern science) revitalized the old Greek habits of critical thought and introduced new methods of experimentation. For the Christian west, religious belief was no longer the only game in town. As a result, for Jews and Christians the fervent will to believe (and to deny) became less absolute. The old exclusiveness of these religions has given way to more universalism and acceptance in the actual lives of believers.

For Islam, however, there has been no Enlightenment. Two of the longest-running conflicts in the world today are both centered on the Islamic faith. The Arab-Israeli conflict concerns mutually exclusive claims (based in revealed religion) to the land of Israel/Palestine. The Pakistan-India conflict has roots stretching back all the way to the eighth century and is also rooted in an Islamic claim to rule the entire Indian subcontinent. Again, Radhakrishnan underlines the source of wars that continue to be prosecuted by Islam and their foreignness to pre-Islamic India: “Wars of Religion which are the outcome of fanaticism that prompts and justifies the extermination of aliens of different creeds were practically unknown in Hindu India.”45

By way of comparison, conflicts between groups in the Indic tradition are not motivated by religious beliefs. The Hindu-Sikh conflict in 1980s India was a conflict over ethnicity and linguistics—in fact, the conflict only emerged after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in neighboring Iran. There were no religious denunciations of Hindu deities or Sikh gurus. The Sikh revolutionary leader Jarnial Singh Bhindarwale was even supported at one time by the leadership of the Indian National Congress. Similarly, the conflict in Sri Lanka between the Tamils and the Singhalese was primarily ethnic. The Tamils had Christians and Muslims among their followers. Neither group denigrated the religion of the other. In both cases, the conflict is now essentially over.

ISLAMIC FUNDMENTALISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY

While Western societies—as well as countries such as India, Korea, and Japan—have embraced pluralism, tolerance, and critical thinking, the Islamic world remains mired in the past. The most significant religious movement in Islam today is a deeply fundamentalist movement with an explicit and often-stated goal of “purifying” Islam and the Islamic world by returning it to the practices established by Muhammad in the seventh century. The core of this doctrine has been defined by a professor of Middle East politics in this way:

The crux of the doctrine is the existence of one single Islamic state, ruling the entire umma [Muslim community]. It is the duty of the umma to expand the territory of this state in order to bring as many people under its rule as possible. The ultimate aim is to expand the territory of this state in order to bring the whole earth under its sway.46

What is particularly alarming about fundamentalist Islam is the justification for, and persistence of, anti-egalitarian elements. The trend among other faiths is towards increasing ecumenism and universalism. Islam, however, is enormously resistant to change or growth. The only thing that put an end to Muslim expansion in the first place “was not a change of heart or doctrine, but European military might.”47 In the 21st century, fundamentalist Islam has become ever more certain that other faiths are false and worthy of destruction. This is clearly visible in Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” cited at the beginning of this chapter.

The Indic religions do not even have a phenomenon equivalent to Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, Jainism represents what could be the exact opposite. Compare the five vows taken by a Jain monk or nun with the practices of Muslims. The first and most essential vow for the Jains is the vow of absolute nonviolence. This includes not only abstaining from harming living beings directly or indirectly but also avoiding thoughts or speech that might injure others or encourage others to deal out harm.48 Islam encourages its followers to participate in jihad even if they do not wish to. The second vow is the vow of absolute truthfulness, meaning they will not lie. The Islamic doctrine of taqqiya permits the Muslim to lie if it will save his life or advance the Islamic cause. The third vow is a vow never to take anything that belongs to another. Islam explicitly grants to its followers the right to take the non-believers’ goods as plunder. The fourth vow is a vow of absolute celibacy. Islam permits multiple wives, indulging male sexuality at the expense of women. The fifth vow is a vow of poverty, meaning the Jain monk or nun will keep nothing, even for daily needs. A primary focus of Islamic law involves the distribution of goods.

Similarly, Hindu fundamentalism does not truly exist as such. The Vedas declare that “Truth is One, though the sages know it variously,” which indicates a certain relativism or openness to other traditions. Even among the Hindu philosophies which regard the Vedas as inspired, there is no necessary argument that only the Vedas are inspired texts—other texts may also be holy. As Radhakrishnan says:

The Hindu attitude to religion is interesting. While fixed intellectual beliefs mark off one religion to another, Hinduism sets no such limits. Intellect is subordinated to intuition, dogma to experience, outer expression to inward realization.49

In the end, Islam may be the most perfectly realized of the Abrahamic monotheisms. Unlike Judaism, it is universal in scope; unlike Christianity, it does not contain non-Semitic and non-monotheistic elements in its makeup. This makes the monotheistic discontents associated with Islam even more acute. While Western societies are secure in their secular humanism, their military superiority, and their economic prosperity, Islam has recognized its setbacks and identified the weaknesses of modern western culture. It has adopted new and varied tactics in the service of its essentially pre-medieval outlook. These tactics include terrorist violence, cultural infiltration, and demographic warfare.

The nature of Abrahamic monotheism produces a number of problems—what we have called discontents—for the world and all of those who do not subscribe to one of its faiths. These discontents include virulent imperialism, forced conversion, murder, and brutality. Further, because the beliefs that inspired these actions were provided by divine revelation, there was no internal cause for correction or self-criticism.

But the West has more than monotheism to its credit. It also has the philosophical wisdom of Socrates and Aristotle, the Academicians and the Stoics. It has the secular political wisdom of Voltaire and Locke and the active genius of men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. It produced men of science such as Bacon and Galileo, who paved the way for empirical investigation of nature. In short, the West has a long and proud tradition of critical thought that has opposed the narrow conceptions of monotheism and won—so far.

Islam has no equivalent to such figures. Instead, in Islam all the old discontents of Abrahamic monotheism remain alive and well and urgently trying to force as many people as possible back to seventh century Arabia. All the intolerance and destruction of the Abrahamic faiths is still alive in Islam, which alone among the world religions has resisted all efforts at reform, or growth, or change. The weapons of the Islamic fundamentalists are terror, deception, and demographic warfare. Their victory would be nothing less than complete and utter disaster for human progress on earth.