For a brief history of early Islam, click here;
Religions have not been forces of unquestioned good in the global society. Religions
have figured prominently in motivating individual cruelties and leading peoples to move
against other peoples. So, while giving individuals comfort and motivation to live
according to moral imperatives, those same individuals have collectively supported
active efforts to -- impose or offer, you choose -- their versions of religious principles
to the larger community. Hence religion has been a force for both good and evil,
and there has been an extensive history of the destructive consequences of the
practices of religion.
The "American Dream" of necessity embraces a secular way of life. Living in harmony
with neighbors who have followed different paths to enlightenment requires you respect
their mistakes just as they respect yours. Regardless of the superiority of your religious
faith, others are allowed to plod along their mistaken ways, and you have neither
obligation to coerce them into your views nor necessity to defend your views. While
you are free to revel in your good luck of having learned the religious principles you
practice, others enjoy the same privilege of self-determination.
It is not my purpose here to rail against the dark side of religion. I wish to
present the Realpolitik -- the politics of reality -- of the War on Terror as best I can, a
war that is presented to the world as having a religious foundation. It is easy enough to
discuss the cruelties inflicted by Middle Age Christians in their efforts to force, by
torture if necessary, persons to come into the folds of the Church, or the Muslims as
they invaded country after country across northern Africa in their first two centuries,
forcing persons, at the point of a sword, to acknowledge Allah. Since I wish to be
balanced, let me present something of the dark side of Christianity as practiced today
and in the recent past, as well as that of Islam. (For a brief background of Islam,
click here.
Religious Extremists:
Let us be charitable about the motives of the founders of the various religions. I am
not certain we can even identify the true founders although we can identify some of
the early proponents responsible for acceptance and spread of each sect within the
religion. Let us not spend time on the benign side of religion beyond mention of the
pursuit of charitable enterprises to heal sick minds and bodies, to feed the hungry, to
clothe and house the impoverished.
The vast majority of adherents are content to live their own lives and allow others a
similar pursuit. But no religion is without its missionary role of expanding its influence,
else it would not have persisted and grown in the face of competition from other
religions. And, while most of us are content to pursue each his own private agenda,
there are among the practitioners of each religion those who feel very strongly a personal
zeal to advance their religion, to present its obvious advantages to the unenlightened world.
Every religion has extremists. Since I speak from a Christian background I attempt to
display first Christian extremists. "Go ye unto all the world and preach the gospel to
every creature." A few -- the preachers and missionaries (enthusiasts, sometimes fanatics
or zealots) -- carry the burden of promoting their religion. And history records that guns
and other means of exerting force have been used in pursuit of that goal. In fact, the U.
S. government has in the past undertaken to guarantee the safety of its citizens in foreign
lands as they pursue either profit or satisfaction of conscience: government guarantee of
their safety as they pursue their business interests, their charities or spreading their faith.
No religion has a monopoly on ignominy in its past. For instance, in the efforts of
religious leaders to retain their power, the Roman Catholic heirarchy suppressed
scientific advance on the grounds of conflict with a literal interpretation of scripture.
We may debate the degree of personal ambition, or the resultant extending of the Dark
Ages, but we cannot debate its effect on retarding progress. And Islam, in its spread
throughout the Middle East and across northern Africa, produced riches that allowed a
"golden age" of literary and scientific progress along with accumulations of wealth in
direct contravention of the teachings of the Prophet to succor the poor.
Christian extremists:
The missionaries of Christianity have fanned out across the globe to do charitable works
in the name of their religion -- and convert the heathen in the process. It appears they
have not considered the practical consequences of increasing population and the resultant
increases in poverty. Or increased unhappiness resulting from education in comparing
tribe with the larger community with its education and medical miracles. Among peoples
who were formerly content and self sufficient to the point of perpetuation of their closed
societies. Bringing the evil of recognition of increased poverty along with the good of
their charitable efforts.
So it is the few who carry the burden of thus spreading their religious faith. The
zealots, if you will. And every faith has them: the few who aggressively wish to
confer the peculiar advantages of their faith upon the larger community. But it
should be noted
Islamic extremists:
And the world of Islam has its extremists. Dedicated to a goal similar to that of the
Christian's "Great Commission." Just as various denominations of Christians differ in
their efforts to recruit and support missionaries -- the extremists -- to spread their
religious faith, Islam has its sects and extremists. Unfortunately there is great friction
between various sects of Islam as adherents of one sect regard all others as infidels.
Within my knowledge adherents of the Wahhabi sect (of Saudi Arabia) are the most
fundamentalist and have been successful in using their enormous oil wealth in
advancing their version of Islam. The result is a matter of Realpolitik.
When the British abandoned their protectorate in the Near East they anointed the
family of Saud as the political power in that geographical division now known as
Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi sect of Islam, with its extreme form of fundamentalism, was
strong there and in fact supported by many members of the Saud family. The immense
wealth resulting from exploitation of their petroleum resources was available and was used
to support and advance their sect, not only in Arabia but in Pakistan, Indonesia, the
Philippines, . . . Now everyone recognizes the value of education, and the Wahhabi
organized schools where there were none. And their schools taught elements of the faith
just as Christian schools do -- the Wahhabi sect, of course. While northeastern India has
probably the greatest concentration of Wahhabi adherents in the world, I am unaware
of a harvest of extremists from India, likely a result of state supported secular
education.
Unfortunately the extremists of some Islamic sects are militant in their missionary
enterprises. And in the name of their religion have fanned the flames of resentment
in order to advance their religious cause. More unfortunate is that many members of
other sects of Islam are, to all appearances as viewed by non-Muslims, emotionally
more closely allied with the Islamic militant extremists than with peace-oriented
members of other sects or religions.
Extremists and fundamentalists represent the fringe of the faith
Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists are incompatible since the growth of
Christianity has been under secular governments while Islamic fundamentalists insist their
government must be subordinated to their faith. Wherever one prospers and advances,
the other is headed for extinction. Throughout history the religions that have survived
have adapted to then-current needs of their members. It is becoming increasingly
necessary for followers of the Prophet Mohammad to repudiate his practice of uniting
and converting through threat of force and instead rely on the benign teachings of the
faith to win converts. And Christians and Muslims alike must become active proponents
of improved infrastructure to support their members and converts.
Motivations of bin Laden and his fellow travelers and apologists:
While I have not seen public mention, I assume the terrorist bin Laden, from Saudi
Arabia, is of the Wahhabi sect of Islam. I am myself convinced that his initial objective
was to unseat the Saud family, but the petroleum interests prevented that. Thus his hatred
was directed toward the petroleum interests, notably those supported by the United
States government, and by extension to the United States. And the enormous wealth
controlled by bin Laden and his immediate family was used to support schools and
to assemble a quasi-governmental organization that allied itself with the Taliban in
Afghanistan.
Pundits and scholars are quick to point out the poisonous regard many nations hold
for the U.S. Explanations offered generally reflect the exercise of personal greed as
protected by the U.S. government, and no doubt many foreign policy decisions have
been ordained by the politically powerful in pursuit of wealth and power. And many
of these policies have given good reason for resentments, despite our public posture
of peace and enlightnment. But, in honesty, we ought to admit that the exercise of
greed is universal and opportunistic and that individual behavior is more often guided
by stealth (as the voice expresses religious platitudes while the hand takes). It
understandably fosters resentments and becomes fodder for the extremists.
I am unsure if the seemingly unending wars in Africa have their foundation in
population growth (compliments of Christian missionary zeal) and competition for
space by the various alliances of tribes, or in political aspirations of tribal leaders,
or in strident Islamic militants. Pehaps there is a little of each. I have seen no
mention of Wahhabi involvement even though Arab (Islamic) extremists are
involved in military actions.
And today:
The tribal organization of Muslims still reigns. While it is grossly unfair to single out
one sect, my interpretation is that divisions within the Saud family make it difficult for
the ruling members to take action against the more militant members of their society,
in particular in rewriting textbooks, reforming their schools, advancing the cause of
minorities and women, and overseeing the uses of their extreme wealth in their charitable
enterprises. Our government must offer political support to the more moderate members
of the family and give what assistance it can in organizing tribes into a nation, in
reforming education, and in producing a secular political structure
And our religious leaders need to take another look at their aggressiveness in spreading
their religion without at the same time developing the economic infrastructure to support
their converts.
If, as I suspect, secular education is the key to producing citizens with mutual respect for
each other, then our government and our religions need to adopt policies to encourage
education universally. I rank education as the most important need of emerging nations,
second perhaps to public sanitation and potable drinking water, but certainly before
medical facilities. Solar distilleries -- small family size or community size -- could readily
provide potable water at vanishingly small cost. Schools require trained teachers and an
infrastructure including universities, but local efforts need to be concentrated on local
needs so that universities are the goal of the developed countries.
We can work toward the time when the more bellicose adherents of all faiths
recognize the merit of good will toward all -- Christians, Hindus, Buddhists,
Bantu, Muslims, Shintoists, Confucians, . . ., as well as the other sects of their
faith. Progress toward real peace requires, not secularism, but good will and
mutual respect among practitioners of all faiths. In the quest for balance and
muting the spirit of competition, we should ask no more of Islam than
Christianity is willing to offer in its own house.
We must seek to recognize aggrieved peoples seeking redress from an
unsympathetic government and distinguish them from those who wish to live by
robbery, murder, plunder, mayhem, . . . Willful and organized terror cannot be
tolerated in this country or anywhere else in the world regardless of justification --
religious, trade, power, adventure, lust, . . .
Should you care to offer rational comment via e-mail, use as subject -- I read
your post about religious extremism -- exactly as you see it here,
click here for the e-mail form.
The Prophet Muhammad (Mohammed),
Islam -- which is translated "surrender" -- and Allah (the only true deity).
To understand the religion you must examine the social structure from which it arose.
First loyalty was to your clan and then to your tribe. In each tribe there arose a leader,
not by blood succession but as a man could attract a following, so that each tribe was
led by the more capable among them. Individual loyalty was pledged to the tribal leader;
he was the law as well as protector of his followers. One must suppose that through the
personal relationships of various tribal leaders one tribe would come to the defense of
another so that what peace there was reigned through personal alliances. And any one
individual, if he valued his own life, pledged his allegiance to his leader in return for the
protection of that leader and therefore the tribe. (Much as we see today in Afghanistan
and Iraq.)
Arabia was a turbulent land; with agriculture limited and the food supply chronically
short, it became the practice to raid other communities for life's necessities (and to
make slaves of the defeated). And, if one man killed another, then his clan had a duty
to avenge the death; a man without a chief or protector was fair game since there was
no one to avenge his death. Moreover, in raids for plunder care was taken not to kill
since that must lead to revenge. Life became a series of vendettas and counter-vendettas.
It was these aspects of Arabian life -- loyalty to your leader in return for his protection,
avenging the death of someone under that leader's protection, raid and be raided --
that dominated the early development of Islam.
The child who became the Prophet was born in the sixth century A.D., about 567, to the
(large and wealthy) tribe of Quraysh in the community of Mecca, a then-ancient trading and
religious center near the west coast of what is now Saudi Arabia. His parents died while he
was an infant and he lived with a grandfather, a man of wealth, and, after his death, with a
poorer uncle. Muhammed apparently became a camel driver and took part in, perhaps led,
caravans of traders before he married the wealthy widow Kahdija, 15 years his senior, at
about the age of 25. The Koran records he could neither read nor write.
Arabia at the time was polytheistic and Mecca (with its shrine Kaaba), as a center of worship
to a pantheon of some 360 deities, attracted throngs of pilgrims. Mecca's wealth derived
from both its position as host on trade (caravan) routes and as host to pilgrims worshipping
at Kaaba. (Then, as now, one should never decry the influence of wealth.)
Muhammad frequently retired to a cave in the mountains near Mecca and it was there that
he received the first of his revelations. At first he remained silent, but after a year or two
he began to recite verse (Quran -- or Koran -- means "recitation.") in the pagan
temple, Kaaba, that was the center of worship, and he gradually built a personal following.
(We have little information on the initial growth of the nucleus of his following, but it was
first his wife and then a cousin, then likely individuals and through their influence families
and then clans. Neither have we information on how and by whom the prophet's recitations
found their way into print; since he could neither read or write he could not edit.)
Since his teaching was monotheistic his presence ran counter to Kaaba's
appeal and interfered with this source of wealth; this led to his clan, the Quraysh, being
boycotted, which led to great hardship since they could not even buy food. On the death
of his uncle he was without a protector and could be killed with impunity, so he was ready
to listen to a delegation of chiefs from Medina who sought a leader to end the chronic
feuds there. They arrived at a pact and some 70 families (some 200 souls) moved there in
622. We must suppose that, as part of this migration, those families and their members
pledged themselves to the Prophet -- now middle-aged -- so that he became, in effect,
their tribal leader.
The Prophet taught monotheism (surrender to Allah), peace, and egalitarianism (including
succor to the poor, so there was no extreme wealth). We must speculate on the terms of
his pact with the delegation from Medina, which consisted of chiefs who spoke for their
families and clans in keeping with the social structure of the time. But they did convert to
Islam, apparently as a condition for the Prophet's involvement, and this (effectively)
elevated him to the position of their tribal leader with the (accustomed) pledge of mutual
assistance to all under the protective umbrella of his "ummah" or family.
But not all clans welcomed them in Medina. There was not enough land for agriculture
for all so continuing the practice of raiding provided income for the ummah. A large
caravan headed for Mecca was unsuccessfully defended by the Meccans in 624; this led
to an army from Mecca in 625 overpowering the Medinese, which led in turn to expulsion
of two Medina families for collaboration with Mecca. But in 627 the Meccans again
brought an army against Medina and this time were soundly defeated; the men of one
family in Medina were massacred and their wives and children sold into slavery for
supporting Mecca. Thus Muhammad became a primary military, political and religious
leader, and since he taught charity and peace within the ummah, the practice of raiding
each other was prohibited (while others outside the ummah were still fair game).
One must ask the source of Muhammad's army and I offer this suggestion: The Prophet
continued his recitations and won converts to his teachings. As a parallel development
families (and then clans) joined in order to come under his protection (acceptance of Islam
being a requirement). The pledge of mutual assistance by various family, clan and tribal
leaders, coupled with the authority wielded by those leaders, made it possible for
Muhammad to assemble an army when needed. And he trained his army under his unified
command (as opposed to the tradition that each tribal leader would command his own
faithful).
The practice of raiding continued. Since members of the ummah could not raid each
other, they turned to other targets (which had led to the wars with Mecca). And various
tribal leaders throughout Arabia, considering Muhammad's growing military might and
successes, found it wise to convert, join the ummah, and thus be protected from raiding.
Thus, in 632, when Muhammad died, Arabia was essentially unified and at peace.
Soon after Muhammad's death, various tribal leaders sought to abrogate their treaties of
unity since their treaties were with the ummah leader, Muhammad. Old habits die hard and
the Arabs turned to the lands beyond. Conquest followed conquest. With empire, slow
communication and personal ambitions, leadership split, both political and religious. The
accumulation of wealth in the central court(s) was in contrast to the egalitarian teaching of
the Prophet and various leaders at various times attempted to return to the simplicity of
the Prophet's teachings. As with Christianity, Islam became rife with schisms, each with
its distinctive dogma. Thus the turbulence of the Arabian past was projected onto the
world stage.
Neither should one overlook the influence of a tribal structure of society when reflecting
on the political realities of today. The political strength of the United States derives in
part from forging a larger political unity that mostly ignores tribal identity but honors
family (and sometimes clan). Many areas of Earth retain tribal identity, which has been
the source of internecine warfare.
I am not historian enough to recite how Islam became fractured into a variety of sects.
I am aware that succession became a major issue. After his death, Mohammad's cousin
became head of the Muslim empire. Upon the cousin's death many thought succession
shoud be inheritable while others turned to other leaders. Thus the Muslim world was
divided. I am curious, and doubt history records, how control of the wealth from
conquered lands -- results of the head tax on non-believers -- produced loyalties to
various leaders, thus producing the fracture of Islam.
Islam, like all other religions, has developed and expanded and splintered. There are
today in the house of Islam many sects, each with its interpretations of the Prophet
and how modern society should respond to the imperatives of the faith.
Three aspects of Islam stand out today on the international stage.
You BACK button should return you to your point of origin.
11-28-04
Who am I to question the validity of the mystical experience, of the extraordinary
communications, or the truth content of the message? I, who claim a visitation from
his mother, dead some 50 years at the time? Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his
son, Issac, when God provided a ram as a substitute. Moses saw God on Mt. Sinai and
received the Ten Commandments. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was visited by the
angel Gabriel to announce the supernatural nature of her pregnancy. Muhammad
was visited by an angel (later identified as Gabriel) in the cave north of Mecca.
Bab revealed a new Holy Book. Jospeh Smith was visited by the angel Monroni,
who showed him the plates of gold inscribed with the words of wisdom and provided
special glasses to allow translation. There were no witnesses; there was no physical
artifact seen by others; we rely on the veracity and motivation of the claimant. As
Jesus of Nazareth said, "By their fruits you shall know them."
Where to Islam?
We all have a natural preference for people like ourselves. That was, after all, the origin
of society as our numbers grew from the cave man days through the early hunter-gatherer
organization and then settlements in agricultural communities. And, in our modern Western
society, we can see the remnant of tribal organization in family groupings and communities
with a common language or a common ethnicity and even in national boundaries where a
common heritage has bound groups of peoples together. I guess one of the benefits of our
multiplicity of religions is that the typical community includes members of a variety of
religious practices, all living in harmony with common interests and projects.
Ultimately the human family must become one because of our increase in economic
interdependence. I have suggested plebiscite as an intermediate phase in the organization
of the human family, but I suspect that the progression of generations and economic
necessities will produce a homogeneous whole. But we are today far short of that goal.
The Prophet sought to overcome tribal divisions and considered all his followers as ummah
(or family -- family of believers). In the Arabia under his control there was
unity and peace but, after his death, the lands beyond were conquered and the Muslims
tended to remain in closed communities apart from the subjugated, thus retaining a semblance
of tribal identity. When one examines peoples in countries under Muslim control, it is apparent,
as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, . . ., that the tribal structure
remains and is in fact the basis for much internecine warfare. One of the Prophet's primary
goals has been thus frustrated.
We have the spectacle of Muslims who are members of another sect regarding each other as
infidels and therefore candidates for the sword. Osama bin Laden is an outstanding example
of a leader of one sect who would like to claim the brotherhood of Islam but regards all sects
outside his own as infidels. Not just the Western world, but also Muslims of other sects. And
Saddam Hussein was from Tikrit; so that tribe of Sunni Muslims was favored in his government.
It is incompatible with the Prophet's teachings to separate church and state. Other religions
have adapted to the realities of a multi-cultural society; Islam must also, else it must either
gain political ascendancy or perish. It is much too harsh a judgment to refer to Islam as a
failed religion because of its lack of political control, but, as a part of modern society, it must
adapt.
I am reminded of the old Arab legend of the camel and the herdsman. On a cold, stormy
night the camel came upon the tent of the herdsman and, out of compassion for the camel,
the herdsman invited the camel to put his head within the shelter of the tent. For a while the
camel was content, but the storm did not abate and the night became colder, so he prevailed
on the herdsman's hospitality to allow him to also push his whole neck into the tent. By
degrees to camel got his whole body inside the tent. Then, after a bit, he told the herdsman
there was not enough room in the tent for both, so the herdsman must leave. The Western
world must beware of increasing numbers of Muslims in their midst unless those Muslims
renounce their religion's command to combine state and religion; that renunciation must
become a condition for each person's qualification for citizenship, much as the Mormons
were required to renounce polygamy as a condition for Utah to become a State.
Comment added 10-7-05
Should you wish to discuss any aspect of this page with me, I may be reached by e-mail
by clicking here
My printer takes 8 pages or 4 sheets of paper to print this document.
1) that the modern Christians pursue their missionary objectives by
peaceful means using example, persuasion and charity rather than guns and terror
and
2) various Christian sects or groupings, while competing for converts, live
peacefully among neighbors of various sects.
Should your interest be foreign policy, click here.
Or domestic policy, click here.
Or use your BACK button.
For Contents of Ken Wear's web site, click here.
If I get enough comment I will undertake a separate page to accommodate it.
7-13-07
The influence of the tribal structure of Arabian society should not be overlooked when
reflecting on the expansion of Islam under the Prophet. Conversion to the faith was not a
matter of personal conscience or conviction, but the practicality of pledging yourself to
your tribal leader in return for his protection, which in turn hinged on the wisdom of the
tribal leader in forming political alliances for the protection of his tribe. Thus, when a
tribal leader allied his tribe with the Prophet, with the requirement the leader accept the
Prophet's teachings, members of the tribe were required to follow the Prophet's
teachings and practices regardless of personal preference of prior religious leanings.
(1) The Prophet was
both political and religious leader and those who would emulate the Prophet must of
necessity combine church and state;
(2) The Prophet taught religious tolerance, but
if you did not convert to Islam you must pay a head tax; so it became the practice in
lands falling under Islamic control for the governed to either convert or pay a head tax (enforced
by the sword), and
(3) With the splintering of Islam into sects it became common
for a member of one sect to regard members of all other sects as infidels and therefore
in need of conversion.
Two necessities grow from the conflict of Islamic extremists and the other Muslim sects:
(1) The extremists must renounce force (and terrorism) as a means of advancing their faith,
else they must be removed from society (converted, killed or isolated; it matters not to the
larger community).
(2) Muslims of more moderate persuasion must recognize the poison represented by their
extremists and join the effort toward secularist government even if it means aligning
themselves with Christians, Jews and others.
The index to this web site is available by clicking here
Your BACK button will return you to the page from which
you linked here.