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.
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.