Case against monotheism – A fountainhead of multitudes of ills

The common understanding of monotheism is that it’s a system of belief in one god. Well, that’s only partially correct. It’s a belief in one TRUE god is the complete truth. The emphasis on all three words makes sense – ‘ONE’ ‘TRUE’ ‘GOD’. It’s important that the god to the one – as he brooks no partnership of any kind, also he has to be true because the creed fears impostors and also he is THE GOD. This is the image of god that most of the dominant monotheistic faiths viz Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc profess.

As I mentioned in the very beginning, monotheism doesn’t only mean belief in one god but it also means intense hatred to any other gods. So, hatred is something inherent to the creed of monotheism. The prevalence of the spooky, imaginary creature, the bogeyman called the ‘satan’ and his eternal conflict with the god speaks about the never ending need of the monotheistic creed to hate something to keep the things going.

Monotheism rests on a set of belief system where most of them happen to be out and out irrational. For example, Christianity rests on ‘sin’, virgin birth of Christ; Islam rests on the revelation of Allah to Muhammad, Muhammad travelling with Gabriel to heaven on a horse and receiving revelations from Allah over a period of time. Monotheistic creeds are usually revealed creed. So, the votaries of the creed have to believe in each and every word of their canonical texts. 

Since the focus of this post is on the ills of monotheism, I’ll only stick to it. To begin with, monotheism hacks at the very roots of the most fundamental of human aspirations – Knowing oneself. That thirst of knowing the source of existence is inherent in every human being. Religions (Sic.) with open architecture provide the necessary means for the followers to find the answer. But, with monotheistic creeds one has to quench their thirst for knowledge by the ‘holy’ texts. Anything else amounts to blasphemy. An example of one Mansur Al-Hallaj should explain this or for that matter the burning the ‘witches’ at stake in Europe during the medieval times is a direct influence of blasphemy which in turn influenced by the fundamental tenet of monotheism. We would have seen a great number of seers in Muslim and Christian world if not for ossified monotheism.

As mentioned earlier, the holy texts of monotheism like Quran, bible are canonical i.e. they can’t be edited, deleted or added with. The followers believe the texts are the very words of god and hence, infallible. This belief removes all the possible doubts any reasonable mind possess for good or for worse, usually the latter. This is the main reason that mass killing, arson, rape and other atrocities in the name of religion get passed off as if there are nothing because all of them have divine sanction. Ask any Mujahiddin of ISIS or Boko Haram why he is doing what he is doing. He’ll show you perfect ayat and surah of Quran which completely condones and mandates his action. The so-called terrorists are straightforward and honest. They don’t hide their motives and their inspirations for their actions. It’s only the liberal-intellectuals who provide the smokescreen for the action and motive of terrorists who are confused.  

There is no ideology which has brought the amount of human suffering as the monotheistic ideology has brought. The closest ideology that comes in inflicting the magnitude of human bloodshed to monotheistic ideology is the ideology of communism. While communism is just around two centuries in existence whereas, monotheism is over a millennium in existence and hence the wreckage is naturally more. 

Monotheism has shunted the human growth – both at personal level and societal level. It is incompatible with science. Europe started walking in the path of progress when it cut loose of the Church and fundamental Christianity. The day it was in the stranglehold of church is aptly referred to as ‘the dark ages’. The eastern religions (Sic.) like Buddhism and Hinduism on the other hand, never had such issues ever. They were perfectly compatible with science and there was little difference between scientists and what we traditionally referred to as rishis. Monotheistic creed has been evil and destructive since its inception, it continues to this day and it will continue till its last breath. If there is indeed a god and he is just, I don’t think he can be kind to the founders of any monotheistic creeds.

Book Review - The End of Faith

Introduction:

End of faith is a book by Sam Harris. Going by the title, I had assumed it to be a treatise on atheism like- say- The God Delusion of Richard Dawkins. But to my surprise it didn’t turn out to be one. But instead it was a work which diagnosed the phenomenon called faith (or belief) and its various manifestations from various dimensions and its impact on the world. Having proficiency in neurology and allied sciences, Sam Harris does a good job in it.

Synopsis:

First of all, the concept of belief is examined with all its psychological clutches that hold us.

“A BELIEF is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person's life. Are you a scientist? A liberal? A racist? These are merely species of belief in action. Your beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior; they determine your emotional responses to other human beings.”

Then the focus shifts from belief to the next obvious territory: the territory of religion. Sam Harris warns about the religious bigotry and its effects.

“It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our books”

The primary focus is on the Abrahamic religions which have a common root: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three have many similarities and all have exclusive truth claims. Sam Harris goes to the roots of ‘holy’ scriptures of these religions and examines them. He rebukes the truth monopolies the religions claim to have.

“The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained—as the beliefs, rituals, and iconography of each of our religions attests to centuries of cross- pollination among them.”

While examining these original texts (Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, Sunnah etc), he shows how they are inherently intolerant and inspires violence against the non-believers. The episodes of medieval Christianity: the never ending witch-hunts, inquisition, burning heretics at the stake make for a nauseating reading and makes one wonder how much blood have spilled for the sake of belief.

Then his gaze turns towards east. He observes, in the east, non-sectarian spiritual traditions have developed which never developed in the west in a full scale and ponders on the reason. In his own words: 

“If there is an equally arresting image that accounts for why nondualistic, empirical mysticism seems to have arisen only in Asia, I have yet to find it. But I suspect that the culprit has been the Christian, Jewish,and Muslim emphasis on faith itself. Faith is rather like a rhinoceros, in fact: it won't do much in the way of real work for you, and yet at close quarters it will make spectacular claims upon your attention.”

He then dwells on the issue of conscious mind, the functioning and the intricacies and all the exhortations of western philosophers like Descartes, Pascal, and Sartre et al. Then he makes an arresting conclusion:

“ Nevertheless, when the great philosopher mystics of the East are weighed against the patriarchs of the Western philosophical and theological traditions, the difference is unmistakable: Buddha, Shankara, Padmasambhava, Nagarjuna, Longchenpa, and countless others down to the present have no equivalents in the West. In spiritual terms, we appear to have been standing on the shoulders of dwarfs.”

Then the focus is shifted to Buddhism and the long tradition of Buddhists to focus on the mind and its functioning. He posits Buddhism in the high pedestal among religions which is rational and most of the claims can be empirically verified. He mocks the difference in understanding of the universe and its functioning between Eastern and western tradition thus:

“It is no exaggeration to say that meetings between the Dalai Lama and Christian ecclesiastics to mutually honor their religious traditions are like meetings between physicists from Cambridge and the Bushmen of the Kalahari to mutually honor their respective understandings of the physical universe.”

He makes a very important distinction which most miss: The difference between mysticism and religious tradition. To paraphrase him –

“MYSTICISM is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion .The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance.”  

He nails the coffin called faith thus :

“Faith is simply the license they give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail When rational inquiry supports the creed it is championed; when it poses a threat, it is derided; sometimes in the same sentence. Faith is the mortar that fills the cracks in the evidence and the gaps in the logic, and thus it is faith that keeps the whole terrible edifice of religious certainty still looming dangerously over our world.”

Conclusion:

This is one of the few books written in the spirit of free enquiry. Usually the books which take critical position on religion take the side of atheism, and eventually end up advocating it. But this book is an exception. While looking the faith, religion and the dangers which loom from it, it also looks at the possibility of expansion of human consciousness through non-sectarian spiritual traditions and methods. It’s a strong, scholarly work rooted in reason, science and rationality.

The farce called inter-religious dialogue

The wise men of this land said "Religion is an inward step". Well, they were right indeed. Religion was treated same way in this land, not as an object which was to be flaunted outside with all unnecessary pomp. But not all the cultures were as catholic as India's in their outlook towards life.

The genesis of the concept of god

Now, where and when did all this start? When man came to Earth, he saw so much of creation. He couldn't account for all the creation that was lying around. So, he created a hypothesis : Some one "up there" should have done all this. Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev jokingly says that gods created by human beings look like bigger human beings. Likewise if buffaloes were to create god, they would create bigger buffaloes. 

Xenophanes, the Greek poet and philosopher said it the best:

Ethiopians imagine their gods as black and snub-nosed; Thracians blue-eyed and red-haired. But if horses or lions had hands, or could draw and fashion works as men do, horses would draw the gods shaped like horses and lions like lions, making the gods resemble themselves.

So, then man is not the image of god but it's just the reverse. In fact, the god and the attributes given to him/her/it tells a lot about the culture which worships him/her/it. It's another story in itself. Let's save it for another day.

Some time ago, I found this statement when i was browsing for something

Religion was born to fill gaps in our understanding of the universe. Anything we could not understand was attributed to a “god”. The criminals soon realized that Priest craft was a profitable business and soon competing religions was born and each was supported by legions of “useful idiots”. What better way to assert dominance that using threats, waging war, stealing in the name of god, committing genocide. Do you understand why we have such a messy world today?

Whoever wrote this has a point. Many religions started as political doctrines which masqueraded in the garb of 'religions'. Many others started as genuine spiritual movements and went into the hands of people who had other ulterior motives and used religion as a plank in their ploy.

Religion and Politics

If there is a genuine spiritual movement, it should and will never give a damn about the head count it has. The head count is important for the forces which want to RULE not to serve. The forces which want to rule, far from being spiritual can only be political. This is how proselytizing starts. Of course these forces invoke the name of god for all atrocious, ugly things that they do.

When competing religions fight for their share of pie around the globe, inevitably there will be conflicts among them. NO deaths are more in number than the deaths that are caused by religion. In any competitive arena, sometimes there is no other option other than to 'tolerate' the other party or to strike a deal of 'compromise'. Competitive religions which have the features of both politics and business can't be an exception to this rule. So, this farce called inter-religious dialogue begins.

If you look at the history of inter-religious dialogue especially in India, it may go as far as the times of Akbar. Much before that, there were many exchanges, debates between different schools of thought but they can't be considered as inter-religious dialogues because there were hardly any religions that India had before the predatory religions invaded India. All that India had was indigenous spiritual traditions which were not as ossified as the current religions which are beyond any change.

The most famous inter-religious dialogue which is known for most of us is the one that happened in 1893 in which Swami Vivekanda took the conference by storm. You know the rest of the story. I need not elaborate it. We can concord, it was fairly successful because India's soft power was exerted very well by Vivekananda. Apart from this one, do we hear about any other conferences? No, we don't. 

The first such conference that i witnessed was the 'dailogue' between Zakir Naik of Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) and Sri Sri Ravishankar of Art of Living. It was a travesty right from the beginning. First of all, the 'dialogue' is a part of IRF's project called "Shahada". The arabic word shahada is the declaration of "lā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh, Muḥammadun rasūlu l-Lāh" which means There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Need i say more? When someone is starting with this kind of mindset both in words and in spirit, can there be any possibility of an honest debate? Not possible, not for a minute. This one turned out to be another such farce out of which nothing fruitful emerged.

"All religions are equal"

Boy, oh boy! they said it all the day and never got bored of saying it. Among many empty-talks, this one would take the cake. This thought is not alien to the people who are born in Hindu families. They are taught all religions are same and eventually leads to the same destination, god. Well, the thought which comes out of good-will is practically wrong. Else, how on this earth can one equate an Orthodox Jain and an Orthodox Muslim or for that matter Orthodox Jainism with Orthodox Islam? That's just bull. One of my twitter friends commented the biggest dope ever sold was the thought of all religions are equal one. You know what? The dope was so attractive that many bought it. But a lie can't become truth just by the number people that adhere to it.

I think Aristotle (Some dispute it) said it the best : The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

The usurping of Islam over any nation or society should be feared because...

Islamophobia – a term coined by the apologists of Islam when the non-Muslims express their valid fears about the usurping nature of Islam. Islam has reverse Midas touch - whatever it touches, turns into desert. As Islam is one of the most important monotheistic religions, there is a need to understand the core belief of monotheistic religions to understand Islam. Monotheistic religion doesn’t just imply devotion and belief in one god; it also implies intense hatred for the other gods and beliefs. This was true for the other monotheistic religions like Judaism and Christianity. But over a period of time, they have changed & have become less-hostile to the non-believers. But Islam, to this day remains very loyal to its source and thus hostile to all those who do not share its set of beliefs i.e Non-Muslims.

If Islam was just another religion, then the mindset that fears the rise of Islam could be easily bracketed as a phobia but it’s not as easy as it seems. It is radically different from any other religion. So, when there is a rise of Islam in any corner of the globe, it is definitely a red flag for the non-Muslims. Because the rise would always, without exception end up in a demographic seize.

Many people across the globe are beginning to realize it lately. Some are afraid to spell it out fearing it might flout their ‘political correctness’. Europe, in its mad rush towards pursuing and establishing the idea of multiculturalism gave in a lot to Islam. Now, it has started to pay the price for the blunder. It's telling a tale when Europe is slowly being transformed into 'Eurabia'. 

The problem with India with regard Islam is much more complex. Much non-sense in India has happened in the name of secularism, composite culture and multiculturalism. In India, the political class, the media, the ‘intellectuals’ and many others are in accord in protecting the interests of Muslims, most of the times - at the cost of others. The clamor for secularism will exist only as long as the Hindus remain the majority. Once the baton passes to Islam then the ideals of democracy, secularism will be laid to rest. 

The first domino to fall for the assault of Islam would be freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Freedom of speech to Islam is as alien as flying saucers to Earth. Then diversity gets the second blow. There will be no diversity at all as all will be emulating Arabs and Arabian culture. Aesthetics, Music will go for a toss because they are officially banned in Islam (Mohammad, the founder of Islam intensely disliked music). What to say of yoga and the rest of spiritual process! They will be banned as well. So, India as we know it would vanish like dust in the wind.

The Muslim majority state, even if has embraced democracy, over a period of time will be pressurized to drop democracy and to adopt shariah laws. Even if the initial rulers are moderates, somewhere down the line, the extremists or radicals would seize the power. We had seen it happening all over the world. Our neighboring nation, Pakistan is a classic example for this.

In his controversial book "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat" Peter Hammond has explained how Muslims behave according to their percentage strength of the total population of the country.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

With India, the problem is staring at face with many incidents reported from Kashmir, Assam, Mumbai. The case of Kashmir, Assam are solid examples of demographic seize. The exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in the late 80s and now the constant violence unleashed from illegal Bangladeshi Muslims on the native Assamese can be case studies for the demographic seize and the usurping nature of Islam. Rather than turning blind-eye towards these issues, the issue needs to be addressed head on. Else, mark these words - there are many would-be Kashmirs waiting to erupt like Kerala, Assam, West Bengal where radical Islam is gaining a strong foothold. The time is to act now rather than regretting after reaching the point of no return!

A small critique on religions !

Muni Tarun sagar once said that the house should be destroyed after a hundred years of its construction and then should be rebuilt. In the same way, religions should be destroyed after one thousand years. Because of a long duration of time, many junks might have made their way to the religion. So, it would be near impossibility to set all the things right. The actual meaning and intention of the religion would have lost long ago. So, the process of cleaning the unwanted aspects should always be on.



Any religion should be open to criticism. Because that’s the main thing which helps to look deep about certain aspects and clean them if needed and also helps in reaffirming the faith in the good aspects of the religion. But a few religions consider themselves to be perfect and beyond evaluation or criticism. Worse than that, they intimidate the people who criticize it and create a kind of phobia.

Hinduism which is perhaps the oldest religion of the world has faced the same. Owing to the long-presence of it, it picked up junk and some aspects of it became intolerable. Though it had some very beautiful things that no other religions had, the junk had piled up so much that it began to mask the great aspects of the religion. So, the reformers came for the rescue. They could see the problem. Many of them criticized and brought many reforms. But due to its enormity and vastness, still many junks has remained. But, one appreciable fact is that Hinduism is open to criticism. No acts were considered as blasphemous acts even though many acts were nothing less.

Christianity also gives a fair amount of freedom in criticizing the religion and for the reforms. But as Christianity is a highly organized religion, it is not as easy as Hinduism to criticize and evaluate. Organization of religion has its own weaknesses and strength. But, with its limitations, Christianity has come a long way and it has given scope for criticism and evaluation.

But the religion which hasn’t opened up at all is the religion of Islam. The very word Islam means ‘to surrender’. It’s a beautiful thing to surrender to something. Unless you are truly humble, it is impossible to surrender to something completely. But as mentioned before, no religion is perfect. Every religion has its own piece of scrap which has to be cleaned up from time to time. If the scraps are not cleaned, the scraps become more and cover the entire religion and the religion appears as a joke.

Islam has hardly gone through reforms over the years. It is as medieval as it was in the 7th century. There is not much difference between Aurangazeb and Osama Bin Laden. Both might belong to completely different eras but the point to be noted is that both were motivated by the same ideology. Obviously, there should be something wrong in some part of the religion. If someone questions that, instead of brooding over the reasons, the very act of questioning is considered blasphemous and the person who questions it is persecuted or worse, killed. So, none dares to question and all want to be politically correct.

Subramaniam Swamy (President of Janatha Party and former minister) had written an article about Islamic terror and the ways to wipe it. Though there were some extreme points in it, he had raised some valid issues. I had posted the article on my Facebook profile. Irfan, one of my college mates in my post graduation got offended by the article and he began to throw some personal slurs at me and also started his line of defense defending his religion and tried to portray his religion as the religion of peace(had he said piece, I would have readily agreed!). The person was so blind that he was not even ready to acknowledge the well-established fact of the Islamic terror. Then Naveen, one of my college mates in my graduation joined this guy and they continued to defend their argument.

Then the rhetoric began: ‘Terrorism has no religions’, ‘You can’t attribute terrorism to one single religion’, ‘Terrorism has a socio-economic-political cause than religious ones’. It was a typical Indian situation: One guy from the minority, to defend him a pseudo-secular intellectual and one hopeless moron against them. My hope to drive home some points to them remained hope till the end because one person had mortgaged his intelligence to his religion and the other one to some ideology and pseudo-secularism. So, the arguments yielded no results. But, the next morning I was surprised to see that my name was promptly removed from his friend’s list. I was bewildered at the level of narrow-mindedness!!

To do a cover-up job for a problem is not the way to encounter a problem at all. To solve any problem, one has to acknowledge the existence of the problem first. If someone is the denial mode and act as if the problem doesn’t exist, the existence of the problem is undeterred and it can only exacerbate over a period of time.

Fear and hope - Two Great Products

The two dominant forces that are running the show called religion all over the world are fear and hope. These are the two products which are sold by almost all the religions of the world. These products are so dominant that if you take out these two from all the religions of the world, then almost all the religions of the world would vanish like chaff in the wind.
          There is a concept of hell and heaven almost in all the religions though some of the religions may not believe in reincarnation. Again, fear of hell and the hope of heaven. On one level, one might argue that these are essential for keeping order in the society. The religions, instead of developing the society if had put efforts in developing the individuals, they would have done a great service to the mankind.
          The present religions are no more religions anymore. They are just extended political parties where head count is more important than anything else. Religions are not judged by the inner content but by the number of people it shelters. So some barbaric religions with the garb of brotherhood have come to the forefront by aggressive conversions. It is high time that people come out of organized religions.