"You are the Diamonds"

Marina Diamondis is a young woman living out my dream: she is a rock-star. Well, OK, "rock" probably isn't the right word for her music, but, you know, "indie-pop star" just doesn't do it.

Anyway, one of the things I like about her is that she talks openly and matter-of-factly about her experience of suddenly attaining at least a certain amount of fame, and possibly being on the verge of attaining quite a bit of it. Like any other powerful force, say electricity, gravity, money, sex, etc, FAME can be, and very often is, extremely dangerous. And if the fame itself doesn't get you, then the sudden loss of it probably will. But something tells me she's going to be alright.

And I also thinks its cool that she claims to have been born in ancient Greece!

I don't really follow the music scene closely at all and I would probably never have heard of Marina, and if I had would have paid her no attention, if it hadn't been for the fact that I stumbled across her incredible video I Am Not a Robot while I just happened to be in the very act of pondering the subjects of Alan Turing and Machine Intelligence.

Anyway, I really liked what she just wrote in her blog:

For those who don’t know, the whole idea behind my artist name was that I never liked the idea that an artist’s success and destiny were based solely on the artist themselves. In reality, each success story is a group or global effort, created by a small or large group of like minded people- the thought of it inspires me a lot. My fans are all i’ve got and I always imagined ‘MATD’ as a collective experience rather than ‘hi look at me, i’m a superstar, i’m rich, i’m great, my life is faboush, don’t you wish you could look like me’, even before there were fans. I sometimes desperately want it to feel like a group effort, like we are all in this together. Maybe I am just crazy and no one else feels the same but sometimes I feel it at gigs.. and I feel happy because for the time being at least, I know I’m in the company of like minded people. And it excites me!! That is an important function of music isn’t it? Uniting people.

What I achieve as Marina & the Diamonds will be because me and you and him and her.

I am setting up this little thing on the nme tour. I’m going to start photographing the crowd mid-set (when you least expect it, hee hee) and uploading my favourite picture each night on to this blog. It’ll be on Facebook too so you can tag your cute selves etc.

I also checked out the merch tonight. Baseball/ american style tees and long sleeved shirts and tote bags with “GUESS WHAT” on one side (and i wonder if you can guess what is on the other side)

You are the Diamonds <3

J.B. Bury on Christianity and persecution

Please see the updated/expanded version of this post here:
http://egregores.blogspot.com/2009/09/updated-jb-bury-on-christianity-and.html

Worshipping the Source: The Buddhist Goddess Prajnaparamita

The image to the left is a statue of the Buddhist Goddess Prajnaparamita. This particular version of Her is from the ancient Singosari Temple in Java dating from the 14th (or late 13th) century AD. There is a story that the model for the statue was a woman named Ken Dedes, the first queen of the Singasari Dynasty of Java (she was also the daughter of a Buddhist Priest).

The following is a description of the statue from the Virtual Collection of Masterpieces website:

The Prajnaparamita was first seen in 1818 or 1819 by the Dutch colonial official D. Monnereau. In 1820 Monnereau gave the statue to C.G.C. Reinwardt, who took it to Holland where it eventually came to be deposited in the Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde in Leiden. Prajnaparamita is a goddess of high standing in Mahayana tantric Buddhism; she is considered the sakti, or consort, of the highest Buddha (in the Buddhist pantheon known as vajradhara), she symbolizes perfect knowledge. As with many statues from East Java, this one is thought to be the “portrait statue” of Rajapatni Gayatri queen, the wife of King Kertarajasa (the first King of Majapahit Kingdom), grandmother of Hayam Wuruk.

And the following is taken from the book Worshiping Shiva and Buddha: The Temple Art of East Java:

The finest sculpture found in the Singosari temple complex represents Prajnaparamita, the Buddhist Goddess of Transcendental Wisdom .... The pristine condition of the statue indicates that it was buried for some time.... When the Dutch [who colonized Java] found the sculpture in the early nineteenth century local people referred to it as Putri Dedes or Princess Dedes....

The Prajnaparamita sits in a lotus position on a double lotus cushion on top of a square base. Her hands are held in front forming the gesture of turning the wheel of the law of teaching the law [Dharma] of Buddhism. A lotus flower winding around her arm and rising above her head left shoulder holds her attribute, the book of transcendental wisdom [The Prajna Paramita Sutra]. The head with its perfectly chiseled features, downcast eyes, and forhead urna supports a high conical headdress and is surrounded by an oval halo. The figure is richly adorned with a patterned sarong and crisply detailed necklace, armbands, earrings, belts, bracelents, and a three-strand sacred thread.... The sculpture was taken to Holland in 1820 and returned to the republic of Indonesia in 1978 when Queen Juliana of the Netherlands visited the former Dutch colony; it has become perhaps the best known icon of Indonesian art. It is one of the rare images that successfully combines aesthetic perfection with spiritual power.

[p. 146]

Miranda Shaw devotes a chapter to Prajnaparamita in her Buddhist Goddesses of India, in which she writes

In the foundational body of Mahayana literature known as the Prajnaparamita or Perfection of Wisdom texts, the highest metaphysical principle, the energy, glory, and radiance of enlightened wisdom -- is envisioned as a cosmic female, the mother of knowledge, the source of all Buddhas. This goddess, known as Prajnaparamita (pronounced prahj nyah PAH RAH mee TAH), is regarded as the "mother" of all beings who attain enlightenment, for it is her wisdom that engenders liberation. She is the supreme teacher and eternal font of revelation. All who seek illumination must sit at her feet and drink from the stream of teachings that flow from her presence. Thus, Prajnaparamita is the ultimate source of refuge and object of reverence, for only those who prize wisdom above all else may attain it. Even Buddhas and bodhisattvas pay homage to her, because to her they owe their omniscience. To worship a Buddha, the relics of a Buddha, or a stupa is to honor what she has brought into being; to revere her directly is to worship the source.

Just as philosophy is the queen of the sciences, Prajnaparamita is the philosophiae regina, the Buddhist Sophia, a dazzling figure who represents the transcendent wisdom that crowns the intellectual and spiritual quest. In the wake of the contending schools of Abhidharma philosophy, mother Prajnaparamita arose to cast her serene, clear sighted gaze of nondual wisdom over all disputants. Her luminous, golden persona draws her devotees away from worldly attachments and into the encompassing splendor of her mystical mother light.

Prajnaparamita shares her name with the literature in which she appears, the philosophy with which she is associated, and the knowledge she personifies. The text that introduces both the philosophy and the goddess, [is] the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra, or 8000-Line Perfect Wisdom Scripture .... Although the work advances a systematic philosophical viewpoint, its language is redolent with poesy, devotion, and emotional fervor as it celebrates the goddess and her namesake wisdom.

[pp. 166-167]

If you are into old school idolatry like I am, you'll probably want to have your very own graven image of the Buddhist Goddess of Wisdom for your altar, meditation room, foyer, etc. They are available from goddessgift.net, and sacredsource.com and probably from many other vendors as well. And here is my own favorite English version of the Heart Sutra (from the Kwan Um School of Zen website):

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva
when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita
perceives that all five skandhas are empty
and is saved from all suffering and distress.

Shariputra,
form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness form.

The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.

Shariputra,
all dharmas are marked with emptiness;
they do not appear or disappear,
are not tainted or pure,
do not increase or decrease.

Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.

No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind;
no realm of eyes
and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness.

No ignorance and also no extinction of it,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of them.

No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain.

The Bodhisattva depends on Prajna Paramita
and the mind is no hindrance;
without any hindrance no fears exist.
Far apart from every perverted view one dwells in Nirvana.

In the three worlds
all Buddhas depend on Prajna Paramita
and attain Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi.

Therefore know that Prajna Paramita
is the great transcendent mantra,
is the great bright mantra,
is the utmost mantra,
is the supreme mantra
which is able to relieve all suffering
and is true, not false.
So proclaim the Prajna Paramita mantra,
proclaim the mantra which says:

gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.

Lastly, here is a link to an extremely rockin' version of the Heart Sutra, chanted by some Japanese nuns: http://www.zenmind.org/Hannya-Shingyo.mp3

Where have all the welders gone?

From weldingtipsandtricks.com:

Where have all the welders gone?

Haven't you heard??? There is a shortage of welders...

In Mobile, Ala., Bender Shipbuilding and Repair Co. is looking for welders. Welders who can pass a welding certification test.

The pay is solid — $40,000 to $60,000 — yet Bender Shipbuilding Co. recently found itself going to Mexico in search of candidates to be certified welders, said Jerry Betts, a quality assurance executive.

"American kids are simply not applying for the positions. "

What?

Is it because Welding suffers from a negative image and at some point in time in our culture, it became more appealing to sit in a Dilbert cube under buzzing fluorescent lights, than to work with your hands actually making something?

Or do we have Nintendo games and Rap music to blame?

Are we that Effed up ?

Shame on us.

TV Shows like Monster Garage and Orange County Choppers have sparked an interest in welding and fabricating but its too late.

There is a shortage of welders

Jay Leno talks about a shortage of skilled welders in a video he made for the American Welding Society. He mentions that the reason the USA was able to defeat Hitlers armies is because we could build planes faster than the enemy could shoot them down,,,,like every 55 minutes.

Raise your hand if you think we could do that today.

So how do I become a welder?....and not just a welder , but a high paid certified pipe welder?

Think about the Pipefitters Union.

The certified welders of the United Association of pipefitters, plumbers, and steamfitters are leading the industry in the high tech welds that are vital to the nations largest industries like nuclear power, oil refineries, pipelines etc.

From MIG to TIG to Stick, or even Orbital Tig welds, UA members are the best trained welders in industry.

If you are going to weld pipe for a living, be aware of this plain fact. Union pipe welders make more money than non union pipe welders.

Never mind all the philosophical arguments about the merits of union vs non union. That's for another day. You don't have to know all the details to know that more money is a good thing.

Lets stick to the facts. If you don’t care how much money you make and you just want to weld pipe because it gives you a warm fuzzy, then don’t even read any further.

But if you actually are working for dollars, and not just for enjoyment , read on.

Way back in 1979 I worked at a union fab shop as a welder with the boilermaker union. (There was a slight shortage of welders back then too and they let a few of us non union scum fill in for a few months) . Then I worked for a non union contractor right after leaving the union shop. (the union guys asked me nicely to quit since they had people who needed my spot) Union scale was about 11 bucks an hour back then, The Non union job was only around 8 bucks an hour.... A big gap.

Fast forward to 2008. Union scale for a union pipe welder in my area is around 28 an hour. Yet I see jobs posted all the time on craigslist, Monster.com and careerbuilder.com for 15 dollars an hour for pipe welders. It's like they are not aware of the shortage of welders. Whats up with that?

I will repeat. If you work for the money, and seriously, who doesn’t? Union jobs pay better most of the time. Now don't go all crazy talking about union dues. Yes there are union dues to pay. But they are minimal compared to the extra hourly scale you make as a journeyman union welder. Since there is a shortage of welders in this country, there is opportunity.

Before you start thinking I am all pro union...don't.

I try to remain neutral on the topic...Its kind of like politics to me.

I am only talking about making more money.....

Local union 72 in Atlanta GA is just one of many local union halls that has a fine welding training program that is trying to address the shortage of welders.

It is run by a fella named Cajun Seeger....now aint that a perfect name for a welder?

[I used to be a certified TIG welder back in the day. In this particular case "the day" was the early 80's. I worked second shift at Stewart Warner, and I liked to stop at the Bulldog Lounge on College Avenue on my way home for a couple of beers and a game or two of Galaga.]

"A History of Freedom of Thought" by J.B. Bury

Here's a very brief biography of J.B Bury from the Encylopedia Britannica:

Bury, John Bagnell (1861‑1927), British historian, was born on the 16th of October 1861, and was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he was elected to a fellowship in 1885. A fine Greek scholar, he edited Pindar's Nemean and Isthmian Odes; but he devoted himself chiefly to the study of history, and was chosen professor of modern history at Dublin in 1893, becoming regius professor of Greek in 1898. He resigned both positions in 1902, when he was elected regius professor of modern history in the university of Cambridge. His historical work was mainly concerned with the later Roman empire, and his edition of Gibbon's Decline and Fall, with a masterly introduction and valuable notes (1896‑1900), is the standard text of this history. He also wrote a History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great (1900); History of the Later Roman Empire, 395‑800 (1889), History of the Roman Empire 27 B.C.-180 A.D. (1893); Life of St Patrick and his Place in History (1905), &c. He was elected a fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and received honorary degrees from the universities of Oxford, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Durham.

And now here are some excerpts from J.B. Bury's A History of Freedom of Thought, specifically from Chapter II Reason Free, Greece and Rome. The book was first published in 1913, and the whole thing is available for free download via Project Gutenberg. All emphases have been added.

The outcome of the large freedom permitted at [classical] Athens was a series of philosophies which had a common source in the conversations of Socrates. Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Epicureans, the Sceptics—it may be maintained that the efforts of thought represented by these names have had a deeper influence on the progress of man than any other continuous intellectual movement, at least until the rise of modern science in a new epoch of liberty.

The doctrines of the Epicureans, Stoics, and Sceptics all aimed at securing peace and guidance for the individual soul. They were widely propagated throughout the Greek world from the third century B.C., and we may say that from this time onward most well-educated Greeks were more or less rationalists. The teaching of Epicurus had a distinct anti-religious tendency. He considered fear to be the fundamental motive of religion, and to free men’s minds from this fear was a principal object of his teaching. He was a Materialist, explaining the world by the atomic theory of Democritus and denying any divine government of the universe. He did indeed hold the existence of gods, but, so far as men are concerned, his gods are as if they were not—living in some remote abode and enjoying a “sacred and everlasting calm.” They just served as an example of the realization of the ideal Epicurean life.

There was something in this philosophy which had the power to inspire a poet of singular genius to expound it in verse. The Roman Lucretius (first century B.C.) regarded Epicurus as the great deliverer of the human race and determined to proclaim the glad tidings of his philosophy in a poem On the Nature of the World. With all the fervour of a religious enthusiast he denounces religion, sounding every note of defiance, loathing, and contempt, and branding in burning words the crimes to which it had urged man on. He rides forth as a leader of the hosts of atheism against the walls of heaven. He explains the scientific arguments as if they were the radiant revelation of a new world; and the rapture of his enthusiasm is a strange accompaniment of a doctrine which aimed at perfect calm. Although the Greek thinkers had done all the work and the Latin poem is a hymn of triumph over prostrate deities, yet in the literature of free thought it must always hold an eminent place by the sincerity of its audacious, defiant spirit. In the history of rationalism its interest would be greater if it had exploded in the midst of an orthodox community. But the educated Romans in the days of Lucretius were sceptical in religious matters, some of them were Epicureans, and we may suspect that not many of those who read it were shocked or influenced by the audacities of the champion of irreligion.

The Stoic philosophy made notable contributions to the cause of liberty and could hardly have flourished in an atmosphere where discussion was not free. It asserted the rights of individuals against public authority. Socrates had seen that laws may be unjust and that peoples may go wrong, but he had found no principle for the guidance of society. The Stoics discovered it in the law of nature, prior and superior to all the customs and written laws of peoples, and this doctrine, spreading outside Stoic circles, caught hold of the Roman world and affected Roman legislation.

These philosophies have carried us from Greece to Rome. In the later Roman Republic and the early Empire, no restrictions were imposed on opinion, and these philosophies, which made the individual the first consideration, spread widely. Most of the leading men were unbelievers in the official religion of the State, but they considered it valuable for the purpose of keeping the uneducated populace in order. A Greek historian expresses high approval of the Roman policy of cultivating superstition for the benefit of the masses. This was the attitude of Cicero, and the view that a false religion is indispensable as a social machine was general among ancient unbelievers. It is common, in one form or another, to-day; at least, religions are constantly defended on the ground not of truth but of utility. This defence belongs to the statecraft of Machiavelli, who taught that religion is necessary for government, and that it may be the duty of a ruler to support a religion which he believes to be false.

A word must be said of Lucian (second century A.D.), the last Greek man of letters whose writings appeal to everybody. He attacked the popular mythology with open ridicule. It is impossible to say whether his satires had any effect at the time beyond affording enjoyment to educated infidels who read them. Zeus in a Tragedy Part is one of the most effective. The situation which Lucian imagined here would be paralleled if a modern writer were blasphemously to represent the Persons of the Trinity with some eminent angels and saints discussing in a celestial smoke-room the alarming growth of unbelief in England and then by means of a telephonic apparatus overhearing a dispute between a freethinker and a parson on a public platform in London. The absurdities of anthropomorphism have never been the subject of more brilliant jesting than in Lucian’s satires.....
[pp. 37-40]

The relations between the Roman government and the Christians raised the general question of persecution and freedom of conscience. A State, with an official religion, but perfectly tolerant of all creeds and cults, finds that a society had arisen in its midst which is uncompromisingly hostile to all creeds but its own and which, if it had the power, would suppress all but its own. The government, in self-defence, decides to check the dissemination of these subversive ideas and makes the profession of that creed a crime, not on account of its particular tenets, but on account of the social consequences of those tenets. The members of the society cannot without violating their consciences and incurring damnation abandon their exclusive doctrine. The principle of freedom of conscience is asserted as superior to all obligations to the State, and the State, confronted by this new claim, is unable to admit it. Persecution is the result.

Even from the standpoint of an orthodox and loyal pagan the persecution of the Christians is indefensible, because blood was shed uselessly. In other words, it was a great mistake because it was unsuccessful. For persecution is a choice between two evils. The alternatives are violence (which no reasonable defender of persecution would deny to be an evil in itself) and the spread of dangerous opinions. The first is chosen simply to avoid the second, on the ground that the second is the greater evil. But if the persecution is not so devised and carried out as to accomplish its end, then you have two evils instead of one, and nothing can justify this. From their point of view, the Emperors had good reasons for regarding Christianity as dangerous and anti-social, but they should either have let it alone or taken systematic measures to destroy it. If at an early stage they had established a drastic and systematic inquisition, they might possibly have exterminated it. This at least would have been statesmanlike. But they had no conception of extreme measures, and they did not understand —they had no experience to guide them —the sort of problem they had to deal with. They hoped to succeed by intimidation. Their attempts at suppression were vacillating, fitful, and ridiculously ineffectual. The later persecutions (of A.D. 250 and 303) had no prospect of success. It is particularly to be observed that no effort was made to suppress Christian literature.

The higher problem whether persecution, even if it attains the desired end, is justifiable, was not considered. The struggle hinged on antagonism between the conscience of the individual and the authority and supposed interests of the State. It was the question which had been raised by Socrates, raised now on a wider platform in a more pressing and formidable shape: what is to happen when obedience to the law is inconsistent with obedience to an invisible master? Is it incumbent on the State to respect the conscience of the individual at all costs, or within what limits? The Christians did not attempt a solution, the general problem did not interest them. They claimed the right of freedom exclusively for themselves from a non-Christian government; and it is hardly going too far to suspect that they would have applauded the government if it had suppressed the Gnostic sects whom they hated and calumniated. In any case, when a Christian State was established, they would completely forget the principle which they had invoked. The martyrs died for conscience, but not for liberty. To-day the greatest of the Churches demands freedom of conscience in the modern States which she does not control, but refuses to admit that, where she had the power, it would be incumbent on her to concede it.

If we review the history of classical antiquity as a whole, we may almost say that freedom of thought was like the air men breathed. It was taken for granted and nobody thought about it. If seven or eight thinkers at Athens were penalized for heterodoxy, in some and perhaps in most of these cases heterodoxy was only a pretext. They do not invalidate the general facts that the advance of knowledge was not impeded by prejudice, or science retarded by the weight of unscientific authority. The educated Greeks were tolerant because they were friends of reason and did not set up any authority to overrule reason. Opinions were not imposed except by argument; you were not expected to receive some “kingdom of heaven” like a little child, or to prostrate your intellect before an authority claiming to be infallible.

But this liberty was not the result of a conscious policy or deliberate conviction, and therefore it was precarious. The problems of freedom of thought, religious liberty, toleration, had not been forced upon society and were never seriously considered. When Christianity confronted the Roman government, no one saw that in the treatment of a small, obscure, and, to pagan thinkers, uninteresting or repugnant sect, a principle of the deepest social importance was involved. A long experience of the theory and practice of persecution was required to base securely the theory of freedom of thought. The lurid policy of coercion which the Christian Church adopted, and its consequences, would at last compel reason to wrestle with the problem and discover the justification of intellectual liberty. The spirit of the Greeks and Romans, alive in their works, would, after a long period of obscuration, again enlighten the world and aid in re-establishing the reign of reason, which they had carelessly enjoyed without assuring its foundations.
[pp. 48-51]

Hinduism is not monotheistic

Indram mitram varuNam agnim ãhuh,
atho divyah sa suparNo garutmãn,
ekam sad viprãh bahudhã vadanti,
agnim yamam mãtarišvãnam ãhuh.

[They hail Him as Indra, as Mitra, as VaruNa, as Agni,
also as that divine and noble-winged Garutmãn.
It is of One Existence
that the wise ones speak in diverse ways,
whether as Agni, or as Yama, or as Mãtarišvãn.]

Below are excerpts from Sita Ram Goel's book In Defense of Hindu Society, taken from Chapter Four: Hindu Spirituality Versus Monotheism, and Chapter Five: The Basis of Universal Spirituality, and also from Ram Swarup's The Word as Revelation: Names of Gods (as quoted by Goel).

(1) "a deep sense of sanctity towards all elements and forces of Mother Nature"

[Sita Ram Goel]:
It is an intuition ingrained in the Hindu psyche to inhabit our entire environment - celestial, physical, vegetable, animal, and human - with innumerable Gods and Goddesses. Some of these divinities are installed in temples as icons, and worshipped with well-defined rituals. Some others are worshipped as and where they are invoked. Hindu shastras, saints and sages have paid homage to many Gods and Goddesses in many sublime hymns.

The Sky which forms the firmament, and permeates the whole universe as space including the interstices in human and animal and vegetable anatomies, is a great God. It is the abode of all sounds. And it harbours in its vastnesses many other Gods such as the Sun and the Moon and the Stars, and Goddesses such as the Dawn and the Dusk. These celestial Gods and Goddesses are worshipped in their own right, particularly the Sun and the Moon and the Dawn. The Air which fills the hollow between the sky and the earth, which rages as storm and blows as breeze, and which sustains the respiratory system in all that is alive, is also a great God. It is not visible to the eye but it manifests itself by its power to touch and turn.

The Earth which bears all burdens, which bestows boundless bounties from beneath and above its surface, and which is the symbol of forgiveness and forbearance, is also a great Goddess. The mountains which soar up till they become snow-capped are the abodes of Gods and Goddesses. So are the forests which are full of flowers and fruits and varied wealth. Some creepers and plants and trees are veritable Gods and Goddesses, harkening us to pay our homage to them.

The Water which is clustered in the clouds, which pours down as rain, which flows in rivers and springs, which gets stored up in tanks and lakes and seas and oceans, which showers itself as snow and gets settled as ice on mountain tops, is also a great God. It washes all dirt and slakes all thirst. It nourishes our field crops and our forests. It becomes the sap in all vegetables and fruits, and circulates as blood in all animals and humans. Lakes like the Mãnasarovara are specially sacred because Gods and Goddesses play their games in and around them. Rivers like the Ganga and the Godavari are themselves Goddesses.

The Fire which blazes in the sun, which heats up every hearth, and which is stored as energy in all fuels, is also a great God. It manifests itself not only as heat but also as light which shines in the stars, which reveals itself in a riot of colours, which endows everything with form, and which lends vision to every eye. It maintains every metabolism as vital heat without which nothing can remain alive. The Fire God is worshipped daily in the family hearth, is regarded as the ambassador of Gods in every sacrifice, and is a witness to the sanctity of all sacraments.....

The Hindu psyche has always harboured a deep sense of sanctity towards all elements and forces of Mother Nature, in all their forms and transforms. It worships these elements and forces not only outside the human body but also within it. In fact, it sees the human body as a magnificent mansion in building which all these elements and forces of Mother Nature have participated, and feels grateful towards what it greets as great Gods and Goddesses.

What is more significant, this Hindu psyche intimates that as all that is without is also within, all that is within must also be without (yathã piNDe tathã brahmãNDe). It, therefore, invests everything outside with life, with consciousness, with thought and feeling, and also with will. The inanimate thus becomes animate, the unconscious becomes conscious, the thoughtless becomes thoughtful, the insensitive becomes sensitive, and the inert becomes active......

(2) Sri Aurobindo on Goddesses, Gods and idols: "they incarnate the vision itself"

[Sita Ram Goel]:
Sages such as Sri Aurobindo who have meditated on Hindu iconography, and savants such as Ananda Coomaraswamy, Stella Kramrisch, and Alice Boner who have studied the subject, assure us that the forms and features of Hindu icons have a source higher than the normal reaches of the human mind. The icons are no photocopies of any human or animal forms as we find them in their physical frames. They are in fact crystallizations of the abstract into the concrete, of the infinite into the finite. They always point beyond themselves, and a contemplation of them always draws us from the outer to the inner.

Hindu Šilpašãstras lay down not only technical formulas for carving holy icons in stone, and metal, and other materials. They also lay down elaborate rules about how the artist is to fast, and pray, and otherwise purify himself for long periods before he is permitted, if at all, to have a psychic image of the God or Goddess whom he wants to incarnate in a physical form. It is this sublime source of the Šilpašãstras which alone can explain a Sarnath Buddha, or a Chidambram NaTarãja, or a Vidisha Varãha, to name only a few of the large assembly of divine images inhabiting the earth. It is because this sublime source is not accessible to modern sculptors that we have to be content with poor copies which look like parodies of the original marvels.

The same sages and savants inform us that the Hindu temple architecture and the rituals that are performed at the time of pûjã, also have a sublime source. This is a deep and difficult subject, largely beyond the reach of the present writer. I shall, therefore, not proceed with it. What needs to be emphasized is that the plurality of Hindu Gods, the icons in which they are embodied, the temples in which they are installed, and the rituals with which they are worshipped, are not mere accessories and aids towards some deeper spiritual vision; instead, they incarnate the vision itself.

(3) Ram Swarup on the physical and the spiritual: "things are no longer lifeless"

[Sita Ram Goel]:
Ram Swarup has presented the proper perspective on the plurality of Hindu Gods as well as their incarnation in concrete images, in his recently published book, The Word As Revelation: Names of Gods. His discussion leaves no doubt that the plurality of the Hindu pantheon, and the large use of concrete images is not only quite in keeping with but also necessary corollaries of (1) the spontaneous processes of human psychology, (2) the normal growth of human knowledge culminating in spiritual vision, and (3) the natural development of human language for incorporating and communicating that knowledge and vision. I will quote at length from Ram Swarup’s book because I find it difficult to clothe his insights in my own language. [At this point, Sita Ram Goel quotes large portions of Ram Swarup's book]:

[Sita Ram Goel quoting Ram Swarup]:
“If we study the ancient religious literature of the Hindus, particularly the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Mahabharata, certain things stand out prominently. The very first thing is a very large use of concrete image. There are Gods like Indra, PûSana, VaruNa, Ašvins for whom there are no physical correspondences, but many important Gods like Sûrya, Agni, Marut take their names after natural objects.

“There is also another important feature that we notice. The spiritual consciousness of the race is expressed in terms of the plurality of Gods. In these two respects, at least, the Hindu approach agreed with the spiritual intuition of other ancient peoples.

“The physical and intellectual are not opposed to one another. The names of physical objects become names of ideas, names of psychic truths, names of Gods; sensuous truths become intellectual truths, become spiritual truths. As the knowledge of the senses becomes the knowledge of the Manas and the Buddhi, the knowledge originating in the higher organs of the mind also tends to filter down to the levels of the Manas and the senses. So in this way even the highest knowledge has its form, colour and sound. This need not lower down its quality in any way. In fact, this is the only way in which the sense-bound mind understands something of the higher knowledge.

“This reverberating, echoing and imaging takes place up and down the whole corridor of the mind, at all levels of abstraction. Here, as we traverse the path, we meet physical forms, sound-forms, vision-forms, thought-forms, universal forms, all echoes of each other. We meet mantras and yantras and icons of various efficacies and psychic qualities. In one sense, they are not the light above but they are its important formations. They invoke the celestial and raise up the terrestrial.

“There is another reason why images in the Vedas and the Upanishads are concrete. When the fever of the soul subsides, when the mind becomes calm, when the spiritual consciousness opens, things are no longer lifeless. In this state, things which have hitherto been regarded as ordinary are full of life, light and consciousness. In this state, ‘the earth meditates as it were; water meditates as it were; mountains meditate as it were.’1 In this state, no need is felt to separate the abstract from the concrete because both are eloquent with the same message, because both image one another. In this state, everything expresses the divine; everything is the seat of the divine; everything is That; mountains, rivers and the great earth are but the Tathãgata, as a Chinese teacher, Hsu Yun, proclaimed after his spiritual awakening."

(4) Ram Swarup on monotheism versus the Vedic view: "the need for some form of polytheism"

Sita Ram Goel continues to quote from Ram Swarup:

[Sita Ram Goel quoting Ram Swarup]:
“This [Hindu] way of looking at the Godhead is disconcerting to the Western schematic mind. In the Vedic approach, there is no single God. This is bad enough. But the Hindus do not have even a supreme God, a fuhrer-God who presides over a multiplicity of Gods. If there has to be a plurality of Gods as is the case in all polytheistic religions, there could at least be a tabulated statement of Gods arranged in some order of superiority and inferiority, each God having some distinctive characteristics of his or her own. But here we have no such thing, no ranking, no order of seniority and precedence, no hierarchy, no recognizable magistracy; it is all anarchy. This melee could not even be called a pantheon - a body of Gods, however disordered (Gk. pan+theos); it is a body of demons and evil spirits, pandemonium (pan+diamon).

“It seems that the Hindus were either confused about their Gods or that these Gods were not jealous enough to be like the God of the Bible. The Hindus worshipped their Gods in turn with the same supreme epithets. It seems to be like a philanderer wooing several women at the same time with the same vows, promises, and protestations and telling each in turn that she is the only beautiful and true one for him. If they only knew what the man was doing there would be trouble enough for him. In like manner, if a Hindu God knew what his worshipper was telling his rival God, it would either expose the devotee’s insincerity or the powerlessness or his God.

But there is another approach, quite a different one, which was adopted by the people of the Vedas. According to this approach, ‘Reality is one but the wise call it by different names; they call him Indra, Mitra, VaruNa, Agni, Yama, Mãtarišvãn.’2 Reality is like the Ganges: different villages along its banks are differently named but they are all on the same river; the people drink the same water and their soil is watered and fertilized by the same source. The Reality is like an ocean rolling against different continents; you taste it anywhere, it is the same. The Reality is like a nugget of gold; it is the same at the corners, at the top, or at the bottom, or in the middle. Like a lump of sugar, it is sweet at all points. Similarly, whether you go East or West, South or North, you move in the same pervading space and you meet the same truth and principle of things.

“The Hindus do not call their Gods either “One” or “Many”. According to them, what they worship is One Reality, ekam sat, which is differently named. This Reality is everywhere, in everything, in every being. It is One and Many at the same time and it also transcends them both. Everything is an expression, a play, an image, an echo of this Reality.

“In Vedic literature, the question of the number of Gods was no point of dispute and agitated no mind. The number could be increased or decreased at will. It all depended on the principle of classification, on the context, and on the viewpoint.

“There are two ways of regarding the Godhead. In one approach, God is a jealous one. He brooks no other. He is Ismael-like, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him. But in the Vedic concept, all Gods are friends, one and equal. BrahmaNaspati is associated with Indra, Soma and DakSiNa; they are invoked jointly. The Maruts are requested to come along accompanied, saMjagmãno, by Indra, and both are called of ‘equal splendour’, samãna varcasa. Indra and VaruNa are offered conjoint praise, sadhastut. They are invoked together. ‘I invoke you both,’ says the worshipper; or, ‘come Agni with the Maruts,’ is the repeated prayer of the devotee in another hymn.

“Spiritual life is one but it is vast and rich in expression. The human mind also conceives it differently. If the human mind was uniform without different depths, heights and levels of subtlety; or if all men had the same mind, the same psyche, the same imagination, the same needs; in short, if all men were the same then perhaps One God would do. But a man’s mind is not a fixed quantity and men and their powers and needs are different. So, only some form of polytheism alone can do justice to this variety and richness.

“Besides this variety of human needs and human minds, the spiritual reality itself is so vast, immense, and inscrutable that man’s reason fails and his imagination and fancy stagger in its presence. Therefore, this reality cannot be indicated by one name or formula or description. It has to be expressed in glimpses from many angles. No single idea or system of ideas could convey it adequately. This too points to the need for some form of polytheism."

(5) "the basis of a universal spirituality"

[Sita Ram Goel]:
It was this all-pervading sense of divinity which inspired Hindu seers and sages to sense the same Sat-Cit-Ãnanda [essence, consciousness, bliss] sleeping in the stone, stirring up in the sapling, smiling in the flower, singing in the bird, shining in the sun and the stars, and resuming its own supreme status at the summit of spiritual experience. It was in this crucible of concrete spirituality that they saw the one Divine Substance manifesting itself in a multiplicity of forms, and many Divine Diversities dissolving themselves in one ubiquitous Unity.

It was these intimations from infinity which invited Hindu saints and mystics to invoke the same Reality in many Names and Forms, and make it accessible to each aspirant according to his or her aptitude (adhikãra) and in keeping with the stage of his or her spiritual development (ãdhãra). They devised many ways of worship and sang their devotion unto the same Divinity in many languages. It was this vision of the One-in-Many and the Many-in-One which is the source of the Vedic verse, ekam sad viprãh bahudhã vadanti [Rigveda 1.164.46: reality is one but the wise call it by different names] which has now been torn out of context and turned from a trenchant truth of Sanãtana Dharma into a tawdry slogan of Monotheism.

This Vedic verse is neither a defence mechanism to be put into operation whenever the monopolises of Monotheism mouth their war-cry of the ‘true One God’, nor a secularist slogan to be shouted whenever a Muslim mob stages a riot over music before a mosque or over a pig wandering away into a Muslim mohalla. On the contrary, it is the statement of a profound principle which informs sincere spiritual seeking everywhere, at all times. It is the basis of a universal spirituality.

Revolutionary Continuity: Atenism, Judaism, Christianity and the Rise of Islam

Is it justifiable to locate Islam within the wider context of Revolutionary Monotheism? Even more to the point: does the violence and intolerance of Islam flow from it's monotheism, and is the monotheism of Muhammad of a piece with that of Akhenaten, Moses and Constantine?

In the Introduction to the second edition of his The Rise of Western Christendom (also see the BMCR review of the first edition here) renowned scholar of late antiquity Peter Brown writes:

Islam did not come out of nowhere. Nor did it instantly blot out all that had come before it ... Islam emerged in an Arabian environment thoroughly penetrated by Christian and Jewish ideas.

[p. 3]

In fact, the world in which Muhammad lived was one in which whole communities of Arabs had already converted to either Christianity or Judaism. Yemen, for example, at the southernmost reaches of the Arabian peninsula, was already "conquered" by Christianity, as Brown puts it, before Muhammad was born, but this did not take place until after

the pros and cons of Christianity and Judaism had been hotly debated, in Arabic and in a manner which resounded throughout the Arab world.

[p. 288]

Brown even points out that such a free and open exchange of different religious ideas "would have been unthinkable in the orthodox empire of Justinian"!! This free and open discussion of religious ideas was not limited to Yemen in the south and the frontiers of Rome and Persia to the north, but was ongoing throughout the Arabian peninsula:

Some tribes of central Arabia had adopted Judaism. Others, such as the Banu Ghassan, were known for their Christianity. Religious differences were part of the ceaseless battle for prestige between the tribes. Faced by an open world, already polarized between Jews and Christians, Persians and East Romans, the dominant family of Mecca, the Quryash, were proud to remain frank idolaters. In a world where Jews and Christians, and even the great empires of the Near East, had come uncomfortably close, they thought it best to stand to one side and wait.

Not so Muhammad. In 610, at the age of 40, the visions began to come. They came from the One God (in Arabic: Allah), "the Lord of the Worlds". For the next 20 years the messages came irregularly, in sudden shattering moments, up to his death in 632. In them, so Muhammad believed, the same God who had spoken to Moses and to Jesus, and to many thousands of humbler prophets, now spoke again, once and for all, to himself. Vivid sequences of these words from God were carefully memorized by Muhammad's followers. They were passed on by skilled reciters throughout the Arabic-speaking world. For these were nothing less than snatches of the voice of God himself speaking to the Arabs through Muhammad....

What Muhammad recited was ... a direct rendering of the eloquence of God as he spoke to the human race. This God had never ceased , throughout the ages, to "call out" to all nations, through his many prophets. Now this voice repeated itself, in Arabic, in a final and majestically definitive summation.

it was this aspect of the Quran which instantly offended Jews and Christians. For the messages relayed by God through Muhammad claimed to undo the past. His messages declared that neglect and partisan strife had caused Jews and Christians to slip away from, even to distort, the messages which they had once received from their prophets, Moses and Jesus....

The name adopted by the new religion, "Islam", and the word used to describe its adherents, "Muslims", came from the same Arabic root, slm -- to surrender, to trust in one God. It summed up an entire view of history. It was a history where, in what truly mattered for human beings -- that is, their relationship with God -- nothing had ever changed. Islam and Muslims had always existed. In all past ages, trust in God and the rejection of all other worship had invariably distinguished true monotheists from ignorant polytheists. God had fostered this monotheism by sending his prophets to the Jews and to the Christians....

[pp. 290-291]

(In)Tolerance and Coercion in Islam

Quran 2:256:

There is no compulsion at all in religion; undoubtedly the right path has become very distinct from error; and whoever rejects faith in the devil (false deities) and believes in Allah has grasped a very firm handhold; it will never loosen; and Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing.

Quran 9:5:

Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the polytheists wherever you find them, and catch them and make them captive, and wait in ambush for them at every place; then if they repent and keep the prayer established and pay the charity, leave their way free; indeed Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Quran 48:16:

Say to the ignorant who stayed behind, “You will soon be called against a nation of great military strength - to fight against them or that they become Muslims; so if you obey, Allah will give you an excellent reward; and if you turn away, the way you had turned away before, He will mete out a painful punishment to you.”

Quran 109:

Proclaim, O disbelievers! Neither do I worship what you worship. Nor do you worship Whom I worship. And neither will I ever worship what you worship. Nor will you worship Whom I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is mine.

Below are excerpts from Tolerance and Coercion in Islam, by Yohanan Friedmann. They are all taken from Chapter 3 of that book, which is titled Is there no compulsion in religion?

Early Muslim compendia of hadith include a number of traditions according to which the Prophet decided to expel all non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula ....

[p. 90]

Quran 2:256, which serves as the motto for the present chapter, has become the locus classicus for the discussion of religious tolerance in Islam. According to the 'circumstances of revelation' (abasid al-nuzul) literature, it was revealed -- surprisingly enough -- in connection with the expulsion of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir from Medina in 4 A.H./625 A.D. This expulsion was part of the process by which the Muslims established their dominance in the city. In contradistinction to Quran 109:6, which seems to reflect a Muslim plea against religious coercion practiced against the early Muslims by the Meccan unbelievers, Quran 2:256 appears to be addressing the Muslims themselves. The interpretation of the verse is, however, not without its share of problems. We may legitimately understand it as denying the feasibility of coercion in matters of religion rather than a command to refrain from it....

On the other hand, the Quran contain numerous verses enjoining jihad, which is routinely described as being fought "in the way of God" (fi sabil Allah) and is, in some cases, relevant to the issue of religious freedom. It is well known that the Quranic material on jihad is not consistent .... Perhaps the most famous jihad verse demands the submission of the People of the Book and their payment of jizya. It requires the People of the Book to humble themselves before the Muslims and to pay a discriminatory tax, but it does not instruct Muslims to convert their vanquished enemies in a forcible manner.

Several other verses view the war waged by the Muslims as having a clearly religious goal of killing the unbelievers or expanding the Muslim faith. These are verses which call upon the Muslims to kill the polytheists. The 'verse of the sword' (ayat al-sayf, Quran 9:5) enjoins Muslims to 'slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush." Only if they "repent, and perform the prayer and pay the alms" will they be left alone. Quran 48:16 may also be understood in this way: the expression tuqatilunahum aw yuslimun may refer to conversion to Islam, or to a military surrender. Thus both verses may indicate that the conversion of the enemies to Islam is the purpose of the war and the condition for its cessation. Two verses maintain that the war is being waged in order to achieve religious uniformity, while Quran 3:89 enunciates the principle that whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him.

[pp. 94-5]

Quran 109 is understood to represent an uncompromising response to a Meccan offer of compromise: the leaders of Quraysh are said to have suggested to the Prophet the creation of a religion consisting of elements from their own beliefs as well as that of Islam. Needless to say, the idea of such a composite religion is preposterous from the point of view of Islam after it's nascent period. The Sura is unequivocal in its rejection of Meccan shirk [polytheism], but it does not demand any action designed to effect its rejection.

[p. 95]

Quran 48:16, revealed after the Hudaybiyya treaty of 628, is also relevant to our discussion: "You will be called against a people possessed of great might, to fight them or they surrender" .... This verse poses two questions of interpretation: who are the peopel against whom the fighting will be waged, and what will be the purpose of the war. If yuslimun is taken in its usual Quranic sense of exclusive submission to Allah which is identical with conversion to Islam, the enemies are polytheists: various tribes against whom the Prophet himself fought ... this interpretation of the verse seems to be, historically, the only possible one. In this case, the declared purpose of fighting is to bring about the conversion of the enemy and to accelerate the process of achieving religious uniformity in the Arabian peninsula.

[p. 97]

I think it is highly instructive to compare all of the above to what one finds in the Rock Edicts of Asoka (the Buddhist King who ruled most of the Indian subcontinent eight centuries before Muhammad was born):

Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi [King Asoka], honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds. But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this -- that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought "Let me glorify my own religion," only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

Muhammad (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Four)

The reign of Constantine (ca 227 - 337 AD) was certainly a great leap forward for revolutionary monotheism. But the spread of Christianity was still limited to those areas already ruled by Rome or already within Rome's sphere of influence. Constantinian Christianity represented the wedding of monotheism with an already established empire - basically a successful implementation of Akhenaten's dream but on a significantly larger scale.

Muhammad (ca 570 - 632 AD) and his followers, however, more closely resembled Moses and the children of Israel, than Constantine and his Bishops. The Arab Muslims roared out of the desert to build a theocratic Empire from scratch. Of course these days we're all supposed to pretend that Muhammad organized his followers into door-to-door canvassing teams to spread Islam by engaging in peaceful interfaith dialogues grounded in mutual respect and sensitivity to cultural differences, or some such shyte. Obviously no one, with the possible exception of Karen Armstrong, actually believes that. Certainly no Muslims believe it, no matter how much they might want others to believe it!

But as impressive as the more muscular and aggressive Islamic upstart might appear alongside the more established and complacent Christianity, it is nevertheless the case that much of Islam's initial growth amounted to poaching on the southern extremes of the Asian and African portions of the Roman Empire.

At first the core of the Eastern Roman Empire (aka, the Byzantine Empire) was able to hold the Islamic expansion at bay, but the Ottomans eventually engulfed not only Byzantium, but all of southeastern Europe as well. The city of Budapest, for example, came under Ottoman rule for 140 years. But it wasn't until it extended to the east, and especially into India and Southeast Asia that Islam was really conquering significant new ground for revolutionary monotheism, (and, very importantly, ground that it would be able to hold onto, unlike Spain and southeastern Europe).

India's first major contact with Islam came during the 17 year long campaign of predatory raids under the direction of the Sultan Mahmud of Gazhni, starting in 997. The relationship between India and Islam is long and complex, but what began with Mahmud's raids eventually led to the Muslim conquest of most of the Indian subcontinent under the Mughal Empire. India also served as a way station for the expansion of Islam into Southeast Asia. Today, South, Central and Southeast Asia account for half of the Muslim population of the world, and are home to the top four countries in terms of total Muslim population (Indonesia 207M, Pakistan 167M, India 156M, Bangladesh 140M).

"The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." So begins chapter 6 of volume I (there are eleven volumes!) of Will and Ariel Durant's The Story of Civilization, titled simply The Moslem Conquest of India. The Durants were not Neoconservative Republican boosters for the War On Terror, seeking to whip up xenophobic anti-Muslim hysteria. In fact, Will and Ariel were nice young left-leaning intellectuals when they met and fell in love at the neo-anarchistic Ferrer Modern School in New York City in 1912. They soon moved away from more radical leftist politics, by the standards of the time, but nevertheless stayed true to what Ariel Durant called a "sentimental, idealizing blend of love, philosophy, Christianity, and socialism". They were also the authors of the "Declaration of Interdependence" in 1945, which reads in part:

That differences of race, color, and creed are natural, and that diverse groups, institutions, and ideas are stimulating factors in the development of man;

That to promote harmony in diversity is a responsible task of religion and statesmanship;

That since no individual can express the whole truth, it is essential to treat with understanding and good will those whose views differ from our own;

That by the testimony of history intolerance is the door to Violence, brutality and dictatorship; and

That the realization of human interdependence and solidarity is the best guard of civilization.

21st century progressives and leftists are so brain-addled by their addiction to identity politics that they would never dare cast aspersions on Muslims for their history of using violence to spread their religion. Why, all right-thinking modern day progressives and leftists see the entire history of human civilization as nothing but one imperialist horror story after another, so it would be downright unfair to single out the poor Muslims! Those who adopt this view don't seem to realize that, unlike the Durants and other more sensible lefties of a bygone era before "political correctness" ran amok, they are just mindlessly repeating the Christians' own favorite defense for their historically well documented penchant for using violence to impose their religion on others: "everyone else does it!"

Not only is this excuse transparently infantile it also has the further disadvantage of being completely untrue. One of the most important aspects of Jan Assmann's theory of "revolutionary monotheism" is that it helps us see that religious conflict is not so deeply rooted in human society as it might now appear to be (after 1700 years of revolutionary monotheism in power). In particular, religious conflict played little of no part in human history when polytheism held sway (that is, for the first several thousand years of human civilization). This obviously does not mean that there was an absence of all conflicts (or that those conflicts were somehow any less bloody or brutal), but it is not insignificant that religious diversity and toleration were ubiquitous features of human civilization until 1700 years ago.

What is perhaps most mind boggling of all (that is, to those who have become convinced that theocracy and intolerance are the general rule) is that the polytheistic religions of different cultures in the ancient (pre-Christian) world shared a common "cosmotheism" (as Jan Assman has called it) that actually encouraged a cosmopolitan world-view, a point of view that transcends narrow ethnocentrism by promoting the concept of a single human family in which we are all the "children of the Gods".

The cosmotheistic world view continues to be found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and the other non-monotheistic religious traditions that are still followed by 1/3 of humanity (thank the Gods). This simple truth has been greatly (and to a large extent intentionally) obscured, especially in the post-9/11 world, in which we are expected to choose between the equally unedifying views of Sam Harris and Karen Armstong:

According to Sam Harris all religions are fundamentally evil. Fundamentalism and terrorism are not aberrations, but rather the predictable results from adherence to the violent, delusional ravings that comprise all religious teachings.

According to Karen Armstrong all religions are fundamentally good. Fundamentalism and terrorism are tragic aberrations resulting from religious people straying far from the core of reason and compassion at the heart of all religious teachings.

Both of these views are profoundly ahistorical. But they are extremely attractive for many people for a variety or reasons, not the least of which is their hypersimplicity. But clearly all religions are not the same when it comes to violence and intolerance. In particular we can (and we must) differentiate between two kinds of religions: (1) religions that have a consistent track record of intolerance and have relied heavily on forced conversions for their spread, and (2) religions in which intolerance and forced conversions truly are aberrations, if they are found at all. Here is how Jan Assmann explained it in his Moses the Egyptian:

Does not every religion quite automatically put everything outside itself in the position of error and falsehood and look down on other religions as "paganism"? Is this not quite simply the religious expression of ethnocentricity? Does not the distinction between true and false in reality amount to nothing other than the distinction between "us" and "them"? Does not every construction of identity by the very same process generate alterity? Does not every religion produce "pagans" in the same way that every civilization produces "barbarians"?

However plausible this may seem, it is not the case. Cultures not only generate otherness by constructing identity, but also develop techniques of translation. We have to distinguish here between the "real other," who is always there beyond the individual and independent of the individual's constructions of selfhood and otherhood, and the "construction of other," who is the shadow of the individual's identity. Moreover, we have to realize that in most cases we are dealing not with the "real other," but with our constructions and projections of the other. "Paganism" and "idolatry" belong to such constructions of the other. It is this inevitable construction of cultural otherness that is to a certain degree compensated by techniques of translation. Translation in this sense is not to be confused with the colonializing appropriation of the "real" other. It is simply an attempt to make more transparent the borders that were erected by cultural distinctions.

Ancient polytheisms functioned as such a technique of translations. They belong within the emergence of the "Ancient World" as a coherent ecumene of interconnected nations. The polytheistic religions overcame the primitive ethnocentrism of tribal religions by distinguishing several deities by name, shape, and function.

No matter how Karen Armstrong and Al-Jazeera try to spin things, everyone knows that Muslim nations today still crudely reflect their theocratic origins in a far more obvious (and honest) way than modern Christian nations do (all European nation-states were originally Christian theocracies, and most still have vestiges, or more, of that heritage). On that much even I can agree with Sam Harris.

First and foremost, Islamic countries have little or no religious freedom -- as a general rule they have even less religious freedom than the People's Republic of China! Take Egypt for example, a nation "friendly" with the West and with a large Christian minority. Here is a recent quote from an Egyptian cleric (Sheikh Gad al-Ibrahim) concerning Mohammed Hegazy, a convert from Islam to Christianity: "The Egyptian government should find Mohammed Hegazy and apply shari'a, giving him three days to reconvert and then killing him if he refuses".

Here is a quote from Mohammed Hegazy's father: "I am going to try to talk to my son and convince him to return to Islam. If he refuses, I am going to kill him with my own hands."

Here is a quote from an Egyptian judge Muhammad Husseini, in February, 2008, concerning Hegazy's case: "He can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can’t convert.”

Hegazy's case is unusual only because most Egyptians, or citizens of any other Muslim nation, would never even challenge the system as Hegazy has.

I'll end with some illustrative translations from the Sahih Bukhari, concerning capital punishment for the crime of apostasy. The Sahih Bukhari is one of the most important collections of "tradition" (hadith) texts for Sunni Muslims.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
Narrated Abu Burda:

Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases)" and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:
Narrated Abu Musa:

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle ."

[Here are three books by Sita Ram Goel for further reading on the subject of Islam in Indian history -- they are all available complete (and for free) online at the Voice of Dharma website:
Defense of Hindu Society
Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim Invaders (636 to 1206 AD)
Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them?]

See also (links NOT automatically generated):
Roman Catholicism (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Seven)
Charlemagne, Part Deux (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Six)
Charlemagne (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Five)
Muhammad (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Four)
Constantine (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Three)
Moses (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Two)
Akhenaten (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part One)
Monotheistic Robots of Doom, Part Deux
Monotheistic Robots of Doom
Lies, Damned Lies, and Pagan Monotheism
Hic Sunt Dracones